extremely competent, are going to suffer the same event. it is interesting that what started out as a review process, you can see in the tenor of the letters got worse and worse. it appears that the disagreements turned highly personal to a certain extent, and that's too bad, because most structural peer reviews, plan checking and such usually occur congenially. it depends on how someone responds to certain comments. we have ascertained that the appropriate documents have been provided, although the reviews probably occurred later than

they should have. i do want to reflect a little bit on some of the comments made. yes, there are probably certain minimum requirements in a structural analysis. different engineering firms will tackle it slightly differently as a matter of their practice and their background. but also, more importantly, different firms have different levels of cons serve tism that they apply in the fact analysis. some firms are much more conservative than others, and others are more risk-takers. they probably don't last very long. but the question of then -- was the level of review here what

should be expected within the city and county of san francisco? i believe that it was. the peer review process appears to have been fairly complete. usually structural engineers don't have a problem sharing their information. in this particular instance, it didn't quite happen as compared to many other instances i have been involved in. i am prepared to uphold the permit. >> earlier this evening as some of you were here, someone in public comment raise the issue about certain members of this board and whether or not we were qualified to be up here, and suggested that we were rubber stamps for various agencies of the city that appear before us on a regular basis. a lot of times it is alan use issues, but we also deal with

public health, public works, the police department and entertainment. i imagine that some of the representatives of those various city agencies that appear before us were amused to think that we are rubber stamps of some agency because we have given them over the years a fair amount of opposition, modifying some of the things that have come before you, some of the permits. a point was brought up that what was before us is an engineer decision, and i'm going to consider it a virtue that one knows his own limitations. in this case i certainly know my own limitations, and i'm not qualified to make a decision based upon something having to do with engineering. to me what this decision is about is whether or not the processes that were applied to engineering decisions have been properly followed, and i feel

very comfortable about that. when we are told that the city, d.b.i., relies heavily on vigorous peer review processes, i feel pretty comfortable also relying upon those peer review processes. it has been suggested that a rerun be done, or that maybe there be some modification of this particular permit to codify or to memorialize a sill cut. i am going to rely on mr. korn field that that is not necessary. i feel like it would be highly prejudicial to the project sponsor. my decision to uphold this permit, which ultimately i will do, is not based upon anything having to do with jobs, but

hard to ignore the fact that we have such high unemployment in the building trades in san francisco. here comes a project that has met peer review standards that is going to provide jobs makes me want to enthusiastically embrace this particular project. >> i would like to echo some of the comments of commissioner garcia. i think i focused my concerns on this when reading the briefs and listening to the testimony on process as well. i think after hearing testimony, i feel satisfied that sufficient process in the peer review has been done. if you have the capacity -- any advocate will retain an expert, and i feel comfortable that you are well-arm here on each side, and it is a battle of the experts, and we aren't going to make those types of technical

decisions. i'm inclined to deny the appeal. >> i will jump in. with due respect to my fellow commissioners and recognizing that, given what we heard, my vote won't count, i would support a continuance because as the doctor said, someone should do a peer review of the new work and numbers. he suggested that the someone who do that review be someone who is not hired by either one of the parties. so i would support a continuance to allow that to take place. >> actually it sounds like this project is better for the process, including the advocacy that we heard tonight. i'm very well aware of the

recession. i think we have all struggled over the last couple of years to make sure we streamline the process. having said that, i think we do have to feel comfortable with the final result and that we are at all times keeping our citizens safe, and i do think there is a bit of a red flag here that the data was altered as a result of the professor's inchoiries as recent as last -- in choiries as recent as last week. i would support a continuance, but i don't think the votes are here for them. >> i think it was suggested for a 30-day continuance. i would be interested in making a motion like that to see that happen if you think that appropriate? >> if we could hear from the other commissioners on that?

>> i would ask that to be a friendly amendment and reduce that time period. it did strike me that the so-called independent experts were paid for by one side. but at the same time, there does need to -- i would be inclined to continue it only for one week. i don't know if that is adequate time. i don't know what the onsclure agreement is or if that is going to be a deal-breaker, but that is my inclination. if we did a continuance, i would amend to significantly shorten that time period. >> commissioners, the amount of review here, the amount of structural firments that -- firms that have been involved

exceeds my experience with much larger projects, and i don't think that is continuance is warranted given the high levels of review that have already occurred. i think we should resolve the situation and let them continue with their practices. >> and not to get into anything having to do with an engineering issues because i would be swimming in very dangerous southeast, but some of the changes that may have been made, like talking about cutting the sill, it was explained to us that that had already been taken into consideration, and that the movement itself would have cut the sill. it is designed that way. so that whatever is achieved by cutting the sill would have in fact occurred with the movement . the small amount of sill that was there was almost designed

to fail in order to provide that. at least that is my understanding. we have had so much review of this whole process, so many engineers have weighed in on it. if we were to weigh the engineers on one side or the other, it will seem we have more advocating for it than against it. i am saying it because it is absurd to think that we are going to gain anything from more review. there are real issues here. the project sponsor is into this very deeply. it is shovel-ready, ready to go. there are jobs that could be provided. i think for what we would gain compared to what we would lose by continuing this, it would be absurd. >> with due respect to my fellow commissioners, i am going to make a motion to continue for one week. >> being away that we don't meet next week, correct?

>> we do meet next week? >> we do? >> yes, we do. it is the week after we don't meet. so your motion is to continue this item to october 20th? >> october 20th. >> what would be the directive to the parties? >> to allow time to review the new material, the changes, and run the numbers, the squiggley lines. >> this is the first time the other side has seen it on the overhead, the new rerun on the line? >> that's right. the other side has not seen the numbers run with the new changes. >> so they have >> home run it. >> the other side hasn't run the numbers. i'm sorry. >> the permit holder has run

the numbers and has just not delivered -- >> the professor's suggestion was to have someone from the other side to look at that. >> it has been done. [inaudible] >> if the president allows you to speak, then you must speak in front of the mic. >> madam president, may i make a comment? >> not right now. it would be best if you don't. >> i think out of fairness, the other side is entitled to more time to react. i don't think bringing in an independent body to review -- these complicated tests are given at the last minute, and i think to the credit of the

professor, he raised issues to which the party responded. so it is more out of fairness to the state bar and to the professor. having said that, i am mostly in favor of this project. it is just that i think we should all feel comfortable that the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted. it was more out of equity in terms of timing. some of this could have been avoided by providing materials sooner. [inaudible] >> no, sir. otherwise, we could engage independent experts and really open this up. >> so the idea of engaging an independent expert, i didn't mean to suggest that would happen in the next week. my thought was to give the appellants the week to look at the new material.

>> vice president goh, would you invite the parties to address the board again? there is no time for briefing. >> there is no time for briefing, so it would be tomorrow. so orally presentations, five minutes each side. >> all right. >> how many votes do we need for a continuance. >> you need three votes. >> so then the motion is from the vice president to continue this matter one week to october 20th. the public hearing is held in and closed. no additional briefing is allowed, but five-minute presentations per side. right? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> can i vote twice?

no. >> president peterson? >> aye. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 3-2. the matter is continued one week to october 20th. with that, there is no further business. we are adjourned.

[pledge of allegiance] picommissioner mazzucco: presen. president marshall: present. commissioner chan: present. commissioner hammer: present. commissioner kingsley: present. commissioner slaughter: here. >> we have the chief of police and director. president marshall: this is a regular meeting of the sand francisco police commission.

let me say that before i go to the agenda that item #4 will not be held this evening. we like to do that when we have a full commission. if you are here for that, we will address that. with that, please call item no. one. >> a request by approval to be used exclusively to purchase tories for the christmas give away. -- toys for the christmas give away. president marshall: if you have no questions about it, i will take motion for approval. without objection? thank you. item number 2. >> item 1b is a donation for the

well-being and care of police horses for use by the mounted unit. president marshall: any questions on item 1b? without objection, so ordered. public comment -- thank you. public comment on item number one? hearing none. >> item number two is public comment. not to exceed three minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction but not appear on the agenda this evening. president marshall: general public comment. come forward, please. >> i am the director of san

francisco open government. i would like to talk about a couple of complaints, one of them regarding an interruption to comments that i was making at that meeting on two separate occasions. in the letter from -- there is an interesting phrase used, he said that i was allowed to continue. my understanding is now, the policy of the board, you can interrupt me. if you approve, i can continue. i would like to go back to an agenda item where we talked for over a minute and i was interrupted by the same commissioner. i have been interrupted by the same commissioner on five separate occasions. at each of those, i was allowed

to continue. i have to begin to question whether or not they are being made with an honest belief that there is some problem with what i am saying, and whether or not it is an attempt to obstruct the comment. members of the public get three minutes. my understanding of the constitution's is that those are not three minutes of impeded speech, three minutes of interrupted speech. they are three minutes of free speech. at what point do i begin to question whether or not being interrupted by the same member of the commission each and every time for the same reason which are ultimately found in the last case by the deputy city attorney whether i'd be allowed to continue, and not question whether or not my rights are being impeded. commissioner mazzucco said,

absolutely not, i would never do that. but he did. five times. each of those times, i was allowed to continue. i think that every member of the public who gets up here and has something to say, if you have a concern, i am not saying they can't raise that concern. but when it starts to happen almost every single time, that is something different. it is not right. and don't think that those of you that don't say anything are off the hook. what is the old expression? silence gives consent? even though it is proven over and over again that they are allowed to continue and they are subsequently allowed to

continue, that is the way things should be done. i don't think so. [chime] i have to wonder -- i have to wonder whether the board thinks so. >> i have come here before and i am always in constant communication with the sfpd, the fbi, and the devense d -- defense department. there is nothing being done about the mind control weapons. i talked about a special team set up to counter this reat. it is going into the eleventh month and there is nothing happening whatsoever. i don't know what is going on.

why is nobody combating this threat? they haven't called or question to me. i seem to have a lot of information about this case and these criminals. nobody has called or question to me. nobody is staying in touch with the fbi or the military. they are saying that there are no leads. it looks like they are reluctant in finding these leads. this is seriously said and sfpd officers are getting intact. there is nothing being done about it. that is my basic request. we need more officers, anything. please make a note of this. write it down or something. there needs to be more people, adding this threat all the time. -- combatting this threat all

the time. president marshall: lieutenant, will you please call item number three? >> reports to the commission. president marshall: beginning with the chief report. >> [inaudible] we continue to be at a 9% reduction year-to-date. it is a 10% reduction for property crimes, 4% reduction in violent crimes. we did have a slight uptick for the cycle representing a 7% increase, a total of 34 crimes.

that is primarily in the area of robberies, and a small uptick in the area of aggravated assault -- aggravated assault. for the total wheat, we were down 11%. we continue to be at a pace year to date. all the violent crimes are down, except for personal theft. this particular cycle shows that we are even, and that number will go up and down. we are at 37 against 38. it puts us down to the 1950 level of homicides per capita. it is a good number, especially

in light of the number that other major cities are reporting an increase in the homicide number. chief? nothing? president marshall: we move to the occ director's report. >> the occ has no recent developments to report this evening. thank you. president marshall: commission reports? i just want to say one thing. i got the e-mail from you, commissioner kinglsey inviting commissioner slaughter to follow up on the retreat. >> if they require more than one commissioners, [inaudible]

i think commissioner chan concurs with that. commissioner chan: i have been looking at my notes, and i concur. especially looking at addressing each of the issues like patrols specials, nightclubs, there are a number of issues we have talked about. we only have so many meetings until the end of the year. >> i think the intent is to follow up on everything we talked about that day and make sure that we stay on top of it. you might reach conclusions that you might want to bring back, commissioner kingsley. commissioner slaughter, if you

could learn what happened that day to go i will -- that day -- >> i will not take this as a hazing ritual. in all seriousness, i am happy to help out. president marshall: anything further? >> would it be appropriate to address one of the follow-up items to the retreat? would you like me to wait until we get done with the reports? president marshall: i assume that you can do it now. >> it will take less time to go forward at this point. one of the things that a number of us members of the commission were concerned about and frustrated with is the current procedure and policy in terms of

public comment. i would propose that in the spirit of one of our objectives which is to enhance or better our affiliation with the public, we place this on the agenda for two weeks from tonight. is that workable? or whenever you think is appropriate. president marshall: part of the issues -- i have already gone request for a bunch of things. my only caveat is that we are going to set up parameters about how we are going to do it. >> should we calendar that first? president marshall: