Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules SFPD denial and issues tow‑operator permit after due‑process debate
Summary
The Board of Appeals overruled the police department and issued a tow‑operator permit for Nelson's Tow, finding that the department failed to present sufficient evidence of a disqualifying conviction at the hearing and that procedural due‑process errors occurred during the revocation process. Vote: 3–1.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 7 overruled a police‑department denial and issued a tow‑operator permit for an applicant who had been previously denied. The Board’s action followed contested testimony about procedural errors and whether a 2009 conviction disqualified the applicant under the municipal code.
Appellant Henry Johnson told the Board he had provided DMV records and other documents to the department and challenged the police characterization of his background. Former hearing officer William Coggan and police witnesses described procedural irregularities at the departmental level and told the Board a 2009 conviction (malicious mischief to a vehicle and reckless driving) appeared in court records and could be disqualifying under relevant code sections.
Several commissioners noted the department acknowledged due‑process errors—particularly notice and hearing irregularities—during the revocation process. Commissioners also noted the department had not provided a certified court conviction document to the Board. Given the absence of formal proof before the Board and the department’s procedural lapses, the Board voted to overrule the department and grant the permit with a 3–1 vote; one commissioner dissented citing evidentiary concerns.
Board members discussed two related procedural paths: remand for a proper departmental revocation process or correcting the record through this de novo appeal. The Board’s decision issued the Nelson’s Tow operator permit while acknowledging that the department could pursue subsequent administrative action if supported by certified court records.
