Outer Sunset
Neighbors Convince Property Owner to Break Contract with Wireless Carrier
In early 2002, a wireless carrier applied for a Conditional Use Permit to install 12 cellular phone panel
antennas, a Global Positioning Satellite antenna, and ten associated equipment cabinets on a mixed-use
apartment building at Noriega Street and 38th Avenue. The proposed antenna site, located in a neighborhood
of predominantly single family residences and a block from the A.P. Giannini Middle School and Sunset
Elementary School, was considered a "Preference 6" location under the City’s Wireless Telecommunications
Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines. ("Preference 7" is the lowest preference or "disfavored"
category.) Despite this low preference, community members had every reason to believe that, had this
application gone before the City Planning Commission for a hearing, it would have been approved.
As soon as neighbors within 300 ft. of the proposed site received notice of the proposal, they immediately
began contacting the Planning Department and Supervisor Leland Yee’s office to express their opposition.
At the community meeting the carrier was required to hold under the WTS Guidelines, over 100 neighbors
attended to voice their concerted opposition to the proposal. Residents came with their questions and
demanded that representatives from the carrier address the health concerns neighbors had related to cellular
phone antennas and explain why the proposed facility was necessary. The owner of the apartment building
and hardware store who had signed an agreement with the carrier to permit the antennas on his property
also attended this meeting, and stated that if enough neighbors voiced their opposition, he would withdraw
from his contract.
A group of neighbors held a second neighborhood meeting that focused on organizing a petition and letter
campaign addressed to the Planning Department, Supervisor Yee’s office, and the owner of the building.
Various committees were established, some to focus on convincing the building owner, in as non-threatening
a way as possible, to withdraw from the contract with the carrier; others to document phone calls by
cellular phone customers in the neighborhood to establish proof that coverage was adequate in the area
and that it was unnecessary to build the facility at the proposed site.
In early March 2002, after neighbors had gathered over 300 signatures and letters in opposition, residents
of the apartment building and proposed antenna site were pleasantly surprised to find a letter posted by
the building owner. The letter read:
"Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with many people concerning the proposed antenna site. Many of
the people whom I have spoken with are my close neighbors who I have been doing business with for many
years. When the people that are close to me have a deep concern over a neighborhood issue, I listen. As
I promised at the first community meeting if enough people express to me their opposition to this project,
I would take action. . . . I would like to thank everyone who voiced his or her opinion and concern
regarding this neighborhood issue. A close neighborhood group benefits us all and surpasses any benefit,
which. . .any wireless service provider could have offered me or its customers."