Serious Opposition From Community-Based Environmental Groups To Proposed Radio Tower

towerOpponents of a 365-foot radio tower, that in September 2010 the Yolo County Board of Supervisors approved to be located at the county landfill, argue such communications towers kill millions of birds annually.

This tower will be near a number of sensitive locations, including the City of Davis wetlands, Willow Slough, and near the Yolo Bypass wildlife area, “all of which provide foraging, nesting and breeding habitat for thousands of migratory and resident bird populations year-round.”

In an Op-ed published in the Davis Enterprise, Eileen Samitz, Pam Nieberg and Alan Pryor wrote, “The proposed tower, at 365 feet, will be taller than the Statue of Liberty.  This massive structure will be 30 feet at its base and have three extremely bright white strobe lights (one at the top and two at the 200 foot level).”

They add, “Wildlife experts have concluded that because the proposed tower is located in the heavily-used Pacific Flyway adjacent to the Davis Wetlands Project and the Vic Fazio Wildlife Area, the disorienting effects of the strobe lights on birds would cause unacceptable bird deaths due to numerous bird collisions.”

And worse yet, they add, “To add insult to injury, Results Radio wants to locate their visual and environmental blight in Yolo County, but move their offices and jobs to Sacramento!”

Back in 2009, a proposed radio tower, which was originally to be located to the south of Davis, was shifted to the Yolo County Landfill after landowner and stakeholder objections.  In September of 2010, the Board of Supervisors, over the objections of Davis residents, approved the radio tower at the landfill location.

At that time, the redevelopment agency determined that the new radio tower would not be in conflict with the city-county pass-through agreement.

However, the council at that time opposed the project.  The county would ultimately approve the project, “that incorporated the City’s design comments to reduce impacts to biological resources (e.g. elimination of guy-wires, revised pole design from a lattice structure to monopole, and improved tower lighting), but did not address the comments on the location of the tower.”

The Davis City Council will take this matter up on Tuesday.  City Staff makes four recommendations.

First, they recommend the council “reconfirm the March 2010 Redevelopment Agency determination that the proposed new radio tower is ‘urban development’ under the Pass-Through Agreement, but that the project would not interfere with the intent of the agreement and there are no objections to the proposal from the Redevelopment Agency.”

Second, for the city council they recommend the council determine that “the proposed project for the new radio tower is consistent with the rural nature of the agricultural buffer area between roads 27 and 29.”

However, at the same time, they say to argue that “despite improvements in the project design, the proposed project is inconsistent with the US Fish and Wildlife Services’ communication tower locational guidelines and will create a potential bird strike hazard due to the close proximity to wildlife habitat areas and bird migratory routes.”

Finally, the city staff will direct City Manager Steve Pinkerton “to submit a letter to Yolo County Board of Supervisors restating its 2010 comments on the proposed tower and recommending that the Board not support an extension of the permit to construct the tower, based on the potential impacts to biological resources associated with its proposed location.”

In their op-ed, the authors note, “But now, despite strong opposition from environmental groups including the Yolo Audubon Society, Tuleyome, and the Sierra Club Yolano group, as well as numerous Davis residents, they are back for a second try at the landfill.”

“After apparently gaming the FCC regulatory process, they quietly flew a FCC reapplication in under the radar, and are now seeking discretionary approval from the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to renew their expired building permit,” they write.

This hearing will be held at 9 am on Tuesday, December 13th in Woodland.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad, who is the current chair of the board, informed the Vanguard that he has received a large amount of communications on this issue – all of them are opposed to the project.

In advance of the December 13, 2011 meeting, the Council now needs to send a strong message to Yolo County, according to the op-ed authors, “that this proposed tower is unacceptable anywhere near Davis.”

They urge council opposition on six grounds:

1)     The Open Space and Habitat Commission has passed a resolution opposing this enormous tower and any future towers near the wetlands.

2)     It violates the historic “Greenline” Memorandum of Understanding between Davis, Woodland, and Yolo County which calls for the exclusion of all urban uses between County Roads 27 and 29.

3)     It violates the Pass-Through Agreement between Davis and Yolo County which gives the city the authority to exclude urban uses within the Davis sphere-of-influence (which includes the landfill).

4)     It violates Federal guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the location of towers to minimize wildlife impacts, which state that towers “should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat of threatened or endangered species.  Towers should not be sited in areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings.”

5)     It would create highly intrusive visual blight that will ruin the agricultural vistas and dark skies throughout the entire area.

6)     It would cause huge quality-of-life impacts to all the surrounding farms and residences along the north and northeast edge of the city.

“Davis has invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in protecting both the agricultural heritage and the natural environment and habitat around the outskirts of the city,” they write.  “If Yolo County is allowed to advance the proposed Results Radio tower, it would make a mockery of these many efforts.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

113 comments

  1. AS to numbers 5 and 6, there are very, very few people who live in the area, and I know several of them. It’s a non-issue for the ones I know. And, there is already a 500 plus foot tower located nearby at County Roads 102 and 29 that is even closer to Davis than this one, and it already disturbs the night sky in the area. There is another tower about 5 miles due north, near Woodland.

    Most folks in Davis don’t even realize there is a 500 foot tower even closer to Davis than this one. In my view, the city council and city staff has much more important issue to deliberate.

  2. The difference is this new tower will have the bright, white strobe lights. The towers that are currently there have red lights that do not have the huge visual impact that these new strobes will have.

  3. Adam Smith: There is a huge difference between the existing Road 102 tower and the proposed tower – the white strobe lights.

    There is absolutely no comparison between the soft red beacons on the existing tower and the white strobes required under new FAA regulations.

    Your claim that the adjacent land owners don’t care is also contradicted by the facts. Two of the farms have showed up at public hearings and spoken out strongly against the proposal. There is more landowner opposition that will apparently come forward at the BOS meeting.

    As to the density of residences, the lights are so bright that they will constitute significant blight for many miles. They will absolutely enrage homeowners on the edge of the city – not to mention most of the local farmers that Katherine Hess and Mitch Sears are apparently attempting to screw.

    Note to Mitch: Do you really think you will ever sign another sign another Measure O deal with local landowners after you stick it to the farmers to the northeast of town if/when your weak and insincere-sounding response to the county fails?

  4. Adam Smith

    ” Adam Smith

    12/05/11 – 07:10 AM

    Most folks in Davis don’t even realize there is a 500 foot tower even closer to Davis than this one. In my view, the city council and city staff has much more important issue to deliberate.

    1) Your evidence for the assertion that most people are unaware would be …?
    2) Assuming you are correct, ignorance would seem an argument in favor of education and discussion, not one against it
    3) As addressed by others, the lights emanating from the two structures are not equivalent
    4) The existence of one source of environmental degradation, no matter how slight you may consider it, is no argument for the addition of another.

  5. Is there any possibility that the soft red lights be substituted for the bright strobe lights? Would that ameliorate the problem? In the world we live in, I don’t think we can continuously object to every cell phone tower, every radio tower, every microwave transmitter, every power line etc. We all use these conveniences, even us Sierra Club members, and they have to be put somewhere.

  6. To clarify my objection to the staff report – I am very disappointed and concerned that the staff is trying open up a loophole in the Pass-Through Agreement and the Greenline MOU. They are attempting to narrowly interpret these agreements to establish the precedent that the “spirit” of the agreements (in this particular case, as interpreted by Hess and reaffirmed by Sears) trump the actual language.

    Their argument is that even though the tower constitutes urban development, we should look the other way because it won’t interfere with farming operations. They try to justify their position with the canard that the proposed tower will be just another tower in the landscape – ignoring the new impacts of the white strobe lights. In the process, they completely ignore the open space preservation mandates of these two important agreements.

    This is what Katherine did when the previous Results Radio proposal came before the council, and the result was a response to the county that was so weak that they chose to ignore objections from the community. A classic example of staff finessing a controversial issue to the detriment of the city.

    It should also be noted that if the Results Radio tower is allowed to go onto the landfill in violation of the Pass-Through Agreement and the Greenline MOU, the path is paved to build an antenna farm at the county landfill.

  7. Observer: No. That white strobe lights are mandated by new federal regulations. The FAA is not going to make a special accommodation for Davis.

    The tower doesn’t belong near the wetlands regardless of the lighting.

    Results Radio does not have entitlements to build in Yolo County and the County does not have the right under the Pass-Through Agreement to locate this blight within our sphere of influence.

  8. medwoman:

    1. Ask your friends in town if they know of any radio towers near Davis. I attended a recent Yolo Planning Commission meeting where several folks opposing the tower were present. Half of the ones I asked didn’t know there was radio tower already in the near vicinity.

    2. My point is that if you don’t know about the one that has been there for many years, an argument that it ruins the night time view is not valid. We don’t need to educate folks on things that are obvious but are so unimposing that they don’t know it’s there.

    More generally, our society needs communications towers,and they are going to have to be somewhere. Anyone and everyone can object to any location. This location is located at a landfill, in a very sparsely populated area. It has been through rigorous studies, which are available on the yolo county board of supervisors website, if you care to become educated in a balanced way. It actually provides income to Yolo County, which is very helpful these days.

    IMO, this is another example of a small group with a extremist opinion driving government. I do believe the opponents care deeply about it, so they are making a lot of noise – but the population at large is ok with this location.

    [i]To clarify my objection to the staff report – I am very disappointed and concerned that the staff is trying open up a loophole in the Pass-Through Agreement and the Greenline MOU. They are attempting to narrowly interpret these agreements to establish the precedent that the “spirit” of the agreements (in this particular case, as interpreted by Hess and reaffirmed by Sears) trump the actual language. [/i]

    Isn’t the landfill a violation of the pass through and greenbelt agreement?

  9. Adam, how conveniently you choose to ignore the fact that the new towers will have much brighter white strobe lights due to FAA mandates than the other towers with the much less intrusive red lights.

    “I do believe the opponents care deeply about it, so they are making a lot of noise – but the population at large is ok with this location.”

    Ask the people who live in the northeast part of town, for example Wildhorse, how they feel about it. This tower with its bright lights is going to be located as to where it will be intrusive to those residents.

  10. [quote]And worse yet, they add, “To add insult to injury, Results Radio wants to locate their visual and environmental blight in Yolo County, but move their offices and jobs to Sacramento!”[/quote]

    What is not clear to me is what specific benefits will be brought to Davis residents by the tower? Anyone know?

  11. I think that the bigger concern than the affect on people is its affect on the Pacific Flyway. The Yolo bypass is the freeway for bird migrations. Putting a tower right in the middle of it would seem unwise, particularly if there might be other options. Does anyone know what the locational parameters are for this tower? What are the geographical boundaries within which it would likely work. I think that the initial assumption that the location furthest away from the most people would be the best was flawed. Perhaps it could be placed closer to population centers but possibly with some shielding so that the strobes don’t direct light down, but only horizontally and above at night. Does anyone know if the FAA allows something like this? Small planes wouldn’t be flying around at night and the big planes are flying higher than 500 feet. Are there any of these newer white light strobes around in the vicinity so that we could get a sense of the true impact?

  12. [i]Ask the people who live in the northeast part of town, for example Wildhorse, how they feel about it. This tower with its bright lights is going to be located as to where it will be intrusive to those residents. [/i]

    I live in the NE part of town, and the people of wildhorse will generally not be able to see this tower while in their yards or on the streets, because their view will be blocked by trees and houses. There will be some who can see it if they live on or are situated at the perimeter, where there is a view to the bypass unobstructed by trees. Night golfers, of course, will be terribly impacted while playing certain holes.

    [i]What is not clear to me is what specific benefits will be brought to Davis residents by the tower? Anyone know? [/i]

    Although the tower isn’t in Davis, it will bring much needed revenue to Yolo County.

    [i]he landfill predates the passthrough agreement.[/i]

    Thanks Don.

  13. Everyone that travels north on the Mace curve will be subjected to this blight. I can guarantee you that if this thing gets built there will be very large numbers of voters on both sides of the growth issue that will routinely curse the Board of Supervisor members that allowed it to happen.

    Selling out Davis for a trivial revenue stream to the county is a bad idea.

  14. [i]Everyone that travels north on the Mace curve will be subjected to this blight. I can guarantee you that if this thing gets built there will be very large numbers of voters on both sides of the growth issue that will routinely curse the Board of Supervisor members that allowed it to happen. [/i]

    Again, most folks that travel RD 102 don’t know that there is a 500 foot tower located less than 1000 feet east of that road. You are describing a “blight” for something that is 200 feet shorter than the tower on 102 and located about 2.5 miles from the most northerly point of Mace. This will only be visible during the dark hours of each day, and drivers would probably be better off watching the road than looking out into the darkness of the horizon.

  15. Previous discussion of towers on this blog….
    [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3115:Proposed-radio-tower-in-south-davis-generates-controversy&Itemid=99[/url]

  16. Adam Smith: The fact that you keep ignoring the intensity of the white strobe lights clearly shows that you are uninformed. The lights are extremely intrusive and distracting. Until you have first hand experience observing lights that meet the current FAA standards you should not try to run interference for this ill-advised project.

    Such lights are clearly visible until they disappear on the horizon – even at high noon on a bright day. Think flash bulb on a camera.

  17. Once again Adam, the tower has much brighter strobes than anything currently out there, which you fail to respond to because you have no answer to how that’s going to affect wildlife and the residents in northeast Davis.

    “THREE VERY BRIGHT WHITE STROBE LIGHTS, EACH BLINKING 20,000 CANDELAS BY DAY, AND 2,000 CANDELAS IN THE DARK 40 TIMES A MINUTE ON OUR NORTHERN DAVIS BORDER WHICH WOULD TRAVEL FOR MANY MILES (INCLUDING INTO OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS.)”

  18. Maybe it will look something like this:
    [img]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f2a129c2196.jpg[/img]

    I still wonder why this isn’t being located near the many towers that are down east of Dixon. Maybe it would interfere somehow with something else that is already there.

  19. [quote]Although the tower isn’t in Davis, it will bring much needed revenue to Yolo County. [/quote]

    So the county agreed to this at the expense of Davis – for money? How much money? And Davis will see no benefit in service?

  20. To me, those that benefit should carry the burden of placement. This reminds me a bit of the tall electrical towers that were slated to go through Yolo but serve Sacramento. Please tell me this is not the same thing…

  21. Don: Results Radio is trying to penetrate the Sacramento market. Therefore, the closer the better. According to their proposal to the FCC, their studio (i.e. jobs) will be in Sacramento and their impacts will be dumped on the outskirts of Davis.

  22. Elaine: Perfect point. If Results Radio wanted to serve Yolo County, then they already have approval from the FCC to move to an existing tower in the Dunnigan Hills.

    Since this tower is already built and far from the Pacific Flyway – no new lights, no new wildlife impacts.

    This is a case where Yolo County will get exploited for economic gain in Sacramento County if the project is built. Pure and simple.