San Clemente design panel reviews American Tower plan to replace lattice tower with 120‑foot monopole

The Design Review Subcommittee of the City of San Clemente on Sept. 24 discussed an application from American Tower Corporation to replace an existing lattice communications tower with a 120‑foot monopole, offering nonbinding design and site‑compatibility recommendations to staff.

The presentation by city planner Jonathan (staff) said the site lies on a privately owned parcel within open space near Del Dios and is accessed via an easement from the Salvador reservoir property. He said the original conditional permit (C‑1021) was approved by the County of Orange in 1962 at 70 feet, the tower had been expanded to about 138 feet at an unknown date, and under a voluntary compliance step in 2023 the tower’s height was reduced to 70 feet.

Jonathan said federal law limits local regulation of radio frequency (RF) emissions and that the Federal Communications Commission, under the Telecommunications Act, sets RF standards. He described a 2023 settlement among the city, American Tower and the Harborview Estates homeowners association that led American Tower to agree to submit this application for a 120‑foot monopole; the settlement also said that if the city does not approve the monopole application as submitted, the lattice tower may remain at the existing 70‑foot height with the ability to host equipment.

Jonathan said staff’s design review assessment referenced the city’s 2008 wireless master plan (guidance, not codified standard) and concluded that because the site sits on a prominent ridgeline adjacent to the Ridgeline Trail, “there is not an effective way to fully make any facility stealth at the proposed height.” He urged the subcommittee to provide aesthetic recommendations that staff will include in the zoning administrator packet for the public hearing on Oct. 9.

Representatives for the applicant attended. Emily Murray, identified as representing American Tower through the consultant Allen McIntyre, confirmed the settlement terms and said the agreement required American Tower to submit the monopole application and that the HOA had agreed to support the submittal; she said that if the city imposes conditions that are unacceptable to American Tower (for example, a condition that would require an otherwise incompatible stealth treatment), American Tower could decline to proceed and the current lattice tower option would remain.

Subcommittee members and staff discussed alternatives and aesthetic choices. Committee members and staff displayed photos and asked the applicant to consider alternatives commonly used for macro wireless facilities, including:

- Monopole designs massed or detailed to reduce visual intrusiveness (examples presented by staff included gallery images of faux trees and flagpole‑style installations). - A tripod or multi‑legged structure that spreads foundation loads and can be designed to screen equipment while reducing the visual appearance of a single exposed pole. - A tall “stealth” pole painted or detailed to blend with the skyline, though staff said even the best camouflage would be readily identifiable from public trails and residences because the tower would stand alone.

The subcommittee emphasized neighborhood concerns documented during prior public meetings — specifically security at the lattice tower prior to the 2023 agreement and trespass/climb incidents — and repeated that a monopole was discussed previously as a community‑preferred means to limit climbing access. Committee members recommended that staff include alternatives in the report to the zoning administrator and, if feasible, require landscape buffering, building‑coloring or fencing upgrades around the tenant building as additional mitigation measures.

No formal approval authority rested with the subcommittee; Chair K. said, “we're not an approval body,” and described the role as providing aesthetic input to the zoning administrator. Jonathan and the applicant team said the zoning administrator will hold the formal public hearing Oct. 9 and that the city council could ultimately review the matter if appealed.

The subcommittee asked staff to include the committee’s recommended alternatives and the set of exhibit photos shown at the meeting in the staff packet. Emily Murray and Sarah O’Neil (True North, applicant consultant) said American Tower submitted the application as described and that the company’s decision to construct would depend on final approvals and any conditions attached by the city. Subcommittee members indicated preference for the tripod or landscaped/flagpole alternatives if they can accommodate the necessary equipment, and recommended landscaping and site improvements to make the support structure and equipment compound more compatible with the surrounding open‑space context.

Next steps: staff will include the subcommittee’s design recommendations and the submitted exhibit photos in the zoning administrator’s staff report for the Oct. 9 public hearing. The settlement terms discussed during the meeting mean approval is contingent on the discretionary process and that American Tower retains the option not to proceed if the city adopts unacceptable conditions.