Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Deployment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board dismisses five AT&T cabinet appeals after Superior Court order; refunds appeal filing fees
Summary
Following a Superior Court writ that compelled issuance of certain excavation permits, the Board of Appeals denied jurisdiction over five appeals of AT&T surface-mount cabinet permits and ordered refunds of appeal filing fees. Neighbors raised siting, notice, and compliance concerns; the board said the court order controls.
The Board of Appeals denied jurisdiction over five appeals challenging Department of Public Works excavation permits for AT&T surface-mount cabinets — and directed that appellants’ filing fees be refunded — after a San Francisco Superior Court order required issuance of the permits.
Neighbors across several sites described long-standing concerns about cabinet locations, alternative siting on private property, and the sufficiency of notice. Appellants argued the department and AT&T had not complied with the public-works order requiring searches for feasible private-property or city-owned locations and raised specific siting disputes (for example, the cabinet issued for 1157 Church Street that neighbors say was installed in front of 1159/1161 Church Street).
Counsel for AT&T (Anne Sale) and Public Works (Amanda Higgins) explained that the Superior Court enforced a writ of mandate directing the city to issue permits and concluded a substitution of smaller cabinet models was permitted; the court entered an order directing dismissal of at least one of the pending appeals and the city said the reasoning applies across the contested permits.
Board members expressed sympathy for neighbors who said they lacked adequate notice or opportunity to participate in earlier litigation, but concluded the Superior Court’s orders controlled the administrative posture of the cases. Vice President Fung moved to deny jurisdiction, dismiss the appeals, and refund appeal filing fees in light of the court’s order. The motion carried; Commissioner Lazarus recused on conflict grounds for this item.
