As data and cellphone demands push more antennas into Anchorage neighborhoods, city officials have drafted regulations to encourage operators to build more towers disguised as trees or to use the tops of existing light poles.
The city's current regulations were adopted long before the widespread use of smartphones. Wireless providers have been calling for better guidelines from the city when it comes to putting cellphone antennas in denser areas.
At the same time, city officials and Assembly members say they want to balance concerns from neighborhood residents about aesthetics and safety.
"Everybody wants their cellphone to have good service -- four bars when they turn it on," said East Anchorage Assemblyman Pete Petersen, who recently chaired an Assembly subcommittee on cellphone towers. "But nobody wants a cell tower next to their house."
A proposed new version of the regulations, drafted by former city attorney Dennis Wheeler at the Assembly's request, would prohibit building large cellphone towers next to homes in dense urban settings. City officials say they also hope to encourage operators to work together to mount antennas on existing towers instead of building new ones.
The draft regulations encourage "small-cell" technologies, or low-powered wireless base stations that can be mounted to light poles and typically help boost coverage in high-use areas like stadiums or malls.
Other proposed changes include reducing the separation distance required between a cellphone tower and the nearest home. Current city law requires a separation distance equal to 200 percent of the height of the tower, but phone companies can get around that through loopholes. The new regulations are designed to close that loophole, officials said, through new guidelines for minimum separation distances. They would also set a maximum height of 65 feet for a tower in a residential district.
Since they were released in mid-November, the draft regulations have gotten mixed reviews. Community activists said they'd like to see clearer definitions for certain types of towers and more ways for neighbors to weigh in on projects near their homes.
Phone companies, meanwhile, said the new regulations are too complex. They also said the new tower height guidelines could be problematic.
Becky Pearson, a lawyer for GCI, said the revisions made the existing code less direct. She also said it would be difficult for providers to add antennas to existing towers without more flexibility in tower height.
Ken Lyons, a Seattle-based lawyer who represents AT&T, said the new separation standards and the preference for certain technologies seem to undermine the "workability" of the code.
AT&T has seen a 100,000 percent increase in data traffic on its network between 2007 and 2014, thanks to the proliferation of smartphones, according to Lyons.
"Obviously we haven't built that many more sites," Lyons said. He said AT&T is working to upgrade existing sites, but added that new sites will be needed to meet demand. He said the question is whether the new rules will help accommodate that need.
Lyons also said small-cell technology isn't a replacement for normal cell towers. He said it's typically used as a supplement to an existing network.
It's rare now to see a cellular antenna on top of a power pole in a residential area in Anchorage. The head of the city's long-range planning department, Erika McConnell, said she knew of only one other example, on Aero Drive in Turnagain.
In South Addition, neighbors concerned about views and proximity to homes have sued to block GCI from placing a 10-foot antenna on top of an existing 68-foot utility pole near 13th Avenue and E Street.
Towers disguised as trees, or "stealth" towers, are also rare in Anchorage, with the industry citing concerns about snow loads, ice and maintenance. But earlier this year, the city approved an application for the area's first camouflage tower, by Verizon, at Alyeska Resort.
While the industry responds to the new regulations, neighbors are determined to have their say. Last week, a group of residents gathered to discuss the proposal and come up with their own changes.
"Now is the chance to set the precedents for what we want the Anchorage landscape to look like," said Rogers Park resident Annette Cartier. "What do we want for our viewshed?"
Cartier is among the neighbors opposing a GCI effort to build a tower extension in Rogers Park, though GCI has not yet submitted an application to the city.
Another Rogers Park resident, Jean Ward, wrote in an email that she would be willing to pay more in tech bills to have small-cell technology in neighborhoods.
"We do not want faster, better tech at the expense of the aesthetic and safety aspects of technology," Ward wrote.
One of the South Addition residents in the lawsuit against GCI, Timothy Feller, said he's generally happy with the new cellphone tower regulations as proposed. But he said he's concerned that the industry will "dismember" the height restrictions and other requirements supported by neighbors.
The Assembly's Community and Economic Development committee sent copies of the regulations to the Federation of Community Councils, the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and the city Planning and Zoning Commission for review. The documents can be found on the committee's website at muni.org.
Amy Demboski, who chairs the committee, said she expects the regulations to be introduced at the Dec. 22 Assembly meeting, but that a public hearing will be delayed until February.