KOWS-FM Sebastopol low power radio tower application

[SebTownRaised]

There must be a Latin term for this kind of argument... ...

You're so close!

But it's the KOWS themselves who presented so many different arguments for "need".
For your convenience, here are a few, and I'll start with your new one:

The antenna will have about as much effect as another telephone pole in the area, of which there are many.
False Analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.

This analogy is poorly suited because:

• There are telephone poles everywhere. Major Telecommunication towers are NOT everywhere.
• Telephone poles are about 30'. This tower would be 65' - over twice as tall.
• Telephone poles are made of wood and at least mildly blend into natural settings. Major Telecommunication towers are so vastly different I'm not even going to continue. It's obvious.

We must have an antenna at Pleasant Hill Road because we are The Greater Good
Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

There is NO proof that the KOWS are the "greater good". Can the vast majority of the community please stand up and SHOW how KOWS is so great that they don't need to perform the proper environmental report?

Our antenna MUST be installed at this ONE location
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
(it can go almost anywhere, they won’t get as good of coverage, perhaps, but that’s not our problem)

The KOWS has had other locations and they refuse to choose another location that will please everyone - those showing their true colors that they are not "community minded". Instead their actions show selfishness and narcissism.

If the City Council doesn't approve our ONE location, then you are killing the community’s only radio station!
Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

KOWS MUST have an antenna - or we can’t continue!
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

KOWS is streaming WORLD WIDE RIGHT NOW! It's amazing! have a listen!
kows107-3.org/listen/

Note that their business cards even promote listening online.

But we provide an Emergency Alert service!
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
and
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

ALL radio stations are required to to provide emergency alerts. So.... yeah.

The KOWS MUST stay in business!
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.

No, this operation is not a necessary public service, like the water tanks, it is a luxury and it doesn’t have to continue at all.

But don't forget, you can't kill KOWS because they're streaming world wide:
kows107-3.org/listen/

Moving the tower means SO many more people will be listening to us
Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
(there’s been NO data collection or survey to suggest that they will have ANY new listeners or that anyone beyond themselves even cares)
and
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
(just because a station is available to new customers it doesn’t mean they will listen)

And as if all these false premises weren’t enough, then there is the matter of the blatant lie:
KOWS claims that they “had to move from OAEC”. But in reality: No. No, they were not kicked out of OAEC. KOWS decided to abandon their OAEC antenna in hopes of gaining a larger listenership.

Let’s be clear: Radio is a LUXURY, not a necessity, as they so continually imply with every word. As such, one can hardly conclude that the City of Sebastopol is obliged in anyway to destroy the beauty that is Sebastopol and the surrounding area just so people can play music and interview each other.

Everyone keeps repeating things like:

"radio is an exercise in community sharing and bonding"

But so far the "sharing" and "bonding" is just the act of dumping their 65 foot trash in someone else's neighborhood. Is that going to bring the community together?

And it's not just the neighbors who are offended:
Over 200 people have signed a petition against dumping this tower in the country side:
https://sharpwatch.org/

And finally,
Until there has been a proper Environmental report, the KOWS are the worst kind of developers I can think of. Hell, I believe even CVS did the proper Environmental report!

What kind of "community service" or "greater good" tries to bypass the required Environmental Report?

[anatuesday]

My dear, there is so much factual inaccuracy and exaggeration in what you have presented here it's frankly overwhelming. I can't even begin to address it all with the small amount of time I have available at this moment, but I, like you, cannot "look the other way."

I, too, was born and raised in Sebastopol. This is my home. Even after living all my life here I am still in awe of the beauty of its hills, in which I also reside not far from the proposed site (which I too drive by sometimes multiple times a day).

I have reviewed the relevant information, both KOWS' and SHARP's. I have listened to both sides presented at the last city council meeting. I have come away feeling more certain that KOWS is the side of this controversy with the most integrity and the most to be proud of. Please do not claim to represent the best interests of the entire community. Your cause certainly doesn't represent my best interests.

If this antenna is allowed, which I hope it is, please try to find it in your heart to see it for what it really is: a symbol of the voices of the people in this community, which is loved by all of us.

Having grown up in this town ...

[anatuesday]

Thank you for the free lessons on logical fallacies.

You're so close!...

[rossmen]

I will listen to KOWS if they get the antenna up, or at least check it out, it is the kind of station I listen to, and I listen to lots of radio, often hours a day, almost never on computers, and it isn't available where I generally work and drive. Also most construction, many much larger projects are done without environmental impact reports.

The only sharp argument which makes any sense is the cell phone piggyback probability. KOWS supporters don't address that one. Fortunately people don't live right next to the tower location. It's actually a good place for that kind of thing, unlike right above the sebastopol library.

Can you explain why the ranch site with the antenna in a tree wasn't picked? Is it really almost as good and 10 not 30k?

[sgoodnick]

There are a couple of issues you raise that have been addressed in the City Council Staff Report and in materials that KOWS has provided to the City Council:

Co-Location of Antennas
Here is an excerpt from the City Council Staff Report:

There are Federal requirements that place restrictions on State and Local government's ability to regulate co-location of wireless facilities. However these are not applicable to the KOWS antenna situation. FCC Report and Order FCC 14-153 clearly states that co-location mandates do not apply to State and Local governments when they are acting as property owners. That is comparable to the rights of other property owners to control uses on their property. This interpretation is supported by a May 2016 legal analysis of FCC wireless rules prepared for the League of California Cities.

The FCC Order states: "...we conclude that Section 6409(a) applies only to State and Local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities. As discussed in the record, courts have consistently recognized that in "determining whether government contracts are subject to preemption, the case law distinguishes between actions a State entity takes in a proprietary capacity - actions similar to those a private entity might take - and its attempts to regulate." As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]n the absence of any express or implied implication by Congress that a State may not manage its own property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, and when analogous private conduct would be permitted, this Court will not infer such a restriction." Like private property owners, local governments enter into lease and license agreements to allow parties to place antennas and other wireless service facilities on local-government property, and we find no basis for apply Section 6409(a) in those circumstances. We find that this conclusion is consistent with judicial decisions holding that Sections 253 and 332(c) (7) of the Communications Act do not preempt "non regulatory decisions of a state or locality in its proprietary capacity."

Thus, if the project moves forward, there would be no requirement that would force the City to allow other telecommunication operators to install antennas on the property. However, the California League of Cities analysis notes that cities should protect their proprietary rights. Thus, in allowing a telecommunications installation on a public property, jurisdictions should consider whether to restrict a lessee's ability to sub-lease space at the facility. One of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval specifically restricts use of the tower to KOWS, and it is Staff's understanding that any lease with KOWS will impose a similar restriction.

This is a bit technical in its legal language, but the bottom line is that the City would be making space at the Pleasant Hill reservoir site available to KOWS in its capacity as a property owner. As such it has full discretion over structures on that site. The FCC cannot force the City to locate more and bigger antennas there.

Alternative Ranch Site:
Much has been made in the SHARP material about the alternative ranch site for the antenna. They show excerpts from the KOWS online Steering Committee minutes in which participants state that this is a good site for the antenna. This so-called "gotchya" is akin to serving up a half baked cake. As the KOWS Antenna Relocation Committee delved into the technical details, did site tests, and reviewed alternative locations, the ranch site was not the best location for the antenna. Though the ranch site provides slightly better coverage in Sebastopol than the current antenna site at OAEC in Occidental, there is a shadowing effect from the ridge between the ranch site and downtown Sebastopol that limits good coverage. The Pleasant Hill site is by all measures a better location for a low power, low profile, antenna to reach downtown Sebastopol and other parts of West Sonoma County than the many other alternatives we reviewed. Our goal in proposing the Pleasant Hill site is to provide the best quality signal to the largest possible audience consistent with the very many constraints that the FCC imposes on the location of FM antennas.

Thanks! Stuart Goodnick - KOWS Antenna Relocation Committee

[podfish]

My dear, there is so much factual inaccuracy and exaggeration in what you have presented here it's frankly overwhelming

i don't know, I thought that was pretty a thorough and accurate analysis of the arguments. 'Course I still don't have a problem with the antenna. The 'anti' arguments aren't any different in quality. I think peoples' positions on this, like on most civic issues, is shaped more by subjective feelings than by balancing the various arguments. Applying logic to it is the planning commision's job.

[Jim Wilson]

i don't know, I thought that was pretty a thorough and accurate analysis of the arguments. 'Course I still don't have a problem with the antenna. The 'anti' arguments aren't any different in quality. I think peoples' positions on this, like on most civic issues, is shaped more by subjective feelings than by balancing the various arguments. Applying logic to it is the planning commision's job.

I don't see the analysis as compelling. To pick one example, he critiques the analogy to telephone polls and considers it ridiculous, like comparing apples to oranges. But he leaves out that the telephone poles carry telephone wires, so it's not just the poles we are talking about. The telephone poles, with their wires, in the area in question would seem to impact the view and the sense of technological, man-made, presence to a greater degree than the proposed KOWS antenna tower. By leaving out the full impact of the telephone poles, with their wires, he can argue that the analogy is false; but if you consider the full impact of the poles with the wires it would appear that the analogy is actually a good one. (Analogical arguments can be valid to a degree; they usually aren't simply valid or invalid.)

I found similar evasions in the other arguments as put forth.

It is true that subjective feelings play a significant role in these kinds of discussions. However, subjectivity does not mean that the disputing sides have a carte blanche on whatever they want to say; it is not an excuse for the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that one side seem to be indulging in (like bringing in 9/11).

I think KOWS is a great, community based, service to the West County, and specifically Sebastopol area. I urge the City Council to grant the permit for the KOWS antenna.

Thanks,

Jim

P.S. I forgot to mention that agricultural alterations of the landscape are, in my opinion, of the same kind as alterations by telephone poles and antenna towers. I drive through the area in question frequently; it consists mostly of orchards and wineries, with a graveyard in the area as well. All of these are man-made alterations of the natural landscape. We tend not to notice this because we are used to it. But I suggest that the agricultural alterations are more significant and more extensive than either the telephone poles or the proposed antenna tower. I'm not criticizing wineries, orchards, or graveyards; I am pointing out that the change to the landscape from the proposed antenna tower is likely the most minor of changes when you compare it to agricultural changes and telephone poles, even with their wires..

[Shepherd]

The following 2 letters appeared in this week's Sonoma West on the KOWS antenna. Note the reference to the "vineyard owners" in the first line of the first letter, who lead and finance the opposition to non-corporate local radio extending its free speech throughout West County.

There are many vineyards on Pleasant Hill Rd., where KOWS wants to place its antenna. They are chemical industrial vineyards who use Roundup and other killers. They place regimented metal stakes in the damaged soil to extract profit for a few, and kill bees and other life forms, creating a green desert. The opposition is another case of the power of the wine barons, who spent hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars to hire slick lawyers and others to lobby against KOWS application. Meanwhile, KOWS is proposing only one antenna.

Please keep those letters coming, which can challenge the false claims by the opposition and give the City Council the courage to support KOWS in the face of a threatened lawsuit. Letters can be sent to the editor at [email protected]. And join your only local radio station on May 31, Mon., for the Seb. City Council decision, at a meeting which starts at 6 p.m. in the Community Center.

SHARPS’s tone
EDITOR: Your story about the May 3 Sebastopol City Council evaluation of the KOWS antenna proposal fails to mention the stunningly negative, condescending tone of the remarks by the vineyard owners and many (not all) of the other neighbors who spoke in opposition, as well as their misstatements of fact.

Vineyard owner Jenkins brandished in outrage a book no KOWS member had ever heard of and accused KOWS volunteers of using it to orchestrate a campaign of misinformation. And when the SHARP representatives warned City Council members not to allow relationships with KOWS volunteers to sway their decision, they were implicitly accusing KOWS volunteers of improper behavior.

Yet, shortly thereafter in the SHARP presentation, KOWS was demoted from a Machiavellian monster, to a self-involved “private” group (it’s actually a 501(c)(3) recognized nonprofit) that in SHARP’s view is really just a sorry little “radio club” with no money and no staying power (actually KOWS has a 9 year history as a community radio station committed to providing space for little-heard voices and discussion of important local and wider issues).

In contrast, the response co-written by KOWS volunteers spoke of exciting new projects giving voice to high school students and elders, and of the benefits to Sebastopol of having a community radio station. Concerns expressed in the written appeal by SHARP to the Planning Commission decision were systematically addressed. A number of SHARP misstatements were refuted calmly, without rancor or emotional baggage.

SHARP reps spent nearly an hour and a half vilifying KOWS and the motives of KOWS volunteers, while the far more concise and positive KOWS response treated the concerns of opponents with respect, while disagreeing with their conclusions. I submit that the quality of the KOWS response offers a model for how contentious community issues can be addressed without making enemies of neighbors.

Rob Schmidt, Sebastopol

Dear City Council

EDITOR: I live in the community where the proposed KOWS antenna has become a source of friction and controversy in our community. I am also a KOWS show host so I can honestly say I have seen both sides of this issue. I am writing to you today to voice my total and unequivocal support for the approval of this project.

I am becoming deeply dismayed and concerned by the growing misinformation, distortion of facts, innuendos, veiled threats of lawsuits to influence your decision to deny the antennae relocation to Pleasant Hill Road.

Equally disturbing, is SHARP’s demeaning and condescending attitudes questioning KOWS integrity, honesty and transparency in this process.

SHARP’s sleek, very well organized and orchestrated 1 1/2 hour presentation with endless visuals, prepared statements, letters from attorneys and “expert” opinions, obviously cost a lot of money and took a lot of time to organize. While the KOWS team is totally dedicated to local public radio, our members volunteer tirelessly to keep the station up and running and bringing the best programmers on board. Our financial resources are limited and pale to those working against this project, which creates an uneven “playing field.”

As members of the city council, you have a lot to sort through. What IS the truth about the radio waves that will be emitted?

Issues around CEQA and property devaluation, is the tower a visual blight on the neighbors? How do you ensure a neighborhood that there would be no co-location of cell towers? What is the real value of an FCC approved Emergency Alert local community radio station to the community? Is it worth the wrath and potential litigation by a small group?

I support moving the antennae to Pleasant Hill so that KOWS can fulfill its mission of being the voice of West County providing opportunities to showcase and highlight the talented members of our community

Local community radio is a dying breed. I hope this is not true in our town and that in fact, Sebastopol gives KOWS new life with it’s sorely needed antennae with greater access for all.

I know that you have the best interests of our community at heart. Thank you for all that you do.

Roberta Teller, Sebastopol

[Shepherd]

My appreciations to the managing editor for Sonoma West Publishers for the following balanced column in this week's paper.
Shepherd



Newsroom Notebook

Go ahead, shoot the messenger

The first known death associated with a radio tower was when former Michigan Governor Kim Sigler flew a small plane into a tower in 1953, killing himself and three passengers.

No known deaths or disasters have occurred because a radio tower annoyed a neighbor.

Radio towers are safe. They are efficiently designed and engineered, and inspected regularly. Community radio stations are generally safe, too. They broadcast quirky music and community events that commercial stations ignore.

Often, a small station is like a small newspaper, digging deeper into local issues and telling us more about local personalities than we would hear on anything originating in a big city like Santa Rosa.

We think most small communities would be proud to have their own little radio station, especially one with a track record of being extra quirky, like KOWS, which features weekly music programs like “Soultree Sounds” and “Live from the Double-wide.”

Not Sebastopol. Or maybe Sebastopol. Which is it, anyway? Our newspaper is in the interesting position of being criticized no matter what we write about the efforts to locate a 65-foot antenna on city-owned land at the western edge of town.

A vocal group of antenna opponents is fighting the city’s initial approval of the antenna, and the anti-antenna crowd is fighting back.

What amuses us in the newsroom, is that the only thing everyone can agree on is to attack the messenger. SHARP Watch, the group that opposes the antenna, doesn’t like our news coverage, and the other half of the argument doesn’t like the fact that we took SHARP’s concerns seriously.

If we can paraphrase, you can enrage some of the people some of the time, but you can’t enrage all of the people all of the time – except on this topic.

We hope that a compromise can be reached, where those who live in and around Sebastopol can enjoy peace, quiet, serenity and a little dose of “Soultree Sounds.”

— Ray Holley is the managing editor for Sonoma West Publishers

[SRB]

I'm wondering. Has anyone suggested putting the antenna on the existing water towers? Combining the visuals, and requiring less digging? Just asking...

[hknoll]

There are many vineyards on Pleasant Hill Rd., where KOWS wants to place its antenna. They are chemical industrial vineyards who use Roundup and other killers. They place regimented metal stakes in the damaged soil to extract profit for a few, and kill bees and other life forms, creating a green desert. ...

I'm disturbed by the amount of conversation focused on pesticides in this debate. I fail to see what it has to do with the concerns of over 200 people regarding a tower being erected in a scenic rural neighborhood. Why is it considered acceptable behavior that a member (or members) of a community radio station personally attack two individuals out of such a large group on an unrelated topic because they have voiced concerns about an unprecedented addition to the neighborhood? I too am extremely concerned about having a tower in the beautiful hills of Sebastopol and the future implications of such an addition. I'm an organic farmer and work for a local nature-focused non-profit, and I'm sure you could find something that I am doing in my life that someone will not approve of. Should I expect to be attacked next because we don't agree on where a radio tower should be placed? KOWS - you should be better than this.

[Shepherd]

Vineyards and wineries, like the one going in at the corner of Pleasant Hill and Elphick, are industrial development. They are far worse than a single antenna that has the capacity to save lives by being the only West County-based local Emergency Response System to report on the fires that follow droughts, road closures, floods, etc.

Nine vineyards already exist on that short part of Pleasant Hill, with more to come, with apparently two more new houses that will block views. Chemical vineyards spray poisons that have been proven to cause cancer that reach nearby schools. Some of their fences reach dangerously within a few feet of the road and destroy habitat for wildlife. They kill bees that we food farmers need, but grape growers do not. They replace the beautiful redwoods and oaks with their rigid, regimented stakes into the ground. Vineyards are green deserts. They pollute my neighborhood with their ugly lack of diversity. It saddens me every day to have to pass by them and remember the good old days.

I'm disturbed by the amount of conversation focused on pesticides in this debate. I fail to see what it has to do with the concerns of over 200 people regarding a tower being erected in a scenic rural neighborhood. ...

[Shepherd]

Following is more evidence about the dangers of RoundUp, which the wine industry is the top user of in Sonoma County. This is from another Wacco thread that starts with the words "Scientists--Pesticides..." Now I need to get back into the field on my food farm, where we love bees, beneficial insects, and do not spray anything. I will soon be harvesting boysenberries. YUM! YUM!

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/...antos-roundup/

[Barry]

I'm disturbed by the amount of conversation focused on pesticides in this debate. I fail to see what it has to do with the concerns of over 200 people regarding a tower being erected in a scenic rural neighborhood. ...

I have to agree with hknoll. Whether or not the local farmers use pesticides has nothing to do with whether or not a KOWS antenna should be erected in the neighborhood.

[anatuesday]

I agree that the vineyards and their pesticides are a separate issue. What I'm seeing is some KOWS members trying to highlight what they see as selective outrage and hypocrisy over the "dangers" to health the antenna might present to their workers and children, while meanwhile those same workers and children are exposed to pesticides from the vineyards, sprayed by those same opponents would have to agree pesticides are irrefutable threats to health. Which is a valid observation in my opinion, but I agree. Shouldn't be a major part of the discussion. It brings the conversation down a level, approaching SHARP's low-level and desperate suggestion that KOWS members might try to "terrorize the water reservoirs" if they're given a permit and have access to the city-owned land.

I have to agree with hknoll. Whether or not the local farmers use pesticides has nothing to do with whether or not a KOWS antenna should be erected in the neighborhood.

[SebTownRaised]

Vineyards and wineries, like the one going in at the corner of Pleasant Hill and Elphick, are industrial development. They are far worse than a single antenna that has the capacity to save lives..

The argument that

"A major telecommunications tower is the lessor of two evils"

suggests that it is ok to punish many other community members because of the actions of one community member.

Is that what you're suggesting? That there is one person I don't like so; Punish them all!


Also, "the capacity to save lives" is not equal to either "saving lives" or "lives saved".
Any human or inanimate object has the "capacity to save lives" - give the proper circumstances.
But just saying, for example: "this medicine could save your life!" does not imply that everyone should immediately go out and start taking it, for it's use and it's "life saving ability" are completely circumstantial.
Otherwise, we'd have arguments like these:
"I might save your life one day! So vote for ME as president!"

We want what we want. And there is no shame in it.
Personally, I would LOVE a radio station in Sebastopol.
But I'm not going to vote for or accept that first thing that comes along just because I want it.

We can have a radio station in Sebastopol that comes into the town in a peaceful and respectful way.
We can have a radio station in Sebastopol that follows proper environmental laws to get here.
We can have a radio station in Sebastopol that everyone will be happy and overjoyed about!

So why are we allowing our standards to go so low?
Why do we find it acceptable to punish an entire neighborhood for our greedy pleasure - especially for something that isn't even a necessity? (Radio is a luxury, not anecessity)

We are SEBASTOPOL.
We should insist on having a radio station that is mindful, respectful, and that cares about the environment.
Otherwise - who would listen to it?

How excited are you to listen to a station who's news comes from people with arguments that mislead and misdirect, that are faulty, and that point the finger of blame and shame on topics unrelated?

I do want a radio station. I want a goodly radio station.
And I'm not in such a greedy hurry that I'm willing to debase myself and piss off an entire neighbor hood to get it.

Sincerely,
- Peter, "Kindly awaiting a good-neighbor radio station", van Gorder

[robert777]

The reason why the issue of pesticides came up is because they’re extensively used by the two individuals who are leading the battle against KOWS, claiming to be worried about the antenna's effect on the environment. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I'm disturbed by the amount of conversation focused on pesticides in this debate....

[hknoll]

The reason why the issue of pesticides came up is because they’re extensively used by the two individuals who are leading the battle against KOWS, claiming to be worried about the antenna's effect on the environment. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I am concerned about the environmental impact of this tower, and so are 220 other people. I drive a car, and I'm concerned about the environment. I'm clearly a hypocrite and so are most people. Do you think I should stop standing up for environmental issues, stop recycling, stop gardening because I am not a perfect person?

My point is that it's doing a disservice to the community to derail the actual focus of this conversation. I'd love to see us talk about this in a way that stays on topic if we really care about communicating with each other. Targeting and criticizing two people out of a large group, even if they are leading one side of the debate, is poor form and does not address the concerns of the rest of us. And it certainly doesn't make KOWS look very good.

[IgorGold]

I think it's fair to raise the environmental credentials of someone arguing a position based on a supposed concern with an environmental impact. And yes, if you're needlessly driving a combustion engine with no awareness of your carbon impact then if you're a GreenPeace supporter, I'd definitely point out where your own behavior might be contradicting your social stance.

[SebTownRaised]

I think it's fair to raise the environmental credentials of someone....

Even if this were a valid approach,
You're either forgetting, or intentionally omitting, the fact that 2 people don't make the entire community/neighborhood that is being effected.

You are arguing to punish an entire neighborhood/community, and the view of everyone who drives the scenic corridor, just so you can punish 2 people.

Even if this was sound logic, it seems barbaric, cruel, mean, ill spirited.... etc.


That aside;
Shall we all start comparing each of our "evildoings"? Shall we compare our energy usages or carbon footprints? Shall we start public punishment for the worst offenders? Do I need to look in your sock drawer to ensure that all your clothes were made of organic hemp - all grown and then hand sewn by workers living in Sebastopol? If you used more plastic or paper bags than I did last year, do we get to ignore everything you have to say? NO.

We should be striving to use REASON and LOGIC to make well formulated arguments - least we be reduced to barbarians flinging sticks and stones at each other and punishing entire groups of people because we don't like one person.

[IgorGold]

Sticks, Stones & Sock Drawers

I don't really know if there are vocal anti-antenna campaigners who are knowingly and regularly introducing hazardous insecticides into the environment that they share with their neighbors. I do know of one Sebastopol resident who was one time neighbor to a grape vineyard and swears that the onset of the symptoms of her neurological disorder and ultimate decline were precipitated by her being exposed to the intensive use of chemicals on the vines she lived next door to.

More info on hazards of pesticides in Sonoma here.

Does the proposed local radio antenna pose a comparable level of risk? Because if it does than this should be proven instead of distracting from the issue of whether or not Sebastopol can tolerate the erection of a public access antenna.

There's a fine balance between preserving the trappings and lifestyle of a rural idyll and disappearing into a sepia tinged nostalgia for an agrarian paradise only affordable to a minority.

There's a big difference between living the good life and insisting that everyone else live that same life.

Community radio gives voice to both cultural and economic diversity and the diversity of interests that co exist in the same environment. And nowhere does it encroach as much as the commercial developments that surround this environment. This very forum WaccoBB.net is evidence that local communities like to communicate locally.

What could be better than airing a debate between the main proponents for the antenna and it main opponents?

The debate could be aired at an appropriate time to attract live call ins and later archived on the station website for all to hear. Make use of what you have.

Even if this were a valid approach,...

[Shepherd]

Robert Feuer's "Free Speech Radio" Open Mic is now online and in the print edition of the Bohemian and follows. I am including the link, in case you might want to pass this information on to friends. Later this eve Sonoma West is likely to have letters to the editor.

https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/fr...nt?oid=2961700

Free Speech Radio--KOWS public radio needs your support, BY ROBERT FEUER

The communities of Sebastopol, Santa Rosa and surrounding areas need community radio. Community radio means a wide range of creative shows, produced by local volunteers, in the areas of music, art, spoken word and open-minded discussions of aging, healing, gardening, astrology, fitness, feminism, LGBT concerns—all commercial-free.

KOWS radio has been providing this for nine years. Its doors are always open for people to drop in and air their views, or for musicians to play on-air. Stay awhile and produce your own show. You will be trained. It doesn't take long. KOWS is free-speech radio, and other than FCC limitations on foul language, there's no censorship.

The problem for these nine years is that few people can hear KOWS on the radio (107.3-FM). The antenna is in a tree in the Occidental hills, with many geographical impediments to transmission. KOWS streams from its website (www.kows.fm), where anyone can tune in, or view the station's schedule and see what opportunities it offers. You can sign up as a volunteer there. But streaming has limitations, due to slow or no connectivity. Many can't afford it.

Currently, KOWS is seeking approval from the Sebastopol City Council for a new antenna on a hill above Sebastopol. It is small and not comparable to a cell phone tower. Emitted radiation, in the area, is about 1/2500th of FCC limitations, significantly less than the smartphone many people carry in their pockets. The antenna will be partially visible from fewer than 20 adjacent homes.

KOWS has won approval from the city planning commission for a use permit to build an antenna support structure at a utility facility owned by the city, but this decision has been appealed, and won't be finalized until a May 31 city council meeting at 6pm at the Sebastopol Community Center. Public support is invaluable. Please attend and express your interest in radio that will belong to you. Alternatively, you can send a message to [email protected]. Please stand up for the greater good, and the cultural needs of the community.

Robert Feuer is a KOWS volunteer broadcaster and a music writer.Open Mic is a weekly feature in the 'Bohemian.' We welcome your contribution. To have your topical essay of 350 words considered for publication, write[email protected].

[BeckyS]

My apologies if this has already been addressed...I know I'm coming in late here.
Just wondering if other sites were considered...could have saved all this contentiousness.

[robert777]

Other sites have been considered extensively. We did have other possibilities that fell through. This issue, which has been brought up many times, is much more complicated than people realize. For one thing, the FCC has many requirements for an antenna site, and we had to get their approval for this one. We have spent a lot of time and money on engineers who made studies as to what locations would get us the needed amount of coverage.
This process has taken at least three years. Locating another site would put us right back at the beginning. And, we would most definitely have problems with THOSE neighbors.

Robert Feuer

My apologies if this has already been addressed...I know I'm coming in late here.
Just wondering if other sites were considered...could have saved all this contentiousness.

[Dwight]

It is hard to understand how people in the area around the proposed tower are listening to KOWS on the air since so many of the post encourage to listen on the internet. For example I got a message yesterday from the Hospital foundation announcinfg a presentation that would be available on KOWS, but only read as follows:
"The BEST way to 'tune in' is to go to the KOWS website and click on 'listen' to hear 'live streaming' on your computer!"

[rossmen]

Maybe cause that's the only way to listen around sebtown. KOWS presently does not project much beyond occidental. Beyond that, sucks on old school radio, good on this. How many people do you want to listen?

It is hard to understand how people in the area around the proposed tower are listening to KOWS on the air since so many of the post encourage to listen on the internet....

[Barry]

Proposed KOWS antenna needs environmental review
Posted: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:39 pm
by Amie Windsor Sonoma West Staff Writer [email protected]

In the continuation of a public hearing on a rural neighborhood group’s request to overturn a Feb. 23 Sebastopol Planning Commission decision granting a use permit for the construction of an antenna tower at 1281 Pleasant Hill Road, the Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and order staff to prepare the scope of an environmental impact review.

The project is for KOWS Community Radio Station, which proposes to construct a 70-foot antenna tower on the city-owned parcel located in an unincorporated Sonoma County neighborhood on Pleasant Hill Road. The new antenna tower, according to Arnold Levine of KOWS, would allow the station to expand its listenership into Sebastopol.

However, Bob Jenkins, a homeowner in the Pleasant Hill Road neighborhood, and founder of Sebastopol Hills Alliance for Rural Preservation, or SHARP, appealed the planning commission’s decision, and began a campaign against the construction of the tower.

On May 3, the city council opened the public hearing for the appeal. SHARP spent 90 minutes, offering emotionally charged arguments and accusing the community radio station of consistently misleading the city council and the planning commission with incorrect or conflated facts.

“I see the value of having KOWS in the community,” Vice Mayor Una Glass said Tuesday. “But seeing the contention it has caused and the great deal of information presented to us, we need to pursue getting additional information to see what is pertinent and accurate for an appropriate decision.”

Councilmember Patrick Slayter said it was important to have all the information necessary before making the best possible decision.

“This community is well aware of the importance we place upon full analysis of issues. We like things to be studied,” Slayter said. “To make the best possible decisions at all times we need more information.”
Councilmember John Eder, who made the original motion, agreed.

“As policy makers it is incumbent on us to separate facts from emotions,” Eder said. “And a lot of what has been presented to us is emotionally-based. That’s why we need to go to a different, a higher level, of environmental review on this project.”

City staff will begin work on the environmental review, then return to the city council in July or August with the next steps.

A top concern that came out of the SHARP’s presentation on May 3 was the lack of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the project. City staff recommended the project, classified as a major telecommunications facility for its height, be exempt under Class 1 and Class 3 CEQA exemptions. A Class 1 exemption considers the structure to be built on an existing facility, therefore it does not require a CEQA review. Under a Class 3 exemption, the project is exempt because the structure is small enough to be exempt from a CEQA review.

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the fee for an EIR is $3,070. An additional county clerk processing fee of $50 is added for each CEQA document. KOWS is the responsible party for paying the fee of the EIR.

“I hope conducting this review wouldn’t be insurmountable and that the radio station would still have an opportunity here,” Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney said.

Emotions were still high Tuesday night at the Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Main Hall, where the meeting was relocated to house the large crowd in attendance. After the council’s decision, as the crowd was clearing, a man in support of KOWS radio station attacked a member of SHARP.

Attending Sebastopol Police officers intervened and separated the men, taking them both outside. The victim told police he was all right but wanted to submit a complaint.

[Barry]

Study scheduled for KOWS radio tower
Posted: Wednesday, July 6, 2016
by Amie Windsor Sonoma West Staff Writer [email protected]

City staff uncertain who will pay for costly environmental review

The contentious saga over a proposed radio tower continues. On Tuesday, July 5 the Sebastopol City Council directed staff to gather requests for proposals for a potentially costly environmental impact review (EIR).

The project entails KOWS Community Radio Station constructing a low power FM radio antenna standing at 65 feet high on a city-owned parcel on Pleasant Hill Road.

The project was initially approved by the Sebastopol Planning Commission, but that decision was successfully appealed by a Pleasant Hill neighborhood organization, SHARPWatch.

According to preliminary work conducted by Sebastopol Planning Director Kenyon Webster, who also serves as the city’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) liaison, the EIR needs to address potential aesthetic impacts, including any adverse effects of scenic vistas, substantial damage to scenic resources and substantial degradation of the existing visual character. Additionally the EIR needs to determine if the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment for plants and animals.

“City staff has prepared an initial checklist, with the idea that prospective consultants would review it to see what should be studied,” Webster said.

The checklist does not bind consultants, he added, and could potentially find and study the impact of additional CEQA issues.

Typically with EIRs, the applicant bears the cost of the studies. City attorney/manager Larry McLaughlin explained that, since the city would be the entity engaged in a contract with a consultant, the city is legally responsible for the costs. However, those costs could still be passed onto KOWS, the applicant.

“It would be appropriate to see the cost of the EIR and then the council would make the decision [of who would pay for the study],” McLaughlin said.

According to CEQA, the initial document filing fee for an EIR is $3,069.75. With the additional cost of the consultant, an EIR can range between $34,000 and $50,000 — a potentially daunting cost for the radio station that operates on donations and KOWS volunteer host fees, which are as low as $25 a year, according to the KOWS website.

“Ya know, we never imagined an EIR would be necessary,” said Laura Goldman, KOWS radio host. “It’s really a shame that somebody is going to have to pay for an EIR on something we worked so hard on to minimize impact.”

Requests for proposals are due back to the city by Aug. 8. City staff will research and interview candidates and make a recommendation to the city council at their Sept. 6 meeting. Once a consultant is chosen, they will have 75 days to develop a preliminary draft EIR. City staff will have two opportunities to make edits on that document before a draft EIR is released to the public. The public comment period on the draft EIR will last 45 days. After the comment period is over, the consultant is required to respond to all substantive comments and create a final EIR.

“It could take about six months,” Webster said, adding that the timeline could be shored up, depending on the work pace of the consultant. “This is a quality document and we don’t want to rush it.”

[Barry]

This will most likely be appealed to the City Council to be considered in as soon as November 1st.



https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...20aa58d91.html

Appeal against KOWS tower denied

Posted: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:21 am
by Amie Windsor Sonoma West Staff Writer [email protected]

In a 3-2 vote Tuesday night, the Sebastopol Planning Commission upheld administrative approval for the proposed construction of a low power 35-foot radio tower to be located on a city-owned island on Pleasant Hill Road.

The proposal comes from KOWS Community Radio Station and is a compromised alternative to the station’s previous two attempts to construct a tower on the site. Those attempts asked for approval of use permit applications for a 70-foot, then a 65-foot tower to help the radio station reach downtown Sebastopol more effectively.

Both use permit applications were appealed by a Pleasant Hill Road neighborhood group called SHARP, whose mission is to “protect the scenic hills adjacent to Sebastopol from industrial blight and health related hazards caused by telecommunication towers and other industrial structures.”

Despite SHARP’s concerns about potential collocation of additional towers, visual blight and electric magnetic field (EMF) health hazards and its allegations that the city’s planning director, Kenyon Webster was “stretching credibility” and “shoehorning” Sebastopol zoning code and General Plan policies, the planning commission found the administrative approval to be acceptable and accurate.

Continues here

[SebTownRaised]

For all those who have shown interest in this topic, there is now a related, but different topic over here:

Illegal-Trenching-Destroys-Trees

Watch a video and see the entire 300 foot illegal and un-permitted trench here:
https://youtu.be/ZfqH9s78O_8

If you don't have time to check out the other thread, I'll summarize it for you:

With NO Permit: KOWS Trench 300 ft, Displace 1800 cubic feet of Soil, and Cause Permanent Tree Damage.