Board of Supervisors disapproves AT&T rooftop cell site at 590 Second Avenue after neighborhood appeal

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously March 23 to disapprove the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization for a proposed AT&T rooftop macro wireless facility at 590 Second Avenue.

The vote followed a public hearing that included a 10‑minute presentation by the property’s neighbors and 2‑minute statements from roughly two dozen callers in support of the appeal. Appellants said the two screened equipment enclosures — together about 40 feet of linear screening on an 80‑foot roof — would be unusually visible from adjacent backyards and decks, would reduce sunlight on those outdoor living areas, and were not the “least intrusive” option required under federal law and local siting guidelines.

“I respect cell service and use it myself,” said David Green, a neighbor and the lead appellant. “But this site is more visible and intrusive to neighboring residences than any other cell site I could find in San Francisco.”

AT&T and its counsel told the board the company had searched extensively for alternatives, including a nearby park site, but that alternatives were unavailable or infeasible; AT&T said the proposal would close a coverage gap and deliver Band 14 capability for first responders.

“We worked really hard to find a feasible site to finally bring the residents of this area up to the level of service,” said Cammie Blackstone, an AT&T representative. She added the project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission after multiple redesigns and community meetings.

Planning staff explained the commission’s findings in support of approval. “The application showed a coverage gap in AT&T’s network and that the gap could potentially be closed by installation at the site,” Aaron Starr, planning department board liaison, told the board. He also said city and federal rules limit how far rooftop equipment can be set back because of coverage and FCC requirements.

Appellants and several supervisors, however, emphasized that federal law requires wireless carriers to employ the least‑intrusive means to achieve coverage and that municipalities retain authority to deny based on aesthetic and neighborhood impacts where alternatives exist. After the hearing Supervisor Connie Chan moved to reject the Planning Commission’s decision (item 20) and approve the motion to disapprove (items 21 and 22); Supervisor Aaron Peskin seconded. The roll call vote was 11–0 in favor of disapproval.

Supervisor Chan said she came to the hearing with an open mind but that after hearing both sides she had concerns about the choice of a highly visible rooftop location and possible alternatives.

Supervisor Peskin, in his remarks supporting the appeal, said he did not believe AT&T had proven the site was necessary and urged the board to weigh the visual and shadow impacts described by neighbors. Counsel for AT&T argued that denial would violate federal law if the carrier had shown no viable alternative, and that the company had followed the planning department’s directions and reduced visual impacts where possible.

The board’s decision directs staff to prepare written findings supporting disapproval. The vote effectively overturns the Planning Commission’s January approval (motion 20849 dated 01/28/2021) and requires the city to produce the legal findings that justify the disapproval under local and federal standards.

What’s next: City staff will draft the board’s written findings and return them to the record. The appellant and AT&T may pursue permits or alternative siting, but the rooftop proposal approved by the Planning Commission will not move forward at this location following the board’s disapproval.

— Ending —