Board of Appeals upholds Crown Castle wireless permit after neighborhood objections

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 24, 2016, voted to deny an appeal of a wireless‑facility permit for two utility poles on the 700 block of 30th Avenue, upholding the Department of Public Works’ earlier approval.

The appeal was filed by David Lau and neighbor Kevin Yen, who argued Crown Castle’s mailings and pole postings were inadequate, the photo simulation included with the application was outdated, and that poles had been replaced on the block after the Board’s suspension notice was issued. Yen said postings on telephone poles were small, difficult to read and sometimes stapled so tightly they required tools to remove; he also presented photos he said showed a weekend pole replacement on Aug. 13–14.

Martin Feynman, counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC, told the board the company’s application complied with public‑works Article 25: mailed and posted notices were sent to property owners within 150 feet, the application included required photo simulations and the Department of Public Health had reviewed and approved Crown Castle’s RF‑emissions report. Feynman disputed that Crown Castle replaced the poles, saying the poles are PG&E property and that Crown Castle did not perform the replacement.

Amanda Higgins of Public Works described the Article 25 process for applicants, noting the application was submitted Nov. 18, 2015; tentative approval was posted and mailed April 8, 2016; Public Works held a hearing May 23, 2016; final approval issued June 14 and was posted June 16. Higgins said Article 25 requires a photo simulation and mailing/posting of notice but does not require mailing of a separate final determination to every resident, and she said Public Works had mailed required notices and DPH had cleared RF compliance.

Neighbors and other speakers framed their objections in several ways: some said the cumulative visual and wiring burden on poles was unsightly or unsafe; others alleged recent pole replacements suggested a concerted effort to ready poles for antennas while appeals were pending. Supporters of the permit said improved cell service is a public‑safety and equity issue and argued the application materials were available and adequate.

The board debated whether to continue the hearing to get clarity about who replaced the poles and whether pole‑replacement permitting had been followed, but declined to continue. Commissioner Munson moved to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. The board recorded Vice President Frank Fung voting Aye, President Daryl Honda voting No, and Commissioner Munson voting Aye; the motion passed 3–1.

The board majority found the record showed compliance with the technical requirements of Article 25 and that the Department of Public Works and Department of Public Health had performed the reviews required by the code. The board asked staff to follow up on the question of which entity performed any pole replacement and on related permitting processes outside the appeal.