Planning commission approves AT&T 'mono‑eucalyptus' tower at 2065 Placentia Avenue after redesign and studies
Loading...
Summary
After residents raised noise and appearance concerns about an existing monopine, the commission approved a revised AT&T proposal to relocate a 60‑foot disguised wireless facility to the front of the Public Storage property at 2065 Placentia Avenue, citing updated EME and noise studies and a maintenance condition to preserve a realistic tree appearance. Vote 6–0.
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission voted unanimously April 13 to approve a minor conditional use permit allowing a new 60‑foot AT&T wireless facility disguised as a mono‑eucalyptus at 2065 Placentia Avenue.
John McDonald, representing AT&T, told the commission the company relocated the proposed facility from the rear of the property to the front to increase separation from nearby homes to about 420 feet and submitted updated independent electromagnetic exposure (EME) and noise studies showing compliance with FCC rules and the city’s noise standards. “With these design considerations, maintenance conditions, and increased separation, the overall visual impact of the project has been substantially minimized,” McDonald said.
Staff presented the project as a de novo review of a zoning administrator’s earlier approval and described the revised disguise, equipment (four sectors with three antennas each and 48 remote radio units), and siting. Associate Planner Justin Arios said the city completed required public notifications and received no new written comments for this hearing, and recommended the commission find the project categorically exempt from CEQA (Guidelines §15303) and approve PMCP24‑0029.
During questioning, commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about aesthetics, maintenance and enforcement for existing on‑site monopine structures, and whether the tower precludes future housing development on the site. Staff explained that disguise and neighborhood compatibility are judged under the code’s general design‑compatibility criteria and that the city cannot compel other tower owners to modify structures, although the conditions of approval require the new mono‑eucalyptus to be maintained “for the life of the project” so it continues to resemble a natural tree.
Resident Celine—who said she and petition signers did not object to the revised placement—reported a prior recurring noise issue from the existing tower that was addressed after code enforcement referred her to the tower owner and a maintenance ticket was opened. “Within two weeks, American Towers came in and fixed my problem,” she told the commission, while also raising concerns about emergency access and the condition of the older monopine.
Vice Chair Zick moved to approve the project and to correct a condition reference from “monopine” to “mono eucalyptus”; Commissioner Dixon seconded. The motion passed on a 6–0 voice roll call.
The approval includes conditions requiring maintenance and appearance standards for the faux eucalyptus and restrictions intended to ensure ongoing compatibility with surrounding properties. The decision is subject to local appeal rights described in the staff report.
