Hermosa Beach planning commission delays decision on T‑Mobile rooftop cell site after neighbors press for alternatives and testing

The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on July 21 agreed to continue its hearing on T‑Mobile’s application (CUP25‑11) for a rooftop, collocated wireless facility at 2447 Pacific Coast Highway and asked the applicant and staff to pursue alternative on‑building locations and tighter post‑installation testing conditions.

Assistant planner Johnny Chase presented staff’s recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the permit and to find the project categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 3 small rooftop addition. Chase described the proposal as three façade‑mounted screened antenna sectors, four panel antennas per sector, and a roughly 152.5‑square‑foot rooftop equipment area that would not extend above the existing parapet. Chase also noted the municipal code requires the commission to find the proposed site would result in fewer or less severe environmental impacts than any feasible alternative site and flagged condition 8, which gives the community development director authority to require an RF‑engineer‑signed compliance report if noncompliance is suspected.

Residents who live across from the building urged the commission to reject the CEQA exemption and to require more rigorous review. "The current record is procedurally and factually deficient," said Julie Hoefer, who gave her address as 743 24th Place and identified herself as an auditor, arguing the RF modeling excluded her building. "I urge the commission to deny the CEQA exemption," she said.

The applicant, identified as Jesse Gilholm, told the commission the proposal is intended to replace an existing facility that will be decommissioned and to meet T‑Mobile coverage goals. Gilholm acknowledged the neighborhood’s concerns and offered to provide revised emissions modeling and cumulative testing that includes the existing AT&T installation. "We can provide both just T‑Mobile and cumulative reports, and post‑installation readings from specific areas," Gilholm said.

Commissioners focused on whether the three sectors could be moved nearer the PCH façade or to a raised architectural element in the building center to reduce visual and proximity impacts. Legal counsel warned that collocation applications are subject to federal timing rules and a limited review period; staff and several commissioners balanced that clock against residents’ requests for additional analysis. Ultimately the commission voted to continue the item to a special meeting on Aug. 4 at 4:30 p.m., directing the applicant to study alternatives for relocating the north and south antenna sectors toward a more central/east‑facing architectural element where feasible, to consider moving the west sector closer to PCH, and to return with strengthened language on periodic post‑installation verification and reporting under condition 8.

The continuance was unanimous. The commission’s action keeps the record open for additional materials and requires the applicant to work with staff to define a narrower set of alternatives and to propose specific monitoring and revalidation intervals for RF compliance.