Prescott defers 80-foot cell tower permit to December, demands coverage data and site analysis
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA — November 9, 2023

Prescott defers 80-foot cell tower permit to December, demands coverage data and site analysis

Prescott Planning Commission deferred a contentious 80ft cell tower application (reduced from 100ft) after hearing 17 public speakers opposing the project due to property value impacts, inadequate coverage justification, aviation hazards, and topographical discrepancies, with decision to reconvene December 14 pending applicant submission of comparative height coverage maps.

Prescott Defers 80-Foot Cell Tower Over Insufficient Coverage Data, Misrepresented Topography, and Aviation Safety Concerns

Prescott's Planning Commission voted 6–1 on November 9, 2023 to defer a controversial 80-foot wireless monopole application, citing a need for comparative coverage maps at multiple heights and clarification of contradictory statements about the tower's proximity to an existing water tank and its visibility from nearby residences. The deferral to December 14 reflects an unusually contentious hearing in which 17 public speakers—representing over 30 households in South View, Long View, and adjacent neighborhoods—presented detailed photographs, real-estate appraisals, and technical challenges to SmartLink Communications' assertion that the tower is necessary and "the least intrusive solution."

Key Speeches

"The application should be denied because smart link has failed to establish that granting the application would be consistent with a smart planning requirements under the Prescott Land Development code… smart link has failed to provide a shred of what they call probative evidence to show that the proposed location is the least intrusive site." — Deborah Miller, opposition coordinator, 1062 Yavapai Hills Drive

"When large cell towers are installed within view of residential homes such homes lose value typically ranging from 5 to 20% in the worst cases… I'm a licensed Arizona real estate agent since 2013… homes near a cellular transmission tower may sell at a value 10 to 20% less compared to a home not located near that type of equipment." — Heidi Ricol, licensed real estate agent

"I sold my home at a loss of $150,000 because a 100 foot tower was built right behind us… the appraised value was $600,000; I sold it for $450,000… and our neighbors left the community because of that." — Tom Daniels, 2903 Laquesta, South View subdivision

"The irresponsible placement of smart Link's massive eight-story Tower in a rural residential neighborhood on a historical Hill would cause the tower to stand out like a sore thumb to dominate the skyline." — Deborah Miller, paraphrasing federal case law on aesthetic impacts

"I think it's fair to say that most of us would agree that a robust cell coverage in this town is a desirable thing but nobody wants a cell tower in their backyard." — Ted Gambogi, Commissioner (concluding remarks)

"SmartLink has either made false claims in its first presentation or is withholding facts in the current presentation… [they] arrived at what was undoubtedly their predetermined conclusion that smart link needs to have this 80ft Tower." — John Moore, 1397 Pinion Shadow Drive

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers: 17 formal public commenters (Deborah Miller, Melissa Radwick, Patrick Pearson, John Moore, Ken Goldner, Tom Daniels, Patrick Grady, Heidi Ricol, Anne Moore, Andrew Culp, William Kosmick, Richard Loes, Dale Stores, Phil Davis, Amy J. Wing, Theo Cass, Denise Allen).

Main concerns:

  1. Property value depreciation: Licensed real estate professionals (Heidi Ricol, others in Exhibit C letters) testified homes near cell towers sell 5–20% below comparable properties not near towers; some homes rendered "wholly unsellable." Tom Daniels documented personal loss of $150,000 in Oregon when similar tower erected adjacent to his property.

  2. Aesthetic and scenic impacts: Residents emphasized Prescott's historic character, mountain views, and rural community identity. Ken Goldner's photographic series showed tower visibility from Long View Trail, Long View subdivisions, Pioneer Park (city recreational facility with significant capital investment), and local highways. Tower would dominate skyline "two to three times" height of existing water tank; potential to reach 96 feet if AT&T uses federal preemption allowance without notice.

  3. Inadequate and misleading coverage justification: Deborah Miller and John Moore highlighted that applicant's propagation maps carry extensive disclaimers ("Maps provide a predicted high level approximation… actual coverage may differ… AT&T does not guarantee coverage"). FCC issued 2020 rule requiring hard RF data; SmartLink provided none. Applicant's own project narrative admits maps are "not intended to show actual consumer performance" and "not intended to show future network needs."

  4. Federal preemption and height manipulation: James Whiting and others noted Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act § 649 allows 20-foot automatic height increase post-approval, potentially raising 80-foot tower to 100 feet without further city review—contrary to city code's prohibition on height modification without SUP amendment. Applicant reduced request from 100 to 80 feet; unclear whether 80-foot tower sufficient for AT&T alone or whether collocation padding explains the height.

  5. FirstNet misrepresentation: Prescott PD and Fire are on Verizon (not AT&T); Yavapai County Sheriff's Office opted out of FirstNet. Phil Davis researched and confirmed that FirstNet benefits only federal agencies and jurisdictions that adopted it—not Prescott or Yavapai County. SmartLink's emphasis on FirstNet as justification for tower appeared misleading; AT&T RF Engineer acknowledged FirstNet is "one component" but acknowledged primary function is commercial coverage infill.

  6. Topographical and technical misstatements: Ken Goldner's engineering analysis revealed applicant's claims contradicted by their own survey maps: tower stated as 400 feet from water tank fence; actual distance approximately 100 feet. Contour intervals in propagation maps described as 20 feet; applicant's own RF engineering drawings show 1-foot contours—critical difference for terrain assessment. Proposed tower design labeled "pending final design by others"; antenna rendering shows only AT&T equipment despite claim of 3-carrier readiness.

  7. Aviation safety hazards: Phil Davis presented Prescott Regional Airport flight-track density maps (877 daily takeoffs/landings, predominantly student pilots). Water tank serves as navigation aid; tower addition would convert aid into hazard, especially in low-visibility/instrument-approach scenarios. Aircraft incidents on Iron Springs Road and Highway 89 documented; high-altitude snow conditions add risk.

  8. Alternative sites not explored: Residents and Phil Davis identified existing infrastructure: Table Mountain tower, Hunt Ranch facility, Outer Loop Road county sites. AT&T's own propagation model (per Davis) indicated coverage from alternatives. Applicant claimed "no other facilities we can locate on to meet coverage objective" without presenting comparative analysis. Commissioners noted building one 80-foot tower vs. two or more shorter towers is trade-off, not given.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

No residents or organizations testified in favor of the application. Applicant's attorney and RF engineer presented technical defense but did not address substantive concerns about alternatives or hard coverage data.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: Application deferred to December 14, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.

Conditions pending applicant response:

  1. Propagation coverage maps at four heights: 100 feet, 80 feet, 60 feet, and 40 feet (to allow commissioners to assess coverage gain vs. height increase quantitatively)
  2. Height of existing water tank and existing cell tower on site (to evaluate aesthetic relative-height impact)
  3. Number of South View homes with direct line-of-sight to proposed tower (to quantify visibility/aesthetic impact)
  4. Clarification and documentation of alternative-site analysis (applicant to show other sites considered and why rejected)
  5. Clarification of topographical data: distance from tower to water tank (100 ft vs. 400 ft claim), contour-interval accuracy (1 ft vs. 20 ft)
  6. Design finalization: confirm antenna configuration for all three carriers (if 3-carrier claim valid)

Federal shot-clock: City Attorney Matt noted FCC 150-day "reasonable time" rule for tower decisions begins on final application date. Application submitted April 9; additional information received ~May/June. December 14 deadline falls within 150 days from final submission, assuming applicant's voluntary extension of timeline. If applicant does not provide information, decision may be forced by shot-clock expiration.

City Council review: Prescott Planning Commission recommendation (approval, denial, or conditional approval) will be presented to City Council for final decision-making authority. Planning Commission does not have final authority on SUP approvals.

Applicant acknowledgment: Mark Sawyer stated SmartLink is "willing to come back on a December meeting to provide [and] have the time to provide you with all the information requested today." Applicant acknowledged receipt of specific questions in writing and confirmed understanding of deliverables.

Controversies & Context

Federal preemption and city code conflict: City Attorney Matt clarified that Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act § 649 (2012) allows wireless carriers to increase tower height up to 20 feet above the height approved in a Special Use Permit without additional city approval, provided the increase does not exceed 200 feet overall or exceed the height of an adjacent structure by more than 20 feet. This creates a legal paradox: Prescott's Land Development Code § 2.4.9 prohibits height modifications to existing facilities without amendment to the SUP; federal law preempts that restriction. Applicant reduced request from 100 feet to 80 feet partly in response to resident objection, but could theoretically file for 100-foot approval, receive it, and then use § 649 to increase to 100 feet (if approved at 80 feet) without further city authorization—though Commissioner Whiting and others noted the applicant's reduction may already account for that permitted overage.

Inadequacy of propagation maps under FCC 2020 rule: Deborah Miller and John Moore extensively cited FCC's 2020 final rule requiring wireless carriers to submit detailed propagation-model data (RF drive tests, drop-call records, actual field measurements) rather than predictive maps. AT&T has historically opposed data release, citing competitive concerns. SmartLink's maps carry extensive disclaimers and are admittedly "approximations." Neither the applicant nor AT&T's RF engineer produced hard data. Commissioners noted that without 60- and 40-foot coverage maps, they cannot assess whether lower heights would close the gap—a critical factor in determining whether 80 feet is "the least intrusive" solution (required under LDC § 2.4.9).

FirstNet program and public-safety narrative collapse: SmartLink initially emphasized FirstNet (federal first-responder network) as a key justification. However, Prescott Police Department, Fire Department, and City 911 dispatch are all on Verizon (which has superior county coverage and is already supporting emergency services). Yavapai County Sheriff's Office, on which the applicant apparently relied, opted out of FirstNet. FirstNet benefits federal agencies and jurisdictions that affirmatively adopted it—not Prescott or Yavapai County. Rich Johnson (FirstNet Senior Manager) acknowledged that FirstNet is available to "federal agencies" and "disciplines throughout the state… coming to support," but not to local Prescott responders unless they switched carriers, which they have not. This revelation significantly undermined the applicant's "public safety" justification.

Community character and Prescott's general plan (2015): Multiple residents referenced Prescott's 2015 General Plan, which emphasizes preservation of "community character including environmental economic cultural and historic Community assets" and "small town quality" founded on "Prescott's pioneering days [and] historic architecture." An 80–100-foot tower in a rural hill setting surrounded by residences conflicts with this stated vision. Prescott's LDC § 2.4.9 explicitly directs staff and commissions to "encourage location of Wireless facilities in non-residential areas," "minimize the total number of wireless sites," and "minimize adverse visual impacts… through thoughtful design and sighting [and] landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques." The proposed location is on Arizona State Land Department property (not city-owned) adjacent to a water tank and in view of several subdivisions—arguably a poor fit for the code's non-residential preference.

Property values and real-estate appraisal precedent: Multiple licensed real-estate agents (Heidi Ricol, implied from Exhibit C letters) testified that homes within sight of cell towers typically sell 5–20% below comparable properties. Commissioner Tom Riley pushed back, requesting independent third-party appraisal data (not just realtor opinions) to substantiate the impact. However, Heidi Ricol's testimony and HUD's classification of towers as "nuisances or hazards" with negative appraisal impact provided some evidentiary basis. This is a legally defensible ground for denial under LDC § 2.4.9 (protection of residential areas from adverse impacts) provided the evidence is substantial.

Topographical and technical accuracy: Ken Goldner's photographic and topo analysis directly contradicted applicant claims. Applicant repeatedly stated the tower would be "400 feet from the water tank fence"; engineering survey maps showed ~100 feet. Contour intervals in RF maps were described as 20 feet; actual RF engineering drawings use 1-foot intervals—a significant discrepancy for terrain-based coverage modeling. Proposed tower design was labeled "pending final design by others," and antenna rendering showed AT&T equipment only despite claim of 3-carrier readiness. These discrepancies, whether unintentional or not, undermined applicant credibility and left commissioners uncertain whether the height claim rests on solid engineering or speculative assumptions.

Yavapai Hills precedent (2018–2019): Ted Gambogi referenced a prior cell-tower denial at Yavapai Hills, where a much shorter (~35-foot) tower adjacent to a water tank was denied despite resident safety concerns (property located near elementary school). That denial suggests Prescott Planning Commission has precedent for rejecting towers that would inflict aesthetic harm on residential areas, though the Yavapai Hills case involved a school proximity issue absent here (the proposed tower is 1,400+ feet from residences).

Build-it-and-they-will-come concern: Commissioners, particularly Tom Riley, raised concerns that applicant justified 80-foot height by anticipating two future collocators (carriers not yet committed). If AT&T alone needs only, say, 60 feet, the full 80-foot request appears inflated. Mark Sawyer defended this by noting that collocators reduce the need for multiple, separate towers—a valid planning principle—but admitted he could not provide a viable business case for 80 feet without the additional carriers. This circularity left commissioners uncomfortable with the height justification.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Minutes approval: October 26, 2023 Planning Commission meeting minutes approved 5–0, with 2 abstentions (Commissioners Jim Kazuki and Don Michelman, both absent from prior meeting).

Ted Gambogi departure: Long-serving Commissioner Ted Gambogi gave farewell remarks, reflecting on five years of service (cell-tower cases, airport overlay, contentious initiatives), commending staff (noting George Streets, Terry Marshall, Mel Rup, Ken Miller as sources of institutional knowledge) and residents for substantive public engagement. Ted Gambogi emphasized the importance of hearing both arguments and counterarguments in planning decisions and noted he was "fired" from the General Plan last week and the Planning Commission this week—a self-deprecating reference to term limits or council action. Presiding Chair Don Michelman thanked Ted Gambogi for his "thoughtful questions" and institutional memory.

Chelsea announcement: City Manager announced Chelsea as new permanent full-time Community Development Director (succeeding interim leadership). Chelsea briefly acknowledged the role and expressed commitment to supporting the commission and city.