Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Telecom topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies rehearing request for 2151 Jones Street wireless facility

San Francisco Board of Appeals · September 2, 2015
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 2 denied a rehearing request from appellants challenging the permit for a personal wireless service facility at 2151 Jones St., finding no manifest injustice despite disagreement over which compatibility standard applied.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 2 rejected a request to rehear a July decision upholding a permit for a personal wireless service facility at 2151 Jones Street.

Doug Loringer, representing appellants Jason Fessel and Sarah Mars, told the board that an earlier deputy city attorney’s on-the-record determination applied a less stringent "zoning protected" compatibility standard when the more demanding "planning protected" standard should have governed. "The incorrect standard was applied to this case and as a result Mr. Fessel and Ms. Mars had an unjust result," Loringer said.

Outside counsel for Verizon, Paul Albritton, disputed that account and asked the board to stand by its July ruling. "This Board made no error. There's no manifest injustice or new evidence," Albritton said, noting he had recited both standards before the board at the original hearing.

Carla Short of the Department of Public Works and planner Scott Sanchez agreed that the record and briefs had identified the location as subject to the planning-protected standard and that the permit complied with applicable requirements.

After discussion, Vice President Daryl Honda moved to deny the rehearing request. The board voted 4–0 to deny the rehearing and uphold the permit decision.

The board did not adopt any new findings or remand the matter; the rehearing was denied and the underlying permit remains in effect.