actual profit motive for mr. hollis in running his color scheme i have to say that his pride of ownership goes a lot further than that and is something that is important to him on a personal level, the he is able to, with his cars, with all the unique features he provides to his driver's, he is able to have a color scheme he believes is one of the best color schemes in san francisco. that is the pride of ownership that is entirely unquantifiable. next i want to address the issue in this hayashi brought up. her comments reviewed to liability insurance and make big speculations.

first, she says if he was operating two vehicles at the same time -- that is a huge speculation. the second huge speculation is if he only had an insurance policy that covers one vehicle at the same time. she has not shown that. mr. hollis says that is untrue and he at all times carried to insurance policies. i want to make that clear for the record. commissioner garcia: i do not know if this would flow with the other commissioners, but i am getting a clear picture of this. i am going to swallow that next comment for a second. i think that we should revoke the color scheme, but also think we should suspend the medallion for a year.

commissioner fung: i was thinking along the same lines -- suspension of both for one year. president peterson: i support that. vice president goh: i would support a suspension of the medallion one year, but i would not revoke the color scheme. that goes back to the regulatory authority. it is providing inconsistency. commissioner hwang: i am thinking back to the prior hearing, where we had a lot more testimony and argument on

retaliation and differential treatment. that stays with me when i think about the penalty. i am hearing more now from miss hayashi. it helps eliminate some issues. i think i would be more in favor of a six month medallion suspension and a one-year color scheme suspension. there is something a little bit lighter, in light of past practice. and we have not seen, as has been stated throughout, sufficient evidence from mta of where mta is on these policies. >>-- president peterson:.

vice president goh: i am going the other direction -- commissioner hwang: i am going the other direction. with president peterson, i so move. commissioner fung: this is overruling the department? president peterson: yes. four votes would be needed to carry this motion. >> the motion is from the vice- president to uphold the revocation of the color scheme and to suspend the medallion for one year. instead of revocation. vice president goh: yes. >> with adoption of findings at a later time. on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: agye.

commissioner hwang: no. the vote is four to one. the revocation of the color scheme is upheld. the revocation of the medallion is upheld for one year. president peterson: let us take a short break. president peterson: welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals. we did not administer the oath early in the meeting. i will ask to do that again, since people may have come in since that was done. >> please stand if you were not sworn in at 5:00 and intend to testify in any further hearing. thank you.

do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. president peterson: thank you. please call item no. 8. >> : item eight, appeal no. 10- 042, arza trust versus the department of building inspection. it is protesting the issuance to bille cayrot trustee, permit to alter a building. president peterson: if you would like to step forward. you have seven minutes.

>> president peterson and commissioners, i and the trustee for arza trust. this balcony is about 5.5 feet from our property line, less than the 15 beat planning codes required. they tried to legalize it and the city denied their application and requested them to move the ball. they finally removed it. after this construction, they build a new one. nothing has changed. it has been and still is an illegal violation of the planning code and an invasion of

the open space. this is a photo i want to show. this is the deck. this is the property line. we are only the adjacent neighbors being affected. and this is a 13 feet long balcony. it faces only our property and overlooks into our bedroom. this is for my bedroom. these are people standing there, smoking on the deck. and they made loud noises after midnight. they barbecue on the deck. this creates an unsafe environment on our property. they even use binoculars to look into our bedroom.

this is a big nuisance. we are trying to put our property -- our rights for living in a safe environment. this deck is an amenity and unnecessary. on the same level they also have a porch with stairs into the side yard. the use this to access their open space. this is another porch here. they have not been fair. both planning and the building department are not considering their own code processing in order to support this illegal construction. the planning department intentionally failed to give us notice in order to take away our

right to privacy. an independent body, the sunshine commission, issued numerous orders of termination against the planning department and the zoning administrator. there was willful official misconduct for violating our constitutional rights. this is the order of determination. based on this conduct, it has the effect -- it undercuts our rights. this permit was canceled by the planning and building department but was allowed to continue the process. the variance of information, the plans at the hearings, show that what was approved was 30 fax --

was 36 square feet, but what you see is 60 square feet. it was larger than the claim on the plan. variance decision was granted in error. it does not meet any of the mandatory requirements for granting a variants. they allowed the illegal deck built into the opening space. it is not in harmony with the principle of the code. there is 11 revisions of this project. as of today, they refused to provide us with the final revision of the plan, claiming their copyrighted. the federal copyright code does not preempt this. the building apartment is willing to violate the law and protect his illegal construction by not providing is a copy of the final plans and other public

information. they know we also informed them that the plans had in permission including the construction on adjacent properties. both planning and building department know the plan contains inaccurate information. the project has been cancelled permit and an inaccurate plan as of today. what is extraordinary and exceptional about this project is not the property or the project, but how the planning and building department supported this project by violating the law and violating our constitutional rights. i bring this for emphasis and the respondent submits nothing. the planning department carefully chose certain documents, but not the documents they have. building did not submit anything

and claimed a few days ago on july 8 they did not even know of today's hearing. they said they would not need to provide me anything. as of today, we have not received all the information we requested. we ask you to deny this permit at the very minimum. make planning and building comply with the law and provide us with proper information in order to submit an actual plan. thank you very much. commissioner garcia: i have a simple question. hopefully there is a simple answer. as of now, are you satisfied you have a sufficient documents to presenter case? >> no. if i have time, i want to mention -- the planning --

commissioner fung: please continue. >> the one that provided to us is without official stamps and signatures. that alone is a violation of the professional code. president peterson: thank you. we can hear from the permit holders agent now. you also have seven minutes. >> good evening. i am the property owner of 2642 hyde street. the building permit being appealed is our attempt to resolve the notice of violation by the appellant in 2004 and to clear our title. the question about the legality

of the modified balcony were resolved in due process by the variants decision, which was sustained over the appellant's appeal in 2008. the appellant's claim of fraudulent drawings is a miss characterization of what was in fact incorrect or incomplete drawings. the drawings as submitted for the permit and on file today are correct. the appellant used this claim in her appeal of the variants decision. it is not a new claim. the appellants claim the residents of my property are using my balcony for spying and throwing cigarette butts into the rear yard. the appellate also claims in the appeal of the decision -- also used this claim in the appeal of the variance decision. this appellate has filed more than 40 appeals.

the appellate's actions have caused this harmony in the neighborhood and to stress and financial -- significant financial burden. that is all. president peterson: thank you. is there any department a comment? seeing none, we can move into public comment. vice president goh: actually, may ask a question? i did note that the paper submitted by the appellant relate to a variance and created some confusion for me as i am new to this board. we heard from the permit holder that the permit at issue relates to a correction.

can you give me a little bit of assistance to clarify what is actually before us? >> this is a building permit application that invoked a variance decision issued by the department several years ago. it was appealed to this board in 2008 and upheld. this permit follows on net variance completion letter. >> can you address the notification issue raised by the appellant? >> from my understanding of the appellant, they did not get the dvn notice prior to the variance hearing. that was an issue brought up at the time of the appeal. i believe that was addressed. i believe the appellant has had notice of the project through

this process, through appeals to the sport for the variance. there was a notification for this building permit application. that was taken to the planning commission. the planning commission unanimously upheld this permits. all the others voted for it. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner garcia: i am sure you are aware the reason for my question was hopefully to avoid -- if this decision was avoidable to go against the appellant to avoid grounds for rehearing. in your opinion, have all the necessary papers that the appellant would need in order to proceed with this case -- in her hands? available to her? >> yes. i believe the appellate submitted in their brief, which was filed late on friday the ninth -- they send an e-mail to

me on thursday morning at 9:47 a.m. requesting the file. i responded at 11:51 a.m. to tell them the file would be available for them to respond to their questions. that file was available for them. i have evidence they did come in and review the docket on july 12, monday july 12. that is what they have asked of me. this is an appeal that was filed several months ago. the first request and received, to my knowledge, was the state. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: we will take public comment. are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> i was curious -- are you affiliated with the party? are you a co-owner?

>> good evening. the zoning administrator berries in granting its variance. the deck is not built to code. in fact, the rear yard has open space requirements. it affects our safety and enjoyment. if you allow this permit to proceed, you will take away our rights. you would give our neighbors more rights than us. we have been denied our due process and did not have a fair appeal process because when we voiced our objection against the decision, they withheld public records for nine months from us and released them after the hearing. it is the same thing for this hearing. we have asked many times for the entire file. he made a very serious misstatement to commissioners.

he said that if we wanted these public records we should have been dissension request. we found out we did not have to make a special session request. all we had to do was ask for their records. that in itself is a sunshine request. disenchants ordinance -- the sunshine ordinance commissioners found that they violated our constitutional rights and there was willful misconduct by these three planners. they are still withholding records. they deprived us from a fair appeal process. both planning and building department permitted the project to succeed on a canceled permit. they have been to all the codes and procedures to support this construction. the architect submitted inaccurate plans before and after the hearing, and since then submitted 11 revisions. still the plans are inaccurate. this is in violation of the building codes. this is a nuisance.

people stand on the deck, smoking, making loud noises after midnight. i have yelled of -- at them to be quiet. i have called the police department. the debt violates planning cuts. to legalize this is to continue to take away our rights for quiet enjoyment. i ask you -- why did they submit inaccurate plans? why does planning and building withhold public record? does this make sense to you? because it's the truth were told you would not approve this illegal back to be built on a rear yard. all our allegations are facts of public record. they are in your packet. i ask you to deny this permit. as the sun the administrator's stated, the rear yard has to be maintained. >> my name is ray.

as the old expression goes, i have no skin in this game. i am not a tenant or a party. but i was present at the sunshine ordinance taskforce meeting where the senior planner for this was asked -- he came up with a big box of documents and said, "this is the stuff we have given these folks." when he was asked for the five documents they asked for in this case, he admitted there were not in the box. i went into the hallway and heard him asked if he planned to comply with the appeal and provide the documents. his answer was an know. he turned around and walked away. i was at a subsequent hearing where the determination was inquired into. again at that time, brian smith, who identified himself as the director of i.t. and temporary custodian of records -- he could not answer whether all the

documents had been provided. he simply made a comment that, "we gave them some and then they came back and ask for more." that is not necessarily an indication of asking for additional documents. they found they had not received everything they have requested. i think those determinations are still outstanding. i think from having observe the behavior -- one other comment mr. smith made is that in complying with their record request the department has spent, and these are his words, 100 hours of employee time and tens of thousands of dollars. and yet the sunshine ordinance task force still found they had not complied with the request. at a minimum, these folks have been hampered in their ability to present an effective appeal. they cannot be certain exactly what has been presented to you for your approval because the department has been egregious in its handling of this. at a minimum, and would ask to delay this until they get the appropriate documents.

out right, i think it ought to be denied. these folks and tore it down twice. to come back a third time -- talk about sending a message. president peterson: thank you. is there any other public comment? commissioner hwang: i will wait until the rest of the public. president peterson: it seems there are no other members of the public who wish to speak. do you have a question? commissioner hwang: i will wait until the appellate comes up. president peterson: we are ready to move into rebuttals. if you care to, you have three minutes of a bottle. before you begin, i am going to ask you a question related to which specific documents you need that you were not provided. if you could let us know. >> let me say one thing. mr. -- miss sanchez --

>> is this a question without time? president peterson: no clocks. >> he gives me what he has. but the record -- the whole box. you do not know what they have. every time you meet them you see the have some more. the custodian of record planning is brian smith. he is the custodian of records. he is supposed to have all the documents. after the sunshine ordinance determination that the compliance hearing, he went outside the room. he said, "we will not give you what you need." i said, it is not what i need. it is what i requested. he said three times, "we will

not give you what you need." after all the hearings, they said they had given me everything. that is an independent body. president peterson: can you tell me specifically what you are seeking? >> first, the e-mails from the architect and also the architect plans. there are five specific documents the have not provided. the building department did not provide anything. commissioner hwang: what are the five documents? is that in your brief? >> i have given that to you. the order of determination. commissioner hwang: it is in the -- commissioner garcia: it is dated july 8.

>> they have to specific plans -- two specific plans. and i believe they have more photos. they were submitted on behalf of the permit holder. there were different than the ones the zoners had. planning have the record they do not give to you. you can only reveal the emailed to find out what they have. they did not give me everything. commissioner hwang: point me in your record to what it is you are seeking. >> i am trying to remember right now. they have two plans of the architects submitted to them,

and the building department has provided nothing to me. commissioner hwang: what do you want? >> i want the whole history of how do the process it -- why they can continue on the canceled permanent rejection permit. commissioner hwang: the reasoning for continuing on the cancelled per met? those of the documents you're seeing? >> this project has continued on a canceled permit. they must have some documentation. i have called and no one can tell me how it can be done. when a permit is cancel the cannot continue -- is cancelled, you cannot continue. commissioner hwang: anything else? >> that is