to certify these results on letterhead with professional stamp and signature. >> yeah. >> i believe that's what we're asking. >> for clarification. mr. ruscavitch was out at the site and testified things got mixed together. i propose to test the soil on the site right where the demolition took place. >> okay. >> and mr. fung respectively i would also ask that the potential for future projects on this site as the current applicant leaves the site and sell its and have a nsr requirement on the site so future notifications are required. okay. >> i think that is under the

jurisdiction. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. is there a end date and otherwise this is in perpetuity for all time and do you have that so if you want to set a maximum time. it could be three years or such time they have the notification requirement, whichever is first. >> until the law changes. >> well, that was what i was going to propose. until there is legislation that changes the notice requirement. >> until there is legislation otherwise requires notice. >> yes, exactly.

>> it is my understanding that the proposal being considered by the board of supervisors would require notice of all permits. >> correct. of this particular type of permit for this particular type of zoning area. >> so i wonder if there is a way to be more specific about the ending. >> all right. then let's do five years. if that's acceptable. >> okay. it works for me. >> okay. >> okay. mr. pacheco do you want to give this one a try? >> motion from commissioner hurtado toup hold this permit. first it's on the basis that the permit holder has stipulated to

provide notification for all new permits to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property except new permits that abate the current nov's and then there is a condition that the permit holder shall conduct soil testing on the site to be conducted by a professional soil testing lab. vice president fung -- certified? >> i think the request from dbi by someone who is qualified -- well, it's very general. >> i believe it's a certified professional testing legislate. >> okay. >> that would probably cover it. >> >> okay. again that condition is the permit holder shall conduct soil testing on the site to be conducted by a certified soil testing lab and this notice as stipulated by the permit holder is to end in five years.

>> [inaudible] >> i think it's easier for everybody about the lab. we will use the same lab that dbi uses which i understand is treadwell and lowell. >> i respectively ask for a third party independent lab. i believe the first group was peninsula demolition testeded their own soil and take it out of that pursue and have a independent one. >> i believe they send their testing out to a separate lab. they don't carry their own lab and i prefer not to specify a specific. >> and commissioners to be clear then the suspension on this permit is not lifted until the soil testing results have been submitted. >> correct. >> okay. >> okay. so we're not specifying any lab per se, and

who are the recipients again of the results? >> the paltant and the department of building inspection. >> very good. conduct on site and certified lab with results provided to appellants and the department of building inspection. notice to end in five years and the suspension -- the board's suspension of this permit shall be lifted when the results are given to the appellants and the department of building inspection. >> correct. >> okay. so we will get notice from then and then we can release further paperwork at this point. >> [inaudible] >> please don't speak from the audience. >> i apologize. are you saying it's regardless of the outcome?

>> we heard the question. let us deal with that. i understand what you're doing. no. i think if there are toxics in the soil it then becomes a building department issue. >> okay. >> we're leaving that situation out of the decision notice language. >> correct. >> so on that motion from commissioner hurtado to uphold this permit on that basis with the conditions as i stated. vice president fung. >> aye. >> president hwang is absent. commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is four-zero and up hold with the said conditions. >> madam director let's take a short break. okay.

>> january 9, 2013 of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now calling item eight.

appellants listed. the subject property is at 800 brotherhood way. protesting a letter of determination octobered 26, 2012 and that the conditional use authorization under motion 17022 with a residential planning unit development at the subject property is still valid. we will start with the appellant and you have seven minutes sir. >> well, don't start keeping time yet. i note that there's still only four members of the board present, and i infer from

that that the presiding officer won't be here. that being the case because we need everybody to hear the presentation. i would like to ask that this be be over to your next meeting so that all five members can be present. >> you know that our rules state that if the missing member cannot affect the vote then we will take a continuance ourselves. >> i understand that, but there is a difference between a presentation by an appellant body, and this is an appellant body without question, and trying to do it in a reit

rittive manner, and this like all matters that are appealed to you is very important with religious educational institutions besides neighborhood associations, and with the requirement of a 3/4 vote to reverse any action of a city agency, a city department, it is just glaring apparent to all of us that we must have the opportunity to present this to all five members at the same time including the president of the board of appeals, and so we respectively request that it be continued to the next meeting on the premise all five members will be present. >> just to clarify mr. cobb.

if what vice president fung suggested and does happen and the item is continued the member is able to watch the video of the proceedings and they're able to ask the parties questions to get additional information. >> i understand that. a second question i have is whether each member as read the briefs? there were three briefs filed. >> [inaudible] >> i can't ask mr. hwang that question. >> ms. hwang. >> let's deal with your first question mr. cobb. does the permit holder object? >> good evening commissioners. steve for farella braun & martel. yes we object to a continuance. i think the standard rules work perfectly

fine. if you continue all matters with four members you have a lot of meetings you couldn't conduct business and we object with the continuance and ask that. >> since there are objections it requires a motion by the board to either continue or don't continue. >> i don't think there is good cause to continue so i would not be inclined to do that. >> pardon me i didn't understand that. >> there is no good cause to continue so i wouldn't make a motion to continue. >> looks like we will continue mr. cobb. >> okay. so we can start your seven minutes. >> while before you start the seven minutes let me get an answer to the second question. has each member of the board read the briefs in their entirety? >> we received the briefs last

friday. >> has any member of the board read each of the three briefs? >> i don't believe that the purpose of this meeting -- the purpose of the purpose is not intogz of the board and the respondent's side of the argument and your side and for the board to make a decision. >> mr. bryant. >> yes, sir. >> as an attorney you know it's fundamental to have a person who is considering an appeal in an appellate form to be able to assure the parties that he or she has read all the briefs. >> and the briefs were presented timely and the board is ready to hear your arguments. >> i know it's ready to hear the arguments. i would like to make the arguments on the basis of each member present,

notwithstanding the ab70 -- the absent of the president and you all took an oath that he or she has read all the briefs. >> i think you should begin your presentation. >> start the timer. >> i want the record to show that constitutes an impediment and a handicap to argument in a forum in which the appeal is argued and decided at the same occasion, the same meeting, without a statement for the record that each of the remaining members of the board of appeals has read the briefs that have been so assiduously prepared and filed. this

appeal essentially involves a may 19, 2005 conditional use authorization with two relevant conditions. administrative and judicial action told one of those conditions, namely a three year building condition, as of march 20, 2007. that three year condition means that this project should have been built by march 19, 2010. it wasn't, and now there is no expiration or lapse date. instead the zoning administrator steps in and changes on his own on

november seven, 2008 in a letter of determination conditioned 9d. condition 9d of the conditions of approval provides us specifically that the project sponsor and i shall quote "shall provide and maintain publicly accessible pedestrian paths" plural "from brood hood way to the areas stated" and i hope that all members know those sites are within park merced as indicated in the pedestrian access and public transportation drawing included in exhibit b.

the zoning administrator modified that condition on november seven, 2008. substituting for it his own action stating that the pedestrian pathway -- singular -- shall be constructed to within 10 feet of the relevant property line. the 10-foot gap would permit some flexibility and alignment with any future pathway constructed on the neighboring property. the permission and the construction of the pathways -- plural -- for