Benicia Planning Commission had expected to talk Thursday about the cumulative visual impacts of new telecommunication equipment.

Instead, led by Commissioner Steve Young, the conversation focused on a 2012 federal act and a subsequent Jan. 8 Federal Communications Commission ruling that local agencies “may not deny and shall approve” eligible requests to modify existing wireless equipment installations.

“That jumped out at me,” Young said. “That takes away our flexibility to deny.”

Principal Planner Amy Million told Young and the rest of the commission that under the law’s Section 6409, which applies to most collocations, removals or modifications of equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station, Benicia would have 60 days to approve. “You can form a discretionary process, but in the end, you must approve,” she said.

The law, established by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and analyzed by the FCC, doesn’t affect the city’s decision about modifications that are considered “substantial.”

Substantial changes are defined as increases of height by more than “10 percent, or by one additional antenna array not more than 20 feet (whichever is greater) higher for towers on private (or publicly owned) property.”

Also considered substantial are “height increases of more than 10 percent or 10 feet, whichever is greater, for towers in public rights of way and at all base stations; increases in width by more than 10 feet or the tower width at the level of the appurtenance (a subordinate part), whichever is greater, for towers on private or publicly owned property or by 6 feet for towers in the public rights of way and all base stations.”

Substantial change exceptions also are the addition of more than four equipment cabinets; collocations that violate a prior condition of approval that doesn’t conflict with Section 6409; certain excavations; and construction that defeats the purpose of existing concealment elements of the tower or base station.

Those modifications that qualify as Section 6409 modifications should go through the city’s building permit process, however.

Commissioner Belinda Smith, who said she disagreed with some of the “substantial” definitions under the federal law, asked whether it meant city employees and the commission must disregard the city’s own ordinances.

Million, who said she has been studying the law through Internet-based seminars, said based on that training, “Yes, you disregard the local ordinance.”

She explained, “That’s why I’m being proactive,” particularly regarding new applications. Once those projects are approved, they often need to be expanded shortly afterward, she said.

Saying the city needs to “tighten where we can,” Million suggested one area of control is in concealing or disguising cell towers.

If a concealing structure is built, modifications can’t flaunt that effort to veil the equipment from public view, she said.

One resident involved with Benicia Community Gardens, Marilyn Bardet, said that at Heritage Presbyterian Church, where a cell tower is disguised by the church’s cross, a shed has a danger insignia on its door and those who work at the garden on the church’s campus have wondered what is inside.

Equipment boxes should be screened from the general public, Commissioner Rod Sherry said.

No action was taken on the matter, since it was an informational item brought up for discussion at the commission’s request.

In other matters, Million described future changes in California Environmental Quality Act traffic guidelines when examining proposed development. The guidelines, affecting transit-oriented development, don’t apply to any project under consideration, she said.

But for new projects, local governments would look at how they would change the number of vehicle miles traveled rather than level of service.

Million explained the difference, describing a hypothetical residential development far from central shopping or schools. Traffic near that development would increase, but it might remain low since the area would rarely be driven by those who didn’t live in the new subdivision.

However, since the new development was distant from services, the vehicle miles traveled would be higher than at infill development in the city’s center.

But infill development adds traffic to existing streets and intersections, she said, even though the vehicle miles traveled are fewer.

Young said the state is trying to encourage smart development.

“They’re trying to eliminate sprawl,” Sherry said, but added that he is worried that a high number of vehicle miles traveled could hurt a development proposal.

The change also will allow Benicia to designate transit priority areas.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research said the change aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the air pollution it can cause and the cost of needed infrastructure while increasing transit ridership, economic development and affordable housing.

Since the topic was raised only as comments from staff, contract attorney Kat Wellman cautioned against additional discussion until the matter is placed on a future meeting’s agenda for formal comments.

She did the same about Million’s announcement that the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Crude-By-Rail Project use permit request is being revised and would be recirculated.

The recirculation currently is expected to take place in June, Million said.

Another matter that originally was to be heard by the panel was an appeal by attorney Dana Dean of the use permit issued to Stephen David for a bed and breakfast at his building at 963 Jefferson St.

However, three of the commissioners present — Sherry, Suzanne Sprague and Susan Cohen Grossman — would have had to recuse themselves, leaving less than a quorum of Smith, Young and Chairperson Donald Dean. George Oakes was absent Thursday night.

The panel also postponed electing officers until its April meeting.