Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cell Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge Nevada County to pause 180‑foot cell tower application, raise CEQA, safety and tribal consultation concerns
Summary
Multiple residents near the Courchero Lane site urged the Board to pause review of PLN25-0071 (a proposed 180-foot T‑Mobile tower), citing new information they say was not disclosed in the application, possible impacts to evacuation routes, potential buried slash pit at the site, and requests for tribal and scenic-resource re-notification under CEQA.
Several residents spoke during public comment Dec. 16 to object to a proposed 180‑foot telecommunications tower (PLN25‑0071) on Courchero Lane, urging the Board of Supervisors to direct planning staff to re-evaluate the application in light of newly discovered information.
Ayla Coats, who said she lives within 200 feet of the property and operates a small private school nearby, asked the county to pause the conditional use permit process and reexamine environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that changes in facts can trigger a requirement to supplement or reopen analysis. Coats said her family and students depend on a single narrow road for evacuation and expressed concern about obstruction of that route for emergency repair or tower failure.
Other neighbors raised distinct but related concerns: Bob Thorpe urged confirmation that notices to local tribes (AB 52/tribal consultation) were received and asked the county to allow meaningful tribal engagement because the site lies along Highway 20 adjacent to a historically recognized indigenous travel corridor and an eligible scenic route. Cheryl Borad said a previously undisclosed buried slash pit at the site could create geotechnical instability and increase wildfire risk; Nancy Baker said the elderly landowner may not have fully understood lease terms, and neighbors asked the county to evaluate feasible alternative sites already identified in planning documents.
Speakers repeatedly invoked CEQA requirements for supplementation when new information emerges (geotechnical, cultural resources, access and easement limitations, and reasonably foreseeable secondary impacts such as road widening). Several speakers said the requested tower would primarily benefit pass‑through traffic on Highway 20, not residents, and that the project should be moved to less intrusive sites.
County staff did not commit to pausing review during public comment. Supervisors thanked residents for raising issues; no action to halt the planning review was recorded on the consent calendar that day.
The transcript shows multiple specific technical and procedural concerns raised by residents that county planning staff will need to address in any continuing review: tribal acknowledgment, scenic‑byway analysis, geotechnical investigation (buried fill/slash pit), emergency access and easement constraints, and consideration of feasible alternatives under CEQA.
