Anyone who has spent any time following the state Legislature can tell you that one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Sacramento is the telecom industry. Among other things, AT&T for years sponsored a glitzy celebrity golf tournament at Pebble Beach called “the Speaker’s Cup.”
It appears San Francisco is not that different: It’s hard for the community to fight AT&T.
The company has a high-powered lobbying firm, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on a $10,000 monthly retainer, Ethics Commission records show. And the Planning Commission just voted to approve a plan to build a 104-foot tower with 12 new antennas in the middle of the residential neighborhood of Diamond Heights.
The “monopole” would soar over existing trees and create a major new element on the skyline in a part of town where most construction is limited to four stories.
The neighborhood was organized, and speakers at the commission meeting were 100 percent against the proposal (although 13 people in the neighborhood wrote to support the plan, with 83 opposed). Speakers noted that the tower would be an eyesore—but also a potential fire threat.
In high winds, which are common in the area, tree contact with the tower could spark a blaze, and the facility would have a diesel fuel tank to power a backup generator.
Plus, it’s right on the edge of a playground and Glen Canyon Park.
As former state Senator Mark Leno wrote in a letter to the commission:
Help us save local journalism!
Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.
In my 18 years as a local and state legislator, issues related to wired and wireless communication came before me several times. Federal Law that governs wireless facilities includes limits on the amount of non-ionizing radiation allowed to be emitted based on 1996 thermal measurements. San Francisco was sued by T-Mobile because we sought to codify the importance of the beauty of our neighborhoods and the safety of our residents. The CA Supreme Court agreed.
In the state legislature many proposals for substantial (1,000-2,000 foot) “setbacks” from wireless facilities – much smaller than the one before you- were never made law, largely because of the powerful Telecom Industry.
Many localities have created setbacks from schools, health facilities, and childcare centers, parks and playgrounds.
San Francisco has not required setback for safety from places with vulnerable populations, but it should be considered.
San Francisco since 2003 has utilized guidelines for placement of wireless facilities requiring that they be installed with the least possible negative impact to neighborhood aesthetics and public safety, while providing local residents and businesses with access to dependablewireless service.
Commissioner Kathrin Moore said that the standard for a conditional use approval was high enough that this project didn’t meet the standard. “This facility in its current configuration has issues,” Moore said. She discussed the geology of the site, the diesel fuel tank, and the strong neighborhood opposition.
She noted that people who live in the area and use AT&T aren’t reporting problems, and that there are other wireless carriers that might have better service.
That, of course, is the crux of the issue: There’s a T-Mobile antenna in the neighborhood, on the roof of an apartment building, and AT&T wants to be able to compete for customers. The company argues that people in Glen Canyon Park can’t get a signal, which Commission President Lydia So said was a safety issue, and I get that. I have T-Mobile, and I hike in that park with my dog all the time, and I never have problems making or receiving calls. (Not an ad for T-Mobile, which has shitty service where I live, in Bernal Heights. I often wonder why I pay so much money for my phone when I can’t even make a call on it.)
Commissioner Teresa Imperiale noted that “this is all about the needs of AT&T.”
The company explored other locations, but couldn’t come to terms on a lease (translation: Other sites wanted more money.) This site is on the grounds of the Police Academy, which was happy to accommodate the giant tower.
The final vote was typical of the Planning Commission today: All four of the mayoral appointees voted yes. All three of the appointees of the Board of Supes voted no.
Since it’s a Conditional Use authorization, it can be appealed to the Board of Supes. I wonder how that vote would go.
