Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies appeal over Verizon pole at 97 Webster Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor appeal of a Department of Public Works permit for a pole‑top wireless facility at 97 Webster Street, finding the project complied with Public Works Article 25 and departmental reviews of aesthetics and RF impacts.
President Rick Swigg and the San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 8 upheld a Department of Public Works permit allowing a pole‑top personal wireless service facility at 97 Webster Street, rejecting neighbor objections that the installation would harm the historic character of the Hayes Valley area.
The board heard testimony from appellants Orit and Joran Wohlberger, who said the proposed antenna and attached metal boxes would “compromise the aesthetics of the neighborhood” and lower property values. The Wohlbergers pointed to careful restoration work they had done on an original 1880 window and said the proximity of the pole to that feature and to their daughter’s window made the installation particularly intrusive.
Counsel for the permit holder, speaking for Verizon, said the carrier redesigned the proposal in response to Planning Department feedback: the work includes replacing the existing pole with a new wooden pole topped by a four‑foot fiberglass shroud painted to match the pole, with the antenna positioned above the roofline and narrow‑beam radios that the Department of Public Health’s third‑party review found would produce very low RF emissions at ground level. City staff from Public Works and Planning testified the application met the requirements of Public Works Article 25 for siting and aesthetics.
Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez explained the Article 25 standard the board applied: whether a proposed facility would “significantly degrade the aesthetic attributes” that supported the district’s historic designation. He said the department’s review considered the adjacency to the historic resource and the net change against the existing streetscape baseline.
Commissioners noted their limited discretion under the code and that state and federal frameworks also constrain local decisionmaking on telecommunication facilities. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit had been properly issued; the board voted 3‑0 to deny the appeal.
The board’s decision preserves DPW’s permit for the pole‑top installation at 97 Webster Street. The departments and the permit holder described ongoing outreach and protest procedures used during the permit process, including the mailed notices and a protest hearing required under Article 25.
