Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Cell Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds two small‑cell wireless permits after neighbors raise RF, noise and mapping concerns
Summary
After hearings on permits for personal wireless service facilities on Bush Street and Clayton/Haight, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied neighborhood protests and upheld the Department of Public Works’ approvals, finding submitted RF and noise studies met Article 25 requirements and that Public Works, Planning and Public Health had reviewed the applications.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 5, 2018 denied protests to Public Works’ approvals of two small‑cell wireless permits (one on Bush Street and one on a Clayton/Haight site). Neighbors raised concerns about cumulative radio‑frequency exposure, reflected noise, mapping and historic‑resource impacts.
At the Bush Street hearing, Troy McMahon (homeowners association) argued the Hammett and Edison RF study failed to list nearby radiating antennas within the 100‑foot radius required for a cumulative assessment and that neighbors lacked a testing protocol if they perceived problems. Mobility LLC’s counsel and RF consultant Raj Mathur responded that their study modeled exposures, found the proposed facility would be within FCC limits (the maximum modeled exposure at the nearest building was approximately 24% of the FCC limit), and that they were not aware of other qualifying facilities within 100 feet. Public Works and Planning staff explained Article 25’s referral and review process and said that Public Health, Planning and Public Works had reviewed the submission.
At the Clayton/Haight appeal, neighbors raised similar complaints about noise and mapping and requested indemnity conditions. Mobility and Public Works again described their review and studies and contended the applications complied with Article 25 standards. Commissioners pressed staff and consultants on cumulative exposure, mapping layers that indicate higher review standards for some streets and the city’s limited ability to regulate proliferation of facilities due to federal and state preemption of RF emissions regulation.
After deliberation the board concluded the evidence in the administrative record supported issuance of the permits under Article 25 and voted to deny the appeals (motions to deny the appeals carried). Commissioners noted sympathy for neighbors’ concerns but cited the constrained scope of local authority and applicable review standards.
