Commission backs planning‑code changes to clarify staff authority on wireless facility reviews after AB 57

The Historic Preservation Commission voted June 1 to recommend Planning Code amendments to clarify staff authority to approve or deny certain delegated historic‑preservation entitlements related to wireless telecommunication facilities.

Omar Mazri, representing the Planning Department, told commissioners the proposed changes would make clear that staff decisions on delegated items — administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter — may include denial as well as approval. He framed the change as a response to a new state law. "A new state law took effect in January 2016, referred to initially as AB 57... if the city does not make a decision in so many days of an application being complete, then it is automatically approved," Mazri said.

Mazri explained the concern: under the state 'shot‑clock,' a carrier could submit a wireless facility application (for rooftop or right‑of‑way attachments) and, if the city failed to act within the statutory window, the application could be deemed granted. The proposed code amendment gives staff explicit authority to deny delegated entitlements so the city has a clearer record if it opposes automatic approval. The ordinance also would allow screening elements (for example, fake vent pipes or stealth penthouses) to exceed some height limits consistent with current exemptions for unscreened antennas, while maintaining design review and shadow review requirements where applicable.

Tim Frey, Planning Department staff, emphasized that the amendment preserves existing appeal and hearing mechanisms: "So as you recall, you've... since 02/2009, we've had 2 requests for hearings. That would still be the process if the wireless carrier or a neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error," Frey said. He said the code change simply clarifies the existing delegation process so staff could disapprove delegated items if delegated by the commission.

Commissioners asked about practical limits and safeguards — how the 90‑day vs. 150‑day windows apply, distinctions for city‑owned assets, and whether a baseline standard such as a 1‑to‑1 setback (one foot back for every foot of height above the parapet) should be codified. Staff and several commissioners said those technical standards and limiting language might be better placed in implementation guidelines where they would guide design review without creating rigid statutory exceptions that could produce unintended consequences.

A member of the public raised a neighborhood concern about an existing utility pole that constrains vehicle access; commissioners asked staff to follow up. The commission ultimately voted 7–0 to forward the proposed Planning Code amendments to the Board of Supervisors for initiation/adoption.