is it too much to ask nextg do its homework? their actversely impacted my home and its surroundings. carelessness is not an excuse to sidestep the requirements of the law. what am i asking? first, the error needs to be rectified. the initial permit approval should be deemed invalid and they should remove their equipment immediately. all of the laws should be followed fully and completely. this means taking down the equipment and starting over. any new permits should fall under the recently affected -- effected avalos legislation, which attempts to regulate the placement of antennas to protect the city pair of beauty. it also provides language protecting private views, which is new. the antenna is large, a tier 3 facility. it is in a protected location on a quiet street with good views of the bay. it impedes not only street views, but neighborhood views of the golden gate bridge. the antenna is also installed right outside of residences. hopefully, the pictures i have provided give you a sense of how interested the installation i

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 t

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

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 applica

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 simulat

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. vice president garcia: 5 minutes? director goldstein: we will take a short break then? ok. [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 a

we are going to vote early nextg week on the democrats' plan and we're going to vote on the republicans' plan. it seems fair. let the american people decide which is the better to do.ever everyone will have a chance andr to be on record supportingo. whichever they choose to do. bri tsichever plan. i let me talk briefly about the merit of each of the plans and what they will do. d first call, h.r. one which wouli go downch in history as probably one of the worst pieces ofece of legislation that we've drafted in the history of this congress. first, this reckless republican plan that the tea party haspushe pushed through the house, that you're responsible proposal slices investments, cuts jobs and sacrifices security and and education. yes, it cuts a lot of money today.ouldose but america would lose so muchro to normal because these are madi arbitrarily, without regard for the consequences.that that is why lean independent int economists agreed it would hurt our economy, slow growth and owth cost jobs. we can't afford that. on the day before yesterday on thet national public radio, they ha