we also work closely with residents who have questions and concerns about radio frequency, including three in the home visits. i go with the engineers so i have the chance to talk to the residence, because there are a lot of things in the world to be afraid of, and this is not one of those things, so it is helpful to have the engineer doing the measurements, whether it is the laptop and wireless card or the cordless phone, going to the window, showing them there is nothing on this radar. it makes them feel better, so we think it is well worth it, so during the response, the appellant said she would like a test in her home. this is an offer we made during the protest hearing. goowe are happy to do the tests.

i would like to request such a permit be issued because it was issued by the department of public works. if you have any questions, i am happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i will review the breeze from the appellant, in this case from our readings. request #7 through 10 were all statements and not increase for action by the department, although we did not believe we needed to respond. the request was to reject a technical information provided. ças a matter of fact, as part f

the process, all the equipment is reviewed to ensure they satisfy guidelines. the review the location and determined it is in compliance, and there was approval. notification was provided to the public. we received an objection to were the appellant did come forward and provided testimony. the department determined this was appropriate, and we issued it. the appellant has an appeal to reagan during -- has appealed. during the hearing process, through our tape-recorded information and our review of the document provided, the

primary concern of the appellant was our power, which is governed by federal law, and is beyond concern region beyond the purview of the department. what is suggested does not appear to be a change from the position there are issues as it relates to the federal government and not local governance situation. i am happy to answer any questions you may have at this point. >> any idea when the street is scheduled for underground? >> right now i know the city has expanded its underground funding and new revenue source, and it is not slated for underground in the near future or any time soon. >> the department will underground if neighbors pay for it? >> that would be correct. but what happens to an antenna

were you have two sets of the rights being violated now? >> currently they are allowed now to be authorized. when an area is underground, the associated street lights would fall under the jurisdiction of the bureau of light, heat, and power. there are currently no joint agreements. either individuals who want to install these antennas would need to get in an agreement for the contract and installation. if they cannot, there cannot be these antennas set need to be removed. >> i am curious. it seems it brings into question how reasonable if would be if someone were to expand the money

to put it on a cold, and you wonder what happens to the investment made in this case. >> typically undergrounding districts takes years. there are the established underground districts, and the property owners would have to identify the properties or stereo -- the properties. there is a schedule for cold removal, so it does take several years. >> thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? c. non, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> i do not think i could possibly accomplish what i would wish to accomplish in three minutes.

the task of reviewing this data is hard and long. i have a ph.d. in electrical engineering and i did this for years, so without reviewing the technical data, it would be extraordinarily difficult, so i had an expectation that instead of referring it to the health apartment, would work at it. i will try to summarize, and there are simply two graphs that i asked the dtw to ask to take out of the report, because they are inaccurate and misleading. the rest of the report, i had no issue whether it was accurate. i will show you the graphs and try to explain it very quickly.

thises a cartoon-like craft. the rest of the report is very professional, but this is a power density, and this is relating to and can thus -- to the antenna. they say there are two antennas, the maximum in the neighborhood and 0.1 of the average, so it is a cartoon graf not worthy of proper engineering, because in the same report, thises the actual lab here regard now this is 200 feet. the number would be 20, get a claim here it is a maximum of one, and the average is 0.1. i am simply -- i asked them to

remove this particular plot. it is misleading, and engineers and love their data for accuracy, but this is not. based on this, i say where are the measurements? i asked the dtw to insist where are these measurements, and i did not want to hear that it was just fccc. i am asking them to kindly remove this. it is for engineering and should not get past the health apartment. this shows the different countries. i think this is really pour for

the health apartment to except this and not simply reject it, because they are leaving on russia, india, china, switzerland. it is just two graphs. i am kindly requesting it is protected from the package, and it is very simple. >> i want to ask, what is your issue with the absence of certain countries? say that again. >> my issue is it is marketing. is to try to convince that everyone is on the boat, but not everyone is on the boat. >> let's say these graphs are erroneous. information is left out you would like to provide.

you would like to assume is in error. does it not go to that regulation? you have given us nothing on the merits that go toward anything i can design. >> you would not want one of your appliances to break, so asking them to simply put correct data. there was a follow up, and i did not want to overload you. >> let's assume you have all the better data. dozenth adapter you are requesting go to the issue of -- doesn't the adapter you are requesting go to the issuer of rf? thanks to your question makes no sense. >> does it give us a position to

overturn this because you are saying the emissions are harmful to those near it? is that what you are implying? >> no. >> you are giving us no light about what your issue is, other than the fact that you feel you have incomplete and data. that is all you have given us. >> nextg is submitting a technical support, and the deep two -- the dpw would reject it immediately. i do not think they can apply theiru÷ss8pñ mechanics so stricd not apply to other criteria that make the antenna accurate.

you can not submit it that way. they would not accept a drawing that is wrong when you're a good -- that is wrong. i am trying to be an inspiration by showing that measuring the power densities and not just a faltering is a very correct step in the right direction, and the first step is recognizing, right now the fcc is here, and we are way down here, but the city has to actually start studying the numbers like an electrical engineer. we are in silicon valley. i am going to stop, because i am on a roll. >> you are not providing any light. i did not know what your

objections to these permits are other than you do not have complete data. >> i showed exclusively this data is inconsistent. cracks what conclusion would i draw from that? >> you push back and say this is not an acceptable. if the poll was not 18 feet, you would say to resubmit this and get a correct. >> thank you. miss ernst. >> thank you, commissioners. i looked up the report. figure three is just four illustrations of purposes.

they try to put information that shows some comparisons, but they do not have to do with this site specifically, and the grass that has the numbers is also done at worst case scenario, so it was showing even if it were lower on the pole, it would be in compliance, and i want to emphasize we will be doing a test after the installation is complete. i believe this is closer to 45 or 50 feet off the ground. i will make a note to provide it to appellants so they have thought. thank you. >> anything further? >> at this point the department would have nothing to add that would be germane to this hearing.

>> if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. >> i think i understand the point raised by the appellants. i do not think they go to the question of whether we should grant for repeal or reject the permit, but i appreciate that you raise them today. >> i am in agreement. one could infer from the appellants argument that the department erredç because they did not have correct

information. i am not sure her argument rises to that level, and i have nothing in front of me that would allow me to overturn the permit. >> i think i am in agreement with the rest of the commission. good >> basically, even though the appellant explain that the arguments and would not go towards rating frequencies and whether they are not permissible levels, and we have to decide whether or not it confirms to standards as to whether we allow these facilities to be on the pole,

and planning requires it have a certain kind of racket and that it be painted a certain color and conform to that, and this board is not allowed to go into issues that have to do with radio frequencies and whether or not this is harmful to individuals who lives close to where the antennas are, so to bring an appeal before this body, and i did not mean to be offensive. i was trying to hope that you would spend some of your time with issues we would have to consider or issues but would have us understand the of the lack of data has a bearing on something that was before us. it may be my confusion, but i think i agree with what has been

stated here, but this is a proper permit that has fulfilled the requirements of the two regions of -- requirements of dpw and the planning department. i move that we uphold the permit. >> is out on the basis that it is a code compliant? thank you. if you could call the roll please. >> the motion is from the president to deny this appeal, on the basis that it is code compliant. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this permit is of help. -- is upheld.

>> item 7 has been postponed. item eight has been withdrawn, so we will move to item 9, lydia lukian vs. zoya lukian, a permit to alter a building and install new doors at existing locations. we will start with the appellants or their representatives. you have seven minutes. >> my name is wayne canterbury, and i represent libydia and zoy,

who are residents since 1969. that is for a row on baker street, and i submit it exhibit thb to illustrate the row of houses forms achieve -- net the row of houses. there are spaces between the bedroom facing the south to the opposing wall of the neighbor. in this case the neighbor is ruth carlsoton, a woman who livs at 10 05 baker street.

she has applied for a permit to remodel her kitchen and construct an extensive system and wrapping around the rear of her home. this is the first invasion of that kind of space in the row of houses that was designed in an ingenious way to preserve white and security and privacy. we have met with ms. carlsoton prior to the appeal. she was very accommodating on a number of things. one was to pay for the installation design and purchase of a railing for a bedroom

window looking at the premises, and we believe she had agreed not to the concept of screening the railing so passers-by would not be able to look inside the bedroom window. there is a third issue i alerted our architect to, and it has some historical significance. there was some petroleum in an area were opposed was intended to be erected who supports the death. i think that is something we could work out, -- to support the deck. i think that is something we could work out. we thought we had an agreement with miss carlton, but she was

preoccupied with business. she was traveling. the time came to waive their rights, so she filed this appeal. we hope we will find we have an agreement, but if not, while we have no opposition to the kitchen remodeling, we would ask that any approval of the extensive subject system deconditioned on three points. one is that the agreements to pay for the purchase and installation of the window guard, a typical wrought iron railing that would be placed on the property to give security, but she's also her promise to do

that. we have apprise died at less than $1,000. we have asked that the screening beam and -- we have apprise it at less than $1,000. we suggest that it does not look to imposing. i would hope it would not detract from the otherwise elegant design, and finally we ask that measures be undertaken by the applicant to ensure that water intrusion is not increased as a risk by reason of the post and other elements of construction of the proposed debt, and that is my presentation. i would be have been to entertain any questions. >> just for clarification on the third point, you want the water

intrusion concern addressed? >> right, they are digging all whole from where the plane took place. >> can you be more specific about how you would like to see that? >> i cannot, because i am not an engineer, but my guess is he will have a number of ideas to address that problem. all we are asking is that if the address and the design element added to ensure it does not present an additional problems. >> thank you. >> the pictures you show, how wide is the breezeway. >> i do not know the actual with. i am guessing it is 15 feet. i can tell you the decking is built according to the current lance -- current plans, it would

be an arm's reach, and it is my understanding that anyone walking on the debt would have a direct you right into the bedroom window of the property. >> what are these windows democrats that is for the kitchen. it will be remodeled and opened up en. the entrance to the breezeway deck, that is the way she would reach the back deck, other than through her bedroom. in the near genius of this designç, originally were this s built in the late 1940's, is that when you stand at the

bedroom window and looks straight out, you are looking at a blank wall, which means nobody can look through that window from the other side. >> could you see through the kitchen window? >> it is my understanding that the bottom of that -- this would be who they did in the plants. it is my understanding is the carlton bathroom, but the bottom is at a high level. the counterpart corresponding window, built at the same time, is a bathroom window that is protected both ways by frosted glass. grosvenor -- frosted glass. even if you are declines to try

to look through it, you would have to stand on your tiptoes and look down, so we do not regard that as a threat. we do not believe people will be assembling in the bathroom. >> is that the only window to that bedroom? >> that is the only one much further to the right, further to the rear of the house. i believe there is another window, but that is really irrelevant. it would not give any perspective on the privacy of the window. >> are there other windows in that bedroom and? >> i do not think so. >> your assumptions are based on the fact that they are not

friendly. part of your assumptions are based on the fact that ms. carlton is not friendly with members of the warriors. >> basketball players? >> yes. we can hear from the permit holders. >> it is getting late. >> my name is stuart hills. i am the project architect. i have a couple of the exhibits. i will hand you copies in case you want to look at them up close. >> the board has to decide to accept them. >> they are going to be on the overhead. >> you need to provide a copy to the appellant as well. >> i already