Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses several wireless appeals and asks Department of Public Health for updated guidance
Summary
Facing repeated public-health objections and evolving federal litigation, the board voted to continue several wireless appeals pending an updated Department of Public Health memo. The continuation motion carried after three commissioners supported delaying final action until DPH responds.
The Board of Appeals voted to continue multiple pending appeals of wireless facility permits (items 7a, 7b and 7c) and requested that the Department of Public Health update its 2010 guidance on wireless facilities before those matters are resolved. Several appellants and dozens of public commenters had urged the board to delay approvals until more comprehensive environmental or health-level review was completed.
Appellants argued notices were defective in some cases, raised questions about whether pole replacement constituted a new pole in historic or underground districts, asserted obstruction of residential views, and urged the board to await the outcome of litigation they described as requiring NEPA-level reviews for certain FCC categorical exclusions. Many residents cited health concerns and asked the board to invoke the precautionary principle.
Verizon and other industry counsel said the applications complied with local code and federal standards, described extensive interagency review (planning, public works, public health, PUC) and said post-installation testing is possible. DPW and planning staff defended their procedures for notice and evaluation under current law.
The board was divided on whether to continue. President Swigg moved to continue the matters until DPH provided an updated analysis; that motion carried with the minimal majority (three votes) required for continuation. Commissioners recorded concern about health and process but also noted limits on the board’s authority; the continuance keeps the record open until DPH posts its updated health guidance.
What it means: The continuation does not change existing permits that have already been issued via other administrative pathways but pauses final adjudication of the appeals before this body. Appellants successfully obtained time to press DPH for a written update to the city’s health assessment.
Next steps: DPH was requested to provide the board with an updated memo on wireless facilities; the matters were continued to a future date pending DPH response.
