HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-City Clerk
Cl"rv OF SAN BERNARD'''~O - REQUF~T FOR COUNCIL AC-'lON
It:
City Clerk's Office
REC'O. - AD MIN. 5t1Pl'~t:
rgas DEe -8 PM 3: 1+ i
Request for appeal hearing -
Denial of business permit - Orange
Grove Mote~ - 1686 Mt. Vernon Ave.
From:
Shauna Clark
Date:
December 8, 1988
~?-
,
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Police Commission: October 10, 1988, denied operator's permit to Hitesh Patel
for Orange Grove Motel at 1686 Mt. Vernon.
Recommended motion:
Form motion: That the request of Andrew J. Haynal, Attorney for Hitesh Patel,
that the Mayor and Common Council conduct an appeal hearing on
the Police Commission's denial of a business permit for the
Orange Grove Motel be
1. Denied - or -
cc: City Attorney
Police
2. Granted on the grounds (either A, B, or C as listed in the
staff report) and that the hearing be held Tuesday, January
3, 1989, at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers.
j/"/ /), /
V)/J(JL//1LL i/ A~t::.
/ Signa~ture
Contact person:
Shauna Clark, City Clerk
Phone:
5002
Supporting data attached: Appeal letter, Police Comm. findings Ward: 6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Finance:
r-'mcll Notes:
7S.0262
Agenda I tern No. -3 7
CI"'-"f OF SAN BERNARD''''~O - REQUF~T FOR COUNCIL AC-~ON
STAFF REPORT
The San Bernardino Municipal Code requires owners of
hotels/motels and certain other businesses to apply for
a business permit which includes a background check on
the applicant. The business permit is not the same as
a business license. A business license is a tax; the
business permit is regulatory and endeavors to reduce
acts of sexual misconduct, drug trafficking, and fencing
within the City by screening out certain business opera-
tors.
On October 10, 1988, the Police Commission denied a
business permit to Hitesh Patel to operate the Orange
Grove Motel at 1686 Mt. Vernon Avenue. Enclosed is a
copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
adopted by the Commission. Mr. Patel's attorney, Andrew
J. Haynal, has filed an appeal on his behalf.
At this point the Mayor and Council have the option of
scheduling an appeal hearing or denying a hearing.
Section 5.82.240 of the Municipal Code states the Mayor
and Council may accept an appeal for hearing when any
of the following conditions exist:
A. The appellant was denied the opportunity to
make a full and complete presentation to the Police
Commission, or
B. New evidence is now available that was not
available at the time of the Police Commission hearing, or
C. The Police Commission's decision was arbitrary
and capricious because inadequate evidence was presented
to the Commission to support its decision.
If the Mayor and Council decide to go forward with a
hearing, the Mayor and Council must make one of the above
findings and schedule the hearing for the next regularly
scheduled Council Meeting.
75-0264
AntJlr.w J. Havnal
Attorn(:v at Low
RECEIVED-CIlY rLERtc
25757 REDLANDS BOUI_EVARD. REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA 82373 . TELEPHONE: (7''') 781-6603 · 82401860 ...-
December 2, 1988
"88 (Ie ~ At :35
city of San Bernardino
ATTN: Shauna Clark, City Clerk
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Orange Grove Motel,
1686 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Dear Ms. Clark:
In reply to your letter dated 11-29-88, this letter shall
attempt to comply with the Municipal Code Sections referenced in
your letter.
My client is appealing from the police Commission's decision
of October 10, 1988 when it sustained the police Chief's denial of
Mr. Hitesh Patel's business permit to operate the Orange Grove
Motel. Said appeal is based on the grounds that the police
Commissions decision was arbitrary and capricious because
inadequate evidence was presented to the Commission to support its
decision. The alleged violations of the agreement entered into
between Mr. H1tesh patel and the police Dept. in January, 1988 are
so minor in nature, and unconnected with prostitution activity so
that even if true, the punitive effect of a business permit denial
is completely unwarranted. The agreement was to be in effect for
six months. It was only in the last month of this agreement that
these minor violations were reported. The evidence presented just
did not justify a business permit denial. At most, it may have
justified a continuation of the terms of the agreement for another
six months, ie, a probationary period.
This drastic punitive decision by the police Commission robs
Mr. Hitesh Patel of his right to make a living without just cause.
Accordingly, the Mayor and Common Council is respectfully
requested to accept this matter for appeal and schedule a hearing
as provided in the Municipal Code.
sincerely,
ANDREW . HAYNAL
Attorney at Law
AJH/bje
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE POLICE COMMISSION
OF THE. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION FOR A BUSINESS
PERMIT FOR:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Hitesh Patel
Orange Grove Motel
The above subject matter concerning the issuance of a
business permit to Hitesh Patel for the operation of the Orange
Grove Motel came on regularly for hearing before the Police
Commission on October 10, 1988, at approximately 7:00 P.M. in the
City Council Chambers, 300 No. "0" Street, San Bernardino,
California, 92418.
Present were commissioners Claude Chumley, Robert Vega,
Lloyd Howard, Kathleen Martin, Don Baker and Barbara Nettles,
Barbara Jacober.
The applicant was present and was represented by his
attorney, Andrew Hayna1.
The Police.Department was represented
by Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney.
The Police Commission was
represented by Denice E. Brue, Assistant City Attorney.
The following documentary evidence was presented as Exhibit
"A":
1.
Application for a Business Permit of Hitesh Patel
dated October 9, 1987;
2.
A letter from Chief Burnett to Hitesh Patel dated
November, 1987, denying the application for a business
permit;
3.
A letter from Lee Gagnon to Hitesh Patel dated
November 13, 1987, setting forth the appeal
DEB:ms
October 28, 1988
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.~
procedures pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.82
and attached receipt for certified mail;
4.
^ letter dated November 17, 1987, from Andrew
Haynal to the police Commission requesting a
hearing.
Exhibit "B" which contained:
1.
^ letter dated August 16, 1988 from Chief Burnett to
Hitesh patel denying the business permit based upon a
January 11, 1988 agreement between the police
Department and Hitesh Patel;
2.
The agreement and four pages attached;
3.
Investigation of the police Department memorandum frpm
Sgt. Tull to Chief Burnett regarding the business
application of the Orange Grove Motel dated July 11,
1988 and 3 pages, along with a chronology of the
investigation consisting of two pages by Det. Rice;
4.
^ chronology by Sgt. Tull and Det. Cartony;
5.
Receipt for work done dated 6-22-88 and a receipt
from Thakorbhai Patel dated 6/9/88.
In addition Hitesh Patel submitted a Quitclaim Deed from
Thakorbhai patel to Hitesh Patel and Declarations from Lisa Lucas
and Cynthia Johnson.
In addition to the above referenced documentary evidence,
testimony was given by the appellant, Hitesh Patel and Michael
Denard on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the San
Bernardino police Department, were Dets. Rice and Cartony and
Sgt. Tull.
After oral and documentary evidence had been introduced,
said decision, having been discussed by the police Commissioners,
the commission rendered its decision in favor of upholding the
decision of the police Department to deny the business permit of
Hitesh patel and now makes the following findings of fact and
2
DEB:ms
October 28, 1988
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The appellant's father, Thakorbhia Patel originally
purchased the motel and applied for a business permit.
2. The appellant's father's business permit was denied due
to the appellant's father's involvement in crimes involving moral
turpitude, including prostitution.
3. The appellant's father subsequently transferred
ownership of the motel to his son, the appellant, Hitesh Patel by
a quitclaim deed.
4. Hitesh Patel applied for a business permit on or about
October 9, 1987.
5. Pursuant to Section 5.82.050, an investigation by the
Chief of Police for the business permit of Hitesh Patel was done.
The applicant, Hitesh Patel's business permit was subsequently
denied.
6. On or about November 12, 1988 applicant/appellant,
Hitesh Patel, requested an appeal to the Police Commission.
7. In compromise of an appeal, the appellant entered into
an agreement with the San Bernardino Police Department to allow
him to operate his business for a six month period subject to
certain conditions.
8. The conditions were to mitigate the problems which were
found during the investigation for the issuance of the
appellant's business permit and to insure the safe, sanitary and
lawful operation of the motel for the health, safety and welfare
DEB:ms
October 28, 1988
3
1\
1
2 of the public.
3
The following ,pondi tions of the agreement were
9 .
4 violated:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A.
Condition #1:
"Thakorbhai or Maniben Patel shall
have no business or personal interest in the Orange
Grove Motel.
They are not to be on the premises at
any time. Hitesh Patel shall have thirty (30) days
to transfer all financial interest in the motel in
his name."
1) Thakorbai Patel has been on the premises of the
motel, on many different occasions.
2) Thakorbai Patel still has a financial interest in
the motel in that the loan for the motel is still in
his name.
B.
COndition #2: "Business and rental records
shall be open to the police upon request.
No court
order or search warrant will be required."
On several occasions police were on the premises
to review motel records and the records were not
available for inspection.
C. condition #4: "Rooms shall be rented for no more
than seven days at a time, or for no less than a 24-
hour period."
Several rooms were rented for two week periods
at a time.
D.
Condition #5:
"(a) All adult guests must
DEB:ms
October 28, 1988
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
have and present a valid photo 1.0. The only 1.0. to
be accepted is any, state driver's license, state 1.0.
card, or military 1.0. card; (b) the management will
record the name, date of birth, address, type of 1.0.
and number each time the guest registers."
Several of the adult renters did not have
identification.
E.
Condition #11:
"The rooms shall be
maintained in a clean and healthy condition and
unoccupied rooms shall be opened for inspection upon
request of the Police Department."
1) Detectives Rice and Cartony requested to see
rooms which were unoccupied, but ready for rent.
2) Rooms 10, 11, and 23 were inspected and were
found to be unsanitary, unrentable and generally not
fit for human habitation.
10.
Conditions were reasonably related to and designed to
19 insure the health, welfare and safety of the public pursuant to
20 Section 5.82.050 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
21
11. Based upon the conditions of the agreement which were
22 breached, the public health, safety and welfare will not be
23 served by allowing the operation of the Orange Grove Motel by
24 Hitesh Patel.
25 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
26
Accordingly, the Police Commission upholds the Police
27 Department's denial of a business permit to Hitesh Patel for the
28
DEB:ms
October 28, 1988
5
1
2 operation of the Orange Grove Motel.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~~
Don Baker '
Chairperson, Police Commission
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 5.82.220 of the Municipal Code:
The permittee or Chief of Police may appeal the Police
Commission's decision to the Mayor and Common Council by filing a
written notice of appeal with the City Clerk directed to the
Mayor and Common Council.
An appeal shall be made within ten (10) days of the date of
the mailing of this notice.
14
15
cc:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chief Donald Burnett
6
DEB:ms
October 31, 1988
-
,"_ CITY OF
--'
San Bernardino
'->
S H A UNA
CITY CLERK
C L ARK
November 29, 1988
Andrew J. Haynal
Attorney at Law
25757 Redlands Boulevard
Redlands, CA 92373
RE: Orange Grove Motel, 1686 Ht. Vernon Avenue
Dear Mr. Haynal:
Per our telephone conversation of November 28, 1988, I am
returning the appeal dated November 8, 1988, filed with the
Police Commission regarding their denial of a business opera-
tor's permit for the Orange Grove Motel.
Enclosed you will find copies of Sections 5.82.010 through
5.82.280 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Sections 5.82.210
et seq, set :orth the method for filing an appeal.
Please return your appeal in the proper form as soon as possible.
The .l P pea 1 m u s t be f i 1 e d Iv i t h the C i t Y C 1 e r k, :3 0 0 Nor t h "D "
Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418.
Sincerely,
~/??$~-1~
~fU'NA CLARK
City ClerK
cc: Denice Brue, Assistant City Attorney
Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney
Donald J. Burnett, Chief of police
Hitesh Patel
1686 Mt. Vernon Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
p 0 S T 0 F F I C E B 0 X 1 3 1 II S A N B E R N A R 0 I N
0
C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 4 0 2
300 N 0 R T H 0 S T R E E T S A N 6 E R N A R 0 I N 0
C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 000 1 7 1 4 I 3 . 4 5 o 0 2
.
7 1 4 I 3 . 4 . 5 1 o 2
PRIDE ./
9RESS
BUSINESS PERMIT REGULATIONS
if he finds that the permittee, or such permittee's agent or
employee, has been or is knowingly violating any provision
of this chapter or other applicable ordinance or law. The
determination of the Chief with regard to matters of suspen-
sion shall be appealable to the Mayor and Common Council
in the same manner as set forth in Chapter 2.64.
C. The Chief, in the case of such suspension, shall either
personally serve, or serve by United States mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to the pennittee, a written order of
suspension stating the reasons for such suspension. The
order shall be effective twenty-four hours after the same is
either personally served, or forty-eight hours after the
same has been deposited in the course of the United States
mail.
D. An order of suspension from which an appeal is taken as
provided in this section shall be of no force or effect until
such appeal is fully determined.
(Ord. MC-410, 9-17-84; Ord. 2900 ~ 23, 1968.)
5.80.230 (Repealed by MC-460.)
Chapter 5.82
BUSINESS PERMIT REGULA nONS
Sections:
5.82.010 Findings.
5.82.020 Pennit - Required.
5.82.030 Pennit - Application.
5.82.040 (Repealed by MC-519.)
5.82.050 Investigation.
5.82.060 Exemption from investigation.
5.82.070 Pennit - Conditions.
5.82.080 Pennit - Denial.
5.82.090 Notice of decision by Chief of Police.
5.82.100 Right of appeal to Police Commission.
5.82.110 Notice of appeal - Time limit.
5.82.120 Notice of appeal - Contents.
373
<San Bernardino 11.86)
BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
5.82.130 Action by the City Oerk.
5.82.140 Consideration by the Police Commission.
5.82.150 Notification of the Police Commission's decision.
5.82.160 Suspension of operator's pennit.
5.82.110 Notice of hearing.
5.82.180 Failure to appear at the hearing.
5.82.190 Suspension - Designated.
5.82.200 Notice of decision of Police Commission.
5.82.210 Right of appeal to Mayor and Common Council.
5.82.220 Notice of appeal - Time limit.
5.8~.230 Notice of appea1- Contents.
5.82.240 Public hearing may be held.
5.82.250 Schedule hearing.
5.82.260 Pennit - Duration.
5.82.210 Pennit - Transfer.
5.82.280 Severability.
5.82.010 Findings.
The City of San Bernardino is endeavoring to reduce acts of
sexual misconduct. drug trafficking, and "fencing" activities
occurring in the City, and to improve the business environment
in the City. In furtherance of these goals, and to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the public, this chapter requires
regulatory permits for the purpose of ensuring that preventive
action is taken to curb criminal activities from occurring on the
business premises or from being involved with the employees or
business operations. The criminal activities interfere with the
safe operation of the businesses in the presence of patrons and
visitors. and the continuance of such activities on the premises
will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the
public. It is further found that such criminal activities have
occurred and are likely to continue to occur on many business
premises in the City. (Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.020 Permit - Required.
It is unlawful for any person, whether as principal or agent.
clerk or employee, acting personally or for any other person. or
for any corporate entity, or as an officer of any company, part-
nership or corporation. or otherwise, to commence, manage. or
(San BenWdino 4-86)
374
BUSINESS PERMIT REGULATIONS
conduct the business of operating a hotel, motel and drive-
through dairy or the business of selling food or refreshments,
providing entertainment or other business incidental or auxil-
iary to the operation of on- and off-sale premises licensed by
the State Alcoholic Beverage Control, including but not limited
to restaurants, bars, cafes and the like, in the City, without a
valid and unsuspended permit issued by the City Clerk or
without complying with any regulation of such business
imposed under or by this chapter. The operation of any
business regulated by this chapter without having such a permit
from the City to do so, or .without complying with any and
all regulations of such business required by this chapter, shall
constitute a separate violation of this chapter for each and every
day that such business is so operated. (Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.030 Pennit - Application.
An applicant for a permit for the operation of any such
hotel, motel, drive-through dairy, or other business incidental
or auxiliary to the sale of alcoholic beverages on premises
licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) shall apply for and obtain an operator's permit. The
application for such permit shall be filed with the City Clerk,
shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall be upon a
form supplied by the City Clerk. The application shall contain
the true names, addresses. and criminal convictions, if any
(except for infractions of the Vehicle Code), of the applicant
and all persons financially interested in the applicant's business.
and such other information as may be deemed necessary by the
City Clerk. (Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.040 (Repealed by MC-S19.)
5.82.050 Investigation.
The City Clerk shall refer a copy of the application to the
Chief of Police who shall fully investigate the applicant and the
375
(San Bernardino 11.86)
BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
facts and circumstances concerning the application submitted
and shall report in writing, to the City Clerk, his recommenda-
tions and reasons therefor as to whether such operator's permit
should be granted or denied. The Chief of Police shall consider
any relevant factual material relating to such applicant, and
shall recommend the issuance of an operator's permit as
required by this chapter only upon finding that:
A. The applicant has not been convicted of any felony or crime
. of moral turpitude or been found in violation of laws or a
regulation in a governmental quasi-judicial proceeding when
the facts underlying such proceeding or conviction show a
nexus between the crime or violation and the particular
business operations or indicate the lack of qualities essen-
tial to protect the public health, safety and welfare in
operations under the permit;
B. There were not prior significant arrests or police investiga-
tion concerning sexual misconduct, illicit drug transactions,
"fencing" activities or related crimes occurring on and related
to the operation of the business premises of applicant;
C. The applicant is not required to register under Penal Code
Section 290 or Health and Safety Code Section 11590;
D. The applicant has not knowingly made any false, misleading
or fraudulent statement of fact in the permit application
process, or on any document required by the City in con-
junction therewith; and
E. The location for which the permit is sought is compatible
with the neighborhood and suitable for the type of opera-
tion proposed, and will not pose a public nuisance as
defined in this Code in the neighborhood or disrupt the
peace and solitude of a residential area.
(Ord. MC-50S, 3-17-86; Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.060 Exemption from investigation.
Each applicant engaged in an operating business on the effec-
tive date of this chapter for which a permit is required. shall
be granted a permit upon the filing of an application. Such ap-
plicants shall not be subject to denial of such permit on the
gounds set forth in Section 5.82.050. (Ord. MC-SI9, 5-19-86;
Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
(San Bernardino 11-86)
376
. BUSINESS PERMIT REGULATIONS
5.82.070 Pennit - Conditions.
The Chief of Police may impose conditions of approval
deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of
this chapter or to protect the health, safety and welfare" of the
public. (Ord. MC-S02. 3-3-86.)
5.82.080 Pennit - Denial.
If the Chief of Police finds any of the facts prohibiting
issuance of a pennit as set forth in Section 5.82.050 exist,
the Chief of Police shall deny the application. (Ord. MC-502,
3-3-86.)
5.82.090 Notice of decision by Chief of Police_
Within forty-five calendar days of the date the application
is flled with the City Clerk, the Chief of Police shall give written
notices of his or her decision to the applicant, to the City Clerk,
and to any other person specificallY requesting such notice.
(Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.100 Right of appeal to Police Commission.
Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the Chief of
Police with reference to the issuance, conditional issuance, or
denial of a permit may appeal therefrom by filing a written
notice of appeal with the City Clerk directed to the Police
Commission. (Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.110 Notice of appeal - Time limit.
Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not
be acted upon unless filed within fifteen calendar days after the
date of the action or decision which is being appealed. (Ord.
MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.120 Notice of appeal - Contents.
The notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall set forth
(a) the specific action appealed from; (b) the specific grounds
of appeal; and (c) the relief or action sought from the Police
Commission. In the event any notice of appeal fails to set forth
any information required by this section, the City Clerk shall
return the same to the appellant with a statement of the
376-1
(SaD BemUClino 4-36)
BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
respects in which it is deficient, and the applicant shall there-
after be allowed five calendar days in which to perfect and refile
his notice of appeal. (Ord. Me-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.130 Action by the City Oerk.
Upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal in proper form,
the City Clerk shall schedule the matter promptly and within
thirty days upon the Police Commission agenda for a hearing
at a subsequent meeting. (Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.140 Consideration by the Police Commission.
At the time of consideration of the appeal by the Police
Commission, the appellant shall present evidence limited to the
specific grounds of appeal and matters set forth in his notice of
appeal. The appellant shall have the burden of establishing cause
why the action appealed from should be altered, reversed or .
modified. The Police Department shall have the opportunity to
answer arguments made and rebut new evidence offered, if any.
The Commission shall review the evidence, findings and record
relating to the decision or action and may, in the discretion of
the Commission, receive new or additional evidence. (Ord.
MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.150 Notification of the Police Commission's decision.
Within ten calendar days after reaching a determination on
the appeal, the Police Commission shall give written notice of
its decision to the appellant, to the City Clerk, and to any
other person specifically requesting such notice. (Ord. MC-S02,
3-3-86.)
5.82.160 Suspension of operator's permit.
Upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of any of the follow-
ing grounds, the Police Commission may order a hearing to
consider the suspension of a permit issued under this chapter.
Said grounds are as follows:
A. The permittee, operator or employee of the permittee has
engaged in or permitted conduct at the business premises
which constitutes a felony or crime of moral turpitude, and
the permittee knew, or with the exercise of reasonable
(San BenwciiDo 4-86)
376-2
. BUSINESS PERMIT REGULATIONS
\
diligence should have known of such criminal conduct and
failed to take remedial or preventive action. Such conduct
may include, but shall not be limited to, acts of sexual
misconduct, illicit drug transactions or "fencing" of per-
sonal property occurring on the premises of the business.
B. Permittee has made any material misstatement in the
application for such permit.
C. The permittee has failed to comply with any condition
imposed on the permit.
D. The permittee has failed to timely pay any license or permit
fees that are provided for under the provisions of this code.
E. The existence of unsanitary conditions, noise, disturbances
or other conditions at or near the premises and related to
the business which causes a public nuisance, or which is
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
F. For any grounds that would warrant the denial of the issu-
ance of such permit at the time of application.
(Ord. MC-50S, 3-17-86; Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.170 Notice of hearing.
The permittee shall be notified in writing that a hearing
which may result in suspension of the permit will be held, the
place where the hearing will be held and the date and time
thereof, which shall not be sooner than ten calendar days after
service of such notice of hearing. All notices provided for in this
section shall be personally served upon the permittee, or by
leaving such notice at the place of business or residence of such
permittee in the presence of a competent member of the house-
hold or a person apparently in charge of permittee's place of
business at least eighteen years of age, who shall be informed of
the content thereof. In the event service cannot be made in the
foregoing manner, then a copy of such notice shall be mailed,
by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the last
known address of such permittee at his place of business or
residence at least ten calendar days prior to the date of such
hearing. The notice shall also contain a general statement of the
nature of the grounds of the proposed suspension and that the
permittee may be represented by counsel at the hearing. (Ord.
MC-502, 3-3-86.)
376-3
(San Bernardino 4-86)
BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
5.82.180 Failure to appear at the hearing.
In the event that the permittee, or counsel representing the
permittee, fails to appear at the hearing, the evidence of the
existence of facts which are presented and which constitute
grounds for suspension of the permit may be used by the Police
Commission as the basis of its decision. (Ord. MC-S02, 3-3-86.)
5.82.190 Suspension - Designated.
If, after the conclusion of a hearing held to consider the
suspension of a permit issued under this chapter, it is deter-
mined that any of the grounds for suspension of an operator's
permit exist, then said permit shall be suspended for one month
for the first suspension; two months for the second suspension;
and six months for each additional suspension thereof. (Ord.
MC-S02,3-3-86.)
I
5.82.200 Notice of decision of Police Commission.
A copy of the decision of the Police Commission specifying
fmdings of fact and conclusions for the decisions shall be fur-
nished to the permittee or permittee's designated representative.
The decision of the Police Commission shall be final ten
calendar days from the date of the action except in the event of
an appeal as provided in Section 5.82.210. The effect of a
decision by the Police Commission shall be stayed while an
appeal to the Mayor and Common Council is pending or until
the time for the filing of such appeal has expired. (Ord.
MC-S02,3-3-86.)
5.82.210 Right of appeal to Mayor and Common Council.
The permittee or the Chief of Police may appeal the Police
Commission's decision to the Mayor and Common Council by
filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk directed
to the Mayor and Common Council. (Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.220 Notice of appeal - Time limit.
Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not
be acted upon unless filed within ten calendar days after the
date of the action or decision which is being appealed. (Ord.
MC-S02,3-3-86.)
(San Bernardino 4-86)
376-4
. BUSINESS PERMIT REGULATIONS
5.82.230 Notice of appeal - Contents.
The notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall contain
the same information as set forth under Section 5.82.120.
(Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.240 Public hearing may be held.
When an appeal in the proper form has been fIled with
the City Clerk, the City Clerk shall promptly place the appeal
on the Mayor and Common Council agenda for the limited
purpose of determining whether the Mayor and Common
Council will hear the appeal. The Mayor and Common Council
may accept an appeal for hearing when any of the following
conditions exist:
A. The appellant was denied the opportunity to make a full
and complete. presentation to the Police Commission.
B. New evidence is now available that was not available at the
time of the Police Commission hearing.
C. The Police Commission's decision was arbitrary and capri-
cious because inadequate evidence was presented to the
Commission to support its decision.
(Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.250 Schedule hearing.
If the Mayor and Common Council determine that an
appeal should be heard, the appeal shall be scheduled for
hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council. (Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.260 Permit - Duration.
Permits issued pursuant to this. chapter shall be valid for a
period of one year or until suspended or abandoned. (Ord.
MC-502,3-3-86.)
5.82.270 Permit - Transfer.
No permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be transfer-
able. (Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
5.82.280 Severability.
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portions of this chapter is invalid or shall be held
376-5
(Sill jemudiIlo 4-16)
BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of
the remainder. (Ord. MC-502, 3-3-86.)
Chapter 5.84
ENFORCEMENT - CITING AUmORlTY
Sections:
5.84.010 Enforcement.
5.84.015 Penalties for violation.
5.84.020 Right of entry - Exhibition of license.
5.84.010 Enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the City Clerk, or his or her autho-
rized representatives, to enforce the provisions of this title.
(Ord. MC-302, 9-6-83.)
5.84.015 Penalties for violation.
Any person, finn or corporation, whether as principal,
agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing the viola-
tion of any of the provisions of this title other than those of
Chapters 5.12. 5.36, 5.40, 5.48 and 5.52 is guilty of a mis-
demeanor. which upon conviction thereof is punishable in
accordance with the provisions of Section 1.12.010 of this
Code.
Any person, finn or corporation, whether as principal,
agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing the viola-
tion of any of the provisions of Chapters 5.12. 5.36, 5.40,
5.48 and 5.52, is guilty of an infraction, which upon convic-
tion thereof is punishable in accordance with the provisions
of Section 1.12.010 of this Code. (Ord. MC-460, 5-13-85.)
5.84.020 Right of entry - Exhibition of license.
A. The City Clerk, or his or her authorized representatives,
and police officers, are empowered to enter, during business
hours, free of charge, any place of business, or to approach
any person apparently cQnducting or employed in the
operation of the business, for which a license is required
(SaD Bernardino 4-86)
376-6
~drcw J. Havn
Attorney ot low
25757 REDLANDS BOULEVARD, REOLANDS. CALIFORNIA 82373 . TELEPHONE: (71~17M-5503 · a2~"'850
November 8, 1988
city of San Bernardino
ATTN: police Commission
P.O. Box 1559
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE: Notice of Appeal
Orange Grove Motel
Business permits Applications
Account No.: 22764
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to SBMC Section 5.82.210 my client Hitesh Patel
hereby appeals the police Commissions decision in the above matter
to the Mayor and Common Council.
AJH/bje
cc: Denice E. Brue, Asst. City Atty.
Henry Empeno, Depty City Atty.
Donald Burnett, Chief of Police
San Bernardino City Clerk
81. =-
m
(')
m
~ ;;:
m
to
- I
~ ~
-0 -<
("")
W r-
.=.. m
\II) ;0
~
\
," .:~.'/;--
,..'......, ,~~~~.&.~ )...
~.. - . .- f"'~,...\
" .~..,)-,I,;;,..
'., '-, . --..,. .,..
. :;.' - . ,::::....r ,'\~;::\ .
CIty b FB^N BERN ARDIN 0 P. O. BOX 1559, SAN BERNARDINO,CALlFORNIA 92401
... ...:-~ '~;. -.:.~ liZ~;
't ~ ....... -..... .
...: - :... ..... .~(\!
-:' <.:,(~fi ~\-'~.v
"'4-,0
-
October 31, 1988
POLICE COMMISSION
HALL OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hitesh Patel
Orange Grove Motel
1686 N. Mount Vernon Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92411
RE: BUSINESS PERMITS APPLICATION ACCT. #22764
Dear Mr. Patel:
On October 10, 1988, the Police Commission sustained the
police Chief's denial of your business permi t. Attached is a
copy of the Commission's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
This letter is to inform you that you are to vacate the
present hotel guests and cease operating the Orange Grove Motel
within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter.
Each day and every day a motel or hotel is operated without
a valid Business Permit is a separate violation of San Bernardino
Municipal Code Section 5.82.020; and is chargeable as a
misdemeanor criminal charge under San Bernardino Municipal Code
Section 5.84.015.
Pursuant to San -Bernardino Municipal Code Section 5.82.210
you may appeal the police Commission's decision to the Mayor and
Common Council. The police Commission's Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law provides notice of the time limits for such an
appeal.
Very truly yours,
; ,. ---r' ~/':-: f
,/ ,,/,;t; -
/'1' '-~L-.:,<= ? r- ~ ---C:-:{-C~! .
Donald J. Burnett .
Chief of Police
----~
~r~'
~
Redlan~s, CA 92373
DJBjdys
cc: Andrew Haynal - 25757 Redlands Blvd.,
Police Commission
Denice E. Brue, Asst. City Attorney
Henry Empeno, Jr., Deputy City Attorney
-
-
TELEPHONE: (7141 383-5302
OR 383-5035
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
RETURN THIS FORM TO,
J\TPLICATION FOR BUSINESS PERMIT
CITY CLERK, P.O. BOX 1318
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
ACCOUNT NO. ~AOSSI. / TYPE
:;2..~ 7/P ~ r ')
PER 'ONAL INFORMAT~ (Type or print in ink)
$
-:::
NEW
V
RENEWAL
OFFICE USE ONLY
CITY HALL
Date submitted:
o New 0 Renewal
Business Lie. Fee: $
Invest. Fee $
Total:
$
~.
r (
Have you ever been fauna guilty or plead guilty to any crime?
Receipt No.
By:
U yes - Please I ist the names
----------------------
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Date
1.0. No.
By:
Phone
Supervisor
1. From
To
Name of Business
2, From
To
Name of Business
Address
Phone
Supervisor
No'
Business Phone No.
Square footage of Business premise:
BUSINESS INFORMATION
, Business (DBAI
EI
Type of Business Permit
fj g7 - b-, b I
() N K f\./ DV\/ {\}
ABC License No. ~ll A
ON SALE 0
Sf}fY\E
As
,4 fJ /r"1 1/ i3
Phone:
OFF SALE 0
~ :::v
rn
C")
rn
("'""l <
C? -T1
-1 .J
J:, I
J
,
::g --<
~
r...> ,
N '71
VJ ;:0
-"Ol"'
FORM OF BUSINESS )( Individual 0 Partnership 0 Corporation
Names and addresses of partners or corporation officers: (Use additional pages if necessary)
Phone:
I plan to start business on f C f ('1 !'? 1 I will be operating (Days of the weekl '+
-,",10<:::"
Between the hours of '.1:..- 4- H l"" . and ManagerISuper~~ Name
Have you ever had a bUSiness license revoked. suspended or cancelled for any reason? 0 Yes ,.. No
If yes, please ex~laln (Use additional pages If necessary)
~~LF
Are you now or have you ever been engaged in any business as a partner or corporate owner? 0 Yes No
If yes, please list firm/s name/s and officers of each corporation. fUss additional psges if necessary)
PLEASE READ AND SIGN:
1 DECLARE, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY ME AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF IS A TRUE, CORRECT
AND COMPLETE STATEMENT OF FACTS. I UNDERSTAND FALSIFICATION OF ANY STATEMENT MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF AN OPERATOR'S PERMIT.
,-J{;1_i)J PUA1UIJl~ Q3 Q.
Signature ...",
PAT C:L
11 7 T '=-S H 1<. II f'(l Po. Q
Print Name
Investigated by:
Date
1 recommend this license/permit be 0 Granted
GRANTED FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY, TE PORAR
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ON ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Page
of
.,,\-c=-..>- ,
_ "_: "._-,- .'.-'
..,
~.-,,/
.'.
~"'...
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
POST OFFICE BOX 1318, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
-. -
- '
-, , ,
.-
"~-".
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION
December 4, 1987
Hitashkumar Patel
1686 North Mt. Vernon Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92411
Dear Mr. Patel:
tion
City
1987
North
Your appeal from denial of the Business Permit Applica-
has been scheduled before the Police Commission of the
of San Bernardino at 7:30 P.M., Monday, December 14,
in the Council Chambers in City Hall located at 300
"D" Street, San Bernardino, California, 92418.
You have the right to have an attorney present at the
appeal hearing and to have any witnesses present. You also
have the right to present any evidence or relevant informa-
tion at the hearing.
If you have any questions concerning this matter you may
contact Detective James Eggert with the San Bernardino police
Department at 383-5011.
Sincerely,
---/) 0/
vUL/ ~~
LEE GAGNON
Business License Supervisor
Business License Division
LG:dkk
cc:
Chief Donald Burnett
Detective Eggert
Andrew J. Haynal, Attorney
. .~ - -- ..
'i.'''-
--"-
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418-0123
PHONE (714) 384-5302/384-6036
. ."drew J. Hnvl\",.
Attornev ot low
25757 REDLANDS BOULEVARD. REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA 82373 . TELEPHONE: (71.) 7~ . 12+11IIO
November 17, 1987
RE: Notice of Appeal from denial of
Business Permit Application
Dear Sir or Madam:
cO ::v
m
"'" ('"')
rT1
Z <:::
Q r'n
~ :J
- I
\0 :)
:c. -<
\Q ,)
Ui ~
rT1
Vl ::::v
..,...
Police Commission
c/o City Clerk of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0123
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.82 et seq.of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code, Mr. Hiteshkumar T. Patel hereby files a
Notice of Appeal from the denial of his application for a business
permit to operate the Orange Grove Motel located at 1686 North Mt..
Vernon Avenue in San Bernardino. Said appeal is based on the
Chief of Police's 11-9-87 denial of Mr. Patel~ business permit
application. Mr. Patel has unjustifiably been denied a business
permit because the Chief of Police has "assumed" that the Orange
Grove Motel is still his father's business and based on
allegations involving his fathe~has denied Mr. Patel's
application. None of the provisions of section 5.82.050 applies
to Mr. Hiteshkumar Patel. He is now the owner-operator of the
Orange Grove Motel and has complied with the Fictitious Business
Name filing requirements as well as filing the proper Transient
Occupany Registration Certificate. Thus, the applicant seeks to
set aside the denial of his application and requests that the
business permit be issued.
Respectfully submitted,
AJH/bje
c
BERN ARDIN 0 POST OFFICE BOX 131B, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION
November 13, 1987
Hitashkumar Patel
1686 North Mt. Vernon Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Dear Mr. Patel:
We have received
the Police Department
been denied.
your Business Permit Application from
which indicates that the permit has
Therefore, we are forwarding Municipal Code Chapter 5.82
that sets forth your appeal procedures with respect to your
denied Business Permit Application. If you have any ques-
tions concerning this matter you may contact Detective James
Eggert with the San Bernardino Police Department at 383-5011.
Sincerely,
J~
~G-.~~
LEE GAGNON
Business License Supervisor
Business License Division
LG:dkk
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B-0123
PHONE (7141-384.6302/384-6036