Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals grants jurisdiction for two neighborhood appeals over NextG/AT&T wireless boxes
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously to accept jurisdiction on two appeals challenging wireless equipment permits in residential blocks, after neighbors complained of lack of notice, visual blight and safety concerns and the Department of Public Works said permits met current rules while an ordinance to add neighborhood notice is pending.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 voted 4–0 to grant jurisdiction for two appeals filed by neighborhood residents challenging Department of Public Works permits for wireless equipment installed in the public right of way.
Neighbors at 36 Ashbury Street and 15620 Seventh Avenue urged the board to allow appeals after they said the equipment was placed without notice, created visual blight and produced a buzzing fan noise. ‘‘It was installed on the utility pole on my block without any notice to the neighbors,’’ said David Tornheim, the Ashbury requester, asking the board to hear his challenge to a NextG Networks permit.
The concerns included whether residents received legally adequate notice about tentative approvals, whether installations could overload poles or present fire risks, and whether equipment with battery backups should be subject to stricter review. Multiple residents said installations were rushed and sometimes carried out at night, limiting the community’s ability to appeal.
NextG representative Natasha Ernst told the board the company followed the 2007 guidelines for siting and permitting and said the installed equipment matched permit simulations. ‘‘We submitted everything that was required under the 2007 guidelines, including the photo sims,’’ Ernst said, adding her teams had spoken with residents and corrected one site’s fan noise after a wiring error.
Barbara Moye of the Department of Public Works said DPW had found the permit conditions met and described pending Board of Supervisors legislation that would create a three-tier notification scheme for equipment in the right of way; under the ordinance, larger (Tier 3) installations would require neighborhood notification and be appealable up to the Board of Appeals once the law takes effect. Moye said the new rules would apply retroactively when permits are renewed, typically two years after issuance.
After public comment and questions about notice distances, weight and the number of devices citywide, Vice President Kendall Goh moved to grant jurisdiction for the Ashbury appeal; the board voted 4–0, opening a five-day appeal window for the requester. Later the board granted jurisdiction on the Seventh Avenue appeal, also by a 4–0 vote, and likewise opened a five-day appeal period.
The board’s action does not decide the underlying permit validity; it allows the board to hold a hearing on the merits of the residents’ appeals. DPW officials and NextG representatives said they would provide the permit files and technical documentation for any subsequent hearings. The Board of Supervisors’ ordinance described by DPW remains pending and, if enacted, would change the advance-notice and appeal process for some future permits.
The board recorded the votes as four ayes — Commissioners Fung, Garcia, Huang and Vice President Goh — with President Tanya Peterson absent. The appeals will proceed to the Board of Appeals’ hearing schedule under the board’s five-day jurisdiction appeal window.
