Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Small Cell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Verizon small‑cell appeal at 734 Lombard to allow DPW briefing, party talks
Summary
The Board continued Vince Young’s appeal of a DPW permit for a small canister antenna on a transit pole in front of 734 Lombard to July 20, directing Public Works to file a brief on code provisions and to return with more detail on denied alternate pole locations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 11 continued an appeal by tenants and the owner of 734 Lombard Street of a March 4, 2016 Public Works permit allowing installation of a small wireless canister on a transit pole in front of the building.
Appellant counsel Ryan Patterson said the proposed canister would be placed directly in front of residential windows and a commercial daycare and library and asked the board for time to meet with Verizon and contractor Extonnet to pursue relocation across the street or elsewhere in the block. Tenant Vince Young said the device could reduce light and views into adjacent windows and asked whether studies have examined long‑term effects on children who use the nearby library and daycare.
Verizon’s counsel, Jim Hurd, and Extonnet representatives said the device is typical of small‑cell equipment around the city, complies with federal RF limits and local code review, and is smaller than the appellant described (14‑inch shroud, not 18). Nicole Mason of Extonnet and engineer Bill Hammett told the board regulatory or ownership limits rule out many of the other poles residents identified (concrete, decorative, feeder poles or traffic signals owned by other agencies). Extonnet said two nearby candidate poles had been denied during permitting for visibility reasons.
Public Works planner Rahul Shah told the board the permit application began in June 2015, received tentative approval Nov. 24 after coordination with Planning and Public Health, and was approved by DPW Order 184516 on Jan. 28, 2016 following a public hearing; Public Health had confirmed modeled RF exposures were about 15 percent of the applicable FCC standard. Planning staff advised the shroud would sit roughly 11 feet from the nearest residential window and had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and categorized as exempt under CEQA.
Several neighbors and community members testified on both sides: seniors, merchants and residents described spotty service in hilly San Francisco and urged better coverage for safety and business needs; others pressed for relocation and raised property‑value and visual‑impact concerns.
After questioning from commissioners about where alternate pole options had been denied and which agencies control particular pole types, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to continue the matter so Public Works could submit a written, page‑limited brief explaining the code provisions and the department’s determinations and so the parties could pursue compromise. The board scheduled the continuation for July 20 and the motion passed 3–1 with Commissioner Anne Lazarus opposed and one commissioner absent.
The board’s order asks DPW to provide a written submittal clarifying the Public Works Code references relied upon, the definitions for transit/utility/light poles in DPW order 184516 and article 25, and the factual reasons the alternate pole sites were denied. The parties were directed to meet if possible before the continued hearing.
