by Andrew Alonzo | aalonzo@claremont-courier.com

The Claremont City Council on Tuesday unanimously rejected a proposal from Eukon Group LLC to install a 62-foot high AT&T telecommunications tower at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 1700 N. Towne Ave. The 5-0 vote reversed the Claremont Architectural and Preservation Commission’s June 11 recommendation to approve the project.

The council heard appeals from residents who live near the proposed tower site, including Natalie Quinn, who said the proposed tower, which would resemble a eucalyptus tree, would create a visual eyesore and bring down property values.

Opponents of the proposed tower cited numerous state and local municipal codes in their arguments against the move, including about its proximity to nearby swimming pools, gazebos, and other structures, its 62-foot height, which they said was inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, as well as its aesthetic impact and cultural incompatibility.

On Tuesday, Claremont resident James Quinn and neighbors successfully appealed a recent recommendation from the city’s architectural and preservation commission to allow a 63-foot cell tower to be built at Good Shepard Lutheran Church. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

City staff wrote that Eukon Group “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 … 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 report added that the tower was “approved through an Architectural and Site Plan Review and Special Use and Development Permit, irrespective of existing land uses or [conditional use permits] that are active on the subject property.”

The council deliberated extensively on “collocation,” or the practice of having multiple telecommunications companies route services through the same structure or facility. Council member Ed Reece asked Sonal Thakur, a consultant with Eukon Group, how its engineers determined collocation was not a viable option at the Hughes Center, the site of one of three existing cell towers in Claremont.

“AT&T’s … radio frequency engineer, did look at collocating in that existing T-Mobile obelisk and determined that in order for us to collocate and extend the height as well as have the required vertical separation so that there wouldn’t be interference, it would result in a facility that the city wouldn’t support, the community wouldn’t support, and additionally, it was too close to another existing facility,” Thakur said.

Reece asked Claremont Assistant City Manager Jamie Earl if another carrier had successfully collocated at the Hughes Center’s tower. She responded in the affirmative.

A rendering of the rejected plan for a 62-foot cell tower at Good Shepard Lutheran Church. Photo/courtesy of City of Claremont

“Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council cannot make the finding that the applicant made a reasonable effort to collocate on existing facilities on City-owned properties,” read an email from Claremont City Attorney Alisha Patterson.

AT&T has previously looked into improving its coverage in the area bounded by Foothill Boulevard to the south, the 210 Freeway to the north, Mountain Avenue to the east, and the Thompson Creek flood control channel to the west. In 2021, the city was contacted by Eukon Group on behalf of AT&T about collocation and new tower opportunities, but further talks did not materialize.

Reece said if Eukon Group had provided information about its collocation efforts on Tuesday, his vote would have been different.

This wasn’t the first time a telecommunications tower project was proposed at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. In 2024, the city’s architectural and preservation commission rejected a 73-foot-tall “steeple” structure from Eukon Group LLC on the grounds it was inconsistent with city codes.