did you do a separate notice? >> we discovered this, i believe, within one week, and then we changed it. the mailing for that was pretty great, so what we did was change it, the area of the corner is very minor, so we decided to leave the information on our website. president hwang: ok. continue. sorry to interrupt you. >> it's ok. so we basically issued all of the permits for them when they got their health and fire business license, and there are several permit numbers, which is, the single truck is 11mff- 0024 from 2011, and the renewal on that, because it is an annual permit, and the annual permits for mobile food, they expire on march 15 of every year, so this one was a renewed in march 200012, march 8, and that is for the single track. president hwang: did you say 0024? that was renewed? director goldstein: that was with 0035. president hwang: ok. >> and then 11mff-0021 was the m;ulti -- multi-truck, and that was issued february 21 of this year. so all of our updates are on our web page, and then for all our

, and i have always maintained that it is the party claiming the lack of notice, it if it got notice on its own are could never easily got a notice on its own, then you cannot say that it was the city that resulted in the failure to make the appeal, and our position is that there are two factors that indicate they have either had actual notice, actually saw a truck out there, or they had constructive notice, and by constructive notice, the city did publish in its proper place, the proper location, and its publication was available to everyone in the neighborhood, and they did correctly notice in that publication the correct site. dpw does it by mail notice, but it also doesn't by publication, and it is our position that as long as one of those two is done correctly, that is all the notice that needs to be given. so on the question as to why gr umpy's had notice, there are two permits before you. this is one of the rare times, and the other is for several locations for off the grid. dpw gave notice during the same time. that is the 15-day period. it so happens, and my client will show

there is no question here that they did not get notice, and they were required to be noticed, and the reason for that is while there may be many other ways to get notice -- president hwang: counsel, you are not answering the question, and you are making for their arguments. >> i do not know the answer. president hwang: the second question might be addressed by the answer you are given me -- giving me. i think you are going to the point that that is neither here nor there. that is not part of what we need to do today. was there actual notice by your client? >> there was no actual notice, and i think part of the reason is what you heard today. while it might be in neighborly act to try to talk to the competitors, and even while a california street may be super vigilant at looking at the website, the reason the statute requires action on notice is said that when you are here, you do not have to parse through the veracity of what is being said here tonight, begin to really do not know what happened, but what we do know is that the rules required the actual notice, and it was not given. ha

if you release notice to this decision and they have to follow through with the 30-day notice, but i cannot stipulate -- then that is fine, but i cannot stipulate to that. >> let me change this just a little bit. perhaps we can look at an expedited time frame from the date that the tenancy is over, that she leaves. let the construction be completed within three months of the vacation of the move -- unit. >> that would work for me. do you want to make that motion? >> so moved. is that understood, victor? >> and just to clarify, vice- president, is that basic -- on the basis that you would like the pe to vacate the promise -- the premises? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> to repeat, we have a motion from the vice-president to uphold this permit on condition that the construction be completed within three months of the unit being vacated and on the basis that the board would like the permit holder to abate the nlv. president fong: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. and commissioner hurtado is absent. >> we will move on to item number six, which is the appeal no. 12-050.

we have just issued the first notice of violation. the second notice of violation, and it was referred to re directors hearing on june 5th, 2012, which has not happened yet. that normally takes a process of -- it could end up with an order of abatement. but as of yet, that has not happened. >> how did the notice of violation come about? what instigated dbi issuing it? >> the latest one that i have, and this goes back to 2009, our housing inspection services. they went out there. it looks like it was a routine inspection of an apartment building. then there is a note that there is an illegal basement unit. then we have another complaint in 2012, fifth of february. it was received by the building inspection division. the first notice of violation was issued on 1/27/1997. iran has not beenthe inspector s not been renewed. the inspector issued a rare man meant -- a remandment. there was a notice that never are taking care of, so we created a complaint for this year. i'm not really sure -- >> what instigated that. >> it was an anonymous co

it was a notice of proposal. it was a notice saying this is being presented. it has been complying to our resumed -- review standards and hours are opportunity for a 30 day time frame to weigh in. the subsequent discretionary review is only sent to immediate and adjacent properties. this property is one away from that threshold. the policy that determines that has been in place since at least two thousand. with respect to the issues raised by commissioner hillis, this is somewhat unusual in that it was first filed in 2005. they went through three separate notification processes, first in 2005 when a discretionary review was filed and then again in 2011, the july 8th meeting that just mentioned. the reason there was no discretionary view prior to december, 2011, is that the project was not at that time entirely consistent with our policies. it was not a complete application. in the intervening time between 2005 and 2011, a significant changes such that when the hearing did occur, we were told there no more issues with the project. no additional d.r. was filed i

they gave an abatement notice in english. they did not give him a notice in english and chinese. >> any of the questions? >> i am done, thank you. >> the abatement notice would notify your client that there is an abatement hearing scheduled. the client attended the hearing. >> correct. there were deficiencies that needed to be corrected. a hearing after that, he corrected the deficiencies, went to the abatement hearing but was not sure what it was for or why he had to be there if he actually did correct the deficiencies. at the hearing, you will hear podcast, did you fix these things and he said i did. do you have proof and he said sure. where is it? at my restaurant. could i come back? we cannot do that. this is the hearing date. we're not allowed to continue it. that is where we are. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything else? >> eis there reason why you never mentioned any language barrier? >> i must say that i did not put those papers together. and i have only recently become involved in this. what it does say and i hav

notice of all of our arguments and now that you have our declarations, he has notice of all of them. we tried to work flexibly with the other side. try to deal with deadlines cooperatively and witnesses cooperatively. miss lopez just submitted a declaration and she's a sheriff's witness. it's late but we're not going to argue it shouldn't come in. this is an administrative body. we're all moving as quickly as we can. i would say having the declaration cures -- that's our position. what is stated in chief lansdowne's declaration is our position finance sheriff hennessey wants to answer that as their expert, he can answer that and be subject to cross on that as well. so we're not trying to hide the ball here. we're just trying to provide an effective charging document that gives sufficient notice. >> ok. we actually ended up jumping, i think, if commissioner liu pointed out to 3-b2. originally has to do with paragraph 45 not 46. given we just discussed 46, i think we should address this objection. because my -- my view with respect to 46 are different than 45. so what is issue in 45 ar

when that notice goes out. to stand up and say i do not agree. notice goes out to a smaller subset about the d.r.. >> which i respectfully disagree with. thank you. >> it is unfortunate that neighbors have not talk and discuss this project. there are architect and owner and engineering changes. that is unfortunate. a lot of these questions could have been addressed. i would agree with planning that it is fairly typical you get this third floor even in these two-story residential areas. they're all around the city that are set back. it is great that we're sitting that back 30 feet. what do you do with that space? you can leave it or do something like open space. i prefer the roof deck in these situations and adding more life to the street. there is neighbors that disagree with that obviously. and do not want that. my inclination would be to approve the project. and denied a permit. -- deny the permit. >> i do not feel i can speak with the same certainty. i think some of the issues raised by the appellant i think were addressed adequately by the pl

the first notice, the second notice, referred to code enforcement, scheduled directors hearing before there is an order of abatement. often we get an order of abatement with their property based on action. that is when we refer to the litigation committee. there are many of them, and they will have to pick and choose what they want. i know it is frustrating, especially for those complaining about getting the process down. sueprvisor kim: maybe from a staff perspective, the commission might have a suggestion as to how this could be streamlined? >> we could look at that. the director who is going to look at that, where we put in one notice of violation to get compliance, we like to know the time frame between the notice of violation and the directors hearing. it is a tough situation. a lot of these properties say that they do not have the finances. they still have not corrected the problem. sueprvisor kim: if property owners are renting to tenants, to prevent them, if their property is up to code and there are several interviews that are open and there is no one -- to stop them from bri

their position does not conform with the notice the issued. the notice they issued, there is an issue of whether it was understood or whether it was understood to present the documents. the notice says three issues. three violations on the 22nd. it did not say whether you fix them or do not fix them you are done. we had enough. you need to show us that you have a new operational plan in place. there was none of that. that is the basis and that is a fairness basis for a rehearing. there were only three items that were listed. vice president fung: we have heard this argument. thank you. >> i want to thank the people who came out to speak. that was compelling and very moving testimony. frankly, i am moved on one of these -- i one of these kind of people who want to give people another chance, but i have the images from the work done by the department to assist this individual, and those images are not going to disappear from my memory write off. the compelling testimony here by the public, i think is important in informing my decision that it is

one other item i noticed and some of you may have noticed is it's not a certainly a significant as vandalism on the playgrounds, but some of our street signs are being changed from a very easily recognizable with bold letters on a white background. i just recently found out some information from supervisor farrells' office that they said something with large and small caps are more recognizable. i think they are much harder to read. you may spot a few of them around town and try to figure out what street is. these are historic street signs, not the big green ones, but the white with and the numerals of the block in this. we talked a lot about historical items and those are historical street signs. maybe we can find a way to keep them in there along those lines. i'm going to try to take up with people on a street level because apparently the ordinance was passed and took effect in january of 2012 and required all cities to have at the same kind of street signs or at least similarly it laid out. it is a little disturbing, so we will see where we go with that. commissioner borden: it is interes

jedediah, you said you can't believe nobody noticed this until editing.d nobody noticed it but it could have been before editing, i guess. i don't buy that nobody noticed it until after the shot. i just don't. >> you don't buy it. it looks just like him and the guy points to it. it would be odd -- i don't see how you don't see. >> i think they noticed. >> they are not buying anything. >> i do agree with you. i think they offhandedly mention it because they thought it was an interesting, fun behind the scenes fact. it never entered their mind because nobody would be offended by it. >> it is that whole thing when you make a joke like when bill marr makes a great joke about elizabeth hasselbeck and they are like, i was just kidding. it is like, oh i guess it isn't bad taste. but they have been around with people who have agreed with him for so long. >> it is like letterman with palin. >> or making a joke about palin's kids. >> exactly. >> i think we used enough examples. >> my favorite part of the whole thing, i don't know if you saw the story about it. the

you notice the bottom, that gun could be turned 360 degrees so you can fire. if the gun is mounted on the parapet, basically you're probably only going to want about 180-degree turn, but it could be fired the other way, if needed. so that gives you a good idea. but you can see the abatis, and notice the abatis coming up on the pointed stakes as i mentioned on the outside. it's in the ditch on the outside of the parapet to try to keep enemy from coming in. but you can see that it is clear field of fire in front. this is ft. stevens, which is one of the many forts in the defenses of washington. famous, and i'll explain why in a little while. originally, this was known as ft. massachusetts. the people who built it, immediately after the battle of first manassas, which really scared the washington, d.c. area, and they started getting serious about building defenses around the city, so ft. massachusetts was built in the area by massachusetts troops. it was a perimeter of about 168 yards and encompassed about 200 men in -- in the fort. after second manassas, in augu