Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DPW permit for NextG/Crown Castle wireless box despite neighborhood objections
Summary
After neighborhood appellants raised aesthetic concerns, model-number inconsistencies in filing, and health worries, the Board of Appeals voted 3-1 to uphold the Department of Public Works permit for a NextG (now Crown Castle) wireless box on Moore Street, finding the installation compliant with Administrative Code 11.9(b).
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 25 denied an appeal seeking removal of a wireless box installation by NextG (now part of Crown Castle), voting 3-1 to uphold the Department of Public Works—s permit.
Appellant Dolan Dahlstrom told the board the equipment was an "eyesore" visible from two blocks away, that paint and texture did not match the pole, and that contractors had left cables dangling after fined installation work. She also pointed to apparent discrepancies in antenna model numbers in the administrative file and said she had contacted the manufacturer, who told her one model listed "does not exist." "You can see it from 2 blocks in either direction," Dahlstrom said, urging revocation.
Natasha Ernst, government-relations counsel for Crown Castle/NextG, said the application met the requirements of Administrative Code 11.9(b), acknowledged minor typographical model-number errors in submitted documents but said the RF safety assessment had been conducted on the correct antenna and that the company regularly offers independent RF verification testing for concerned residents.
John Quang of the Department of Public Works told the board the application pre-dated Article 25 and therefore was properly processed under 11.9(b); he acknowledged a typographical mismatch in the Department of Public Health letter but said the health department had reviewed and approved the facility. DPW said it would require final painting to match the pole and verify minimum height clearances after the suspension was lifted.
Commissioners balanced neighborhood aesthetics and procedural compliance. The board found the permit was code-compliant and voted 3-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the DPW decision. Commissioners noted that renewals or reapplications under Article 25 could trigger additional planning review for aesthetics.
What happens next: DPW will verify paint and mounting height on completion; residents may request RF verification testing and may raise aesthetics at future renewal under Article 25.
