Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds wireless permit at 3529 Sacramento despite health objections
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by a resident who objected to a small wireless facility at 3529 Sacramento Street, concluding departments followed Article 25 and DPH review; the board voted 4‑0 to sustain the permit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 19 denied an appeal of a permit for a personal wireless service facility at 3529 Sacramento Street, rejecting neighbors’ health-based objections and upholding the Department of Public Works’ issuance.
Appellant Sheryl Lee Hogan told the board she submitted a 560‑page packet of research and petitions and urged commissioners to block the installation outside her home, saying the technology ‘‘is extremely deleterious to the human body’’ and citing an international appeal by scientists. Hogan also questioned whether the permit holder named in city records — GTE Mobile Net of California — was correctly identified and alleged liability concerns to the city.
Outside counsel for the permit holder, Paul Albritton, told the board the facility is a low‑power small cell used to improve 4G coverage, describing it as a ‘‘120‑watt, 32‑foot’’ installation and saying pre‑ and post‑installation measurements show exposures well below federal limits. "We would urge you to follow and affirm the decisions of the two departments," Albritton said.
City staff from Public Works and the Department of Public Health (DPH) explained the review process required by Public Works Code Article 25 and the role of third‑party engineering reports and measurements. DPH’s Patrick Fossell said the federal standard that the department relies on has been ‘‘effectively the same since it was originated in 1996’’ though it has been evaluated periodically.
Commissioners repeatedly asked how the city could re‑examine the scientific literature. DPH staff said the city has published studies on its website, previously submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission and could ask the health officer to prepare an updated position paper, but that federal preemption limits the city’s ability to set independent exposure standards.
After rebuttal and final statements, Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that the permitting process and DPH review met Article 25 requirements. Commissioners Anne Lazarus, Rachel Tanner and President Rick Swig voted in favor; the motion carried 4‑0.
The board’s decision leaves the Department of Public Works’ permit in place. DPH and other departments said they will continue to monitor compliance and may provide further guidance to the board in the future.
The board’s ruling does not resolve broader policy disputes over federal standards or the scientific literature on radiofrequency emissions, issues several commissioners and public commenters said they want the city to revisit through a separate agenda item.
