After months of testimony, Board splits: upholds CEQA exemption but disapproves AT&T’s 104‑ft Amber Drive tower
Loading...
Summary
The Board held an extended hearing on AT&T’s proposed 104‑ft monopole at 350 Amber Drive. On Feb. 10 supervisors voted to affirm Planning’s class‑3 CEQA exemption (10–1) but then disapproved the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization (11–0) after amendments and conditions, following lengthy public testimony on visual, environmental and safety concerns.
The Board of Supervisors conducted a multi‑hour public hearing on Feb. 10 over AT&T’s proposal to install a 104‑foot monopole with 12 antennas at 350 Amber Drive, adjacent to Glen Canyon Park and the San Francisco Police Academy. The hearing consolidated two appeals: whether the project qualified for a class‑3 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and whether the Planning Commission’s conditional‑use approval should stand.
Appellants and neighborhood groups argued the monopole is incompatible with the low‑profile, residential character of Diamond Heights, risks tree loss and wildlife collisions, could create noise and fire hazards because of an on‑site diesel generator, and that Planning relied on insufficient alternatives analysis. “A 104 foot macro tower would be the tallest structure in the area and therefore not necessary or desirable or compatible with the neighborhood community,” Katherine Dodd, representing the Diamond Heights Community Association, told the board.
Planning Department staff and AT&T representatives countered that the site met the Planning Department’s class‑3 infill exemption criteria because the facility’s footprint is small (roughly 550 square feet) and that the project is located on city‑owned public property (a preference‑1 site). Planning staff described the project as standard practice for maintaining reliable network coverage and noted the site includes a 30 kW backup generator with a roughly 190‑gallon diesel tank. AT&T and FirstNet representatives emphasized that the site fills a documented coverage gap, improves indoor service for residents and supports first‑responder communications.
Board questioning focused on the legal standards for telecom siting, the Telecommunications Act’s limits on local regulation of technology, the adequacy of alternative‑site analysis and whether weak indoor coverage constitutes a coverage gap. Planning staff explained licensed engineer‑verified coverage maps were submitted and that the city’s siting preference ranking (1–7) treats publicly owned facilities as highest preference; Planning said alternative‑site analysis is required only for sites ranked 5 or lower.
Votes and outcome: the Board first voted on the CEQA appeal (Item 20) to affirm Planning’s class‑3 categorical exemption for the project; that motion passed 10–1 with Supervisor Chan voting no. Later, after debating conditions and amending item 25, the Board approved a motion to disapprove the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization (Item 25 as amended). The roll call on that motion recorded 11 ayes; item 24 (motion to approve the Planning Commission) was tabled.
What this means: the Board’s actions leave the project at a legal and procedural crossroads. Upholding the CEQA exemption but disapproving the conditional‑use authorization signals judicially defensible distinctions between whether environmental review is required and whether the proposal meets local land‑use compatibility findings. Appellants called the outcome a meaningful check on private telecom expansion in residential and park‑border areas; AT&T said it will comply with conditions and explore design mitigations.
The Board included direction for staff to prepare findings and for the clerk to prepare the amended motions; additional technical conditions (for example, tree protection and fire‑safety measures) were discussed during the amendments.
The hearing generated more than an hour of public testimony from residents, scientists, arborists and civic groups on both sides of the issue; planning staff and AT&T gave detailed technical presentations and answered supervisors’ questions.
