that supervisor wiener had mentioned that it will allow the parking control officers to ticket an unpermitted vehicle. >> so i would second that one . >> roll call. >> commissioner adams? >> aye. >> commissioner dooley? >> aye. >> commissioner dwight is absent. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> e. commissioners that motion passed 6-0. item 10 is board of supervisors file no. 120193, public works code mobile food truck locations. >> i move to recommend this with one recommendation which would be that we would urge the removal of all formula relate trucks of being allowed anywhere in san francisco. >> we have a motion by commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 with recommendation that former retail trucks be banned in the city. >> just to reiterate the key points of this piece of legislation, this changes the perimeter, the distance -- well,, no; the 300 is not part of the distinction. what is being added is the 50' criteria that is saying a truck cannot be permitted. right now there

retaining wall, cannot sustain the kind of pressure that has been brought on it by the nonconforming unpermitted structures. and the kinds of estimates of the pressure, both the lateral pressure and the monen pressure, the lateral pressure at 1 foot height of fill is over 210 percent and over the moment frame it goes up to 250 percent, as i think i've written in my notes. the point is we hope this doesn't come down. there is an over 20,000-pound planter on it with 6 foot trees. none of this is really visible on the plans that were submitted to city planning and when i point it out to them they are rather amazed, they are, gee, that doesn't show it. i hope you can take an interest in this case and help me resolve it. >> thank you for your comments. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, item 4, update on the department's issuance of and response to notices of violation. >> good evening, commissioners, ed sweeney, deputy director of permit services. since our last update of the condition of the complaints and notices of violations, like i told you before, we abated approximately 2

said she understand as did i there would be no work done at the summit, that is permitted work, unpermitted work, we're talking no work and the reason why was because i was told there was no worris about the archaeological resources in the park, nor need there be because there wouldn't be any disturbance of anything at the summit that. is patently false. this permit should be denied without that work was done without the requisite archaeological work beforehand. this is described betterply the planning department itself. if you take a look at what it would require it's pretty extensive and certainly has not been done here. mary hobson did email me an explanation for that today and said that even though back in september she first contacted a company about doing a review, they decided not to go forward with that review. why she waited until september 18th, speaking of delay, i don't know. she was first told about the ruins that are at the summit by local historianrand richards in july. based on his comments, we had a meeting at supervisor farrell's office july 27th and at that time there was