which is to warp the sidewalk. >> warping the sidewalk would only solve the -- it wouldn't solve the entrance for 11 clement street. >> my last comment on that was in could be that one of the doorways may have to have a combination between warping and recess. >> or given the current condition where you only have one tenant, you don't have to improve it at this point. when the time came, come back and reapplied. i also recommend getting planning involved because they have done a lot of work on sidewalks of late. to the extent there is an

internal solution, but i think they can give you a quick input. >> commissioner garcia mentioned pricing. i don't have any questions on that. what is it that you want them to do? >> and don't cook the books on may, but if it is onerous, it might affect my personal decision to find out that it is costing even more than $100,000 because you seem to think that is the only solution. i don't disagree, but i would like to consider the other option. what it would cost to flatten the floor and the costs involved in that. if it is $100,000, i might go the other way. that is why i am interested in what the cost would be.

even though other commissions 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 sh >> 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 had it corrected. 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? cracks what conclusion would i draw from that?