to the standard of conduct for persons holding that office. >> ok. thank you. chairperson hur: perhaps the thing to do, then, before we make these findings -- i think we are going to have to have another session after the sheriff puts in his testimony, his case. does that seem to make sense? do any of you see a way we could resolve that without an additional session? >> a session for the purpose of argument and briefing? chairperson hur: that is what i was envisioning. >> yes. i do not see how you can avoid it. chairperson hur: ok. we can talk about scheduling and really figure out and and date to this -- an end date to this,

if we can. ms. lopez is available the 18th and 19th. clearly, having heard here would be preferable, but i understand limitations. chicken be here the 18th or 19th? -- she can be here the 18th or 19th? >> yes. >> do we know those dates yet? chairperson hur: can people commit to the 18th? >> that is what i have been hearing. chairperson hur: the 18th is tuesday. the 18th is wednesday. i apologize. so, i am hearing that ms. haines is available to testify on july 18, in person.

>> i have not heard directly from her lawyers, so i am relying on mr. kopp. chairperson hur: july 18? >> that is my understanding, yes. chairperson hur: we will have her on the 18th. you said ms. lopez could be available the 18th or 19th, so let us put in for the 18th. i think that is a good idea. >> both? chairperson hur: both. is mr. hennessy going to appear live? >> not as far as i know. chairperson hur: so there are two witnesses, and they will appear july 18. >> we need to go over the sheriff mirkarimi's testimony to find out if we need rebuttal witnesses. i do not know whether we do. we might. we will look into it as quickly as we can. chairperson hur: everybody hold

the 19th. do not release the 19th. i would like to know by july 6 -- is that doable? that is next friday. we can do the 10th, if that is a problem. >> we might be able to identify the witnesses by july 6, certainly. i do not know if they are going to be any part of it. it depends how quickly the court reporter may be able to get us a transcript. chairperson hur: let us to july 10, ok? let us know by july 10 whether you have a rebuttal case you want to present. is that reasonable? >> yes. >> two issues, actually. one is we would like to have some date certain by which we will now -- know whether or not

sure if tennessee -- sheriff hennessey will be here on the 18th. chairperson hur: it sounds like he is not appearing. >> is that the commitment? >> if he changes his mind, i will let everyone here on short order. -- hear on short order. chairperson hur: if we did not hear from you on july 10, we should exclude him. >> thank you. chairperson hur: after the 19th, i presume you will want some time to get us, by citation, the evidence that supports whatever facts are actively in dispute. i will provide the parties with an opportunity to brief whatever legal issues they think need to be briefed.

you do not have to submit them, but i think we should give you a chance to do it, if you feel like. how much time with you need to accomplish those two tasks specs -- tasks? facts, supporting evidence, and the brief on the legal issues. >> i am sorry. one thing that goes into this is in terms of the rebuttal witnesses. are you going to ask us to proceed by declaration again? are we bringing people in for live testimony? one is faster than the other at this point. chairperson hur: i think we may just go with live testimony by rebuttal witnesses, if any.

>> if any. chairperson hur: timing-wise, how much the need after the 19th? >> i would think at least a couple of weeks. it will have to be digested. i think minimum two weeks. >> we would prefer three. i would propose august 10. >> i think, honestly, we would like more time. but we want to get this in. three weeks, we can do. chairperson hur: i am going to -- mr. kopp's client is who find it the most pressing. if that is agreeable to you, we will go -- >> ok. i am not available between the eighth and the 13th. chairperson hur: this is when the papers would come in, not the meeting. >> it is my understanding the board is out of session. no?

>> that will not trigger -- record is what triggers the board involvement. our submission of the record is what triggers the board deadline. >> and you are intending to submit while the board is out of session? >> no. >> that is what i was mentioning -- chairperson hur: we will get to that. i am cognizant. i really want to get this schedule. >> it is diminished by the fact we can really see this is not going to move quickly. we are happy to present three weeks, four weeks to them. chairperson hur: i am asking what you want. >> i think a minimum of three weeks. chairperson hur: august 10, to get that index -- in?

my thought is that, after having those, the next meeting of the commission, whenever we can schedule that, we would come to a conclusion. we would deliberate on the findings of fact and propose conclusions of law, and we would make recommendations on whether there was official misconduct or not. at that hearing, i would be willing to entertain some short closing argument, if you all wanted to do it. it will have been a little while since we have heard the testimony. if you would prefer that, i think i would be willing to entertain it. >> i would prefer it to ballooning at this briefing. but it does not have to be a long argument. chairperson hur: it will not replace your feelings about where the evidence lies.

but if you want to do a closing, i can see it potentially being helpful. >> can i reserve my recommendation on that? chairperson hur: sure. >> i am concerned that i may have aided in commissioner renne's proposal that the parties make suggestions about how the decision look or how to help the commission. i do not know if that is something you still also wanted from the parties. i do not want to have brought attention away from that, by accident. chairperson hur: i am not sure i follow. if you have an additional recommendation for how the papers should look, we can talk about it on the 18th. i am just telling you, whatever those papers are, when we want them. we will have your conclusions of law and findings of fact on august 10. the next question is, when

should we need to discuss this? what is the commission availability? second full week of august. >> dandy. [laughter] >> the week of the 12th? chairperson hur: the 13th. that week. it sounded like commissioner renne was not available on the 13th. >> are we talking july? chairperson hur: august. >> i apologize. my phone died, so i do not have my calendar, but i think i am available that week. chairperson hur: we can hold a couple of dates and see. what about the parties? >> the second full week, beginning with the 13th?

chairperson hur: not the 13th, but the 14th through the 17th. >> early in the week is better for me. the 14th would be a preference. i have obligations that week. chairperson hur: is it avoidable? we do not have much time. let's deal with available. >> i am not available on the 17th. >> the 14th or 15th would be preferable for us. either of those dates. >> what date is our regularly scheduled august meeting? chairperson hur: i believe it is the 27. -- 27th. >> it looks like that week from the 14th through the 17th is --

the last two weeks of august, i know are not very good for us. chairperson hur: i am sorry, mr. kopp. you said? >> i believe that week is ok. the rest of august is problematic. chairperson hur: ok, let us schedule it then. are you talking about daytime availability? one thing i am thinking is, if we can do it during the day, we do it during the day, so we make sure we get it done. >> we will do it during the day, if need be. chairperson hur: ok. >> during the day, i do have a couple of hearings. i have to look and see exactly what dates i have hearings in august, if it is during the day. >> i have a charger if it is an iphone. >> it is a phone i have had

problems with, so i think it will take forever. thank you, though. chairperson hur: do the parties have any unavailability, where absolutely things cannot be moved? >> no. chairperson hur: if you can hold those, why don't we plan to talk on monday? i will talk to the parties about scheduling. we can get a commissioner -- get commissioner liu's calendar and look at when we can have our last meeting on this. commissioner liu: thank you. chairperson hur: any comments from the commissioners or objections from the parties about the schedule we have discussed? >> neither of us is available to consult with you on monday. chairperson hur: ok. we can do it tuesday. >> or tuesday. >> we can work out a time. >> what time are we scheduled to

start on july 18 and july 19? chairperson hur: those are evening sessions, i believe. we have not set a time. that is a good idea. we probably should. why don't we plan to start at 5:00? are you available at that time? >> i do not have a calendar with me. the 19th is a thursday. many times, the room may be taken until 4:30, 5:00. perhaps on the thursday we can start at 5:30. chairperson hur: why don't we do this? we will send out the notice, or you can contact us by cc'ing. we will get it figured out.

reserve evenings the 18th and 19th. >> if it is possible, i would request, when we are hearing witness testimony, if we could be in this room. i know it is limited by availability, but it is better. chairperson hur: i agree with you. this room is much better, and much cooler as well. >> also. chairperson hur: the rooms, apparently are hard to come by. we will do our very best. anything else? ok. as is our practice, i recommend that we take a vote regarding the rulings that the commission has made today. is there a motion to approve, on an interim basis, the rulings the commission made today? commissioner renne: so moved. chairperson hur: all in favor?

opposed? ok, the meeting is adjourned. president fong: welcome to san francisco planning commission regular meeting for thursday june 28, 2012. please turn off all mobile devices. when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone and speaker your name for the record.

at this time, i would like to call roll. [roll call] first on your calendar, commissioners, the consideration of those items for a continuance. minnie and lovie ward playfields renovation is continued until september 12 -- actually, september 20, 2012. item 2, for 2764 greenwich street, fifth proposed for continuance until september 20, 2012. also under the regular calendar,

we received a request for item 11. mechanical car wash facilities -- this is continued until july 20, 2012. that is all i have. president fong: public comment on the items proposed for continuance? >> i'm an appellant regarding the minnie and lovie ward playfields. i have not been notified -- president fong: excuse me, sir. can you state your name. >> oh. we supplied 50 pages of comments on this report. they included cancer findings

from the world health organization and the international agency for research on cancer, among others. our comments pointed out lot of data as well as data gaps within the report. president fong: i'm sorry to interrupt you again. we are taking comments in regard to the continuance. >> i'm advocating for continuance, so. our comments pointed out data gaps and the report -- in the report. the report omitted the proximity of this project to an elementary school as well as the toxicity of the environment. we believe that in light of the fact that no responsible report has yet been produced, that july

12 -- approximately two weeks from now -- is an insufficient amount of time to appropriately review the report. this two-week window could only exist if the report were produced to date. to release at a later report would only compound the insufficiency. the public should have 30 days after the report is released and made available to thoroughly review. president fong: thank you. any additional public comment? commissioner sugaya: i do not think there is a comments and responses documents with planning declarations. >> that is correct, commissioner. it is not an eir. president fong: is there a

motion? >> issue the continuous calendar to the date today. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously and puts you under your consent calendar. on matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items on as a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which even the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing.

the first item -- 2012.0041b de haro street. i have no speaker cards. commissioner miguel: i recused myself from this item. i live on the 600 block of de haro, but not far enough away that i am not under a financial obligation to do so. commissioner sugaya: i would like to hear this. >> would you like to hear it now? commissioner miguel: whenever. >> if staff is prepared. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

the project before you is a zoning authorization for 444 de haro street which is seeking to convert 90,000 square feet into office use. currently the building as 100,000 gross square feet, of which 24,000 square feet is dedicated to parking. the subject building will receive authorization for 49,000 square feet of office space. there are no alterations proposed under this application. the project sponsor has submitted a concerned maintenance plan. it would result in 140,000 of gross square feet. the proposed project requires

the use of planning code section 8 cents bid has been found it eligible for the california register. 220, the historic preservation commission review the proposed maintenance -- june 20, the historic preservation commission reviewed the proposed maintenance plan. step was received no public comment on the proposed project and recommends approval. thank you. president fong: is there any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. john on behalf of the private sponsor. the building was built in 1920's as an industrial building. it underwent renovation in 1984.

it is currently being proposed to be completely converted to office use. there are no interior or exterior renovations proposed as part of the project. the current building owner has been a good steward of the building. it is in good condition. as part of the project approval, it also includes the mandated maintenance plan to ensure that the building will be kept in good condition into the future. i wanted to mention a couple other things. i wanted to mention that they could create a consistent use plan throughout the building, so the building could better serve the tenants, since they are all the same kind of tenants. and finally, it is an the close -- it is in close vicinity to a number of transit options. if you have any questions, we

are here to respond. thank you. president fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, a couple of questions for the project sponsor. is the square footage being proposed for conversion currently occupied? >> uh -- part of it is. most of it is not. the uses could be showrooms, pvr, water -- what ever else is allowed in the zone. commissioner sugaya: the space that is the office space in the building right now --

>> in 1984, the mix of the building was office and showroom and circulation space. at this point, the tenants, i believe, are under that office space. commissioner sugaya: ok. and it is staff -- and to staff, in terms of non-office use, can you tell me what will be allowed on the ground floor? >> currently, with the rezoning, part of how they are able to do with the ground floor is a retail or other uses on the ground-floor level. >commissioner sugaya: i can remember -- does it also allow for other regional type of

ground-floor uses? >> yes. commissioner antonini: this seems like a good project to make. it has been pointed out, it only uses 90,000 square feet toward the office space that is available. is also mentioned that it was built by staff this use would help to enhance the ability to preserve the building, which is something we do want to preserve, because we have active rent in there and it would have acted uses, which it lacks now. the also mentioned in the report, although i'm not sure why the existing businesses in their our office-type businesses. so, there is a bland. b-s that are not could stay, obviously. -- the ones that are not could

stay, obviously. i moved to approve. >> i second that. commissioner moore: just one question. the public is always concerned with these office conversions. transit impact, the office fees. there is a sentence in the staff report following the table on page 3, which it says we would like to have an explanation from the director. "please note that these are subject to change after planning department approval." what does that mean? >> it relates to the annual update to the feed. the exact dollar amount might increase depending on what the -- dbi--