Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors appeal DPW approval of small‑cell at 1509 Schrader; board continues to allow departments to verify notice
Summary
Neighbors challenged a DPW approval for a Sprint/Mobility small‑cell installation at 1509 Schrader, citing defective noticing, a replacement pole in an underground utilities district and larger‑than‑disclosed equipment; departments said the application met Article 25 requirements but the board continued the matter to Dec. 12 for DPW to verify noticing.
Neighbors of Upper Cole Valley appealed DPW’s approval of a personal wireless facility at 1509 Schrader Street, arguing Mobility failed to properly notify the neighborhood, understated the proposal’s physical scale and sought to install a replacement pole in an underground utilities district where the permit conditions prohibit new poles.
Appellant counsel Brian Cedar told the board Mobility mailed notices only to neighborhood associations in South of Market rather than to local Coal Valley groups and that multiple residents within the 150‑foot notice radius say they never received the mailed notice. Neighbors showed side‑by‑side images comparing the Mobility photo simulations with on‑the‑ground views and highlighted a substantial mid‑pole equipment enclosure and two antennas that they said were not clearly depicted in the applicant’s notices. Multiple residents described the pole as newly fabricated and about 2'3" taller than the existing pole and said it would be 40–50 feet from bedroom windows.
Mobility’s representative, David Nagel, said Mobility had followed Article 25 procedures, submitted the RF and noise studies reviewed by the Department of Public Health and photo simulations reviewed by Planning, and that DPW, Planning and DPH found the application compliant. Nagel said the installation is a replacement pole owned by SFPUC and that the pole and mid‑pole enclosure conform to the city’s approved designs and to the utilities owner’s request; he also said the applicant used a third‑party service to assemble and mail the required notices.
DPW and Planning testified that City departments reviewed the application under Article 25 and found it compliant, but DPW agreed to validate the vendor’s mailing list and whether mailings met code direction. Commissioners pressed departments about verifying the address list and whether DBI/PUC/pole owners had been consulted about replacement poles. The board was split on the permit’s immediate disposition and ultimately voted to continue the matter to Dec. 12, 2018 for DPW to verify notice procedures and for further departmental follow‑up.
Quote: "The notice explicitly assures residents no new poles shall be erected or placed in underground districts," appellant counsel Brian Cedar told the board, urging that DPW review whether the proposal effectively installs a new, taller utility pole in an undergrounded area.
