Neighbors, Verizon clash at Board of Supervisors hearing over proposed antennas on Kaiser Hospital; hearing continued

Supervisors heard more than two hours of testimony on a neighborhood appeal of a Planning Commission decision to allow Verizon Wireless to install nine panel antennas and related equipment on the mechanical penthouse of a Kaiser medical office building in the Inner Richmond.

The hearing focused on whether Verizon had demonstrated the installation is necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding low-density residential neighborhood, and whether Verizon had explored less-intrusive alternatives. Jacqueline Koo, speaking for parents and nearby residents, said the company failed to meet its burden of proof under Planning Code section 303 and pointed to independent phone tests she and neighbors performed.

"Verizon's 9 panel antennas proposed for this location are not necessary, not desirable, and not compatible with the predominantly residential character of our neighborhood," Koo said. She and other residents presented results from phone apps and anecdotal tests they said showed adequate service in the area and argued Verizon's maps and color-coded charts lacked underlying methodology and full context.

Verizon's counsel, Paul Albritton, and Verizon engineer Russ Benson disputed the neighbors' tests and said the company's network data show an urgent capacity problem. Benson said real-time switch-level metrics and busy-hour statistics indicate adjacent sites will reach maximum capacity this year and next, producing call failures and data slowdowns. "The antennas do not face Sixth Avenue, they face north, west, and south," Benson said, and the penthouse location is a "preference 1" site under the city's wireless siting guidance.

Appellants and supporters pressed Verizon for more complete data and for evidence that the company had attempted to use existing utility-pole-mounted antenna networks or other carriers' shared facilities. Appellant counsel Doug Lohringer pointed to the 2005 MetroPCS litigation and a later district-court ruling as precedent for denying permits when carriers cannot show least-intrusive alternatives.

Public testimony split along expected lines. Several dozen nearby residents, school staff and community association representatives said they regularly use landlines and mobile phones and worry the project is industrial in a residential area; they also raised safety concerns about on-site lead-acid backup batteries and the potential for electrical hazards, citing materials submitted to the board. Supporters — including local businesses, Kaiser users and emergency-response advocates — said the site will improve in-building coverage, back up emergency text-alerts and reduce dropped calls for 911 callers.

Planning Department legislative manager Ann Marie Rogers explained the department's review process and the Planning Commission's findings. The department concluded the antennas would be screened, painted to match the penthouse and minimally visible from the public right of way, and that the Department of Public Health had determined projected radio-frequency emissions would be well within FCC limits.

After public testimony and cross-questions of witnesses, Supervisor Mar moved to continue the appeal for one week to allow further meetings between the parties and possible third-party review; Supervisor Avalos seconded. "I hope that the appellant and the parties will still sit down and try to come to some agreement," Mar said. Without objection the board continued the item for one week.

The continuance gives Verizon an opportunity to provide additional technical substantiation under confidential review if necessary and gives appellants time to review carrier data through agreed-upon procedures. The board did not vote to approve or deny the conditional-use authorization; the appeal remains pending.

Votes and formal motion

- Motion to continue the appeal for one week: moved by Supervisor Mar; seconded by Supervisor Avalos. Continued without objection.

What happens next

The Board continued the matter to allow further engagement between Verizon, the appellants and planning staff, and to permit the parties to consider third-party technical review on a confidential basis. The board will reconsider the appeal at the continued hearing.