T-Mobile towers stir health concerns

Residents of the Mission’s Lower 24th Street area voiced their concern last Tuesday evening regarding T-Mobile’s plan to install cell phone antennas near their homes at a community meeting hosted by the mobile carrier.

T-Mobile held the community outreach meeting to get feedback from neighbors at the Mission Cultural Center as a part of the planning process to acquire their conditional use permit in order to install six cell phone antennas atop a two-story building at 2789 Harrison Street—located on the northeast corner of 24th Street. The feedback, however, was probably not the sort T-Mobile would have preferred.

“This site is the preferred site under the current wireless guidelines because it has mixed use commercial and residential. It’s basically how San Francisco’s ordinance is written,” said Lisa Nahmanson, a consultant from PermitME, Inc. hired by T-Mobile to expedite the permit process.

The neighbors, however, said they were more concerned about health and safety.

Loud drum beats and noise from the capoeira class next door only added to the general frustration in the room because it was difficult to hear one another speak. Despite these distractions, however, the atmosphere was generally civil.

Nahmanson told neighbors that there is a coverage need in the area. Currently there are three mixed-use sites in the Mission District used by T-Mobile: one atop the US Bank building on Mission and 22nd streets; another at Bryant and 18th streets; and the third, atop the Public Storage building near Bayshore Boulevard. Nahmanson didn’t have any information regarding sites belonging to other carriers.

“The whole process emanates from customer complaints,” she said.

According to an FCC mandate, she said, all carriers must provide “ubiquitous” service.

Rajat Mathur, an electrical engineer from Hammett & Eddison—a Sonoma-based engineering firm contracted by T-Mobile—was also there to discuss the more technical aspects. He provided the radio frequency report for the proposed site and determined there would be no significant impact on the environment.

The amount of radiation emitted would be 0.0067 mega watts per centimeter squared, he said.

“T-mobile will be 150 times below the FCC public limit at ground level. So we conclude that the site will comply with the FCC guidelines,” he added.

Using Sutro Tower as a comparison, he said it’s about 100 times more than what it would be at the proposed site.

When pressed by neighbors about the additional radiation in the area from other carriers, Mathur responded that measurements showed the cumulative radiation levels to be higher but still about 100 times lower than the FCC guidelines.

These reassurances, however, didn’t win over the neighbors.  They expressed their suspicions about data and safety standards they say are often subject to change over time. Residents like Jane Martin are concerned about the long-term effects.

“This is an experiment. We don’t really have reliable data,” she said.

Martin and others asked how much T-Mobile was paying for the use of the building owned by landlord Allen McCarthy. Nahmanson said there was a proprietary contract signed between the two parties and that T-mobile would not, nor was it obligated to, divulge its’ specifics.

McCarthy and his property have been no strangers to controversy in the community. In July 2009, the eight-unit building was at the center of protests over evictions of low-income Latino residents that took place after he purchased it in January 2008.

Another resident asked if T-Mobile had other sites in other areas of the City—specifically Pacific Heights. Nahmanson didn’t immediately have an answer but later provided the information via e-mail. There are 14 sites in Pacific Height with one mixed-use site, she said.

Martin and others also resented that antennas were being “stealthed” to appear as service vents and service boxes.

“I’m offended because it looks like you are trying to hide something or like you have something to hide and I think that speaks to what some of the health concerns are,” she said.

Nahmanson responded that San Francisco’s planning commission requires that the antennas be stealthed.

“The way you’ve chosen to do it, it’s a kick in the face,” Martin said.

Nahmanson asked Martin if she had other alternatives in mind. Martin answered she had none because she just didn’t want the antennas there at all.

Erick Arguello, president of the Lower 24th Street Merchants Association, said he was a T-Mobile customer and experiences some service problems – as he had with other providers—but said it was adequate enough and he would rather not risk his health for better coverage.

“I’m uncomfortable with the safety and the long term effects. We don’t really know about the amount of radiation from the antennas over time. Nobody knows,” he said.

Alex Rivera lives a few houses away from the proposed site and seemed to sum up the consensus of those that attended.

“As a community member I’m completely against it and I will attend every meeting there is to oppose that this be put up, to see that decision makers understand that,” he said.

But for now the project is still in the early stages and will likely go before the planning department later this fall. If approved, T-Mobile will need to acquire all its building permits then go before the Board of Supervisors for final approval.