Board of Appeals revokes DPW permit for NextG wireless box at 15620 Seventh Avenue

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 on May 16, 2012 to grant an appeal by homeowner Jeff Cooper and revoke a Department of Public Works permit that allowed NextG Networks (now part of Crown Castle) to install a wireless equipment box at 15620 Seventh Avenue.

Cooper told the board the permit failed the city’s public-health noise standard and the Article 25 compatibility and necessity tests, arguing the enclosure is large enough to hold two ION M units and that manufacturer sound data included in NextG’s filing showed potential exceedances of the city’s 45 dBA threshold. He presented photographs and measurements showing the pole and appended equipment approximately 12 feet 6 inches from the nearest residential facade and said prior attempts to get the company and DPW to fix noncompliant sites had been unsuccessful.

Natasha Ernst, government-relations and utility counsel for NextG (recently acquired by Crown Castle), said the permit followed the city’s Article 25 process and that the company had made design concessions at planning’s request — including reducing the battery-backup unit and lowering antenna placement — to reduce visual and functional impacts. Ernst acknowledged an earlier, site-specific noise test in the file was inaccurate and said DPW and the company rely on site testing and post-install conditions enforced by the Department of Public Health (DPH).

DPW’s representative told the board that DPH had conditioned approval on post-installation sound testing, that equipment must be tested at full power after installation, and that failing equipment would require revocation of permit conditions. DPW also said any future installation of a second unit in the same enclosure would require a permit revision and additional review.

Neighbors from Seacliff and surrounding blocks testified in support of the appeal, citing visual blight, a concentration of pole-mounted equipment on a quiet residential/view street, and instances they described as poor contractor practices and lack of notice. Crown’s counsel and DPW disputed assertions that alternate alley poles were always available; counsel said some alleys are private easements and that planning — not DPW — has jurisdiction over private easement sites.

Commissioners who voted to grant the appeal described the site as adding visual blight to a quiet residential street and noted the policy goal of protecting good/excellent view streets. President Michael Garcia was the lone dissenting vote, saying he was reluctant to overturn a permit he believed had been processed under Article 25. The board ordered the permit revoked and instructed staff to prepare written findings for formal adoption at a later hearing.

Next steps: The board’s written findings will be prepared and returned to the board for adoption; DPW and DPH enforcement actions and any court or administrative responses by the permit holder were not resolved on the record at this hearing.

Quote: “It’s adding blight to that street and visual blight,” Commissioner Rich Hillis said when moving to grant the appeal.

Authorities referenced at hearing: Article 25 (City permit regime cited by parties), the local noise standard cited by a speaker as part of the Avalos legislation (45 dBA measured at 3 feet), and DPW order 180222 (health/approval condition referenced by the appellant and DPW).