Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting – June 13, 2023

The Planning Commission held a regular meeting on June 13, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The primary agenda item was a public hearing on an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 for a 60-foot wireless communication facility disguised as a broadleaf tree at 8101 Slater Avenue (Huntington Beach Community Church). After extensive testimony and deliberation, the commission voted 3–3 on the motion to approve, which under city rules sustained the Zoning Administrator’s decision, effectively approving the project. The consent calendar to approve the April 25, 2023 minutes was also approved.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of April 25, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes: The commission voted 5–0–1 (Commissioner Acosta‑Galvan abstained due to absence; Commissioner Wood was absent) to approve the minutes as submitted.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No non‑agenda public comments were received.

Discussion Items: Appeal of CUP No. 23‑006 (Wireless Communication Facility)**

Staff Presentation**

• Senior Planner Hayden Beckman presented the project: a new 60‑foot freestanding monopole with four‑sector antenna array and an equipment enclosure, designed as a faux broadleaf tree. The Zoning Administrator approved the CUP on April 19, 2023; an adjacent property owner (Christina Price) appealed, triggering a de novo hearing before the Planning Commission.
• Staff found the project consistent with the General Plan and zoning code, and recommended denying the appeal and approving the CUP.

Appellant’s Arguments (Ariel Strauss, Greenfire Law)**

• The application is deficient (e.g., only 3 photo simulations provided instead of 5, no close‑ups of equipment).
• The city’s ordinance requires a finding that the use “will not be detrimental to … value of property in the neighborhood”; the applicant provided no evidence on this point.
• Alternative sites were not adequately pursued; co‑location opportunities may exist.
• The project should not be exempted from CEQA because of potential impacts to Cooper’s hawks (a migratory bird), diesel generator noise, and air emissions; a full CEQA review is needed.
• NEPA review is incomplete; the applicant should complete an Environmental Assessment before approval.

Applicant’s Response (John Silverman, SmartLink/AT&T)**

• The facility is needed to fill a significant gap in AT&T’s coverage, especially for in‑building service.
• Eleven alternative sites were considered; the church site was the only feasible one that met zoning, had a willing landlord, and addressed the coverage gap.
• The application was deemed complete by city staff.
• Photo simulations are to scale; additional views can be provided.
• NEPA compliance will be completed before construction; the generator only runs for 30 minutes every 4–6 weeks.
• The project complies with all applicable development standards and includes stealth design to minimize visual impact.

Public Comments**

• Kenna Delsante (former resident of 8092 Windy Sand Circle): Opposed; stated AT&T coverage works fine in the neighborhood, the tower would be intrusive, and Cooper’s hawks nest in the area.
• Rick Cook (resident): Opposed on grounds of property values, visual blight, and proximity to homes (65 feet from a bedroom). Stated health effects cannot be considered but they are a concern; asked the commission to side with families.
• Scott Boxley (property owner at 8081 Windy Sand Circle): Reported losing a tenant because of the proposed tower; cited economic harm, and questioned the lack of attention to environmental effects (bees, birds).
• Jonathan McGaugh (resident from neighborhood north of site): Recommended completing environmental studies before approval, and urged the commission to evaluate the number of homes impacted at each alternative site.

Commissioner Deliberation**

• Commissioner Twining: Opposed; stated the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposes the project (30+ emails against, zero in support), property values will likely decline 2–30%, and the aesthetics are unsuited for the area.
• Commissioner Rodriguez: Supported approval, noting the project meets zoning and General Plan; warned that denying this site could set a precedent for other neighborhoods and that residents without financial means to appeal would be disadvantaged.
• Commissioner Adam: Supported approval; acknowledged unhappiness with the process but found no legal basis to deny.
• Commissioner Kennedy: Voiced strong concerns about incomplete NEPA, insufficient due diligence on alternative sites (especially a vacant lot on Beach Boulevard), and the potential for future tower expansion under federal law; moved for a continuance to obtain NEPA results and confirmation of contact with property owners, but that motion was not voted on after discussion about shot‑clock constraints.
• Chair Pellman: Raised concerns about the Cooper’s hawk and asked why a CEQA exemption was applied; staff explained the exemption is based on project size and that federal rules protect migratory birds.

Key Outcomes

• Substitute Motion to Deny (by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Twining): Failed 3–3 (Ayes: Kennedy, Twining, Pellman? — transcript shows three ayes and three nays; Commissioners Acosta‑Galvan, Adam, Rodriguez voted no).
• Motion to Approve (by Commissioner Rodriguez, seconded by Commissioner Adam): Tied 3–3 (Ayes: Rodriguez, Adam, Acosta‑Galvan? — transcript shows three ayes and three nays with Chair Pellman, Vice Chair Twining, and Commissioner Kennedy voting nay). Because the vote was tied, the decision of the lower body (Zoning Administrator) was sustained, effectively approving Conditional Use Permit No. 23‑006.
• Appeal Rights: Any interested party may appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days.
• Consent Calendar: Approved as described above.
• Next Meeting: Scheduled for June 27, 2023.

Note: Commissioner Wood was absent for the vote on the consent calendar; six commissioners were present for the CUP vote.