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

ms. higgins i went through wifi i think you do a great job you play and i resent the game you play you're not protecting the interests of citizens of san francisco but 0 doing a great job doing our job for the dpw which congratulations on doing your job i don't find in this case that dpw is 100 percent finding for the interests of citizens of san francisco but you do a great job i wish you a great career so we end up having to play those games that is let's find a staple let's find an opportunity to find misleading notes on a notice so because this probably will have to go to the court and probably had to be relegislative so you know i'll be very glad to make a motion to find for the appellant based on as one member of the dpw said yeah. a miss posting i'll find that i'll move for the appellant that was improperly post and the way that the graphics were made were misleading and therefore mislead the public and that therefore i find the notice was flawed on behalf of the dpw that's my motion. >> i don't get the comments before. >> huh? >> well, you made a motion. >> okay. >> can you you wa

ms. higgins i asked the permit holder is there a standard inform opted out space and we typically rely onublic health department. >> anyone from public health department go to represent that. >> i invited them their not here. >> we'll need them to make a decision. >> i am confused and i would like someone from public health and not be able to make a decision for that reason i don't understand math very will i guess so in the exhibit b b-2 it operationally is from public health department 56 and says that the antennas will be one watts and it will be located 7 feet away okay. >> that's one hundred blocks and then we added 22 watts which would indicate for power and now suddenly it is okay to be 4 feet away and then i look at another documents a which is your labeled wireless box permit not a date on it and it reads not going to read the whole thing the personal wireless facility not greater than 5 d b.a. 3 feet from the residential building it gets closer and closer i don't understand it seems to be - the math didn't work make it 6 whoops not good enough make it 3 it didn't go fit and so m

ms. i'm sorry, i didn't hear our name and higgins. >> what this is the first time i've heard the argument our city has jurisdiction over a wireless boxes on street properties on public street properties. >> well the wireless facility will be installed on public right-of-way that is where the wooden poles are you think that's how the permit came - - i understand my question to you has your department run it to legal whether this requires our commission review because it is city property. >> well, actually those poles are owned by the new orleans joint pole association give you an idea of what they are - basically an alliance or association with the various like counties and also like utilities companies that including crown castle and verizon that are the permit holder not city jurisdiction. >> does that answer your question. >> sort of. >> no. >> no. >> but thank you. >> comment. >> public works article 25 no requirement that the arts commission has to review this is it is strictly the planning department and public works in the planning review. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll take public co