department up to 10 minutes for the project's sponsor or representative and two minutes and two minutes for appellant or appellant's representative? is there objection to this plan? the public comment period is now open. supervisor stefani do you have opening remarks? >> i'll reserve my comments until after the hearing. >> supervisor: i'll ask the appellant to come forward and present your case. have you up to 10 minutes. >> hello, honorable mem percent -- members of the board of supervisors. i representative the home soccer for the development located next to the project. the project will demolish a garden house located on a historic landmark site in order to build a new four-story, eight-unit residential building. the board of supervisors must overturn the planning department's exemption because an exemption applies. we acknowledge the city has a housing crisis but the planning department cannot circumvent ceqa. first an exception applies because the project is located on a hazardous waste and substances list. second, an exception to the exception applies because the project will cause a substantial adverse change to an historic resource. third, the project is not consistent with applicable zoning. the project is not qualify for reliance on the class 32 categorical exemption. ceqa wide line section 15300.2 establishes exemptions and when the exceptions apply the project must undergo some form environmental review. subsection e, 15300.2 states a categorical exemption shall not be used for projects located on a site included on any list complied pursuant to section 65962.5. this government code section requires agencies like the department of toxic substances control provide information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. under ceqa the word shall is mandatory. this means public agencies like the planning department must comply with the provision. the planning department has provided substantial evidence into the record the project is on a site which is on this list. in its attachment a, to the planning department's memo dated april 12, 2019, there's a letter from dtsc indicating it's part of the pg&e former gas plant site. the department references a property investigation report and work plan prepared under a voluntary cleanup agreement between dtsc and pg&e. dtsc includes the project site on the list it maintains of hazardous substances, release sites and subject to a response action. because the project is on this list, the planning department simply cannot rely on a class 32 exemption. to do so would be in violation of ceqa and an exemption applies and the e.i.r. must be conduct. contrary to the memo we have not argued the exception to the exemption applies. the contaminants is commonplace in the ground water and the planning department states the tracker database identifies over 2,500 facilities on sites included on the list. the site is part of that list. as a matter of law that cannot the class 32 categorical exemption. the exception applies. ceqa wide line section 15300.2 subsection f also provides a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. the project is locate the on the same lot as a historic building to the maravel land park number 58. this ordinance explicitly calls out the impressive garden shop to the south directly accessible from the main building. the garden shop will be demol demollished and the demolition will cause an adverse change in the significance of the landmark. it involves a physical demolition, destruction, relocation or allocation of the resource or immediate surroundings such the significance of the historic resource will be materially impaired. this demolition say is a significant impact and an exception to the categorical exemption applies. it's consistent with applicable zoning regulations. the planning department indicates a year yard modification was granted but we do not have a written determination from the zoning administrator. we do not know how the zoning administrator will make its three required findings under planning code 134e. in contrast to the city's position private views are not protected, light, air and private views are protected. the project will block the adjacent neighbors, their private views and cast dark shadows onto the adjacent residential unit and open spaces l will also be impacted by the massive building. it's also unclear what the project does to the historic antiques building and its rear yard requirement. we've raised this issue with the planning department almost a year ago and to date the planning department has not articulated how this can be constructed in the year yard of the mary vale antiques building. the planning department needs to address its own legal standards for class 32 exemptings. -- exemptions. this class 32 categorical exemption can be used only when i seen with certainty the proposed project will not have a significant affect on the environment. this is a high legal threshold. the city must conduct the appropriate level of environmental review. simply put, there is an exempting. categorical exemptings are not abs lut. the board of supervisors are asked to review this. >> supervisor: no one on the rost roster i will open up public comment comment for those who are in support of the appeal. if you're here to support either of the appeal you will have an opportunity to come forward now. you have up to two minutes. for those who oppose, there will be an opportunity later in the hearing. at the time those that support please come forward. first speaker, please. >> seems like a no-brainer to me. we just had a hearing like this no more than a week and a half ago pertaining to a shadow over an area affecting the original area of controversy. and because of that reason alone the proposal was denied. now here you are no more than two weeks later with the same kind of controversies. i find it aud -- odd you keep doing the same thing over and over again. and it's a pattern that's been taking place within the administration pertaining to this type of education and your housing situation too. both departments and mental health services all of you claim that you need permanent housing in order to treat your patients but yet you never give them permanent housing and you can't locate them in the criminal justice center. you wonder why. you are doing the same thing with building your permit building complexes. you need to stop it. enough is enough. >> supervisor: next speaker, please. >> supervisors it's a pleasure to be here. my name is stewart morton. 1971 i was one of the founding board members of heritage then called san francisco's architectural heritage and was on the land marks board sarment of my work with heritage and appointed by mayors, rosconi and feinstein. and this is lot 3 which is an "l" shaped. it's on the south end of the small leg, eight units, four stories. however, there's some shenanigans going on here which i need to tell you about. there was a report which did one thing which i'm a little curious about and made a big stink about. it declared a change of date. i can't remember what it is. the date of significance was changed from the original. they stopped in 1958 with the purchase of the mary vale building and declared the buildings we're talking about the demolition of the garden shed and garden itself aren't part of the historic section. and that's wrong. how can the report made by the developers. >> supervisor: thank you. nechls. next speaker, please. come on up. >> clerk: please speak directly into the microphone. >> my name is patricia williams. i love on the corner of butchanon and bay street. i'm happy with the recently built apartment put there. i'm opposed. what about the air circulation when all the buildings are pushed together. what's the rental price point? what's the location of the bike and storage? what are the proposed changes to the street? it's a narrow street and parking on both sides is becoming more and more congested with large trucks, delivery trucks, etcetera. are there proposals for a one-way street or be an overcrowded two-way street. the affect on our retail neighbors has not been good during the construction of the last apartment. they lost many customers because people could find to place to park. the air quality of the whole area is of concern. the historical views have been addressed. the garden house is lovely and i'd love to see it turn into housing if that's an issue. >> supervisor: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> supervisors my name is arnold cohen. please support the peel signed by the condo association against the 3620 bucannon project. and again, as stuart mentioned, 59 lot 3 this is the area that we're talking about. that area includes 3620 buchanan with 3636 bucannon and 55 north point. the san francisco land marks preservation advisory board, the predecessor to the h.p.c. designate the entire area as stuart said, block 459 lot three as the mary vale historical landmark 58. in january, 1974. the board of supervisors, a predecessor board to you, passed ordinance 12-74 making the mary vale designation a san francisco loss the dtic identified that area of block 459 lot three contains contaminated soil from the former pg&e manufactured gas plant operations. the ceqa law article 15064 and 150464.5 says it forbids demolition on a landmark area and requires environmental studies before any construction can take place on this kind of con t contaminated soil. please support the peel. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i own apartment building 12 units across from the proposed project. when i had the apartment building built 45 years ago, i was forced to have one parking spot for every apartment and i couldn't build it otherwise. now we have proposed project with only parking space for eight units to create a lot of congestion in the two stretch block of buchanan street. the street already has a lot of congestion. not just from safeway drugs but the events marsconi center and it's congested with a lot of cars. i was wondering what will happen when the building is built without enough sparking space for the residents on that street. thank you. >> supervisor: thank you, next speaker. >> a.j. lynch. i sent you a copy of what i wanted to say in words. i'll be affected too. we have the safeway trucks and good will and there's a lot of traffic for that. the 43masonic and it's a big area for events, races bernie sanders was just there recently. it's a constant number of events. i think it will adversely affect the neighborhood. >> supervisor: thank you. any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appeal? seeing none, then public is now closed. now we will have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the planning department to present. >> good afternoon, president yee and members of the board. before you is an appeal of the environmental determination for the project at 3620 bue annan street including the one story garden house and partial demolition of a patio and a new residential building and a portion of the garden space will be kept open as garden space. no interior or exterior changes to the gas light build at 3636 buchanan street are proposed. the proposed project was issued a class 32 exemption under ceqa and the project that meet certain requirements such as the project are exempt from environmental review. class 32 exemptions are common for in-fill development in san francisco. in addition, the proposed project qualifies for a general rule exemption under ceqa. the general rule exemption states ceqa only applies to projects which have the potential to cause significant impact. that is if there's no possibility the activity in question may have a significant impact the proposed activity is exempt from ceqa. the finding is also not uncommon. a class 32 exemption was granted for the 28-unit building at 1598 bay street and the project is occupied by the appellants. it's noted a supplemental appeal pact w-- packet was submitted yesterday and did not identify new issues not noted in the original appeal letter filed on march 4, 2019. i also note we received a letter when we arrived at city hall regarding preservation issues regarding the garden shed. the appellants had concerns i'll summarize. they assert the project site is located on or adjacent to a former manufacturing gas plant which may pose a risk to the proposed project and construction workers and neighbors and future residents. it's true 1598 bay street did contain a 250,000 cubic foot gas holding tank and gas station. as part of the development of 1598 bay street the site is being remediated with oversight from the california department substance control. the proposed project at 3620 buchanan street has oversight and the existing soil conditions do not raise health risk concerns for site occupants and nearby residents and the department of substance control outlined the proposed project at 3620 bucannon would be subject to the same health standards to the redevelopment of the appellant's property with a soil management and disposable plan and soil water prevention plan and handling of contaminated soil would minimize the potential for releases and possible exposure to hazardous materials. routine cleanup of subsurface contamination would not have a significant affect on the environment. the second allegation is the demolition of the garden house and patio would charge the removal of an historic resource. consistent with ceqa the department reviewed the subject building for potential historical eligibility and found demolition of the garden house and a portion of the patio would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource. the department determined the garden house and patio were not individually eligible for listing on the register. no significant events occurred within the garden house or patio. none of the owners or occupants were identified as important to local state or local history or does not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value. similarly, the adjacent garden patio was not designed by a master landscape architect. garden pa patio no longer maintains the original design it would be individually eligible for historic designation. though the garden house and patio were determined not to be individually eligible historical resources the proposed project still required the approval from the historic commission since the work would be occurring on a landmark site. the proposed project underwent design review to look at the planning code and with the department's urban design guidelines and the amount that would remain of the patio would provide the relief between the new and old building. the third condition is the project is not eligible for a class 32 exemption because of the rear yard modification. it cannot be granted to existing zoning regulations and the appellant's claim means the project is inconsistent with existing regulations. typically, however, ceqa disqualifies projects if they're inconsistent with the underlying zoning and require a rezoning to be made legal. this is not the case with the proposed project which is consistent with the underlying zoning. the option to request and be granted a year-yard modification is in the code currently applicable to the project site. therefore the granting of the year yard modification is not inconsistent with applicable zoning relation -- regulations. for those reasons we comply and the project is appropriately exempt from environmental review. the department therefore recommends the board uphold the ceqa categorical exemption and deny the appeal. that concludes my presentation and i'm joined by departmental staff. we're available to answer any questions. thank you. >> supervisor: thank you. are there any questions? supervisor peskin? >> in sof -- insofar as it calld out the area it's your contention because they were significantly altered after 1974 they lost their integrity? >> that's one part of the argument. the other part is the garden itself does not contribute to the significance of the landmark. >> supervisor: but it calls it out specifically. >> it mentioned it in the landmark but doesn't call it out significantly to being significant to the criterion one and three arguments in regard to the significance of the san francisco gas light administration building. so it was the determination after additional review to further clarify the significance and contributing elements of the landmark that the garden as designed in 1958 and the garden house while included in the landmark site were not contributors to the landmark. and then beyond that there were multiple modifications to the garden itself as it was designed in '58 and altered in 2000. >> out of curiosity, was that subject to certificate of appropriateness in 2000? >> in 1998, i believe. >> >> supervisor: so it did receive a c.v.a. >> we have documentation it went through the process. >> supervisor: in that certificate of appropriateness did the advisory committee because in 199 8 it still existed. did they have finding the rear yard changes did not compromise the integrity. >> it was granted the c.v.a. and there was an additional structures done by patrick mcgru and while the garden and house are lovely additions that are not historic. i don't believe it was looked at at the time so i don't believe the changes were seen and evaluated at that point to see if it would have caused an impact. >> supervisor: thank you. >> supervisor: any other questions? >> supervisor: i'll call the party sponsor to speak up to 10 minutes. >> judy knight on behalf of the project sponsor which owns 3620 b buchanan. as you know we're here for ceqa appeal of an eight-unit project. it's been through the architectural review committee and historic commission and zoning administrator and presented to sf heritage which provided a support letter and found it to be compatible with the adjacent gas light building. if we've gone through a long period of evolution with the project we think made it better over time and enhances the existing resource by opening up the garden wall, you'll see images and renderings what the project will look like. we're excited about presenting it to you today. to give you background, they've been in the neighborhood almost 40 years. in 1998 after admiring the building from across the street he purchased it and did a seismic retrofit and rebuilt the court yard. he's invested in the courtyard and building and a property that's development to him and having a development that's compatible with the building he love is important to him. it proposes an attractive development that provides much needed dwelling units and enhances the resource there today. staff pointed out the issues and 5898 bay approved the same entitled with clean-up of soil and rear yard modification as well as additional variances for open spacing and exposure. they had the further issue of underground storage tanks and accepted a categorical exemption. the units were sold and 3620 buchanan was underway and they sent a letter explaining there was development planned but both could be developed harmoniously. i'll introduce maggie smith to walk you through the design compatibility and take questions about preservation issues. i am here with the project sponsor and architect for any questions. >> i'm maggie smith a culture resources plan. we've been providing consultation to the project sponsor and project architect in virtual associates. i'll give you a brief overview of the site and review the compatibility with landmark 58. here is the subject walk and project site. landmark 58 is located at the northern end of the parcel and was originally the administration building of the san francisco gas light company's station. there's a courtyard garden at the center and non-historic workshop building at the southern end. the historic building was constructed in 1893 as part of the larger north beach station industrial complex. until 1958 it remained in the hands of the gas light company which later became pg&e. the historic building was designated a city landmark with the association of the gas light company and northeast station and as an example of the architecture. this understanding of significance is based on an interpretation of the 45-year-old nomination in order to meet today's standards. landmark 58 significance was not stated in the nomination but has been since determined as 1893 to 1958 when pg&e owned the property. the property was bought and rehabilitated and opened the antique store with a garden and garden housework shop by cliff ard connelly. this occurred after landmark 58's period of significance. the property was sold to pacific union land company and they completed an exhaustive restoration of the building. around 2000 the garden was relandscaped with plannings and design to become the courtyard it is today. in 2016 there was a historic evaluation. we found the garden housework shop building and courtyard garden are not individual historic resources and not contributing or character-defining features of landmark 58 as they're not associate with the development of the building's architectural style. page and turnbull have these features which include open space surrounding the building as well as those identified in the mimmage. the project team has been conscious of the historic building's mapping, scale, arcticlation and spacial relationships. the proposed project and page and turnbull and the analysis has determined the project complies with the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. and the proposed project will demolish the garden housework shop and the non-historic garden to construct the four-story multiresidenti multiresidential building. most of the garden will be retained to the historic building will be spacially separated from the new building. the footprint will be smaller than that of the historic building. the primary facade has masting so more lines are retained. if the project is removed in the future the form of the integrity of the property would not be impaired. the proposed height of the new building will not seed -- exceed the height of the old building and will have frontage similar to the previous building. it will be distinct from the historic building and incorporate materials and a color palate and it will have a band of dark brick incorporated to reference the historic building. the change in terms and color palate relate to the historic building's roots. the windows will be picture frame windows which nods to the historic building. the project is compatible and differentiated with landmark 58. the historic preservation commission has approved the ser cat of appropriateness application and san francisco heritage is in support of the project. this concludes our presentation. thank you. >> supervisor: an questions? -- any questions? there's no one. >> i have a few questions for the planning department. first of all with the claim, the hazardous waste claims. what steps will be taken to ensure no residual c residual cn will be brought on residents and neighbors? >> similar to the neighboring property the property at 3620 buchanan is not a third party to clean it up but the other of the property is responsible for cleaning it up. and the most recent correspondence with the property owner was in march of this year. and so they are just awaiting a set of plans. the department toxic substance control won't approve a plan to clean up the site until they know what is going to be proposed on the site and can only be known ones the project is approved the more formal process of various reports that are done as a part of cleanup will commence. >> supervisor: was that process successful for 1698 bay street? >> 1598 bay street is close to getting their cleanup closed as the department says they've had to expert off the site and -- export off the site and had to import a vapor barrier. there will be ongoing monitoring at the site but for project construction related cleanup it should be ann -- any day now the department should issue the letter. yesterday the department was working on the letter. >> but they were able to build on that site, correct? >> correct. >> do you have results of the mediation plan will be different for 3620 buchanan street and 1598 bay street. >> there are fewer contaminants at 3620 buchanan than bay street. any suspicion is the cleanup will commence. it may not be as complex as the bay street cleanup. ultimately it will be the determination of the department how it should go. >> supervisor: the same process will be followed? >> yes. >> how are the spacial relationships evaluate when it comes to historical sources? >> department staff. it can vary on the resource. in this case it was determined that the space around the landmark building was a character-defining feature. that's not always the case but here that was determined to be part of it and so there was quite a bit of review by architectural review committee of the h.b.c. and design review to ensure that there was retention of quite a bit of that space so the space right now is about 73 feet and it will reb -- be reduced to 50 feet and it will allow what was a historic space to retain so it will be more than just a size saetback. it will read as a courtyard or patio. in that case that's how it's determined is going through the character defining features and having an information how the space was used historically. whether or not there was buildings in that spaces and how it would allow the building to breathe and be viewed today. >> >> supervisor: okay. it's my information when it went before the historic reviewing commission there were reservations based on what we saw in the letter provided today but when they heard the history of the property and i'm trying to understand this, when they heard the history of the property some of the reservations were allayed. can you speak to that. >> i think there were some concerns about the landmark site and the analysis by the department determined the gardin and garden house were not contributing features to the site and so then it was about whether the spacial relationship of the courtyard and how much that was being retaped -- retained and enough of it was being retained to keep the character defining features to keep the standards and the finding was it met the standards and is the certificate of appropriate was granted. >> supervisor: the garden came before what was the historic preservation commission. and it was determined it wasn't historic. >> i can't speak to whether there was a formal determination but we have a historic structures assessment done at the time it was used as the background technical document for that 1998 case. it focuses on project changes to the administration building and it does determine that the land and garden and garden house were not historic. the certificate of appropriateness were granted. >> supervisor: it allowed alterations to be made and they were made? >> yes. >> the other thing in regard to the rear yard modification argument, the attorney for the appellants mentioned there was no year yard modification. it's my understanding there was based on lou -- how it came out of the planning commission. how was the rear yard modification decided? >> we weren't a party to the approvals in terms of the variances and didn't bring the planner but if the question is was the variance legal, i think the zoning administrator has the letter ready to approve this variance but hasn't issued it yet pending this appeal. >> so it's going to the appropriate channels though. >> correct. >> supervisor: that concludes my questions, president yee. >> i don't see anybody else on the roster and i'll invite members of the public in opposition to come forward. you'll have up to two minutes to speak. i see none. thank you very much. there are no speakers for this. i will close the comment for now. okay. so i'll invite the appellant to present the rebuttal argument. you'll have up to three minutes. >> thank you. honorable members of the board. it's to remind everyone it's a matter of law we're talking about right now. as i previously stated, a class 32 categorical exemption cannot being used. the planning department still has not addressed the fact that 3620 buchanan project is on this specific list complied as the guidelines as it states a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site included on any list complied pursuant to section 65962.5. this project is on this list. as the planning department has already stated, they have been in discussions with dtsb about the hazardous waste materials on the site. the department itself has produced substantial evidence into the record this is the case. the materials are also included in the planning department's memo as well as in the subsequent appeal letter we have provided to the board. this is clearly an exception to the exemption and the planning department cannot apply this categorical exemption. with 1598 bay street and the fact it too was also on the list, yes, someone could have challenged that categorical exemption as well. no one did. the statute of limitations has passed. the categorical exemption is presumptively valid and the lawyer that was otherwise representing 1598 bay regarding the entitlements on that project here they are today to also represent 3620 buchanan street. i'm not part of that law firm. i have been brought here to otherwise challenge the ceqa appeal. the matter at hand is clear, an exemption to the examination applies and the review whether an e.i.r. and the board of supervisors must affirm this appeal. thank you. >> supervisor: i have a question. >> supervisor: supervisor. >> 1598 bay street resourced a cad -- cat x and is therefore now a condominium complex and it's there, correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor: you're saying just because it wasn't challenged, that makes no difference to this appeal right now? >> that's right. >> supervisor: and did the developer of 1598 bay street at that time when cat x was an appropriate volunteer for additional environmental review and asked for a negative mitigated declaration or volunteer environmental review since the cat x is not appropriate? >> at that time, 1598 bay, they went through the process of the planning department provides to them. went through and and talked about the work plan and otherwise conducted appropriate remediation of the hazardous substances. >> supervisor: pursuant to categorical exemption. >> that is correct. >> supervisor: thank you. >> supervisor: okay. thank you. this public hearing item 30 has been held and closed. we'll now reconvene as board of supervisor. we now have items, 31, 32 and 33 before us. do you have final remarks? >> i want to thank the presenters who came out and the neighbors who came tout express their concerns. i take these appeals very seriously. we hear ceqa appeals and i'd like to address the three concerns raised by appellants today. first in regard to the hazardous waste something when i started to read the appeal concern med greatly. the project site is located on or adjacent to a former manufactured gas plant and gasoline service station which may pose a risk to the construction of the project and neighbors and residents. after looking into the issue and how the risk could be remediated i'm confident the california toxic substances of controls regulatory oversight of the remediation would ensure any residual contamination would not have a significant affect on the environment and residents and neighbors. in fact, as noted by the planning department, that same categorical assumption was given to the development at 1958 bay street. the property owned by the appellant. the clean up of that property was also overseen by dpsc and there's been no violations or complaints about the cleanup on that site. i have no reason to believe the cleanup at 3620 buchanan street would be any different and therefore pose any. -- any risk. i take the hazardous waste and safety of my constituency have usually -- very seriously. there's a website that tracks the transparency in the process. i don't believe the environmental clean up is substantially different in the property and does appear to meet the same standards for the categorical exemption granted to bay street. with regard to the historic resource, the appellant, again, looking at this, the appellant makes a claim the demolition of the garden house and portion of the adjacent patio would cause a change in the significance of the historic resource. consistent with ceqa the planning department reviewed the house and under the secretary of interior standards and found neither met the standards for potential individual eligibility or contributory status and found demolition of the garden house and apportion of the adjacent garden patio would not cause a change in the significance of the neighboring historic resource. with regard to the spacial relationship between the source and subject property was evaluated internally by department design staff and with review from both the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission and the historic preservation itself at two separate public hearings. h.p.c. found the amount of existing garden patio that would remain as part of the proposed project over 50 feet of distance between the subject property and historic resource would provide necessary relieve between the new construction and historic resource such the setting would not be impacted which i think is extremely important. after full review, the h.p.c. granted a certificate of appropriateness affirming the planning department's findings that the historic resource would not be negatively impacted. i take that very seriously and what came up today and the hearing in 1998, this is where i had issues. in 1998, the garden received a certificate of appropriateness and was not found to be historic and was allowed to be altered and underwent alterations. i think solidifies the decision. i can't get around it. under the substantial significance standard, i am a lawyer, i do not believe i have enough evidence before me to say the planning department got it wrong and the architectural review committee got it wrong or the historic preservation commission got it wrong. i'm not convinced and finally with regard to the rear yard modificationsprocess of granting it. if the modification is given, and i understand it's on hold because of this, the project is considered code complaints and consistent with the requirements of the planning code. the modification for this project will be possibly approved by the zoning administrator. it does not change the zoning. in this case if the rear yard modification is granted it does not mean the project is not consistent with the underlying zoning. it includes the option of requesting a rear yard modification. issue would be resolved through a conditional use appeal as it is related to the building permit. if this was a conditional use appeal, i certainly believe this topic, this year yard modification issues would deserve a modification and one i'd participate in. additionally if the subject property had required a zoning change for example, increasing the height or density through a special use district, i believe we would need to have a discussion around ceqa implications. so as we sit here today, the rear yard modification is not within the scope of ceqa because the underlying zoning has not changed. again, i want to thank everyone who came out. these are not easy. especially when you see the concerns and have a body of law before you and have facts and evidence before you and you have to weigh that against what the law tells you. and for me, i feel like based on the facts that i've read, i've read the entire pact and presented today, i agree with the determination as the a categorical exemption and i would like to move it forward and table items 32 and 33. >> supervisor: okay. is there a second? seconded by supervisor walton. we have a motion to approve item 32 with the planning department's determination and table items 32 and 33. can we have a roll call on this? >> clerk: [roll call] . >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor: a vote of 11 ayes the item 32 is proved and item 32 and 33 are tabled. [gavel] . >> supervisor: i believe now it's 4:02, so what i'd like to do is go to our 4:00 special order. madam clerk, can you call item 36. >> clerk: scheduled pursuant tie motion that the board of supervisors convene in closed session today, april 16, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. to confer with the mayor's office and department of ume human resources with negotiations with labor unions representing city employees. >> supervisor: colleagues, we have not taken public comment on this item since we haven't had our general public comment session so if there's any public comments on this ite

Related Keywords

California , United States , Land Park , San Francisco , Stewart Morton , Judy Knight , Maggie Smith , Mary Vale , Patricia Williams ,