Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Verizon wireless permit at 1599 Haight despite neighborhood health and disclosure concerns
Summary
After extensive testimony about cumulative and continuous RF exposure, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Clayton Street Neighbors and approved Verizon's permit (17WR-315) for a personal wireless facility at 1599 Haight Street, with commissioners raising indemnification and standards-review questions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 23 denied an appeal by Clayton Street Neighbors and approved a permit for a Verizon Wireless personal wireless service facility at 1599 Haight Street (permit number 17WR-315), after a multi-party exchange over FCC guidance, cumulative and continuous radiofrequency exposure, consultant conflicts and whether the board could require indemnification.
Ellis Raskin, attorney for Clayton Street Neighbors, urged the board to require fuller FCC disclosure and analysis. He said the EBI studies that accompanied the permit did not include all "significant contributors to the ambient RF environment" and flagged two specific gaps: cumulative contributions from facilities beyond the study's radius and the lack of an analysis of continuous exposure over years. "We just don't know whether this facility complies with the cumulative impacts of the FCC guidelines," Raskin said, arguing that the Department of Public Health and Article 25 disclosures were incomplete.
Richard Fall, president of Clayton Street Neighbors, emphasized habitability concerns for nearby tenants and suggested a condition that Verizon indemnify property owners affected by RF exposure, describing a scenario in which future stricter standards could render an apartment uninhabitable and require relocation payments.
Verizon counsel Paul Albrighton defended the application, saying the installations are low-wattage urban facilities designed to meet FCC limits and that Department of Public Health review and Article 25 procedures were followed. He introduced engineer William Hammett, who said his independent review confirmed compliance with FCC standards "in fact, by factors of 50 times or more" at ground level and on nearby building floors and explained that post‑installation, on‑site measurements are a standard condition of approval.
Department of Public Health staff and DPW representatives explained that their practice is to disclose and consider operating facilities within 100 feet as a practical threshold for cumulative calculations, that pre-installation engineering analyses are conservative and that the FCC public exposure standard is set for continuous 24/7 exposure. Public Health staff said they took background measurements in the neighborhood and found ambient levels to be extremely low.
Commissioners asked repeatedly whether the board could require indemnification for private property owners; counsel said Verizon does not typically offer indemnities and that the city master license agreement contains indemnities for the city but not necessarily for adjacent private owners. The board asked the city attorney to research whether attaching an indemnity requirement was within the board's authority.
After questions and deliberation the board moved "to deny the appeal and approve the permit on the basis it was issued." Recorded 'Aye' votes by the chair and multiple commissioners carried the motion and the permit was approved. Several commissioners said they expected continued debate about whether older standards should be reviewed, and one requested follow-up research on indemnification options for units sited very near antennas.
The permit (17WR-315) was approved and the appeal denied; post‑installation testing of RF emissions remains a standard condition of the permit.
