it was an oversight on my part and believe me, it will not happen again. i have not used to the city rationale that someone not under oath will lie. i hope you notice when other city employees are not taking the oath and meet them with skepticism. i appreciated it president peterson's concern about the lack of counsel, from the presentation and request for reconsideration. i think this may end up in court, and we would be willing to take any this statement i made under oath. and i don't believe it that i said anything other than what i had already said under oath in prior testimony at the time of

the actual appeal. the reason i am here is because basically i viewed a lot of hearings and you can go listen to these on the sunshine ordnance task force website. those are the statements i made, i don't think they are in any way false, and i will be using them to talk about this issue. one of the things you have to understand in cases of abuse, it is usually a crime of power. as an individual citizen against the city agency, who will have the power? the city agency. a main concern was that this board made the decision not to give them additional time to ensure that the city agency had provided them with all of the appropriate documents. commissioner hwang said it was very concerning, but the general consensus seemed to be that because there were no issues

raised, the vote was what it was. the bottom line is, the possibility there were no new issues may be due to the fact that certain documents were withheld. but those are complaints i made on numerous occasions. city employees do not own the documents. the city does not own the documents. they belong to the citizens of the county and the city of san francisco. there is no employee that has the right to withhold from any individual, especially that person in the case, documents they need for that case. and there the next 56 weeks, i changed it from four to six weeks because i want to bring in a number of these things. i believe they acted in an abusive manner. president peterson: next

speaker, please. >> can i have the overhead, please? good afternoon, commissioners. last week, when i show you this california law, i said that they do not meet the minimum qualifications to be commissioners of this board. commissioner garcia, he responded by saying that you speak for the board when there are gaps in our education and our training, having to do some of the issues coming before us, we seek the advice of the city attorney and other departments, and we do actual research. information from building and planning personnel have made many false statements to protect illegal construction. certain expediters and property owners who also made false

statements to you, it states that you shall be qualified to be specifically knowledgeable in the california building standards code. it does not say it is okay to ask the city attorney. it does not say it is ok to seek the and permission from anyone else or anywhere else as a substitute for a commissioner having a basic level of knowledge required by law. not to meet the minimum qualifications is different from having gaps in your education. you have been a commissioner for five years. you not only have the minimum qualifications for your position, you are also lacking knowledge in the requirements. the public activist for people's rights has spent many hours to protect people's writes. he commented during public comment. your job is to protect public rights. commissioner garcia, you

attacked him by saying that he could not speak any public comment section. it is not required to take a note for public comment. he was not a witness. your attack on mr. hartz is totally unacceptable when you lack the qualifications and knowledge to be a commissioner. you did this to support and protect illegal projects. i believe you owe mr. hartz a public apology. president peterson: any other public comment? please step forward. >> good afternoon. a civil engineer was arrested and charged for more than 200 felony counts, allegedly creating bogus documentation about 100 construction projects

in the city. no building inspectors asked about this document. i do not have experience -- [unintelligible] it requires a licensed architects. when the property was planned, the planning was mysteriously disappeared again and again. they have a licensed engineer, but they are not a licensed engineer or architect. it is different from shift to shift. we request that all plans -- as they should be revealed and

corrected in a timely manner. he told them that there are connections with both the planning department, and our complaint would be ignored. this is the only true thing they give to us. we're approaching illegal activities. he was the permit expediter for the adjacent properties, and one property owner even hired both. from both buildings, we're willing to give statements to support them. they told us that she was asked by the commissioners and they would like to support the illegal activity. [unintelligible]

maybe you choose to support the city because some of the commission had minimum qualifications for your position. it requires that you guys have knowledge of buildings. some of you do not have that. thank you. president peterson: is there any other public comment? please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners. i couldn't let the second to last speaker pass without some kind of a response. i am a land-use attorney in san francisco and i have been practicing for more than 30 years. i have approximately 500 cases before this board. i have appeared in numerous cases before. commissioner garcia, i have

always found him to be fair to everyone involved. this ranting and raving indicates nothing more than the speaker's ignorance. it is really a waste of the taxpayer money to use these public comment sections to conduct rants against respected city commissioners. thank you very much. president peterson: is there further public comment? >> i am just any member of the public, and i don't appreciate the speaker being called as a rant. we speak because we have something to say, and i am really glad to hear everything that i have heard tonight. i am pretty upset about the process, and i feel like the process is working now that a

certain person has been indicted for what ever. i am happy to hear about this person. we need to be nice about it. anything -- whatever you say is ok, that doesn't mean it is a rant. president peterson: is there any other public comment? we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. item #3 is the adoption of minutes. for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of august 11, 2010. >> any comments? >> i move to adopt the august 112010 minutes. >> if you could call the roll,

please. is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none, called a role. >> on the motion from the president to adopt the minutes -- commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. >> they are adopted. president peterson: we can move on to item number four, they each have to do with the adoption of findings. >> i should have done this during commissioner comment, but if we could agenda is this something that came up tonight during public comment as to the law and qualifications for commissioners? that is two weeks in a row that

has come up, and i understand we are not allowed to talk about it if it is not on the agenda, but i like to have an opportunity to talk about it. president peterson: when you are ready, call 4a, please. >> and adoption of findings property, a p.o. number 09 -- appeal number 09-4142. they voted to grant the findings -- to grant a permit with the adoption of findings at a later time.

it will and in restoration of the living in a to make a three dwelling unit. president peterson: my understanding is that we are in agreement. if you have questions or comments, you can call them up. is there any public comment on these findings? commissioners, the matter is before you for adoption. >> i will move to adopt the findings. >> on that motion from president peterson to adopt findings. commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner fung: aye.

the vote is 5-0, the minutes are adopted. president peterson: if you can move on to 4b. the subject property, it is appeal number 10-025. 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