Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses city departments on small‑cell permits after staff flag multiple Extonnet noncompliance cases
Summary
City health, planning and public‑works officials told the Board of Appeals they rely on licensed engineers' pre‑installation RF models and on post‑installation verification; staff disclosed about 23 Extonnet sites with deviations from approved plans and said notices of deficiency were issued with 30 days to fix them.
San Francisco — The Board of Appeals spent much of its July 27 meeting focused on small‑cell wireless permits after staff from the Department of Public Health, Planning and Public Works described how the city reviews and enforces installations on utility poles and street‑facing equipment.
Patrick Fostal, the Department of Public Health’s principal inspector who manages the city’s cell‑antenna program, told commissioners the federal public‑exposure benchmark for the frequencies at issue is “1 milliwatt per centimeter squared,” and that the department evaluates engineering reports prepared by licensed engineers against that standard. He said the city relies on conservative pre‑installation models (far‑field and near‑field calculations) and — when concerns arise — conducts or requests post‑installation measurements.
“Those models should be done by licensed engineers,” Fostal said, describing a two‑step approach of conservative modeling followed by verification where needed.
Planning and Public Works staff told the board they recently identified a cluster of Extonnet (Extonant) facilities that differ from the plans approved during permitting — typically larger shrouds and modified switch‑box configurations. Scott Sanchez, the Planning Department staffer at the hearing, said the department has found roughly 23 locations with those discrepancies and has discussed enforcement options with Public Works.
Rahul Shah of Public Works confirmed notices of deficiency were issued on July 25 giving permit holders 30 calendar days to bring installations into compliance. “If it’s not done within that timely fashion, then the department can take further action if needed,” Shah said, including refusing future permits where reasonable efforts to secure compliance have failed.
Extonant’s representative, Matthew Yergovich, acknowledged the differences and said the company is working with city staff to replace or modify equipment to match approved plans where feasible. He said about 250 extant Extonant permits exist citywide and that the noncompliant installations appear to be recent.
Board members pressed staff on fairness and notice, asking whether permit packages routinely include the illustrations used at the hearing. Commissioners also debated whether to pause individual permits until the broader set of deficiencies was resolved: Vice President Frank Fung moved to continue a related appeal to the call of the chair to give the permit holder time to correct noncompliance; the motion carried.
What happens next: Public Works will track permit holders’ corrections and may pursue enforcement for sites that remain out of compliance after the 30‑day window. The board asked staff to report back on which of the cited sites had previously appeared before the appeals board.
