Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tow Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Police Department denial of P and S Towing permit
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 14 upheld the Police Department’s denial of P and S Towing’s 2010 tow‑firm permit, citing evidence of unpermitted towing, alleged overcharging and refusal to permit inspections. The board voted to uphold the denial and adopt findings later.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted April 14 to uphold the Police Department’s decision denying a 2010 tow‑firm permit for P and S Towing, doing business for owner Peter Koehler.
The Police Department, represented by Sergeant William Coggan, told the board it had “overwhelming evidence” showing a pattern of towing without a permit, multiple overcharging complaints and resistance to inspections. Coggan said the company continued to charge the higher CHP rate — identified in the department’s filings as $250 — while not authorized to do so. “Our decision was based on the law, on this overwhelming evidence,” Coggan said in his presentation to the board.
Counsel for the permit holder, William McLaughlin, argued the case should be treated as a revocation matter rather than a denial of renewal and said the renewal process required distinct notice and opportunity to respond. McLaughlin said the permit application had been submitted and that the applicant was deprived of a fair process, noting the permit’s prior issuance on March 4, 2009 and the timing of the department’s investigation. “We believe…that Mr. Kohler’s permit was denied for reasons that properly would be addressed in a revocation proceeding, and are not the subject of a renewal,” McLaughlin told the board.
Sergeant John Haggott, who the Police Department identified as its commercial‑vehicle unit expert, described numerous complaints that the department had received, including alleged overcharging and incidents in which vehicles were towed without clear authorization. Haggott said the department had sought records from the firm and that the firm had refused to produce copies for the investigation; he said that left the department with a choice to seize documents or obtain a search warrant.
Commissioners debated whether the denial should be analyzed under the police code’s renewal criteria (section 3054) or the separate revocation language (section 3056) and discussed a separate general provision in the Business and Tax Regulations Code (section 26, part 3) that gives departments discretion to consider impacts on surrounding property and residents. Several commissioners said the municipal code language is imperfectly written in places but concluded the department had discretion to act in the public interest.
After deliberation, Commissioner Frank Fung moved to uphold the department’s denial with written findings to follow. The board recorded aye votes from Commissioners Fung, Michael Garcia and President Tanya Peterson; Commissioner Rafael Mandelmann also recorded an aye. With Vice President Kendall Goh absent, the board announced a 4‑0 vote and upheld the denial. The board said findings would be adopted at a later date.
What happens next: the board left the denial in place; the department and the permit applicant may pursue any further administrative steps allowed by law.
Sources: Testimony from Sergeant William Coggan and Sergeant John Haggott; counsel William McLaughlin’s argument for the permit holder; roll call vote recorded by the board.
