>> that is correct. >> maybe we can hear from the planning department. >> in regards to whether or not these are vested rights, i would refer to the city attorney. this is not route to the planning department for review. this was an honest mistake. there was an honest mistake. that is how the mistake was made. in regards to whether or not the department would approve of the project as revised as suggested by the permit holder, we have not reviewed the application or all of the materials and we cannot make a determination at this time. the plane apart and has been

responsible for reviewing these. there has been in this is where we have approved. there are instances where we have denied. there are conditions on many of them. there have been problems with the provider complying with the conditions of approval. we would like a facility that would comply with any conditions of approval. we would prefer to see this. i can discuss the matter with the department's staff if the matter is continued and see if that is a suitable alternative. i did not have the opportunity to discuss that with staff today. thank you. >> is to any public comment on this item? >> one minute, madam >> please

step forward. >> i apologize. we have several cases after this. course i have been working on this for the past 11 years. we will provide some brief legal background in context of this issue. we began seeking permission to install these in san francisco. the planning commission unanimously denied the request. they filed a lawsuit a month later in federal court. they filed two lawsuits. both lawsuits for determined against the city based on a ninth circuit decision which was overturned in its entirety in 2008 by the night circuit.

as a result, you can have a hearing saying yes or no under federal law which would allow the decision. the state's is unresolved at the california supreme court level. this does not preclude you from voting against this permit. >> i live across the street from the coopers. i ask that you repeal the permit for the facility and make them start over using the guidelines from the legislation. it is important for the residents to have the ability to make comments to the planning department. i have no problem gathering 29 signatures and could have

gathered more. there was universal support. we are tired of the snarl of wires and boxes that we are living under. it seems that we're further burdened with equipment. this is not about a question of a lack of neighborliness. they said that they should not be penalized for the city's mistakes. it seems that they have benefited from the lack of regulation and oversight. human beings make a mistake, especially given how quickly things go through the city. this should be considered part of doing business. >> thank you. >> i am speaking in support of the appellant. we have the jurisdiction

request on this matter. what came up was that they were accelerating the installation of these devices because it was before the avalos legislation that had gone into effect. i was working with john avalos on this and was aware of this. i asked them about the devices that were being put up and i asked for information and i got it. it was accelerated here at the end right before the legislation. you can see in this chart here up until 2010 and this month is september for the legislation.

>> next speaker, please. >> i own a property where there is a similar antenna put up and we were not notified. i feel like almost everything that i do that affects our view needs to be reviewed by the city. i am very surprised that the boxes that are this large, not just the antenna, but equipment that goes with these boxes take up the entire view of the window. >> next speaker, please. >> i wanted to amplify the comments about neighborliness

which they threw at all of the residents of the block. i just wanted to give you an idea of how neighborly they were and when they were installing the equipment on the block. much of it was done to beat the clock. it was done under cover of darkness. they broke and dropped tree limbs on cars. they left cones on the streets. one of their trucks blocked access to a sunday garages sale. you want to talk about being neighborly. i don't think that this meets the definition of being a good neighbor or a good corporate citizens who seeks to gauge the conversation with us back there. >> is there any other public comment?

seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. >> i would like to make minor cosmetic alterations. they have offered a very minor change that does not alter any of the supporting equipment boxes at st. levels and is not have an impact on air grievances. we found it hard to take the side modifications too seriously because they don't seem to take the planning conditions seriously.they had seven piecesh identical requirements reviewed by the planning department. in an attempt to understand what the design might look like, i have visited the antenna.

this was the example that was referenced in the written response. i also visited four other locations in the richmond district that had a similar condition. after five visits, i saw five antennas that did not comply with the condition of approval. they all had a pipe amount antenna. please note that they would have to these conditions before they started construction. it would appear that this is not in compliance with conditions of approval. the example case that they reference in the appeals.

i urge the city of san francisco to carefully inspect their work. currently no inspections have happened. currently, we have a system where there's very little oversight into the permit reprocess and really know oversight into the actual construction of sites. i believe that this trust has been violated. we cannot feel that our streets which have been used in -- is separate. i hope that the petition that my neighbors signed reinforces the fact that our community wants this equipment moved.

we asked the board to repeal the permit and to tell -- to shut down and remove the equipment. they would need to follow the current city law. thank you. >> can we put them on the overhead? is that possible? >> i went to go see what the design would look like. this is the current installation at my house. as you can see, they are exactly the same.

it is hard to believe that they will not follow through with this proposed modification. >> i understand the city is 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