Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Department of Public Works on multiple AT&T SMF excavation permit appeals; disputes center on 60‑day rule and SMF notice process
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied AT&T’s appeals of DPW denials for several surface‑mounted facility excavation permits (including 198 Palm, 398 Carl, 4590 Balboa, 2103 Hayes and 1303 Seventeenth), after hearing arguments about statutory timing under the Public Utilities Code, DPW’s SMF order and notice process, and alternate‑site feasibility.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 7 denied multiple appeals by AT&T challenging Department of Public Works denials of excavation permits for surface‑mounted facilities (SMFs), upholding DPW decisions across a set of cases that the company had argued were unlawfully delayed and improperly denied.
AT&T counsel Foster Johnson told the Board the city failed to act within the 60‑day turnaround the company says the Public Utilities Code requires for franchise holders, citing permit submissions that, he said, went 170–270 days before formal denial. Johnson argued the city’s denials relied on speculative “other potentially preferable locations” rather than findings that the proposed sites would incommode the public right of way, and asked the Board to reverse and instruct DPW to follow its SMF order and rules consistently.
Carla Short of the Department of Public Works countered that the SMF order and the department’s memorandum of understanding with carriers require consideration of multiple proposed locations and sufficient notice for affected neighbors. Short said DPW’s denials reflected concerns about alternative locations identified at box walks or during hearings and that the SMF pre‑application process is distinct from the excavation permit decision; she also noted DPW has set aside special hearing days to process AT&T cases.
The Board heard detailed arguments and testimony on several individual addresses. At 198 Palm Avenue, AT&T alleged the department waited more than 170 days for a denial; DPW said the public notification and alternative‑site process justified the hearing schedule. The Board voted to deny AT&T’s appeal and uphold DPW. At 398 Carl Street, neighbors from the Parkview Commons homeowners association described narrow sidewalks, transit boarding and safety concerns; AT&T identified alternative sites including a UCSF garage location. The Board denied that appeal as well.
Across the grouped items (including 4590 Balboa, 2103 Hayes and 1303 Seventeenth), the Board twice heard competing legal theories: AT&T’s focus on statutory timing and a narrow reading of state Public Utilities Code provisions versus DPW’s emphasis on neighborhood notice, technical feasibility and the hearing officer’s role under the SMF order. In each of the contested permits before the Board that evening, the Board voted to uphold DPW’s determinations.
