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. i know that recently the city itself underwent a lot of 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. documents on there, and they did not bring them.