Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds wireless permit at 2920 Fifth after health and zoning reviews; residents urged to use post‑installation testing
Summary
The board denied an appeal of a small-cell wireless permit at 2920 Fifth Street, finding planning and public-health reviews supported the permit and requiring post-installation radio-frequency testing; residents raised health concerns and the permittee said projected emissions are a small fraction of the applicable federal guideline.
The Board of Appeals voted 4–0 on July 9 to deny an appeal of a personal wireless service permit for equipment proposed at 2920 Fifth Street.
Appellant Richard Segovia, a long-term Mission District resident, told commissioners he feared the equipment would harm residents’ health and said he was opposed to locating a wireless facility across the street from his home. Segovia and several neighbors urged the board to deny the permit on health and community character grounds.
Exnet representative Marco Montoya and Public Works and Planning staff said the application had undergone the city’s required interagency review under Public Works Code Article 25. Montoya said the Department of Public Health’s radio-frequency review projected ground‑level exposure at roughly 1.3% of the applicable guideline, and Planning staff said the siting met the Article 25 compatibility standard for an RH2 residential zoning district. Public Works noted the permit carries a condition requiring a post‑installation RF study and public‑access arrangements for any follow-up readings.
Commissioners and staff Commissioners acknowledged community concerns about health and transparency but said federal preemption and Article 25 review constrained the board’s authority when an application meets the technical standards. Commissioner Rick Swig and others requested that Public Works and the Department of Public Health ensure the promised post‑installation readings are available to residents and that BUFF’s tree-planting or in‑lieu fees be tracked as required by permit conditions.
Outcome and next steps The board denied the appeal and upheld the permit, 4–0. Public Works said the permit contains a condition that the applicant must submit a post‑installation radio‑frequency study within 30 days of activation; if monitoring shows levels exceeding the applicable federal limit, staff said inspectors could require correction or removal. Staff also agreed to provide the appellant with a contact to request the post‑installation reading.
Residents and advocates were urged to request the post‑installation RF reading if they remain concerned. Planning and Public Works reiterated that future small-cell sitings must follow Article 25 procedures.
