Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Public Works permit for Seventeenth Avenue small cell; appeal denied 5-0
Summary
The Board of Appeals on Nov. 6 denied an appeal by a Seventeenth Avenue resident and upheld a Public Works permit for a small-cell wireless installation, finding the agency followed Article 25 procedures and that public-health review rated exposures far below FCC limits. The vote was 5-0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by resident Maureen Merring and upheld a Public Works approval of a personal wireless facility at 1653 Seventeenth Avenue on Nov. 6, voting 5-0 to leave the permit in place.
Merring told the board the installation would “detract” from the residential block and said she was not adequately notified before the permit posting (appellant testimony). The permit holder, Joseph Kamisha of Extenet, told the board the applicant followed the posting and mailing requirements in Public Works Code Article 25 and DPW Order 184,504 and uploaded affidavits documenting mailings and posted notices. Kamisha also said the Department of Public Health calculated the highest human-exposure level from the installation at about 2.5% of the Federal Communications Commission’s limit, and sidewalk exposure would be less than 1%.
Public Works administrative analyst Leo Palacios said the permit went through the agency’s Article 25 referral process and was reviewed by Planning and the Department of Public Health before the director issued the approval. Planning staff member Scott Sanchez told the board the site had been reviewed as a zoning-protected location and that Planning’s April 5, 2019 memo found the proposal met applicable standards.
Board members acknowledged residents’ concern about aesthetics and health but repeatedly cited Article 25 and state and federal constraints on local authority over radio-frequency health standards. Several commissioners said the board’s review is limited to whether the permit was properly issued under Article 25 and related rules.
President Rick Swigg moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit had been properly issued; the motion carried unanimously.
The board did not impose additional conditions on the permit and did not remand the matter to Public Works. The decision leaves in place the Public Works finding and the permits and approvals relied on by Planning and the Department of Public Health.
What happens next: The board’s written order will be sent to the parties; any further procedural options (such as judicial review) would depend on the parties and applicable law.
