locations. i believe it was in termsthere s throughout the city. director goldstein: mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. there are two main issues. this was identified that next to one building, and architecturally significant building, this is not a landmark building. this was a survey from 1976, and not all of the buildings that are listed our resources but probably, as we spoke with preservation staff, 90% or so,

it definitely would be considered historic resources, so when we are viewing this, we did know about it. that is why it was routed to us. he indicated that he was aware of these issues. this is not a feature that was located on the building. it is located adjacent to the building, and in reviewing it, there are those conditions of approval to try to address any potential impact that there could be on the building, and we felt that those were added conditions -- an adequate conditions to address, with the facility being located next to resources. so we are left with compliance. we have a building permit that was properly reviewed, was properly issued, but we still do

not, i think, have a good answer as to why it was built in a way that does not match approval. this may be the case. we just need to have a resolution here. even if they are directed by this board, and the indicated -- and the indicated that they would be. the appropriate mounting of the antenna. the other alternative would be for the board to have the ability to do this. these would be the two alternatives that we would like to see either they comply or that they cannot comply. thank you. supervisor avalos: -- vice

president garcia: coming into compliance? >> then we would have to revoke it. commissioner fung: a two rating, is that not a potential resources -- a potential resources and also potentially a contributory -- a potential resources -- resource. >> given that it is a rating, i think that one was the high, and there was the low, if i remember correctly. i think we would assume this is

a resource. commissioner fung: one is low. >> and 5 is high. i will double-check. commissioner fung: i do not remember looking at that for quite awhile. a potential resources, or it could be a contributory resources. >> i do not have an accurate response for you right now. vice president garcia: but if it were, that is a lesser standard. >> it is a survey rated building. most likely, we could consider a resources. that would be the default going into it. that is why we have the conditions to address that, and so, in our view, the conditions

mitigated any negative impact on the restores, and that is how we reviewed this. it is not a landmark. it is not a historic district. this is a lesser rating, but it is still a 3 commissioner peterson: i have a question that i would like to ask. we have a couple of visuals.

and this is just for visuals. i am not suggesting that this is what they should look like. could you clarify for me that the condition here is supposed to be flush mounted? is that the condition? >> that was approval from planning. a final review. commissioner peterson: he read from the project sponsor that it is basically complete, it looks like a very different type of construction project here -- hearing from the project sponsor. just looking at the scotus simulation, i think mr. sanchez korea -- the photos simulation, -- you know what i talking about?

they look the same note -- the same. there is the antenna on top. to build it in such a way that was flush mounted, would that not require a significant amount of change? >> i would expect so. it may very well be a situation where you remove the antenna and replace it with a freshman of antenna. commissioner peterson: completely remove it -- a flush mount antenna. >> if it is not appropriate, we will give the applicant a certain amount of time. commissioner peterson: i am asking you these questions

because we heard that they are substantial and complete, that is the word. to completely remove the pole and put in an antenna, for the complete project? >> to rather replace that topped -- top mast. that can be placed directly over teh pole -- the pole. commissioner peterson: and from your perspective, -- the pole is already there. >> correct.

commissioner peterson: i understand. thank you. >> 5 is the highest, in zero would be the lowest. there is some logic of that. director goldstein: we will take public comment? is there anyone who would like to speak to this item? vice president garcia: 1 minute, madam director. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you again. i live at 40 kashkari.

regent -- ashbury. sending people after the last proceeding, they came and replace some of the equipment, and it is much quieter, so i wanted to thank her, but i understand what she said that they have not touched the equipment because the permit was suspended, so perhaps i should not think her. -- note -- thank her. but the blood remains, and the blight remains in front for the architecturally significant building. there is also the issue of safety. also the building director. the engineering studies that

showed the this installation is safe, and there are none in the public record, so some concerns. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> good evening, a commissioners. doug. first of all, at both occasions, but these have been operational and continue to be operational, so let's bear that in mind. -- at both occasions, these have been operational. i think you should go the same way in this case, based simply on the compliance issue. the architectural survey already just rated the top 10% and buildings in the city, so a two- rating is much higher than it would appear on the scale. the bottom line is this should not be installed next to a architecturally significant building, and the planning

department, we are hearing it. that was in the back of their minds when they were reviewing this, because there is no evidence in their report that they took into consideration that building and made their conditions accordingly, so i really think you should also denied this permit. hmm -- to nine -- deny this b -- permit. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> there will should be no excuse for installing these in correctly. they are hiding behind fat. they are fully operational. they say they will bring it in line with planning conditions. meanwhile, the site continues to remain fully operational. i would be inclined to also think that they are collecting revenue at the site. i am not sure when it should be

judged to be complete, but this is kind of a process construction method. i do not think there is any excuse for these things without calling the planning conditions. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> good evening. i commend you on your first decision in the case before this. i would hope that this groups -- group, the puc, people can now, we can now deny -- can now deny th3 -- the wireless. three times may be ok, maybe not, but this is a big patterns, and the city does not have the resources to go out and do the

inspection that they want to do, but they just do not have them. i would hope that something would be done to stop this noncompliance, and i know it cannot be done here, but there are health issues with this wireless , so the thank you so much. director goldstein: any other public speakers? >> my name is alex. i would like to throw my support behind the appellant. also, note in front of my house, it does not sound like it is compliance, and it does not sound like -- director goldstein: thank you. any other public comment? please step forward. >> i am here for the appellant. with the materials that were provided to you are the two articles with those of malibu fires caused by facilities just

like these, put up just by nextg and some other companies, and these articles talk about the fact that these are not made for this had become a dangerous, -- for this dangerous equipment. it talks about the extensive devastating damage that occurred because of the fires that happened. the fire spreads tremendously, injuring firefighters, causing millions and millions of dollars of damage. the articles also taught coat -- no one would take responsibility. nextg said they were not

responsible. it is in the articles. thank you. director goldstein: anyone else? seeing none, mr. tornheim, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> the other cases that they investigated, they are not flushing out the antennas, and what seems to be happening is that they are in a rush to get things up before this was put forth to get the money coming in on their project. the woman from nextg said that recommending it to their customers was the first thing, and then the city regulations, that is not so important to us, and i think we should send a strong message to them that the

city regulations are important and need to be adhered to, because we will of more problems with them if we allow them to put these things up and disallow the regulations that they say they're going to follow. i am a little confused about this issue of the finality of it. .-- it looks to be fully constructed, so i do not understand, "well, we are still working on it." what are they doing? they do not come by every day. they did come by and just the noise level issue, and i appreciate that, too, but that, again, shows they are not following boat -- following the rules. this was showing the specifications for all of the documents on there, and they did not bring them. i did not see what i asked for. no diagram. .dpw, i asked for a review of

how they reviewed the electrical diagrams and so on. they do not have an electrical engineer. so who is inspecting these devices? it is not clear to me at all. back to the planning department's review, i mean, it is very clear that there is no mention anywhere of this architecturally significant building. in my brief, if you look at the page, there is no mention of it. they did not take that into account at all, and i think the reason why it is clear, they have got all of these applications coming in. they did not have time to review that, and the time they had so many coming in, nextg is rushing to get these up as quickly as possible without following the rules, so i would like to ask you to revoke this and ask them for the proper documents, to come into compliance, and follow

the city rules. thank you. note -- director goldstein: thank you. miss, you also have three minutes. >> these show the photographic simulation. we submitted engineering drawings that did have the equipment specifications included in those drawings. then there was the photographic simulation. when we received that.-- received it, they built its with what was in compliance. the park that got lost is there is a separate letter that comes from a separate email from a separate person, and that was not attached to this. it was absolutely a responsibility to do that. i apologize fully that it was

not done. however, it has been caught, and it is in the process of being corrected. working with our contractors, we have redesigned the mounting brackets, and that is what you are looking at here, so in the photo op simulation kulpa note -- in the photo simulation, that is what you are seeing. paul -- it is built exactly to that specification. it is about a 30-minute fix to move the pipe mount, lower it down so the top of the antenna is level with the top of the bayonet. again, as soon as a permit is reinstated, we will do it. we will inspect it with the department of public works. if they have any issues with it, it will absolutely be corrected, just like any other, but, again, we were following the photo simulation. we were looking at the permit

based on what had been approved and had gone through the redesigned because of that miscommunication. also, regarding the public record, even though the department of public works does not do the electrical inspection, that is handled through a different but department. so that department is governed by the city, and they do check it. a green tag it so that power can be connected, and then there are final inspections to ensure approval there. for the wireless equipment, it was permitted. it has been constructed. it needs to be refined. they work with a public works inspected to ensure that it is done. even if this mistake was made, we will be remedying it. which we have not.

i do not know that we did fix this. i do recall that there was vandalism with the electric meter. somebody had to yank to the front off of the electric meter. .-- somebody had yanked the front off. [berl -- bell] commissioner hwang: how long has this site and operable? >> since november 18. under the old law, it is not a sign of completion. under the new law, it is basically saying it is complete. commissioner hwang: so under the old law, it has actually been functional, but prior to that time, it was not? >> prior to november 18, no, it was not functional. commissioner fung: how many of

your facilities require some type of modification, in terms of the antenna and in terms of the flush mount. >> i know we have seven under the 3-g and trying to do some quick mathematics, we had some for the 4-g network, and i believe of the panel antennas, a lot of sights of a different condition on them. it did not essentially change it. not properly reflected or they were never updated, and i think with those flush mounts, from looking at them, there were probably about 10 out of 65.

those are the ones that we still have the parts on order. " they have not been completed yet. commissioner peterson: i do not know much about your company and how many people are employed, but i get a sense that if there was a project manager in san francisco or maybe in san jose. >> we are headquartered up of sand is a, but, yes, there is a project manager in san francisco. >> your company could have saved yourself some trouble here, and perhaps things get changed at a lower level. there are some steps that could be avoided. -- there are some missteps. >> i go with them on the pole selection to have the least visual impact.

there was something i thought would be rejected by planning, and it was, and they came to me, and i told them, "yes, i told you it would be rejected. it would have obstructed a community resource." through the permitting process, i am getting better, but what i did not check is that our project manager integrated those two documents. the department of public works' permit and also that separate email from the planning department, and that i did not realize, but because i do not work with construction. i work with the cities. then it would have been caught when there was the final walk. but because this was done recently, it will be fixed before the final walk, so during the final walk, the city will not have to tell us we are out of compliance. we will have already fixed it. we will be in compliance. commissioner peterson: 80.

director goldstein: -- thank you. director goldstein: sir? >> the permit itself is an authorization. this allows them to put the bears on the location. the meter box, but the facilities, it will be done under a separate permit. in this case, as noted by the sheet, the building department, building department staff. there is an assertion that the department rushed towards the end to push through these permits. that has not been the case. the department has been consistent with approximately 5 per minute per provider per

week. it is carefully evaluated based upon process on these permits. again, i stated earlier, they have followed their process. this is about planning for review. i did come back with an approval with additional conditions that was provided to the applicant, and i am prepared to answer any questions you may have. director goldstein: thank you. if there is nothing further, commissioners, the matter is submitted then. commissioner fung: piscine seems

like the assertion that the proper review did not occur here, i am not in agreement with that statement, and it has not been proven to me. both they and planning recognize that there was a potential historically significant resources and gave it the review. i have not been able to ascertain that that was either russia or incomplete.

-- was either rushed or incomplete. the process of reviewing this has changed. at one time, there was very little that any adjudicatory body could do to a wireless facility, and then it changed a little bit in terms of how we could view it, in light of an urban design element and issues like that. the issues have become a little broader in terms of their review. it appears that the primary weakness is in compliance with conditions,