Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal denied for wireless permit at 734 Lombard; board upholds Public Works finding under Article 25
Summary
After a heated public hearing with parents, neighborhood advocates and safety proponents, the Board of Appeals voted 5‑0 to deny an appeal of Public Works’ issuance of a wireless permit at 734 Lombard, finding the application complied with Article 25 procedures and Public Works' review of available pole inventory and master licensing.
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of Public Works’ issuance of a wireless‑facility permit at 734 Lombard Street on July 20, upholding the department’s determination that the permit complied with Article 25 rules for personal wireless service facilities.
Amanda Higgins of the Department of Public Works told commissioners the department may deny wireless permits only for limited reasons under Article 25, and that for the two contested Lombard permits public works found both met the technical and application requirements. Higgins summarized that master license agreements between carriers and transit/utility agencies allow carriers to lease MTA/PUC poles and then apply for a Public Works permit; she cited Board of Supervisors resolutions approving master license agreements as background.
Extonnet representative Matt Yergovich said his company had examined alternative poles and offered a design tweak (raising the pole ~1.5 feet) that could reduce visual impact as a condition. Appellants and some parents raised health and view concerns with a daycare immediately beneath the proposed facility; appellant counsel asked the board to consider relocation to the pole at 757 Lombard, which had been rejected administratively on aesthetic grounds.
Public testimony was mixed: Bruce Oka and community organizers said improved coverage supports public safety and emergency calls; North Beach parents and childcare operators asked the board to move or condition the pole because of proximity to children’s spaces. Technical witnesses and Public Works staff said the application complied with Article 25 requirements and that MTA/PUC licensing, planning review (views) and Public Health review are part of the process.
After questioning about alternative sites and the role of the Arts Commission (Public Works said the Arts Commission lacks jurisdiction over wireless facilities), Commissioner Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis the permit was properly issued. The motion carried 5‑0.
