The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 - Electronic CommentMACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1100 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 TELEPHONE 415/ 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415/ 288-4010 September 14, 2026 VIA EMAIL Chair Bill Connelly Supervisors Peter Durfee, Tami Ritter, Tod Kimmelshue, and Doug Teeter Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re: Verizon Wireless and Everest Infrastructure Partners Deemed-Approved Application UP25-0003 Threat of Litigation Telecommunications Facility, Flag Creek Road Board of Supervisors Agenda September 22, 2026 Dear Chair Connelly and Supervisors: On behalf of Everest Infrastructure Partners (“Everest”), we inform you that Butte County (the “County”) has violated state and federal laws by delaying a final decision on the above- referenced wireless telecommunications facility siting application for a 165-foot-tall wireless tower (the “Application”). Everest deemed the application approved pursuant to state law on April 8, 2026, and the County did not seek judicial review within the 30-day statute of limitations period. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65964.1(a)(3)(A), (B). The Application is now deemed approved as a matter of law. Id. Everest has been trying to improve wireless service in Butte County through the Application for well over a year and a half. It worked with the County to reduce the height of the tower from 165 feet to 100 feet to minimize aesthetic impacts, resulting in the Planning Commission approving the Application. Everest would like to continue that cooperative relationship with the County. However, given that the federal time period for the County to take final action on the Application passed over five months ago, if the County does not affirm the April 23, 2026, Planning Commission approval of a 100-foot-tall wireless tower at the September 22, 2026, Board of Supervisors hearing, Everest will be obligated to enforce its deemed approval remedy for the 165-foot-tall wireless tower contemplated in the Application. I. Background On June 30, 2025, Everest filed the Application with the County for a new 165-foot wireless telecommunications facility on Flag Creek Road. Federal law and Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations required the County to take final action on the Application within a 150-day “Shot Clock” period. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii); 47 CFR § 1.6003(c)(1)(iv). As Butte County Board of Supervisors September 14, 2026 Page 2 of 3 detailed in our April 8, 2026, deemed approval notice, the Shot Clock expired on March 31, 2026. The County did not challenge the deemed approved notice by seeking judicial review within the 30- day statute of limitations period provided by Section 65964.1(a)(3)(B). Following the April 8, 2026, deemed approval notice, the Planning Commission nonetheless held a hearing on April 23, 2026, and approved an alternative 100-foot facility proposal. That decision was appealed and suspended pursuant to Butte County Code of Ordinances Section 24- 267(E). In the meantime, the statute of limitations for the County to challenge the April 8, 2026, deemed approval notice expired on May 8, 2026. On July 14, 2026, Everest informed the County that its statute of limitations period to challenge the deemed approval had expired. In that letter, Everest stated that: If the Board denies the appeal and approves the 100-foot facility approved by the Planning Commission or determines that the appeal hearing is unnecessary, Applicants would proceed to file a building permit application for a 100-foot facility. However, if the Board grants the appeal and denies the 100-foot facility, Applicants would exercise their rights under Government Code Section 64964.1 to proceed with the deemed- approved 165-foot facility. The Board of Supervisors heard the appeal on July 28, 2026. Rather than take final action, the Board continued the appeal hearing to August 25, 2026, and then again to September 22, 2026. The County has now continued the Application three times over the last 7 months without final resolution, well after the expiration of the Shot Clock. II. The Application Is Deemed Approved by Operation of Law. California Government Code Section 65964.1 provides that a wireless telecommunications facility siting application “shall be deemed approved” if three conditions are met: (1) the local government fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable period of time established by applicable FCC rules; (2) the applicant has provided all public notices that applicant is required to provide; and (3) the applicant has provided notice to the local government that the reasonable time period has lapsed. Cal. Gov. Code § 65964.1. All three conditions are satisfied here, as detailed in our April 8, 2026, deemed approval notice. At the August 25, 2026, Board of Supervisors hearing, the County challenged Everest’s calculation of the Shot Clock for the first time. It claimed that the April 8, 2026, deemed approval notice was premature and therefore ineffective. The County should have raised any dispute regarding the Shot Clock calculation with Everest prior to the expiration of the 30-day judicial review window or sought judicial review. Cal. Gov. Code § 65964.1(a)(3)(B). It did not do so. The County cannot now raise alternative Shot Clock calculations months after its statutory deadline. III. Opportunity For Compromise Everest would like to work with the County to improve wireless service and avoid litigation. To that end, we request that the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Butte County Board of Supervisors September 14, 2026 Page 3 of 3 Commission’s April 23, 2026, approval of a 100-foot-tall wireless tower. If the County fails to do so, Everest will have no choice but to enforce its rights under California Government Code Section 65964.1 for a 165-foot wireless telecommunications facility in compliance with the architectural plans dated June 12, 2025. Everest remains willing to discuss a reasonable resolution. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Bradley Stephens, Esq. Roger Wilson, Esq. Mark Michelena .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:Paul Albritton To:Connelly, Bill; Durfee, Peter; Ritter, Tami; Kimmelshue, Tod; Teeter, Doug Cc:Stephens, Brad J.; Wilson, Roger; Michelena, Mark; Clerk of the Board Subject:Everest: Threatened Litigation, Deemed-Approved Application UP25-0003, Flag Creek Road – Board of Supervisors Agenda September 22, 2026 [Elsey] Date:Monday, September 14, 2026 2:59:28 PM Attachments:Everest Letter 09.14.26.pdf Dear Chair Connelly and Supervisors: Attached please find our letter prepared on behalf of our client regarding the above captioned deemed-approved application for a 165-foot wireless facility in the Elsey area. The Board of Supervisors appeal hearing for an alternative 100-foot facility approved by the Planning Commission is scheduled for September 22, 2026. The letter threatens litigation in the event the Board fails to affirm the Planning Commission approval of the Application with a reduced tower height of 100 feet. Everest dramatically reduced the height to address community aesthetic concerns, and this compromise was approved by the Planning Commission. The basis for the threatened litigation is that Everest submitted a deemed approval notice to the County and the County failed to respond within the statute of limitations under California Government Code Section 65964.1. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding the attached letter. Thank you. Paul Albritton Mackenzie & Albritton LLP 155 Sansome Street, Suite 620 San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 288-4000 pa@mallp.com .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:floodbroscattle@netscape.net To:Clerk of the Board Subject:MOVE CELL TOWER BULLET POINTS (9/21/26) Date:Monday, September 21, 2026 8:17:14 PM MOVE CELL TOWER BULLET POINTS (9/21/26) >We have cancer on both sides of our family. Our son’s oncologist told him that he must not be around a cell tower due to the radiation. He is hypersensitive to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and it presents a disability for him to be this close to a cell tower. 2021 research and international studies show higher cancer mortality near towers. >Our residence is 435 feet (had it measured) from this proposal (not a neighborly thing to do). Research recommend cell towers no closer than 1500 feet from any residence. >The U.S. government stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the1990’s. The FCC refuses to update its 1996 wireless radiation limits. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on false assumptions that do not adequately protect the general public from short- term or long-term RFR exposures. The US lacks federal regulations governing cell towers. >The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now. The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide. >This tower will have a substantial negative aesthetic impact on every neighbor. >Cell towers lower real property values and create fire risks. >Cell towers will be replaced someday with total satellite communication. >Cell tower radiation is an environmental pollutant. .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:Kim Armstrong To:Clerk of the Board Cc:Hannah Espinosa; Cynthia Perrine Subject:RE: Agenda Item 5.1 Date:Monday, September 21, 2026 3:28:51 PM Attachments:image.png image.png image.png image.png BOS Letter_Communication Tower.pdf Good Afternoon, Please see attached letter addressing item 5.1 on the Board of Supervisor's meeting agenda for September 22, 2026, titled Public Hearing - Appeal of Verizon Wireless & Everest Infrastructure Partners Telecommunication Facility Conditional Use Permit (UP25-0003). We will be in attendance. Best, Kim Armstrong Stewardship Manager Northern California Regional Land Trust Office: (530)894-7738 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 Country Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Verizon Wireless & Everest Infrastructure Partners Telecommunication Facility Conditional Use Permit (UP25-0003) Dear Butte County Board of Supervisors, Northern California Regional Land Trust is providing information regarding three Northern California Regional Land Trust conservation easements on three Butte County properties located near “Wicks Corner” at the intersection of Highways 70 and 149, Berkeley Olive Grove, Tozier Ranch, and Oroville Planning Unit, for the purpose of consideration of potential adverse impacts to recorded conservation values intended to be preserved by establishing the subject easements. A conservation easement is a legally binding agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently restricts development and subdivision to protect its natural, agricultural, or scenic resources, per the terms of the easement. The State of California funded the purchase of subject conservation easements, with each property’s conservation value being recorded for permanent protection. NCRLT works with each landowner to annually monitor conserved properties to ensure compliance with the terms of perpetual protections. The statements below are copied from the recorded conservation easements for the properties in proximity to the proposed telecommunications project. Berkeley Olive Grove From the Conservation Easement “The conservation purpose of this Easement is …. the preservation of the open space character and scenic habitat, natural, and historic values of the Property…” P . O . B O X 9 2 8 9 , C H I C O , C A 9 5 9 2 7 | 5 3 0 . 8 9 4 . 7 7 3 8 | W W W . L A N D C O N S E R V A T I O N . O R G Tozier Ranch From the Conservation Easement “The Tozier Ranch possesses natural, ecological, wildlife habitat, rangeland, agricultural, forestland, riparian, and open-space values of great importance to Grantor, Grantee, the people of Butte County, and the people of the State of California.” “California Civil Code Section 815 states in relevant part that the Legislature finds and declares that the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open-space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California.” Oroville Planning Unit From the Conservation Easement “The Purpose of the Conservation Easement for the Property is to protect the Beneficial Public Values of the Property, as summarized below…The scenic viewshed of the Property in keeping with the surrounding environment, providing a contiguous forested or open grassland landscape visible to passerby on the nearby roads and highways…” “The Legislature of the State of California, as set forth in California Civil Code 815 et seq., has found and declared it to be the public policy and in the public interest of this state to encourage the preservation of land in its predominantly natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open-space condition,…” Sincerely, Cynthia Graves Perrine Cynthia Graves Perrine Executive Director, Northern California Regional Land Trust