CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| John Oates | 9/19/2012 8:21:50 PM |
| To start with, I am AGAINST the proposed Verizon cell phone tower on the corner of Wisconsin and 31st Street. It is clear to me that the LARGE majority of residents in this area want nothing to do with this being near their homes, their families. Verizon has stated that they really want to be "good neighbors" and try to be supportive in this case. My gut tells me different. Corporate Verizon really doesn't care about a few homeowners here and there. They are in the starting process of dotting our landscape and will do whatever it takes to make it happen. It is quite disgusting that one can say (with a straight face) that they care about the opinions and feelings of those who are (VERY) concerned about this tower. Cut the bull! You're a huge corporation that wants to rake in as much $$$ as possible. Who cares about the people, the community that it will impact...their home value will plummet, severe health concerns, and the fact that nobody will LISTEN to them! IF...if you truly want to be a good neighbor, try REALLY listening to the people. You will hear what they really want! Then, as a GREAT NEIGHBOR, you WILL do the RIGHT thing and NOT proceed to fight this battle. I really hope you prove my gut wrong and show me and the community that you really do care. If so, I might rethink how I look at Anchorage politics and Verizon. | |
| Cathy Gleason | 9/19/2012 2:35:09 PM |
| I do not see the following comments I submitted online yesterday posted on the "View Existing Case Comments." These are my personal comments, in addition to those I submitted on behalf of Turnagain Community Council. Please accept these comments and post them online as well as include them in all formal comments you have received on Case No. 2012-091. Thank you, Cathy L. Gleason COMMENTS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED SEPT. 18, 2012: Based on information that has come to my attention during/since the Turnagain Community Council September 6th meeting — including cell tower location/coverage maps provided to me by Verizon, and Verizon’s refusal to provide any answers/clarification/information that I requested regarding cell tower/antenna development plans for Verizon tower/antenna locations and service/coverage for the Turnagain area (see emails below) — as a Turnagain resident, I request that the Municipal Planning Dept. deny Verizon’s tower site plan application. Specifically: • In the Documentation section on page 2 of Verizon’s Application for Tower Site Plan Review, the applicant did not check the box “Narrative: explaining the project; planning objectives; construction and operation schedule; final ownership; FAA requirements, collocation requirements; AND NEED FOR TOWER AND/OR ADDITIONAL ANTENNAS AT THIS SITE (my emphasis).” The last part of this requirement is especially significant, based on the lack of information that Verizon is willing to disclose to the Planning Dept. or the public regarding their tower/antenna development plans and coverage in and adjacent to the Turnagain neighborhood. Please see the following email exchange (please pardon my spelling typos): Cathy Gleason Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:08 PM To: Noah Grodzin Cc: Erika B. McConnell; Jillanne Inglis; Jonathan Briggs; Bill Wortman; Breck Tostevin; Chris Habicht; Chris Habicht; Mark Wiggin Subject: Turnagain Verizon Cell Tower Coverage Noah, Thanks for clearing up the Hillcrest tower notice in yesterday's paper. I was wondering why this supposed proposed tower wasn't mentioned at the TCC meeting last Thursday or why the Planning Dept. wasn't aware of the project when I contacted Erika McConnell yesterday. I do have a few questions regarding Verizon cell tower coverage in Turnagain, based on the 'with' and 'without' coverage maps (if a tower is located at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave.) you sent me: On correspondence from you to the Municipal Planning Dept. (8/9/12), which was included in the Staff Report packet posted online after initial approval of the Wisconsin/32nd Ave. cell tower, you stated that, "The site has about a 2 mile coverage radius depending on physical impediments and geography." However, on the 'with' map (if a cell tower is located at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave.), it indicates there would not be coverge in areas colored yellow in the northwest part of the Turnagain residental area. While difficult to tell, it appears that I may not get Verizon coverage where my husband and I live (4211 Bridle Circle). Doing very rough math, my home is a little more than 1/2 mile from the proposed cell tower site. The typography is pretty level between the two locations, with no tall physical impediments (unless tall utility poles count). If the tower is installed at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave., why wouldn't the area within the vicinity of my home be covered? For that matter, why wouldn't any areas in Turnagain shown in yellow -- all within a 2-mile radius of the proposed cell tower at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave -- receive Verizon coverage? Currently, I have a Jitterbug phone serviced by Verizon with a strong signal at my home. Once Verizon officially moves into the Anchorage market with its own cell tower equipment, will I lose the signal I currently receive in this location? What is the current source of my Verizon coverage? You indicated the Verizon Spenard location shown on both the 'with' and 'without' coverage maps is a rooftop location. Would this antenna be at least 65 feet tall? Would it have similar coverage/capacity as the proposed tower at the Wisconsin/31st Ave. site? If so, wouldn't all of the residental Turnagain area, which is located within a 2-mile radius of the center of the Spenard brown circle, be covered by the Spenard site? If so, there would be no need to place another tower at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave. If not, can you please provide specific information explaining why not. If the Spenard location antenna site is not comparable in coverage/capacity as now planned, could those plans be modified to increase the coverage/capacity, so that a separate tower at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave. would be unnessary? The both the 'with' and 'without' maps show a brown circle in Earthquake Park. Does this mean that Verizon plans to place a communications tower within the park boundaries? Specifically: Do you have a specific tower proposal for Earthquake Park in your Anchorage development plans? If so, would it be similar to the 65-foot monopole tower proposed at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave.? If so, Earthquake Park is also within the Turnagain Community Council boundaries; why wasn't a potential tower at this site brought up at our meeting on Sept. 6th? A cell tower in the Earthquake Park area would be within a 2-mile radius of the areas shown in yellow in the 'without' coverage map. If a tower were placed in the park similar to the one proposed at Wisconsin & 32nd Ave., why wouldn't all of those areas receive coverage from that potential tower location? Have you been in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Municipal Planning Dept. or the Municipal Parks Dept. about a potential cell tower at Earthquake Park? If so, can you please provide specifics about what has been discussed to-date? Although we covered a lot of information at the TCC meeting last week, now that I'm seeing colored coverage maps for the first time, I realize there should have been much more discussion regarding all Verizon cell tower proposed sites and coverage within and adjacent to the TCC boundaries. I look forward to you providing answers and more detailed information on the above items. Thank you, Cathy 907-248-0442 September 14, 2012 Email Response from Scott Charlston: Hello Cathy, On behalf of Verizon Wireless, I want to say that we genuinely enjoyed meeting you and other residents of Turnagain at last week’s council event. In the email you sent this week to Noah Grodzin, you pose some detailed questions about the design of our network and for me or my colleagues to submit answers to many of these would involve the disclosure of proprietary information, that we are unable to share. Thank you again for hosting the meeting. Scott Charlston Public Relations, Philanthropy & Employee Communications Verizon Wireless - Pacific Northwest/Alaska 3305 160th Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Mobile 206-940-0385 Office 425-603-2894 scott.charlston@verizonwireless.com Twitter @VZWScott END OF EMAIL TEXT Without providing coverage/capacity information on ALL towers/antenna locations Verizon is proposing for our area, there is no way for the Municipal Planning Department or the public to appropriately assess the “need” for a 65-foot monopole tower at Wisconsin St. & 32nd Ave., which the applicant is required to demonstrate in the application. Because Verizon has not provided enough information as part of the application to demonstrate a true “need” for a 65-foot monopole tower at Wisconsin St. & 32nd Ave., the Planning Dept. cannot make a fully-informed decision regarding need and it should deny the application. • On page 6 of Verizon’s Application for Tower Site Plan Review, the applicant is required to provide evidence in response to “The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of tower structures or structures, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT EXCEED NEW TOWER STRUCTURE OR ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT BE PRESUMED TO RENDER THE TECHNOLOGY UNSUITABLE (my emphasis).” Verizon responded with, “There are no existing towers within the geographic area.” The Planning Dept. should reject this nonresponsive and completely irrelevant answer. At the TCC meeting, when Verizon was presented with the possibility of using alternative technology, such as a Distributed Antenna System, which would have much less impact than a 65-foot tower on the surrounding neighborhood, Verizon representatives indicated that the DAS technology was considered, but was rejected because of financial considerations due to higher upfront costs associated with this technology. The Planning Dept.’s initial approval of Verizon's application, dated August 10, 2012, comments on page 6 that, “Alternative technology is not available.” Verizon has acknowledged that there is alternative technology, but that they have chosen to not use it because of cost. Because the Planning Dept. “shall not” accept alternative technology cost considerations as a reason for Verizon to dismiss consideration of using such alternatives, the Planning Dept. should deny the application for a 65-foot monopole tower at Wisconsin St. & 32nd Ave. In closing, to protect the integrity of the process that communication companies, including Verizon, are required to follow when submitting Tower Site Plan Review Applications for tall communication towers within residentially-zoned areas of our city, and to fully consider the impacts associated with cell towers in neighborhood areas, including aesthetic and visual impacts acknowledged in Municipal Code (21.45.265.A.14.d), it is critical for the Planning Dept. to 1) demand that Verizon accurately and comprehensively fill out their application and provide all required documentation, and 2) hold Verizon accountable to consider available alternative technology without consideration of higher costs to Verizon, in order to appropriately consider approval or denial of the request for cell tower construction in a residentially-zoned area at Wisconsin St. & 32nd Ave. Because Verizon has not fully complied with the application requirements, and it has become apparent based on information — or lack thereof — that a true “need” has not been convincingly demonstrated for a 65-foot monopole cell tower to be constructed at Wisconsin St. & 32nd Ave., please deny Verizon’s application, Case No. 2012-091. Thank you, Cathy L. Gleason | |
| Sarah Drummond | 9/18/2012 4:57:01 PM |
| I am very concerned about this proposed cell tower. It would decrease property values for everyone in the area dramatically. The Verizon employees made it clear at the Turnagain Community Council (TCC) meeting that they could use a tower that is less of an eyesore, but they only do that when it’s required by municipal code. Instead, they have chosen to be apathetic neighbors and completely disregard the needs and wants of the nearby property owners. It is my understanding that Verizon could also use a tower that has lower health risks than the one they have proposed building. Considering how many children live in the immediate vicinity, I would expect Verizon to use the type of tower that would pose the least risk to the people who live there. “Good neighbors” look out for each other like that. If Verizon employees really wanted to be “good neighbors” as they said at the TCC meeting, they would have proposed such an option instead. Verizon seems to only be considering cell coverage and not what is in the best interest of the people in our community. I think pretty much everyone can agree that people’s health and property values are far more important than having cell coverage in every square foot of Anchorage. With that in mind, I’d say this tower poses unacceptable risks to those who live in the area and should not be built there. | |
| Cathy Gleason | 9/18/2012 11:20:08 AM |
| Thank you for the opportunity to once again submit comments on the proposed Verizon cell tower at Wisconsin St. and 32nd Ave. Due to the Planning Department's withdrawl of its August 10th approval of the site review application and reopening the public comment period until September 18th, Turnagain Community Council was able to have this item on our September 6th meeting agenda for the body as a whole to discuss and provide input (as opposed to just the TCC Board this summer). We appreciate Erika McConnell and Jillanne Inglis' attendance as well as Verizon representatives attending our meeting. It was a well attended meeting, with the majority of property owners and residents in close proximity to the proposed tower location expressing their concerns and disapproval of the project. After much discussion, TCC passed the following resolution (Yes-22, No-3), requesting that the Planning Department DENY Verizon's application. RESOLUTION (I will also email a pdf file of this to the Planning Department): Turnagain Community Council Resolution on Application for Administrative Site Plan Case 2012-091 Verizon Wireless Communication Tower Proposal at 3108 W. 31st Avenue WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless [Verizon] has submitted an application to the Municipality of Anchorage Community Development Department [CDD] for a Tower Site Plan Review within the Turnagain Community Council boundaries at 3108 W. 31st Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, to construct a 65-foot Type I, Monopole Tower; WHEREAS, Municipal Code (21.45.265.A.14.d) states, "A site plan review is required of all such towers since they have aesthetic and visual impacts on their neighbors and the public interest is best served by allowing these neighbors and the public at large a chance to comment on and provide input concerning the location and design of these towers." WHEREAS, the CDD required public notification and comment period for the proposed communications tower took place in the summer months when TCC did not meet, limiting the opportunity to discuss the proposal and provide comments from only the TCC Board; WHEREAS, Verizon did not notify or engage in good faith the Turnagain Ccommunity Council [TCC] and/or neighborhood residents and property owners who would be directly impacted by the proposed project prior to applying for the CDD Administrative Tower Site Plan Review nor during the public comment time period; WHEREAS, TCC has been made aware of significant resident/property owner opposition has risen in response to Verizon’s proposed tower plans at the 3108 W. 31st Avenuepresent location, which is located in a densely populated residential neighborhood; WHEREAS, a concerned resident and adjacent neighbor to the proposed cellular tower location contacted the CDD and inquired about the published August 10, 2012, public hearing referenced on a July 13th mailing from the CDD, only to find that no hearing had been planned and the decision would be made by the Director of the CDD; WHEREAS, the CDD approved Verizon’s application on August 10, 2012, after the Department found that the communications carrier’s proposed project “generally” satisfied the requirements of AMC 21.45.265; WHEREAS, approval of the application was rescinded by the CDD based upon a procedural error after the resident inquiry the public comment period has now been extended to September 18, 2012; WHEREAS, TCC takes issue with Verizon’s characterization in its application that the proposed tower is “located at an industrial/commercial location” and Turnagain residents have expressed concerns about potentially significant negative impacts associated with locating a 65-foot monopole communications tower in a high-density residential neighborhood, including: • the devaluation of home values in the proximity of the proposed structure due to the visual presence of the tower; • the extensive removal of existing natural wooded vegetation for the proposed tower construction that currently surrounds and buffers the Chugach Electric substation from the surrounding residential homes; • the generation of noise and photo pollution of the proposed project, which includes a MTU 30kw generator with a 210 gallon diesel tank and four outdoor LED flood lights attached to the platform frame; • the placement of an additional industrial structure in close proximity to an otherwise residentially zoned and developed area and the cumulative impacts of the proposed project along with current noise and aesthetic impacts from the existing Chugach Electric substation; • the potential for collocation (additional antennas to a potential allowed maximum height of 95 feet) if if the CDD grants future waiver request(s) from Verizoned; • the potential hazards that such a tower could pose in a potential collapse due to snow/wind load or seismic activity, including damage to the adjacent Chugach Electric substation; and • the unknown and potential health hazards of long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation that this tower would emit; and; WHEREAS, Turnagain residents are concerned that Verizon did not provide TCC information reflecting a thorough research of other locations for tower placement nor did Verizon conside other, less obtrusive technologies that could provide comparable service to this area of Anchorage; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Turnagain Community Council requests that in order to protect the integrity of an open and inclusive public process and to assuage the legitimate concerns of the Turnagain community regarding the potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed tower, TCC requests that the CDD deny Verizon’s application for a site plan review at 3108 W. 31st Ave. APPROVED by Turnagain Community Council, this 6th day of September, 2012, by a vote of Yes - 22, No - 3. Respectfully submitted, Cathy L. Gleason, Turnagain Community Council President END OF RESOLUTION Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above TCC resolution. Sincerely, Turnagain Community Council President Cathy L. Gleason | |
| Jonathan Briggs | 9/18/2012 10:45:30 AM |
| I am writing to request that the Community Development Department (CDD) take into consideration the overwhelming community opposition concerning the administrative site plan for the proposed construction of Verizon’s cellular communications tower located at 3108 W. 31st Avenue and deny the requested permit. I would also like to bring the CDD’s attention to Verizon’s recent statements concerning the project that are in stark contradiction to information contained in the telecommunications carrier’s recently submitted application. These revelations provide evidence that Verizon did not take reasonable steps in researching potential tower sites or alternative technologies and reaffirm that the company’s interests are purely economic. From the September 6th Turnagain Community Council (TCC) meeting and from emails received from Noah Grodzin, zoning manager for CascadiaPM, since the meeting, it is evident that Verizon did not sufficiently research alternative sites to place a tower or collocate. Mr. Grodzin initially stated in the submitted application that research to place a tower in alternative locations has been “unsuccessful;” however, during the TCC meeting, Mr. Grodzin offered to research alternative sites for the proposed tower that were previously not considered. In a September 10th email correspondence, Mr. Grodzin claimed that the alternative sites were presumed impractical because the properties were either owned by the Anchorage School District or a residentially zoned lot. Interestingly, these inquiries were made more than a month after the initial submission of Verizon’s application to the CDD. Furthermore, a lot owned by a school district does not necessarily prove that it is not a potential site to place a telecommunications tower. It is a presumptive allegation that is purely speculative and without any factual basis in the application. Thus, Verizon has not established that alternative sites are, in fact, nonexistent. It was also discovered at the TCC meeting that other technologies, such as Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), do exist as an alternative to tower construction. Alternative technologies were previously dismissed as “not available” in information found within the initial application that Verizon submitted to the CDD. During the TCC meeting, Scott Charlston, Verizon’s public relations manager, was directly confronted by audience members with evidence of DAS as an alternative and less obtrusive technology. Instead of dismissing the technology, Mr. Charlston, in an about-face, admitted that Verizon had an “economic interest” in the current site and stated that the company deems such alternative technologies, such as DAS, as financially unreasonable. Mr. Charlston’s statements contradict information found within the submitted application that specifically stated that “alternative technology is not available.” The fact that a technology may cost the company more financially, does not deem that the alternative technology is “not available.” In addition to the representative’s statement regarding the company’s “economic interest,” another Verizon spokesperson at the meeting quickly responded to the suggestion of alternative sites and technologies by stating, “When you have an accident, you are going to want good cellular coverage!” The Verizon representative’s use of rhetoric that manipulated people’s fears of a potential emergency situation at the meeting is more than deceptive; it is a blatant untruth that Verizon is certainly aware of. FCC regulation requires by law that communication providers must transmit all 911 calls to a public-safety answering point, regardless of the individual’s carrier. The statement by the Verizon representative was simply a naïve tactic that was, I assume, to be intended to bully residents into believing that Verizon is their ‘guardian angel’ that will provide safety in the unfortunate event of an emergency. Bluntly stated, Verizon’s introduction into the market will not ensure residents safety during an emergency by providing superior cellular coverage to what already exists. It is also worth noting that AT&T already offers Alaskans the 4G LTE network coverage that Verizon is pursuing. I would also like to point out that Verizon representatives opened the TCC discussion by stating that the company was present because it was “committed to being a good neighbor and a good corporate citizen.” During the discussion, Verizon representatives continuously downplayed the proposed scope of the tower plans, denied having any knowledge of the negative impact of home values surrounding existing tower sites, and dismissed the potential adverse health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation as unsubstantiated. The Verizon representatives opening remarks of being a “good neighbor” and a “good corporate citizen” is perplexing for several reasons. Verizon representatives weren’t present on their own volition. They were invited by the Council after community opposition towards the proposed project intensified. Tellingly, previous emails to the zoning manager overseeing the project went ignored. In addition to stonewalling, Verizon representatives confirmed at the meeting that they preferred a deceptive approach in addressing the real concerns of residents. When presented with academic research, expert testimony and real life experiences from community members concerning home values, potential health hazards, and neighborhood aesthetics, Verizon representatives simply chose to dismiss the evidence and prioritized the company’s own economic interests above all other considerations. Verizon claims that the proposed tower site would “lessen” the present gap in the company’s coverage; however, Verizon failed to provide factual evidence that the proposed location is necessary to provide reliable service for the company’s data and cell systems. In testimony from Verizon representatives at the TCC meeting, the company revealed that its sole interest in the current location is strictly one based upon economic concerns and not one of geographical necessity. Verizon’s economic concerns should be secondary to the multitude of concerns of the community and residents in which the construction and implementation of such an industrial project will adversely impact. Verizon’s insistence on favoring dated infrastructure and dotting the Alaska landscape with obtrusive towers further confirms that the company prefers a ‘business as usual’ approach where profit margins override valid community concerns. However, homeowners have an economic interest, too. These economic interests lay in the eventual devaluation of their homes once a tower of the proposed industrial magnitude is constructed in their neighborhood. Unlike Verizon, who can quickly recoup the costs of the permitting process through profits associated with expansion into the Alaska market, homeowners will be forced to assume the burden of the depreciation of the value of their homes without recompense. This should be unacceptable, especially for a company whose quarterly profits are in the tens of billions. Furthermore, the potential pool of buyers interested in homes surrounding the proposed tower site will diminish significantly once a tower is constructed because of the perceived health hazards associated of living in close proximity to radiofrequency radiation and the adverse visual effects that the tower will create. For proof, just ask yourself if you would willingly choose to live next to a tower of the proposed magnitude. The administrative site plan application submitted by Verizon should be denied based upon the inaccurate and deceptive information contained within. If approved, the Verizon tower will have a permanent negative impact upon home values and neighborhood aesthetics. It will limit the pool of potential home buyers in the area based upon the perceived potential adverse health impacts associated with continued exposure to radiofrequency radiation and the tower will pose a real danger in the event of a collapse. Lastly, the Turnagain community is not attempting to hinder Verizon’s entrance into the Alaska market. We are only requesting that telecommunications companies utilize better judgment when locating tower sites and that the CDD prioritize the rational concerns of the community above the economic interests of those companies. Please consider these as legitimate concerns when reviewing the administrative site plan. | |
| Margaret Auth | 9/18/2012 8:19:14 AM |
| I am against the cell phone tower being placed on the Chugach substation site on Wisconsin and 32nd. If this happens, it would mean any piece of property that is owned by a utility can be a prospective cell phone site which means any neighborhood, anywhere in Anchorage can have the equivalent of a 100 story building next to it. What happens in the event of an earthquake or high winds storm? Recent events have shown these to be very real possibilities. | |
| lorraine davis | 9/17/2012 6:19:41 PM |
| I have concerns about Verizon's plan to locate a cell tower on Chugach Electric property near West 32d Avenue & Wisconsin because a less visible and less densely populated site was proposed. (I believe the speaker was referring to a forested area within Balto Seppala Park.) If such location may be available, it would be a win-win situation to have proceeds from Verizon's lease benefit Anchorage Parks & Recreation. On its face, it appears to be such a practical answer that there surely is some ordinance against it. | |
| Diana Steer | 9/17/2012 11:27:17 AM |
| I and my husband David absolutely DO NOT want a Verizon Tower at the corner of 32nd and Wisconsin. That location is between two large elementary schools and very close to the flight path of planes coming in and out of Lake Hood. There already is too many power lines running through that area, and to add radio waves would make this area a greater health risk. Children will be walking through these areas frequently, as there are also several local parks including soccer fields, in addition to going to traveling to school. Additionally, it would devalue homes in the area that struggle to meet market values at sale anyway. It is completely inappropriate to plant a radio tower in the middle of a thriving neighborhood and our family of (3) strongly DO NOT WANT a radio tower so close to our home, schools and parks. KEEP IT OUT. | |
| Alisha Weiss | 9/17/2012 11:01:44 AM |
| Wisconsin & 32nd Ave Cell Tower- Please Deny installation of verizon's cell tower. This should not be located in a residental area. Due to unknow helath realated issues, saftey issues of height of tower and devaluation of homes. These neeed to be installed in areas that have simuliar structures and types of buildings. Industrial areas only not residential. | |
| Janine Becka | 9/16/2012 5:53:31 PM |
| I share the concerns of those who have voiced their opposition to the erection of the Verizon tower on 32nd and Wisconsin Streets. Many of the residents in Turnagain have been here for several years, take pride in our properties, and do not want to see them devalued for the sake of a multi billion dollar company that can certainly afford to look at more viable alternatives. There is already a tower on another property in the area that is an eyesore. We don't need any more! | |
| Kelly Mazzei | 9/16/2012 5:17:28 PM |
| I am writing in regards to the proposed erection of the Verizon cellular tower on 32nd and Wisconsin. I am AGAINST allowing the tower. I own property within a half a mile and do not want to see this tower in my community. It is not good for home values. Thank you. | |
| Whitham Reeve | 9/16/2012 4:49:07 PM |
| There already are cell towers in the neighborhood and there is no technical reason why Verizon cannot collocate with them rather than build a new tower site. Knowing Verizon, they did not even think of this option or, if they did, they made a deal with their competitors so they can claim it is not possible. Also, I would like to comment on the comments filed by Turnagain Community Council, which supposedly represents me. A number of their "concerns" are completely unfounded and not supportable by any scientific or engineering analysis or fact. I thought that by now people would have gotten past the concerns about health hazards and falling towers. These are concerns of a woefully uninformed public and mitigating these concerns is a matter of education - a wireless industry responsibility, which they have woefully failed at. And what's this nonsense about "noise (from a generator)"? A generator will run only during commercial power outages. How can that be a concern, especially when the very people who listed this "concern" demand that their cellphone work perfectly and indefinitely during any kind of power outage. On the other hand, I, too, am concerned about another industrial structure in the residential neighborhood. There already are numerous industrial and commercial structures in the neighborhood and we do not need more of them. Just look at the long row of huge and ugly church industry buildings and shoddy hotels/pipeline camp buildings like the Long House along Wisconsin Street. At least the Chugach substation is compact and CEA did a good job on it. I can't say anything good about the other eyesores one encounters while driving down Wisconsin. Finally, the concern about "property devaluation due to tower visual presence" needs to be supported by credible studies and not uninformed blathering. | |
| John Vogt | 9/16/2012 4:15:51 PM |
| I for one would like the tower to be built. There will always be nimby's but the reality is that advancements will benefit us all in the long run. At my address I can only use ATT for cell phone service because no one else has any coverage in my area. This is a shame as there are better/more affordable services available but no towers to cover my area. I'd think requiring them to allow other carriers to purchase space on their tower might be a good addition so more towers don't have to be bulit. | |
| Sandra Wicks | 9/11/2012 11:19:49 AM |
| I live 4 houses west of the proposed cell tower site and am appalled at the idea of having to look at that tower 8 months out of the year when the leaves are off of the trees. The proposed tower should not be allowed in the center of a residential area where it will be a blight on the surrounding properties for the benefit of a business that wants to establish itself in Anchorage when there is alternate cell coverage already. It was telling at the Turnagain Community Council meeting that the pictures provided by the applicant to illustrate how little of the tower would be seen from four different perspectives in our neighborhood were all with the summer vegetation that, if we are lucky, would only obscure the tower four months of the year. It was also telling that, when the community suggested an alternate sight two blocks away that is more remote from houses, none of the staff of the applicant even knew where the property was and definitely had not evaluated it. While this site plan should never be approved, it definitely should not be approved before other sites are shown by the applicant to be unavailable or unworkable. Please disapprove the proposed site plan. If you cannot totally disapprove it, please lower the height so that the tower is more obscured by the tree branches when they don't have leaves. PLEASE DO NOT BLIGHT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. | |
| Michael Radovan | 9/10/2012 1:06:28 PM |
| I was born and raised in Alaska and I am a longtime resident of the Turnagain area. After attending last week's community council meeting, I feel compelled to express my outrage and dismay at Verizon's recent application for a site plan review in my neighborhood. The Verizon spokesperson opened his comments by claiming that the company was present because the company was interested in being a "good neighbor and a good corporate citizen". After listening to Verizon’s testimony and their utter disregard of the many claims and inquiries of the informed residents, I found his comments to be bewildering, off point, and, frankly, offensive. It is important that I first recognize the tiresome efforts of Jonathan Briggs-a friend and neighbor-that brought attention of the issue to me. Mr. Briggs’ attention to the Muni’s failed attempts to properly execute notification to the surrounding residents of the proposed site calls into question the Community Development Department’s true intentions and their overall lack of regard for the public process. This is something that I have suggested be directed to the Anchorage Ombudsman for review. Furthermore, Mr. Briggs’ presentation of relevant facts, alternative technologies and the lack of common sense on Verizon’s part lend credence to the fact that Verizon is not interested in being “a good neighbor” nor a “good corporate citizen”. In his testimony, the Verizon spokesperson claimed that the eventual devaluation of home prices that would occur once the tower was constructed in the proposed location was unsubstantiated. Once bombarded with factual research and testimony from a recent seller in the market who experienced this exact phenomenon, Verizon responded with typical fear based rhetoric that included the statement, “don’t you want good cell phone coverage when you have an accident and need to call 911?”. Not only was this statement off-point, it was factually incorrect. The FCC’s basic 911 rules require wireless service providers to transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, regardless of whether the caller subscribes to the provider’s service or not. It is astounding that Verizon would even offer a statement of such falsity. A few minutes later, the same spokesperson claimed that the proposed location was the only possible site for such a tower to exist. Mr. Briggs quickly provided evidence in the form of email correspondence from Noah Grodzin of CascadiaPM, clearly contradicting the statement. Shortly after that gaffe, Mr. Briggs inquired about a particular alternative technology [Distributed Antenna System] that was previously dismissed by Verizon as “inadequate”. Mr. Briggs, who had clearly done his research with due diligence, again mentioned the technology as a less obtrusive alternative after speaking with several telecommunications engineers. Verizon then on the offensive, responded with the statement that they had an “economic interest” in the current location and alluded to the fact that the proposed technology would cost the company more in financial resources. When Mr. Briggs pressed the issue further and asked why Verizon preferred to “pass the financial burden onto surrounding homeowners”, Verizon again replied with their “economic interest” statement. From my research, Verizon grossed a profit of nearly $30 billion last quarter. Their reply of “economic interest” obviously translates to “business as usual”. There was much more that was brought to light concerning Verizon’s true intentions of building seemingly draconian infrastructure while entering the Alaska market. What is clear is that Verizon is not interested in respecting the harmony that exists in the well-established neighborhood of Turnagain, nor other neighborhoods throughout the State. At the council meeting, I was made aware of the challenges to Verizon’s projects in Fairbanks, the Mat-su valley and more recently, the College View neighborhood. My hope in drafting this statement is that the Community Development Department will recognize the staunch opposition to the proposed tower site in the Turnagain neighborhood and respect the resident’s demands to keep it out of their back yards and driving down their home’s values. Please exercise better judgment and also recognize that the public process is a hallmark of democracy. Verizon has plenty of other less obtrusive alternatives and their entrance into the Alaska market will not be hindered, even with proper oversight. I oppose this site plan review and demand that it be denied. Michael Radovan | |
| Amy Maclean | 9/5/2012 10:40:51 PM |
| I am a 17 year resident and home owner on W 32nd Ave. I strongly oppose the construction of a cellular tower in this residential neighborhood. It is a heavily populated,very busy and noisy area. We do not need any construction or further development to this neighborhood. It will be an eye sore,it will be a health hazard. There is already an electric substation on that lot.That is enough noise pollution and health risk to this nieghborhood. | |
| Kenneth Baitsholts | 9/5/2012 2:27:32 PM |
| This, from what I understand, is a residential area. Is it not? Shouldn't the residents have a say over what is to be constructed in their neighborhood. Particularly since a cellular tower will certainly lower their home values, possibly cause ill health effects, damage the aesthetic appeal of the area, and pose a risk to those dwelling nearby in the case of HIGH WINDS. Structural failure may be rare. Actual health risks may be, at present, little understood. Home values and aesthetics may be difficult to quantify. However, if the tower is to be constructed simply to maximize the profits of a private (non-Alaskan) company at the expense of local families, perhaps an alternative site should be considered. Kenneth Baitsholts | |
| Sarah Jeter | 9/4/2012 8:56:44 PM |
| Please DO NOT approve the current plan for the proposed Verizon cell tower. I dispute the need for it here in a well established neighborhood such as Turnagain. Build it elsewhere. It will be an eyesore! The transmissions that will emit from this tower are dangerous to the residents of here, not to mention the children that will pass it daily on their way to Turnagain Elementary. As a registered voter and a life long resident of Anchorage, I must firmly ask that you DO NOT allow this to be built at the proposed location! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sarah Jeter | |
| kurosh kianipour | 9/2/2012 4:58:54 AM |
| I have the above Duplex owned and rented for many years. Now the whole neighborhood is concerned and some agitated. Some are already talking of selling and moving thus already effecting our property value due the tower const. plans. Our rental demand will go down if I keep the property. Also I will have a had time selling it once the tower construction permit is granted. I and others may have to get together and Sue some offices for our losses if the Tower is built. No matter what is proven about the non-hazardous conditions related to this project. You are not able to change the opinion of future residents who are shopping to rent of buy properties in the vicinity unless we give it away practically. Even if it was proven that it did not have adverse effects in other places in the country. Still every situation is different with people of different opinions. Please care about your neighbors and tax payers already paying U. | |
| Jane Niebergall | 8/29/2012 1:02:47 PM |
| I own property 3008 W 30th Anchorage, AK I am concerned that we do not have a planned map of where towers should be in Anchorage. IN ADDITION, I am concerned that there is no authority looking at the variety of technologies for dissemnating cell phone signals. In this current time, have we addressed cell phone frequency needs in Anchorage, and cell phone providers. Seems each company in or thinkng of entering Anchorge market grabs some money, mkes an application, and runs to the planning Commssion, not having to conform to a central plan for sharing, placement etc. I would propose we take a look at the big picture, and needs before we go off on a tangent of permitting this and that location. Rhis area is a dense residential neighborhood. How about some of the business or industrial lots? A piece of McDonalds parking lot May cost more but safer Consider neighborhood density as a planning focus, | |
| Jack Cinque | 8/25/2012 11:02:11 AM |
| I strongly oppose the construction of a 65 foot tower in the middle of a densely populated residential area. I realize the Municipality is desperate to generate additional revenue and the permit fees and taxes associated with allowing this tower to be constructed are significant but surely there are less densely populated areas where the tower could be constructed and which would allow the Municpality to collect the revenues associated with such a tower. | |
| Robert McNeil | 8/24/2012 10:08:05 AM |
| I do not want this tower in my neighborhood. I am concerned about the long term health effects, saftey issues and reduced property values. This type of structure has no place in a densely populated residentially zoned neighborhood and is totally unacceptable. | |
| Sandy Stagelman | 8/23/2012 6:56:05 PM |
| I understand this request is to allow a cell tower to be located at 3108 West 31st Avenue. I am the owner of a 4-plex at 2911 W 33rd. I disagree whole heartidly with allowing this to be put in this residential area. It will decrease the value of my property and make it less desirable for possible tenants to move into this area. The Turnagain area has always been a pleasant area to live in because of the beauty of the homes and neighborhoods. This would not be a positive thing for any of the residents and I strongly oppose the zoning change. Thank you for your time. | |
| Jordan Akerelrea | 8/23/2012 9:26:07 AM |
| I Jordan Akerelrea am a resident of 3105 West 31st Ave. and Im against the projected construction of the cellular tower between 31st Ave and 32nd Ave, by the Verizon Inc. company. I feel that the erection of a tower will be a visual eye sore to the Turnagain Community. Not only does the tower provide disspleasurement, it will harm the property values by at least 20% which is alarming. If the tower is built as purposed it will bring along with it the construction noise and daily commute interfeirence and conjestion for the months its being built. With that being said i fully disapprove of its construction. Sincerely, Jordan Akerelrea | |
| Jonathan Briggs | 8/14/2012 10:04:31 AM |
| Thanks for the lack of attention Zoning folks. It is more than disconcerting to know that your office prefers a rubber stamp approach to community input. Stay tuned for more criticism. | |
| Rufus Mackin | 8/7/2012 3:15:02 PM |
| I am posting as a potential home buyer and one that is researching home lots in the affected area of the proposed tower. After learning of the administrative site review, I am hesitant to continue. Housing prices will be adversely affected. Although, it may lower the price of a home for me as a buyer, it will definitely have a negative impact of my home's future value, and frankly, I would rather not live next to such an eyesore. Why do we need another cell tower? Seriously. | |
| Angela Kearns | 8/7/2012 3:06:42 PM |
| I have recently become aware of the proposed plans to install a new wireless tower near my home and I would like to express my staunch opposition to the permit. I am in consensus with the other posts on the forum that a tower would be aesthetically unappealing and a detriment to home values surrounding the lot. The substation is offensive enough!!! Please, please, please, do not remove the vegetative barrier that attempts to conceal it! Why is another tower necessary? Definitely not in the spirit of fair competition? There are already 100s in the area. And when is the purported public hearing? A mailed notification allowing for comments in a very narrow window is not an effective, nor satisfactory, process. Please do not rubber stamp this permit under the guise of economic development. It is completely unnecessary! | |
| A. Ward | 8/7/2012 11:12:03 AM |
| I am opposed to the cell tower site plan! I own a property across the street from the Chugach sub-station which in itself, negatively impacts all the properties around it with it's commercial look & constant buzzing & humming. The proposed cell tower site will further industrialize the area & continue the decrease in property values. The surrounding area will become less desirable, which will spread to the adjacent areas, which will deteriorate the entire area, & cost all of us dearly, forever. | |
| Jonathan Briggs | 8/6/2012 12:33:31 PM |
| Dear Friends, Neighbors & Community: I am writing your family as a neighbor and resident of the Turnagain community to apprise you of the recent Administrative Site Plan Review submitted by Cellco Partnership proposing the construction of a 65+ foot monopole cellular/wireless communication tower located in the R-2M district at the corner of 32nd Avenue and Wisconsin Street. I, along with many in the Turnagain community, strongly oppose the construction of the tower for a multitude of reasons and we are asking for your support in opposing the construction. The consensus of the many that I have spoken to within our community is that the introduction of a cellular/wireless tower would be aesthetically unappealing and would subsequently have an adverse effect on surrounding home values in the future. Presently, a Chugach Electric Substation sits on the northwest corner of the lot and is buffered by natural wooded vegetation. The proposed construction plans call for the clear cutting of the area for the construction of a tower. Once erected, the drawings show an eight foot chain link fence surrounding the project development. This type of industrial development is unwelcome and has the potential to become an eyesore that will drastically impact the visual buffering that the wooded lot has afforded our neighborhood while driving down home values in the process. It is also the neighborhood’s consensus that the tower is unnecessary. An online search on the site http://www.antennasearch.com reports that there are presently 181 tower structures and 494 antenna locations within a four-mile radius of the proposed location. The site also mentions that three additional applications for towers have been filed since August 1, 2012 within the same radius. It is bewildering to me and others why so many towers are needed in such a concentrated area. Lastly, it is very disconcerting that the entire process appears to have been streamlined without soliciting comments, opinions, or input from the community through a public hearing. Notices were sent out to homeowners within 500-feet of the proposed structure on July 13th and given a very narrow window to supply comments on the municipality’s website. My understanding from conversations with Cathy Gleason, President of the Turnagain Community Council and Sharon Ferguson, Senior Planner of the Municipality’s Planning Division, is that no hearing has been planned and that the decision to grant the permit will be made by a sole individual, not a board or commission as published in the case details located on the municipality’s website. It is my opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to perform due diligence by narrowing the number of households that it has sent notices to and by not soliciting feedback through a public hearing. The Turnagain community is asking for your support in opposing the proposed construction of a cellular/wireless tower in our neighborhood. If the permit is granted on August 10th, I will explore the necessary requirements for an appeal of the decision and will again ask for your support. Thank you for your attention in advance. Kind Regards, Jonathan Briggs | |
| Jonathan Briggs | 8/1/2012 11:51:49 AM |
| This is very disturbing. The construction of a cell phone tower is aesthetically unappealing, will drastically lower home values, and the unknown health effects on individuals within the field are worrisome. Presently, the lot has a comfortable wooded area that surrounds the electric substation. The subsequent clearing of trees on the lot would increase already escalated foot traffic, squatting from inebriates and more accumulation of litter from the increased traffic. I live directly adjacent to the lot and I am staunchly against such construction. A hearing should be held so that the neighborhood and community can voice their concerns to a panel. The construction of a cell phone tower is not necessary, an eyesore and a detriment to the health of hundreds of individuals that surround the area. | |
| Cathy Gleason | 7/31/2012 3:41:59 PM |
| Turnagain Community Council July 31, 2012, Comments on Application for Tower Site Plan Review — Case Number 2012-091 Thank you for the opportunity for the Turnagain Community Council (TCC) to provide comments on the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at 3108 W. 31st Ave. (closer to intersection of Wisconsin St. and W. 32nd Ave.). The following comments are being submitted by the TCC Board of Directors in order to meet today’s comment deadline, as TCC does not hold regular meetings in July or August. Please see more discussion about the timing of this proposal and the July 31, 2012, comment deadline at the end of these comments. Based on the Board’s review of the application and construction drawings, TCC submits the following: Seismic Zone: Application on page 1 states site is in a “Lowest” Seismic Zone. Information TCC has is that it is located in a Moderately Low Ground Failure Susceptibility Seismic Zone. Please verify which is correct. Tower Height: Application states on page 2 this is a proposal for a 65’ monopole structure, but on page 4, it states that the proposed tower will be built to be a collocatable structure. According to Municipal Code 21.45.265.A.3.d., “Collocation shall grant an additional 15 feet above base height [65’ for residential district] for each qualifying antenna to a maximum 30 feet of additional height.” TCC is unclear whether this means the constructed final height of the proposed tower will be 65’, 80’ or 95’ when completed. What will be the final tower/antenna height? Collocation: As stated above, application on page 4 states, “The proposed will be built to be a collocatble [sic] structure, there are no collocatable structures in the area.” On page 3 of the application, the box is not checked to indicated that the applicant has provided “proof that no existing tower structures or structures are located within the geographic area which will technically accommodate antenna needs, and proof of acceptance/refusal from the tower owner, and why petitioner rejects the letter of acceptance, if received.” What is the exact “geographic area” boundaries referred to in the application? Are any of the cell antennas/towers currently located in Turnagain (on top of Lakeshore Tower Condominiums along Wisconsin St., on Turnagain United Methodist Church property, at the southwest intersection of W. Northern Lights Blvd. and Aero Ave., on airport property along Pt. Woronzof Dr.) considered located in the “geographic area” boundaries of the proposed tower? Has the applicant provided the required information as stated in the application to the Municipality? Municipal code (21.45.265.A.4/b.) states that, “Applicants for collocation shall provide proof in a form found acceptable to the Municipal Attorney that more than one service provider is using the collocation facility.” Has the applicant provided the required proof that more than one service provider is using the collocation facility? If so, has the Municipal Attorney found this proof acceptable, to justify approval of a collocatable tower? Site Plan Standards: On page 5, the application states, “The proposed use will not impact noise, air, water or other forms of environmental pollution.” The construction drawings sent to TCC show a 30kW diesel generator will be placed on the project site. Under what conditions/how often will the generator be used? When in use, what will be the noise and air pollution levels emitted from the generator? How will the potential impacts to the nearby residential homes from the operation of this generator be determined? How does the applicant propose to mitigate those impacts? On page 5, the application states, “The proposed is to be located at an industrial/commercial location, the proposed is compatible with the existing conditions.” Page 1 of the application states that the proposed site is zoned R-2M, which is Mixed Residential District 2. As defined in 21.04.G.1, R-2M “is intended primarily for residential areas…” Except for the Chugach Electric Substation (which required a conditional use permit) located to the north of the proposed cell tower site, the area in which this proposed cell tower is proposed is a residential area and is not considered by the Turnagain community as an “industrial/commercial” location. What are the Municipal standards to determine if the proposed project is “compatible” with the existing conditions/zoning? On the application on page 6, “There are no existing towers within the geographic area,” is the response given to every section. Again, what is the exact “geographic area” boundaries referred to in the application? Until this information is provided, it is difficult to determine if the applicant has met all the standards required by the Planning Department and Municipal Code. Buffering/Aesthetics: The construction drawings do not indicate if any existing, natural wooded vegetation is proposed to be protected/retained around the project site. TCC requests that the Planning Department put the following conditions on any application approval for the proposed project: 1. The development footprint of the project be located on the lot in a way to allow for retention of a minimum 30-foot naturally wooded vegetation buffer between the constructed project area and 1) the east side of the sidewalk along Wisconsin St., a highly used neighborhood collector and pedestrian area; and 2) the curb along the north side of W. 32nd Ave. where residential home are located across the street to the south. This is needed to provide and retain aesthetic/visual buffering from an industrial-type of development in this residential neighborhood. 2. The construction drawings show an 8-foot chain link fence surrounding the project development. TCC requests that this fence be medium to dark brown in color, in order to better blend in with the wooded areas that will be retained. Request for Application Approval Delay and Presentation/Discussion at TCC’s September 6, 2012, meeting: Municipal Code (21.45.265.A.14.d.) states, “A site plan review is required of all such towers since they have aesthetic and visual impacts on their neighbors and the public interest is best served by allowing these neighbors and the public at large a chance to comment on and provide input concerning the location and design of these towers. While it appears the Planning Department is meeting the letter of the law with regard to public notice, considering the acknowledgement of the city that a cell tower does impact the neighborhood, it is unfortunate that TCC is not being given an opportunity to hold a regular meeting with this proposal as an agenda item to hear from the Municipality and/or the applicant and to discuss the proposal before comments are due today (July 31, 2012). TCC does not hold regular meetings in July or August. Based on some key questions that we have put forth above and the fact that there has been considerable neighborhood interest in cell tower proposals in the Turnagain neighborhood in the past, TCC feels it would be in the public’s best interest to have the opportunity to discuss this proposal and get the above questions answered in a public forum. TCC respectfully requests that the Planning Department delay any final decisions regarding this significant industrial facility in our neighborhood, so that the council can address this proposal at our September 6, 2012, meeting. Regardless of the above meeting agenda request, TCC requests that we are provided by the Planning Department: 1. Answers to the above questions; 2. Acknowledgement of our recommendations for retention of naturally-wooded buffering and a brown-colored chain link fence; 3. A written copy the administrative action taken on the applicant’s site approval request. Thank you, again, for consideration of our input. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification on the above comments/requests. Sincerely, Cathy L. Gleason Turnagain Community Council President 248-0442 tccpresident@yahoo.com | |
| Kurosh & Lina kianipour | 7/14/2012 9:13:37 PM |
| If by installing the tower, the value of the our house goes down, your company will be responsible for this. People may concern about their health by installing the Wireless Communication Tower close to the residential areas. | |
| Kurosh & Lina Kianipour | 7/11/2012 7:59:04 AM |
| We DO NOT consent with installing "Cellular/ Wireless Communication Tower" near our residential place. It will cause health problems for us and others who are living in this area. There is already a huge electric transformer in that place that is not in favor of people health either! | |
| PJ cranmer | 6/23/2012 3:24:40 PM |
| This would be a good place to put a cell site. | |