Board splits decision on 104‑foot AT&T tower in Diamond Heights after packed hearing

After hours of testimony from neighbors, technical experts, planning staff, and AT&T representatives, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors reached a split outcome on the proposal to install a roughly 104‑foot AT&T monopole at 350 Amber Drive. On Feb. 10 the board voted to affirm the planning department’s Class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA (item 20), and separately voted to disapprove the planning commission’s conditional‑use authorization (item 25 as amended).

Appellants led by Katherine Dodd of the Diamond Heights Community Association argued the monopole would be an incompatible, 10‑story industrial structure at the boundary of Glen Canyon Park and residential RH‑1 zoning, and that planning staff improperly used a categorical exemption. “A 104‑foot macro tower would be the tallest structure in the area and therefore not necessary or desirable or compatible with the neighborhood,” Dodd said, urging the board to require an environmental review and an alternatives analysis.

The planning department’s presentation, delivered by Josh Pollock and Elizabeth Juncker, defended its conclusion that the project qualifies for a class 3 infill exemption and that applicable exceptions (including significant environmental effects) do not apply. The department described the site as a city‑owned parking area at the rear of the Police Academy, presented engineering and biological‑resources analyses, and noted the applicant provided coverage maps and a voluntary alternatives analysis.

AT&T representatives said the site addresses a documented coverage gap and supports FirstNet capacity for first responders. “We’re committed to delivering reliable, high‑quality coverage to all our customers, especially our first responders who depend on FirstNet,” AT&T’s Cammie Blackstone said, presenting coverage maps and describing outreach efforts to find alternate landlords.

Hundreds of residents submitted written comments and scores of neighbors testified in person. Testimony opposing the project focused on visual and neighborhood impacts, wildfire and tree‑root risks from construction, migratory‑bird collisions, and claims that AT&T had not adequately pursued less intrusive alternatives such as distributed antenna systems or rooftop sites. FirstNet staff testified in favor of the project on public‑safety coverage grounds.

In deliberations board members reviewed two legal threads: whether the planning department’s CEQA exemption was supported by the record and the Telecommunications Act’s limits on local denials where a carrier demonstrates a coverage gap and a lack of viable alternatives. The board ultimately upheld the CEQA exemption (approving item 20) by vote and then approved a motion to disapprove the planning commission decision (item 25) as amended; the clerk’s roll call recorded approval of item 20 and passage of item 25 as amended.

What happens next: The board tabled related motions to prepare findings and directed the clerk to prepare findings consistent with the board’s votes. Parties may consider administrative or judicial review; planning staff will prepare written findings documenting the board’s action.