Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Department of Public Works on multiple AT&T surface‑mounted facility denials
Summary
After hearings and wide public comment about notification and siting, the Board of Appeals denied clustered AT&T appeals challenging Department of Public Works denials of surface‑mounted facility (SMF) permits; commissioners cited notice complexity, city greening and technical constraints and voted to uphold DPW in multiple 4–0 decisions.
San Francisco’s Board of Appeals on April 16 heard consolidated challenges from AT&T to Department of Public Works denials of excavation permits for surface‑mounted facilities (SMFs) at numerous addresses across the city. After multiple clustered hearings, extensive public testimony and lengthy questions from commissioners, the board denied the AT&T appeals and upheld DPW decisions in the clustered matters presented that evening.
AT&T attorney Foster Johnson argued that DPW repeatedly failed to follow the SMF order and the timing requirements of state law (citing the 60‑day rule in California Public Utilities Code §5885), that hearing officers improperly denied applications rather than holding hearings open to renotice alternative sites, and that the city’s delays prejudiced AT&T’s build‑out. Johnson said AT&T conducts mailings, box walks and other outreach and offered to work with DPW on process improvements.
DPW staff, led by John Quang, said the order was designed to minimize aesthetic and pedestrian impacts and stressed DPW’s responsibility to ensure technically acceptable sites and proper notice. Quang and scheduling staff described operational constraints: hundreds of applications filed, the need to coordinate with other city capital projects and agencies (such as parks and planning), and situations where a proposed alternate location would notify a distinctly different set of residents. DPW said it has begun holding dedicated SMF hearings and publishing postings when appropriate.
Residents, homeowners associations and neighborhood groups told the board the notice and outreach process felt inadequate in many cases (short posting intervals, daytime box walks inaccessible to many working residents, and inconsistent mailing or imagery in notices). Some speakers identified alternative locations, raised safety and sidewalk‑clearance concerns, and urged the board to uphold DPW denials.
After deliberation commissioners emphasized the need to improve the public‑notice process and outreach timing but concluded that in the appeals before them DPW’s denials were supportable: they cited either inadequate outreach for alternates, conflicts with city greening or capital projects, or technical constraints in the SMF order. The board denied multiple grouped appeals and several individual appeals (votes recorded on the public record, many passed 4–0). The board encouraged DPW and AT&T to streamline the process and to seek workable alternatives, including private easements, where feasible.
Next steps for individual projects will depend on whether AT&T re‑files with revised locations and adequate notice or seeks administrative remedies; the board suggested both parties and DPW coordinate on notice windows, box‑walk scheduling and technical review to avoid repeated hearings.
