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? >> 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, the property to give security, but she's also her promise to do