Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Verizon pole site after finding defective notice; re‑notice ordered
Summary
Neighbors challenged a Verizon small cell on a PG&E pole at 231 Dwight, citing harms to views and incomplete notification; the board found the Article 25 notice defective (wrong supervisor cited and planning staff typos) and ordered corrected notice, continuing the item to Nov. 17.
Neighbors in the Portola Garden District appealed Public Works’ approval of a Verizon personal wireless facility installed on a PG&E pole at 231 Dwight, arguing the addition of a crossbar, integrated antennas and equipment would visually clutter a street designated for neighborhood greening and that the final administrative notice was defective.
Appellant Laura Kemp told the board that the neighborhood had worked for years to plant street trees, establish pocket parks and underground utilities, and said the proposed installation would “significantly ugly” views from affected windows and yards. She also pointed out inconsistencies in the application materials — including a planning referral that incorrectly listed AT&T rather than Verizon and neighborhood‑mailing lists that did not include the correct supervisor’s office — and argued the public had not been meaningfully notified.
Verizon’s counsel and technical representatives said the proposal uses the smallest available integrated‑antenna design, does not increase pole height, complies with the Department of Public Health and the Planning Department referrals, and would produce RF exposure levels well below FCC limits (the company cited post‑installation testing offers). Planning and Public Works staff told the board the site was reviewed under revised Article 25 standards and that the location is in an RH‑1 residential zoning district (a zoning‑protected, not a planning‑protected, location).
Deputy City Attorney John Gibner advised the board that the legal remedy for a defective notice is to require corrected notice and to restart the statutory notice/appeal period rather than immediately reversing the departmental determination. The board ordered the applicant to reissue proper notice under Article 25 (including the correct supervisor contact and corrected documents), reset the appeal/notice window and continued the matter to Nov. 17 to allow neighbors to respond to the corrected notice. The motion passed 5‑0.
Next steps: Verizon and DPW will reissue corrected Article 25 notices; any new appeals filed within the re‑notice window will be accepted; the board will revisit the matter on Nov. 17 if necessary.
