Pilots, neighbors press planning commission to deny proposed Verizon tower near Richville airport

The Butte County Planning Commission on March 26 heard hours of public comment and technical testimony over a proposed Verizon monopole cell tower (use permit UP25-0002), with pilots and nearby residents urging the commission to deny the application because the proposed site lies in the traffic pattern of the local Veil/Richville airstrip.

Mark Machalena of the county’s Development Services department said the item had been continued from a September 2025 hearing and that staff had asked the applicant to evaluate alternative sites. The applicant submitted 11 alternative parcels; staff said most property owners did not respond and one owner with existing improvements would not reach an agreement. "That was included in your packet today," Machalena told the commission.

Applicant counsel Patton Hahn (Baker Donaldson) and consultant Bill Lewis (Assurance Development) said Verizon is seeking to close an indoor and outdoor coverage gap. Hahn noted the applicant obtained a Federal Aviation Administration "notice of no hazard" for the proposed height and said the company offered FAA striping and lighting voluntarily to address visibility concerns. "We believe that we meet all the requirements of your ordinance," Hahn said.

Pilots, maintenance operators and neighbors countered that FAA clearance does not reflect the low-altitude, agricultural flight operations at Veil. Alex Compton, whose family operates the airstrip, described repeated low-altitude turns and helicopter long-line work at 60–100 feet and told commissioners that adding a 100-foot-plus tower in the standard traffic pattern could create a hazard for pilots. "When you're flying, there's a lot going on in the cockpit and trying to add one more obstacle ... could be a potential hazard," Compton said.

Other speakers who live across the street or nearby said notice materials contained incorrect location details and that some residents learned about the project only shortly before earlier hearings. Resident Eileen Vook said mailed notices listed an incorrect property description and that the agenda described the site as 3,000 feet east of Richville when the actual location is farther; she asked whether the county or landowner would receive monetary benefit. Pilot Chris Cafaro, who manages an aircraft maintenance shop, said he had not seen planning information disseminated to local airport managers and asked for clearer outreach.

County Counsel Roger Wilson reminded the commission that the county code does not generally require applicants to search for alternatives for this tower type and summarized five findings required for a conditional use permit — including compatibility of operating characteristics with adjacent land uses and protection of public health and safety. "It is definitely not a ground to deny the project" solely because alternatives were not pursued, Wilson said, but he urged commissioners to rely on the five findings when making a decision.

After extended public comment and discussion, commissioners said the operational characteristics of the proposed tower are incompatible with surrounding uses because the site sits within the established flight pattern and serves intensive ag aviation operations. A commissioner moved an "intent to deny" the permit for those reasons; the motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor of directing staff to draft denial findings. Staff said the matter will be continued for formal action on April 23.

Action and next steps: the commission recorded an intent-to-deny motion and continued the item to the April 23 meeting so staff can prepare written findings and a resolution. No final denial (a formal resolution) was made on March 26.