Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds permit for Laguna Street wireless installation after legal and health debate
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a wireless‑facility permit for 2620 Laguna Street on Aug. 28, 2019, finding the permit was properly issued under Article 25 and federal standards despite public health concerns; the board urged the Department of Public Health to complete a review of recent research.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday denied an appeal of a permit to install a personal wireless service facility at 2620 Laguna Street, upholding the permit that had been issued by Public Works.
Appellant Ron Ratner argued the installation should be rescinded on public‑health and process grounds, citing San Francisco’s precautionary‑principle ordinance (Article 25) and urging independent electromagnetic‑field testing and public participation in decision‑making. Ratner and several members of the public told the board they believe more recent scientific work calls the Federal Communications Commission’s 1996 guidelines into question and urged a moratorium on additional facilities until the Department of Public Health issues an updated memo.
Outside counsel for the permit holder, Paul Albritton, told the board the application complied with Article 25 and with federal law, noting that the applicant had submitted RF‑engineering reports and that post‑installation testing and monitoring would be performed. Public Works and Planning staff described the multi‑agency referral and notice steps they use under Article 25 and said the Department of Public Health had reviewed submitted engineering reports. A DPH representative said the Health Officer had received requests to revisit prior guidance and expected to complete a literature review and issue an updated memo in roughly three to four months.
Board members asked technical and legal questions about antenna types, power levels and the scope of municipal authority following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the T‑Mobile litigation. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to residents’ health concerns but concluded the board’s discretion was constrained by existing case law and the administrative record. President Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal; Commissioners Eduardo Santa Cana and Daryl Honda voted aye. The motion carried 3–0.
The board’s action leaves the permit in place; commissioners asked DPH to complete its review and report back to the council or the board. The decision represented a legal judgment on the record before the board, not a scientific finding about long‑term health effects.
