Residents oppose 100‑foot cell tower near Truckee River; developer says it is evaluating lower heights

Dozens of residents urged the Ward 2 Neighborhood Advisory Board on Dec. 10 to recommend against a proposed 100‑foot wireless tower along the Truckee River corridor, saying it would dominate riverfront views and harm nearby property values.

The developer’s representative, James McNichol of BNT Group, said he represents SBA (a tower developer) and that the company is working with staff and its carrier to explore lower heights and design changes. "Staff at every point has made it very, very clear that they have concerns about the height," McNichol said, adding the carrier and SBA are "making an effort" to find a design that addresses community concerns.

Why it matters: the site lies in a river corridor where residents and several speakers said the Reno master plan calls for river‑oriented, low‑rise development. Speakers repeatedly urged a 55‑foot limit for the site, arguing anything taller would become a skyline‑dominating feature that is incompatible with the Truckee River corridor and recent public investments in riverfront beautification.

Neighbors described a range of objections. "Once the tower goes above 55 feet, it breaks the skyline and becomes a visual standout feature of that area," said Wesley Deblad, a River Park resident. Leslie Morgan said a tall monopole could ‘‘destroy the look, the feel, the views’’ and cited concerns about property values and long‑term community character. Several residents also criticized photo simulations shown by the developer as distorted and said they want ground‑level or mock‑up views from neighborhood vantage points before staff approves any permit.

Developer and technical arguments: McNichol said the proposal responds to "capacity" — not just coverage — and that new 5G traffic requires more infill sites as phones transmit at far lower power than older handsets. He said the proposed monopole would be a shielded design with antennas behind covers, that FCC limits would be met for emissions, and that the nearest residence zoning was roughly 530 feet from the site. "We are making an effort" on height and design, he said.

Process and next steps: staff told the board the applicant submitted requested materials and that the planning review clock depends on when the application is declared complete. Staff referenced an earlier decision date of Dec. 24 but said an issuance timeline runs 30 days from completeness; an abandonment item was noted as scheduled for city council in late January. The NAB’s role is advisory: staff confirmed that reviews and any building permits follow the city’s planning and appeals process.

What residents asked for: community members requested more realistic photo simulations or in‑place mock‑ups, clearer carrier disclosure (one developer slide referenced Verizon), door‑to‑door outreach to homes near the site, and reconsideration of alternative sites that would be less visible from riverfront homes and trails.

No formal vote on the tower was taken by the NAB at the Dec. 10 meeting; the developer was asked to bring additional materials to staff and the public record ahead of the planning review. The council hearing for abandonment was scheduled by staff for late January; the permit clock will run from the date planning deems the submittal complete.