\u201cThere is a petition on Change.org<\/a> that has over [380] signatures so far,\u201d McCaskill noted. \u201cThere have been numerous posts on social media about it, and if you go out to the park, they have a couple notices posted in the park with some graffiti of colorful language in opposition to the proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n The online petition was launched July 5, just three days after the notice of application was distributed by the Development Services Department.<\/p>\n The petition cites \u201cvisual blight,\u201d loss of public space, risk to nearby property values and concerns about health and safety as the primary reasons for opposing the project.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough research is ongoing, many residents are understandably concerned about the proximity of high-frequency antennas to homes, children and pets,\u201d the petition states.<\/p>\n Federal law prohibits local governments from regulating the placement, construction and modification of wireless service facilities on the basis of\u00a0 environmental concerns about radio frequency (RF) emissions if the facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations for those emissions.<\/p>\n Wireless equipment produces electromagnetic fields, or EMFs, with varying frequencies. New-generation 5G wireless has a higher frequency than previous generations, enabling it to carry more information at greater speed.<\/p>\n EMFs from cellphones, computers, power lines and microwaves consist of non-ionizing, low-level radiation. Ionizing EMFs, such as from sunlight and X-rays, have much higher-level radiation.<\/p>\n The highest 5G frequency ranges from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz, where data transfer speed is greatest.<\/p>\n Research published in the\u00a0Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology said it found \u201cno confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields \u2026 such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other hand, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences noted that \u201cconcerns persist about possible connections between EMF and adverse health effects.\u201d<\/p>\n The institute said additional research is needed, though it recommended \u201ccontinued education on practical ways to reduce exposures to EMFs.\u201d<\/p>\n The issue of whether the project would \u201cmar the natural and open look\u201d of the neighborhood, as opponents contend, could be a continuing subject of discussion in coming months.<\/p>\n The Peninsula Community Planning Board<\/a>, a group that advises the city on land-use issues in the area, can provide input on questions of aesthetics and community impact.<\/p>\n \u201cIn general, [cell tower] contractors do a pretty good job with the aesthetics,\u201d said PCPB Chairman Eric Law. \u201cMost of the issues arise from community impact. For instance, locating a faux tree \u2026 in a nature preserve might seem like a good idea to the contractor, but [not] the community.\u201d<\/p>\n Because this project is being reviewed discretionally, public input through community planning groups is taken into account.<\/p>\n Neighbors looking for an opportunity to share their feedback may have to wait awhile. The project was initially slated for a presentation to the Peninsula Community Planning Board in July, but the presenters rescheduled.<\/p>\n \u201cThe applicant withdrew it from [the] meeting to be better prepared, likely when they found out about the public opposition,\u201d Law said. \u201cSince the board doesn\u2019t meet in August, we won\u2019t see the project until September.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/notice-of-application.jpg\")
A notice of application from the San Diego Development Services Department about AT&T\u2019s cell tower proposal is taped to a tree at Collier Park, along with a handwritten note encouraging neighbors to attend community meetings about it. (Tyler Faurot)<\/p>\n![\"Collier](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Collier-Park.jpg\")
Collier Park at 2351 Soto St. neighbors the Ocean Beach Community Garden, Greencliff Apartments and dozens of other homes. (Bing Maps and Point Loma-OB Monthly)<\/p>\n