By Francesca “Frankie” Silverstein
AT&T’s proposal for a new wireless facility near the intersection of SE 52nd Ave. and E Burnside St. is sparking controversy among locals. If the proposal is approved, the 52-foot utility pole on the east side of SE 52nd Ave. would be replaced by a 72-foot pole, and ground equipment would be built in the basement of 5208 E Burnside St., with some of it located outside, per AT&T.
The project is meant to improve wireless coverage for both civilians and public safety agencies. However, the invasive nature of the construction and a lack of communication with residents has led to a petition against the proposal, which had 51 signatures as of Wednesday, April 22. Part of the exigence for the petition is contention over AT&T’s height calculations. Residents claim the current utility pole is 42.88 feet tall and the new pole will be 70 feet tall.
Since the utility pole would be located in a public right-of-way, the City of Portland’s Office for Community Technology must review and approve the proposal before construction can begin. Per city policy, there are also pre-application requirements since the facilities would be within 400 feet of a “Priority 4” street—a low volume traffic street in a residential area. The carrier must host an informational neighborhood meeting with written notice provided at least 14, and no more than 30 days, beforehand. Property owners and residents within 400 feet of the project site, as well as the neighborhood association, must be notified.
Yet, according to Georgia Krantz, who facilitated the petition against the project, “I went door to door, and I told people about this. Nobody knew about it.” The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association (MTNA) also failed to receive appropriate notice. MTNA land use contact Alex Roy states, “We…became aware of the proposed facility when we received a notice for Centerline Communications [a consultant for AT&T] on February 10, a day before our monthly neighborhood association meeting.” This was two days before the AT&T neighborhood meeting on Thursday, February 12.
Despite these anecdotes, the notice states that the mailing date was January 20. The Centerline Communications contact on the notice did not respond to a request for comment. A communications representative for AT&T was also unable to provide comment, instead stating, “We don’t pre-announce network additions or comment on locations that may be in development. We’ll share updates when there’s information available to confirm publicly.”
It’s unclear when this will be. According to the notice, “Construction of the facility is planned to commence within three months following the receipt of all necessary permits and approvals, and construction would take up to 60 days.” Neighborhood residents have not heard back from the city about the status of its review. Krantz emphasizes that she doesn’t want to demonize the city but has reached out multiple times without any response.
Krantz’s concerns go beyond just delayed communication. She says, “I do not want a big, hideous, unhealthy tower, basically kitty-corner from our house.” She views the tower as a visual intrusion on the neighborhood and also highlights that the equipment will likely be noisy. “It’s going to be a big piece of industry imposed on a residential neighborhood that we all love for the aesthetics and the beauty,” she continues.
Negative impact on property values is another concern. Krantz recently moved to the neighborhood. “We just put all of our life savings into this house,” she explains—a decision she never would have made if she knew about the wireless project. The main question for her is why a more industrial location was not chosen.
The MTNA is refraining from taking an official stance on the project but shares Krantz’s concerns about communication. On Monday, April 6, the group held a special meeting of the Board in which they unanimously approved sending a letter to Phillip Kitzes, the Centerline Communications representative; Kevin Block, the City of Portland wireless facility program coordinator; and Benjamin Nielsen from the City of Portland Land Use Services.
The letter makes two requests. The first is for a second informational neighborhood meeting to be held with adequate prior notification; the second is to provide “plain language reasoning” for why a residential site was chosen as opposed to a commercial one. Roy summarizes, “The Board is not taking a specific position whether the facility’s location is ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Rather, we are focusing on the process so as to ensure that residents are not negatively impacted.”
The signees of the petition have a slightly different view. “Our goal is to make sure this tower doesn’t go up,” emphasizes Krantz. The results of the letter and petition remain to be seen. For the time being, resistance efforts and communication requests will continue.