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, and it is very difficult to get them to comply, but in this case, i think the process was at your to. i do not know what else you can do beyond the review of the departments, and therefore, i am leaning towards upholding the permit. commissioner hwang: could we ask to ensure that there is compliance with the permit? >> as required under any permit, and the board of appeals does not enforce those conditions, the department does, so that would be within the dpw jurisdiction to assure compliance with any permit conditions. vice president garcia: we can ask for a higher level.

commissioner peterson: one thing that i am looking at is that there have been some references to email, etc., about how that miscommunication, the briefing or documentation to support this. i think the compliance issue is really troubling to me given that it is so pervasive, and i would rather than make a decision today, continue it until we get that information. i do not know of anyone else would be so inclined. commissioner fung: commissioner hwang, what information are you looking for? commissioner hwang: the basis is some miscommunication in all of these cases. i have heard references to emails, references to the contractor got one thing but not another, but i have not seen documentation to support these

claims, and they may well exist and could be put together in a packet for us. i would like to review it. it would help me in terms of feeling there is some basis for this pervasive noncompliance. i think, commissioner fung, what you said about the process and it going back to the final review, it makes sense to me. and we have heard mr. sanchez state that there is a pattern here. i would like to see if there is actual evidence, not hearsay. vice president garcia: i feel somewhat differently, commissioner, because i think it

would be entirely appropriate for us to look at whoever is responsible for making certain that nextg is responsible and to extract whatever flesh. in terms of the correct levels of review, i believe they did go through the proper levels of review. i think it was unknown. i think that was taken into consideration. we certainly do not have anything from planning that would indicate otherwise. i think it would be a burden on the city and certainly a burden on nextg, and i do not know what

would be accomplished from looking at emails so i would be opposed to a continuance for that reason, and i would also move and see where that goes to uphold the department and to request again if fines are appropriate, that they be levied. director goldstein: any other commissioner comments? so we have a motion on the floor from the vice president to deny the appeal and uphold the department. on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. director goldst commissioner peterson? commissioner peterson -- director goldstein: the motion is upheld.

it 3-to-one. moving on then. we move onto items 8a, 8b, 8c. we move onto items 8a, 8b, 8c. vice president garcia: 5 [gavel] director goldstein: we are ready to resume the board of appeals meeting for march 16, 2012. we are ready to call the following items, 8a, 8b, 8c. 11-007 et isabelle mas all- terrain a building, replace

skylights, new gutters and downspouts, replace broken windows -- 100 -- 11-007 is an appeal protesting the issuance. 11-008, provus dissing the issuance -- protesting and issuance of a permit, and nancy wuerfel, you can go first. vice president garcia: within 10 minutes? >> if i can show photographs. good evening. the appellant protesting this --

my next-door neighbors. this will affect repairs that were not legally constructed or inspected and for which there are unresolved notices of violation incomplete. the reason for my protests are the failure for the department of building inspection to live up to its name to oscillate -- to actually inspect this done over the years by the current and previous owners and to not follow through on abilities " to follow through. this is according to the following codes. neither the 1984 nor the 2010 business code that lists construction activities exempted as included in the work

named in my complaint. specifically, the 12 by 14 foot position, the 198410 by 12 foot addition of a dormer, the 1994 in light unit reduct -- the 1995 -- the 1994 in-lw -- in law unit. it states its show be unlawful for any person to conduct, altar, repair, or occupy any building regulated by this code in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. the property owners applied for repairs to these illegal structures, which violates this section. owners were priced twice about the permits, first when they

bought the house in 2002. they were provided with a report of residential building records that listed the permits, and second, in 2010, the dbi produced copies of all permits for the property to this board and the parties but to my appeal last year. therefore, the owners were forewarned of the limited number of permits issued since 1914 for building improvements. since one owner is a contractor, he could easily detected that two editions, three extra bathrooms, skylights, paris -- two additions, three extra bathrooms, skylights, and the in-law unit -- the owners requested an emergency

demolition of the building, which was denied. i spoke with the director to point out to him on permitted improvements, including the horizontal addition of beat -- of the dormer. february 2009, with photographs. secondly, when this board asked dbi to produce copies, i assumed that dbi staff was also able to compare these permits with my complaints to determine that i am correct that it was done illegally. there were also the nov's. it allows side illegals i like to be replaced. if upheld, the dbi will be violating a code having to do with fire protection that states, quote, exterior walls

are required. skylights shall not be installed within 6 feet of an exterior wall. this was built right on the property line exterior wall. this guy light cannot exist in this place. the mold in the basement is likely caused by the faulty plumbing in the bathroom and the in-law unit. to abate the two 1994 nov's. it is listed as being, quote, complied with, without any mention that it would be referred to the planning

department. nor was there a copy of the nov or the permit. it was to replace plumbing fixtures that i just described. these fixtures empty into a sewer that was replaced without a permit, for which there is a four-year-old nov. it was never inspected, but dbi issued a permit any way to allow the illegal bathroom to continue. this authorizes re-roofing excluding the dormer, which was clearly done to avoid addressing the illegal nature of this structure, not that it makes any whether proofing cents. my complaint against this addition is that it is being

legalized. now is the time to legalize or remove both structures in conjunction with the repair work. even though the condition -- it did affect where the events were placed. my complaint about this remodel was open for 19 months, and nothing was ever happening. this past january, without ever taking place. mechanical code violations were visible on the exterior of the building along the side yard, and that passes illegally onto my property. appropriate things were not made because these would exit directly in front. located above the kitchen. therefore, the exhaust and the

end system for a remodeled, also, also other things were changed. the owners have moved back into the house. they have completed much of the work described in the permit that were supposed to be under suspension. therefore, there is no reason not to require the extending complaints to be resolved at this time. this has negatively impacted me. the dormer interest on my privacy, and the unit has been rented out in the past with unpleasant results. other neighbors have expressed concerns about the illegal work. the owners have made every effort to reveal dealing with these issues -- to avoid dealing with these issues. previous permits have been withdrawn. the building department as

failed to enforce the rulings that i have described. it has allowed the owner- contractor to cherry pick what to comply with, instead of requiring resolution about illegal work. it did not follow the rules. i would like to add least show you a few of the issues that i described. this is right next to this person's property line. it is illegal to have this guy like here. this is a picture.

underneath the door is a pipe event coming up through the kitchen remodel, and there is the exhaust pipe from the hood. it should be straight up through the roof, but because of the dormers here, they just did it on the side. and here is a picture of the contiguous roof. this is a picture of the world as is extended over the horizontal exposure. -- this is a picture of the roof. and there are the construction permits from dbi that identified the sky lights dot -- skylights,

and they also need to go to planning. [bell] we would see that there are prescriptions for how to do this. thank you. director goldstein: we can hear from the permit holder now. ms. gavin, you also have 10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners and vice president garcia. i am the owner. our building is about 100 years old, and it is considered a potential historic resources. first and foremost though, it is our home. it is not a monument. it is a home that we have been struggling to maintain despite