RESIDENTS CHALLENGE PLACEMENT OF AT&T CELLPHONE TOWER

― LISA MCCABE ―

In July 2024 a handful of residents of Russell Ranch learned of a proposal to place a 65 foot AT&T cell phone tower alongside the SMUD substation at Savannah and Grand Prairie via a notice from the City of Folsom. The City of Folsom Planning Commission would be discussing the project at the July 24, 2024 meeting, with materials provided to the public visualizing a tower dressed with foliage to mimic a Eucalyptus tree. Within two days, the community quickly spread word of the proposal and within two days, had formed a group of over 150 residents who opposed the location of the tower, simultaneously gathering hundreds of signatures on a petition.

During the meeting, Planning Commissioners inquired about reducing the size of the tower, the prospect of changing the type of tree given Eucalyptus are not grown in the area, whether with AT&T confirming they could in fact reduce the height by 10 feet without affecting coverage and if the company had spoken to the developer of Alder Creek Marketplace, or to the hospital who might benefit them and other first responders. Generally, several commissioners’ comments indicated they preferred placement on commercial or non-residential properties.

Nine residents spoke against the tower, lamenting the minimal outreach of the city at only 300 feet radius from the proposed location. In all, 412 residents signed a petition presented to the commission. Arguments cited by the families included lot premiums paid for a view of the future Community Park, the aesthetic of a lone seven-foot tall tree, the health notices from the trio of the substation, high-voltage power lines, and fire station being onerous for one neighborhood, and the risks of radiation and fire from the tower to the nearest homes which are incredibly close to homes. Not every speaker agreed that AT&T service was lacking in the area, and pointed to the existing tower next to Russell House. It was, in fact, later learned that the existing tower was not effective to cover the area over the hill due to the elevation of the area, and is “full”: meaning that they cannot add capacity to it.

AT&T pointed out to the commission that this cell phone tower would allow the company to provide FirstNet Public Safety Responder Network access to the police and fire departments locally, a program piloted by AT&T. Members of the commission found this a compelling reason not to delay the project, though the representative could not confirm whether Folsom Fire and Police departments would utilize this system. It was later learned that Folsom’s police and fire departments would use this program.

Ultimately, the Planning Commission did not approve the project but instead instructed that alternative sites should be revisited.

All alternative sites offered in the AT&T report were city-owned or school district owned property, however, the only site seemingly reconsidered was the future Community Park East boundaried by Savannah Parkway and a greenbelt space. Residents sent a representative to the Parks & Recreation Commission Planning and Development subcommittee meeting on August 28, 2024, which discussed whether the tower could be moved to this undeveloped parcel instead. The subcommittee voted in favor of recommending the park as a potential alternative site, subject to full commission discussion.

Residents understood that the city would be taking the lead on communicating with the commercial property owners, but discovered that no such efforts had been undertaken by city staff. They began reaching out themselves, and the realtor indicated that the owners at both Southpointe and Alder Creek Marketplace were not interested in accepting the lease. At this time, residents are reviewing all potential alternative sites and seem poised to continue to pursue all options.

On September 3, 2024 the full Parks & Recreation Commission listened to the staff presentation about this potential alternative site, and had robust comments and questions directed to staff and the AT&T representative. Residents again came to speak, and encourage the commission to defer their decision until after the commercial property owners had the opportunity to consider the tower being relocated to their shopping centers. Commissioner Alayna Wagner made a motion to do just that, which was unsuccessful. The commission passed an alternate motion, to recommend against placing the tower in the undeveloped park but to consider moving it there in the future.

At this time, though the topic of the tower was meant to return to the Planning Commission in September, it has been pushed back to their October 16, 2024 meeting. After the Planning Commission decision is made, the matter will go to City Council for approval.