Zoning Administrator McKay approves rooftop wireless upgrades at 2323 Montgomery Drive amid public RF concerns

Zoning Administrator McKay approved a minor design review allowing rooftop wireless facility modifications at 2323 Montgomery Drive, including replacement of the rooftop antenna screening and new rooftop antenna structure, during a public meeting of the Santa Rosa City zoning administrator. McKay stated the design review is limited to appearance because the facility use had been previously authorized and that the decision is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days.

The planning and economic development staff presented the proposal as a design‑only review that would remove an existing rooftop cross structure containing three antennas and install a new rooftop antenna structure described in staff slides as having six antennas and associated ground‑level equipment screened by an existing wall. Staff told the zoning administrator the project had been found categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 and 15303 and reminded the body that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts local jurisdictions from enforcing regulations that would effectively prohibit provision of telecommunications services or deny facilities solely on the basis of RF emissions if the FCC has deemed them safe.

Two members of the public urged a different approach. "My name is Sydney Cox. I'm the co‑director of the EMF Safety Network," Cox said, asking that project reviewers consider increased emissions and request on‑site signage: "there should be a sign on the site because people who have implanted medical devices might react to this, and it could... be life threatening." Cox also offered printed material and maps she said estimate ground‑level exposures ranging from 5% to 100% of the FCC guideline formula.

Richard Boyd, who identified himself as a retired physics professor, told the zoning administrator exposure estimates should explicitly include nearby small cells, equipment being upgraded and ground reflections that, he said, can increase exposure estimates "typically by 50% to a factor of 4." Boyd urged staff to include those factors in evaluations.

McKay replied that the review was limited to design details and that the photos and proposed screening materials make the addition a minor extension of the building; he approved the design review as drafted by staff. He reminded the public the approval is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of the decision (appeal deadline stated as Monday, 07/20/2026). The staff contact for the project was listed on meeting materials for follow‑up questions.

The meeting record shows public commenters raised health and technical concerns about cumulative and reflected RF exposure but the zoning administrator approved the project based on the design findings and staff recommendations. Any further regulatory review or technical assessment of emissions would rely on federal FCC determinations and any separate evaluations requested or required by other agencies.