might not be so -- what date did we think was best? >> march 21 would be the easiest for the board. president garcia: i move that we continue this until march 21. i guess the permit holder in this case will come back to us with greater information to help us decide this issue. >> would you like to articulate a said middle briefing? -- submittal briefing? president garcia: i would like to have as much information as possible. i would pray that what ever they submit, you would work out the details to what you want for simultaneous -- >> we should articulate that. i would recommend if you want

six pages of additional briefing with unlimited exhibits, i would have the permit holders of at first -- firstholders to first submit. >> ok. we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to march 21. the public hearing has been held and it is to allow the permit holder to pursue other proposals. additional briefing is allowed at six pages per party. it is due to thursday's prior. appellant are due one thursday prior.

of that motion. the vote is 3-1. this matter is continued to march 21. president garcia: we will take a short break.

>> welcome back to the february 8 meeting. dr calling item #6, loren palmateer vs. maria virag.

system for testing the issuance of of wireless and box permit. -- of the wireless xbox permit. please step forward. you have five minutes. >> hello, my name is lauren. just to give you an idea of what we are discussing, that is an antenna. i am an electrical engineer, and i'll live in the neighborhood, and i was asked to look of the data, and we did a hearing, and we went to do over appeal, so i am trying to gather my thoughts.

it seems to be the feeling i am appealing on health issues. i know you cannot smelrestrict d and and not based on health issues, so i never talked about -- you cannot restrict based on health issues, so i never talked about. he helped us through the process, and we paid $300, and i see they were to respond by

february 2, so natasha is representing, and she has e- mailed me on the planes that were addressed in this appeal, so she clearly addressed complaints, -- the point, and i thank you. they were complete, and i would like to congratulate them for being able to put up the antennas. i wish i was in the spot. engineers love the data, so what i requested was seven through 10, which is a request for data. if there was no response

specifically addressed to dpw, so since i did not received a response, it is up to you, but i am asking for a government or of delay, a continuance. i think that is your choice. you know these items better than i do common -- than i do, and i think maria would like to speak. 5 i think lauren has a little more to say. i live in the neighborhood. there are bunch of people who signed the petition, so it is not only three of us. i would like to request of measurement for the dwelling and for the time frame, and i really

do not understand why the three antennas, because we already have one. there is going to be one across the street, and at&t is planning another one on the building again, so i have no problem with the mobile phone. i call my mom very little times i have all lost cause, so i think it is completely fine. we are happy with the reception, and i just want to mention, the only protest, and i want to say one more thing. we have another antenna, and i

am saddened about the fact but they build an antenna near the school without informing the parents, and at the playground, where a lot of kids go, and i think it is like an open area, so it is very hard to protest something like this, but i think you want to say something more? >> if you would address the board, because we have trouble understanding view. >> that is what i want to save. -- to say. >> i hope it was clear. if it was not, i guess you will ask questions. >> you are requesting data,

specific information you were not provided, and on that basis, you are requesting a continuance. is that correct? >> i do not know what that means. >> you would like figuring after you have the opportunity to receive and review the data? >> yes, i think the data is required to continue, or you can revoke the permit right now. that would be fine with me. >> mainly you are seeking an opportunity to get the data, review it, and have my hearing following that opportunity now? >> yes, you have to do that, because i do not think you are willing to revoke the permit. i would rather not have to come back. >> if you want to have a hearing on the merits, we can have i hearing on the merits.

it is either or. >> the first one. >> thank you. >> do we have that? we should give time. >> thank you, president garcia. >> there seems to be an issue on whether or not we are going to continue this, and i guess my question would be, my reading of that terror rough but was pointed to by the appellant says respondents, dtw, and a permit holder have to submit briefs. it does not say they have to respond to any questions asked by the government.

is that a proper reading of that paragraph? >> yes, but was the date by which the permit holder and the department could submit a brees. >> right, but there is no legal requirement that in order to be heard before the sword of specific questions be answered that are proposed by an appellant? >> the increase can contain whatever the appellant wishes. >> unless someone wants to make a motion to continue. >> i think that maybe it a correct the termination. we have heard from the appellant she would like more time to get their response, and if no response is going to be given, there is no reason to extend the time. what is your position? >> we would like it to be issued. it has been about six months, and we would like to continue construction.

>> you would object to continuances? >> we would object to a continuance, but i just handed and jon vaughfung the brief, so he may be able to provide some of that information. >> since no one has made a motion to continue, we are going to continue to hear the merits of the case. >> thank you, president and commissioners. i am the director of relations of nextg. thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. even though the appellants talk about it, i want to use this opportunity to give you a background of this facility.

there is a large primary utility pole on with three attachments. there are anti knows that extends over the building height, so they are not in proximity with the residents. there has been a protest for this location, and if during that process, and the director reviewed the permit and from the application to be complete, and the necessity was met, so those criteria were met for the permit. in addition, the planning department reviewed this location pursuant to article 25 and found this location would not significantly draft from the nature of this residential area. finally, we will talk about this

in more detail. the engineering report we got from a certified engineer who does a lot of good work here in the state of california and a lot of support to the city of san francisco, he provided us with the worst-case scenario and reports that was not based on this specific location, because you can only do a test for this location after the test is constructed, which patrick in his recommendation to approve said our report met the guidelines and is requiring this. we work closely with patrick when it comes to any questions he might have about additional information he might want about us. when he goes over our reports closely, if there is a typo, we have