e-mail notifications of the permit didn't include a mockup of the proposed site and not instructions to file a protest that's a technical flaw and thirdly, i'm sorry if i don't have color images for i hope the tone of that image will be sufficient can we zoom in closely on this the simulation they did submit one pole that thing shown in this dark color and in the second simulation on the odds shows on invisible in another color the differs visual in black and white but you'll notice that the difference in color is even more remarkable now last time we remember here we had our support that the aesthetics of the pole were

important and that north beach flags that were meant for the north beach shouldn't be painted in the sunset to celebrate the italian heritage of the sunset we were really talking about paints on those boxes and at that point you used that has a rational whether that was the only rational i don't know but that was the stated rational i suspected it was to keep the argument narrow you believed us and were with us on the bigger issues you used the italian flab flag on a box to be good enough to kick this permit down the way what happened our neighborhoods galvanizing and asking you to again, if you're not going to take on the bigger issues channel that i hope you can find

into the technical language and reject this on a basis of a mistaken same large project not one color in one photo and another color staple to a pole i can't open it and say they've properly notified i ask you with all my heart to please reject this permit. >> thank you >> (clapping.) >> quiet please. quiet. >> we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> please no applause thank you. >> honorable commissioners

martin on behalf of the permit holder crown castle, llc as you know from the record crown castle filed a proper application and goat tentative approval and received the approval all standards have come applied with the permit the arguments were made the protest has been overruled and the permit was granted a variety of arguments in writing at the hearing today the once frankly have been an emotional nature but first, the appellant argues that dpw the hearing officer didn't allow unlimited time for people probation officer protest hearing to make unlimited length of argument when we spoke that

he protest hearing the record shows the hearing officer to limit their comments for the permit in consideration and yield repetition this is probably familiar to this board you've received this kind of manner and the appellant also claims that the hearing officer should have made the decision based on the number of names on a petition that was submit that's not the standard for approval before dpw and certainly not the standard here either and second the appellant argues the permit should have been denied because of sounds like level i've talked about those sound levels with the prior appeals both of those were explicitly considered and were the subject of conditions of approval both appearance and

size and location color you know paint color all the rest as well as specific limits about sound and third the appellant indicates that and it was sort of on emotional argument this evening that the permits should be denied because of concerns of revenue emissions that is essentially prohibited by the absolutely and the property value or any other way of freaking that and furthermore and ms. higgins indicated on the issue of rf - this facility will operate in down grades for rfp emissions a tiny fraction of the allowable limits and fourth the appellant claims the city

has evoked the control over the right-of-way i'll submit just the opposite is true district control over the right-of-way uses as an enacted ordinance and amended the ordinance several sets of regulations and it does exert integrity controls of right-of-way uses and fifth they claim it has right-of-way infrastructure not a policy and such policy will not make sense as a number of public speakers and public constraints mentions we're better for utility infrastructure on the poles that contain the structures so not to allow the - the sixth

argument the appellant maids they claim the notice was posted not proper it was exactly the proper notice i - with all due respect the notion was 19 it illegal to look at something posted on a pole they're for public inspection to look at what indicates a public posting a public notice the notion that someone is prohibited from doing that bears future discussion finally the appellant claims the photo simulation were not clear and put them on the projector again to the contrary several different pleasant photo simulations shows the poles were okay with that, i am respectfully submit no grounds were presented to justify the appeal and ask you uphold the

permit thank you. >> i have a question council a silly question looking at the picture of notification how that was stapled if the person is interested in looking at it and the public opened it up how to put it back on the pole. >> okay i did requires a visual it is a plastic slip sheet you can easily take it out. >> according to the picture shown the staple was pro trugd through the plastic material into the pole. >> well, it was clearly a posting for public use you know for . >> i'm not trying to be argumentative given that is posted with a 5 inch staple through the plastic is there a specific way the material will

be posted for notification. >> no only on the pole. >> no guidelines. >> no oh, no, i mean just anyone walking around town not only permits are posted. >> sometimes in less frankly sturdy manner taped up there. >> i see poles taped amendment all the time but a statement of three or four pages in a plastic envelope if the staple is through that there's no way of actually doing that. >> i guess i'll disrespecting disagree i don't think that is that hard to pull a staple. >> okay that's fine thank you counselor. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> amanda's higgins from public works so like to address a few of the

claims that the gentleman makes in his briefs the first the hearing officer failed to follow procedure and didn't consider the opposition when they instructed the speakers to limit their verbal comments during the hearing public works governs the wireless permitting process section 8 is supported the communication of a hearing but otherwise the officer with board discretion do run the hearing within the discretion to limit the comments to the applications sponsored by the speaker and in turn the officer accepted the written testimony and she said to provide the written testimony and it was because that hearing we attended the permit application and normally not that in the records shows

all verbal and written testimony was dully considered with the direction of director and also the gentleman pointed out that the simulations he received with termination there was i guess a slight color in hue but if you look at the exhibit 8 which is the notice of filing termination you'll see the planning conditions are on the termination notice and see - >> overhead please. >> sorry one does say to paints be battery back up with the conduit with the electrical

meter by samuel we feel that should have satisfied or clarified the ambiguity i understand this is exhibit i think h so i'll be here to answer any questions that's correct. >> oh, i do have one question similar to the question for the permit holder a specific way the notification on the poles to be addressed. >> you want to address that. >> gadget commissioners raul with public works yes actively a way for the public works under article 5. 6 they're required to actually sewer ran wrap it around the poles and it should be a clear plastic wrapped around the poles. >> give what was shown on the

overhead earlier; is that correct. >> can i see that one more time. >> permit holder step forward with that picture and appellant. >> appellant sorry. >> overhead please. one with the staple that's the particular one. >> that's the one. >> so just based on this photo it appears to be incorrect. >> no, i mean it is the process; right? that's what we're here for, thank you.

>> okay. we'll take public comment and again, the same process people that want to speak line up on the far side of room and please speak come to the mike please. >> i would like to point out that ms. higgins representation of the arts commission is incorrect it specifically states that i lost it hold on one

second. >> the design of all public structures any private structures that extends upon any public property in any courtyard setback or open spaces any private structures so it is irrelevant who owns it or what is going on; right? i i mean it is about aesthetics so i put this question to crown castle do they have any objection working with the community. >> please address the board. >> you may have any objection to working with the communities and the arts commission for an acceptable aesthetic solution thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, then we'll ta