Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds wireless-box permit after city says permit-holder corrected design defects
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a challenge to a wireless box permit issued to Extonnet/Verizon, finding the Department of Public Works and Planning had grounds to issue the permit after the company corrected design noncompliance. Commissioners voted 4-0 to deny the appeal.
Vice President Frank Fung and the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal of permit 15WR0168 for a personal wireless service facility at 1590 Sacramento Street, ruling the permit was properly issued after reported deficiencies were corrected.
Amanda Higgins of San Francisco Public Works told the board that XNET/Extonnet had a history of approved permits but that 23 installations were found to be noncompliant with the approved plans because equipment had been installed on different sides of poles and had disconnect switches that differed slightly from the approved drawings. Higgins said the company physically relocated equipment and received written planning approval to keep the larger disconnect switches; Public Works closed its notices of deficiency in September 2016. "For this reason, we urge the board to deny the appeal," Higgins said.
Paul Albritton, outside counsel for Verizon Wireless and Extonnet, said post-installation testing is required at the bay window and fire escape so neighbors can have assurance the site complies with FCC guidelines. He described the wattage change as small and said Department of Public Health had issued a certificate indicating compliance. "We encourage you to move forward and approve this project," Albritton told commissioners.
The appellant, Mitchell Kemp, maintained the installed facility had changed from the originally approved drawings and said measurements omitted from initial plans put bay windows inside a prohibited distance. Kemp argued the facility’s operating capacity increased markedly and asked that the company obtain a new permit with updated drawings. The board discussed whether prior findings, public-health standards and planning approvals supported the permit.
After deliberation, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued and supported by the administrative record. The motion carried 4-0 (Fung, Lazarus, Wilson and Swig voting Aye).
The board’s decision leaves in place the permit subject to the existing conditions of approval, including post-installation RF testing and a continuing requirement for a testing process should future concerns arise. The board did not change the conditions of approval and did not order a new permit application.
