At a Glance
- Arizona HB 2447 takes effect January 1, 2026. It eliminates public hearings for many subdivision approvals, site plans, and plat amendments.
- FCC Docket 25-276 proposes to limit local control over cell tower placement through automatic approvals if deadlines are missed, limits on fees and setbacks, and restrictions on aesthetic requirements.
- H.R. 2289 passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee 26-24. It would exempt wireless facility modifications from environmental and historic preservation reviews.
- A 2021 federal court ruling found the FCC’s wireless radiation limits “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the agency to address health and environmental evidence. More than four years later, the FCC has taken no action.
- The 15 largest ISPs and trade associations spent $234 million on lobbying and federal elections during the 116th Congress.
- See Public Comment Deadlines and Resources for how to submit comments and contact your representatives.
Pinal County residents are losing local control over development decisions that shape their neighborhoods. Arizona House Bill 2447 removes the ability of cities and counties to require public hearings for many subdivision approvals, site plans, and plat amendments. Federal proposals now threaten to extend this pattern by stripping local authority over cell tower placement.
The changes come from multiple directions. At the state level, HB 2447 is effective January 1, 2026. It requires cities and counties to approve certain development applications administratively rather than through public hearings. At the federal level, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission are advancing separate proposals that would override local zoning ordinances for wireless infrastructure.
Together, these changes represent a significant shift in who decides what gets built and where. Decisions that once required public input now go to administrative staff. For cell towers specifically, additional limits on local control may be coming.
Public Hearings Disappear for Development Approvals
Municipalities across Arizona have updated their codes to comply with HB 2447. The law changes one word in existing statute—from “may” to “shall”—requiring municipalities to authorize administrative approval of various development applications, including site plans, plats, and land divisions, without public hearings.
“On the face of it, it seems to say that all of our major and minor site plans can no longer be required to go to Planning Commission for a public hearing,” Casa Grande Planning and Development Director Paul Tice said during a work session earlier this year.
Maricopa Planning Commissioner Bill Robertson expressed concern about removing public participation. “We have removed an element of public transparency,” Robertson said. “We have further damaged the trust of the community in government.”
Under the new state law, plat approvals that once required City Council or Planning Commission review now go directly to staff. As a result, the opportunity for residents to voice concerns before decision-makers has fundamentally changed.
Casa Grande officials emphasized the importance of maintaining public input. “We’re probably going to find new ways of communicating to the public on when they should get involved and how they can get involved,” Mayor Lisa Navarro Fitzgibbons said. “It’s just a new way of doing it versus the public hearing, because it is so important.”
Councilmember Matt Herman pointed to technology solutions. “We have new tools like… the 411, and the new GIS,” Herman said. “We can put alerts on there to say, ‘Hey, there’s something happening here, so you might want to click on this to submit your input.'”
Federal Proposals Would Override Remaining Local Authority
Two federal proposals would further limit local control over cell tower placement. The FCC’s WT Docket 25-276, titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments,” proposes sweeping new rules. Congressional bill H.R. 2289 would remove another layer of review for wireless projects.
The FCC says the proposal aims to streamline wireless infrastructure deployment.
The FCC proposal would:
- Tighten “shot clocks” and impose strict deadlines on cell tower applications
- Automatically approve towers through “deemed granted” provisions if deadlines are missed
- Redefine aesthetics and concealment standards
- Cap fees local governments can charge
- Prohibit new conditions on permit renewals
- Limit local setback requirements
- Restrict state and local AI regulations that affect wireless services
- Declare that blocking upgrades or densification constitutes an “effective prohibition”
“If this fight is successful… the state and local zoning boards and the residents who are fighting these towers are gonna be out of luck, and the industry’s gonna have its way, and they’re gonna be able to put up cell towers anywhere they want,” telecommunications attorney Robert Berg explained during a December 2025 webinar.
H.R. 2289 passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 3, 2025, by a vote of 26-24. The bill would exempt certain modifications to existing cell towers and wireless facilities from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Supporters argue the changes are necessary. “We want American companies to spend less time and money dealing with red tape, and more resources turning dirt and building world class networks,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in his statement on the proposal.
Rep. Buddy Carter, who introduced H.R. 2289, said “unnecessary permitting requirements for basic wireless tower upgrades are preventing high-speed internet access to those who need it most.”
Current Wireless Facility Regulations in Pinal County
Unincorporated Areas
Pinal County’s wireless communications facilities code applies to unincorporated areas. The code requires a special use permit for cell towers that are not a permitted use within the zone or do not meet design standards. It establishes several protections that federal proposals would eliminate or weaken.
Current county requirements include:
- Pre-application meetings with staff (except for permitted uses)
- Stealth design requirements for towers near residential zones
- Setback of one foot for every one foot of total height when adjacent to rural or residential zones, if the facility exceeds the height requirements of the zone
- Eight-foot solid masonry wall fencing around new facilities (except flagpoles, utility poles, or camouflaged facilities)
- Color and lighting restrictions
- Requirements to document alternative sites and co-location possibilities (for special use permit applications)
- Requirements for applicants to document neighborhood opposition received (for special use permit applications)
Municipalities
Incorporated cities and towns in Pinal County — including Apache Junction, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Florence, and Maricopa — have their own wireless facility regulations. Residents should consult their municipality’s zoning code for specific requirements, typically available online or through their local planning and zoning department.
Even with these protections, blocking a cell tower is difficult. The following table shows selected cases in and near Pinal County where residents raised public opposition. Outcomes varied—some applications were denied, others were approved despite community concerns, and some led to legal battles.
| County | Outcome | Location | Reasons for Opposition/Denial | Details | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pinal | Applicant withdrew; later approved at alternate site | Oracle area | Helipad interference for emergency services; impact on historic Oracle buildings | 2010: Verizon application; P&Z Commission recommended denial; applicant withdrew. Sept. 19, 2012: Board approved 3-0 new 150' tower at alternate site adjacent to existing AT&T tower | Tucson.com Tucson Local Media |
| Pinal | Tower approved (modified) | Casa Grande | Proximity to homes; aesthetics; health concerns cited by residents | March 2019: P&Z gave preliminary approval; height reduced from 80' to 70' and relocated 50' east per compromise; neighbors remained opposed; council scheduled to consider April 1, 2019 | Pinal Central |
| Pinal | Tower approved over objections | Gold Canyon | Visual impact on mountain views; proximity to residential areas | Sept. 4, 2024: Board of Supervisors approved 75' mono-elm 3-2; 34 letters opposed, 87 supported | Your Valley |
| Maricopa | P&Z denied; application tabled | New River | Visual blight; residential character; health concerns | July, 2021: P&Z voted 7-0 to deny; 123 opponents; later tabled; T-Mobile reduced height 80'→65' | Your Valley |
| Maricopa | Application withdrawn before council vote | Fountain Hills | Visual impact; residential zoning; proximity to homes; failure to demonstrate critical need | Dec. 9, 2024: P&Z voted 6-0 to recommend denial of 65' mono-palm at Generation Church (Fountain Hills Blvd/Ironwood Dr); staff supported approval; Jan. 21, 2025: Application withdrawn from council agenda before vote; public comment unanimously opposed | FH Times Fountain Hills (Town Council Meeting Minutes Jan. 21, 2025) |
| Pima | Denied | West Massingale Rd/Sandario Rd | Visual impact; proximity to residential; inadequate justification | Feb. 4, 2025: Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to reject 100' Vertical Bridge tower | Tucson Spotlight |
| Pima | Denied | Three Points | Inadequate notification to neighbors; visual/environmental concerns | April 18, 2023: Board unanimously denied 110' T-Mobile/Vertical Bridge tower | Tucson Local Media |
| Pima | Denied | Ironwood Hills/Shannon Rd | Proximity to homes; visual impact; organized neighborhood opposition | Feb. 2, 2010: Board denied 71' AT&T tower; Judge Michael Brown led opposition | KOLD |
| Pima | Denied; carrier lawsuit; led to ordinance changes | Picture Rocks | Visual impact; health concerns; residential character | April 2008: Board denied 65' tower; May 2008: T-Mobile sued county; case led to 2009 ordinance amendments | Tucson.com |
| Navajo | Denied | Snowflake | ADA/disability rights concerns; electromagnetic sensitivity; community health | Nov. 12, 2024: Board of Supervisors unanimously denied 120' tower citing ~35 households with electromagnetic sensitivities | RF Safe |
Under FCC proposal 25-276, many of these protections could be overridden or significantly weakened. The City of Carlsbad, California warned that weakening local control “would allow companies to prioritize cost savings over compliance, increasing the risk of property damage, injuries, and lawsuits while shifting the financial burden of negligence onto local governments and taxpayers.” The City of Encinitas, California argued the rules would allow towers to be placed anywhere “with no say from my City Council nor our residents.”
Property Values, Safety, and Community Character
Local governments and residents have raised concerns beyond aesthetics. Attorney Zoe Berg emphasized that this issue “is about the responsible and thoughtful placement of powerful industrial equipment.”
Some studies have found property values can decline near visible cell towers. However, federal law prohibits using this as grounds to deny a permit.
“The academic literature is very consistent showing as you get close to cell towers and as they’re visible from the properties, the values are diminished substantially, up to 20% in various cases,” Robert Berg said.
The FCC proposal would also narrow the definition of “concealment elements”—the design features that help towers blend into neighborhoods. Local governments currently require stealth designs such as towers disguised as trees, antennas hidden in architectural features, or equipment painted to match buildings. The proposal would make it harder for localities to enforce these design requirements when carriers modify their facilities.
The proposals would also shift costs from corporations to the public. Currently, some local ordinances require wireless carriers to fund compliance inspections. Under the federal proposals, those requirements could be eliminated. “It’s not enough that they’re forcing these towers into our neighborhoods, these ugly towers, industrial towers,” Robert Berg said. “Now we have to pay to make sure that they’re not exceeding their emissions levels.”
The shot clock provisions raise additional concerns. Under current law, if a municipality misses a deadline, the carrier can sue in federal court—where a judge has discretion. Under the proposed changes, applications would be automatically approved if deadlines are missed.
Supporters say clear timelines are needed to prevent unnecessary delays. Robert Berg countered that delays are often caused by applicants submitting incomplete applications. Under the proposed rules, if a municipality misses a deadline—even due to an applicant’s incomplete filing—the permit would be automatically approved, removing any opportunity for local review. “If you miss the shot clock, by law, it’s deemed granted and you have to issue the permits,” Berg said.
The Rural County Representatives of California, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities submitted joint comments opposing the FCC proposal. “Unrealistic timelines, therefore, threaten to silence the very people who must live with the consequences,” they wrote. “If applications are rushed through or ‘deemed granted’ without adequate review, the responsibility for any resulting harm rests not with the applicant, but with the local authority left to deal with the aftermath.”
Questions About Technology Investment
Some critics question whether wireless infrastructure is the best use of public resources. Zoe Berg noted that satellite-based services like Starlink may make land-based wireless facilities obsolete.
Robert Berg argued that fiber-optic is a better investment. “The wireless facilities are powered for their internet service by fiber-optic cable,” he said. “So that’s always gonna be the maximum, most technologically advanced means of getting your internet service.”
Supporters argue that wireless is faster and cheaper to deploy than fiber, particularly in rural areas where laying cable is cost-prohibitive. Wireless “leverages existing cell towers and wireless infrastructure, making it much easier and faster to deploy,” according to EPB, a Tennessee-based utility and broadband provider. However, a 2022 report by CTC Technology & Energy found that “ongoing operational costs for fixed wireless are higher than for fiber—due largely to the need to regularly replace fixed wireless equipment.” The report noted that 40 to 80 percent of wireless capital investment needs replacement every five years, compared to 1 to 10 percent for fiber every 10 years.
Timeline: The Erosion of Local Control Over Wireless Infrastructure
The current federal proposals represent the latest in a decades-long trend of federal laws overriding local authority to decide where wireless infrastructure is built.
1996 — The Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments from denying permits based on RF health concerns and from effectively banning wireless service. It requires decisions within a “reasonable time.”
2009 — The FCC defines “reasonable time” as 90 days for collocations and 150 days for new towers. Missed deadlines allow carriers to sue.
2012 — The Spectrum Act requires automatic approval of modifications to existing towers that do not substantially change their size.
2014 — The FCC implements a 60-day shot clock for tower modifications with a “deemed granted” remedy if the deadline is missed.
2018 — The FCC issues its Small Cell Order. It shortens review periods to 60 days for attachments to existing structures and 90 days for new facilities, sets baseline fees of $500 for applications and $270 per small cell per year, and restricts aesthetic requirements. The order bans moratoria but does not adopt automatic approval for missed deadlines—carriers must still seek court relief.
2020 — The FCC clarifies its streamlined review rules and expands what modifications qualify for expedited approval, including those up to 30 feet beyond original site boundaries.
2023 — H.R. 3557, the American Broadband Deployment Act, passes the House Energy and Commerce Committee 27-23 but not the full Congress. It would have made automatic approval the law when local governments miss deadlines and allowed projects to skip environmental reviews.
2025 — FCC Docket 25-276 proposes automatic approvals for missed deadlines and further limits on aesthetic and setback rules. H.R. 2289—a revised version of the failed 2023 bill—passes the House committee 26-24 and would eliminate environmental and historic preservation reviews for many wireless projects.
The FCC’s Unfulfilled Mandate on Radiation Safety
In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision to maintain its 1996 wireless radiation exposure limits was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court found the agency had failed to show proper review of scientific evidence related to health effects. The ruling was procedural—it did not determine that RF radiation is harmful, only that the FCC failed to adequately explain its reasoning.
The court issued a mandate requiring the FCC to properly review evidence on children’s vulnerability, long-term exposure, and non-cancer health effects. These include impacts to reproduction, brain development, and the immune system. The mandate also covered environmental impacts including wildlife. The court required the FCC to explain its decision to retain outdated compliance test procedures.
More than four years later, the FCC has taken no action.
Theodora Scarato, director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, questioned how the FCC can promote infrastructure expansion when it has not explained how its regulations adequately protect the public. “How can they do this when we have these antiquated, outdated, obsolete, indefensible rules about wireless radiation?” she asked during a December 2025 webinar.
$234 Million in Lobbying Behind Broadband Policy
The largest internet service providers and their trade associations have spent heavily to shape broadband legislation in Congress.
During the 116th Congress (2019–2020), the 15 biggest, most influential ISPs and related trade associations spent more than $234 million on lobbying and federal elections. This averages to more than $320,000 per day, according to a report by Common Cause and Communications Workers of America using data from OpenSecrets.org.
Comcast led at more than $43 million. AT&T followed at $36 million. NCTA—The Internet & Television Association spent more than $31 million. CTIA, which represents the wireless communications industry, spent more than $25 million.
“Almost the entirety of their lobbying efforts is dedicated to fighting regulation to ensure that they can maintain their market power,” the report found. The report noted that industry lobbyists have pushed for lower speed requirements and policies that steer public funding away from fiber-optic broadband—a faster, more reliable technology.
These figures represent “an incomplete estimate,” the report noted. Major ISPs and trade associations frequently conduct massive public relations campaigns and commission studies. They testify on Capitol Hill, publish opinion pieces, and engage with the FCC. They also “create the appearance of grassroots support by creating groups on Facebook, buying ads on Instagram, and/or creating shell organizations.”
Public Comment Deadlines and Resources
Comments on FCC Docket 25-276 are due December 31, 2025. Reply comments are due January 15, 2026. Residents can submit comments on the FCC’s proposed wireless infrastructure rules using the agency’s Express Comment form. Enter “25-276” in the Proceeding field and provide your name, address, and comments. All submissions become part of the public record.
For H.R. 2289, residents can contact their members of Congress to share their views before the bill comes to the House floor for a vote.
