Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals reopens Moore Street permit, declines jurisdiction for expired Bridal Street permit
Summary
Neighbors urged reopening appeals over two NextG wireless‑box permits, citing lack of notice and health/aesthetic concerns. NextG conceded jurisdiction for the Moore Street site; the board granted jurisdiction for 10WR0145 (644 Moore St) and denied jurisdiction for the expired 10WR0156 (43 Bridal St).
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 29 heard neighbors’ pleas to reopen appeal periods for two NextG Networks wireless‑box permits, concluding one location should be subject to appeal while the other was moot because the permit had expired.
Neighbors who identified themselves in the petition as “AF” told the board they had not received required public notice and said installations affect street‑level aesthetics and raise health concerns. One requester urged the board to reopen appeals so residents could obtain “in‑home radio‑frequency verification” and full notice before facilities were authorized in the public right‑of‑way.
NextG’s Natasha Ernst, director of government relations, told the board that the two permits are different: permit 10WR0156 (near 43 Bridal Street) was effectively being reprocessed under the newer Article 25 permitting regime and so NextG considered that site likely moot for a jurisdiction request; permit 10WR0145 (644 Moore Street) remained a pending administrative matter. Ernst said NextG would offer in‑home RF and noise testing for residents once installations became functional and that some sites were not yet transmitting because of power or cable issues.
Department of Public Works staff told the board the city had followed Article 11.9(b) at the time those permits were issued and that the rule had since changed to Article 25, which includes neighborhood notification. DPW said the Bridal Street permit had expired for failure to complete installation within the one‑year window and would require a new Article 25 application, which includes formal notice and a separate appeal path.
President Michael Garcia called for motions. The board voted to grant the jurisdiction request for permit 10WR0145 (644 Moore Street) — allowing affected neighbors to pursue an appeal under the Board of Appeals — and to deny the jurisdiction request for permit 10WR0156 (43 Bridal Street) on the basis that the permit had expired and must be refiled under Article 25. The Moore Street motion carried on the record as 5–0; the Bridal Street motion also carried 5–0.
