Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds wireless permit at Broderick Street after heated hearing; public health concerns remain
Summary
Following hours of public comment, the Board of Appeals denied an appeal against a wireless installation at 2736 Broderick Street, concluding the application complied with Public Works Code Article 25 and Department of Public Health review. The vote to deny was 5-0; many residents urged delay pending updated DPH guidance and NEPA-related questions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 20 denied an appeal challenging a wireless facility permit for 2736 Broderick Street, concluding the application complied with the city’s permitting procedures and Department of Public Health review.
Appellant Roxanne Stachan, who lives adjacent to the proposed installation, told the board she had identified what she said were errors in the DPH determination about antenna directions and raised concerns that the applicant had not provided a clearly accessible procedure for in-home RF power-density measurements. She said DPH had not corrected perceived errors in its report during the public comment period and expressed concern about accuracy and trust in the process.
Joe Camisha for Extonnet (the applicant) said the EMF analysis and plans were correct, that Department of Public Health had reviewed and accepted the modeling and that the highest modeled exposures were well below FCC limits. He acknowledged late or incomplete direct responses to residents’ emails and apologized for the communication lapse, saying that procedures for in-home testing do exist and could be provided.
Leo Palacios of Public Works and Scott Sanchez of Planning described inter-departmental review under Article 25, said the planning and public-health referrals had been completed before DPW issued a tentative approval, and noted DPW held a protest hearing prior to final action. DPW and the permit holder said the applicant also obtained required PUC licensing.
The hearing included extended public comment: many neighbors asserted health and precautionary concerns about small-cell wireless equipment, cited recent D.C. Circuit litigation affecting categorical federal exclusions and asked the board to delay approvals pending DPH updates or NEPA-level review. Board members acknowledged the strong public concern but noted their legal remit is to determine whether the application complied with Article 25 and related local rules; the board found the permit properly issued and voted 5-0 to deny the appeal.
What it means: The board upheld the permit while recording substantial public concern about health and environmental review. Several commissioners urged DPH to produce an updated guidance memo; those broader policy questions remain the subject of interagency and legislative action.
Next steps: The permit stands; residents may request post-installation RF testing per the permit conditions and DPH procedures, and advocacy for wider policy changes will continue through legislative and administrative channels.
