Board upholds Planning Commission denial of proposed Aromas cell tower, directs staff to prepare findings

San Benito County’s Board of Supervisors on June 24 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s April 16 decision and upheld the Commission’s denial of a conditional use permit for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility at 358 Seeley Avenue in Aromas.

The project would have placed a stealth “monopine” tower with antennas mounted near an 81-foot centerline (approximate tip 85 feet) and associated ground-mounted equipment on a rural parcel near residences and a licensed day-care facility. Planning staff told the board the commission denied the project because it found the proposal inconsistent with general plan policies on land-use compatibility and community character, noncompliant with county zoning and variance findings, and insufficiently documented on alternatives and co‑location.

Why it matters: Residents who live near the proposed site told the board they feared material harm to property values, increased wildfire risk, daily visual intrusion from a ridgeline site and inadequate access and stormwater protections on a private easement drive. Appellant representatives argued the denial relied on unlawful or preempted considerations and that federal law limits denial based on radio-frequency emissions.

What the record shows

- Appellant’s position: Hannah Boris of Wireless Policy Group, representing applicant Vertical Bridge and co‑applicant T‑Mobile, asked the board to reverse the Planning Commission, asserting the denial lacked substantial evidence, misapplied variance standards, and improperly considered health concerns preempted by federal law. She said the written appeal and supporting materials were already in the record and that the board should approve the application.

- Staff’s position: Associate Planner Jonathan Olivas summarized the Planning Commission resolution finding the site inconsistent with the general plan and county code, that the applicant had not met required variance findings, and that the aesthetics and compatibility concerns were not mitigated by the monopine design or submitted simulations. Staff said the commission’s decision rested on local land‑use discretion, not on radio‑frequency health effects.

- Public comment: Neighbors and local residents raised multiple site‑specific objections: Louise Coombs and David Coombs (adjacent property owners) emphasized proximity of nine homes within the county’s 500‑foot setback and argued material injury to property values; Jonah O’Brien described access and stormwater risks from heavy maintenance traffic on a private, substandard driveway and urged a site visit; Leslie Austin stressed wildfire and evacuation safety given the tier‑2 fire hazard designation; other residents raised visual impacts along ridgelines and questioned the applicant’s alternative‑site analysis.

Board decision and follow-up

Supervisor Sotelo moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial; the board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal. County counsel advised the board to have staff prepare findings that legally support the Board’s action. The board directed Planning staff to return with those findings for formal adoption.

Ending: The board’s action preserves the Planning Commission’s April 16 decision. Staff must prepare and return with legally defensible findings documenting the substantial evidence and legal bases for denial.