The project, proposed by New Towers LLC to improve Verizon wireless coverage in the area, included a 100‑foot monopole topped with a lightning rod, along with 12 panel antennas, a microwave dish and remote radio units. Designed by Freepik

 

RICHVALE, CA (MPG) - The Butte County Planning Commission on March 26 denied a conditional use permit for a proposed Verizon cell tower east of Richvale, concluding the project posed safety risks to low‑flying agricultural aircraft.

The project, proposed by New Towers LLC to improve Verizon wireless coverage in the area, included a 100‑foot monopole topped with a lightning rod, along with 12 panel antennas, a microwave dish and remote radio units. The facility was designed to address a documented gap in Verizon’s service, with space for other carriers to co‑locate equipment. Ground equipment would have included two radio cabinets, a utility service installation and a backup diesel generator within a 50‑by‑50‑foot fenced lease area.

The denial followed testimony from pilots, airport operators and nearby residents who said the tower’s location would interfere with routine agricultural aviation operations.

Alex Compton, whose family has operated the Richvale‑area airstrip for decades, described frequent low‑altitude flights and heavy seasonal traffic.

“You’re usually low and heavy,” Compton said, explaining that aircraft often operate well below 100 feet while turning over fields. “Trying to add one more obstacle to avoid could be a potential hazard.”

Compton said multiple aircraft, along with helicopters used for utility work and training, operate from the site, with dozens of takeoffs and landings per day during peak seasons.

Paul Book, a pilot who has flown out of the airport for more than two decades and said he has had close calls with cell towers in the past, said the location has been problematic from the start.

“There’s got to be a better place or not at all,” Book said. “We’re overlooking the airport.”

Eileen Book, who lives near the proposed site, said aircraft regularly pass over the area during takeoff and turns.

“They turn directly over the site,” she said. “As the wife of a pilot, I’m very concerned about that.”

The project returned to the commission after a September hearing, when commissioners asked the applicant to explore other locations. Of the 11 property owners contacted, only one responded, but no agreement was reached.

Rayburn McDonald, who lives across from the proposed location, questioned whether alternative sites were fully pursued and raised concerns about safety and public notice.

“I request this project be disapproved for safety reasons,” McDonald said.

Additional concerns raised during the hearing included potential impacts to nearby property values, noise from the generator and health‑related questions associated with the facility. Residents also questioned the tower’s visibility in an open agricultural landscape and its proximity to homes and active flight paths.

The applicant maintained the site was necessary to address a coverage gap and said no feasible alternatives exist within the required search area.

While planning staff recommended approval, finding the project consistent with zoning and general plan policies supporting expanded telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas, commissioners determined the project conflicted with established airport operations and increased safety risks to pilots.

The Planning Commission is expected to return April 19 to adopt a formal resolution outlining the findings supporting the denial.