Council upholds conditional use permit for AT&T telecom facility at 3111 Benton after contentious appeal; aesthetics added as condition

The City Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for a new AT&T wireless facility in the parking lot of 3111 Benton Street, rejecting an appeal by nearby residents who sought relocation. The council action preserves the Planning Commission design — three monopoles about 42 feet, 6 inches tall — subject to additional aesthetic work with planning staff.

Why it matters: The issue drew large public turnout and months of review before the Planning Commission. Nearby residents and a neighborhood group argued the facility would be visually intrusive, risk property‑value declines, and raise health concerns. City staff and the applicant said federal law limits local governments’ ability to regulate facilities based on radio‑frequency health effects and that the proposed design was necessary to close a local service gap and support public‑safety (FirstNet) coverage.

Planning staff and the applicant: Community Development Director Afsha Hamid summarized the multi‑month review, noting the application was filed in March 2023 and deemed complete before the city’s updated zoning code took effect. The application’s earlier rooftop co‑location proved infeasible for structural reasons, staff said, leading AT&T to negotiate alternative locations. Staff reported a review of Central Park and several other candidate sites and said the park and other alternatives were either technically infeasible for coverage or raised other legal obstacles (including the city charter’s two‑thirds rule for change of park use known as Measure R).

AT&T’s representative, Complete Wireless Consulting, and the carrier’s RF engineer described a technical coverage gap between El Camino and Homestead and said the proposed parking‑lot location closes that gap while supporting FirstNet for public‑safety users. The company provided a cumulative radio‑frequency analysis and a third‑party real‑estate study that, the applicant said, found no negative impact to residential property values in comparable markets.

Residents and the appellants: More than a hundred residents and a neighborhood group opposed the permit at the hearing. Speakers cited aesthetics, proximity to classrooms and childcare, possible effects on property values and long‑term health concerns cited in peer‑review literature. The appellants urged the council to continue exploring alternatives, including locations on school property or within park rights‑of‑way. School‑district staff told appellants they had a process for consideration, but the district’s policy reportedly discourages wireless facilities on its campuses.

Council action and condition: After a lengthy public hearing and multiple votes and procedural steps, Council Member Hardie moved to uphold the Planning Commission approval; the motion was seconded and ultimately passed on a 4–2 vote. The council attached a direction that the applicant work with the planning director to refine aesthetics — for example, paint, radomes or other treatments — and delegated to staff the authority to negotiate and approve aesthetic treatments acceptable to the department. The council record notes the city must act within FCC and federal statutory constraints on local regulation of wireless facilities and that CEQA exemptions may apply to utility extensions. The city attorney advised the council that Measure R and surplus‑land issues implicated any proposal to place the facility on City park property and that a legal analysis would be necessary if the council sought to pursue parkland alternatives.

What next: The permit stands with the negotiated aesthetic condition and the applicant will work with planning staff to finalize the details. The council directed staff to provide any further legal or feasibility analysis on park‑based alternatives if the parties requested additional study.