Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tow Permit Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco board delays hearing in Jose’s Towing revocation after questions about notice and evidence
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued Jose Badillo’s appeal of an SFPD tow‑company permit revocation to May 23, citing requests for the police department to produce documentary evidence and give the appellant a chance to respond. Appellant’s attorney said notices and citations were not provided; police described multiple complainants and CHP citations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 18 agreed to continue an appeal by Jose Badillo, who operates Jose’s Towing, after his attorney said the Police Department revoked the company’s tow‑car permits without adequate factual notice.
Tom Lalaine, counsel for Jose’s Towing, told the board the February revocation notice cited a string of code violations but provided “no facts whatsoever” and that neither Mr. Badillo nor his counsel had received the underlying citations or documentary evidence referenced by the department. Lalaine said the administrative hearing below relied largely on oral testimony and hearsay and that the revocation amounted to “the death penalty” for a small business and its employees.
Ronnie Wagner, counsel for the San Francisco Police Department, told the board that the department’s brief and the administrative record include testimony and citations, including three CHP citations and witness testimony from the vehicle‑rental company that complained. Wagner said the appellant was given multiple opportunities at the revocation hearing to present evidence and that the hearing officer issued a substantive written decision. Officer Forneris, who the department identified as the permits‑unit contact, said he has documented complaints and police reports showing incidents in which vehicle owners were charged excessive fees and held their vehicles for extended periods.
Several commissioners raised concern about the record. Commissioners described this as a de novo hearing where the board must see the underlying evidence; some said the existing appellate briefs and oral descriptions did not make the factual allegations clear enough to justify stripping a permit. The board therefore voted to continue the matter to May 23 so the Police Department could submit the documents and the appellant could respond before the board proceeded.
The board’s action preserves both parties’ procedural rights: the Police Department will add documentary evidence to the record and Mr. Badillo will have an opportunity to reply; the hearing remains pending and no revocation or reinstatement decision was made at the April 18 meeting.
