it was decided april 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted to uphold the denial of the tow firm permit with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: i would just like to confirm that you are able to revert -- review the video, commissioner garoh? commissioner goh: i did it, i was able to review the video and the finding. president peterson: commissioners, the department is an agreement that the appellant is not. i would like to give the appellant three minutes to address the board.

>> asked me to read a prepared statement. he says, i do not agree with your findings that it poses a threat to public safety. we vehemently disagree that we have violated state and city law regulating the cartel and industries engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. there are two parallel lawsuits against the city and county of san francisco pending, one in state court by the california tow truck association, and another in federal court. we trust of the trees will be revealed and feel strongly that we will be exonerated. the statements are false accusations, evidence of fraud. we have proven that the incident

was investigated and we were cleared of any wrongdoing by the sfpd auto-theft bureau. we disputed all of the allegations and prove them false. this has apparently been ignored. i am surprised to see that your findings include references to activities that occurred after our initial court of appeals hearing. they were not included in the original appeal and at an unfair allusion to what are essentially false accusations. the integrity and the intent of the persons alleging misconduct needs to be taken into consideration. the sergeant oppose the past record of intimidation and use of excessive force that are not open to public view prohibits him from being used as a credible witness in any criminal cases. . ramirez -- miss ramirez held up

our contract. firms are allowed operate past the expiration date pending their hearing. however, we were singled out due to reasons by the sergeant and miss ramirez. they were bullied prior to the hearing. clients were told that we had no permit. we have testimony that severe intimidation tactics were used. we were proven guilty before due process was served. lies and false accusations should not force a distinguished san francisco firm out of favor with its established long-term clients, and essentially out of business. irreparable damage has been done by an unfair use of power by the

sfpd and the district attorney. it is unfortunate you have upheld this injustice. thank you. president peterson: sergeant, do you care to speak? you also have three minutes. >> i am from the police department's permit section. all i can say is that i reject all of the accusations of intimidation or vendettas. it is false. what is true is what has been proven, and i believe that the findings accurately reflect the decision of this board. >> a lot of things in that letter were hard to follow, and it is hard to trace the issues brought up in terms of the

findings. one thing that was said had to do with things in the finding posted-date and hour hearing. and do you know what they could be talking about? >> that is a general statement, i don't know what is being alleged. president peterson: is there any public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you, commissioners. you just spoke. you can't speak under public comment. since you are up there, could you address the question back commissioner garcia asked the sergeant? >> there was a statement prepared at that had to do with a summary of findings that came out from the appeals court.

i don't know the exact answer to your question. >> do you mean the board of appeals? >> the board of appeals, i beg your pardon. >> she was here as his agent. >> i hate to suggest this, but i think it would probably serve due process while if we would allow him to brief us on the

specifics of what is, in his opinion, erroneous about these findings. i don't think anyone is harmed unless i am missing something by putting off and having a look at these findings at a later date. i think they accurately reflect -- a presentation was so fast, i was not able to follow every issue, and there's a couple i wouldn't mind knowing more about. >> isn't he here? >> i don't want to go through a verbal thing of arguing back and forth as much as i would want to see something in writing that would refer specifically to what is in the findings and where there is error. >> you cannot speak from the

audience. i have no question, all i want is for a brief to be presented that i can look at, reid, and compare to the findings. president peterson: commissioner garcia, there might be some issues that the appellant has with the items in the findings that are new, but it also must may be that the appellant is objecting to the evaluation of the evidence that the board would take if it were to adopt these findings. the appellant has had an opportunity to submit a briefing on these allegations in the original appeal process. it was based on the weight of the evidence submitted by both sides that these findings were prepared. that does not mean that the appellant could not provide you with additional information,

but they have had that opportunity. >> reading the findings, i had a couple of questions. the appellant -- i did not get a sense that the appellant wasn't contesting the police report. and another question on how they refused to allow -- there are things in here that are not exactly lighting up with my memory -- lining up with my memory. >> the question to you by commissioner garcia was that there was a statement that there is evidence or findings here that occured after the board hearings. do you want to address that

question? >> i would rather do it in writing, but the police department physically came out to our office. the only thing they are allowed to do by law is look at the records and make copies. two cops came out, you have a letter from my secretary, they called their sergeant, and he is the one who wrote -- and they were there, but that is in my response. he said, they're allowed to copy them. president peterson: do you have any objection to the proposal that you sense something in writing? >> that would be great. i am very bitter and angry, and it is nice to see somebody else

besides the police department. this guy could not be used at anything, and he is the chief witness against me, and it is all personal. >> you had these findings sent to you? you have a copy? >> yes, sir. >> " what letter. -- what letter? >> they said 3 minutes. they said it was a proper venue, we had three minutes. if you want something in writing, we will give you something in writing. commissioner garcia: we still have to vote. >> is there not an opportunity to submit -- to submit written response to the findings?

>> there is an opportunity. we asked both sides to review them and let us know if there are any errors or corrections, or opinions they have about it. there is no limitation to a three-minute rebuttal. we don't allow the parties to submit additional briefing to the board, but we try and correct any mistakes and get all the information from the parties before we provide them to you. if there are any problems, we can review them. >> in response to this particular set of findings, the received any comments? >> i did receive a comment, and he says that he did not agree with them. it was a telephone conversation. he did not agree with them, and

that was just a general statement. there is no specific reference to any -- he did not believe the evidence supported these allegations or these findings. commissioner garcia: i don't feel comfortable adopting findings without further briefing. if there are no comments, i would make a motion to continue this until such time that we can get additional briefing on what his objections are to walk us through the presentation. >> to the findings. commissioner garcia: exactly. president peterson: it seems that we may not have full people here until october 13. commissioner garcia: no one is

prejudiced by putting it off that long, are they? president peterson: is that a motion to continue until october 13? >> commissioner garcia, i am not interested in seeing the materials from the hearing itself. i am interested in a specific response to these findings only? is that correct? commissioner garcia: that is absolutely correct. what is normal for findings? no limit? >> is not typical to have written response. commissioner garcia: maybe i am the only one with a problem. >> it shouldn't be more than the findings themselves. four pages, do you want to set a four-page lament -- limit? commissioner garcia: i think the

surgeon wants to address this. >> i don't know if i will be involved in this matter in october, and i don't know whether we would respond in writing to anything that is put forward here. but i do know that i will be on vacation for all of october. thank you. >> madden director, -- madame director, we have the ability to review this either september 8 or september 22. >> we can move forward with four members, and commissioner fung, i wasn't sure if you were going to be here on the twenty second.

>> we can take this up with four members if not sooner. >commissioner garcia: i don't se any harm done if it is earlier or later, so let's go to november. november 3 would be great. >> to the motion is to of continue this to november 3 to get a briefing at, a maximum of four pages by both sides, and it concerns about the accuracy of the findings themselves, is that correct? >> it is accuracy of the findings based upon the facts that were already presented in

the briefing in the oral argument to this board, not new fact that we have not heard? commissioner garcia: unless someone is responding to what he considers to be new facts that are in the findings that have to do with a date that is after the hearing. >> i don't think we have done this before. so i am confused. >> all of the issues -- i don't know about the rest of the board, but i could not follow the findings as certain issues came up to check for accuracy. i am just not sure. when someone objects, we can

check again against the findings. >> shall we have a brief due to weeks -- two weeks prior? commissioner garcia: sure. >> that won't work for you since you are gone in october? mr. garcia, should we move it later into november? commissioner garcia: please. >> if we move it to november 17, we will have a missing commissioner. we can take that date any way are we can move it to december 8. commissioner garcia: let's go for december 8. >> let's not. i want to resolve this issue. let me state that these findings

reflect my memory of the proceeding and what was discussed. commissioner garcia: did you want to make an alternate motion? we might require another motion. >> is this the december 8 date? >> i wonder if we can engage in a little more deliberation if you don't mind, commissioners. it seems that in most cases, the losing party will object to our findings, and so it seems that the thing that sets this one apart is a couple of commissioners sense that the findings don't reflect their own

recollection of what occurred at the hearing, is that right? am i understanding that? commissioner garcia: some of this is a little bit subjective. and a little more descriptive than the typical finding, which is statements of law or of the code and how someone was in violation of the code, but without my going into any specifics, i have some problems with the language. part of the problem is, this hearing was april 14. it is not fresh in my memory, so when objections were raised again, i was not able to say, i remember that, she's wrong, i wasn't able to fully follow. i don't want to adopt findings when a couple of issues are hanging in my mind.

>> i would support a motion to continue so that everyone feels comfortable. >> what might make sense is that if in addition to the findings, perhaps if we had the transcript of the hearing in front of us. >> you can stream it online. >> into the transcripts are available on line also. >> at the closed captioning. -- the closed captioning. >> my objection is not that this appellant be given a second opportunity to respond to findings that he has had, the case has been out there for quite a long time. my objection is that it is another four months because of scheduling. i would ask commissioner garcia

to reconsider and schedule this for september 8. commissioner garcia: maybe the confusion is that i don't know if that -- if anyone is at all harmed by when we hear this. am i missing something? are there any consequences to us doing it tonight or doing it in december? >> i don't think it would be proper for us to respond to specific and new allegations, having time to consider and respond to it. the city attorney's office -- we should seek the advice from the city attorney's office says there is litigation out there, a couple of lawsuits that i don't

know if it will impact that. if there is new documents that are filed, i think it would be prudent for the police department to consult the city attorney's office, and given the fact that there is pending litigation. >> this is not an opportunity for the appellant to reach your his case. >> i think you run the risk of having that happen. commissioner garcia: i think we are capable of dealing with that and cutting that off. >> i don't know what the police department -- i don't know if the police department should respond at all. if what is being considered here is the written findings in the accuracy of those written findings, the police -- and the police department is good with those written findings and we don't expect in any way to offer

suggestions to amend it. maybe this is a dispute or some issue that needs to be dealt with with the city attorney's office. commissioner garcia: i didn't want you to be prejudiced by the fact that your out of town in october. >> if the police department needs to respond, and i don't know at this point in time whether it is reasonable that we do or do not respond, then we need to be able to. however, if what you're going to roll is that this is strictly a claim that the written document is not accurate, all the things that were dealt with at the hearing, then maybe we are not in a position where we should respond. commissioner garcia: you know i

can't into that, right? >> i have never had to respond to an issue like this. commissioner garcia: i'm hoping that what i get is that in paragraph one, the statement is wrong, period. i will have watched the hearing again, i will look at the findings as written and consider what he wrote, and i will say, and no is not wrong or yes, it is wrong. assuming the votes are there, we might change something. it is not a new hearing. we're not granting a rehearing. my frustration is that we didn't get something in writing from him in the first place-i don't know how to respond to that.

commissioner garcia: now i can't vote on findings that i am not totally comfortable with. president peterson: we may not need all five of us here to do this. if one commissioner is uncomfortable with the delay -- i know that i am not here september 8 and you don't necessarily need me on september 8. commissioner garcia: i agree with commissioner fung that the sooner, the better. if our calendar is not too crowded, that would be an excellent day. president peterson: how about september 15? >> there is a motion to continue this item is a tender 15, correct? with additional briefing of four

pages maximum, due two weeks prior. commissioner garcia: i apologize for other members of the commission, i did not intend for this to be drawn out. president peterson: no one is required to submit a brief, and it is up to the department to find if they think it is necessary. >> the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this matter to september 15, 2010 to allow the parties time to respond in writing to the proposed findings on that motion? commissioner fung: aye. commissioner goh: aye. president peterson: aye. sorry. commissioner hwang: aye. >> this matter is continued to september 15.

president peterson: we have a final set of findings to consider, will you call item 4c, please. >> another adoption of findings pertaining to the revocation of tax medallion and color scheme permanent. decided july 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted 4- 1 with commissioner hwang dissenting to uphold the revocation of color scheme permit and overrule the revocation of medallion on condition that said medallion be suspended for one year with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: the appellant does not like the findings.

i don't know if anybody is here, is anybody here representing mr. hollis? they were very well apprised of this evening, i explained that if they had no objection they could come here. they do not appear to be here. >> and there is nothing in writing specific to their objections? >> she did not believe that the allegations supported the ultimate decision to suspend and revoke. president peterson: nothing more specific than that? >> mr. hollis double checked that the time would go for 10 days? they're waiting to request a rehearing. president peterson: is there any public comment on these findings? scene 9, the mat