San Francisco Board of Appeals revokes multiple wireless-box permits over notice errors; continues one case for records

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 7 heard several appeals of wireless-box permits issued under Article 25 of the Public Works Code and voted repeatedly to grant appellants’ appeals and revoke permits where notice to neighbors was found defective. The board also continued one case to allow staff to produce proof of mailed notice and radius maps.

Appellants in multiple cases said carriers and the Department of Public Works failed to give materially identical notice documents to residents, and that in some cases photo simulations or instructions on how to protest were missing from posted notices. ‘‘You can clearly see the proposed installation in front of 2900 Ulloa,’’ said John Birmingham, an appellant in one case, arguing a historic resource and adjacency rule were not properly considered. Residents across the Richmond and Sunset neighborhoods raised similar complaints about not receiving notices in time or in languages they read.

Crown Castle’s counsel, Martin Feynman, told the board the company complied with Article 25’s notice requirements — mailed notice to owners and residents within 150 feet, mailed notice to neighborhood organizations within 300 feet, and posted notices on poles — and that Department of Public Health and planning staff had reviewed RF and aesthetic impacts. ‘‘There’s no tower involved; we’re talking about putting a few small pieces of equipment on an already existing telephone pole,’’ Feynman said, urging the board not to consider RF or property-value arguments that Article 25 and federal law remove from the board’s purview.

Board members pressed carriers and DPW staff about pole safety and structural review. Omar Masry of the Planning Department said poles are reviewed by owners and, where applicable, the Northern California Joint Pole Association or PG&E; DPW and planning have limited jurisdiction over wooden pole safety because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and pole owners police structural concerns. Commissioners repeatedly asked for documentation showing the specific poles at issue had been structurally evaluated.

On formal actions, the board revoked permits in multiple hearings after concluding that the public had not been given correct or consistent notice as presented in the tentative approvals. Where the permit record contained conditions that differed from the notice sent to the public, several commissioners treated that as a notice defect. Where evidence was incomplete, the board continued one appeal (application 14WR-0142) and ordered DPW to provide the department’s mailing list and radius map for the record.

What the board decided: - The board granted appeals and revoked permits in multiple cases (including appeals tied to applications 14WR0170 and other 14WR-series permits heard Oct. 7) after finding notice in the permit file differed materially from the notice used to solicit public comment; votes on those revocation motions were recorded by roll call, and passed by margins such as 4–1 or 4–0 depending on the item. - One case was continued to Oct. 28 so DPW could supply the requested notice materials (radius map, mailed-notice list) to the board.

Why it matters: The decisions underscore where Article 25 gives the city authority — primarily procedural compliance with notice and defined local factors such as certain compatibility standards — and where federal or state law constrains local action, notably on RF emissions and some aspects of wooden-pole jurisdiction. Residents pressed for broader policy fixes, including multilingual notice, city-driven master planning or spacing rules for right-of-way installations, and clearer protocols for pole safety documentation.

The board left the legal limits on its review intact: city staff and attorneys repeatedly said federal law and state preemption constrain denial based on RF safety or necessity. But commissioners said the string of contested appeals illustrates a need for clearer notice practices and, possibly, legislative updates. Several appellants and commissioners urged the department and the Board of Supervisors to consider rule changes on multilingual notice and cumulative impacts.

The board’s next procedural step was to schedule one continued case for Oct. 28 to receive notice materials from DPW; the other appeals will follow the standard post-decision process for permits that were revoked.