Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction request over wireless antenna near 150 Broadway
Summary
A family asked the San Francisco Board of Appeals to reopen the appeal period for a wireless‑site permit they say was not properly noticed; the board found no city‑caused delay and denied the jurisdiction request unanimously. The board heard technical testimony on measurement distances and post‑installation RF testing.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 13 denied a request to reopen the appeal period for a personal wireless service permit at 150 Broadway.
Wanshan Chen, represented and translated by her daughter Michelle Chen, told the board the antenna installed near her unit obstructs the view and violates planning and Department of Public Health conditions. "The antenna's orientation is at 255 degrees facing west," Chen said, and she said her measurement from the antenna to a window was "8 feet, 5 inches," shorter than the 8 feet 6 inches referenced in public‑health guidance.
Outside counsel for the permit holder told the board the tentative notices were mailed in December 2015 and the permit received final action in March 2016; he said post‑installation testing in August 2016 measured the separation at about 8.8 feet and radio‑frequency emissions at roughly 0.54% of federal limits. "It was tested in August 2016 and was well within the FCC standards," he said.
Rob Loftus of Public Works described the department's notice requirements under Article 25 and said the applicant provided signed affidavits and posted photographs. Planning and Public Works staff acknowledged they could not locate a record for one of the final mailings but pointed to postings and other mailed notices as evidence the notice requirements were met.
Commissioners focused on two issues: whether the city caused a delay that would justify extending the appeal period, and whether the antenna placement violated the cited conditions. City attorneys and staff told the board the jurisdictional standard requires extraordinary evidence that the city caused the delay.
On a motion by Commissioner Lazarus, the board voted unanimously to deny the jurisdiction request and leave the permit's appeal period closed. The board did not decide any underlying compliance or permit validity; the decision was limited to whether to reopen the appeal period.
The board’s ruling leaves any factual claims about measurements, notice receipt and condition compliance to other administrative or legal processes; the parties may pursue other remedies available under city code or through further filings.
