Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance ordinance tightening permitting for wireless facilities after industry objections
Summary
The San Francisco Budget & Finance Committee voted Jan. 14 to send an ordinance amending Public Works Code Article 25 to the full Board, requiring public notice for all wireless facility permits, aligning modification provisions with federal law, and increasing permit fees. Telecom companies warned the changes could violate federal law and spur litigation.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee on Jan. 14 voted to send to the full board an ordinance that revises the city’s permitting rules for personal wireless service facilities in the public right‑of‑way.
Supervisor John Avalos, who introduced the measure, said the amendments repeal the previous tier system, require public notice and protests for all permit applications, and align modification provisions with federal law "as construed by the FCC." Avalos said the changes are intended to "preserve the aesthetics review and public noticing requirements of Article 25" while complying with limits on local authority.
The ordinance would also require applicants to disclose whether they intend future modifications to facilities as part of the public notice, clarify that permitting rules apply to MTA poles, and increase Department of Public Works fees to recover costs.
Industry representatives urged the committee to delay. Martin Feynman of Davis Wright Tremaine, speaking for T‑Mobile West, ExteNet Systems of California and Crown Castle, said the "proposed amendments fall well short of actually accomplishing that goal" of aligning with federal requirements and warned the city could face further litigation and deployment obstacles. Paul Albritton, outside counsel for Verizon Wireless, said Verizon had not been a litigant in earlier cases and urged the city "to step back ... and not to rush into this legislation," requesting stakeholder meetings to produce a workable system.
Avalos responded that the legislation had been crafted "knowing what federal law is" and that it seeks only a narrow set of standards around aesthetics that fit within federal limits. He moved the ordinance to the full board with a recommendation; the motion was taken without objection.
Next step: the ordinance will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors. The committee record shows industry requests for stakeholder meetings and concerns about federal preemption will likely be part of the fuller deliberations.
