HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.08.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ ABSOLUTE FORMAL OPPOSITION & NOTICE OF STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE_ USE PERMIT UP25-0002 _ PROJ-25-0006.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Krater,
Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Ritter, Tami; Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Daneluk, Paula; Cannon, Jamie
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: ABSOLUTE FORMAL OPPOSITION & NOTICE OF STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE:
USE PERMIT UP25-0002 / PROJ-25-0006 (77 Weger Drive, APN: 072-190-038) – EXHAUSTIVE EVIDENTIARY
RECORD SUBMISSION
Date:Wednesday, April 8, 2026 2:45:36 PM
Attachments:CEQA Opposition Submission – 77 Weger Drive Cell Tower Project (APN 061‑340‑018) – Executed April 8 2026 (2).pdf
Please see Board Correspondence Below.
From: Kimberlee Mau <kimee1017@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 12:35 PM
To: Hickel, Rowland <rhickel@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Michelena, Mark
<mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov>; DSPlanning <DSPlanning@buttecounty.ca.gov>; PCClerk
<PCClerk@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
centralvalleysacramento@waterboards.ca.gov
Cc: Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.ca.gov>; County Counsel
<CountyCounsel@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Pickett,
Andy <APickett@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Tyler, Wendy <wtyler@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
R2Info@wildlife.ca.gov; btu.pfe@fire.ca.gov; jacob.gilliam@fire.ca.gov; garrett.sjoland@fire.ca.gov;
patricia.purvis@fire.ca.gov; Palade, Matthew <Matthew.Palade@fire.ca.gov>; Walker, Thad
<thad@bcrcd.org>; konkauasscorp@gmail.com
Subject: ABSOLUTE FORMAL OPPOSITION & NOTICE OF STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE: USE
PERMIT UP25-0002 / PROJ-25-0006 (77 Weger Drive, APN: 072-190-038) – EXHAUSTIVE
EVIDENTIARY RECORD SUBMISSION
Dear Recipients,
Please find attached the comprehensive opposition submission executed April 8, 2026, for inclusion in the
administrative record pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15082, 15085, and 15087.
This document constitutes the complete and final version of the opposition statement, including the Verification of
Service and all required citations. No additional attachments accompany this submission.
The referenced Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is available through the County’s CEQA
public record.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Kimberlee
To the Butte County Development Services Department, County Counsel, and the Planning Commission:
I am a resident and property owner at 191 Weger Drive, Oroville, CA 95966 (APN: 072-190-026). This serves as my
formal, exhaustive objection to Use Permit (UP25-0002) and Project ID (PROJ-25-0006) located at 77 Weger Drive
(APN: 072-190-038).
This document is submitted into the official administrative record to exhaust all remedies. This serves as formal
notice to the County’s legal and financial departments that the 68-page Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) are factually deficient and legally "voidable" under current California and Federal statutes:
I. CRITICAL HABITAT & BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT VIOLATIONS
The IS incorrectly concludes "Less Than Significant Impact" regarding Biological Resources (IS/MND Section 1.4,
Page 23): The project site sits within the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Final Critical Habitat. I
demand an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address:
● The "Meadowfoam" Seasonal Failure: The project site is documented Final Critical Habitat for the Butte
County Meadowfoam. The County’s survey was conducted in January/February (IS/MND Environmental
Reference Materials, Page 25), outside the mandatory blooming window (March–May). By conducting the
survey in January, the County is relying on a "finding of absence" during a dormant period, which fails to
meet the evidentiary standard for an MND.
● Violation of State Law: This violates state environmental regulations (CEQA/CESA). Issuing a permit based
on inadequate data violates CEQA’s requirement for full disclosure on environmental impacts. As the
trustee agency, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recommends that projects not be
approved until impacts are properly evaluated, which includes spring surveys.
● Biodiversity Hotspot: This site sits within a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. The IS fails to account
for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp & Riparian Species, California Red-legged Frog and Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle documented in this ecosystem (pp. 30-31).
● Native Oak Ecosystem: Trimming and trenching within the root zones of native Blue Oaks and Valley Oaks
constitutes a significant environmental effect on these protected trees (IS/MND Page 30).
● Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA): The 100-foot artificial tree tower acts as an artificial
lure/perch for nesting Swainson’s Hawks and Bald Eagles. The County has failed to conduct a site-specific
"Take" analysis (IS Section 1.4, Page 23), creating federal liability for the County should a protected species
be harmed. This creates a risk under the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) that the
current MND has ignored.
II. EXTREME WILDFIRE RISK & EVACUATION OBSTRUCTION (DEAD END ROAD)
The site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (IS/MND Page 12, 21). The "No Impact" finding (IS Section 1.20,
Page 21) is a direct violation of:
● CFC § 503.2.1 (Access Violation): The record confirms a "12-foot-wide gravel driveway within a 15-foot
access easement" (IS Page 1, 15). California Fire Code mandates a minimum 20-foot unobstructed width.
The County's own record proves the project cannot meet mandatory fire safety laws.
● Critical Life-Safety and Obstruction of a Sole Evacuation Route: Weger Drive is a narrow, private, dead-end
road (12–16 feet wide). As a resident at the dead-end, I have only one way out. Introducing a 100-foot tower
and diesel generator at this "choke point" obstructs the only evacuation route for my family and others past
the site. (IS Page 1, 3).
● The Hazard: The report fails to provide a Traffic & Emergency Access Study. Trenching for 290 feet of
electrical service (p. 1) and construction at the "throat" of this dead-end will physically obstruct the only
evacuation route.
● The Conflict: This violates General Plan Policy HS-P1.1, which requires maintaining adequate emergency
access. Any obstruction of this sole route constitutes a significant, unmitigated impact.
● The Ignored Fall-Zone Risk: The County has not accounted for the 105-foot tower fall-zone. If the tower
collapses during a wind-driven wildfire it could possibly sever the only evacuation route for residents at 115
Weger Drive and 191 Weger Drive.
● Structural Liability: I demand a certified Wind Load Analysis. A collapse of this structure would completely
sever our only access to emergency services
● The "Fuel Ladder" (Synthetic Monopine): The proposed synthetic branches collect dry debris (IS/MND
Project Description, Page 5) and act as a vertical fuel ladder directly adjacent to our only escape route in a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (IS/MND Page 12, 21). Without proof of ASTM E84 Class A
Flame-Spread Ratings, this structure becomes an ignition source that could trap the residents at the end of
the road (115 and 191 Weger Drive). In a wildfire, these branches melt and act as a fuel source at the
"throat" of our only evacuation route.
● Back-up Power Liability: The 30kW diesel generator with a 128-gallon fuel tank is an unmonitored ignition
source. The IS fails to include an NFPA-compliant spark arrestor certification or a fire-suppression plan.
Without a project-specific Fire Safety & Maintenance Plan, this structure acts as a 100-foot vertical fuel
ladder directly adjacent to our only escape route.
● General Plan Policy HS-P1.1: This policy forbids development that reduces emergency evacuation
effectiveness (Ref: General Plan 2030, Page 82). Obstructing Weger Drive (a one-way-in, one-way-out road)
with a 100-foot tower fall-zone is a life-safety violation
III. MEASURABLE DIMINUTION OF PROPERTY VALUE
The installation of industrial telecommunications infrastructure in a residential, rural setting is fundamentally
incompatible with our land use. Real estate impact studies consistently show that “cell tower blight”—including
towering height, industrial fencing, and nighttime lighting —can decrease surrounding residential property values by
as much as 20% to 30%. For those of us on the private road, our homes are our primary investments; the county
should not approve a project that effectively strips equity from its citizens for the benefit of a private corporation.
IV. LOCAL IMPACT AND PRIVATE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE LIABILITY
Our private dirt road is maintained solely by the residents. The construction phase alone involves heavy-duty
machinery, concrete trucks and cranes (IS Page 1) that the road was never engineered to support. My neighbors and I
should not be held financially responsible for repairing road damage caused by a commercial entity’s heavy
equipment.
● Structural Damage: The weight of these vehicles will cause accelerated degradation, cracking and failure of
the road surface
● Ongoing Maintenance: Post construction, the carrier will require 24/7 access for service vehicles and fuel
trucks for backup generators.
● Liability: My neighbors and I should not be held financially responsible for repairing road damage caused
by a commercial entity’s heavy equipment, nor should we be forced to bear the increased maintenance costs
that continuous commercial access will necessitate.
V. CEQA PROCEDURAL VOID & TRIBAL NON-COMPLIANCE
● AB 52 Consultation Failure: Under Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, the County must complete
consultation with the Mooretown Rancheria before releasing an MND. Page 17 confirms the Tribe requested
consultation and identified the site as "proximal to a culturally sensitive area." The violation is that as of
March 2026, the County moved forward with the MND despite the lack of a formal "Statement of
Completion" of the consultation. Proceeding with the project before the consultation is legally concluded is
a direct violation of Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1. The IS fails to provide a formal Statement of
Completion from the Mooretown Rancheria. Moving forward without a "Statement of Completion" is a direct
violation of state law.
● Tribal Sensitivity: The Mooretown Rancheria identified this as a culturally sensitive area. The 290 feet of
trenching (p. 1) through high-sensitivity soils requires a full Cultural Resources Management Plan, not just a
"stop-work" agreement (IS Mitigation Measure TCR-1, Page 17, 26). Proceeding without a formal
"Statement of Completion" makes this MND legally invalid.
● The "Blue Line" Omission: The IS/MND Section 1.10 claims "No Impact" to water courses (Page 1).
However, the report later admits that National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data show a documented blue-lined
stream corridor on the eastern portion of the site (Page 30). The USGS and National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) data show a documented Blue Line Stream corridor on the eastern portion of APN: 072-190-038.
Under CEQA, failing to address a documented water corridor requires the County to move to a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
VI. FAILURE TO MEET ZONING & LOCAL ORDINANCES
● BCC § 24-176 (B): Telecommunications facilities are explicitly "discouraged" in residential zones. The
project is in an FR-10 zone (Page 4). The County has failed to demand an Alternative Site Analysis proving
the applicant exhausted non-residential options. The County is legally mandated to discourage towers in
residential zones. The IS/MND contains no Alternative Site Analysis proving they exhausted non-residential
options first. Under Section 24-176 (B), this section belongs to Article IV, Division 2 (Telecommunication
Facilities) of the Butte County Code in regards to the community’s needs with aesthetic and safety concerns.
● Burden of Proof: The applicant has not provided a "Least Intrusive Means" report. There are non-residential
land parcels that would provide coverage without violating the FR-10 zoning and 10-acre minimum standard.
● Co-location Negligence: The Butte County Telecommunications Ordinance requires exhaustive proof that
co-location on existing towers is impossible. This record fails to show a good-faith effort to utilize existing
infrastructure.
● BCC § 26-86 (Noise Deficiency): The 30kW generator noise level is estimated at 49 dBA (Page 10), leaving
a margin of only 1 dBA before violating the 50 dBA nighttime limit for non-urban zones (BCC Table 1.13-2,
Page 8). The 30kW generator layout lacks the required sound-reduction enclosure to meet this standard.
The record lacks a certified Sound Mitigation Plan.
● BCC § 24-181 (Stealth Standards and Financial Security): Under County Code § 24‑181, I request that the
County require a Performance Bond equal to at least 150% of the full decommissioning and removal cost of
the proposed monopine wireless facility. This ensures that taxpayers are not left financially responsible for
an abandoned or non‑operational structure. Because the proposed monopine relies on extensive synthetic
materials that degrade over time and require specialized disposal, I request that the bond amount explicitly
cover the full cost of removing all artificial components. These materials present unique long‑term
maintenance and disposal challenges that exceed those of a standard monopole. The proposed monopine
constitutes a visual anomaly that is incompatible with the rural character and scenic qualities identified in
the County’s planning documents. Its artificial appearance and scale conflict with the established aesthetic
of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, my homeowners’ insurance policy classifies RF radiation (a
form of EMF) emissions as “pollutants” and excludes related damages. For this reason, I request
documentation of the applicant’s liability insurance demonstrating coverage for wildfire risk and for
third‑party claims related to RF emissions, without exclusions. This information is necessary to ensure that
residents are not exposed to uninsured risks.
● RF Radiation Liability and Regulatory Exposure: As of January 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have formally revoked prior safety
conclusions regarding RF radiation. This action eliminates the federal “safe harbor” previously relied upon by
municipalities and triggers a statutory obligation of renewed inquiry under CEQA. The County’s reliance on
outdated federal standards from 1996 constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates CEQA’s mandate to
use the “best available current science.” RF radiation (a form of EMF) is now the subject of an active federal
investigation into neurological and carcinogenic risks, including child vulnerability and body-contact
exposure. My homeowners’ insurance policy classifies RF emissions as “pollutants” and excludes coverage
for related damages. Therefore, I demand documentation of the applicant’s liability insurance demonstrating
explicit coverage for wildfire risk and third-party claims related to RF radiation, without exclusions. Failure to
secure such coverage exposes the County and its residents to uninsured liabilities stemming from this
facility’s emissions.
VII. 2026 FEDERAL POLICY SHIFT & RF LIABILITY
● Regulatory notice: As of January 2026 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) update
regarding Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation (Reference 8, Page 25), previous safety conclusions from the
FDA/CDC have been revoked. Under CEQA, the County must use the "best available current science." Relying
on 20-year-old federal standards in 2026 constitutes an "abuse of discretion" and introduces significant
municipal liability.
● Status Change: On January 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and (FDA)
officially announced a new comprehensive study to investigate the link between electromagnetic radiation
and adverse health outcomes, including neurological damage and cancer.
● Revocation of Past Findings: In conjunction with this study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
removed previous "settled" conclusions from its website that had formerly stated the weight of scientific
evidence found no link between RF energy and health problems.
● Legal Implication for Local Agencies: This shift from "settled conclusions" to "statutory obligations of
renewed inquiry" means the federal "safe harbor" often cited by municipalities has been significantly
weakened. Under CEQA, lead agencies are now required to acknowledge this lack of federal consensus to
avoid an "abuse of discretion".
● New 2026 Federal Health Policy and "Inadequate Evidence”: As of January 2026, the U.S. Depar tment of
Health and Human Services (HHS) has officially initiated a study to identify "gaps in current science"
regarding EMR, EMF and RF radiation emissions to ensure safety and efficacy, specifically noting that old
safety conclusions have been officially removed from the FDA and CDC websites. Under CEQA, a lead
agency cannot rely on "outdated or non-existent" federal evidence. Since the HHS has officially re-opened
the safety question as of 2026, the County can no longer claim that "no evidence of harm exists" to dismiss
public health concerns. Current HHS initiatives specifically highlight the lack of testing for body-contact
positions and the vulnerability of children. The County must delay the approval of this project until the 2026
HHS study provides updated safety parameters.
CONCLUSION: This document provides the County with formal notice of the specific legal, environmental, and safety
non-compliance issues inherent in this project. We urge the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit UP25-0002 on
April 23, 2026.
Respectfully,
Kimberlee Williams
191 Weger Drive, Oroville, CA 95966
Property APN: 072-190-026
(510/385-0891)
“For transparency and record integrity, the following Verification of Service confirms all parties served
under CEQA notice requirements.”
VERIFICATION OF SERVICE
I, (Kimberlee Williams), hereby certify that on April 8, 2026, I served the foregoing Absolute Formal
Opposition & Notice of Statutory Non-Compliance regarding UP25-0002 / PROJ-25-0006 to the
following parties via electronic mail (Email):
1. Butte County Planning Division & Clerk (dsplanning@buttecounty.net, rhickel@buttecounty.net,
PCClerk@buttecounty.net, mmichelena@buttecounty.net)
2. Butte County Board of Supervisors & Clerk (clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net,
bconnelly@buttecounty.net, wtyler@buttecounty.net)
3. Butte County Administration & Counsel (apickett@buttecounty.net,
countycounsel@buttecounty.net, bstephens@buttecounty.net)
4. CAL FIRE / Butte County Fire (btu.pfe@fire.ca.gov, jacob.gilliam@fire.ca.gov,
matthew.palade@fire.ca.gov, patricia.purvis@fire.ca.gov, garrett.sjoland@fire.ca.gov)
5. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Trustee Agency) (R2Info@wildlife.ca.gov)
6. Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (centralvalleysacramento@waterboards.ca.gov)
7. Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians (frontdesk@mooretown.org, receptionist@mooretown.org,
mhatcher@mooretown.org, jmcintosh@mooretown.org)
8. Mechoopda Indian Tribe & Enterprise Rancheria (mit@mechoopda-nsn.gov,
info@enterpriserancheria.org)
9. Konkau Association Corporation (konkauasscorp@gmail.com)
10. Tribal -Adjacent Stakeholders (thad@bcrcd.org)
11. Berry Creek Rancheria Tribal Chair (tribalchair@bcr-nsn.gov, TribalCouncil@bcr‑nsn.gov)
“This Verification of Service is executed for inclusion in the administrative record pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15082, 15085, and 15087.”
“Executed this 8th day of April, 2026, for inclusion in the administrative record pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §§15082, 15085, and 15087.”
Signed: Kimberlee Williams Date: April 8, 2026