Planning Commission postpones disguised cell tower in Folsom Ranch

Facing an army of opposition in Folsom Ranch, city officials again balked last week at a controversial cell tower plan for Savannah Parkway near new homes. Doing business as AT&T Mobility, New Cingular Wireless is requesting a city permit for a cell tower on a city-owned, one-third acre site near the intersection of Savannah Parkway and Grand Prairie Road in the new Mangini Ranch Phase 2 neighborhood south of Highway 50. Officials said AT&T aims to fill a significant gap in Folsom Ranch area cellular coverage, and is the only provider of Band 14, a new dedicated channel for emergencies. The original proposal, a 65-foot tower disguised as a eucalyptus tree, was first heard by the Folsom Planning Commission in July. After strong local opposition, the commission postponed the item to study other sites "more robustly." The company offered the time extension, as proposals are automatically approved after 100 days with no action, staff explained. The applicant worked with city staff to again review locations, but no "less-intrusive" spots were found. "We really took to heart the concerns of the community," said AT&T spokesman Andrew Lesa. The applicant, however, offered a compromise last week. Developers propose the tower be lowered to 56 feet high, and designed as a fake water tower rather than the unpopular faux tree. "We're offering to put up some kind of naming on the tank if so desired. We've done that in a lot of different communities. Woodland has done that," said Lesa. But roughly 600 Folsom Ranch residents don't want the fake water tower, either. They want the cell tower somewhere else, said community leader Linda McCabe. Locals again packed the Oct. 16 commission meeting to protest, some carrying signs. "From what we've observed, the applicant is simply going through the motions, knowing that the city is under pressure from the legal shot clock to act quickly," said McCabe. "Get the shot clock extended, and dig deeper for a commercial solution." Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC "shot clock" rule requires that requests for wireless equipment must be acted on in a "reasonable period of time." Officials said in this case, it is 100 days after an application is made with no action taken. Folsom planning staff recommended approval. "The camouflaging of the monopole as a water tower, as well as the presence of existing landscaping and large power poles in the area, do not lead to a substantial visual impact to these residences," staff said in the report. "Without an easement, property owners in California have no inherent right to prevent obstruction of their view." McCabe said more than 600 neighbors south of the freeway have rallied against the location. After a score of residents spoke against during the three-hour meeting last week, the commission and AT&T agreed to study another compromise: a 10-year lease for the current site, with the condition it be later moved to the proposed park across the street with stadium light poles planned. Without even a power hook-up, the undeveloped prairie site is five or more years away from a park, and currently unprepared for cell towers. Design is scheduled for 2028, staff said. Temporary cell towers, commonly used for large events, were also discussed to cover the gap in service until a permanent site is found. Officials also kicked around the idea of temporary, interlocking cement foundations for a park tower before it's developed. The commission voted to table the matter until Dec. 18 to restudy the park site, previously denied by the Folsom Parks & Rec Commission. Once again, AT&T offered the time extension on the shot clock. "This is not an uncommon concern with communities. Not-in-my-backyard, NIMBY-ism, is a concept that planners are very familiar with. If it's not in someone's backyard over here, it's in someone's backyard over there," said Lesa. "We see it every day." It costs AT&T about $1 million for each cell tower built, he said. Should the planning commission approve a conditional use permit, the Folsom City Council would still need to approve a license agreement for operation on city-owned property.