tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 6, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
seismic improvement to the building. it's my opinion that the exemption comes into play, and i would move such. >> i also concur. when you use the word "sheer wall" it's a type of wall, how it's used, how it's framed in the span in the center. otherwise, they would calling it panelling. so to me, especially with the word, the terminology "hold down" constitutes seismic or structural upgrade. if there's no other further -- i'll make a motion. >> i'm going to move. >> okay. >> i'm going to move to overrule the department and to grant the exemption based upon the finding that the proposed permit for the facility where they're relocating from has
scope that is reflective of seismic upgrade. >> okay. so what i hear is a motion to grant the appeal on the basis that the proposed permit for 4500 third street has within its scope seismic upgrades which would then qualify the applicant for an exemption under 19-h of the health code, 19-h.6(b) for the exemptions set forth in that provision, that ordinance. so on that motion, motion by president fung --
[roll call] >> okay. so that -- the appeal is granted. [applause] >> thank you. okay. we will now move onto -- thank you. we will now move onto items 6 a, b, c, and d. these are four separate appeals, and they will be heard together. this is the appellants are the presidio heights association of neighbors, scott wykhoff, cornell i can cornellia elwine, versus san francisco bureau of street works and public mapping, protesting the issuance of february 23, 2018 to verizon wireless of a personal services site facility permit, construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location.
permit number 16 wr-0139 for consideration today of the adoption of written findings in accordance with section 8 of the board's rules. on may 9, 2018 the board voted 5-0 to continue the matter on the basis that the wireless facility would significantly impair the declining aspects of the neighborhood. so each party has three minutes to address the board. >> thank you. good evening. scott wykhoff, owner of 3531 clay street. i'd like to thank you on behalf of my neighbors and the other appellants for your written findings. the decision is very thorough and clearly represents the concerns we raised during the public hearing on may 9. we're pleased that the board agrees with us, that based upon the testimony and photographic evidence that the placement of a wireless facility at this
location on 3500 block of clay street -- would significantly degrade the aesthetics and the public enjoyment of this historic block and these historic homes. in fact, just yesterday, there were three or four contractors working on our block, and they pulled me aside to say we've been out here admiring the craftsmanship and wood work details of these houses. they don't make them like this anymore. we hope you don't mind, but we took a few pictures. as for verizons comments, many are misleading or simply erroneous, the finding that the utilities were moved underground many years ago is misleading and incomplete. there are post relay boxes, fire aremain la boxes and
street lights. while there are about a dozen post relay boxes in presidio heights, they're all located on a street corner and they're all 4 feet tall. there are a number of firearm alarm boxes in presidio heights. each one is on a street corner and they're 4 feet tall. they do not obstruct anyone's view of anything, and we have street lights. clearly, none of these items belong underground. to imply that since we have fire boxes and street lights on street corners that entitled verizon to stick a wireless poll in front of a historic home designed by a famous architect follows no logic whatsoever. i have proposed another location which would not block views of any historic buildings just down the street. verizon, by their own admission on may 9, deciismissed it out
hand while within range of their extended wireless service, it was not satisfactory to them. verizon's optimal location to maximize its coverage should not be the sole determinant as to where these units are placed. i think we all agree that the board has clearly stated the historical classification of the neighborhood, historic nature of our specific block, the public's enjoyment of the street views on the block and unique examples of victorian and edwardian ak techture warrant protection. i urge you to support the written findings. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm the owner and resident at 3508 clay street. merrill randall. i also want to extend my thanks
to you for your well considered and well explained draft opinion on this case. since i believe in the adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words, i'm going to place a picture you've already seen that will illustrate some of the aesthetic concerns that we would have if verizon was allowed to place an antenna on the light pole at 3512. it's well within your statutory basis to determine that verizon has not satisfied the aesthetic requirements and standards of our article 25. the board's draft determination about aesthetic concerns supersedes that of the d.p.w. in fact it's interesting to note, if you remember, that the board -- or that d.p.w. was
questioned and ashley lindsey said that in consideration by the d.p.w. concerning aesthetic, it only looks from a pedestrian's viewpoint from five to 7 feet away. it apparently doesn't take into account important businessli - vistas like the one that i'm showing you. you can see the proposed light pole at 3512 in this picture, and it stands out like a sore thumb. however, my fellow appellant and i have stated that we deponent want to be obstruction -- we don't want to be obstructionists in this case. and we've mentioned alternative sites. one i've mentioned is camoflage
by trees, and that's shown in the brief that d.p.w. has -- has put together and shown in a picture. now, let me characterize verizon's actions. they're like a modern version of a steam roller with their foot on an accelerator, and having, i suggest a chicken race with at&t and other telecommunication companies and it's moving from neighborhood to neighborhood without consideration of collateral damage and aesthetic considerations. and this is to the detriment of aesthetic enjoyment of residents, workers, and tourists. and i thank you for being a traffic cop, perhaps in saying there's some limits. you know, you should slow down and consider other points of view. and it's now up to verizon to
recognize that this case is not a case led, it's just a simple matter. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm the owner of 3512 clay street. i want to thank the board of appeals, as well for the draft findings and decision. specifically i strongly agree with the findings at this location. in their responses to the proposed findings, public works and verizon both have claimed that verizon's facility meets public works design criteria, is well designed and visually unobject truesive and that it cannot alter the design of any streetscape.
well, that may be true in a location such as this one which is shared by the planning department as an example of a facility installed on a post in a historic district. that does not mean it is appropriate for all poles in all locations. verizon seems to think that just because its facilities have been improved in other locations in historic areas that its permit must be granted for this location as well. i would disagree. verizon also claims that because the facility meets public works design criteria it cannot have any impact on private views. verizon is focused on public private views where the issue is really private views. as vice president swig clearly identified in his remarks at the may 9 meeting, one is a provide view, which is the one enjoyed by residents looking out of their homes, and the other is the view experienced by all citizens looking at the street and this block.
in terms of the public views of the 3500 block of clay, this facility would degrade the experience of members of the public as they walk, drive and bike by this house and others on the block. as discussed at this last hearing, it was a combination of multiple factors that make this block historically important and so particularly lovely and provide the rationale for denying this facility. the homes are historic resources that possess higher artistic value. it's defined by distinctive and well maintained landscaping and trees. there were no utility lines because they were all undergrounded. there is evidence to support denial of the permit based on the photographic evidence provided previously by the appellants, and based on the extensive written comments provided by the planning department in 2008 regarding
3512 clay street and the presidio heights neighborhood. in my opinion, the granting of the permit needs to be site specific. article 25 specifically provides for both planning and zoning protected locations capability standards. -- compatibility standards. the fact that article 25 allows citizens and community associations the opportunity to protest proposed facility permits confirms this fact. >> your time is up, ma'am. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> charles ferguson, president of presidio heights association of neighbors. i, too, want to thank you on behalf of the 2500 members of my association for your decision. it's clear, concise and takes the important step forward of educating the public.
nearly a year ago today on july 12, 2017, scott sanchez stood before you and on behalf of the planning department solicited guidance from you on how article 25 should be interpreted. your draft decision gives him the guidance in the context of one neighborhood, a neighborhood that has completely undergrounded all utilities and is nearly entirely eligible for the inclusion on the state's list of historic districts. under article 25, neighborhood context matters. no matter what one's opinion is about the design of verizon's wireless equipment in the abstract, the aesthetic characteristics of the location where verizon wishes to put its equipment must be taken into account. for that lesson, we are truly
grateful. d.p.w. opposes your decision. they claim that you should accept planning's decision in this matter at face value. that is clearly not the position of planning itself, as i've already explained, mr. sanchez appeared before this board a year ago and expressly admitted that planning needs your guidance on how to interpret article 25 and planning is willing to follow your guidance. mr. sanchez did not even remotely attempt to persuade you that you are bound to follow his decision. i'm not going to say anything about the substantial evidence argument that verizon raises. the homeowners have already done enough to take care of that. what i'm going to do is turn to the last couple of paragraphs of verizon's submission to you, and i'll respond in the order. first of all, there is substantial evidence to support the denial. the homeowners have already discussed that here this evening. number two, there's absolutely no record evidence that the
light pole at 3512 clay streeted is least aesthetically intrusive alternative, there's only counsel's self-serving argument to that effect, and a lawyer's argument is argument, it's not evidence. number three, there's no unreasonable discrimination against verizon. article 25 applies to all wireless companies, and no other chiropractorless provider has been given preference. two courts, the superior court in san francisco and the first appellate district have already ruled against the wireless companies on this very issue. and until the supreme court overturns them, you have to follow the law. thank you. >> thank you. can you please move away from the door? we need it open for fire access, the egress. thank you. okay. we will now hear from the
permit holder. you have 12 minutes, mr. albright. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, lazarus, wilson and honda. we're the under dog tonight. i've got my colleague, melanie sangupta to help me out this evening. you're here tonight to look at these findings and see if you can uphold the findings and deny this facility. as we said in our materials, we don't think there is evidence to support the finding, so is what the evidence? the testimony? the photographs we just saw? it's our photo simulations and the plans, and we think that there is no evidence to meet the findings that you have to make that was either presented tonight or previously presented. the department of public health, department of public works, and planning department concur in their brief, department of public works does
not believe there's evidence to make the findings tonight. and so what are those findings? if you look at findings seven and eight, it's whether this is a planning protected district? why is it a plan being protected district? because it's eligible to be a historic district, and these are eligible buildings. they haven't been specifically designated. the standard is does our facility significantly did he gried the aesthetic attributes -- degrade the aesthetic attributes that create this district? and our question, of course, is what are the aesthetic attributes for this historic district? and in this slide -- same slide, same slide that the appellants used, which is actually our photo simulation, you're looking at the historic district. what are the attributes? the attributes are the buildings themselves, the balconies, the windows of those
buildings. you see the existing light standard, the existing 25 foot light standard that's already part of that aesthetic fabric in that particular community, so do we significantly degrade the aesthetic attributes that create this? they're the basis for this designation of an eligible historic district? the other finding tonight is finding number nine, which is your zoning protected finding, and that is do we significantly detract from the defining characteristics of this residential neighborhood? go to the next slide. another shot of clay street, or the defining characteristics of this neighborhood. we have a lot of trees. as pointed out, you've got a fire box, you've got some street signs, you have a light standard. they're light standards. they're part of the characteristics of this neighborhood. you've got some cars parked on the street. so what are the characteristics of this neighborhood that are
being significantly degraded by our facility? so with that backdrop, i'd like to go to our facility itself. i guess we're going to have to turn that right side up. what are we putting up? we're putting up a 2 feet antenna, it's two 7 above the -- 2'7" above the existing lumiere. the radios themes down the pole, it's extremely small. i've got a blow up of the radios. the radios are 16 inches tall, they're 10 inches wide and 5 inches deep, barely wider than the pole itself. i want you to think about degrading aesthetic attributes and i want you to think about degrading the character of the neighborhood. finding number nine says that the blight that we're creating
it due to the cables and wiring that we're placing on the structure. and i want to point out that the cables and wiring are limited -- there are no cables and wiring on there. there is one elbow of metal that is a conduit that carries the cables in a 4 inch radius from the radio into the pole. that's the blight. that's the cable's blight. so with that, we'd like to say the facility itself, that there really is no evidence that these small radios and this small antenna are detracting from the characteristics of the neighborhood. as you know, you've approved a dozen of these facilities in this neighborhood, so they're already part of the character. in addition, we can't believe this antenna, barely wider than
the pole itself could possibly degrade the aesthetic attributes of those buildings. you can see the building, you can see the windows, you can see the balanconies, you can s the trees, you can see the cars parked on the street. so i accept that we're the under dog, but i think that if you sit back and consider the evidence, you really can't make these findings. and if you can't make these findings, you really can't grant this appeal, and that's where we hope that you will reconsider this evening. there was some mention of -- i want to pull up the first photo we had in the last few moments -- mention of a pole that was recommended by one of the neighbors that was -- that was near a tree.
you can see the tree next to the pole, the one with characteristics are -- and that's -- this is the pole here, and you can see that the tree would block the antenna, the branchs would block the antenna, and that's why we can't do it. i'll leave it at that. thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into all of these facilities, and we hope that you concur that there's no evidence for these findings, and that you grant the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department. you have 12 minutes. >> hi. i'm andrea higgins from public works, and i don't have any new information to add. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, miss higgins. so recently in the last hearing, it's come that what -- what are these antennas? are they allowed to go
tridirectional or are they bidirectional? >> basically, article 25 says they have to meet the public health compliance standard of article 25. article 25 does not give direction on the direct -- direction on where the antennas should beam, it's just the public health compliance standards basically that the emissions comply with the f.c.c. standards. >> okay, and is it different if they're beamed directly into a property in comparison to laterally? >> we just rely solely on the health department to make the assessment whether it complies with the public health compliance standard sfl i me-- >> they've been saying it's bidirectional and not headed towards the properties, but now we've heard that it's tridirectional. is that a basis for them to be allowed or not allowed, right? >> we can probably ask the health department to answer that 'cause we don't have that
expertise at public works. >> okay. okay. so i will. thank you. >> i have a couple questions. this device, this antenna, i believe, was the result of an effort to come up with something that was compact, as unobje unobtrusive as possible. was that the intent? >> i believe in verizon's brief, initial brief, they kind of detailed their workings with omar masry of planning to come up with their design. they have some f.a.q.'s on this be website showing some examples that planning would not have approved. like, for example on these wood poles, some carriers proposed sidearm antennas, so planning kind of carraled into a design
like this one because they thought it was less objetrusiv than what was originally proposed. >> have there been at least preliminarily, when these permits have come before you, diagnosed by planning that they were not compatible, say in an historic district or a zoning protected district? >> yeah. we have received determinations from planning that facilities did not comply with the planning protected or zoning protected compatibility standards. those were mainly on the wood poles because the wood poles require more equipment like a meter and disconnect box, but we have denied them in the past. >> so there's not a rubber stamping going on. >> no. >> again, you're not
accountable, but does the planning representative go out and look at the vinl sites as each of these permits comes up for review? >> under article 25, public works is required agency that must inspect the installed wireless facility, so article 25 does not require planning to do -- inspect them, but i believe omar may have used to. >> not the installed ones, but did go out and look at the proposed sites? >> article 25 does not require planning to do an in-person inspection before they make their determination. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i'm going to jump in because my position may necessitate this matter being held over. i am in disagreement with the
findings. i find this to be not obtrusive. i think the issue is with the pole, as it was pointed out, that that is, if anything, contributing to the degradation, and i do believe this two-foot extension or less than two-foot extension of small boxes make considerable difference at all. i think the blight is coming from the pole. beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so i hope to differ with the findings and will not support them. >> perhaps i can get a straw vote from my other commissioners whether i need to continue this case or not. >> i'm on the fence. >> i'm leaning towards -- [inaudible] >> well, then, i'm not going to
make a motion. if you folks want to make a motion, please proceed. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> okay. commissioner lazarus has a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the appeals, all four collectively, on the basis that the permit was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so we -- we have 2-2 math. appeal is -- i'm sorry? >> motion does not carry. >> yeah, the motion does not carry with that motion.
>> so without a further motion, then -- >> i'll move to adopt the finding and grant the appeal. >> okay. so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeals and adopt the findings on what -- on the basis that the permit was properly -- was not properly issued. >> that's correct. >> okay. on that -- on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion fails. >> you need a break? then let's go to the next case. >> okay. so the permit, it is upheld by operation of law. we do not have enough votes to grant the appeal, so we are going to move onto the next
it's one where should the fifth vote be important to the final decision, we will automatically continue it ourselves. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. so -- >> does the department have -- you want to talk to the continuance? >> we would object to that, commissioners, because i am here representing the police department, and we do have multiple victims and witnesses prepared to give testimonial evidence as set forth in the exhibits to the department's papers. >> let's proceed. >> okay. so we will start with the police department presenting their case. you have seven minutes.
>> good evening, commissioners, i'm ronnie wagner for the san francisco police department, and i would like to call rob pornaris from the san francisco police department. and i would like to ask that the multiple witnesses and victims that we do have just get ready over against the wall so that we can go as quickly as possible. >> all right. so i've brought in some of the victims that have been contacted with me. actually, one of the victims, the first victim that i wanted to have speak is from enterprise rent-a-car. i don't know if you want me to do public comment, or if you want me to go through exactly
verbatim. >> why don't you present your case. they can speak in public comment. >> okay. so there are numerous issues that i have with jose's towing originally started back latter of -- looks like probably july of last year. initial was with enterprise rent-a-car. the issue i had, i had a complaint from their office out of -- it looks like burlingame. mrs. quarry, and she had concerns because she had vehicles that were being held by jose's towing for numerous days, specifically, a red cherokee that was being held and they were demanding payment of $9,000 for it. so when i contacted her, she basically relayed to me that they had another vehicle that was a white -- i believe it was
a nissan or hyundai, and that vehicle was -- also had been to toed, and they had to pay $5500 to get it back. neither one of these vehicles were authorized to be towed by hr company. the hyundai was towed from a friday, and it wasn't authorized by her company for anybody to tow it. the red cherokee was also towed, and that vehicle, the bill was up to $9,000. so when i met with her, i said, can you have them fax me over the invoice. while i was there, she called jose's towing, and they faxed me over -- put it on the overhead. >> face it as you're looking at it, officer. thank you. >> that invoice. so that being said, the invoice
was very vague. she told me that she had not authorized it. i also met with her loss prevention, ryan williams, who was also there. he also basically confirmed that nobody authorized the towing of that vehicle. i went to mr. badillo's lot to do an investigation to see if i could find the vehicle. when i asked for the invoices for that particular month, it was not in there, but i did locate the vehicle with officer thomas and another officer. the vehicle was there. after i went through the invoices, i came back a second time with c.h.p., which also assists with missing vehicles, and we did locate the vehicle, but it had been moved from 170 -- i think assist ae 1707 yosemite to 1229 underwood. when i asked mr. badillo where the vehicle came from, he said he didn't know at the time, and he was trying to figure out why
it was from enterprise. the hold on it was approximately 56 days, and i asked him why would you hold a vehicle that long, and he said he couldn't find the registered owner of the vehicle. the c.h.p. went into the glove box and found the enterprise rent-a-car business card. a couple days later, the vehicle was dropped off at enterprise lot without any authorization or any other demand for payment. and i wanted to actually call up mr. williams, who's the loss prevention officer, to speak on that at this point. >> use your time as you wish. >> okay. so i'll have him speak. i have other victims. the other issues i have -- oh, i'll let him talk. >> hi. my name's ryan williams. i'm a risk prevention officer for enterprise. as he stated, we had issues
with two vehicles, with jose's towing. the first vehicle, the cherokee, we confirmed with our customer they didn't authorize jose's towing to tow it. and they had stated at one point the customer's insurance authorized them to tow the vehicle. when we contacted redwood city p.d., they had stated they had no record of the tow, so they didn't know where it was at. our road side assistance department who's usually involved in these situations stated they did not authorize the tow, and as i stated before, the kust kust or their insurance didn't authorize the -- customer or their insurance didn't authorize the tow. the s.f.o. received a call from 56 days later to state that they had the vehicle. on the hyundai santa fe, it was a broken window in san francisco. our customer wasn't comfortable
driving it. our road side assistance department went out there. the car wasn't there. they contacted the customer, and they stated that jose's towing towed the vehicle. our road side assistance department contacted jose's towing. they stated that they did not accept the tow, so we assumed that somebody else took the vehicle, and then all of a sudden we got a call, i can't remember the amount -- 40 something or days later from jose's towing stating that they had the vehicle, and that's the one we paid $5500. >> you still have 27 seconds. >> oh, i'm sorry. yes, they contacted us that they had the vehicle. we were able to negotiate that one down from over $6,000 to 5500, which we paid, and on the cherokee, we -- nadia curry from s.f.o. contacted porfaris,
and we know it was jose's towing because they left a business card. >> thank you. >> did you have a question? >> yes. was any payment for the $9,000 for the cherokee? >> no, there was not, just the $5500 for the hyundai. >> what normally happens when your car is missing? >> we run what we call an accounting reporting, so any vehicles that have not been inventoried per se for, you know, usually anything three or -- two or three more days, you know, we're doing what we can to locate them, and if we -- we see that there's a road side call in, which there were in these cases, we try to contact multiple different tow companies in the area to see where we can find out. we contact impound lots. if it's san francisco, we contact auto return. >> okay. are these the only two incidents with jose? >> the only two that i can recall in detail, yes.
>> is that yes, only two or yes there are more. >> yes, i've heard -- >> no, no, no -- >> yes, exactly. that's why, so yes. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> so we will -- those -- >> that was your -- >> seven minutes. >> so i was invited to produce evidence and bring witnesses, and that's what i did, so if there's only seven minutes for it, it's clearly insufficient. i -- so i guess at the pleasure of the commission -- >> you have three minutes of rebuttal -- but there's no rebuttal. >> well, i do have each victim -- >> they can speak, as i indicated earlier, in public comment. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. then we will hear from the attorney for the appellant, miss forest. >> and i'm sorry. one second. for the people that are standing, you'll be allowed to
speak under public comment, so if you want to stand there the whole time, or you want to take a seat until public comment, it's up to you. sorry to have you come up here so early. >> so good evening, again. ro roseanne torres appearing on behalf of jose's towing. i'm putting on the projector. so what i think you ordered the police department to do is bring forward the evidence, and in our brief, we provide a response to each and every one of those documents. in regard to enterprise and these two vehicles, this that you're looking at is the order. at the top, it's the white hyundai at the top that was just spoken about. at the bottom, there's a job number. oh, on tow destination, because this is a night time tow, this vehicle was supposed to be towed to burlingame, and at night, this is a closed lot. so that couldn't be towed to
burlingame, so hit had to be towed to another lot. on the next page, there's notes that actually talk about call the customer five minutes before arrival, and a phone number, window broken, so this is that same vehicle that we were just hearing about. in your first brief by the prior attorneys, this issue was addressed to the extent that with regard to one of these customers for enterprise, they were catching a plane when they were called, and they said they were going to be out of town, so that's why the bill was exorbitant, but it was still negotiated down, as you just heard. the red cherokee also has a job order. it was also supposed to go to burlingame, and it was also closed because it was a night time tow. page two, this job stated customer will do a ride along, so to say that the customers didn't know where their vehicles were going is somewhat suspect, but that's what's in my brief overall.
everything that's been provided that has to do with anything forward from october 2017, when the officer indicated there would be a revocation hearing in november shouldn't even be considered by this board because at the end of the day, he was trying to rerevovoke hi back in october, and some of these incidents that happened back in may and april and even june. there's going to be a public comment about my client allegedly physically assaulting someone who didn't want to be towed because no one wants to be towed. i think commissioner honda stated last time, it sucks to be towed. my client was not charged with battery as the brief in the officer's additional evidence states that he was responsible for a burger king altercation, pushed a pregnant woman. pregnant woman is here as a witness, however this was rejected by the district attorney as insufficiency of evidence, and there is no
charge pending for battery. so ultimately, it's -- you asked for something, and you didn't get it. it seems as though you may be ready for a motion to move to overturn the revocation that was issued by one of the police department sergeants who heard the case and basically gave each side about three minutes to plead their situation. at that time, there wasn't all of this additional evidence for 2018 because we were talking about a hearing that happened in early february . so now, we have witnesses here for things in april, may, june, and and ultimately, i also argued in my brief, besides the fact of fabricating evidence that is a historical problem for officer fornaris and other officers that are here, besides the fact that you have a person who grew quickly, you have supporting documents in our citizen support letters as exhibit a from very large
companies that work with every single tow company. auto return works with 28 major cities in the united states, and the general manager -- actually, the vice president indicated that none of the complaints he's been hearing about jose's towing have any valid -- validity, never once, and that if anything, it's because they grew, because they get the job done, and they have a reputation for giving good customer service, that they are the people that they are going to first and foremost. toyota has six properties, s.f. toyota. the director indicated that on those six properties, he only has jose towing sign because he's the only one that's been reliable. he indicates i've vetted multiple towing companies. jose's has proven to be the best. those drivers are in the audience. if you revoke their license, now you're denying the citizens of san francisco that service. we also have this customer and
her husband who are here, when her car broke down, and she has the audio that i relay in my brief, so everyone would have notice. when officer fornaris called my customer and her husband leaving the message, this is officer fornaris, and i'm calling to find out how it went out after your tow. you have a right tonight to uphold the constitution, and my client has a right to due process, so to go and look for people to complain or to create witnesses after the fact, which none of these people existed in october is somewhat circumspect. i think every piece of evidence that was presented in april, and then additional items that were presented in new incidents, we should be allowed a response. the manager of the business,
she is in the audience -- well, she can't speak during public comment. but she asked the officer when this started, where are the posted amounts that we're supposed to adhere to, because i submitted copies of other tow companies because they may do a subsequent tow to a new location, and companies are charging administrative fee, credit card fee, special equipment fees. so in their own revocation arguments, it flies in the face that we would have any towing companies because all of them are charging all these extra additional fees. and most of them are charging more of a daily rate and a flat tow rate than jose's towing. so when asked in the e-mail whether or not there were set amounts, the officer said there are no set amounts. nothing further. >> would you put the tow orders back up that you started your testimony with, please?
>> sure. >> so i have a red jeep cherokee, and that's a job history detail. >> i'm -- where's this from? i can't tell from the form. >> it's a.r.s. job history, and then the people -- >> but what is that? i don't know what that is. >> it's a call being made to jose's towing and then it gives them a disabled location, a tow destination, service information, and then a job order number. and that's allstate road service at the bottom. >> okay. so you're saying the tow was ordered. but wasn't it a case where nobody from enterprise knew where the car was for a very long time? >> well, in the instructions, my client indicates there was a ride along and a drop off of the customer. this may be the customer that got on a plane and left and
didn't stay to get the details and the paperwork because they had to catch a flight. >> but there was no effort on the bart of the company to notify enterprise? >> i believe they did. they modified the bill because the customer was out of town. >> and the other one, whatever the other car was? >> the other one is a white hyundai santa fe, another job, another night time tow to a place that's closed. the burlingame lot at bayshore highway and old bayshore highway. >> so again, jose takes it back to their lot when they can't take it back to one of these places. >> right, and in this case, it says call the customer five minutes before arrival. customer call back, a phone number, window is broken, giving a description. >> but again, so the car ends up at a different lot, and enterprise has to track it
customers who speak for jose's toeing? >> right. i mentioned -- towing. >> right. i mentioned that my customers here -- >> not the one that got the phone call, i just mean customer. >> there's a customer who got towed, and there's the customer that got the phone call from officer fornaris last fall to explain what was the service like out of the blue, and that person did not deal with the police, so they didn't know why the police were calling them. so that message is here if you wish to hear it. >> no, no, no, you misunderstood my question, and that's fine. >> okay. so there's one other witness. >> okay. so i've got several questions. so in regards to the white car and the red car, what is the
process of jose's towing in regards to -- i mean, according to the police statement, they were there 56 days. so at which point do you reach out to try to find the owners rather than charge these fees? >> so one of the issues that happens with rental cars is that after 72 hours, if there's no contact by an owner, they -- they would have to put alene but it's to the state which issued the license. so these vehicles have out of state licenses, so then, they would have to go hire an attorney -- >> but the question is, counselor, that according to the police statement, and i guess there's a c.h.p. that's going to verify that that the registration for the vehicle was in the glove box. when is it, at which point, since you have the vehicle under your control, that you reach out to the owner instead
of having the vehicle there for 56 days? >> counselor, your client can speak, if he'd like. >> sorry? >> your client can speak. >> okay. sure. >> so the question is, is that -- and these are -- these two particular vehicles 'cause that's what's mentioned sir, is it seems peculiar to me that, one, you know as a tow operator, you don't reach out to a person that you have their car in your lot, and especially if you have a registration in the glove box. so do you have a set procedure of how many days and how do you reach out to find out if there's a -- if there's an owner to a vehicle that's in your lot? >> yeah. so after 72 hours, we put alene on the vehicle. usually, even typically ought row return has this problem. what happens is when it's an out of state license plate, it's hard to get in contact with the owner of a vehicle. now that car, sometimes they just have cars from rental cars
because those rental cars get stolen on that lot. we have other companies that have the same rental cars. >> so the question, sir, is -- sorry to interrupt you. what is your procedure? your procedure is you do not call the owner, and after 72 hours, you install a mechanic'slene. >> yes, it is. >> and the registration does not have a phone number, per se. >> but the registration says alamo rent a car, which there's a thing called google. >> and he's in touch with them every day since he's doing towing every day. >> and you said since there's fees, they just waived the fee and dropped the vehicle off. was there communication how that vehicle or correspondence why and how that vehicle was going to show up in. >> we called road side, and road side said, you know, that we had to tow out the vehicle in the morning. unfortunately they did not show
us how to tow appeal. they did not issue it out, so they said hey, you know, the vehicle -- i've got to know why the security guard was not there or why that lot was closed that day. i said hey, you know what? we'll drop it off then and eat up the charge. >> the way you're describing this is if it happened one day and you dropped it off the next day. we're talking at a $9,000 charge, how many days was it at your lot, sir? >> it was -- it was about 40 days. so for -- >> wait. so the last time you were here, we had a confusion of question-and-answers, right? i believe that. so you're telling me that the hyundai was there for 56 days, and it was 5,500, but the red car, the jeep cherokee was there 40 days, and that was $9,000. so i'm trying to get the math here. >> the jeep was probably there longer, then. >> that's why i'm asking. so if you're not sure, maybe
you should check because you're under oath here, right? okay. so that's the question. you mentioned as if you had it for a couple days, and then just dropped it back off. but if 5,500 is 56 days, i would imagine that 9,000's got to be, like, 90 or 100 days, so at which point, what did i log did you have about returning this vehicle and how did it magically appear on this lot. >> we had a poor management, and now we have hired more people and, you know, more experienced people who have, you know, been able to be more on top of inventory in our yard because there's a great amount of inventory. >> well, so in the brief, it indicates -- are you licensed to have one lot or two lots in. >> one lot. >> okay. and then, also in the brief, i believe it's indicated that this was at an unauthorized lot. >> right. >> okay.
so how many vehicles do you have in total between -- how many vehicle do you have in your legal lot and how many do you have in your illegal lot? >> i have most of them in my legal lot, just when we are full there, we take vehicles to our overflow. >> so how many are there? >> in my legal lot? >> correct. >> we have 20. >> and then, are you authorized to take those other properties into the overflow lot? are they authorized to be there? >> i had told officer fornaris, and he said yes. >> okay. thank you. >> i have one question. what you presented in terms of the notification for a tow was not in your brief. >> that was in the previous brief that mr. la lanne was submitting as far as evidence since the beginning with enterprise because that was one of their frequent customers, alamo, enterprise, all of the