i urge mr. duffy, to give me an opportunity to meet, with the neighbors, engineer, and the neighbor's general contract. and we have that meeting at dbi. and mr. duffy was there and mr. patrick over here was there. i wanted to make sure that everyone concured with the process the agreement that he submit the drawings and you can convince him we will release that permit. that individual was dennis, and i have a great deal of respect, and 29 years of experience. and his comment was he brings me letter of compliances from the soil engineers and we brought in two soil engineers the process and the interaction with mr. dank, took until two and a half weeks and we finally obtained a permit and during that process, i wanted to make sure that the neighbor was aware of the type of drawings that we were developing. i kept them abreast, with a note, if you have any comments or concerns, please contact me, we want to make sure that once we pulled the permit, you will not appeal this permit. but today, this is wher

mr. duffy, anything further? >> i just want to add that even if they reduce the penalty and that's fine, i always like to tell people you have to get your permits. we have complaints everyday. building a deck without a permit is going to cause problems. this lady is here for that. maybe next time she'll come get some plans done and come down like everyone else does. >> i'm sure that will happen next time. >> thank you. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i would be comfortable reducing it to the minimum that the board -- >> $520? >> 2 two times. >> yeah, i would support that. i would also make it very clear if we are to vote on that motion that you have to get permits anytime you do building in the city of san francisco and hopefully this is a painful lesson of doing that in the future. we do see some mitigating circumstances. i think we are leaning towards reducing the penalty but we hope that you will take that into consideration next time you do any building on your property. >> i will move to grant the app

. >> mr. duffy? >> it appeals from the building permit under and for the request, was a formitt for the current permit for the building department and it received intake and the planning department reviewed and the building department reviewed and a mechanical plan check and then it got issued from the beginning on the third of october, to the 16th of october. i don't see anything on the permit that would not meet the building code from what i see of it. and i am available for any questions. >> could you address the boxes that were checked on the permit itself, box 17. >> i don't think that i have a copy of the permit. >> it was in the packet. >> i didn't get it. >> okay. >> one of the concerns is that the boxes were not properly checked and so that the permit was not proper. >> box number 17? >> it was checked off and... >> and it was raise the additional height. and it does not create a story, i don't think that the roof deck would be a story. and you know, that is not really adding, it is the heig

>> okay. >> well, mr. duffy, let me ask you the same question, that i just asked to see just exactly how far the negotiations have gotten, all right? >> and were there any designs shown at that meeting for the appellant foundation? >> there, i think that there are some meetings that there was no one from dbi and there was a meeting out there and at that time there was no, there was no design from any side, and subsequently 3032, and went ahead and got their design done and got their permit that and is peeled and i think that the meeting that they are referencing happened at the engineer's office and not then, we would not have been present at that time. >> okay. and i would say one thing, you know, in san francisco, we deal with these under pinning permits a lot. because of the lot lands and the excavations they are normally, and what happened in this case was that we obviously had the collapse and that started the mistrust and the doubts, and if this was done right, and this could have been addressed early on i

. >> mr. duffy. >> mr. duffy before you start, yes. >> let me add a side bar, the briefs that were presented and the testing that was presented so far, i was still confused. >> i was going to say. >> and you know, that i read them enough times that i tell you, none of it is clear, >> no. >> and so i hope that you will take that into consideration and explain it to us appropriately. >> you took the words out of my mouth and i am going to try to simplify it if i can and we have to work at dbi and the senior building inspector for the area and he would have been here for a while, but he is going to come here tonight to speak about it and we had several meetings and working closely in the last few weeks and we have also been in contact with the staying with the board about this case, and it is on that hillside, there is a process, and that needs to be take place, prior to the issuance of any permits or any work, i believe that some work started in the middle of the year. and the permit holder ended up with a bui

sanchez, mr. duffy, anything to add? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, it's in your court. >> madam director, these add drawings you say are supplemental so they would be conditioned on the incorporation of the supplemental drawings? >> that's right. >> okay. move to grant the appeal, approve the permit on the condition that the supplemental drawings be incorporated into record as part of the permit. >> great, to be clear these are the drawings submitted by the permit holder. >> dated 1/16/14. >> yes. okay. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to grant the appeal, uphold this permit with adoption of these supplemental revised plans dated 1/16/2014. on that motion to uphold and adopt and revised plans, president is absent, hurtado, lazarus, >>77 appeal no. 13-139 julio castillo dba "julie's hot dogs", appellanttss vs. dept. of public works bureau of street-use & mapping, respondent 4111 - 18th street. appealing the denial on october 16, 2013, of mobile food facility permit denial of permit applicati

. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, on this permit application it's under appeal from the building code point of view and from a building department issuance position. it appears that it meets all the requirements of the building code. it was properly filed and reviewed by our department and isht on october 16, 2013. i have looked at the plans and i didn't see anything on there that was untoward. i did see the walls, i can see where the skylights are located, that would be a question for the designer. i think that's where you were getting a. if there wasn't a power pit, that would be for the neighbor. if there is a way to do that but i'm not sure that's the case because of the stairs and location of the building. i'm available for any questions. >> what was the code requirement for the fire rated para pit distance wise to glazing? >> i believe we can do it to 3 feet from property line. it's based on the percentage of the length of percentage of openings in the exterior walls. i think they can do this o

. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, on this permit application it's under appeal from the building code point of view and from a building department issuance position. it appears that it meets all the requirements of the building code. it was properly filed and reviewed by our department and isht on october 16, 2013. i have looked at the plans and i didn't see anything on there

mr. duffy, anything? i would like to see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on public comment on this item? great. if you would do a few things if you haven't already, if you fill out a speaker card after you come out to speak and give it to mr. pacheco and that will help in the preparation of our minutes. folks who are able to lineup on the far side of the room and the first person can come up to the podium. i think we are going with 2 minutes. we are losing one of our commissioners at a certain time tonight. if the line can start at the edge of the podium. next person in line just keep stepping forward. each person is going to have 2 minutes to speak. the first person may begin. >> thank you, my name is elizabeth. i live on liberty hill street. i want to address the govd code section 655985 that mr. williams mentions. mr. genius recited j 1 about health and safety. but those criteria do not apply here. section 65589.5 j says as you've heard and you see in front of you when a proposed housing

>> i don't know if you want to wait for mr. duffy? >> yes. some questions that we want answered. >> okay. >> >> mr. sanchez do you know? >> commissioners, structural engineer, we used this last permit as a house cleaning permit as well. it is a series of violations from the past, one of them was dry rot, repair, and we wanted to include that response of the nov and actually put it as part of the list of items that we were going to take care of the roof deck and the parapet and the extension of the retaining wall and the patio and the response for the nov which is the dry rot repair. >> okay. >> >> i have a little bit more information this time, the original permit was actually to comply with the notice of violation and so maybe our staff saw that that violation was standing until all permits are seeupd off and added it on this permit as well, there was a notice of violation, it was probably a previous owner, but he did not say that but i imagine that it may have been a previous owner, and when we see a violation on there we like to reference t

mr. duffy, anything? no. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, the rehearing request is submitted. >> any comments, commissioners? >> i almost thought it was, i'm still not 100 percent sure because it's a little bit slight of hand changing the dimensions by saying you are changing the detail. >> i see no reason. i think that the point that santos, the engineer that the permit holder had the ability to do a pop out without a side yard setback. this is definitely less intrusive than what they could have gotten over the counter. so i don't see a reason i think that we should uphold the permit and deny the appeal. >> i think there was not sufficient new evidence to do a rehearing. we've already heard these arguments. for that reason i would move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. mr. pacheco if you can call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to deny this rehearing request, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda, aye. the vote is 5-0. this hea

mr. duffy. >> thank you, madame chair. no doubt before the crisis there were loans that were written that probably shouldn't have been written, given to people who probably shouldn't have qualified, no doubt. today there's probably people who should have qualified that won't be able to get a loan. the pendulum has swung too far over. we heard a lot about predatory lending, and that did go on, no doubt. but to his commentary and questions, you had a situation where his family -- i don't know if they qualified for the qm rule or not, but were able to go to a community bank or credit union and work with them in way that treated them fairly, and they were able to buy a home. i'm worried low income, moderate income, minorities under this income who had an opportunity to get a mortgage, to buy a house, they're the one who is are going to be left out. and i think that's what happens when you have big government coming in and saying we are going to set the rules. we're going to set the standards. we know what's best in small town

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners just as you inspect the building permit under the appeal, we did issue the site permit, on 22nd of october, 2013 and the addenda was submitted and it was partially through the review and so they do not have a permit yet to start the work and so no work has started as far as i can tell. >> and i am available for any questions? >> thank you. >> >> is there any public comment? >> step forward. >> is there a way to show this? >> i have been. >> my name is michael barerman, i am the neighbor who looks at this addition and i came here not planning to speak, but in listening to what has been said i feel compelled to speak. we have lived in this property my wife has been there since 1967, i have been here since 1975. we are 25 feet from the property there, and there is one house between us and i found out about this for the first time two weeks ago. i mean, we were not notified and tell me because it is underground we don't have to be notified and there was a meeting of the

. >> well, when i first saw mr. duffye substance all over his face and all over his mouth. nobody knew what it was. we walked him outside of the garage where he started throwing up. and he obviously appeared to be intoxicated of some sort. >> because he is vomiting, officer white takes duffy back to the hospital. after receiving the all clear, duffy is placed in the back of officer white's police car, heading for the jail. >> the first thing i did is roll down my window when he got into the car because i knew he would be vomiting. it would be a long trip to jail. it's fresh air for him to help him out and help me out as well. >> with his seat belt on and his hands shackled behind his back, duffy seems secured in the back seat for the trip. >> he wasn't complaining. it was just his actions. he was vomiting. you know, incoherent. he appeared to be intoxicated. >> but then -- >> as i'm driving down the freeway, freeway speed, out of the corner of my eye, i caught him already halfway out my window. instant reaction was i put

the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy for one minute. punic thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here with a hopeful heart to the director is going to renew his commitment to provide is so thin and transparent testimonies consistent this promise and the promise made from the cfpb to the american people. i'm interested in hearing testimony in regard to the data collection program. specifically the extent of the information collected on the american people and the extent of disclosure the american people get when you collect and monitor information on their financial trend actions. i'm also interested in hearing about the civil penalties on, how you find the dems, designate victims, decide to reimburse the nuns. we are where you're provided 14.6 million victim compensation yet i'm also interested in hearing about because of education and financial literacy program revisit it or 10.4 line for the education. but us at the 96 million unallocated in my content of these to those dollars are. with that i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr

mr. duffy: i ask the speaker for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to talk obamacare this afternoon and the fact that the president came out to the american people and said that healthcare.gov was going to work like amazon and kayak. websites where consumers are able to go, shop for products and if they find a product that they like, then and only then do they have to put in their personal information. their date of birth, their credit card, their full name, their address. healthcare.gov doesn't work that way. before americans can shop for products on healthcare.gov, they have to put in all of their information. their address, their date of birth, their social security number, into a website that isn't secure. i'm introducing the browse act, to make sure that americans have an opportunity to search the website, look at prod

mr. president, my name is otto duffy, resident of a nearby neighborhood here.ou know, if the only problems in the city were people scraping their kneecaps or something mild like that, we wouldn't be spending $20 million to support this edifice here. [speaker not understood]. all our long-term problems in our cities, we have for generations have had problems. that's what you're there for. so, that's how we should start the new year. let's address something. i have a couple of frustrations. one, i don't know what this body -- you say something is really [speaker not understood] unachievable goal like zero pedestrian does, i don't know what this institution is really capable of, you know, creating that, making that happen. i think you should aim for some more achievable goal, although it's good to aim for the horizon. trauma in general over many generations in america has been decreasing. if you look at the amount of trauma that's from [speaker not understood] vehicles it's four times higher than other vehicles. [speaker not understood]. my frustration is taking t

duffy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, thank you for being here today. i just want to go back to some things i think mr. paulsen had brought up. you'd agree with population growth we have to see about 130,000 new jobs created every month just to maintain the status quo, is that right? >> um, i, you know, it's not a very precise number, but something, you know, there are numbers kind of along those lines, yes. >> am i hitting the middle point there? is that a number that's a range, around 130,000? am i off? >> yep. tom agrees, therefore, it's true. [laughter] >> thank you, tom. and this month we created only 74,000 new jobs, right? so if you look at just to maintain, um, our employment rate, you have to be 130,000, but this month we're at 74,000. and i think often times america will hear the unemployment rate going from 7% down to 6.7%, and they would view that as the country going in the right direction in regard to job creation and economic growth. but would you agree that, actually, the reduction in the unemployment rate is not an indicator of strong j

duffy will be here senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and john fong with bureau and mapping. mr. pacheco please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers and please carry out conversations in the hallway. the procedures are as follows. department representative have 7 minutes to present their cases and 4 minutes for rebuttals. people must include their comments within the 3-minute period. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting on call the boar