looking into it. you might not trust the pictures. >> yes, thank you. they have not completed any of the sites in san francisco. we are aware of this issue that these sites were not constructed by the configuration. this was not in the final permit. when we got the permit, it had conditions regarding paintings and it did not mention the fleshed out which is what we gave to our contractor. when i went through this, i saw that there are these letters from the plan department that have these conditions but that would not be passed down to the permit level. we have ordered the proper pieces to fix the sites.

the city will say that we have not done our final inspections and i assume this would have been caught by the city. if they had the permit and the letter from the planning department at that time. this is in the process of being fixed. regarding the accusation of russian legislation, we were rushing because of customer commitments. we have committed to have some things on air by the end of the year ending coinciding with bill launches of the networks in san francisco. that is the explanation. this is the best location. the boxes wall screen from the streets. we will modify this to meet

with the planning commission that the city has required in the other locations. they will meet what the plan department has asked us to do. we have not had a chance to talk about the fact that those conditions are not being passed down through the permits. are there any other questions? >> san francisco will do the legislative change in the city, no matter when they were constructed, will be going through the renewal process and approximately two years as they come up under the new legislation. we are working on different

types of configurations. in that situation, if -- we request that you modify because there was not of that act of bad faith. -- because there was not an act of bad faith. >> i have a copy of the permit that we issued. there is a page specifically referring to special conditions of the permit. >> we have specifically stated

that we have the equipment, cabinets, and send enclosures, also following all conditions set forth by the approval if applicable. the documentation clearly identifies the requirement for planning. as you can see on the bottom of this document, prior to finalizing and approving the permit, we require them at the conclusion to provide this so that we can validation of the site conditions to make sure that it matches not only to permit set the investigation to match what is being demonstrated. they have not completed that piece of information that has not been provided to the department.

therefore, these permits are still open if the conditions are not followed. the department will revoke these permits. thank you. >> would that be the same language on the noriega property. -- noriega property? >> yes. >> as i stated previously, i have discussed this matter and the indicated that this was a pattern of conditions not being followed. he was surprised that conditions were not being followed because the alternative is not what we concocted on our own and had no interaction with the project sponsor.

i think the project sponsor should be aware of the conditions. it is clear that the project sponsor was aware of these conditions. in regards to the conditions, they're not being met but that is ok because the permit has not been filed but i believe that these are in operation. they are operating but they're not meeting the conditions. thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> is anyone ready? i was waiting.

i think it is fairly simple. i think in the past, ordinarily, i would be wanting to defend someone. they did say this was a valid permit. they are providing the service for some people in the city in that they -- we all rely upon these for service. there are several issues here that make me not want to defend them and that has to do with the statement by mr. sanchez that there is a pattern of not having followed all of the conditions. also, we have had many cases come before us in the past where the issue came up.

this relies upon their having been a valid permit. that does not mean is valid. it means it is invalid. we have had cases like this before. my instinct pending the comments of my fellow commissioners is to overturn this permit and send them back through the process they should have gone through in the first place even though i don't think that they knew. >> i don't think that there is a need to repeat the comments from vice president garcia. i would like to add that as i understand it, this permit is still open. this is not closed. our board is here reviewing the appeal as part of the process.

this is not final. i am inclined to grant the appeal. >> i would support that position. >> i keep thinking of the same two wrongs don't make a right. i was contemplating one of the recommendations of a continuance for planning to further discussions. we cannot ignore the past behavior. i'm swayed by the comments of my fellow commissioners so i would also support an overturning of the permit. >> to someone want to make a motion?

>> -- does someone want to make a motion? rom>> we can review findings la. i would move to overturn the permit and grant the appeal was written findings to be submitted at a later date. >> on that motion from vice president garcia. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion carries. we will move on to item number 7 which is appeal number 11-005. the appellant versus the

department of public works bureau. this protest the issuance to nextg inc. for a wireless box permit. >> good evening. i'm the appellant. this is similar to the previous case. they installed this visually intrusive device. this is approximately 100 feet from my residence. they accepted jurisdiction at the january 12th hearing. three equipment boxes were attached to the polls.

the antenna was affixed to the top. the fiber-optic line now goes into the facility and steps were added. as i expect breast in the previous item, nextg rushed to do this before the avalos legislation passed. the planning department was overwhelmed with the sheer volume of applications. a result -- as a result, the facility violets any regulations governing the placement of wireless devices. this does not meet the regulations established by the public utilities commission public order 95. for either or both of these pieces, they should be revoked. the most salient reasons is in

proper review by the planning department that resulted in the placement of the wireless facilities adjacent to an architecturally -- building. the application indicated the planning department review was necessary pursuant to the city and county code section 11.9. the facility was proposed adjacent to the building. let me show you that building. >> that is 32-34. the plan department did review the application and did not consider the facilities impact on the significant building which was the purpose of the planning department reviewed in the first place.

i will show you to review the plan department did a good -- the plan department did. -- the planning department did. there is never do that this was an architecturally significant building. we do not dispute the significance of the building. that is because it is listed on the apartments and in 1976 survey. this has rated only the top 10% of the buildings that were considered significant. i will show you the document for that. this is a landmark board. they've found for this

particular side. according to the san francisco heritage. and architecturally significant building is the favorite category under the order. in an attempt to draw attention, the present evidence across the street and the other locations that are not adjacent. none of this equipment is located next to an architecturally-significant building which is why the city committed those other devices to be installed. the city regulations that were in place were not followed by the planning department and as a

result, this facility is installed adjacent to an architecturally debt significant building and should not be permitted. for this reason, the permit should be revoked. -- the facility is adjacent to an architecturally significant building. there is a sign, danger. this will could cause severe injury or death. -- this will cause severe injury or death. i would not like a device like this in my neighborhood. it is clear that the current state of affairs was no safety analysis is performed by the public until this commission, the planning department, or the contractors. as a result, it remains in question.

this shows that the overloaded polls do not withstand 50 mile per hour wind even though they were designed to handle 90 miles per hour. in that case, the owner of the poll did not assume responsibility for the safety of the poll, neither did the wireless carriers. the public utilities commission also pointed to the other items. no one would take responsibility which is no different here. in its brief, you can see that the puc does not inspect the facilities. nextg states "pg&e only issues a permit once it is verified that the equipment will not result in a violation of general order 95." they say that pg&e will inspect

this location and they make no assertion that pg&e has conducted an inspection of the polls. basically, we are not assured of the poll safety. the poll safety has not been demonstrated. because of it being adjacent to a historically architectural building, this permit should be revoked. >> i thought was reviewed by planning. >> it was reviewed but they did not consider the building. >> thank you. >> i'm the director of

government relations. thank you, vice president garcia and commissioners. so, the specific location was selected because it was one of the very few poles available in the area. many of these trees are underground. the streets directly to the north and south are both good and excellent streets. we knew that it was an architecturally significant building. this was approved. just so you know that no balls are being hit in here, this site as a condition of approval was required to be flush-mounted. as mentioned, we have all of the redesign done for flush mounting and we have the brackets on order to do this. i would ask if the contractor should go out and fix this one immediately.

we have not been touching on any of these sites. so, in this situation, this is not in compliance and it needs to be fleshed out and those things will be done when the permit is reinstated. they did best without an issue because the permit was properly granted. there has been no errors discovered because that implies that there is one. we have looked at a map and this has been correctly identified as just being an average street.

to say there is no oversight over construction does not give credence to the department of public works street map. there are extensive requirements that you have to show them when you apply. everything from radiofrequency to the engineering drawings. when the sides are complete, when there is an inspection, if anything is out of line, of course there is instructions to correct that immediately or else the permit will be suspended. as mentioned, we're still in the process definition of the final details because of the communication which we have caught and are rectifying. when this site is complete, it will be fully inspected by the

bureau inspector. for the electrical side and the warning label that was shown by the appellant belongs to specific gas and electric. that is over all electric meters. having electricity has a warning label to let people know there is electricity. our signs are green and they say notice. this is a requirement to know people cost notify people when there is any type of radio frequency. the warning is for the power. regarding the electrical aspect, we work with the department of building inspection and electrical division to look out and inspect the box and they issue a green tag. that says that everything is in compliance with the code and

then pg&e hooks up the power. that has happened on november 17th. that was for substantial construction on the site. june at 95, this is as a competitive company which is bound to comply and at this location, we have. the owner when they issued the site license, they verify that we are in compliance. we have looked to see what the poll loading was and if there was any structural issue. with the equipment, this is at 1947% of capacity. these are well under any loading issues that would cause a concern. the equipment that is surrounding when you look at whether or not, this blends in with the surrounding.

this equipment was not permitted by the city. these types of boxes have virtually no permitting within the city. they are just installed similar to wireless infrastructure before the 2007 ordinance went into place, which of course has now been replaced by the new avalos legislation. this type of equipment has no output. these go up under a standard in christmas but don't have any type of to involve the notice like under the new legislation.

nextg is a telecommunications company. the department of public works will not sign off on a single permit until everything is in full compliance. we would like to have the right to fully comply. our rights are vested under the law. because it was probably granted and was not able to be fully completed but this was substantially completed, we relied upon the permit in good faith. to the extent that there are any errors in the process is, we asked that the board respectfully uphold the granted a permit. >> good evening, commissioners.

the application for 36 ashbury is substantially different from the previous appeal. the department did identified this facility located adjacent to the building. we gave this information for review. they did provide conditional approval with the modifications to the facility. this facility was also reviewed. the equipment was reviewed by the health department early on. the department issued a permit which was appropriate. this was conditions of approval. our understanding is that nextg

is in the process of completing the construction. we are currently awaiting a decision by this board either to uphold the permit or provoke this permit. if it is upheld, this is an expectation that it is complete. it would be reviewed by staff. >> i am here to answer any questions you have. >> is there a certificate of final completion. >> what happens is that we track within the database. the applicant will provide the

electronic documents of the final -- and this will verify to make sure that it matches that the plants will go to side and then we will verify. the work has been completed. >> at what point can be operational? >> that is a very good question. there were questions that we had to go back and asked the city attorney's office. >> this was on the new order for legislation to identify. please don't hold me to this. the minute a signal is passed through these facilities, this

is considered operational. we would begin the two-year term. most of your permits require a final inspection of some type before they can be utilized or occupied. >> that does not apply to wireless. >> the answer is yes. this is very similar to the department's permits. we will renew this on an annual basis. officially, there is no completion date. >> what percentage of the city still has overhead utilities? >> i would not know at this point off the top of my head. point off the top of my head. i know that recently the