Planning commission moves to continue AT&T antenna case at 1700 Union Street after neighbors and preservation concerns

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Oct. 17 moved to continue a conditional use application from AT&T for antennas at 1700 Union Street and signaled intent to disapprove the proposal if outstanding concerns are not resolved.

Commissioners debated for more than an hour whether the carrier’s redesigns sufficiently avoid adverse visual and historic impacts on the 40‑foot, Edwardian Hawthorne building and adjacent view corridors. Staff described revisions that reduce the installation from nine panels to three, lower antenna heights from about 6 feet to roughly 4 feet, relocate the largest equipment cabinet from the roof to ground level and add screening. Staff recommended approval with additional refinements to conceal equipment.

Neighbors and preservation supporters urged the commission to deny the application or send it back for more work. ‘‘This building is a handsome 1906 Edwardian,’’ said Candace McKenzie, a nearby resident, arguing that rooftop and facade alterations will be visible along the Gough Street–Union Street corridor. Deborah Sibilich, who lives across Goff Street, cited Planning Code §260(b)(2)(I) and urged that backup equipment be placed below the parapet and not stacked. The Union Street Association said AT&T had not engaged adequately with neighborhood groups.

AT&T’s project representative, Teddy Verhais, told the commission the company reduced the design aggressively and that notices were mailed to residents within the 500‑foot noticing radius and posted on the building. Verhais said further site moves were constrained by the carrier’s technical search ring and network needs and that the company had waived any FCC shot‑clock timing for the application while pursuing revisions.

Commissioners discussed legal limits on local review, including references to the Federal Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §332) and case law requiring written, code‑based denials supported by substantial evidence. Still, several commissioners said design and outreach were insufficient. ‘‘I am not prepared to just let some kind of ill‑placed toupee sit on top of this building,’’ Commissioner Moore said, urging more work to avoid harming the building’s character.

On a motion of intent to disapprove, the commission voted 4–3 to express intent to disapprove the application. Commissioners then voted 5–2 to continue the matter to Nov. 7 with the explicit intent that staff return a formal written disapproval for Commission consideration if the concerns are not resolved. The commission directed staff and the applicant to pursue further design exploration, site walks with RF engineers and additional neighborhood engagement between now and the continuation date.

The case drew sustained public comment and a split commission. The Nov. 7 date was selected to avoid the need to re‑advertise the item and to give staff time to prepare the record and any draft findings needed under federal and local law.