On the agenda: Minden Planning Commission-Supplemental - Oct 13, 2026 — colocation (Oct 12)

10/13/26 PC Meeting
Supplemental Material
Cover Sheet
Cover Sheet Index

Page 1

Meeting Sign-In Sheet

Page 2

Material provided during or after the meeting

Pages 3-18

• Items published to Agenda Center after conclusion of meeting
• Items in order of appearance on published agenda
Material provided to the BoCC by the public before the meeting

Pages 19-38

• Items published to Agenda Center before meeting time
Material provided to the BoCC by staff before the meeting
• Items published to Agenda Center before meeting time

Page 39

Supporting Material
Board: PC
Meeting Date: 10/13/26
Item: 1 and 2

Ordinance 2026-1673
&
Ordinance 2026-1674
Planning Commissioners
October 13, 2026

What is Affordable Housing?
•

Affordable Housing is defined as a dwelling where the
occupant pays 30 percent or less of their gross
monthly income for total housing costs, including
utilities according to the U.S. Department of Housing
& Urban Development (HUD).

*

In addition, the Area Median Income (AMI) is defined
as the midpoint of a specific geographic area's income
distribution, where half of the households earn more
than the median and half earn less. Douglas County
utilizes HUD’s published AMI for Douglas County.

Households by the Numbers

Maximum Annual Rent (30% Cap): Annual Income Limit x 30%
Maximum Monthly Rent: MMR ÷ 12 months/year

$71,400 x 30% = $21,420yr.

$21,420yr ÷ 12mo/yr = $1,785 mo.

Douglas County Master Plan
Affordable/Workforce Housing

Ordinance 2026-1673
• Revised 20.664.125 Multi-family Housing (mixed-use component)
• Exemption to the 25% commercial total project floor area
requirement when providing affordable housing units per
20.440

Ordinance 2026-1674
• Revised Chapter 20.440, adding definitions applicable to the
Chapter, revising the conditions that apply to density bonus and
affordable housing agreements, and modifying the findings
required for approval of such agreements;
• Amended Chapter 20.560.050, revising definitions to create
consistency with Chapter 20.440.

Gardnerville Ranchos

Jacks Vally/Indian Hills

Housing Costs 2020 vs June 2026

Questions

Supplemental information and/or public comment received
after posting supplemental on October 9th through 4pm on
October 12th.

Planning Commission
October 13, 2026

Posted 10/12/26

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

[email protected]
Planning Department
Please say NO to the Minden Cell Tower on highway 88
Monday, October 12, 2026 9:52:04 AM

CAUTION: This email is from outside the organization. Only open links or attachments if you trust the sender.

Dear Planning Board Members,
Paul Bruno
Maureen Casey
Daniel M. St. John
Laurie Lile
DOUBT: A feeling of uncertainty, a lack of conviction, or a reluctance to believe
something…distrust, suspicion, hesitation…
Please do the right thing for the people, children and our community…
We believe Verizon’s premise is shaky, incomplete and fundamentally uncertain and
it warrants a closer look at the information that has been provided to Minden from
Verizon concerning these cell towers. Again Minden for Safe Tech hired and paid for
a second opinion from one of the top lawyers Scott McCullough in the US, handling
cell tower infrastructure, relocation and education with the existing rules and
regulations concerning the FCC. We hired Kent Chamberlin PhD RF Engineer to
map Minden for its current signal strength to compare with what Verizon was
reporting, and after completing the mapping of Minden he found that Verizon’s
outcome about the SIGINIFICANT GAP IN SERVICE was not clear or present in
Minden the way that Verizon reported it. Please see Kent and Scotts report that was
hand delivered to your department last week. Kent also provided multiple sites for
Verizon to place a cell tower that would work efficiently and be in areas that do not
encroach upon our schools and neighborhoods, along with colocation and adding to
AT&T cell towers already in town improving service for Verizon. Verizon has denied
any sites that were presented to them stating they would not work. I am sorry we find
this hard to believe! Verizon is after intranet and gaming which Scott McCough
reported multiple times on record to the Douglas County Board members. They
require another tower to push this agenda which is not a requirement of the FCC.
The FCC only states that communities must have adequate cell service not
exceptional service at all! Please note the difference here, and it is also presented in
Scotts report that was delivered last week to the planning commission. The two
reports are stapled together.
A curious question? Why does the insurance industry recognize wireless radiation
as a leading risk and has placed exclusions in their policies not covering damages
caused by the pathological properties of EMF radiation? Think about this, we find this
to be very questionable and alarming.

Environmental Exposure risk and leakage into the Carson River:

This particular area is to environmentally sensitive on Highway 88 next to Carson
River.

*HAZARDOUS MEANS INVOLVING GREAT AND CONTINUOUS RISK, DANGER, OR THE
POTENTIAL TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY, OR LOSS TO HEALTH , SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
NEPA and NHIPA Compliance: Under the National Policy Act (NEPA) and Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Tower builders must check if a
new structure harms sensitive habitats, floodplains, endangered species, migratory
birds or historic and cultural properties. The Rand property (where Verizon is
requesting the100 foot cell tower) sits in a flood plain, migratory Eagles and other
migratory bird pathways, next to the Historic Dangberg Ranch and will expose the
Carson River to hazardous waste as hazardous material could drain or leak into the
river. Cell tower sites equipped with emergency backup power and maintenance gear
contain several hazardous material and petroleum products that require strict
regulatory tracking as stated below.
Diesel Fuel Tanks: Aboveground petroleum storage tanks are used to run
emergency backup generators, sometimes holding 180 gallons or more of fuel. Leaks
can cause soil and groundwater contamination, fire risks, and explosions.
Lead-acid batteries: Large stationary battery banks provide critical backup power
during outages. They contain corrosive acid and toxic lead, posing chemical burn and
environmental exposure burn and environmental exposure hazards if cracked or
burned.
Lithium-ion Batteries: Newer high-density backup power systems can present
thermal runaway risks, intensive fire hazards, and toxic smoke release.
Herbicides and Pesticides: chemicals are frequently sprayed around equipment
compounds and cell tower bases for weed and vegetation control.
Coolants and Solvents: Specialized electronic cooling fluids and maintenance
chemicals are used on site for climate control and equipment upkeep.
PLEASE NOTE: January 5th 2026 , VERIZON HAS TO PAY >> 7.7 million to resolve
a statewide civil enforcement action alleging widespread violations of hundreds of cell
tower sites. “Backup power equipment at wireless cell sites, including petroleum
storage tanks and battery systems, was at the center of a 7.7 million dollar California
enforcement action against Verizon Wireless for hazardous material reporting,
permitting, and compliance violations at hundreds of locations according to multiple
district attorneys offices involved in the case.    https://share.google/CN5kIjWmJTTgv3JYf  
(or see copy below ) This is alarming to say the least next to the Carson River. These violations
should concern everyone who thinks that highway 88 near the Carson River is a suitable site
for this tower. Also will Verizon monitor and take care of the hazardous materials at that site?
Their tract record says NO. AGAIN, FEELING DOUBTFUL…

SIGNIFICANT GAP IN CELL SIGNAL IN MINDEN:
Verizon continues to state that Minden has a significant gap in service and this is false. Our
RF Engineer Kent Chamberlain proved them wrong with his mapping of Minden cell signal. If
you alone look at Verizon’s map of Minden signal strength they list it as -85, -95 and -105 if
you look up Cell signal meanings it is stated here. All cell service signal is listed as a negative
before the number. Please also see Kents report on Minden and its cell mapping report and
outcomes.
-30 to -50 cell signal is considered EXTREMELY STRONG/ EXCELLENT service
-50 to -70 cell signal is considered a STRONG SIGNAL/VERY GOOD
-70 TO -85 cell signal is considered GOOD/FAIR good for clear call, rarely dropped adequate
for most task
-85 to -100 Spotty performance, calls could drop
Minden has -85 and -95 and -105 in different areas according to Verizon. I am sorry this
proves spotty service and NOT A SIGNICANT GAP IN MINDENS SERVICE AREA ! Look at the
map they have provided. The areas in Johnson lane that were included in this will now be
obsolete information as Verizon has just began placing their 80 foot tower in Johnson lane.
With the addition of this new tower in Minden this will improve everything with the signal
strength in Minden.  
*THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR A 100 FOOT CELL TOWER ON HIGHWAY 88 looming over our
homes, high school and swim center. Looking ghastly in appearance and environmentally a
hazard to the Carson River and surrounding area.   Please read Kent Chamberlin’s report that
was hand delivered to the planning board, a printed copy for each member last week. This
report was paid for by the community with our dollars! THIS IS ABSOLUTLY OVERKILL on
Verizon’s part to push their intranet and gaming which is NOT the objective here only
ADEQUATE CELL SERVICE for the community! Kent found that Meridian parkway out

near Airport in the industrial area would be perfect for a additional tower but
Verizon said NO. This site was away from homes and schools and the location
would serve our cell service well.
*Kent Chamberlin’s report strongly proves that we do not have a significant
gap in service as Verizon’s states!
Scott McCoullough proves that Verizon is misleading the Board thinking there
objective is improving cell service in Minden but they are trying to set Minden
up for intranet and gaming which is deceptive in their presentation that Scott
McCullough points out beautify on record to the County Board Members.
DOUBTS and UNCERTAINTY…

PROPERTIES THAT DECLINED A CELL TOWER ON THEIR LAND:
The high school
LDS church near the high school (Manager stated he did not want to expose their
parishioners) and LDS churches do not allow towers on their sites across the United States we
were told.
Minden Sanitation district, they adamantly did not want a cell tower on their site.
Bently Miller parkway and Bently Stockyard road (due to the fact Mr. Bently may sell his
proprieties and stated that a cell tower is controversial and may inhibit a sale) per a local real
estate agent who spoke with Mr. Bently and shared this information with us.   

*Well we the people decline the Verizon cell towers near our homes
and schools and sensitive areas!
HEALTH CONCERNS AND STUDIES: 11,000 pages of studies showing
harm from RF radiation were turned into the Court of Appeals
concerning health EXPOSURES living close cell towers and RF
radiation exposure when the FCC was sued back in 2021. The FCC was
sued for not providing an updated safety study to the Court of
Appeals 9th district, showing that RF radiation is safe for people and
or especially children. This year the FCC was summons back to court
to produce safety studies and again no studies were produced. So
many studies to read from other sources and countries…quick examples
below. A lack of confidence > DOUBTS ?
*An observational study conducted in Netanya, Israel (Wolf et al., published in
2004) with follow-ups in 2008 examined cancer rates around a mobile phone
transmitter station showed a 4 times greater cancer risk for individuals living
about 1148 feet from the cell towers.
*The Naila Study 2004 in Germany reported people living within 1312 feet from
a cell tower had 3 times more cancer rates compared to those living further
away from cell towers.
*International Agency for Research on Cancer in the US, classified EMF
radiation a Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) exposure.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT VOTE ON HEALTH ISSUES BUT TO

REALLY UNDERSTAND THE DANGERS IS IMPORTANT FOR DECISION MAKING!
Please let us feel safe in our homes…
Thank-you for your consideration in this matter,
Susan and Greg Roaldson
775 721-4425
Article below and this article will be delivered to you tomorrow at your
meeting.
CALIFORNIA SUES VERIZON FOR ENVIRONTALMENTAL HAZARDS AND NON
COMPLIENCE (and we should trust Verizon to safely consider our environmentally
sensitive area next to the Carson River and Dangberg Ranch?) see the article below
from the state of California BELOW THAT I COPIED AND PASTED HERE FOR
YOU. A copy of this article will be delivered to your meeting tomorrow at 1pm.
ARTICLE AS FOLLOWS :
Verizon to pay 7.7 million to settle California environmental violations at hundreds of
cell tower sites. (See article on the above provided web site)
Verizon Wireless will pay $7.7 million to resolve a statewide civil enforcement action
alleging widespread violations of California environmental laws governing hazardous
materials at hundreds of the company’s wireless cell tower sites, according to multiple
district attorneys’ offices involved in the case.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson announced the settlement,
stating that violations dating back to January 2019 revealed systemic failures in
hazardous materials reporting, employee training, and regulatory access at Verizonowned facilities across Southern California.
“Verizon’s failure to comply with laws that govern hazardous materials created
avoidable risks,” Anderson said. “The investigation found consistent gaps in required
reporting, employee training, and inspection access across hundreds of facilities. This
judgment ensures accountability while strengthening transparency for first responders
at thousands of cell towers and requires that Verizon maintain compliance going
forward.”
The case centers on Verizon’s storage and use of lead-acid batteries and petroleum
products, including aboveground petroleum storage tanks used to power emergency
generators and backup systems at cell sites. California law requires companies
storing hazardous materials above certain thresholds to submit accurate Hazardous
Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) to the California Environmental Reporting System,
maintain copies onsite, train employees, allow inspections, and pay permit fees
supporting local oversight.

According to the complaint, Verizon repeatedly failed to submit complete and
accurate hazardous materials plans, failed to maintain required documentation at
tower locations, failed to provide adequate employee training for hazardous material
releases, denied inspectors access at multiple sites, and failed to pay required permit
fees.
While prosecutors said there was no evidence of environmental harm, they
emphasized that the violations undermined public safety by limiting the ability of first
responders and environmental regulators to access critical information during
emergencies.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said the settlement
reinforces that even the largest corporations must comply with environmental
regulations.
“Companies that store hazardous materials have a legal obligation to protect the
public, first responders, and the environment,” Hochman said. “This settlement
underscores that even the largest corporations must follow California’s environmental
laws, and when they don’t, they will be held accountable.”
The investigation was led by the District Attorney’s Offices of Orange County and San
Bernardino County, along with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and involved
district attorneys from Los Angeles, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura counties.
The case was filed in Orange County Superior Court and resolved under a stipulated
final judgment signed by Judge Richard Y. Lee. Deputy District Attorney Stephanie
Weissman prosecuted the case for San Bernardino County, while Deputy District
Attorney Daniel Wright of Los Angeles County’s Environmental Crimes Division also
played a key role.
Under the settlement, Verizon will pay:
·         $7,125,000 in civil penalties

·         $375,000 in Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
·         $200,000 in investigative costs

San Bernardino County will receive more than $1.1 million in penalties and costs, with
funds allocated to both the District Attorney’s Office and the San Bernardino County
Fire Protection District’s Hazardous Materials Division. The Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s Office will receive more than $800,000, primarily to support the
prosecution of environmental crime cases.
Prosecutors said Verizon was brought into compliance only after investigative
agencies approached the company regarding the violations. Following the notification,
Verizon cooperated with authorities, paid outstanding permit fees, corrected
deficiencies, and implemented policies and procedures designed to ensure future
compliance.
Verizon Wireless, operated by Cellco Partnership, is the largest provider of mobile

telephone services in the United States and owns and operates thousands of cell
sites across California.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Jay Kapler
Planning Department
Episode Verizon wireless cell tower!
Saturday, October 10, 2026 4:15:41 PM

CAUTION: This email is from outside the organization. Only open links or attachments if you trust the sender.

Live at 1664 Mackland Ave, Minden, NV 89423 and against installing cell tower as shown on
map..DO NOT WANT IN OUR AREA.
My husband has cancer, this will change and add to his existing condition.
Jeanene Kapler, Minden

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Elisabeth Lernhardt
Planning Department
Glamping Resort
Friday, October 9, 2026 4:00:57 PM

CAUTION: This email is from outside the organization. Only open links or attachments if you trust the sender.

Please place the following Public Comment in the
Agenda.
Planning Commission Meeting 10.13.2026

Honorable Chair, Committee Members,

As you prepare to hear the Talaz Glamping project
again, I respectfully request that the meeting be held at
the Tahoe Douglas District. Many residents are unable to
attend in person in the Valley due to work conflicts or
health issues, yet they are eager to share their views on
this development. Alternatively, I ask that you allow
Zoom comments so that more community members can
participate. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely
Elisabeth Lernhardt

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Linda Sandstrom
Linda Doherty
FW: 100" Cell Tower Design
Monday, October 12, 2026 3:43:00 PM

So sorry. Didn’t see the l in your Email
_____________________________________________
From: Linda Sandstrom
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: 100' Cell Tower Design

_____________________________________________
From: Linda Sandstrom
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2026 1:21 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: 100' Cell Tower Design

October 12, 2026 @ 12:55 PM
I deeply urge a strong denial of Major Design Review DP26-0042 for a 100’ cell tower
in the heart of the beautiful town of Minden. Didn’t we residents just go through this
property grab for a tower near County Road some time ago? Thankfully, it was turned
down (and for the right reasons), for which we were relieved and grateful.
I regret that I cannot be in opposition in person for tomorrow’s meeting since I am
scheduled for a medical procedure at 8:45 AM that morning. This “plan” was found in
my USPS mailbox about 30 minutes ago from this writing.
Again, I am asking for a denial of the above application.

With sincerity,
Linda Sandstrom
1622 Olua Street       

Minden 89423
ADD: Please confirm that you have received this Email before the 4:00 PM deadline.

Supplemental information and/or public comment received
after posting the agenda.

Planning Commission
October 13, 2026

Posted 10/9/26

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Hope Sullivan
Planning Department
Wendy Lang; Mark Gardner; Sharla Hales; Nathan Tolbert; Daniel Tarkanian
public comment for Planning Commission
Sunday, October 4, 2026 2:15:40 PM

Please provide this public comment to the Planning Commission for review at its October 13,
2026 meeting. This public comment is related to the proposed repeal and replacement of Title
20 as published on the website for the September 23, 2026 public meeting.
Definitions
Campground: Given what is occurring in Tahoe around "Glamping," I suggest further
description related to permanent v. temporary structures - perhaps a maximum cumulative size
of the permanent buildings so that it accommodates bathrooms and showers, without
becoming a hotel or something other than what is typically considered as a campground. As
written, it can be a hotel. (modify campground in Article 8 to limit permanent buildings.)
Cluster Development: What is "open space" in this definition?
Open and Subsurface Mining: Does the inclusion of "milling and processing" mean that an
asphalt plant would be considered part of the use of an aggregate mine? If yes, I suggest that
be reconsidered as the impacts of an asphalt plant are different than an aggregate mine.
Common Open Space: It seems like this is areas that are owned in common as opposed to a
land use. For example, is a community clubhouse "common open space"? I suggest the
removal of the term "water" as if an area is permanently water, it is a pond as opposed to open
space.
Natural Area: It seems like this is the definition of open space. You can have natural areas
that are not designated as open space.
Open Space: This definition is too broad. As defined, a baseball field is open space.
Open space is far too important to this community to have such a broad definition. I
suggest the definition be limited to natural areas or areas that have an identified
conservation or scenic value making it worthy of protection.  
The following information was not contained in the September draft that was online:
RA5, Section 3.06, page 78
Land Use Table, Section 3.24, page 114
Cluster Subdivision Overlay
4.08A: Could the purpose include the preservation of natural features including
environmentally sensitive lands?
Open or Subsurface Mining
Per "h," the use may operate 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM, Monday - Saturday. I suggest changing
this to 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM Monday - Friday unless alternative hours are authorized as part of
the Special Use Permit approval. I also suggest including lighting standards (dark sky
compatible) and na oise limitation (not to exceed 55 dB at the closest receiver at any time).

Temporary Batch Plant
I suggest identifying what temporary means. Operations limited to 60 days? Otherwise, I
think it is permanent.
Noise
I suggest the measurement of noise be changed to decibels. CNE can be interpreted to mean
CNEL, which can be skewed as it takes in a 24 hour period. It is easier to measure a decibel
than calculate the CNEL.
Again - I would like to review the RA5 and land use tables - but I don't know how to find the
most current versions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hope Sullivan
East Valley

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Bob Gorrindo
Linda Doherty; Planning Department
Please build the tower
Wednesday, October 7, 2026 7:52:22 PM

Department members
We live on Labarantcha Road where our communications are severely hindered by the
absence of the necessary tower.
We live fearing being unaware of or unable to respond to dangerous or health issues.
Currently, per literature search, there are 6 local verizon towers serving Minden (ZIP
89423).Opposition to the tower centers around health issues. Is Douglas County Government
aware of these currently active towers causing health issues in our community?
IF NOT, please allow us to live a more comfortable and fearless life and build the tower.
Bob Gorrindo
775-720-1748
[email protected]

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Edna Mross
Planning Department
Cell Tower in Minden
Wednesday, October 7, 2026 7:53:42 PM

I have been a Minden resident for 47 years. I live at 1713 Westwood Drive and am totally affected by our
inadequate cell service. As a senior citizen, living alone, I fear that my cell service will not help me in any
emergency. Our community has many aging seniors who depend on getting help when we need it most. There are
times when my cell service is so poor, that I have to walk outside my house to get any cell service. Many of my
phonecalls are paused or dropped in the middle of a conversation. We live in a world where we are now required to
use cell service for life….banking, medical services, emergency services. We need consistant and dependable
service. I am writing in total support of the proposed 100 foot cell tower, associated antennas, support equipment,
and an emergency backup generator.
Edna Mross
775 781-8783
[email protected]

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

[email protected]
Planning Department
Cell tower video from Sharyl Attkisson (Investigative Journalist)
Thursday, October 8, 2026 3:16:31 PM

https://youtu.be/We8fIff28gk?si=cv5LIXzNjJy5Bvh9
Douglas County Planning Commissioners,
Please view this 7 minute video on cell towers being placed to close to homes and
neighborhoods. It is a 3 part episode and the cell towers comes on first lasting about
7 minutes. This is up to date information as of 2026. Please understand we want
distance from these cell towers. We have lived in Mackland for 36 years and would
like to stay in our home! We ask that the decision regarding this tower will
accommodate all our safety in the swim center, High school, Westwood and
Mackland neighborhoods and especially our children! A standard macro cell tower of
100 feet tall can transmit signals up to 25 miles in a rural areas. The stronger RF
waves hit up to 1-3 miles. We do not want to live under the umbrella of the radiation
exposure 24/7 each and every day and our sleeping hours.   
Thank-you,
Greg and Susan Roaldson
775-721-4425

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Barbara Talia
Planning Department
Linda Doherty
Public Comment – DP26-0042
Thursday, October 8, 2026 11:44:50 AM

CAUTION: This email is from outside the organization. Only open links or attachments if you trust the sender.

Dear Douglas County Planning Commission,
I am writing regarding the proposed 100-foot Verizon cell tower along State Route 88, south
of the Carson Valley Swim Center (Application DP26-0042).
First, I want to make it clear that I fully support the need for improved cellular service in our
community. Reliable communication is essential, particularly during emergencies, and I
recognize the importance of this infrastructure.
However, I have serious concerns about the proposed location, particularly its proximity to an
established, densely populated residential neighborhood. I respectfully ask the Planning
Commission to consider alternative locations farther south along Highway 88, where there are
large areas of open fields and significantly fewer homes.
One of my primary concerns is the visual impact. The beautiful, unobstructed mountain views
are one of the defining characteristics of Carson Valley and a big part of what makes this area
so special. A 100-foot telecommunications tower in the proposed location would substantially
intrude on the natural landscape, affecting the views enjoyed by nearby residents.
Moving the tower farther south into a less populated area could potentially reduce its impact
on residential neighborhoods, help preserve our mountain views, and address concerns about
placing telecommunications infrastructure so close to people's homes.
I also have concerns about the proximity of the proposed tower to residential properties from a
health and safety perspective. I would appreciate more information regarding radiofrequency
exposure, applicable federal safety standards, and how compliance with those standards will
be demonstrated and maintained.
I understand that telecommunications infrastructure is necessary, and I am not asking that this
project be abandoned. Rather, I believe it is reasonable to explore whether the same cellular
coverage could be achieved in a location that would have less impact on the surrounding
community.
Before approving the proposed site, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to consider
the following:
Alternative locations: Has the applicant thoroughly evaluated the open fields farther
south along Highway 88? If so, why were those locations determined to be unsuitable?
Visual impact: Can the applicant provide realistic visual simulations showing how the
proposed tower would affect mountain views from nearby homes and public roads?

Tower design and placement: Could a different location, reduced height, or alternative
design minimize the visual impact while still providing the necessary cellular coverage?
Health and safety: Can the applicant provide documentation demonstrating compliance
with applicable federal radiofrequency exposure standards?
I believe we can support improved telecommunications infrastructure while also being
thoughtful about preserving the natural beauty, residential character, and quality of life that
make Carson Valley such a wonderful place to live.
My concern is not whether our community needs better cellular service, but whether the
proposed location is the most appropriate choice when less densely populated alternatives may
be available nearby.
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission seriously consider these alternative
locations and, if necessary, continue the application until these questions have been adequately
addressed.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Barbara Pavez Berger
Concerned Carson Valley Resident

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1594 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden, Nevada 89423

Tom Dallaire, P.E.
DIRECTOR

775-782-6201
FAX: 775-782-6297
website: www.douglascountynv.gov

Building Division
Engineering Division
Planning Division
Code Enforcement

MEMORANDUM

RE: Planning Commission Meeting, October 13, 2026
County staff will be requesting a continuance for item #3, Ordinance 20261676 (New Title 20 Format) to the November 10, 2026, Planning Commission
Meeting.
During the data transfer into the new Title 20 formatting system, staff
encountered minor formatting and conversion issues that affected a few tables
and cross-references. To ensure the final document is completely accurate,
thorough, and ready for public review, staff will be requesting continuance on
this item.
If you have any questions, please call or email me at (775) 782-6212 or
[email protected].
Sincerely,

Kate Moroles-O’Neil
Economic Vitality Manger & Principal Planner