Planning panel recommends 84-foot ‘eucalyptus’ cell tower near San Tan Valley after 5–2 vote

The Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to forward SUP‑011‑25 — a proposal for an 84‑foot disguised wireless tower — to the Board of Supervisors after debating visual and neighborhood impacts.

Planner Sam Amaya told the commission the applicant seeks a special‑use permit for a mono‑eucalyptus‑style tower on a 4.2‑acre site to improve cellular coverage and capacity around Daniel and Gary roads and nearby San Tan Valley. Sam Amaya said staff received eight letters of opposition and recommended forwarding the permit with 21 stipulations.

Tom Johnson, representing Vertical Bridge and Verizon, said the company revised the design after community meetings and that the stealth eucalyptus better screens equipment than an unsheathed monopole. “As long as we comply under those [FCC] regulations, then a municipality cannot approve or deny based on that basis,” Johnson said, arguing the site would improve both service and emergency‑services communications.

Neighbors urged the commission to weigh residential impacts. Diana Breen, who lives adjacent to the proposed site, said she is “not against infrastructure, but I am however against infrastructure being placed in a residential area,” and pressed for details about lighting and property‑value mitigation. Valerie Terleglio said she opposed the permit “for health reasons,” citing studies she said linked long‑term radio‑frequency exposure to adverse outcomes.

Staff and the applicant responded that the facility will operate within FCC limits and that lighting will follow the county's Lighting Zone 1 rules; Sam Amaya described the tower’s ground‑level operational lights as timer‑controlled and not continuously illuminated. The applicant said the stealth design required added structural height (from an initial 70 feet to 84 feet) to accommodate camouflage and equipment.

Commissioners split over siting precedent and neighborhood fit before calling for a roll‑call recommendation. The recorded vote on the motion to forward SUP‑011‑25 with staff’s 21 stipulations was 5 in favor and 2 opposed; Commissioner Scott was recorded as a dissenting vote. The Board of Supervisors will have the final decision.

The commission’s action sends the permit to the Board with the staff‑recommended conditions; the Board will schedule its own hearing and may adopt, modify or reject the recommendation.