Local Residents Want to Pull the Plug on Antennae Sites

By Susan Reynolds

Residents in the Sunset and Richmond districts staged two separate demonstrations against cellular antenna sites being proposed for two predominantly residential areas, 1935 32nd Ave., between Pacheco and Ortega streets, and the corner of Geary Boulevard and 11th Avenue. Both communities cite concerns about the proliferation of cellular antennae in San Francisco, with current figures from the SF Planning Department showing there are now more than 2,400 in place, and potential health hazards from prolonged exposure to microwave signals.

Richmond District resident Grace Jeong thinks the protests were a success.

"We got more people involved who oppose the new sites," she says. "And with 2,800 neighborhood signatures opposing the antennae, we are wondering why the company is still pushing forward."

Doug Loringer, a spokesperson for the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU), a citywide coalition of residents and neighborhood groups that focuses on antenna site issues, thinks he knows why the company is urgently working to get the new antennae installed.

"Both the Richmond and Sunset sites are being proposed by Metro PCS, a new company attempting to enter the San Francisco market," Loringer said.

"Metro PCS declared bankruptcy in 1998 and faces a January 2002 deadline to establish antenna sites or it will lose its FCC license."

Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano recently introduced a resolution to make several immediate changes to San Francisco's antenna site guidelines, including hiring a consultant by March 1, 2002 to study the situation in-depth.

However, Loringer is critical of the new legislation.

"It doesn't contain a mechanism for immediate relief for residents from unwanted or unnecessary antennae on or near homes, apartment buildings, schools and residential neighborhoods in general," Loringer explains. "The other problem is the industry is poised to deploy so-called third-generation technology and get it in under the old guidelines, before the consultants can give their opinions and the legislation is finalized."

More and more neighborhoods are banding together, staging demonstrations and going to City Hall to vehemently protest additional cellular antennae, mostly based on their growing fears about health concerns, according to Rima Missakiani, a Sunset District resident and registered nurse for more than 50 years, who attended the protest at Geary Boulevard and 11th Avenue.

"I have worked with cancer patients who lived in electromagnetic field areas, and they seemed to have more tendencies toward cancers, so I have been concerned for many years," Missakiani says. "I always believed it had to do with these wires, and then I started hearing about studies of the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields. Our government should stop these for a while and study the effects. I think we're in danger in the long-term."

The main obstacle to banning cellular antennae is the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which preempts local governments from denying permits for antennae based upon health and safety issues, provided that the antennae meet Federal Communications Commission (FCC) emission standards. The standards set by the FCC are considered to be among the most lenient in the world, according to SNAFU, which also points out that Switzerland has standards more than 100 times more stringent than those in the U.S.

While the board of supervisors cannot deny antenna applications based on health concerns, it can deny them based upon the conclusion that there is adequate coverage in a given area.

On July 16, 2001, the board upheld a neighborhood's appeal of a SF Planning Commission approval for three new cellular phone antennae for the first time in San Francisco history. The antennae, proposed by Sprint, were to be located on the roof of the Keihl's Building, located at 2489-2491 Washington St., but a large coalition of neighbors protested the antennae based on the fact that Sprint already had adequate coverage in the area. The argument swayed the board to uphold the appeal by a vote of 10-to-1.

Also in July, Ammiano introduced legislation calling for a six-month moratorium on new cell phone and other wireless antennae in residential neighborhoods throughout the City.

"There aren't eight votes to pass an antenna moratorium at this time," Loringer says. Despite having a long way to go in the battle against new antenna sites, some progress has been made, he said.

For the past several months, the board of supervisors has brought SNAFU and the wireless industry together to assist the Planning Department in developing new wireless site guidelines.

Neighborhood residents and SNAFU hope the new guidelines will result in restrictions that prevent placement of antennae in residential neighborhoods, like the Sunset and Richmond districts, and on or near schools, health care centers, senior centers, firehouses and places of worship.