Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Telecom topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel approves AT&T rooftop antenna sites at Geary and Polk after public concern on RF and views
Summary
The Planning Commission approved conditional-use permits for two AT&T rooftop wireless facilities—709 Geary Street and the Polk/California corner—after staff found the projects consistent with siting guidelines and the Department of Public Health reported compliance with exposure limits. Residents raised radio‑frequency and visual-impact concerns; both motions passed unanimously.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on May 8 approved conditional‑use permits allowing AT&T Mobility to install rooftop antenna arrays at 709 Geary Street and at the corner of Polk and California Streets, moves planners said are intended to close coverage gaps in the carrier’s local network.
Rick Crawford, a department planner, told commissioners the Geary project would remove two existing omnidirectional antennas and replace them with up to seven panel antennas set back and screened so they would have minimal visibility; tops were described as roughly 60–66 feet above grade. Aaron Hollister described a second AT&T application (the Polk/California site) for up to nine rooftop antennas and associated equipment; staff said both projects had undergone alternative‑site analyses and met the department’s wireless facility siting guidelines.
Both project presentations noted one or more nearby letters of objection citing either radio‑frequency exposure or impacts to private views. Resident Adam Masson, a tenant at 709 Geary, said he and neighbors feared long‑term health effects and asked whether residents would become “guinea pigs.” Commissioners and staff responded that the planning commission’s jurisdiction is land use and siting; Department of Public Health and applicable federal FCC standards govern RF exposure. Commissioner Warden noted the DPH review in the staff report and said residents could request on‑site RF readings after installation.
AT&T representatives, including Teddi Verhaes and consulting engineers, told the commission they had investigated multiple alternative sites in the service areas and that the proposed locations were necessary to meet network objectives.
Commissioners posed technical and siting questions, then moved to approve each project with conditions reflecting standard screening, equipment‑cabinet setbacks, and post‑installation RF verification procedures. Both motions passed unanimously.
What happens next: the approvals authorize the permits subject to the listed conditions and appeal periods; health and RF compliance remains under the purview of the Department of Public Health and federal standards.
