Mid-Hillside
and Hillside East
Community
Councils
Anchorage, Alaska
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Antennas
Antenna at Near Point
Antennas at Near Point? Is this a choice between a nice view of the mountains or a clear television reception? This location may be outside of our council are, but the antennas will be visible from here. We may also face a similar effort to site an "Antenna Farm" in our area.
The following info on the Antenna Farm proposed for Near Point is mostly from emails sent by opponents of the zoning change. This may not be a balanced presentation.
An Anchorage Daily News article on March 8, 2003 noted that at the Basher Community Council meeting, 116 voted against the rezone with 6 voting for. That is resounding from an area that has reportedly 160 homes!
From Barb Hood March 3, 2003
Thanks so much for your message, John.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you--we were busy over the weekend getting flyers and petitions circulated against the re-zone. Just wanted to get back to you about your question on alternative sites. Our position is that we don't have to identify alternative sites to defeat this re-zone. The petitioner in question isn't a TV, radio or telecommunications company seeking to locate a particular antenna, but a private developer--Joe Henri--who seeks to create an antenna farm for speculative purposes. (Although Henri trys to use relocation of an existing antenna in Stuckagain as an excuse, we believe this is a red herring--the antenna has been evicted and he's under no obligation to relocate it.)
The only two other "AF" parcels in the Anchorage Bowl were sought by a Pioneer Broadcasting and Alascom for particular needs; Joe Henri just wants to make the land available for antennas so he can increase its value (he purchased it last year when it was assessed at $104,000; he now has it on the market for $2.5 million). However, since "public best interest" is one of the criteria for re-zoning, we have a member of Friends of Near Point investigating the issue of available alternative "AF" space. Even the MOA planning department (which is, amazingly, recommending the re-zone) acknowledges that current AF space isn't exhausted.
Our position is that NO re-zoning should occur on the Hillside unless and until a "Hillside District Plan" is in place as contemplated by the Anchorage 2020 comp plan, and a thorough assessment of community communication needs takes place. If Joe Henri gets his 7 acres today, no doubt other private landowners will be petitioning for similar re-zones tomorrow, and Anchorage's pristine mountain views will be gone before we know it!
Thanks so much again for your comments.
Any help or support you can give would be much appreciated.
Barb Hood 770-4920
|
Barbara Hood & Dirk
Sisson
MOA Department of Planning RE: Re-Zone to Antenna Farm at Near Point, Case No. 2003-030 Dear Planning Department: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the pending application by petitioner Properties Divestment to rezone residential acreage on Near Point above the Stuckagain Heights neighborhood into a 7-acre antenna farm. In our view, such a rezoning would fly in the face of the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the community's longstanding efforts to remain a beautiful and livable city. We will address our comments to the specific standards for re-zoning in AMC 21.20.090, which have not been met. I. Standards for Approval of Re-Zoning the Near Point Parcel Have Not Been Met. The present application to re-zone seven acres of residentially-zoned land on Near Point to "AF-Antenna Farm" falls far short of meeting any of the criteria for re-zoning prescribed in Anchorage's municipal codes, and should accordingly fail. Under the standards for approval of re-zoning applications set forth in section 21.20.090 of Anchorage's municipal codes, the foremost consideration in approving a re-zone is "conformity to comprehensive plan." 21.20.090(A), Ex. 1. Specifically, "a zoning map amendment may be approved only if it furthers the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and conforms to the comprehensive plan in the manner required by Chapter 21.05." Id. Furthermore, an amendment may be approved "only if it is in the best interest of the public." 21.20.090(B), Ex. 1. The first criteria in the "best interest" assessment is "the effect of development under the amendment, and the cumulative effect of similar development on the surrounding neighborhood, the general area and the community…" 21.20.090(B)(1), Ex. 1. The current rezoning petition, if granted, would allow an antenna farm of up to nine 200-foot antenna towers on the slope a well-known peak in the middle of Anchorage's scenic mountain view. The resulting development would be a visible blight on the skyline visible for miles around and degrade nearby parks and neighborhhoods. Visitors to Chugach State Park, Hillside Park, and Far North Bicentennial Park would be especially affected, as the towers would be inescapable in the views from many popular trials, such as those up Near Point and Wolverine Peak, the Spencer Loop, the Tour of Anchorage trial, and numerous skiing, biking, hiking and dog-sledding trials in the Bicentenniel system. Residents of many Hillside neighborhoods would also find exposure to the antenna farm inescapable. The towers would be highly visible directly above many homes in Stuckagain Heights and would be prominent in the views from other Hillside neighborhoods in South Anchorage as well. Ex. 2. Re-zoning the Near Point parcel to allow such widespread negative impacts should be approached with great care and preceded by a thorough community planning process. Such a process has not occurred, and according to municipal planning staff is not expected to occur for some time. The siting of antenna farms is an extremely sensitive issue because of the many visual and other impacts associated with them. Communities across the country have grappled with intense controversies over antenna farm siting in recent years, and many have devoted extensive resources to developing plans that protect the neighboring communities from undue impacts. Anchorage itself has experienced conflict in recent years surrounding the placement of antenna towers, resulting in extensive local code revisions governing "Community and Local Interest Towers" at AMC 21.45.265 and AMC 21.50.200 et. seq. For reasons that are unclear, petitioner seeks to circumvent these codes by applying for a re-zone of residential acreage rather than a tower permit under applicable codes. Municipal planning laws will be soundly defeated if a private land-owner is allowed to create an "Antenna Farm" district unilaterally and in a vacuum, without regard for the surrounding community or the many siting factors that have yet to be considered.
The most clear indication that the proposed rezoning would fail comply with the goals and objectives of the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan is found in the specific provisions on Northeast Anchorage, which state:
Other sections of the plan designate the Near Point parcel as "unsuitable" for development because of "severe environmental constraints." Anchorage 2020, at 23-24. These provisions of the comprehensive plan, standing alone, warrant rejection of the proposed rezone because the "Antenna Farm" designation would clearly not conform to rural residential use. Other provisions lend even further support to denying the rezone, as set forth below. A. Absence of Any Requisite MOA Plans for the Neighborhood or District, Communication Needs, or Anchorage 2020 Implementation Policies. (1) No "Hillside District Plan". The Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan ("Anchorage 2020") plainly contemplates that additional neighborhood and district plans should be in place before zoning changes for particular areas are considered. For example, the introduction states:
Anchorage 2020, at 5; see also Id. at 3 ("area-specific plans" contemplated). Similarly, the Land Use Policy Map in Anchorage 2020 is an "interim guide for municipal decision-making until neighborhood or district plans and Title 21 changes are prepared and adopted." Anchorage 2020, at 69. For the Anchorage Hillside region in particular, of which Stuckagain Heights and the parcel in question are a part, Anchorage 2020 identifies the need for a "Hillside District Plan":
(2) No plan for "Antenna Farms" or other communications infrastructure. The Petitioner acknowledges that "neither the Anchorage Bowl 2020 Plan nor the 1982 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan address AF, Antennae Farm zone," and that this type of zoning is extremely rare. Petition, "Standards for Zoning Map Amendments," at 1. The Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan flags "communications" as part of the community's necessary infrastructure, but devotes only the following broad statements to it and offers no direction on associated land use decision-making:
Telephone and cable television infrastructure is largely in place. Long distance fiber optic capacity for voice, video, and data transmissions should be adequate for the next five to ten years. New television transmission towers may be required. The proliferation of transmission and receiving facilities for wireless communications is also likely.
Similarly, although current municipal codes include a description of the "AF" district, they primarily address what uses are permitted and what requirements apply. They are virtually silent on the sensitive issue of where such districts should be located and what factors should come into play to ensure the fewest number of sites in the most appropriate locations. The only provision that even speaks to the issue recognizes the need for few sites, but is otherwise vague: A. Intent. The AF use district is intended to create areas dedicated to the erection and maintenance of communication equipment at reasonable cost and to encourage the concentration of such equipment in a few sites throughout the municipality. 21.40.260. These cursory statements in Anchorage 2020 and the municipal code are simply too incomplete to guide the complicated and controversial decisions associated with locating "Antenna Farm" zoning districts, especially when these decisions might overturn long-standing land use patterns that are incompatible. The effects of a rezoning decision in this case are drastic and will be felt for decades to come, and simply should not be undertaken without a thorough and thoughtful plan. The present and future generations of Anchorage deserve a well implemented process to address this issue because the effects will be felt for generations to come. (3 ) Strategies "essential" for implementing the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan are not in place. Anchorage 2020 establishes an extensive plan for implementing its provisions that juxtaposes the policies to be served by the plan with the strategies for meeting them. Anchorage 2020, at 71-92. Strategies are divided into those that are "essential" for plan implementation and those that are desirable but "secondary." Of great significance to the present re-zoning request is the fact that Neighborhood or District Plans such as the "Hillside District Plan" are viewed as "essential" to the following policies:
At the present time, the requisite Neighborhood or District Plans for the Hillside region and Stuckagain Heights neighborhood are not in place. Zoning changes in the absence of these plans would clearly violate the goals and policies of Anchorage 2020, and should not be allowed to go forward.
Throughout the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan, strong reference is made to the importance of protecting the beauty of Anchorage's natural setting. For example, the plan states:
Anchorage's "natural beauty and setting" is ranked as one of the city's most important attributes, Anchorage 2020, at 37, and "retaining Anchorage's unique natural setting" received "near unanimous" community backing in the planning process. Id. at 46. "(P)rotecting Anchorage's scenic views" is listed as one of key planning principles in the plan, Id. at 65, and one of the plan's key goals for "design & environment" issues is "[a] network of natural open spaces throughout the community that preserves and enhances Anchorage's scenic vistas…" Id. at 39. An Antenna Farm in the middle of the Chugach viewshed would create an eyesore for the public's daily viewing, which is completely inconsistent with the values and goals of the comprehensive plan. The proposed re-zone would resort to the ad hoc and destructive planning methods of the past, which too often overlooked aesthetic values and left many areas of Anchorage ugly and blighted. Anchorage 2020 embraces the hope that the municipality can at last become a mature city with "a forward-looking approach to community growth and redevelopment." Id. at 38. The forward-looking approach that Anchorage citizens desire places a high premium on aesthetic values and preserving the city's natural beauty and assets and demands that the proposed rezone be soundly rejected. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Barbara Hood & Dirk Sisson |
|
February 27, 2003 MEMORANDUM FROM: John Beebee There is a petition before the planning and zoning commission that affects most Stuckagain heights property owners. In essence, if the stated intent of the petitioners is granted, when you look up at the West slope of Near Point you will see an antenna farm, with as many as 9 tower(s) up to 200 feet high with all the flashing lights required to protect them from collision with aircraft, along with required utility structures. An additional potential problem for residents is the change in the electromagnetic environment in the neighborhood of the towers. My experience has been that the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission are not a certain guarantee of protection from all effects. You may have thought that the west slope of Near Point belonged to Chugach State Park. In fact, the northern part of the west slope (160 acres) is private land owned by Joseph Henri. I urge you to think about how this proposed zoning change affects you and come to the public hearing at 6:30 PM, Monday, March 10, 2003, in the Assembly Hall of the ZJ Loussac Library; and to send your comments to Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Planning, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650. Refer to platting case 2003-030. The following is what I know about this case. The petitioner, Properties Divestment, is asking to rezone approximately 7 of Henri's 160 acres from R-10SL (Residential Alpine/Slope with Special Limitations) to AF (Antenna Farm). The proposed antenna farm is east of the Stuckagain Heights neighborhood on the west slope of Near Point. If you are familiar with Near Point, the center of the South boundary of the proposed antenna farm is located at an altitude of 2000 feet about 100 yards north of the popular blueberry patch above Dog Dish rock, and is marked almost exactly by the small fenced plots of a botanical research experiment. The latitude and longitude are N 61o 9.57', W 1490 40.59'. From this point you can determine if your property is in line of sight of the antenna farm. Approximately, if you are South of the intersection of Basher Road and Midden Way, or West of this point, then you are in line of sight. The closer your property is to 9921 Near Point Dr, the less likely it is that you will be in line of sight. The rezoning petition says there will be no road to the site. The antennas will be installed using helicopters, maintained by using a snowmachine route, and powered by an underground electric line. One map shows the route of a road or trail switchbacking up the north side of Near Point, on private land. Any structures built require permits from the Municipality and the Federal Communications Commission. The land use regulations that apply to R-10SL and AF zoning can be found in sections 21.40.115 and 21.40.260 of the Municipal Code. The entire quarter section (160 acres) including the proposed antenna farm is offered for sale at the website http://www.remoteproperties.com/mata_sus.html. For an asking price of $2.5 million, a dedicated group of (rich outside?) environmentalists could buy the property and add it to Chugach State Park. The same website says that a road will be built to the property in 2003. If the asking price includes access to the property, then the problems of public access to Chugach State Park from Stuckagain Heights, and potential problems from the antenna farm and R-10SL zoning would be solved. If you have additional information or corrections I would like to receive them. |
CELL PHONES
As cell phone use increases, the system needs more antennas to prevent bad connections and dropped calls. Cell phone antennas are not pretty and there is some opposition to having them in our neighborhoods. This page presents some info on cell phone antennas in our area.
The pictures
here are from Matt Nardini showing examples similar to what is requested
for a lot behind O'Malley Firestation. Not every cell phone system uses
towers and antennas like this. The antenna for Alaska Digitel at the
Retreat at O'Malley and Hillside is wood pole like a powerline pole.
The antenna next to O'Malley fire station was approved.
******************************
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Hearing Date: Monday, Jan 06, 2003
Case Number: 2003-024
Petitioner: New Horizons Telecom, Inc.
Attn: Matthew Nardini, PE 901 Cope Industrial Way
Palmer, AK 996450000
FAX: 9077616001
Day Phone: 907 761 6075 <-- OFFICE main # to go. nardini@nhtiusa.com
****************************************************
12/11/02 John Weddleton spoke w Matt:
60' mounted phone ACS wireless. behind the fire station is a ACS
switch. The tower looks like metallic pole. 24" diam on bottom. They
will share if someone wants to put something on there.
Don't always collocate because areas they need to cover are different.
1983 fire station had one late and ATU put in a switch Since was PLI land. ATU bought the back ½ of the lot. Next to it.
RE: DeArmoun just before the S curve. Go past the fire station there is a testing tower, It is a wood pole but will be replaced with metal. Can't see it because it is located near trees next to it. The closest houses to it are about 200' away with a buffer of trees.
This is an "Accessory to an already permitted use." Approval
by P&Z then to building safety division. 
Similar sites: Downtown at 4th and Hyder behind the Lexus dealer ship. (This one may have more stuff at the top than the one at O'Malley.) There will be 3 antennas. 8-10" wide by 20-24" long. Cst and International where trucks are parked.
Going rate is $500-$1,500 per month to put tower. If it's on Dimond Center, then pretty high.
Probably a day or two for construction.
************************************************************* email 12/18/02 Response to John W's email of same day
John, I am not an RF Engineer, so I cannot give you a definitive answer on most of these beneficial issues without talking to my electrical guys, but I will find out.
As to the argument of urbanization of the Hillside, I
think they are more symbolic of people's desire for convenience. The
larger volume of cellular traffic in the area
has created the need for more antennas. More cell sites do not necessarily
mean more customers, and hence more revenue, but rather better service
for those who use the service. This directly relates to better service
for the residents of the area.
I have several documents and studies that address the levels of RF energy created by placement of the towers. Microwaves are a different radiowave spectrum, and are not part of this system.
As for obtrusiveness, I agree with you. In fact, that is one of the conditions that the city may set in issuance of the Amendment to the existing conditional use. Landscaping and color schemes are common conditions in this type of project. Currently, the surrounding trees are trying to be used as a screen or buffer. We do not plan on removal of any trees or vegetation for this site's construction.
The placement of other antennas on the tower is referred to as Co-Location. As far as the business aspect, companies like other companies co-locating on their tower, this generates extra income for the tower, increasing it's profitability; corporate execs. like that principal. The problem is two fold: 1) Tower capacity for large numbers of antennas, towers are designed for a specific number of antennas. Tower manufacturers have to analyze each tower before any new antennas can be added. 2) Cellular systems do not really coincide in geography. In other words, where ACSW needs a tower is not always where ATT needs a tower. Putting antennas on this tower for another company may improve the immediate area, but antenna placement is chosen for maximum benefit to several different variables. When ATT and Mac Tell started their systems years ago, the original sites were not at the same place. As the systems matured, the location for additional sites were dependent on the weak spots, which did not coincide. The cellular systems in Anchorage are fairly mature, so new cell sites are fairly specific, and the chances of ATT needing a spot on this proposed tower are not certain. I do want to stress however, that Co-Locations is NOT an exclusion at this site, however improbable.
I hope I have answered your questions, I will check on the benefit of the antennas.
Thanks for your time,
Matthew J. Nardini, P.E.
----- Original Message -----
From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:29 AM Subject: Re: 021217-mjn-jw_(02-0219-20)Pics
of typical cell site
-
How much will these antennas improve cell phone call quality?
-
Some people really lash out at these antennas. It looks better if
they are not there even if they are fairly unobtrusive. They are symbolic
of urbanization of the Hillside. Some people worry about being zapped
with microwaves.
So what's the upside? Clear reception for 3 miles? No dropped calls? Are there stats like # of complaints about service in this area and how this will fix that?
-
There are often worries that every cell phone company will build another
tower rather than share. If this tower will have less antennas than
it can hold, does that mean AT&T can put a couple of theirs on
it? Can you paint everything to match the surrounding trees? (like
the huge water tank at Service?)
-
These are the kinds of questions that came up when AK Digitel put
the tower at the retreat at O'Malley and Hillside.
-
Thanks,
John
-
*******************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:38 PM Subject: 021217-mjn-jw_(02-0219-20)Pics of typical cell site
-
John, here are some pics of a typical cell site of this type. Please
note that I believe that there will only be a total of 3 antennas
on the tower, not three on each side. Also, these sites are located
in treeless areas, so they tend to stand out more than at the O'Malley
Firestation where the existing trees will shield the view of the towers.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to email or call
me.
Wireless communication requires lots of antennas. Should there be antennas in Bicentennial Park?
The ski jumps
proposed as an antenna site are just south of Hilltop Ski Area off Abbott
Road near the curve onto Hillside Drive. 
The following is a copy of an email forwarded by Pixie Siebe from Assemblyman Doug VanEtten August 13, 2001
" ....
if you will tell me who at BLM gave the interpretation, I will call
them to get verification and see where we may want to, or be able
to, go from there. Just off the top of my head though, I have to be
a little concerned about who and what may want to enter the parks
and in what ways if we open this can of sardines. You know that AT&T
needs a network of, I think the ultimate number maybe as high as 80
towers scattered around town. That scares me a little. And they are
just one operator. But, get me the BLM information and I will see
what I can learn/ do. Doug Van
Etten
At 04:42 PM 8/10/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Doug,
Remember AT&T's proposal to mount cellphone antennas on the skijump and pay the Skiclub $12,000 per year for 20 years? The Muni (Posey) originally rejected the idea due to incompatibility with the transfer covenants from BLM. BLM has informed us and Posey that that assessment was not correct and that BLM will allow this proposal with some restrictions.
It is now four months since BLM informed us about this, but Posey has not been able to OK the agreement because "it is tied up in legal" Last year we did not have a jumping program because we did not have a joint use agreement with the Muni, lack of snow and lack of money. The snow we can not do much about, but we should be able to obtain a joint use agreement and a co sponsorship of the program. The Administration have the opportunity to show that it can work with civic organization to the benefit of the whole community.
If Posey is not able to OK this AT&T proposal and at the same time formulate a joint use agreement that we can live with, the skijumping program will cease. The result of that is that Posey will become the proud owner of a real attractive nuisance that will not be easy to remove. Can you put a firecracker under somebody's butt so we can get ready for this season.
Tobben
This site was last updated on January 22, 2003
john@weddleton.com
907-349-8370