Board upholds Public Works on small‑cell permits after neighborhood protests over notice and proximity

The Board of Appeals reviewed multiple appeals to Public Works small‑cell permits and on Jan. 26 denied the appeals after hearing technical presentations and extensive public comment.

201 Buchanan (Nightingale House): Appellant Jason Stein, representing the property at 201 Buchanan (the Nightingale House, city landmark #47), argued that the administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and the permit process did not provide adequate neighborhood notice and that the pole‑top installation would obstruct the landmark’s public views. Stein asked the Board to require a different pole location, asserting alternatives were available (Jason Stein, SEG 4648–4728).

AT&T’s representative, Cammy Blackstone, presented the application timeline, photo simulations and an alternative‑site analysis. She said 18 candidate poles were reviewed and that the selected pole was the only viable option due to structural, licensing and CPUC GO‑95 constraints; an RF‑safety report from Hammett & Edison was included in the record and showed predicted exposures well below federal limits (Cammy Blackstone, SEG 4863–4931).

Planning staff said the admin COA fell under an authorization that delegates certain minor public‑right‑of‑way telecom changes to staff review rather than to the Historic Preservation Commission; while Planning acknowledged a typographical description error in the case report it said the plans and photo simulations depicted the correct pole and did not conclude the COA review was invalid. Public Works confirmed that required mailings and postings were in the record (Tina Tam; Leo Palacios, SEG 5070–5230).

After deliberation about notice and about the board’s past denials involving protected public vistas, the Board voted 4–1 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit for 201 Buchanan (Commissioner Swig opposed) (SEG 5759–5774).

270 Lansdale (Casitas/Lansdale): Neighbors at and near 270 Lansdale (appellant Patricia Martel and others) raised public‑health concerns about a small‑cell antenna located roughly 35–40 feet from homes, and said notification procedures were deficient. AT&T again said it followed Article 25 notification requirements and that a careful alternative‑site search left only the chosen pole available; Hammett & Edison provided RF compliance analysis showing exposures below federal limits (SEG 5783–6170).

The Board acknowledged the public health concerns and the limits of local authority under Article 25, and after discussion denied the appeal 5–0, concluding the permit complied with procedural and technical requirements that govern siting of small‑cell facilities in the public right of way (SEG 6829–6843).

What’s next: Appellants cited limited local authority under state and federal rules for wireless siting and asked staff to pursue an update from the Department of Public Health on RF‑exposure guidance. Board staff said the Health Department had not completed an outstanding memo requested earlier and that staff would follow up with the Department of Public Health to seek any updated guidance.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the meeting record: Jason Stein (appellant, 201 Buchanan), Cammy Blackstone (AT&T), Leo Palacios (Public Works), Tina Tam (Planning), Patricia Martel (appellant, 270 Lansdale).