TO: ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 8, 2025
Reviewed by:
City Manager: AP
SUBJECT:
Title
APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #25-A03 FOR A 62-FOOT TALL MONOEUCALYPTUS WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR EUKON GROUP, LLC ON BEHALF OF AT&T LOCATED AT 1700 NORTH TOWNE AVENUE - APPELLANT: JAMES QUINN
Body
SUMMARY
On July 11, 2025, the Architectural and Preservation Commission (APC) approved the site plan and design for a new 62-foot-tall faux eucalyptus tree (monoeucalpytus) to serve as a wireless telecommunications facility for commercial use at the subject property on the east side of Towne Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church of Claremont. The Appellant filed an appeal of this decision on June 23, 2025. The primary focus of the appeal is that the project should have been denied because of a failure to explore collocation or alternative sites adequately, the proposed location would place the tower within 100 feet of existing accessory residential structures, and the excessive height is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Additionally, the appeal states the City did not provide adequate public notification of the rescheduled APC hearing, the proposed monoeucalyptus will provide an adverse visual impact, and the proposal is incompatible with the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) permitting church use.
A copy of the appeal is included as Attachment B to this report. Staff’s response to each concern identified in the appeal, and additional reports and information used by the Commission in reaching its decision are contained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
A. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE ARCHITECTURAL AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #25-A03 FOR A 62-FOOT-TALL MONOEUCALYPTUS WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR EUKON GROUP, LLC ON BEHALF OF AT&T LOCATED AT 1700 NORTH TOWNE AVENUE: APPELLANT - JAMES QUINN; and
B. Find this item is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Body
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives. If any of these alternatives are selected (except for Alternative A), a formal resolution recording the findings and action taken by the City Council will be placed on the City Council’s consent agenda at an upcoming meeting.
A. Continue the item for additional information.
B. Find that significant new evidence has been presented and refer the matter back to the APC for further consideration.
C. Grant the appeal, reverse the APC’s decision by determining that the project does not meet one or more of the required design review criteria for approval, and specifically identify why the criteria cannot be met.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
This appeal has taken staff time to review the appeal, prepare and review this report, and prepare and circulate the agenda. This additional staff cost is estimated to be $1,000. The cost has been paid by the Appellant through an appeal fee paid to submit the appeal.
ANALYSIS
The applicant, Eukon Group, LLC, has proposed a new 62-foot-tall faux eucalyptus tree (monoeucalyptus) to serve as a wireless telecommunications facility for commercial use at the subject property on the east side of Towne Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church of Claremont. The tree is proposed to be in an open grassy area to the east of the existing church building and to the west of the existing parking area. The proposed facility’s antennas reach a maximum height of 57 feet above grade, which is consistent with other recently approved wireless facilities in the City and is a height that is necessary to maximize the range of the wireless signal emitted by the facility. The additional height beyond 57 feet is to provide faux eucalyptus branches and leaves above the antennas for concealment and to achieve a more realistic appearance.
Attachment C is a signed copy of the Resolution approving the site plan and design of the project, which was approved by the APC on July 11, 2025.
Zoning Context
The subject property is located on the east side of Towne Ave between Cascade Place to the north and Syracuse Drive to the south. The large property has a total of 83,838 square feet (1.92 acres) and is owned and utilized by the Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church of Claremont. The property has a zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RS 10,000) and a corresponding General Plan Designation of Residential 6. Churches are permitted in the City’s residential zones with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The property features multiple buildings that were first built in 1965 and include additions made in 1968, 1971, 1974, and 2001. The property also features large surface parking lots on the east, north, and south sides to serve the church.
The Access Village Apartments abut the subject property to the north. Single-family residences are located on the west side of Towne Avenue across from the property. The rear yards of single-family residential properties abut the subject property to the south and east.
The Claremont Municipal (CMC) requires that freestanding wireless telecommunications facilities in residential zoning districts obtain architectural design review approval from the APC, pursuant to CMC Section 16.300 - Architectural Review, and land use approval pursuant to CMC Section 16.306 - Special Use and Development Permit (SUDP), a staff-level approval.
Project Timeline
On April 24, 2024, the APC held a public hearing regarding Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A14, a proposed 73-foot-tall steeple tower to serve as a stealth wireless telecommunications facility. The Commission expressed its intent to deny the project on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Spivack was absent), stating that it did not meet the General review Criteria in Section 16.300.060 of the Claremont Municipal Code. Specifically, the Architectural Commission found that the project did not meet the following criteria: General Plan Consistency (CMC 16.300.060.A.2), Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development (CMC 16.300.060.A.3), Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development (CMC 16.300.060.A.4), and Health and Safety (CMC 16.300.060.A.12). On May 15, 2024, the Commission held a duly noticed meeting and adopted a denial resolution (Attachment E). In response to the denial, the applicant submitted this new Architectural and Site Plan Review project.
The applicant returned for a public hearing on the new project with the Architectural and Preservation Commission on May 28, 2025. However, the Commission failed to meet quorum, and the hearing was continued to the next available date. On June 11, 2025, the Commission considered Architectural and Site Plan Review #25-A03, and the Commission approved the project on a 3-1 vote (Commissioners Cervera, Spivack, and Zimmerman were absent). Four neighbors (represented by one appellant) to the subject property appealed the approval on June 23, 2025.
Project Description
The applicant has proposed a new 62-foot tall monoeucalyptus to serve as a wireless telecommunications facility for AT&T. The tower would house 20 panel antennas, 12 Remote Radio Units (RRU), and four surge suppression systems, along with other associated equipment. The proposed facility would address an existing gap in cell phone (LTE) service that currently exists in an area roughly bound by Foothill Boulevard to the south, the Foothill Freeway to the north, Mountain Avenue to the east, and the Thompson Creek flood control channel to the west, based on wireless service propagation maps provided by the applicant. The tower is proposed to be in an existing grassy area between the church building to the west and a surface parking lot to the east within a 706 square foot lease area. The proposed tower would be located over 75 feet away from the southern property line, over 60 feet away from the rear (eastern) property line, over 150 feet away from the northern property line, and over 275 feet away from the front (Towne Avenue) property line.
Two arrays would be located on the tower. The first would be 42 feet above grade and would have four surge suppressors. The second would be located 53 feet above grade and would contain 20 panel antennas and 12 RRU’s. The top of the highest antenna would be 57 feet above grade. All antennas will be equipped with concealment socks that will emulate eucalyptus leaves, and all antennas, surge suppressors, and hardware on the tower will be painted green to match the branches. The additional height beyond 57 feet is to provide faux eucalyptus branches and leaves above the antennas for concealment and to achieve a more realistic appearance.
The ground-mounted equipment would be located inside a ten-by-ten-foot equipment area enclosed by an eight-foot-tall block wall enclosure directly north of the tower. Low shrubs would be planted around the base of the ground equipment enclosure and tower to soften the appearance of the tower’s base. Additionally, two new five-gallon eucalyptus trees will be planted north and northwest of the proposed ground equipment.
All the commercial wireless telecommunication facilities approved in the recent past in Claremont reach a maximum height of approximately 60 feet. Wireless service providers indicate that antennas must be located high above the ground to maximize the range of the signal the facility’s antennas emit. With the precedent set by other wireless facilities, staff felt this design was appropriate and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context. Attachment F (Sheet A-1) calls out the height of trees in the vicinity of the subject site, showing several mature trees with heights in excess of 40 feet that can serve as a backdrop to the proposed tower.
Special Use and Development Permit Findings
As noted earlier in this report, new wireless telecommunication facilities are required to obtain architectural design review approval as well as approval of a Special Use and Development Permit. The five required findings for a SUDP are set forth in CMC Section 16.306.040. They require that staff find that the property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development and that the streets that serve the property are adequate in size and shape to support the traffic generated by the proposed use. The remaining findings require that staff find the project compatible with surrounding land uses and will not negatively affect or be injurious to such uses. Additionally, they require that staff find that the project will not have impacts on the privacy of surrounding properties and that it will not have negative impacts in terms of public health and safety. Staff believes that the project meets all the required SUDP findings.
Limitations on Project Denial for Health and Safety Considerations
The federal government passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, wherein it prohibited State or local governments from denying requests to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequencies to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
Basis for Recommendation
Appeal Arguments
The APC’S approval of the project has been appealed by James Quinn based on the six points summarized below. Please note that the staff has copied and pasted or summarized the arguments in Mr. Quinn’s appeal. This subsection does not reflect staff’s positions.
Appeal Argument 1: “Improper Public Notification”
The notice of rescheduled APC hearing was postmarked June 2, 2025, and received June 4, 2025, just seven days before the June 11, 2025 meeting. This violates the required 10-day noticing requirement prior to public meetings. The failure to provide timely notice renders the approval process procedurally flawed and invalid.
Appeal Argument 2: “Failure to Explore Colocation or Alternate Sites”
The City and AT&T did not make a concerted effort to explore and evaluate alternative sites or to prioritize co-location of equipment on existing structures before considering the proposed project plan.
Appeal Argument 3: “Violation of Residential Buffer Zone”
The tower is located within 100 feet of a pool at 1665 Barnard Road (69 feet), a pool patio at 1053 Harding Court (82 feet), and a gazebo at 1653 Barnard Road (98 feet).
Appeal Argument 4: “Excessive Height Out of Scale with Neighborhood”
The 62-foot tower is significantly taller than surrounding structures, being nearly three times the height of the church and four times that of adjacent one-story homes.
Appeal Argument 5: “Aesthetic and Cultural Incompatibility”
The artificial eucalyptus contradicts Claremont’s identity as the “City of Trees” as it may appear unsightly, especially when degraded over time. The monoeucalyptus is not adequately screened with landscaping and will adversely impact the surrounding area and neighborhood.
Appeal Argument 6: “Violation of the Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP)”
The commercial-use wireless tower constitutes a significant intensification of land use that was approved through a Conditional Use Permit intended for a religious use within a residential zone.
Staff Response to Appeal
Response to Appeal Argument 1 - Improper Public Notification
Even if the notices were defective or invalid, this would not invalidate the APC’s approval. (Government Code § 65093.) But here, the public hearing notice was not defective or invalid. The City’s Zoning Code does not require public hearing notices for Architectural Review. Section 16.300.040(E) gives the City’s Community Development Director discretion to determine whether to send mailed public hearing notices to “owners of property that could be affected.” Here, the City provided ten-day notices for the APC’s May 28, 2025 public hearing on this item. Due to an unexpected lack of a quorum on May 28, the hearing was continued to a date certain - June 11, 2025. Because the hearing was continued to a date certain, there was no requirement that the City send additional notices. The mailed notices the City sent for the continued public hearing were provided as a courtesy.
Response to Appeal Argument 2 - Failure to Adequately Explore Colocation or Alternative Sites
Appeal Argument 2 states that during the June 11, 2025 APC meeting, the applicant’s presentation revealed the City did not respond to AT&T’s inquiries regarding the colocation opportunity at Lewis Park or Griffith Park.
The applicant provided a site analysis document that documented the ideal placement of a tower to maximize coverage in a coverage gap area that City staff determined was sufficient justification for a new tower at the proposed location.
Both staff and the APC used their judgment based on the information provided to balance the need for wireless service and visual impact it would impart.
Response to Argument 3 - Violation of Minimum Distance to Residential Structures
Pursuant to CMC 16.100.040.E.5, “no new ground-mounted wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within 100 feet of an existing residential structure, whether such structure is the primary use… or an accessory/ancillary use.”
Appeal Argument 3 states that the following three structures are within 100 feet of the proposed tower:
- Pool at 1665 Barnard Road is 69 feet from the tower
o Pools are not considered a structure for the purposes of Title 16 - Zoning of the CMC pursuant to CMC 16.900.830 which states that a “structure shall mean anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires location on the ground or is attached to something having a location on the ground, excepting outdoor paved patio areas, walks, driveways, playing surfaces or outdoor tennis courts, and other similar types of paved recreational surfaces.”
- Pool patio at 1053 Harding Court is 82 feet from the tower
o The referenced pool patio furniture appears to be temporary shade covers that do not constitute as a structure according to CMC 16.900.830 reference above. A permanent accessory structure at the referenced location, within the rear yard setback, would require a special use and development permit or a legal nonconforming status, neither of which is supported by existing documents.
- Gazebo at 1653 Barnard Road is 98 feet from the tower
o Measurements provided in the applicant plans and from staff’s measurements taken from aerial views appear to show a minimum distance of 100 feet as opposed to 98 feet. If subsequent measurements are to be documented by a third party and show the gazebo to be less than 100 feet away from the proposed tower location, then this would serve as justification for the relocation of the tower on the proposed site.
Response to Argument 4 - Excessive Height Inconsistent with Neighborhood
Appeal Argument 4 states that the 62-foot tower is significantly taller than surrounding structures making it a disproportionate and out-of-scale structure that is inconsistent with the neighborhood’s residential character.
Staff believes that the proposed form of the monoeucalyptus has been designed to ensure the best reasonably possible compatibility of form with the surrounding development in that the emulated mature eucalyptus form is similar in height to existing mature trees on and around the site. Although the tree is taller than the church and surrounding single-family residences, the faux tree is intended to be taller than eucalyptus trees naturally are and to meet the minimum effective height of antennas.
Response to Argument 5 - Aesthetic Impacts and Cultural Incompatibility
Appeal Argument 5 states that the proposed tower raises concerns about aesthetic impact, cultural compatibility, and adherence to local regulations through the following points:
- The faux eucalyptus may appear unsightly with the two existing monoeucalyptus behind the Super King supermarket as examples.
o Staff recognizes that wireless facilities disguised as trees require careful consideration to ensure the trees employ quality materials to achieve the most realistic appearance with limited degradation. Despite this, these trees still require maintenance, which is why a resolution will specifically require example color and material samples of the tower exterior to be submitted to the City during plan check. Any future modifications to the facility will require review and approval by the City.
- Per the CMC, facilities must minimize adverse visual impacts and be screened with landscaping to the greatest extent possible where the current plan to plant three live trees in a 24-inch box size does not address this requirement.
o Staff believes that Brisbane Box trees at a 24-inch box size are an adequate measure to minimize visual impacts because they are moderate to fast growing evergreen trees that typically grow to 30-45 feet in height. At a 24-inch box size, this balances the need for a larger sized tree at the time of planting with the future health of the tree’s roots, to avoid bounded roots in larger sized trees. Additionally, staff finds the mature height of a Brisbane Box tree is appropriate as it will grow to conceal portions of the monoeucalpytus and provide a backdrop while not growing excessively tall and interfering with the antennas.
- The CMC requires an analysis of alternative facilities to minimize adverse visual impacts; however, it is unclear if such an analysis has been conducted.
o As discussed in response to Appeal argument 2, the applicant provided a site analysis document that documented the ideal placement of a tower to maximize coverage in a coverage gap area that City staff determined was sufficient justification for a new tower at the proposed location. Both staff and the APC determined, based on the information provided, the project sufficiently balances the need for wireless service and the visual impact it would impart.
- The proposed tower introduces commercial infrastructure into a low-density residential area
o The Municipal Code allows for wireless telecommunication facilities in all districts provided they meet all required findings and applicable development standards which do not specifically preclude these facilities in any residential area.
- The CMC requires that facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize impact on surrounding areas and ensure public safety. Due to the tower’s height, visibility, and change in property use, it may not adhere to this requirement.
o Staff has determined that the proposed facility has been designed to minimize noise and traffic to surrounding areas and that all requirements for health and safety, in terms of structural and emissions, have been met in the design. The addition of the wireless facility will not constitute a change in property use but rather an accessory use to the site.
Response to Argument 6 - Incompatibility with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Church Property
Appeal Argument 6 states that the church’s CUP is intended for religious use within a residential zone and that the addition of a commercial-use wireless tower constitutes a significant intensification of land use that was not contemplated under the original CUP.
However, the application and project are separate from the existing CUP because the proposed wireless telecommunications tower are approved through an Architectural and Site Plan Review and Special Use and Development Permit, irrespective of existing land uses or CUP’s that are active on the subject property. In other words, although the physical context of the subject property is considered as part of the project review, the existence of the CUP for a church on a residentially zoned lot does not preclude the consideration of a wireless telecommunications facility given that the CMC permits wireless facilities in all zoning districts.
Consistency with City Council Priorities
In April 2024, the City Council reaffirmed seven existing priorities and identified 27 objectives that included policies, projects, and programs for City staff to work on during the 2024-26 budget cycle. Among the objectives was the following - “Ensure the availability of modern technology for businesses and residents, and pursue options to address the cell service issues in some geographical areas within Claremont”. This project, as well as others being considered in other parts of the City are being proposed in support of this City Council objective. Concerns about cell phone coverage in Claremont have been amplified in the wake of recent incidents like the Altadena Fire and calls for improved coverage continue.
LEGAL REVIEW
The appeal and draft resolution have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relation to the City’s strategic and visioning documents and finds that this project applies to: 2024-26 Council Priorities.
CEQA REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303(e) - Class 3 in that the proposed project constitutes as new construction of a structure that is accessory to an existing use at the subject property, one where all public services and utilities are available. Approval of the proposed project would not result in the removal of mature trees located on the property and would not result in an increase in traffic to and from the site. Further, the project would not result in impacts to biological or archeological resources, given the site’s location in an urbanized developed area. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of the appeal as well as the project plans are available for review at the Public Counter at City Hall. Notice of this meeting was mailed to properties within 300 feet of the subject property on June 26, 2025. A copy of this report has been sent to the Appellant, Applicant, and other interested parties.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Daniel Kim
Community Development Director Assistant Planner
Attachments
A - Draft City Council Resolution Upholding the Decision
B - Appeal, Including Appellant Information
C - APC Resolution No. 2025-05
D - APC Staff Report 6-11-25
E - APC Denial Resolution No. 2024-05
F - Project Plans