Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Verizon small‑cell at 3512 Clay Street; board will draft findings after continuation
Summary
Residents from Presidio Heights urged denial of a Verizon small‑cell permit at 3512 Clay Street on aesthetics and historic‑district grounds. Verizon and city staff defended the site selection; the board continued the appeal to allow written findings to be drafted and circulated to the parties.
Neighbors from Presidio Heights told the Board of Appeals that a Verizon personal wireless facility proposed for 3512 Clay Street would significantly harm the visual character and historic resources along the block. The board heard several hours of testimony on May 9 and decided to continue the matter so that staff can prepare written findings supporting either denial or approval.
Speakers including Scott Wyckoff, Cornelia Alwine and Presidio Heights Association president Charles Ferguson argued the pole would be an outlier mid‑block intrusion in a street of historic single‑family homes, that planning’s photo simulations understated the visual impact, and that alternative poles on the same block were not adequately analyzed. Merrill Randall raised health and RF concerns and urged the board to weigh cumulative impacts of many similar installations.
Verizon counsel and technical staff explained the facility’s design: the pole would be extended about 2 feet 7 inches, a 10‑inch‑diameter shroud at the top and two 10‑inch radios on the side; the node is a 122‑watt small cell designed to cover roughly 500–750 feet. Verizon and Public Works/Planning described an alternatives analysis that considered conduit capacity, distance to adjacent nodes, and tree interference. Planning staff said the site is in a planning‑protected location but concluded the installation would not “significantly detract” from defining characteristics; Public Works said it followed Article 25 referral procedures and coordinated with Planning and Public Health.
Commissioners expressed concern over cumulative impacts and over whether a reasonable alternative pole half a block away had been adequately tested. Commissioner discussion emphasized the need for written findings detailing Planning’s reasoning rather than boilerplate conclusions. The board voted to continue the matter and have written findings drafted; parties will be given an opportunity to respond to the findings before the item returns for decision.
Next steps: board staff will draft findings explaining whether the installation does or does not significantly impair the district’s defining characteristics; the item will be calendared for a future hearing after parties review the draft.
