Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing for two wireless-permit appeals after debate over DPH memo and FCC standards
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied rehearing requests related to mobile wireless installations at 301 Pine Street and 2736 Broderick Street, concluding that pending Department of Public Health guidance would not alter FCC-compliance findings shown in site-specific EMF reports; one rehearing request was denied 4-0 and another 3-2.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 8 denied rehearing requests tied to two wireless-permit matters after a debate over whether an updated Department of Public Health (DPH) memorandum on radio-frequency exposure should stay local proceedings.
In one case (Appeal 19-110, 301 Pine Street), counsel for an appellant argued that the city—s 75-foot rule and DPW measurement methods had been ambiguously applied and asked for a rehearing to present new measurements. The permit holder, San Francisco—s Hometown Creamery, and Public Works opposed rehearing, saying the appellant had the opportunity to present those facts earlier. The board denied the rehearing request on grounds there was no manifest injustice.
In another item (Appeal 19-90, 2736 Broderick Street), appellant Roxanne Stachon asked that her rehearing be continued until DPH issues an updated 2010 memorandum on health effects and EMF measurement guidance; Public Works told the board it did not oppose a continuance. Permit holders and others, however, emphasized that site-specific EMF reports showed compliance with federal FCC limits. Joseph Misha of Extonant Systems said the company had provided an EMF report and that the proposal "would fall well within the FCC's limits." He argued any sweeping DPH statements would not change whether the site-specific application complied with FCC standards.
Deputy City Attorney Bridal Russi noted that the city amended the ordinance in the summer to remove the permit requirement for installations on PUC poles, and several commissioners observed that DPH guidance would not alter the board—s legal footing under federal FCC standards. After discussion, the board moved to deny the rehearing/continuance by a 3-2 vote in the Broderick matter, concluding that the pending DPH memo was not a material basis for reversal.
The board—s actions keep in place the prior determinations on those permits; DPH continues to prepare its updated memo and the city will treat that guidance as part of the administrative record as appropriate in future matters.
