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. | |
|---|---|
| Toni Solin | 1/29/2016 4:46:59 PM |
| My family has lived next to a 100 ft tall cell phone tower on the Wayland Baptist Univ land at 7801 E 32 Ave since 2009. This tower is 205 ft from our house. Based on that the 200% tower height separation distance from residential neighborhoods need to be maintained in the proposed code updates. The residential neighborhoods need to be protected and separated from towers with distance. Small cell technology and camouflaged towers need to be promoted in the proposed code for residential neighborhoods. City, local, and municipal governments have the legal right to regulate placement of cell phone towers through zoning regulations. People all over Anchorage want residential neighborhoods separated and protected from cell phone towers for viewshed and property values concerns. | |
| Jean Ward | 1/26/2016 9:57:39 AM |
| Dear Individuals, “tower vision” (tou-er vizsh-un): like tunnel vision, “tower vision” has a narrow, single-minded focus that blocks out the ability to hear or see other options; as used in…GCI has “tower vision” when it comes to expanding/improving their service. I thought it might be helpful in a world of GCI lawyers and engineers for you to hear a fresh professional voice. As a national and local award winning teacher and after 30 + years of educating young children and their families, I have had much practice in the art of mediation. Residents want the conversation to continue between us and GCI. Hearing each other and exploring solutions together is at the heart of every mediation. GCI wants you to end the conversation by decreasing the 200% rule (Title 21) and granting them a conditional use permit to put a cell tower in Rogers Park. Please help the conversation to continue by NOT granting the conditional use permit to GCI. More dialogue is needed. As a member of the Rogers Park Community Council, I attended the January meeting where GCI was scheduled to speak with us again since we had sent so many written questions to them after the first meeting with them. They had the questions for months. They replied in written form on the Thursday before our Monday community council meeting date. Our council president shared the reply with us on Friday and we had then just 3 days to digest GCI’s responses. We sent follow-up questions to them immediately, but they have not been addressed in written form nor during their presentation at our community council meeting. They proceeded to present the same exact proposal they had given months earlier with the same inaccurate mock-up photos of the visual impact of the proposed tower. They had 4 representatives there. One was an engineer who was extremely soft spoken and whose first language was not english and he was impossible to comprehend. One was a lawyer who contributed just once after their main presenter lost his professionalism. That lawyer shared that GCI was going forward with their request for a conditional use permit. *We sat through the presentation that we had heard months before. *We asked questions about the lack of cell providers optimizing the use of shared sites. They said that is not usually a route they use. *We asked about specific alternate sites. They said that they looked at some and they didn’t meet their needs. They would not disclose how they arrived at their conclusion stating that they don’t disclose that information. *They shared that a tall tower was needed in my alleyway because their was too much RF “noise” from other towers. We asked who owns those interfering towers at least 3 times and finally the presenter mumbled “us, GCI”. *We reminded them that Rogers Park Community Council passed resolutions stating that the residents overwhelmingly do NOT want a cell tower that stands well above the trees and existing utility poles. They said that they don’t understand why we would want small cell or fiber optic technology employed in residential areas all over Anchorage because they would have to dig up our yards and have many little boxes attached to existing poles. Our yards will be dug up anyway to bury power lines this summer. Grass seed can give you a nice lawn again in just a year’s time whereas the 80 ft. tower and accompanying boxes will have a negative impact on residents forever. They repeated that they just don’t understand why we would want that. We needed them to hear us and they clearly did not make that effort. The decisions you help make in regards to multiple use poles (like NOT allowing ML&P to share their 32.5 ft utility pole with an 80 ft cell tower), examining changes to Title 21 (like NOT decreasing the separation distance in residential areas from 200% for cell towers), guarding the right-of-way spaces so that their zoning rules are compatible with their adjacent zone (such as residential areas), and insisting that the data shared from all parties is accurate with a transparent process of data collection. GCI’s motivation is clear. They made a mess of RF “noise” and want us to settle for their least expensive solution. That feels like we are being asked to clean up their mess. Don’t let GCI bully the citizens of Anchorage. Please stand up for your fellow residents. Please stand up for those who have no other voice. I want GCI to solve the problem they created while being responsive to all of us. I’m even a GCI customer (for now). I need a communications company that seeks two-way communication and that does NOT have “tower vision” (erecting an 80 ft. tower behind my house at the exclusion of all other possibilities). When GCI is given an opportunity to speak about why they selected only one option for their proposed tower that would require a conditional use permit, they respond that they can’t disclose their “study” of the other sites. I thought my immediate neighbors and I would be the only ones who cared about having a giant tower erected behind our houses. I was pleasantly surprised when our community council members also cared and not only our council, but many across town. We hope that you do not have “tower vision” so that you miss the beauty that is Anchorage. We are not a line item that can be crossed-off and ignored. We are the bottom line. Please DO NOT grant a conditional use permit for GCI to build a tower in Rogers Park. Please DO NOT allow ML&P to make some money by sharing the utility pole in our Rogers Park alley. We want GCI and whoever else wants to erect towers to know that we have more than money at stake here. We have our total quality of living. Let Anchorage set a standard that encourages the most inconspicuous yet viable options for cell technology in residential areas. Thank you, Jean Ward 2004 BP Teacher of the Year—Anchorage 2004 Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award | |
| lance powell | 1/10/2016 1:54:20 PM |
| Hey Folks, These are my comments in regards to the rework of MOA T21 in regards to cellphone towers(Case 20016-0015)...boy, we all sure love our cellphones and the initial reaction is to accept the idea that in order to have our cellphones we are going to have to put up with large,tall,steel towers everywhere .....but not so fast... in residential areas(and other areas that we value the present viewshed) we can require the cellphone industry to provide infrastructure that would not require the installation of obtrusive and ugly tall towers...the technology exists to provide hardly noticeable cellphone service to residential areas...things like stealth towers (concealed towers that blend in with the existing vegetation) , DAS (digital antenna service) technology , the placement of cellphone antennas on existing buildings and competing cellphone companies sharing where possible the same antenna structures.etc.....this concealment of cellphone antennas is nothing new..for years,cities and countries all over the USA and the world have required this antenna concealment because they value and appreciate the appearance of where they play and work...sure this concealment costs extra so the cellphone industry would rather not do it but the industry is so lucrative and competitive that concealment can happen if it is required by local law of the affected communities...as you deliberate the requirements of cellphone companies doing business in Anchorage please keep these previously mentioned items in mind , and most importantly, realize that what you decide will affect the appearance of Anchorage for years to come..thanks for your time and efforts Lance Powell | |
| ML&P Engineering | 12/21/2015 8:33:05 AM |
| Please see the comments listed below in order that they appear on the proposed ordinance: • 21.05.040K1.d.iii o This conflicts with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) statute 47 U.S.C §§ 224(f) for nondiscriminatory access to utility poles. This statute requires a utility to allow communications providers to just and reasonable access to poles, including for the pole attachment preparation process (i.e. “make-ready” work). When an existing pole does not meet current strength or clearance requirements, the proposed telecommunications carrier can pay for the “make-ready” work required to bring the pole into compliance. Denying the attachment based solely on not allowing the pole to be modified as “make-ready” because this modification may increase the pole size, diameter, or height, would violate statutory requirements. o The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) allows for existing poles to be grandfathered in for compliance to older editions of the NESC; however, once a new attachment is applied to an existing pole, this pole must meet the current NESC. ML&P has many grandfathered poles where a new attachment installation would require the grandfathered pole to be replaced with a larger pole size, diameter, and height. • 21.05.040K1.d.vi o As per the NESC, encasements holding cables installed on utility poles need to be installed with the allowance for adequate lineman climbing space. Therefore, prioritizing attachments on what provides the least visual impact over safety is not allowed. • 21.05.040K1.d.ix(A) o What is ancillary equipment? Utility owners will most likely reject this type of equipment attachments to poles because they will likely interfere with adequate climbing space as defined by the NESC. • 21.05.040K1.d.x o Does this section include Utility Easements or T&E Easements, or is this subject covered in 21.05.040K1.d.ix? • 21.05.040K1.d.x.7 o This section does not meet ML&P’s Service Requirements. Specifically, service equipment for powering facilities is not allowed inside a building or underground, and the meter must be at height between 60 and 72 inches. • 21.05.040K1.d.xi o Typically the base of utility poles is set at ground depths between 5 and 10 feet. Should not the 50 feet height limit be measured from ground level to the top of pole, or is the intent of the new ordinance to reference the total length of the pole including the underground portion? o Does not the 6 feet limit above the top of the pole conflict with the limit of 3 feet in the section covered in 21.05.040K1.d.v? • 21.05.040K.2.a o As per the proposed ordinance’s definition of a “Telecommunications Facility”, a facility which transmits signals using electromagnetic waves expands beyond just communication antennas. Specifically, the telecommunications facility definition would also include fiber optic cables that both communication utilities and electric utilities currently use. This definition would also include ML&P’s metering infrastructure because two-way communication mediums already exist, using electromagnetic waves. o If the intention of the new ordinance is to only include wireless facilities, then the proposed definition needs to be reworked. • 21.05.040K2.b o Past applications for antenna attachments to ML&P owned poles were based on the premise that said attachments were not the primary purpose of the existing pole. Would the new ordinance mean the existing poles are not defined as a Type 1 Tower? o ML&P currently owns thousands of poles with one or more telecommunication facilities attached to them. Therefore, ML&P strongly objects to reclassifying these poles as a Type 1 Tower because many of these existing poles would violate the rules defined by this proposed ordinance and would greatly restrict new construction. o A significant number of ML&P owned poles are not freestanding but are supported with guying and anchors. Consequently, it appears that there may be a definition conflict within the proposed ordinance, or would the existing pole with guying and anchors now be defined as a Type 3 Tower? • 21.05.040K2.f o Telecommunication facilities have the right to be located in T&E easements no matter what type of zoning the easement is located in. o ML&P strongly objects to the notion that new fiber optic projects will now require an Admin Site Plan because fiber optic cables are a telecommunications facility type, that when attached to ML&P poles, will be redefined as a Type 1 Tower with stipulations for an Admin Site Plan. • 21.05.040K5 o ML&P strongly objects to reclassifying ML&P owned poles as a Type 1 Tower and being regulated under this section. Many existing poles would violate the rules defined by this section of the proposed ordinance and would greatly restrict new construction. • 21.05.040K6 o ML&P strongly objects to reclassifying ML&P owned poles as a Type 1 Tower and being regulated under this section. Many existing poles would violate the rules defined by this section of the proposed ordinance and would greatly restrict new construction. | |