Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personal Wireless topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Hogan rehearing request for 3529 Sacramento wireless permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from Sheryl Lee Hogan seeking review of a June 19 denial of her appeal against a Verizon personal wireless facility permit (18WR‑0171). The board found no new evidence or manifest injustice and voted 4‑0 to deny the rehearing.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4‑0 on July 17 to deny a rehearing request from Sheryl Lee Hogan, who had asked the board to reconsider its June 19 denial of her appeal of a Department of Public Works wireless facility permit at 3529 Sacramento Street (permit 18WR‑0171).
Hogan asked the board to continue or reschedule her appeal until October so she could obtain pro bono legal representation and cited recent developments she said could affect the outcome: a board request that the Department of Public Health update a 2010 memorandum on wireless health risks and the city’s “precautionary principle” in the environment code. Hogan said she had "voluminous evidence" that older FCC thermal guidelines and recent studies raise health concerns that planning and DPW had not considered.
Paul Albritton, counsel for the permit holder, responded that the board had not been presented with new evidence since the June hearing and warned that halting approvals while the Health Department reviews its memo would amount to an unenforceable moratorium on wireless facilities. He argued the federal safety standards remained determinative for permit compliance.
Commissioner Hana moved to deny the rehearing request on the ground that there was no manifest injustice and no new evidence that would change the prior decision; the motion passed unanimously.
What this means: The rehearing was denied, and the underlying June decision—upholding the permit—remains in effect. The board recorded public comment from residents who urged more caution on wireless deployments and called for a Health Department review, but the board concluded that the rehearing standard (manifest injustice or significant new evidence) was not met.
Key details: the rehearing request cited the Health Department review request (board record dated 06/26/2019) and San Francisco Environment Code section 101 (the “precautionary principle”) as background for seeking further consideration.
