As the city begins to wrap up its updating of the wireless communication plan and ordinance, a major change was decided upon by the Sedona City Council.

During its meeting Wednesday, April 11, instead of having both an ordinance and separate master plan, council decided to drop the latter in order to avoid any confusion. While both documents often have the same verbiage, council decided there is too much room for misinterpretation.

Staff will bring back the updated ordinance and will present it during a public hearing next month, followed by possible approval by council. The ordinance is the regulatory document that will provide guidance that cellular providers will need to adhere to when seeking new wireless infrastructure in the city. The master plan document will no longer be needed since all specifically identified, city-owned properties have been removed from the document and the city will not be pre-approving any sites for wireless infrastructure, Assistant City Manager Karen Osburn said.

Should any wireless providers seek to locate on city-owned property, they will have to go through the same conditional use permitting and public hearing process as they would on any other site.

A city report states that a draft of the wireless master plan seen by council in December identified specific pre-vetted and preapproved city properties that the wireless industry could consider using as part of their network deployment solution.

However, during that same discussion, there was little consensus about which city-owned sites would be suitable for wireless facilities. Previous public meetings revealed that neighbors of city-owned properties — regardless of the property locations — largely objected to having wireless facilities located near them.

“Contemplating wireless in these locations was particularly challenging for the neighbors since during this pre-planning process, the type and size of facility, design of the infrastructure, and possible alternative sites for any given site were yet unknown,” the report states.

Even though the specific city-owned properties have been removed, it does not mean that wireless will never be sited on city property in the future. Instead of pre-planning the locations, the report states council and the community can consider each location on a case-bycase basis, when and if the time comes.

In this alternative scenario, a provider trying to find a location for new wireless would consult with the city to determine if any city properties meet their specific needs, the report states.

Osburn said when a provider comes in, the city has an established hierarchy of preferred locations. If the carrier has an issue with the city’s first preference, that being city-owned or public properties, it must demonstrate why it does before going to the next option. The city’s second choice is nonresidential, such as commercial or industrial buildings where no people live. The final option would be multifamily developments.

Councilman Jon Thompson said since cellular needs and advancements are a moving target, he suggested taking a step back while focusing on the core objectives. This would keep everything general and as flexible as possible. Those objectives he feels may stand the test of time include reducing negative impacts as perceived by the public; expediting the process to provide an incentive for carriers to achieve the first item; and finally, steering applicants to public property over private property. Federal law mandates that cities, counties and states abide by the following:

• Must allow for the carriers to deploy their systems.
• Must act expeditiously in these requests.
• Must treat providers equally by providing equal access to functionally equivalent services.
• Local government’s land development standards may not supersede or undermine areas of federal jurisdiction.
• Enable federal government to use federal property, rights-of-way and easements for leasing for new telecommunications infrastructure.
• Requirements for tower lighting and markings are exclusively regulated by the FCC and Federal Aviation Administration.

In addition, local jurisdictions may not regulate placement of wireless communication facilities based on the perceived health affects of radio frequency emissions as stated in the 1996 Communications Act.

Susan Rabold, project manager from CityScape, said there are 22 cellular facilities in Sedona of varying sizes and strengths. Because of the everincreasing number of people using smartphones and other devices, she said at minimum Sedona can expect 17 to 25 new cell towers over the next decade. In each case, these towers would have to be concealed by ways such as faux pine trees, flagpoles, lightpoles or other means.

Rabold said she’s not sure if these 17 to 25 base stations will macro or micro towers. But she has no doubt they will be needed sooner than later.

In terms of just how many will be needed of the smaller cellular facilities that may be found in the city’s rights-of-way, Rabold said last December that the estimate is one per quarter mile or one per 12 households. But the demand is not there yet — that’s just the estimate the industry is putting out there right now.

“The fact is, all of us want more data,” Vice Mayor John Martinez said. “We’ve got the smartphones, the tablets and the smart TVs. Everybody wants more data, but they don’t want to, in a sense, pay for the infrastructure that will deliver that information.”

He added, “I trust that Community Development [with whom carriers will meet] will look after our citizens and do the right thing. But sometimes the right thing may not be what some people want. It’s a case of the benefit for the many versus the benefit of the few. That’s the direction we’re going because we need the data.”

Ron Eland can be reached at 282-7795 ext. 122, or email reland@larsonnewspapers.com