19 through 24, 26, and 30. all the other paragraphs are stipulated to. i do not see a need to have factual findings on this. they are conceited as true as stated in the charter. the focus of the party should be on evidence, that supports or not support -- does not support 63, 1924, 26, and 30. -- 19 through 24, 26, and 30. you'd want to identify additional facts he thinks has been established that are in

favor of the defense. the mayor may want to as well. my thought is that each of you have five additional facts that you can identify and then put supporting evidence for. my thought is that you submit that so the other side can put the citation with the record they think disputes that fact or the can say they stipulate. does that make sense? have we lost you? >> i would have -- i have not had the opportunity to sit down and parse through the amended charges in that paragraph. and so i am concerned about agreeing to a number that may turn activate the lovetere

person think that we cannot work with. >> here is my concern. these are your charges. presumably, you put in their everything that you think we need -- and we found everything in your charter to be true, we should find that official misconduct occurred. i am concerned if there would be more than five additional facts that you would need in order to prove your case. secondly, you have to realize that we're about one judge. we cannot make decisions and then give you a document that provides it with the answers. we need you to decide each of these facts and that could -- it will not be feasible to receive 40 different facts and try to decide each one of them.

it has to be limited. >> i completely understand and agree with and share that concern. i'm not trying to create a free- for-all by any means. i can -- i want to they know of few things. we followed the charter's direction which was not clear that we needed to file written charges. it did not say that it needed to be a particular kind, that it needed to be much more complete beyond notice, pleading. i can tell you for a big factor, if that was the standard, i was not aware of it. >> you found a bill of particulars. >> wi-fi elspeth's more specific written charges sitting at the different accounts separately. we did not -- you understand what i'm saying. i can tell you what our understanding was and what we

believe were gutted by. we did not understand it was the case that there is a separate pleading standard that we needed to meet. it was not clear at that time. that is understandable given the vagaries of the charter that we're struggling with and the novelty of this procedure. i want to put again my asterisk there that it is possible there are key issues you might want to address that you will not find already. >> which is why i am recommending we give you five additional facts. i am also not moved if you have not studied -- that the share of identified because you were included on this. your lack of preparation is not particularly moving.

so, is that acceptable, five additional facts? >> i would add that each of the counts has one paragraph that basically summarizes, here's what you should draw from these other factors. i certainly would not want to lose the opportunity to have those paragraphs be part of our proposed findings. the other side did not find them. i would want those -- the leeway to have a summing up factual finding at each of the counts. those have not been identified and it seems like that might be helpful. >> any objection? >> no. >> that is fine. the other thing that would be

helpful and i have created a visual. it was sold confusing, i did not know how else to explain it. for the overhead, and i have copies for you will. ok, thank you. here is my problem and you can focus on the tough part. can you see the colors there? the one in red.

>> this provision is susceptible to -- acceptable to two prairie interpretations. option one is one that was identified in the mariposa amendment -- the mayor's sharges. -- charges. conduct would modify -- this would modify what official conduct means. the import, if we were to read it this way, no. 2 has little or any relationship to the official -- the duties of the official. do you understand why i would think that? >> yes.

there may be an access but it is not based on the official duties. >> if you could put option to out. -- two up. the other way of reading this, if one and two modify that first part -- modified and that first part of the paragraph that ends with including. under that reading, conduct that falls below standard of good faith and right action would have to relate to the duties of the office. the red is wha t i put n. that is something that would help me, briefing on which one of these is the right way to read this provision.

>> i want to thank you for bringing that forward as clearly as it did. i have this struggling with the same question since i read the charter provision. i think that is free critical and would appreciate briefing on this one as well. >> to the praise follow -- and did the parties followed? >> if you are going to see you briefed it, you did not. not this. i went back and checked. i need to know why -- i assume that you will think option two is right. i want to know why, without big assertions of what you think is the right thing. i want it parsed and i want to know why you think your view makes most sense because there is not a lot of precedent to

decide it. same for the mayor. isam you think option one is right. i want a clear -- as clear as you can, whatever president to help us figure out whether option one or two is the right way to go. >> [inaudible] >> you can make that argument. i understand. ok. beyond that, i think there would be open if you wanted to argue other issues in briefing but that is the primary one. how many pages do you think you need to make that point? >> that particular point? >> yes.

>> you with the abstract -- you want the abstract, not the fact of the case? >> here is what else i was envisioning. it would be helpful if we had 30 minutes -- closing arguments to tie together for us so in the briefing i do not think we need to see it. if you want to brief it, i would not object if you agree. but what i need briefing on is this option. option one or option two. are their options the commissioner would like -- commissioners would like briefing on? >> i would be interested in two

particular points on the same issue. if you could brief any legislative history on the charter amendment that included the second prong. that would be interested -- i would be interested in seeing. and whether you think which way that cuts for you. >> what do you mean by the issue raised in mazzola? >> in the muzzle case, a it does adopt -- mazzola case, ithe charter adopts the stand that was in the mazzola case that leads to the first prong. i would like briefing on which we that would cut. >> the mayor does not

necessarily agree with you. the mazzola case cites a number of legal authorities. the charter language comes from one of the authorities. it is not a holding in mazzola. >> that is the issue i am struggling with and that is why would like briefing on is what i am saying. >> i would have -- address mazzola and how it impacts option 1 or option two. >> anything else? 15 pages? >> there are additional issues and we have never had an opportunity to brief our understanding of the elements of

the case. even if regardless of whether you split into option 1 or option to, there are elements within a or b that i would brief and put before the commission. it is not clear with the duties of office are. to say that the duties of office applies to both is not -- does not help us determine what you can properly considered to be the duties of office. i would like to address issues like that. >> what does that mean? how many pages do you want? >> i would like to submit up to 30 pages. >i will not waste them. if i do not need them, i will not use them but it is more efficient to raise the issue then to have to come back and ask for permission and explain

why the issues mayor the extra pages. >> is there an objection from the sheriff? >> the mere fact that you need to do all this work to justify the case speaks volumes. if you want to give more than 10 pages, 15 should be sufficient. i know that we can do it in 15. >> the opening brief is 27 pages. >> commissioners, -- >> i do not have strong feelings about limiting either party. if you want to waste or paper because they think we need more education, i am happy to get it. so i would not strongly urge a page limitation. obviously our time is limited.

>> i am actually probably closer to commissioner renne. if that helps to lay it out -- [inaudible] were the bids 50 and 30? perhaps you might like to offer a number somewhere in between. we did i get to do much of that. >> that is true -- do not get to do much of that. >> that is true. in light of that, i would say 25. leave it at 25, as long as you briefly to issues we discussed. will it be helpful for us to have other applications of a lot of facts? that is fine. you can do that within 25 pages.

i want to talk about timing. the one thing i definitely want is an exchange of your respective findings of fact so that you have a column for your bottle position. i probably should have made another visual. it is like a summary judgment motion. i want to give you guys an opportunity to exchange those.

when can you have those done and when can you exchange them so that we have them. when can get those so we have them by august 10th?

the chorus to have the document august to attend. >> there is little which is more like an appellant argument.

i then we should focus on the facts. kerber there will be opportunity for us to as pieces of the questions about the law off and we will have thought your briefing. i will have this played a little bit more heavily to the facts. >> we would deliver our

arguments, then follow up question in. with this fifa on the facts of aloft? >> yes. if -- would this be on the facts of the law? >> yes. >> does that plan sound acceptable to the commission? anything else from the parties. >> know. >> okay then, the meeting is adjourned.

arts is -- >> my name is jamie hopper and i am with the san francisco recreation and parks department. llyr featuring the wonderfully romantic partner locations in your very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special.

starting of the technical segment, we are at the lovely and historic house of fine arts located in the bustling marina district. originally built for the panama pacific exposition, it is situated along san francisco's northern waterfront nearly digital arts center. it is accessible and is easily reached by the 28, 30, and 91 bus line. with the elegant rotunda and promenade, which is against reflecting waters of the surrounding lagoon and fragrant eucalyptus trees. it is one of the most romantic settings for special dates and memorable proposals. it is also a perfect picnic spot where you can relax with that special someone had while this means in the fountains in the lagoon at her.

beautiful to view from many locations and inside the column as an ideal place to walk around with your loved one. the palace of fine arts is the most popular whetting location in the system. reservations for other events are available on-line. shakespeare's garden contains plans referred to by william shakespeare's plays and poems. welcome to the beautiful and unique shakespeare's garden in the famous golden gate park. located near the museum and the california academy of sciences, shakespeare's garden was designed in 1928 by the california spring blossom and wildflower association. flowers and plants played an important tool of imagery and the placenta bleak throughout his literary masterpieces. here is the truly enchanting and tranquil garden tucked away along the path behind a charming

and wrought iron gay. his garden is the spot to bring your day. she will appreciate the beauty of the unique setting. the overarching cherry trees, the court as walkway and the brick wall. the enchanting stone benches and the rustic sundial. sure the birds words as you read the plaques on the wall that bring the experience closed at the famous verses from shakespearean plays. his garden is a sweet parts to share with someone special. pack a picnic, find a lovely bench, have led the whimsical words of william shakespeare flowed you and your loved one away. this is one of the most popular wedding locations available. have no parking worries by hopping on the bus.

just a little pocket park located at the bottom of the hill, it is a secret garden with an intimate and captivating appeal. carefully cut away, at the bottom of lombard street, where it makes the top of our list for most intimate and picnic settings. avoid parking hassles by hopping on the cable car. for the 30, 41, 45, or 91 bus. the new waterway is a, deck, and balanced trade made the guard and accessible. it was designed by famous landscape architects in 1957. the best is yet to be, it is described at a gem of a park. the lovely >> and splashes of

color roses year round. this is the place to tell someone something special who were declared to friends and family the commitment you share. wedding and event reservations are available for this hidden gem. i'm jamie hopper with the recreation and parks department. until next time, don't forget to get out and play. for more information about reserving one of the romantic locations or any other park location, call. this number stern grove and the county fair building or for any athletic field and neighborhood park, call. you can write us at permits and a reservations. or just walk in and say hello at

golden gate park. you can find more information at sfrecpark.org.