Prescott approves 223-unit South Ranch Apartments, defers SmartLink cell tower pending first-responder input
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA — October 12, 2023

Prescott approves 223-unit South Ranch Apartments, defers SmartLink cell tower pending first-responder input

Planning Commission approved two airport-impacted developments (223-unit rental complex and revised residential plat) but deferred a contentious 100-foot cell tower proposal pending additional analysis due to substantial public opposition citing health, visual, and property value concerns.

Planning Commission Approves Airport-Impacted Housing but Defers 100-Foot Cell Tower Pending First-Responder and Site-Alternative Analysis

On October 12, 2023, the Prescott Planning Commission unanimously approved two developments within airport impact zones but halted approval of a contested 100-foot wireless cell tower disguised as a monopine, instead deferring the decision to November 9 to allow staff and the applicant to address substantial community opposition and gather input from law enforcement and fire officials.

The tower deferral broke a pattern of near-automatic approval for telecommunications facilities and signaled commissioners' willingness to push back against federal preemption restrictions, even as their own legal counsel cautioned them that health concerns fall outside their authority to consider. The meeting revealed a community deeply fractured over 5G infrastructure, property values, and the adequacy of existing wireless coverage—and commissioners struggling to balance federal mandates against constituent demands for greater local control.

Key Speeches

"We're not trying to go for short-term two, three month people that are moving in and out of town. We want people to stay here long term and become part of Prescott. But to get financing on a project like this at this level, if we put a clause in the financing that says anyone that moves in can move out in three months later, we would not get the financing." — Dave Grounds, Great Street Company, developer

"I would request that a continuance so that we all have time to review and respond. I'm requesting this continuance for two weeks or a month from now or longer if it is felt that the response to my FOIA request will take longer. We need more time as informed citizens to be able to address this incredibly important issue." — Deb Miller, FOIA requester and resident

"This proposed water tower is going to be at 5,755 feet. The proposed cell tower is maybe 20 feet below the water tank. Don't be misled by the photographs you were shown. We don't need 100 feet. We've got pretty good coverage. Verizon covers it pretty well. But I agree we are going to open up a Pandora's Box." — Phil Davis, Yavapai County Search and Rescue volunteer

Timeline

South Ranch Apartments (Site Plan 22-04):

South Ranch Unit 2 Revised Preliminary Plat (PLN 23-2):

SmartLink Communications 100-Foot Wireless Tower (Special Use Permit 23-2):

Opposition

Number of speakers: 14 speakers against tower; 1 (Mark Sawyer, applicant) and 1 (Phil Davis, SAR, qualified support with reservations).

Main concerns:

  1. Visual impact and aesthetics: Tower will be visible from Prescott and as far north as Seligman (~56.8 miles) due to line-of-sight elevation (~5,755 feet). Will stand out among landscape features; monopine disguise ineffective (reference to 78-foot Willow Lake tower that clearly reads as artificial). Red blinking light (airport requirement) will exacerbate visibility.

  2. Excessive height deviation: 100 feet is 186% above 35-foot zoning limit; inconsistent with city values and other protected scenic areas (Thumb Butte, Sedona). Question raised: why is 35-foot limit in code if easily overridden?

  3. Pandora's Box precedent: Approving 100 feet invites other carriers to request similar heights; could result in cell-tower compound. Applicant's statement that 100 feet allows three carriers implies financial incentive, not necessity.

  4. Inadequate justification and missing analysis:

    • Coverage maps not clarified (data capacity vs. voice/emergency call gaps)
    • Propagation maps presented by staff vs. applicant differ; no reconciliation shown
    • Alternative sites not formally studied or disclosed
    • Alternative technologies (fiber optic, landline for emergency dispatch) not evaluated
    • FirstNet (first-responder network) benefit asserted but not independently verified

  5. Health and safety concerns: Multiple speakers reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms (neurological, inflammatory, sleep disturbance). One speaker (PhD in biology) described acute reactions after nearby tower activation. Emphasized lack of FCC safety studies, not just lack of hazard. Children's Health Defense lawsuit against FCC cited for inadequate testing, especially in pediatric population.

  6. Property value impact: HUD designates cell towers as "hazard and nuisance." Appraisers required to document proximity and adjust values downward. Seller-disclosure statements will reference tower; unknown impact on future property sales and neighborhood stability.

  7. Process deficiencies:

    • FOIA request for applicant documents (alternative sites, coverage rationale) unanswered at time of hearing
    • Week's notice insufficient for community organization and attendance
    • No fire, police, or sheriff input; Yavapai County Sheriff has jurisdiction over Williamson Valley but not contacted
    • 911 Center (covers 400 square miles, interfaces with multiple jurisdictions) not consulted on whether coverage gap exists

  8. Cultural and historical concerns: Tower location on Indian Mesa, historically used as Yavapai lookout to signal presence of Spanish/American forces. Archaeological artifacts present; no cultural impact assessment performed.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

Number of speakers: 1 (Mark Sawyer, applicant); 1 qualified (Phil Davis, SAR, acknowledged coverage gaps but cautioned on height).

Main arguments:

  1. FirstNet integration: SmartLink positioned 100-foot tower as critical enabler of FirstNet (government/AT&T partnership) for first-responder emergency communications. Asserted real-time tracking, coordination, and emergency-alert capability dependent on tower network redundancy and data capacity.

  2. Coverage gap and data capacity: Propagation maps showed poor/absent coverage (blue/yellow) in northern Williamson Valley. Tower addresses both voice coverage and data-capacity bottlenecks that arise during emergencies when all users attempt simultaneous communication.

  3. Colocation benefits: 100-foot height allows three carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) to colocate, reducing need for multiple towers and future expansion requests. 85 feet minimum for two carriers; 100 feet enables maximum utilization and municipal add-ons (microwave, sensors).

  4. First-responder testimony: Phil Davis (SAR) confirmed cellular technology "disruptive" and "game changer" for backcountry rescue operations; real-time tracking and inter-unit visibility in dark/wilderness settings. Provided coverage grids showing Verizon "pretty good," T-Mobile weak, AT&T adequate for search-and-rescue purposes.

  5. Site suitability: Tower on 204-acre state land, ~1,800 feet from nearest residential; not proximate to homes as other towers reviewed. Existing water tank and communications infrastructure on-site reduce visual clutter.

Limitations of support:

Project Details

Cell Tower (Special Use Permit 23-2):

South Ranch Apartments (Site Plan 22-04):

South Ranch Unit 2 Revised Preliminary Plat (PLN 23-2):

Vote Breakdown

Site Plan 22-04 (South Ranch Apartments):

PLN 23-2 (South Ranch Unit 2 Revised Preliminary Plat):

SU 23-2 (100-Foot Wireless Tower):

Outcome & Next Steps

South Ranch Apartments: Approved with recommendation to council that approval include the first four airport-agreed stipulations (FAA Form 7460 process, Impact Zone 4 height limits, vegetation height restrictions, disclosure documents). The three-month lease-termination clause was explicitly excluded from the recommendation per applicant's financing constraints. Project proceeds to city council for final site plan approval. Developer indicated project will continue to architectural and engineering design phases pending approval, then seek construction bids.

South Ranch Unit 2 Revised Plat: Approved with advisory conditions for final plat stage. City will monitor final plat submission to ensure compliance with DeepWell Ranch master plan (disclosures, easements, CCRs, height restrictions, landscape specifications, plat notes on noise and navigation). No further commission review required unless final plat deviates substantially from preliminary approval.

100-Foot Cell Tower: Deferred to November 9, 2023. Commission requested applicant (SmartLink) and staff provide:

  1. Alternative sites analysis: Any alternative sites evaluated by applicant; justification for why proposed site is "best available" and "best technologically feasible" (LDC requirements)
  2. Coverage map clarification:
    • Distinguish between data-capacity gaps vs. voice/emergency-call gaps
    • Provide propagation maps for each major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) at current and proposed tower location
    • Reconcile staff-presented maps with applicant-submitted maps
  3. Height reduction impact: If tower reduced from 100 feet to 85 feet or lower, how does coverage and colocation capacity change? Would reduced height limit colocation to fewer carriers?
  4. First-responder input: Fire department, police department, and Yavapai County Sheriff to confirm whether 100-foot tower is necessary to close coverage gap or whether existing towers (plus lower height) adequate. 911 Center input on current dispatch capabilities.

Applicant and staff to prepare responses for November 9 hearing. Motion passed 6-0 to defer; no opposition to deferral from commissioners.

Controversies & Context

Federal preemption and local authority tension: The cell tower hearing exposed a fundamental conflict between federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which preempts local regulation of health/RF emissions) and local land-use control. City Attorney advised commissioners that any denial based on health concerns would be overturned on appeal; commissioners' authority limited to height, setback, and visual impact under LDC 2.4.4.N. Yet commissioners and public repeatedly raised health concerns, suggesting frustration with the constraint. Commissioner Susan Graham explicitly noted health concerns; attorney clarified she cannot base a vote on them.

Process and transparency concerns: Multiple speakers (Deb Miller, Heidi Remole, Amy Wing) demanded that the FOIA request for applicant documents be answered before a vote. Deb Miller asserted that citizens cannot make informed decisions without access to alternative-site analysis and coverage justification. Applicant's failure to provide this information in the initial packet (staff noted it was submitted after agenda packets went out) fueled perception that approval was being rushed. Week's notice also cited as insufficient for community mobilization.

Visual impact and "Pandora's Box" threshold: South View residents and others invoked the nearby 78-foot monopine tower on Willow Lake as a cautionary example of ineffective stealth design. That tower "stands out" among natural vegetation, they argued; a 100-foot tower would be far more visible. Dale Stores and John Lamar framed the approval as opening the door to other carriers requesting 100-foot towers, transforming the area into a "cell phone compound." This concern reflects prior planning experience: once one carrier gets an exception, others claim equal treatment.

First-responder input absent: Despite applicant's emphasis on FirstNet and emergency communications, no independent confirmation from Prescott Fire, Prescott Police, or Yavapai Sheriff that 100-foot tower is necessary. Phil Davis (SAR) provided qualified support but appeared in personal capacity, not as official county representative. 911 Center (primary dispatcher for region) not consulted. This absence is notable given applicant's reliance on emergency-communications justification.

Health concerns and regulatory gap: Multiple speakers reported electromagnetic sensitivity and health impacts. One speaker (PhD in biology) described neurological symptoms. Emphasis on lack of FCC safety studies (not just lack of hazard proof) suggests concern about regulatory capture or inadequacy. City Attorney's invocation of federal preemption, while legally sound, leaves residents feeling unheard on a central concern.

Property values and disclosure impacts: Amy Wing cited HUD designation of cell towers as "hazard and nuisance," triggering seller-disclosure and appraisal obligations. Realtors (Heidi Remole) noted buyer/seller impacts across Quad Cities. Concern that tower approval will require future purchasers to acknowledge proximity to cell tower, potentially reducing marketability and values.

Airport Vicinity Overlay deferred adoption: Ted Gambogi noted that DeepWell Ranch area was initially excluded from the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Avo (Airport Vicinity Overlay District). Council's adoption of Avo remains pending; applicant approval today does not negate Avo benefits if eventually adopted. However, uncertainty over Avo status leaves ambiguity about airport protection policy.

Cultural and historical resources: John Lamar raised Yavapai heritage concerns—Indian Mesa (proposed tower site) historically used as lookout post to signal enemy approach; archaeological artifacts present. No cultural impact assessment mentioned in staff report or applicant materials. This concern echoes broader Arizona land-use debates over protection of tribal heritage sites.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Approval of September 28 Meeting Minutes: Commissioners approved prior meeting minutes with two corrections noted (names not specified in transcript). One commissioner (Don Michelman) abstained, stating he was not present at the September 28 meeting.

Council Member Attendance: Council Member Connie Curling attended the October 12 meeting in an observational capacity (mayor and council members sometimes attend planning commission meetings to monitor significant items). Curling did not vote or comment; her presence implied council interest in the airport-impacted developments and cell tower proposal ahead of potential council review.