Back in March we wrote about Jeff Cooper, a 27th Avenue resident who was fighting with the city to get a wireless antenna removed from a utility pole outside his house.
NextG Wireless had been contracted by AT&T to install the equipment as part of their Distributed Antenna System (“DAS”). NextG’s services are utilized by major cell phone carriers like AT&T, Sprint and Verizon to help provide coverage in “dead spots” in their network.
During his research, Cooper discovered that the permitting process for NextG’s installation was not handled properly by the DPW, and that NextG had installed an unsuitable antenna for the area.
According to the San Francisco General Plan, the 100 block of 27th Avenue – between Lake and El Camino – has a street view rating of “Good”. This means it’s a protected street and as a result, the Department of Public Works (DPW) did not have the authority to approve permits for work that may impede on that view without additional Planning Department review.
It was on those grounds that Cooper and his neighbors filed an appeal to the Planning Department to get the antenna equipment removed, which they won in March.
As a result of the ruling, NextG was ordered to remove the “personal wireless facility” in front of Cooper’s house at 156 27th Avenue by no later than June 20, 2011.
But as of this morning, June 21, the equipment is still there and in operation. Cooper contacted the DPW but they were unsure what was going on with the case, and even hinted that NextG may be trying to get a court injunction to block the removal.
Despite NextG missing yesterday’s deadline, there are hopeful signs that the equipment may finally be removed. No parking notices went up at the site over the weekend for Monday, which were then extended until Wednesday, June 22. Cooper says the crew that would remove the antenna did not have any information, but they are waiting to be dispatched by NextG.
The DPW removal order that was sent to NextG Wireless doesn’t specify what will happen if the company misses the deadline.
“The Department may be required to take additional action should this facility not be removed by June 20, 2011,” the letter says in closing.
“I guess I should not be surprised,” Cooper remarked about this latest incident of non-compliance from NextG. His antenna battle has dragged on for 6 months, and Cooper says he’s unsure what to do next since he’s exhausted (and won) all legal avenues with the city.
Sarah B.
Jeff Cooper stands under the antenna equipment on the pole outside his house. Courtesy of Jeff Cooper.
Jeff should forward a copy of the DPW letter to Ed Reiskin, DPW head, Mayor Ed Lee, Supervisor Eric Mar, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Maybe, for good measure, he should contact the SF Chronicle and the SF Examiner. Our City has a history of only responding the squeakiest wheel.
Heck, I’m still waiting for PG&E to do as they promised 20 years (and used as an excuse to raise our rates) and bury the power lines. Will this happen before I die, I wonder?
i’m torn on this one…i see that it’s an eyesore, but i’ve sure been enjoying having phone service this year…
This is nuts. 27th ave is littered with street poles, electric wires, phone lines, this antenna sticks up 6 additional feet. And for the first time the Outer Richmond actually has cell service. If this comes down, I’ll be forced to pay an additional monthly bill for land-line service. Thanks Jeff.
I wish our powerlines were underground. The large ugly pole connecting everyone’s power is right in front of our bay window. Barf.
I think all utilities should be underground.
Good luck with those underground cell antennas
Obviously it would be great if the city buried all of the wires, but either way we can not afford to give up improvment in cell phone service.
I’ve been told that eventually all the wires will be buried, but it’s going to take forever. Meanwhile, if you organize your block, and agree to pay for all/some of the costs, you can get your wires buried. It’s not cheap, but perhaps worth exploring if it’s important to your ‘hood.
If you look at the coverage maps from the carriers it is obvious they already have coverage in the Richmond. There is no coverage to “give up”. Ok, you say you want better “coverage”? We’ll put these transmitters in front of your house.I am no fan of being anywhere near them when they are transmitting or falling off those poles when the next moderate earthquakes come. Yep, batteries weighing hundreds of pounds, transmitters, antennas all falling into a mess of wires to liven up things. @Sue Fry, good point whoops PG&E forgot-not!
Quick update. NextG has filed a lawsuit against the city. I am trying to understand the grounds, as I was not a party to the suit and do not have the briefs yet. They tried and failed in court to get some sort of injunction that would delay removal of the equipment. (DPW told me this yesterday.) Although they are probably appealing that decision. Meanwhile they are illegally operating the antenna on a revoked permit. (DPW has reiterated this to NextG) In addition, NextG is not in compliance with the Planning Department’s conditions of approval in almost 50% of the antenna sites in the outer richmond (they have 28 antennas in the outer richmond alone.) NextG has installed over 150 antennas in SF over the last couple years. They are not following the laws and nobody is really checking up on them. I am in favor of a responsible rollout of this technology, but it needs to be responsible. NextG has not been a responsible corporate citizen.
Sorry for your frustration Jeff. We had one “legally” installed in front of our home and have little to no recourse. While I understand people wanting better phone reception (me included) and at the risk of sounding NIMBY, these cell towers are unsightly. We are fine with the light pole outside of our home but the tower buzzes and hums on a regular basis. It will probably discourage people from buying our home – not because it blocks a particular view but it feels as if it’s in our living room. Come on over – I’ll show you what I mean. Btw, we had great coverage at our house prior to installation…go figure.
@cindy – Sounds like you and Jeff now have similar views. Check out the pic from Jeff’s living room in this earlier post:
https://richmondsfblog.com/2011/03/07/27th-avenue-neighbors-fight-back-against-wireless-antenna-installations/
Sarah B.
@Sarah – Yes, I saw this from the earlier post. My husband actually attended the looooooooooonnnnnnnng hearing to support Jeff. At least some of them have been put up not in line with a window view which I would find much more acceptable. It’s frustrating because if I want to build in my own home without disturbing anyone, I need to get a special permit along with approvals. I guess I need to become a big corporation to get what I want…not to sound bitter or anything.
Jeff, have you tried talking to someone from Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR) about how to proceed? They have a lot of experience dealing with local regulatory issues, and may be able to steer you in the right direction. Also, perhaps the City Attorney’s office can tell you what the consequences are if a party fails to comply with Planning Department conditions of approval.
Way to go jeff! Keep fighting the good fight and get these proxies of att to actually do their work correctly. att is desperate and their minion, Lame Kasselman, a former newsomite stoolie, is desperate running up and down northern cal to improve their image.
A few quick answers to some of the questions being asked;
1. The City’s searchable permit system URL (http://bsm.sfdpw.org/permitstracker/ilogin.aspx). If NextG did not obtain the required permits and follow the required process as identified by SFDPW, it would have been easy to shut them down. The sheer volume of sites NextG has built compared to other applicants should bear mute evidence to their ability to follow the rules. A
2. Different Carriers contract with NextG / Newpath / Crown Castle / ExteNet to install systems to improve areas where they know there is degraded coverage or to deploy new technology (think 4G). There could be 4 (or more) antennas in the same intersection each belonging to a different Carrier. T-Mobile opted to do their own and if you think the equipment NextG is putting up is unsightly, you would HATE the T-Mobile sites by a magnitude of 10. As far as the companies who put these sites up, you may not feel lucky to have a “NextG” site near you, but if you had an ExteNet, Newpath, or T-mobile site, you would have the basis for making a comparison in the apparent “quality of workmanship”. F
3. The radio frequency (RF) levels of transmission are minimal. Let’s consider a comparison; the RF transmitter (likely an Andrews or Powerwave product) near you uses less than 500 watts of electricity (blow-dryers use more) and emits RF levels higher than a cell phone (next to your head) but less than a microwave. Consider for a moment that the RF levels emitted by your monitor and TV (with a Cathode Ray Tube) produce more radiation than the NextG equipment and most folks sit in front of both all day and half the night. While an increase in anything is possible ammunition for someone to say, “its dangerous”, When night gives way to morning and the sun illuminates your surroundings, you have just suffered a huge increase in radiation bombardment, yet few people complain about the warm light or call their representative. There are a LOT of immediate dangers that deserve your considered attention and intellect, RF from these devices is not one of them. R
4. The poles are owned by PGE, ATT, City of SF, Comcast, or are a joint distribution pole (multiple owners). There are agreements that govern the manner and use of the poles as well as the process for sharing ownership (and responsibility). R
5. When the next large earthquake or fire ravages the Bay Area, there will be people who’s lives are saved by the proximity of one of these sites and sadly there will be people who’s lives are lost because they were not able to contact emergency services after all the underground facilities snapped and they were not near to a wireless transmitter when it really mattered. NextG can expect to be sued by the relatives of those who died without mobile phone coverage. A
6. In conversation with individuals involved in the industry, city, or company it has become clear that NextG has learned to consider how the placement of the equipment may effect the quality of living for the residents around the locations where the placement of the equipment has been recommended by the engineering teams. I have had the opportunity to review many of the locations where equipment has been installed and follow the genesis of NextG’s progression building these locations since the city started requiring wireless permits. It is apparent that the design(s) have become smaller and more compact (if only marginally), the placement of the sites show a progression away from blocking windows or views. I was told that while it was perfectly acceptable from a permit standpoint to place the equipment in such a position, that based on feedback (resistance) from residents NextG has categorized such placements as “undesirable” and will not deploy a site in this fashion unless no other suitable alternative exists. The same was said for open spaces, parks, and community gardens. It was explained to me like this, “the goal when selecting a location is to make sure it meets the customer needs and being able to build it on time without generating hostility from the residents is a huge part of being successful. No one wins when there is community opposition.” D
7. The view from your window does not belong to you. I’m sorry, but that is a fact. The sidewalk in front of your home does not belong to you (even if your husband poured the concrete), unless it has to be repaired, then the city will insist you own it. O
8. Let’s be honest… Most people are angry because they were not included in the process. Being “forced to take it” almost always makes people angry. On the other side of the coin, the city does / did not require public notice, so why would a company intentionally invite resistance before they even begin? It’s like a strange dog, you don’t want to get bitten when you extend your hand so even though you like dogs you error on the side of caution and leave it alone. Let’s face it, there are a LOT of people in San Francisco with less than conventional views and a lot of other people willing to lend an ear to such people. Not a bad thing, just terribly unpredictable and businesses thrive on predictability. It’s my opinion that the NextG’s should make an attempt to involve the residents of their own violation (more palatable than being forced) at the outset of these projects. Incorporate residents into the location selection phase and they could potentially avoid locations with valid reasons over which the residents will complain and maybe even engender a sense of community and partnership with the residents. It goes back to how they define their success, identifying areas of resident support and areas of resident discord could only help define the delivery potential and schedule for the project. L
Respectfully,
Ed Ucation
@Ed Ucation – Would be interesting to know who you work for… NextG perhaps or another installer?
At any rate, you say early on “If NextG did not obtain the required permits and follow the required process as identified by SFDPW, it would have been easy to shut them down.”
I recommend reading some of the original coverage of this story, which outlines the process that was NOT properly followed for this particular installation. The SFDPW admitted their mistake as did the SF Planning Commission, and as a result, NextG was ordered to remove the installation.
Yes, this is about a neighbor’s preference for something, but it is also about a company and the city not following the procedure they themselves outlined for these installations.
Please don’t spend more paragraphs being condescending to my readers and neighbors about this issue. Thank you.
Sarah B.
RichmondSFBlog
Sarah,
I appreciated your response and apologize if I came across as condescending. I am not a NextG employee or booster (even though my previous post does kind of read that way). I admit freely that you are right about the permit system. I was attempting to convey in general that applicants must follow the rules to obtain a permit and that willful non-compliance would be foolish. The “Wireless Device” application process is a pretty new process for the City and companies that are required to apply. The ordinance has its share of confusing aspects and directives. Being fair to the City, the ordinance was needed and they did not have the luxury of polishing the ordinance to a brilliant shine over several years. The city recognizes that the ordinance was / is not the final defining document and that it will need to change to reflect the City’s commitment to serving it’s residents as issues are identified and as technology changes. There are only three possible directions for an applicant to take… They can decide that they will comply and strive to craft a partnership with the city, they can grudgingly comply and try to exploit every loophole and opportunity to their singular advantage, or they can send lawyers to the city to TELL THEM how the process will be run (good luck with that over the long term). NextG has boldly proclaimed that they will be going the lawyer route which is sad to see, because once the lawyers are done salting the earth, they will had it back to the project managers, engineers, and contractors to live with. They will still have to get a permit from the same people that they would have before they were made angry by the lawyers and become inclined to scrutinize the applications looking for any reason to reject them. The lasting legacy will be one of animosity ensuring that whatever process NextG ends up having to use, that the city will make take a keen interest in ensuring that their applications are letter perfect.
Respectfully,
Ed Ucation
Mr. Ucation – if that’s your real name : )
I have loads of proof that shows NextG does not always follow the rules. 50% of the antennas in my neighborhood (14 of 28) are not compliant with some aspects of DPW’s conditions of approval. I would be happy to share this with anyone who will listen. The reality is NextG has been rushing to install these antennas as fast as humanly possible. DPW does not have the man power to handle the permit requests in a detailed manner. Why the big rush? I think there are three primary reasons:
1) Consumer demand for smartphones
2) They wanted to get these antennas installed before the law changed and they had to notify residents
3) They wanted to get these antennas before residents realize what is really going on
Look, as you stated, they were not required to notify residents and how they manage the rollout is their prerogative and at the end of the day a business decision. I agree that it is unfortunate that they decided to “lawyer up” instead of engaging with the community around them. Not an ideal corporate citizen and in my view not a good long term business decision. Whether I own the view from my window or not, NextG’s actions have a significant impact on my surroundings. To treat me and my neighbors as a mere inconvenience is shameful and I intend to give them hell as a result.
Speaking of which, since I won my appeal, NextG has sued the city in my case and have requested a stay to prevent the City from removing the antenna in front of my house, which is now operating with a revoked permit. NextG has refused to remove the antenna even though the city directed them to do so. They lost their initial request for a stay in Superior Court and their first appeal. There is another appeal pending. The one thing I have learned about this process, is it is definitely NOT EASY to shut them down. Even if they don’t follow the rules. I have been quite shocked at how unprofessional NextG has been throughout the process. Mistakes definitely abound… One thing is certain, they have no shortage of lawyers.
I appreciate your response and it is educational. I would be happy to discuss the matter with you offline if you are interested. You obliviously are well versed in the matter.
Happy fourth!
Jeff,
After much consideration, I have decided to depart from my normal ridged position of neutrality. I am including some links to information I believe you may enjoy reading.
http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Requirements/MultijurisdictionalPracticeMJP/FAQ.aspx#I
(Pay particular attention to 46.)
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=801268
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/members/Status.html
http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Kud8p8ntCIA%3d&tabid=1149
(Rule 3.372 (B)(C)
No amount of research will uncover even a single (outside the Bar application) instance where (c) above has been complied with and while I have not verified exactly what the Bar means by “in court” I believe the possibility that this condition has been and is currently being violated as it relates to your situation is 99%.
Oh, and you may wish to rent a tri-field meter. The ideal usage would be to place it in your window area when the wireless unit is non-operational to establish a baseline (24 hours is ideal) and then 24 hours again when it is operational. The FCC exposure guidelines seem to neglect “lifetime” exposure levels of which you would enjoy with the device right outside your bay window.
Contact me at educatu@yahoo.com if you wish to continue a dialogue.
PS: This is not directed at you Jeff, but rather a possible reader… Your overwhelming arrogance and unabashed glee when trifling with the lives of people who unfortunately cross your path has set this in motion. You are NOT the smartest person in the room, just the loudest. I have enjoyed setting the table at which you now bang your plate and demand service… It will be my pleasure to serve you.
Cheers!