Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permit 698 Page topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies appeal of Verizon small‑cell permit at 698 Page St.
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5–0 April 3 to deny an appeal of a personal wireless service facility permit for 698 Page St., finding the permit was properly issued; the board and departments said health effects cannot be the basis for denial when a facility complies with Article 25 and FCC guidelines.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 3 denied an appeal of a permit that allows Verizon Wireless to install a personal wireless service facility at 698 Page Street, concluding the permit was properly issued under local procedures and federal preemption limits.
Appellant Ruben Esquero told the board the pole and antennas would be located about 12 feet from his building and said the installation would mar aesthetics, reduce property values and pose health risks from continuous radiofrequency (RF) exposure. "Put a moratorium," Esquero said, urging the board to revoke the permit until more data on 5G exposures are available.
Outside counsel for Verizon, Paul Albritton, told the board the company and its consultants followed Article 25 permitting steps, worked with Public Works, Planning and the Department of Public Health, and designed the facility to minimize visual impact. An independent RF engineer, Raj Mathur of Hammitt & Edison, testified that the site’s maximum calculated RF exposure at the kitchen window on the top floor is 3.5% of the FCC limit and that ground‑level levels are well below the FCC limit (as presented to the board). Albritton offered post‑installation interior testing and said Verizon would voluntarily test inside the appellant’s apartment if requested.
Board members repeatedly acknowledged public concern for health but cited the limits of the board’s legal authority. A board member asked where Esquero’s evidence for legislative changes or firefighting exemptions came from; counsel explained prior bills and AB 57/government‑code provisions and that certain exemptions for fire stations were negotiated to preserve ingress and egress for first responders. Planning and Public Works staff also said the permit followed notice, hearing and referral procedures required under Article 25.
After hearing testimony from the appellant, Verizon, the Department of Public Works and multiple public commenters, the board voted to deny the appeal. Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued; the motion carried on a 5–0 vote.
The decision leaves the permit in place; Verizon and the Department of Public Works may proceed with installation subject to any post‑installation testing or departmental conditions noted during the hearing.
