Case LU 11-179158 DZR Page

Woodlawn Neighborhood Assoc.
c/o NECN
4815 NE 7th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97211

November 28, 2011

To: Staci Monroe, Land Use Services, City of Portland
Doug Daggett, Tin Roof Enterprises, LLC
Patrick Eckford, Ridge Communications at PO Box 396, Sisters, OR 97759.

cc: Shoshana Cohen, NECN Staff for Land Use

RE: Case File LU 11-179158 DZR, Design Review for Telecommunications Facility

The Woodlawn Neighborhood Association Land Use committee and interested neighbors met Wednesday, November 23, and discussed this proposal. We made the following decision: We have many concerns and urge you not to approve this project.

The proposal document did not give us enough information to make a solid decision, and we will detail the information we found lacking. Given time constraints (the November 28th deadline) and holiday-caused unavailable staffing, we send you this as it is.

Community Design Guideline Concerns

18.02.020 City Policy Statement re noise: It is the intent of the City Council to minimize the exposure of citizens to the potential negative physiological and psychological effects of excessive noise and protect, promote and preserve the public health, safety and welfare.

We don’t know how noisy the proposed facility will be when the generator is running, or even when it isn’t.

18.10.010 Land Use Zones re Permissible Sound levels

We don’t know how loud it would be and whether the sound measurement would be taken, in Residential or Commercial space. The location of measurement makes a difference since residential areas begin within 50 ft of the proposed facility. The allowable noise measurements vary significantly depending on the zoning.

Chapter 33.420, Design Overlay Zone

Paragraph M. Sub para 1. We don’t know if the slope of the roof where the proposed facility would be placed is according to code; we have asked the Henry V facilities manager to get back to us on this.

Paragraph M. Sub para 2. No more than 8 mechanical units are allowed, including both proposed and existing units. We couldn’t find a definition of mechanical unit. If antennae are mechanical units, the proposed 9 antennae are too many and would violate code. We think the mechanical units section needs to be clarified. There are already a few HVAC units on the roof. If there is the proposed enclosure for the 9 antennae plus 7 equipment cabinets plus the generator just how many mechanical units are there?

Paragraph N. Radio frequency transmission facilities operating at 1,000 watts ERP or less that meet the following. . . We don’t know what the total watts will be if the facility is built. We were told that each individual antenna in the proposed facility could be broadcasting at 759 watts, and if there are 8 more, we feel the total would be above the 1,000 watts ERP.

It could be that the Type II procedure is the wrong method for land use approval because an array of nine antennae will exceed 1000 watts ERP. Maybe the criteria of 33.815.225 should apply. But then the approval criteria of Article 33.815.225 can only be used to “allow Radio Frequency Transmission Facilities in locations where there are few impacts on nearby properties”.

This building is zoned Central Employment, but residential zoning starts right across the street, and is covered by the Design d overlay.

Unanswered Questions

We don’t know what the ambient RF radiation level is now in this area. We don’t know what this facility would add. It could be within regulations but it could also exceed regulations. There are already two similar broadcast facilities and one cell tower (on MLK Jr. Blvd. and Bryant) within 10 blocks of this proposed site.

What does the staff of Henry V feel about having the proposed facility broadcasting over their bodies? The building that Henry V is in is often toured and shown off for its green attributes and very high LEEDS ratings. Does this proposed facility detract from that greenness and healthiness for employees, neighbors, and visitors?

Why does this neighborhood have a disproportionate amount of cell towers compared to other NE neighborhoods? Is it because of the Priority 1 zones at the north of our neighborhood? If yes, and we are already being served by all these towers, is this facility really necessary?

Public benefits don’t outweigh impacts. BDS must review public benefits of this proposal (better coverage for Verizon customers) and weigh them against impacts (density of RF transmission facilities in the area).

Has Verizon received complaints from customers about lack of service? One person attending the meeting has Verizon as her carrier and has adequate service, she sees no need for additional antennae.

Has Verizon considered adding the proposed facility to an existing tower?

Have other technologies been considered? Running wireless broadcast underground can be done and we are told has been done near Portland.

For all these reasons, the Woodlawn Neighborhood Association urges the City to not grant this development. Thank you.

Anjala Ehelebe, Chair
Woodlawn Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee

“Hi Jan

Steve Gross forwarded me your email below requesting information about the Verizon Communications Antenna project. First I want to apologize for having caused upset among the neighborhood. As you know, Henry V wants to act and be thought of as good neighbors. To answer your question directly, yes Verizon Communication is proposing to co-locate an antenna array on the rooftop of the building here at 6360 NE MLK Jr. Blvd. But it would not be accurate to call it a “tower” because the proposed project is not a tall structure looming over us all. We are a marketing agency and our image to our clients, as well as our neighbors, is very important (if the Barber’s kids have bad hair cuts, you wouldn’t go to that Barber!). The building owner, Tin Roof Enterprises, LLC, (our land lord) did review the plans with us and understands the project can not look ugly. I’ve attached the project proposal drawings created by Verizon for your reference and distribution to anyone with concern. You’ll see on the drawings that the proposed project is 1) centered on the roof 2) enclosed so the ugly dish antenna are not visible 3) and only rises 10’ above the roof top at its tallest point. Note that the proposed structure will go only a few feet higher than the existing roof top heating/air-conditioning units. Also, remember that the elevation drawings are not “perspective” drawings that represent what you would actually see from the ground. With the equipment footprint on the roof being small compared to the overall size of the building and only rising ~10 feet higher than the existing roof, I would venture to say that no one would even realize its there unless it was directly pointed out to them.

As far as noise goes, Verizon must stay within city code requirements. My current understanding of the project is that there are no cooling units required by the antenna. There may be some ventilation fans on the roof-top equipment cabinets much like on a computer. If this is still a concern, I’d be happy to get more detailed information/confirmation on this. Lastly, the generator to be located on the south end of the building is only a back-up power generator to run during power outages. Again, this will have to meet city code standards and should run almost never! Looking at the glass as half full, having this power unit will enable everyone in the neighborhood to contact loved ones or emergency services via cell phone during a time of emergency/power-outages!

As far as Radio Frequency (RF) Interference, Verizon will be contractually obligated to make sure that our computers, TVs, wireless radio microphones, recording equipment, etc. will not be affected by the equipment so we believe there will be no impact of this nature on residents either.

Lastly, I have CC’ed Laura Hopfer on this email so that the Neighborhood Association and residents can contact her directly. Laura is with Ridge Communications who is the contractor Verizon has retained to plan this project. She is available tomorrow, Tuesday 11/22/11 but then is away Wednesday – Sunday for the Thanksgiving holiday. I am also happy to meet with the Neighborhood Association Wednesday or any time over the long weekend (except Thursday) if that would help.

I’m sure Tin Roof Enterprises would appreciate a Letter of Support from the Neighborhood Association but at this late date that may be totally impractical.

Feel free to distribute this email if you feel that will help answer any questions and thanks in advance for helping everyone gain a better understanding of the proposed project.

Sincerely,
Jim Hansen, Finance Director
“

Agenda:

Anjala Ehelebe, Woodlawn Land Use Chair, introduces self and the situation. 3 min.

The communications site being proposed CANNOT be challenged because of health issues. According to Staci Monroe, it can only be challenged if it violates Code or Design Guidelines. Be prepared to study the code and design guidelines and discuss whether we have a valid challenge. Here is a quote from Ms. Monroe:

“Gregg –… Please see my responses to your concerns below. I am unable to extend the public comment period or postpone my review or decision of the subject application for the following two reasons…:o FCC requires local government to issue a final decision on land use reviews and building permit zoning compliance reviews for wireless facilities within 150 days of receiving an application for a new site, unless extended by the applicant.o Portland Zoning Code requires a 21-day public comment period and a decision to be rendered on a Type II Land Use application with 28 days of a complete application. By the applicant’s request, we are able to extend the decision time, however, not the public comment time. See Portland Zoning Code Section 33.730.020 in the attached document. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28197&a=53468 I am unable to attend your meetings as we do not have the financial resources for staff overtime to attend neighborhood meetings. The approval criteria for the Design Review are the Community Design Guidelines, which can be found here http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=58822&c=34250 In addition, the project needs to meet the Zoning Code standards of 33.274 (Radio Frequency Transmission Facilities) and Off-site impacts (Chapter 33.262) both found here:http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28197&a=53319 My review is limited to the above reference approval criteria and zoning code regulations. If I determine both of these are met then I must approved the land use review. You are able to appeal my decision if you wish to the Design Commission. The appeal process can be found in the above link in Section 33.730.020.G. The appeal must be based on the approval criteria that apply to the specific land use application, in this case the Community Design Guidelines. These guidelines do not include any criteria that address health concerns. I will forward your comments and the others I received (5 so far) to the applicant today. I will work with them to address any issues from the comments that are subject to the approval criteria, such as excessive noise from the generator on the ground that was mentioned in one of the responses. I am in the office all day and on Wednesday (out tomorrow Tuesday and City offices are closed on Thursday and Friday for the Thanksgiving Holiday). Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any additional questions at 503.823.0624.”

If the site is approved, and we have a Code or Design violation concern, the Association may vote to appeal the approval.

If the site is approved, and we can find no Code or Design violations, the Association will not vote to appeal the approval because it would have no basis.

So do your homework, neighbors!