Planning commission continues review of AT&T monopine after residents raise health, aesthetics and clustering concerns

The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Monday continued, to Dec. 8, 2025, its review of a zoning administrator approval that would allow AT&T to install a 55-foot wireless communications facility disguised as a pine tree at 2065 Placentia Avenue.

The commission set the date to allow the applicant to provide additional technical coverage maps at different antenna heights and to consider relocating the proposed monopine on the parcel after residents detailed repeated concerns about visual blight, noise, proximity to homes and cumulative siting of multiple facilities within a small neighborhood.

Staff and applicant presentation

Justin Arios, associate planner, told commissioners the application is a call to review of the zoning administrator’s July 17, 2025 approval of a minor conditional use permit. The proposed facility would sit at the western end of an existing mini‑warehouse (Public Storage) lot and would be the third wireless facility serving the corridor; Arios noted the applicant provided an alternative‑sites analysis and an independent EME (electromagnetic emissions) report intended to show compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards.

John McDonald, representing AT&T, described the location as “centrally located to address this gap in coverage” within a search ring submitted by AT&T, emphasized that the equipment “will operate safely within federal health and safety guidelines,” and said the design uses a stealth “monopine” with equipment cabinets placed inside an existing storage unit.

Why residents objected

More than a dozen neighbors spoke in opposition during the hearing. Celine Miller, who lives about 15 feet from an existing monopine on the same block, said the existing facility is noisy and visually intrusive and invited commissioners to “come to my house to listen” to the sound residents report hearing from the equipment and maintenance activities. Several residents described the existing structures as poorly maintained, saying new stealth elements promised by carriers have not been consistently enforced on older installations.

Other commenters raised health and property‑value concerns, citing recent scientific reviews and asserting possible long‑term risks; several asked the commission to require AT&T to consider industrial parcels farther from homes or to negotiate co‑location on existing poles rather than erect a new tower. One public commenter said the application “did not meet the necessary burdens” and called the proposal “lazy and insufficient.”

Legal constraints and staff guidance

Arios and staff repeatedly cautioned the commission about federal preemption in wireless siting. City staff told the commission the city cannot deny an application based on RF‑emission concerns if the applicant demonstrates compliance with FCC standards; jurisdictions also may not impose an “effective prohibition” on wireless facilities that would prevent a carrier from closing a significant coverage gap. The planning staff recommended finding the project categorically exempt under CEQA Class 3 (new construction) and upholding the zoning administrator’s decision, but advised the commission that it could review the matter de novo.

Commissioners’ concerns and requests

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on multiple technical and design points: why candidate alternative sites in AT&T’s analysis were primarily elementary schools, whether co‑locating on the existing 55‑foot monopine on the same parcel was feasible, and whether the applicant could model coverage at other heights (for example, a 50‑ or 54‑foot option). Staff clarified that certain antenna types are prohibited in residential zones and that the municipal code requires findings that the facility be compatible with nearby development and represent the minimum height necessary for reasonable signal transmission (Costa Mesa Municipal Code sections cited in staff remarks included 13‑29 and related antenna review criteria).

Outcome and next steps

Commissioner Dixon moved to continue the item to a date certain to allow the applicant to revise the location on the lot and provide additional coverage data at different heights; Vice Chair Zick seconded. The commission approved the continuation 7‑0. Staff proposed returning the item on Dec. 8, 2025 to allow time for the applicant’s additional analyses and for staff review.

What the continuation requires

The applicant agreed to submit additional RF coverage maps showing modeled results at different antenna elevations and to explore siting the facility farther toward the Placentia frontage on the same parcel to reduce visibility from the rear residential lots. Commissioners also asked staff to investigate prior approvals and maintenance conditions for the adjacent monopine and monopom facilities so the commission can better understand enforcement history and existing screening conditions.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to continue the public hearing to Dec. 8, 2025 to allow the applicant to (a) provide additional coverage maps at alternative heights and (b) revise siting on the parcel: moved by Commissioner Dixon; seconded by Vice Chair Zick; carried 7‑0.

Ending

The commission did not decide to uphold or overturn the zoning administrator’s July 17 approval at Monday’s meeting; instead it paused the de novo review and asked for supplemental technical materials and a revised site plan. The item will return to the commission on Dec. 8, 2025 unless the applicant requests otherwise.