Appeal filed against AT&T wireless facility permit near San Francisco's Nightingale House

The San Francisco City Council convened on July 4, 2025, to address an appeal concerning the installation of a wireless service facility at 201 Buchanan Street, adjacent to the historic Nightingale House. The meeting began with the appellant, Jason Stein, presenting his case against the permit issued to Modus Incorporated for the installation of a small cell antenna. Stein argued that the permit was improperly granted without adequate public notice and that the installation would obstruct views of the landmark, violating aesthetic standards and local regulations.

Stein highlighted several key points in his appeal, including the lack of notification to the community regarding the permit process, which he claimed violated Article 2713. He emphasized that the installation would obstruct public views of the historic facade of the Nightingale House, which he argued warranted a public hearing before the permit was issued. Stein also pointed out discrepancies in the permit documentation, specifically a misstatement regarding the location of the installation, which he argued could lead to future confusion.

In response, Cammy Blackstone, representing AT&T, defended the permit's issuance, stating that the installation was necessary to meet increasing network demands and that all required city processes had been followed. Blackstone asserted that the proposed antenna would only add two feet to an existing pole and would not significantly impact the landmark's visibility. She also noted that the Planning Department had reviewed the application and found it consistent with preservation standards.

The Planning Department's Deputy Zoning Administrator, Tina Tam, confirmed that the project had been classified as a minor scope of work, which did not require extensive public notification or a hearing. Tam acknowledged a typographical error in the permit documentation but maintained that it did not invalidate the approval process.

Commissioners expressed concerns about the installation's proximity to the landmark and questioned the consistency of the decision-making process, referencing previous cases where permits had been denied for similar obstructions. The discussion highlighted the tension between the need for modern telecommunications infrastructure and the preservation of historic sites.

Public comments included concerns about potential health impacts from the antenna's radiation, with residents questioning the adequacy of safety regulations. Stein concluded the rebuttal by reiterating his call for the permit to be denied, emphasizing the importance of preserving the landmark's visibility and the need for community involvement in such decisions.

The meeting underscored the ongoing debate in San Francisco regarding the balance between technological advancement and historic preservation, with the council set to deliberate on the appeal's merits in the coming weeks.