Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Health Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues decision on citywide Wi‑Fi appeal after technical and health concerns from citizens and experts
Summary
Members of the public and independent researchers urged an environmental review of the proposed citywide Wi‑Fi network, citing studies and international statements about low‑intensity radio‑frequency exposure; the board voted to continue the appeal to Sept. 11 to allow fuller record and committee work.
A widely attended public segment on a pending appeal of the Planning Department’s exemption determination for a proposed citywide Wi‑Fi network produced dozens of speakers urging environmental review under CEQA, citing low‑intensity radio‑frequency (RFR) health concerns.
The appeal, filed against the Department’s determination that the EarthLink/Google network ordinance was categorically exempt from CEQA, attracted testimony from scientists, medical practitioners, residents who identify as electrically sensitive, and neighborhood groups. Speakers pointed to peer‑reviewed studies, physician letters and international resolutions (including physician groups and union statements abroad) that question whether existing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure standards are adequate for chronic, population‑wide exposures at low intensities. Several witnesses urged application of San Francisco’s precautionary principle ordinance and recommended a full environmental impact report (EIR) rather than an exemption.
Planning staff had previously concluded the ordinance was categorically exempt from CEQA; the board heard responses and counterarguments at length. Appellant’s experts, including a report prepared by Dr. Magda Havas, were cited by speakers; the report and associated materials were provided to the board and are in the record. Scientists who testified for appellants described biological effects reported in published literature — including studies on cellular effects, neurological outcomes, and reported increases in symptoms among people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). City staff and other expert witnesses cautioned that the science is contested and said a direct causal linkage between city‑scale Wi‑Fi deployment and population health outcomes is not settled.
After public comment, Supervisors agreed to continue items 33 through 36 to the board meeting on September 11 to give the record more time for review and to permit additional committee work. The board motion to continue was made by Supervisor Mercurini and seconded; the chamber did not vote on the exemption itself at this session.
Speakers urged several concrete steps in the meantime: field measurement of existing RFR levels across neighborhoods, independent peer review of health literature, consideration of less pervasive access technologies (for example fiber to premises or wired public kiosks) and targeted protections for schools and hospitals. Several neighborhood organizations noted San Francisco’s 2003 precautionary principle ordinance and requested that it be used to guide the city’s approach.
Planning staff indicated the agency and public health department would provide clarifications and additional documentation while the matter is continued. The continuation preserves the appellants’ and the public’s opportunity to be heard and gives the board time to review technical evidence and the planning department’s environmental screening conclusion before a final decision.
