Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals Upholds Wireless-permit at 500 Belton Street, Dismisses Health Claims
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal against a Verizon wireless-box permit for 500 Belton Street, finding the application complied with Article 25 and that radio‑frequency exposures in the record fall well below FCC limits; the vote was 4–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a remote hearing denied an appeal of a wireless facility permit at 500 Belton Street, upholding Permit No. 21WR-2 by a 4–0 vote. The appellant urged the board to stop 5G installations citywide and raised health and conspiracy concerns; the board found the permit had been processed under Public Works Code Article 25 and supported by technical review.
The appellant, represented in part by Ellen Lee Shao, submitted multiple attachments and asserted that 5G installations posed health risks and were part of a broader “depopulation” plan. Counsel for the permit holder, Melanie Sengupta for Verizon Wireless, said the procedural requirements of Article 25 were followed and noted that the Department of Public Health independently reviewed the radio‑frequency report. Radio‑frequency engineer Bill Hammett told the board his firm’s modeling showed maximum exposures “about 50 times below the FCC limit,” and that the city requires post‑installation measurements.
Commissioners focused their deliberations on the board’s legal authority under Article 25 and federal preemption over RF exposure standards. Vice President Rick Swig and other members emphasized that if emissions fall within FCC exposure limits and the Department of Public Health has reviewed the materials, the board does not have a legal basis to deny a permit on health‑effects grounds. Commissioner Chang moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit had been properly issued; the motion carried 4–0.
Bill Hammett said, “the maximum exposure level at any location…is about 50 times below the FCC limit,” a point the board and permit counsel cited in closing. Appellant Michelle Duque (speaking through an assistant) said she had submitted “pages of data” and urged departments to halt 5G approvals; the board noted it had not received the appellant’s brief in time for consideration and declined to accept untimely filings.
Because the board’s role under Article 25 is limited to whether permitting procedures and local code standards were followed, members said broader health or policy disputes are appropriately addressed by other bodies, including the Department of Public Health, the Public Utilities Commission, or through legislative change. The board’s denial upholds the permit and allows the wireless facility review to proceed under the conditions recorded in the permit and the city’s standard follow‑up testing and reporting requirements.
