Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for wireless pole near Line Steps after debate over notice and mootness
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals left in place a Public Works permit for a personal wireless facility after appellants raised inadequate notice and aesthetic concerns; a Verizon attorney said a recent ordinance removed permitting for certain city poles, and the board’s motion to grant the appeal failed 2–3.
Appellants challenging a personal wireless service site permit argued the city gave inadequate notice and failed to make a required site-specific aesthetic determination.
The hearing on Appeal 19‑69 centered on a permit (18WR‑0372) for a facility on public right-of-way near the Line Steps corridor. Appellant Kathy Yu showed photos and a simulation claiming the proposed pole and additional equipment would harm the visual corridor and said the department’s mailed address was two miles from the actual pole location, which she said produced defective notice.
Outside counsel for the permit holder, Paul Albritton, told the board the issue was largely moot because the Board of Supervisors recently amended local law so that some city-owned poles no longer require a permit, and that the SFPUC license regime now governs placement. He disputed any prejudice from the notice and said the design had been reviewed for historic-compatibility.
Leo Palacios of Public Works said the permit was issued in accordance with Public Works Code Article 25 as it existed when the permit issued. Professor Julie Nise, speaking in public comment, said federal law controls radiofrequency safety but that local governments retain authority over aesthetics and due process regarding notice.
Commissioners debated whether the ordinance change applied to this pole and whether the notice was sufficient. Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved to grant the appeal on inadequate-notice grounds; the motion failed for lack of the four votes required to grant an appeal. The board therefore left the department action in place and the permit stands.
