Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner McKillop, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yes. Join me in Pledge of Allegiance to the greatest flag in the world.

We now go to the opening public comment section of our agenda. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction, supervision, or control. The Planning Commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational, and I can't think of any other adjectives, or amounts to a personal attack or interfering with the rights of others, the individual will be asked to stop speaking. In addition to the opening public comment, public comment will also be taken on the hearing agenda items that are identified for possible action, and finally for closing public comment. If you plan on speaking on a specific agenda item that is on the public hearing agenda and identified for possible action, then please provide your public comment when that agenda item is heard. This is so We avoid repetition because sometimes the more you hear it, the more you start to ignore it. If it's the same thing, please bring it up at the time that that agenda item is heard. At this time, public comment will be taken on items that are within the jurisdiction and control of the Planning Commission. Additional public comment periods, once again, may be allowed on individual agenda items, and I have just indicated and forecast to you that I will so allow them to combine two or more agenda items for consideration. Excuse me. It's requested that members of the public comment on those agenda items when they are considered. Colleen, do we have anyone on Zoom that has raised their hand for public comment?

Thank you, Chairman. The only person we have joining us that isn't part of staff is Chris with Tahoe Douglas Fire. But I have asked if anyone wants to make a comment, to please raise their hand. And nobody has.

Very good. Thank you, Colleen. Of those present, would someone like to make an opening public comment? If you do, please step up to the podium, write your name, Articulate clearly your name to the Planning Commission and you will have three minutes. By the way, that's brilliant to write your name first and then introduce yourself so your three minutes don't start until you talk.

Rachel Christiansen, I ask you reconsider the proposed changes of Title 20 on recreational vehicles and flood zones because they unfairly target residents who live in those flood zone prone areas. For many families, a trailer is not a luxury or convenience, an essential part of recovering after a flood. We still have residents in our county who are living in trailers because they've not been able to fully recover from the September 2025 flood. That reality shows that the recovery often takes much longer than expected. The proposed 180-day limit does not reflect how disasters actually happen. Residents cannot control when a flood will occur, and they certainly cannot plan for it to happen only when they have days remaining under a 180-day allowance. Floods do not follow calendars or county regulations. Families should not be penalized because the nature doesn't fit within an arbitrary timeline. Instead of creating regulations that make the disaster recovery more difficult, the county should be providing flexibility for property owners who are trying to rebuild their homes and lives after a flood. I'm also concerned about the inconsistency in how these rules are being applied. The county currently allows camping on fairground property where there have been concerns about waste disposal. While those occupants are not paying property taxes or the same fees or fines that the homeowners would have to pay, the county also is seeking to acquire BLM property near the fairgrounds, where there have been ongoing concerns about camping, campfires near homes, and illegal dumping. If that property becomes county owned, will those activities continue to be allowed? Will there be the same restriction fees and enforcement that provide property owners face? Private property owners who pay taxes should not be held to a stricter standard than people camping on publicly owned land. That is not equitable and that is difficult to understand why the burden is being placed on residents who are simply trying to recover from natural disasters. I urge you to revise those and think about how those affect those in particular. Because it's addressed to just those in the flood zones. It should be equitable across the board in the county to everybody. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Does anyone else have an opening public comment? Seeing no one, I'd like to move to the next agenda item, which is the approval of the agenda. The Planning Commission reserves its right to take items in a different order or to combine two or more agenda items for consideration and to remove items from an agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. However, as chair, I think that we will go through in the order that it has been published of our three items today with no changes. Do I have a motion to approve? Mr.

Chair, I move approval of the agenda.

Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor? Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes. Is there any discussion with regard to the May 12 meeting of the Planning Commission? Be mindful, of course, that I will not have any comments on this proceeding since I was absent.

Mind you of that. You stay out of it. I move approval of the minutes.

It's been moved. Is there a second? There is a second. Moved and seconded to approve the minutes. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And one abstention. That would be the chair. We're now going to commence our public hearings. Item number one is for possible action, a discussion on a special use permit application 2026 DPSUP0003 requesting to paint a mural on the exterior walls of the new Douglas County Community Arts Center. The project is located at 1760 North Highway 395 in the MUC, which is Mixed Use Commercial. zoning district in the town of Minden, Nevada. The applicant is Brooke 80, director, Douglas County Community Services, and the owner is Douglas County. The APN is 1320-30-211-093. Kate, I believe you are our planning lead. However, who's going to speak first?

Yes, thank you Chairman Bruno, Kate Morales-O'Neill for the record. We do have Brooke Ady with us today, the Director of Community Services. Staff is recommending approval of this special use permit based on the presentation, the staff report, and the ability to meet the findings. This is still currently a requirement in code. I know Brooke will be bringing forward the new changes to Title 20 regarding murals and art, how we approach it in the future. But we didn't want to hold up this project, so currently it does require a special use permit. So on that note, I will pass it over to Brooke.

Thank you, Kate. Brooke?

Would you rather sit here and switch? Yeah. Works more.

Okay, good afternoon. My name is Brooke Gady. I'm the Community Services Director. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to talk about the Walls Mural Project. This is a pretty great opportunity that we have been provided here in Douglas County. Just to give a little bit of history, I've taken this before our Parks and Rec Advisory Board. They have, well, actually I went to the Board of County Commissioners first with this concept that they supported me moving forward with. then i went to our parks and rec advisory board and they all recommended approval for me to go to the next step i did go to the town of minden i presented this project there and i believe in the report is their recommendation and now here i am my final stop with the planning commission before we're able to get started so i will go through my presentation if you guys have questions or need me to slow down please let me know

Brooke, you are exceptional in terms of your explanation and the procedures that we're about to undergo, but please speak just a little slower.

Okay. I will.

Thank you.

Okay. So the Walls Project, this is a project where we have the opportunity to have an international artist come to our area and create a mural on one of our buildings. The Walls Project really started where a group of artists got together and they said, hey, there are many documentaries that talk about home renovations, before and after cooking shows, all of these different things. things but nothing about murals there haven't been document docu documentaries about murals and how murals come to and so the artists got together with a producer and they said let's do a seven part series we're going to call it the walls um series And we're going to do seven episodes. In each episode, we're going to focus on a community and an artist. And we're going to talk about how the mural came to. And we're going to learn about different communities. And they're going to air it on PBS. And so we have an opportunity to be the second episode, which will focus on Carson Valley. And it will focus on the mural that will be painted at the Carson Valley. It's currently the Carson Valley Cinemas, but I will refer to it as the Community Arts Center. SO THE SECOND EPISODE IS WHAT WILL BE PART OF THIS DOCUMENTARY SERIES. THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THIS MURAL IS $68,000, BUT IT COSTS ZERO TO THE COUNTY. SO VISIT CARSON CITY RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE NEVADA COMMISSION, THE Nope, the tourism from the state. They received a grant and they have created this project called the Dust and Wonder Trail. And it is a 3D corridor project where we're talking about art and culture, Virginia City, Carson City, and Douglas County. They were given funding to do several art projects. One of them is the railroad spikes. If you guys have heard about the railroad spikes that are going in different areas. The other part of the funding has been dedicated to different communities to do some public art like some murals. So they have selected Carson Valley as one of the sites for the mural and they're giving $68,000 to the artist. to complete the mural. I have been told and I agree that this is probably a $200,000 value. We are getting an extremely high value exposure, mural, working with an international artist for no cost to the county. So this is a pretty amazing opportunity for us to participate in. So $68,000 paid for by Visit Carson City going to the artist for us to be able to participate in this project. So Oscar Guerra, he is the individual who is going to be producing the episode. Him and the artist are gonna come into town in August. The artist is going to paint, but we are also arranging several activities for them to participate in when they're in town, if the special use permit is approved. um to participate like to go up in a hot air balloon to go visit some ranches to go out to dinner to meet with the community there is also an event that is happening at that theater the ironwood complex i think it is august 4th where it's a whole night out event where the artist is going to be able to talk with different community members and learn about our community all being filmed and all will be aired on pbs So let's talk about the impact that this project will have on our community. We're bringing an internationally renowned muralist to our community, and it's going to be a documentary. This is going to be shown all over the world on PBS, and it's going to talk about our community, our residents. It's going to talk about the artwork. The impact is big. It's going to increase in visibility to our community. Art and culture boosts tourism. It brings visitors into the area who like to follow art and culture. Where the mural is going to be located, you're going to be able to see it from the highway as people are coming into town. It's going to be a great draw to the facility, to our town, and also to that complex. There are businesses there and we believe this exposure will help bring people into the business. so this has a very big impact on our community that we're able to participate in this and then we have lasting art so here's the location the Carson Valley Cinemas we met with the artist on site who looked at the building and determined that he wanted to participate in this project the sign up front that says Carson Valley Cinemas and then the little black other sign those those will be removed from the facility so the design will start on the shoe tree side wrap around to the front and then go on to the other side of the building the usually takes one to two weeks for the artwork to be complete so I think he's actually going to be here for about two weeks So he's gonna be here for two weeks. He'll work for 10 to 12 hours a day. We're gonna try and squeeze in some activities while he's here so he can get to know our community and residents of the community. He'll be blocking off the parking lot while he's working. And the great thing about this project too is that there were being told that there's no future maintenance that is needed. Because of the material that they use for the paint, they put two coats of a UV protectant coat on there that helps protect from weather and sun. And so this is very little maintenance. We're getting this mural for free and we're not intended to have to do maintenance ongoing. So this is the artist Rafael Blanco. He is from Spain, but he lives in Texas. He does have a connection with UNR and Oscar Guerrero. That's how they've come to this area. Rafael has done several art pieces. I'll show you some examples of ones he's done in other areas, but also in this area. So he has done... murals all over the world and his focus is he paints people and he uses bold colors and he does very large images and so when I show you the rendering which you've probably already seen because you have it in your packet that will it will make sense that that that's his style of art that he does so big bold images and bold colors that really reflect the space that he's painting. When we met with the artists and we talked about what this mural was gonna look like, we really wanted it to represent what is going to be happening inside the facility. The mural represents music, dance, theater, arts. Those are the things that are gonna be happening in the facility. So we didn't opt to go the route of some of our traditional murals that we have in the community where we're looking at like ranching and the Basque community and the Native American community. We really said, what is happening in this building? This is what we want to see on the outside. So here are some examples of things that he's done in Reno and Carson City. His most recent mural that he did in Reno is on the Circus Circus building. So if you go by Circus Circus, there's like four panels of circus acts. And so he recently painted those. So these are ones around the community. And then here are some other ones that he's done in other parts of the country. So like I said, he really uses big images and bold colors. The mural that he's proposing to put on this space, you will be able to see from quite far away. Part of that is because of how high up he is painting it, but also that's his style. So the intention, let's talk about the intention. The intention of murals is to create a welcoming environment. We're wanting to welcome people to the space. That's how we're doing it. We're trying to draw people in. He talks about the wow effect. Historically, murals told a story and so they had smaller images multiple images on one mural and they really told a story there's been a shift where murals really become very large pieces of art and so that is what this mural is going to be it's going to be large images and they're going to be pieces of art less about it will tell the story about the building but not in the same way that murals used to where they had lots of images there's really going to be three major images pages. It is very site specific. The imagery that is going to be on the building is really relevant to the site that we have. It is very large scale, so it can be visible from a distance. And it really celebrates the artist. We really wanted to be able to honor the artist and give him some freedom to express what he does as an artist. And that's what you'll see in the colors and in the images that he's identified. So it is impossible to make everyone happy when we're talking about art. As I've been going through this project, I have gotten lots of feedback from lots of different people. We did meet with a group of visual artists from the Carson Valley Arts Council. We brought them in as we were talking about the images, the colors, the things that we're putting on the outside of this building. and we got we they weighed in they helped us with this process i'm not an artist i've been trying to gather everybody get all of the information and filter it to the artist so that he knew what kinds of changes he would make but not everybody is going to be happy and that's really not the intent of art the intent of art is to create welcoming spaces create conversations be a centerpiece for people to gather But we know not everybody will be happy and there are going to be people who might not appreciate either the entire thing or aspects of it. And so that in and of itself makes public art very challenging, especially when you're a public entity doing public art, because we engage with the public. We get feedback from individuals. know private individuals putting art on private property they're not subject to the same type of conversations that we're having and so we've had a lot of conversations gotten a lot of feedback we've been through several iterations of the mural and this is where it has landed today so we cannot make everybody happy and i i think that that's a really important message for everybody to hear when we're talking about public art So like I said, the artwork is going to be very large, and that really has to do with several factors. But when you're on the ground and you're looking up, you're looking up 10 feet to see the mural. And so a very large image with lots of detail makes it easier to see from the vantage point. Those are some of the things that come into play when we're talking about the size of the art. But it is very large scale and that's because it's 10 feet off the ground. It's high up on the building. I don't know why that page is blank. So here's the mural. Here we go. This is what it's going to look like on the building. These are not AI images. They are original images from Rafael. He put together several different images and we got to choose from that best meet what our community is and what's represented in the building. So we have a visual artist because we're looking at having an art gallery in the theater. We have a little girl who's dancing or theater. It was a little harder to capture theater, but it's music, dance, and theater. And then we have somebody with a cowboy hat who is playing guitar. The microphone that is in this image is going to be a little bit different, but we didn't feel like he needed to update the images for this presentation. And then the bold, bright colors. This is what it's going to look like. And then here is a picture of the images much closer up so you can see the details of them. And then here's what it's gonna look like on the building. Now we've had conversations about this green roof and what we're going to do with that. We did ask the artist if we should paint it so that it blended a little bit better and he did not recommend painting it. Eventually as we start doing renovations to the building, a new roof is going to be needed and I think that we can address anything with the roof at that time. For now, it's going to stay like that. And then here's one side of the building. And then the other side where the shoe tree part is. And if you're interested in any of the projects that Raphael is doing or that the walls project is doing, there's some different ways that you can go and learn more about the artist and the project. And that is all I have. I am open to answer any questions.

May I start things out, Brooke, with one minor question? Will the artist allow the county, your department particularly, to approach him when and if it's required that the roof be replaced so that at least we can have his consultation, assuming that this passes with a special use permit that won't clash with what he has already done?

Yeah, Brooke Adie, Community Services Director. Good question. Rafael has been so great to work with that I anticipate him being available into the future for anything that we might need. There are people who have commented that maybe the mural looks unfinished because it doesn't go all the way to the end of the building. Other people have said, well, it kind of provides a bookend, almost like a frame around the images. people have requested me reach out to the muralist and say how much would it cost to put another image on either side of the building if it's something that we would like to commission on our own or extend the colors and so he's been really great to work with and i think that in the future if we want to add to it he would be more than happy to do so thanks very much further questions from the commission

Just a simple question. So he's painting over the windows, assuming this goes in.

They're actually not windows because they're movie theaters. There's no windows really in the building. They look like it, but they're not. So, yeah.

Looks like glass.

It's like a stucco. You have cinder block and stucco up there.

Commissioner McKillop.

I was contacted. Two thoughts. One was the pillars. And I can see why in some of the cases where it's an image, where it's just the color, it makes more sense. And did you consider not doing that? Or what was the thought on the pillars?

uh initially brook 80 community services director when the artist came out we didn't think he was going to paint the pillars and then when we started working through the process he actually provided the renderings with the pillars painted we did have some people comment why are you not painting the wall underneath and so i have let the artist provide his expertise to say whether or not he believes that the the pillar should be painted um i haven't had conversations with him again about whether we're there staying or going um i think i was waiting for this process to finalize and the other comment was you already mentioned extending down the wall as well yeah um which i could see either being a future image or um

and just continuing the colors.

Yeah, right now we're limited by time and money.

And no one would want me for an art critic, but I like it. Thank you. And overall, again, I agree about the pillars. I'm a little uneasy about the pillars. Overall, I think it's a great project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Lyle.

was going to go ahead and ask about the uh the pillars as well i'm i'm not really clear about what the the problem is i think the pillars ground the image nicely so um but thank you for answering that any further questions from the uh commission vice chair i love it i had

issues at the beginning i was nervous about what it would look like but i think he's done a wonderful job in capturing what will be happening inside the center i like the color scheme i think i respectfully disagree with the town of minden i believe the pillars need to be painted, as Laurie says, to ground the mural. It would look silly. I believe if the pillars were not painted, you would just have a giant billboard. I think the front of the building as well, the pillars need to be painted. And I would like to see the color extended down the sides just a splash. But the way that he's feathered it out on the side, it's not just a straight line. It works. Thank you, Brooke. Thank you for all the work you've done.

Thank you, Commissioner. I now open the discussion to the public. If there's anyone that wishes to communicate about this particular item, number one on our agenda here in the room. seeing no one i will ask colleen whether anyone on zoom wishes to speak to this item agenda number one thank you chairman bruno nobody has raised their hand thank you very much colleen uh i'd like also to say that uh when public art came first to the commission this was the dawn of my tenure on this commission The one thing that comments that I remember were that such art could not or should not be offensive or political in any fashion such that it creates or generates some type of controversy. That provocation is not what we seek. And this was really a wonderful job in what was intended originally when we wanted art in our community. So I'm I'm very pleased with this. With that comment, do I have a motion?

Mr. Chair, I would like to make the motion that the Planning Commission approve 2026-DP-SUP-0003, subject to the conditions in the staff report, based on the presentations, staff report, and ability to make the required findings.

Mr. Chairman, may I interject? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. AJ Haynes from the District Attorney's Office. For the record, I just wanted to make sure that the motion was clear. As stated, you're incorporating all of the conditions. Set forth in the staff report, the first condition is to accept the conditions imposed by the town of Minden. And I know there was some discussion on the board as to whether those should be followed or not. Minden suggested conditions are found on page 30 of the supplemental packet. so i would encourage uh perhaps a clarification on the motion as to whether that should incorporate or should not incorporate the recommendations of the town of minden 30 of the supplemental packet Page 30 of the supplemental packet is the Minden approval letter. And it states with the recommendation to not include the mural on the columns and look at the cost to extend the mural at the end of the building. I think looking at the cost is already done. But specifically the columns, that was the condition that the town of Minden had added. I know there was discussion on the columns, so I would encourage that to be a part of the motion.

Well, that is a recommendation from the town. It's not a condition.

Just to be clear for staff, then that is not a condition that is part of the motion.

okay if if i could cape morales o'neill for the record um on page 44 of your packet the recommended conditions of approval from the planning staff the very first one which is always what we include when it's in the towns is comply with any conditions placed on the project by the town amended so if the town amended their recommendations can they can look at those as conditions so it's based on your interpretation if you don't look at that as a condition and just a suggestion then i think everyone's clear that that the pillars are not in question whether or not they should be painted from the feedback i got from the planning commission i believe the pillar should be painted

There's actually two prerogatives I have as chair. The first prerogative is to distinguish, at least for our purposes in voting, what might be a recommendation, what might be a condition. I think this is a recommendation and I think you've heard from the commission. The second prerogative is the artist's prerogative. And I believe that the artist said that this is the way the artist believes it will look the best. I'm inclined to agree with the artist. Do I have a second to the motion?

I would like to second that motion, and I also agree that the columns need to be painted. I mean, I think that we should listen to the artist. He is the expert on this, and I believe that they look very nice painted the way they're projected on this image here.

Thank you, Commissioner Lyle. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on this item number one? I'll call the question and all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. The next item is item two for public hearing and for possible action. It's the discussion of appeal 2026-appeal-0002 appeal of staff's decision to approve major design review DP 25-0184 for a developed campground with 53 camping spaces and accessory structures that include a clubhouse for common use and Accessory dwelling for up to nine employees. The subject property is located at S-070B, a sports-oriented in the Rabe Community Plan area in the Tahoe Basin, near the southwesterly intersection of Elks Point Road and Highway 50. The appellant is G&T Properties, LLC, And the appellant's representative is Samantha Vanillo of Womble Bond Dixerson LLP, which I assume is a law firm. The original applicant for the design review is Jamie Schmidt of JLS Dash Development on behalf of Globetrotters Property LLC, the property owner, period. APN is 1318-22-001-013. Now as chair, I am going to again exercise my prerogative and pause for a moment to ask our, I used to call him the attorney general. I'll now call him the district attorney. for an opinion and a discussion as to precisely what the purview of the Planning Commission is, as distinguished from what folks might want us to do, or indeed, in many people approaching me at Safeway over in the basin, which is where I live, what we should do. And we are bound by what our purview is, and I'll turn it over to A.J.,

what can we do what is on the table for the planning commission thank you mr chair aj hames from the district attorney's office for the record this is an appeal of an approved design review and so the scope of the appeal is limited to that design review you'll notice in your packets there is a lot of information from hearings before trpa including applications to trpa their approvals of the project etc That is not before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission does not have any authority to overturn, so to speak, the TRPA's decision. What is appealed is just the Planning Department's approval of the design review application, and this board has the ability to review and consider that approval. That approval is limited to the... the required findings set forth in code, and those are included in your packet. So to the extent there are arguments made about whether the design review was properly granted, those arguments should be understood in the context of those findings. Because that is the application that has been appealed. It's just that design review application.

Thank you very much, AJ. I also wish to Comment for the commissioners that I never got the names of the individuals that approached me. I never commented to them, gave my opinion, nor did I comment with respect to this particular item, but I listened. And I've recited to you about, in encapsulated form, what their opinions were. And basically it's, we don't want it. And I said that is, I believe that's outside of our purview. That is the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission, which it's already been through various iterations. A.J. ?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your comment made me think of something else I just wanted to add. If the appeal is granted today, then the result would be basically an overturning of the design review approval. So the TRPA approval would still be in effect And the development, in theory, could still go forward, but it would have to be redesigned and come back to the county for a new design review and approval. If the appeal is not granted, then the design review remains in place and the project can go forward as currently designed. And then your third option is to If there are arguments raised today as to certain conditions that aren't met but could be met through the imposition of additional conditions of approval, then the third alternative for this planning commission would be to modify the decision of the planning department. And one way to do that might be to add additional conditions of approval that would allow for the project to meet the required findings.

Thank you very much, AJ. The three opportunities are outlined and very clear to the Planning Commission, and we appreciate that. I would also ask that all the folks that wish to speak on this matter now understand the purview of the Planning Commission, what we can and cannot do, and please confine your commentary to what we can and cannot do, unlike all the folks that want to talk to me when I try to do my grocery shopping at Safeway. i'm going to turn it over to the county and who will be our first speaker mr chair if this is the appropriate time i would maybe offer the recommended motion uh concerning the standing of the appellant uh the procedurally i was going to listen first to the um to county with respect to the standing that is the first procedural question whether we can hear the appeal because you have made a comment with respect to the proper party and the timing. And I just wanted to hear it from you before we went over that to a decision phase so that we had all the facts and circumstances before we make a decision, which is unusual in today's political climate. Please, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Linda Dougherty, Community Development, for the record. Yes, so you will have to decide if the appellant has standing. they were in the noticing radius so staff believes they have standing if the appellant has standing to appeal you may affirm the decision upholding the conditional approval of the design review because the appellant's arguments are not supported by the evidence and findings listed in douglas county code 20.614.040 are met or modify the decision consistent with the provisions of douglas county code or reverse the decision overturning the design review approval because the appellant's arguments are supported by the evidence and or the findings listed in douglas county code 20.614.040 are not met thank you very much uh on timing could you comment on the timing of the appellant Thank you, Linda Doherty, for the record. So the design review approval was issued on April 27th, 2026, and the appeal was filed on May 8th, 2026, meeting the 10-day deadline to appeal.

Thank you very much. And now, consistent with Commissioner Walder's inquiry, I believe it would be appropriate for us to have a motion with respect to whether the appellant has standing to come to us with respect to this issue. And is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I move that the Planning Commission has determined the appellant has standing to appeal because one the appellant owns an interest in the property Located within the noticing radius and two appeared in writing Before the final decision on the design review was rendered and I would note for the record the appellant is owner Gary and Tracy Saunders G&T properties LLC and the APN is one three one eight two two and

It's been moved and seconded that there is standing to raise this appeal before the Pying Commission and it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? No discussion. I'll take a vote on that issue. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. We can now proceed on the merits of the appeal. I turn it back to the county. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Linda Doherty, for the record. Normally, you don't review design reviews as they're approved administratively, but we're here today because it's being appealed. I don't know that you've been able to really see what the project entails. I'm happy to give a summary if that helps.

I think that whatever you desire, we will listen intently.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Just a brief summary. There's 53 campsites proposed. TRPA determined the land use as developed campground, and that was approved September of last year at the TRPA Governing Board public hearing. That was not appealed, so the approval stood. On page... Let's see. Sorry, I got my notes mixed up here. Page 191 of your packet. This is the governing board action sheet, which calls out the project and that it was approved by TRPA. there are going to be some permanent structures and some seasonal structures and It's been referred to as a clamp ground So I got on Google and apparently this is trending It's this type of camping doesn't require an RV or a tent. So it's available for more folks so they can Stay in one of these shelters There are 18 domes structures which are temporary seasonal and then the rest are sleeping shelters I'm a few of them do have bathrooms, but none of these structures have kitchens there's also a Clubhouse that's proposed and in the project description Let's see on Your page 99 talks about the amenities that are also included in this campground. um let's see tom de lair for the record and nine tree houses i'm sorry i didn't hear you mention the two tree houses there's nine tree houses oh yeah so the the tree houses are not actually in the trees or connected to the trees but um they are they are named as tree houses um also there will be comfort stations which basically are bathrooms and showers so I did want to clear up something. There was some discrepancy or misunderstanding that was brought up about the number of parking spaces. So 59 were approved, however, in the TRPA packet. But Douglas County, using the parking matrix, we are requiring 67 spaces, and those are all shown on the site plan. So the parking is met. And also, there was some confusion about the number of accessory dwellings. This is for employees to stay on site. And the original request was for two structures. However, only one is being approved. And that will house up to nine employees. And that is approved through TRPA.

Do you have anything to add?

Do you guys have any questions?

Yes. Thanks. We're going to bring it to questions. Staff, just go ahead for clarification. Go ahead.

Yeah. Just one question in looking under the facilities amenities. There were comments in our supplemental and also in the appellant's letters about a beer and alcohol facility. And I see in the description a self-pour beverage wall. That doesn't seem to be the same thing, but is it the same thing?

Thank you, Linda Daugherty, for the record. I haven't been provided with details. I think some things are still being vetted by the owner. So we haven't got any detail about that. But if it is alcohol, we'll have to look at that, and they will have to get a liquor license through the Sheriff's Department and planning sign-off.

So for clarification, a lot of these details still have these finer details still have to be worked out.

Correct.

As the project goes through. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. No further questions. I'm going to have the applicant. Sorry, the appellant, not the applicant, the appellant.

Can you hear me?

Oh, well.

I will. Thank you so much. Can you hear me?

Yes.

OK. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Samantha Vanillo. I'm an attorney with Womble Bond Dickinson, and I'm here today on behalf of G&T Properties, which owns the parcel next door to the project. Garrett Gordon is here as well on behalf of G&T Properties. Our position is straightforward. The mandatory findings under the code requirements for the design review can't be met on this record. I know that our materials that we submitted were dense. My slides are dense. Bear with me. We're going to try to get through everything, and I'm sure there's going to be lots of questions. You can go ahead and change the slide. Okay, we can skip this one.

Pardon me. May I first interrupt you? These are the grounds that were raised in the later letter or the first letter?

The first and second letter both address the same grounds. So the design review findings, the first letter is focused on the zoning finding requirement. The second letter addresses the other findings that are required.

And the second letter is much more expansive.

Yes, it's much more expansive. There was a lot more details in the second one.

And that's what you'll present to us today.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE FINDINGS, WHICH WILL COVER BOTH OF THE LETTERS.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL, SO STAFF VERY HELPFULLY JUST EXPLAINED A LOT OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT. SO THERE ARE 18 DOME STRUCTURES. THESE ARE BEING DESCRIBED AS SEASONAL. THAT'S SORT OF UNCLEAR IF THIS USE IS GOING TO BE SEASONAL OR IF THE DOMES WILL BE PERMANENT. Believe the domes themselves will be permanently on the site. They will just only be used seasonally There's also the 19 tree. I mean the nine tree houses and the 26 sleeping shelters There's going to be an event center Which will have they'll host weddings as well as other events for people who are staying on the property barbecue pavilion recreational equipment and rentals two playgrounds and three comfort stations there's also one accessory dwelling unit and a minimum of 67 parking spaces and No, it's okay. NO PROBLEM. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE DOUGLAS COUNTY STANDARD. SO THE COUNTY IS INDEPENDENTLY REQUIRED TO MEET EACH OF THESE FINDINGS BEFORE APPROVAL. SO THAT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT GENERATE HAZARDOUS PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, THAT THE PROJECT INCORPORATES ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS, MINIMIZES ADVERSE VISUAL EFFECTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, avoids and mitigates impacts to the archaeological and cultural resources, complies with all applicable standards, Title 20, as well as zoning requirements, and that this project will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. Change the slide. Okay, yes, that's okay. So Douglas County does retain independent finding authority over this project. So Douglas County is called to do a full design review of the project elements. I anticipate that the applicant will argue that find as they did in their written report that TRPA findings stand alone for this project. That's not true. Douglas County also has to independently make the same findings. TRPA's conditional permit specifically says that the permit required under Douglas County is separate and independent from the permit that was required under the TRPA. This has also been reviewed under Nevada case law, specifically between Douglas County and the TRPA previously.

And both regulatory... Just a little slower for me because this is particularly... I know, it's very dense. I'm very interested in this particular aspect.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. So both regulatory schemes need to be independently satisfied. I know there was some previous discussion about this. Going through with the project and building permits are going to come from Douglas County. So moving forward with the project, the project cannot move forward until Douglas County has reviewed, applied their own code and interpretation and approved the project. As was previously discussed, whatever happens here today does not affect the prior TRPA code. that doesn't change the fact that Douglas County has to make its own independent findings on the record. Were there any questions about that before I move forward?

No. Since you've limited it to the design review, I now understand, and that's consistent with what our district attorney had told us at the outset.

Absolutely. Okay, next slide. So this is also really important. When there is a discrepancy between what's happening in the Douglas County Code and the TRPA regulations, the more conservative standard is what's gonna apply. And then again, so Douglas County has adopted some of the definitions from the TRPA code. They still need to be applied and interpreted directly by Douglas County. So again, yes, so we can move forward with this and each of those zoning requirements, each of the A through H bindings need to be met here. Okay, you can change. So this really goes to the heart of our appeal, which is the misclassification of the project. This project just simply isn't a campground, and it doesn't meet what's required and allowed within the zoning area that it's in.

Go ahead and change.

So misclassification is a developed campground. So on the left, as you can see what the code allows. So a campground is land or a developed campground. There's two separate definitions and we're operating under developed campground. A developed campground is land for a temporary occupancy by campers traveling by motorized vehicle. And then there's limited utilities allowed, including parking areas, barbecue grills, tables, restrooms, and some utilities. These are intended to be transient in nature. They're supposed to be low intensity, and they're not supposed to include any permanent units. And then as you can see on the right, this is what the project is proposing, which is just starkly different from what is included in a developed campground. So the 53 permanent lodging units, which does not, there's no tents, there's no RV hookups, as well as the major lodge and clubhouse. Saunas, there's going to be beverage services, there's gonna be an event wedding center, shuttle services, e-bike rentals, as well as employee housing onsite. So again, this is just an overview of what's gonna be included in the proposed project. These cabins include full-size beds. They're fully furnished. They have couches, closets. Some have their own bathrooms with full showers and bathtubs. Again, these are fully furnished permanent structures. You can change. So this is a good look at one of the sleeping shelters that they're talking about. So this would be one of the units on the site. Again, it's got a full bathroom, it's got a full closet, it's got a bed, it's got patio furniture. I don't think by any stretch of the imagination, this resembles anything close to a campsite. I think this very much resembles a hotel room. And change again. Here's another look at one of the units that doesn't have a bathroom within it, but it still has a full walk-in closet as well as a deck with patio furniture. Again, this does not in any way resemble what would be traditionally found on a campsite. So this is the definition of the, this is the project definition of a developed campground. So you can see a screenshot of the right of the use tables. comparison i provided both to you so the top is tourist accommodations you can clearly see in the definition of hotel motel and other transient dwelling units it includes cabins so cabins aren't even included in what's allowed in a developed campground again you can see that a developed campground is limited to land or premises that is supposed to be occupied by travel campers traveling by motorized vehicle So it's intended to encompass things like RV hookups or tent site plots with really limited utilities. If you look at even the staff's description within the planning staff report, the project's been designed to resemble a campground, but it's not a campground. You can't even say that it's a campground. It's just supposed to look like a campground. In reality, this is a boutique resort and simply because you've designed something to look like a rustic boutique resort doesn't change the fact that it is a boutique resort and not a campground. So this is the plan area that we're working under. It's designated recreation. The plan area statement includes that existing recreational uses should continue, and these include public beach access, camping areas should be expanded. So this is really supposed to be used for recreation, which can include day use trails or actual campgrounds. What's not permissible here is hotel, motel, or such highly developed lodging that we're looking at.

Ma'am, just briefly, if we were to agree with your interpretation of the TRPA regulations which you have provided us, how could this commission overrule the TRPA's definitional findings?

Commission doesn't need to overrule the TRPA's definitional findings that the Commission just needs to take the definition and apply it themselves Using their own code. So because Douglas County has adopted the TRPA definitions. You're reviewing it under the Douglas County code So you need to come to your own analysis that the definition applies to the description It won't change anything that's happened at the TRPA level It sounds like you're asking us to overrule the TRPA No. So because Douglas County has adopted these definitions, it exists inside of the Douglas County code. And so Douglas County is applying Douglas County's code. I understand.

So you're saying derivatively because these are the definitions that TRPA applies to these various terms. And because the part of the TRPA has been adopted in total by Douglas County, that we are really... making a decision on Douglas County, not on the TRPA.

Yes, so you're making a decision on Douglas County.

So I'm following your argument.

Yes. Okay. Right, exactly. And you'll see in the Douglas County Code, so because there is overlap with the portions of land that exists in Tahoe, the definitions are exactly the same. They're just appearing in different parts of the code. And so Douglas County has adopted it. Douglas County does apply it. And so what TRPA has done before is completely separate and independent of what Douglas County needs to do today. Does that address? Perfect. Next slide. Employee housing, so this is an accessory use defect. So one ADU was approved, as we've discussed, that was sort of divined out at first. There was two ADUs that were requested for two separate employee housing units. One was approved. Because ADUs are considered a specific use in Douglas County, there's additional sets of provisions that apply to it. It doesn't appear on the record that those separate sets of provisions were reviewed or applied by the staff. So for example, there needs to be a finding that the ADU is an accessory to the primary use, which means, so if something's accessory to the primary use, it needs to be secondary. And so in here, basically we need to ask if, What is essentially a primary residential fixture is secondary to a campsite. Also, it's gonna be limited to 1,000 square feet of livable area. At the TRPA, this ADU was approved at over 2,000 square feet, And so there wasn't any indication on the record that the Douglas County, that the planning staff limited that to the 1,000 square feet, which it needs to be limited to. Also, there needs to be an additional off-street parking space in addition to that required for the primary one on-site use. So again, there was another specific set of findings that needed to be met for the accessory dwelling use that wasn't reviewed at this point in the planning of the project.

All right, if you're talking about the accessory dwelling unit, you're speaking of the For the nine employees, not the individual cabins, not the individual cabins.

Yes. So that those nine employees would have to be housed in 1000 square feet of livable area.

I understand your argument.

Okay. And then, so there's just quite a few material inconsistencies on the record between what was approved versus what the material projects, the project materials say as well as, and what we've talked about today is there's just a lot of things that haven't exactly been, um, FLESHED OUT AND A LOT OF IMPORTANT SPECIFICS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, SO THE LODGE CLUB HOUSE, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE APPROVAL, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE ACTUAL BODY OF THE APPROVAL, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR IF THE CENTRAL LODGE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THE PROJECT MATERIALS ARE DESCRIBING THEM AS CABINS. THEY'VE BEEN DESCRIBED AS SLEEPING SHELTERS. We've resolved the two separate employee ADU units. The transportation study only addresses 59 parking spaces as opposed to the 67 required parking spaces. The drainage report also only addresses a smaller number of units that are included in the project. And then the amenities are not specified in the approval, so it's really unclear what has been approved on the amenity side. Next. Great, so now we can move into the traffic study. So the traffic portion of this is deeply problematic. One of the most main problematic things is that in the traffic report that was provided, the wrong county code was used. They applied the county code from Douglas County, Colorado, not from Douglas County, Nevada. And so the Douglas County, Nevada standards weren't addressed at all in the traffic report. The traffic report is self-described as a limited transportation analysis, and there wasn't any analysis of the emergency vehicle access, of weekend holiday contributions, or any of the event-related impacts. And this is a project that's being self-described as a wedding and event venue, which is obviously going to generate substantially more traffic than what was described in the project itself. On top of that, they had a very limited number of utility droppage, so they had only four back and forth for bringing in things like food, for bringing in other utilities and materials that they needed for the campsite, which seems incredibly low for a campsite of this size. And then they also used trip generation derivatives from the ITE motel category, which doesn't exactly align for the size of the project that they're describing. And then most importantly, they didn't propose any roadway improvements. And the roadway is already operating on an LOSF intersection, which is the worst possible rating that you can get. Essentially, as of now, it's stop and go traffic. And then they're proposing adding another 222 vehicle trips, which is a very conservative number compared to what we're seeing in the actual record of what's likely to be happening on the property. So again, this is going to be 222 daily trips that are funneled through one access point off of Elk Point Road. And I'm going to show you a picture of that road in a minute, but I think you'll see that it's just a safety concern clearly from looking at it. And they're not suggesting any TURN INTO THE AREA SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE RIGHT OFF OF THE ROAD. IT'S ALREADY A VERY NARROW ROAD. IT'S ALREADY A ROAD THAT'S IMPACTED BY A LOT OF TRAFFIC. THE HIGHWAY 50 DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO BE GATED AND IT WILL BE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. AND THEN THIS IS MOVING THROUGH USF EASEMENT AND AT THIS TIME IT'S UNCLEAR IF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE EASEMENT, IF THAT EASEMENT HAS BEEN TERMINATED OR IF ANY APPROVALS HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS FAR AS USAGE OF THAT EASEMENT. And then moving over to the parking shortfall. So the approval is already eight spaces below from what was discussed in the parking report. So in the, I mean, in the traffic report. So the traffic report only covered 59 spaces. So it's missing an additional eight spaces. that weren't even reviewed by the traffic expert. And on top of that, it doesn't account for any of the events that are happening on the property, which is just going to result in people parking on that easement or parking on Elk Point Road or worst case scenario, parking on the side of Highway 50, which is obviously a major safety concern.

We can go to the next one.

So this is sort of a picture. I just want to show you what the site looks like. So you've got Highway 50 at the top and then you've got Elks Point Road on the left right here down in the corner. So that's going to be the main turn in down in the corner right here. It's going to be a very narrow road. I'll show you if we move. Can we move forward one? So this is just a little bit more zoomed in. On the bottom is a trail and then there's a walking trail. So there will be foot traffic right here. And then there's gonna be a very tight turn to the right. And I can show you an actual photo of the area if you go to the next one. So this is the area. So this is a pretty narrow street. That little turn that's available on the right right there is actually a walking trail and a biking trail. So there's going to be a lot of foot traffic. And then they're going to be building another interest directly behind it with no turn lanes. So it's easy to anticipate that there's going to be a lot of traffic in this area. And it's already operating at an LOFF, which is the lowest rating of service. So before I move forward to the noise and visual impacts, I think the thing that's really concerning, and there has been public comment that was submitted to this, is there's a concerning lack of due diligence that happened, especially when you look at the fact that the traffic report specifically just does not encompass the density of this project. And it applied the wrong code. I mean, it wasn't even applying Douglas County code, which I think is something concerning to look at. On top of that, there was no operational analysis for noise on the record, which we're going to talk about right now. So in this area, this is considered a recreational area. So the noise has to be at a 55 decibel level. 55 decibel level is just normal conversation. So in this room right now, we're probably actually a little bit over 55 decibels. 55 decibels is supposed to be like what's in a quiet outside area. There hasn't been any operational analysis on the record. but it can be anticipated that planned events like weddings and other events that are happening outside and all of the recreational activities that are happening outside for a campsite of the sides is going to greatly exceed the 55 decibel count and there hasn't been any showing that that wouldn't happen or that there's mitigation measures in place to prevent that from happening also there's going to be 280 trees that are going to be removed from the site these are mature evergreen trees That's nearly 60% of the trees that are on site and it includes trees that are going to be removed from the easement as well. At the moment, this is just like a fully forested parcel. I mean, it's largely untouched and so you're completely changing an ecosystem. And then we've got another public safety finding, which is finding H, that we have to meet. Because this is a specific use, this is a campground, there's another section of the Douglas County Code where the specific use has to be met. One of them is that the site is free of hazards and the probability of flooding or erosion. This parcel is designated flood zone D, which means that flood hazards are undetermined but possible. And so when you're coupling that flood zone With the removal of 280 mature trees, it's likely to result in flooding as well as erosion of the area. And so I think it's unclear that the public safety finding can be met that this is going to be a safe area to have a campground. So this is just an overview of the eight mandatory findings that have to be made. So this project simply isn't a campground as we've talked about before. It's supposed to be designated as a recreational zoning. It should be a campsite. It's not a campsite. It's incompatible with the recreational use It's gonna result in hazardous traffic. There hasn't been any traffic mitigation controls added. There's no improvement suggested. End dot approval is still currently absent from the record. There's gonna be almost a 60% tree removal of mature trees in a scenic area. And then there's just been misclassifications of what standards need to be met, as well as a lack of review of the additional specific findings that Douglas County needs to make for each of these specific uses. Okay. And so, you know, we ask that the decision be reversed because these findings for design review just cannot be met on the record that's in front of us right now. Any questions?

I'm sure there may be some questions from the commission. Are there any further comments from the county?

Linda Dougherty for the record. Regarding the traffic report, we did just this morning hear from the traffic engineer who admitted that she used the wrong criteria. She did make a correction in that she determined that the service level is D, like David, which is standard for NDOT. So there was a correction there. And then as far as weddings, what we know so far, and maybe the applicant can expand on this, but as far as weddings, they are planning to have guests of the wedding come via shuttles from other accommodations if they're not staying at the campground. So that should cut down on some traffic. And then NDOT, I'll come back to that. I forgot what I was going to say. And there is the tree removal is addressed on page 171 of the packet that a professional forester was involved. And the Forest Service does have a permit submitted, but they're holding off on review until they find out what happens today. I can offer those comments. Okay.

Could I just really quickly, I haven't seen the new traffic study, but under the minimum standards for Douglas County, it has to be a minimum of LOSC. So even if it is D, that's still below the minimum standard for LOS.

I appreciate your comment.

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yes, AG.

Specifically on the traffic, the traffic report that's included in the materials quotes another Douglas County standard that requires a level of service at a D for all intersections. It's not actually different from Douglas County standard for NDOT maintained roads. So our Douglas County, Nevada transportation plan requires a level of service for county maintained roads at a level of service of C and NDOT roads at a D. So the conclusion reached in the report that a D is required is not wrong the way that they got to the conclusion was wrong, but ultimately I think the error is harmless because it's Regardless both elk's point road and highway 50 are end up maintained roads So those two require a level D and they are currently at a level F and then just mr. Chair, I think obviously the county has has provided a Sort of a response to the appeal and that is included in your packet. I don't know if you wanted to afford Linda and Ms. Doherty and Mr. O'Hearn an opportunity to give a longer presentation or if you had specific comments. And then I don't know too if the original applicant is present. If they are, they might have a presentation to give as well.

Yeah, the original appeal, appellant?

The applicant who received design review approval. I'm not sure if they or a representative is present today, but they should have an opportunity to present as well if they're here.

I agree with you. However, of particular interest to me would be the county's rebuttal with respect to some of the issues that were raised by our district attorney. And I think it would be helpful for us to hear the county's positions.

Steve O'Hearn with the District Attorney's Office. I'll try to address some of the issues that were raised by the appellant. Number one, they're commencing at page 76 of the materials. There's a very detailed staff report which makes the eight different findings that are required under the Douglas County Code for design review. And it also incorporates into it the findings that were made by the TRPA as part of their review process. So there's a lot of information in there. And just because we didn't present all of that in detail at this hearing doesn't mean it's not there for the committee to consider. The first part of the appellant's presentation today focused on the use – classification of this property. And it has been classified by the TRPA as a developed campground. And that is also the way the county is looking at it. The appellants did speak to the statutes and the definition of a developed campground as to both the TRPA and Douglas County. They're substantially similar. There's a little bit of difference in the word choice, but they're basically using the same definition. And so even under the Douglas County definition, it can be found to be a developed campground. And as Mr. Hames addressed at the beginning, arguing over what the use of this site is, that's really within the purview of the TRPA, whereas the design review is what is within Douglas County. And there is a code section under Douglas County. It's Title 20, Chapter 700, Section 30, and it talks about, The county's primary role of performing design review and building inspection in the basin, this is the county code as it applies to the Tahoe Basin, and then the county's derogation to the TRPA's planning and zoning jurisdiction and enforcement authority. That's subsection B of that 20.700.30. So it clearly... lays out there that from a planning, zoning, and use point of view, that's within the purview of the TRPA, which they've decided. And then the county's role is to perform the design review and building inspection. So it's really a two-step process. One of the points that was addressed was the accessory dwelling unit. which is the, I guess we can call it where the staff would reside. I believe the appellants are looking at the wrong code section. Let me find that real quick. Well, there's a code section within TRPA entitled permissive uses within Chapter 21, and it's TRPA 21.3.2, and that talks about accessory uses. There is a section, that 21.3.2, that addresses accessory dwelling units. And it says, accessory dwelling units shall be considered an accessory use to the primary use it serves. And then in subsection B, it says, one accessory dwelling unit shall be considered an accessory use where the primary use is a commercial use, public service, or recreational use. So that subsection B contemplates that where you have a recreational use, you don't have to have it come in under a residence, which I believe is what the appellants were referring to. And that really is the subsection A. So from an accessory dwelling use point of view, and originally the proposed plan was to, as Ms. Daugherty said, to have two different accessory dwelling units, but that got modified because TRPA wouldn't approve of it because it didn't fit within this 21.3.2b where they only allow one accessory dwelling there. And the traffic report issue, I think that's been addressed with the issue between using the

Colorado Parameters, but that it really does not adversely impact the ultimate finding that there is not a significant impact on traffic Appreciate that very much if I can repeat one aspect which was a linchpin in the argument that I heard from the appellant and I think that you have responded to it and called my attention to something that I had read but probably didn't focus on as closely and that is With respect to the actual design and planning, the TRPA makes a decision, and I believe it was the appellant's position that Douglas County, by incorporating the TRPA, could make its own independent decision with respect to the original design and planning. And you've pointed out that 20.7.30 really... reflects back to trpa and says that they're taking precedence correct i appreciate that very much that's nuanced to say the least but i appreciate it any further questions

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions, but I don't know, do you want to go to the applicant now to make a statement? If the applicant does, yes. And then we can maybe ask questions that they all might like to respond to.

In accordance with AJ's suggestion, does the applicant wish to address us at this point? Very germane. I have to compliment you. That was very, very good. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Planning Commission members. Lou Feldman on behalf of the applicant.

Pardon me, Mr. Feldman. I know Lou Feldman, in fact, but it will not affect my bias in one way or another. He and I were on opposite sides of a negotiation with respect to parking at the Tahoe Beach Club many years ago. That would be, God, 2018.

Your memory is better than mine.

But I just want to point that out. Thank you, sir.

First of all, I would like to comment. The staff report, I thought, was quite outstanding. And I appreciate all the work that Douglas County staff has put into this review. This project was well advertised, was before the TRPA governing board, and has the district attorney noted. And I think the appellant has highlighted this. This distinction between use and design review is not as murky as perhaps may have been suggested. And just by way of background, because some of you folks are more familiar with TRPA than others, but TRPA has created a growth management strategy that is based on land uses that are represented by units of use. We don't have that here in the Valley. So if you're going to have, for example, a hotel or a motel, you need a tourist accommodation unit of use. And those are allocated and governed and doled out by TRPA. You don't have that kind of commodities regulation. And the unit of use the TRPA determined was appropriate for the developed campground is what's called a payout, a person at one time. And that's a recreational use. And they have caps on these various uses. And recreation is an underserved area of commerce in the Tahoe Basin. And for those of you that have ever tried to rent a campsite in the basin, you know that on January 1, The phone opens and by noon they're sold out, basin wide. So the demand for camping is overwhelming and this is a project that responds to that demand. It's an elevated experience and the market is changing. That's been recognized by the Forest Service and others. But most importantly, in addition to what the district attorney cited, Within the area plan, in your table, 20.702.2B of the Douglas County Development Code, the letter D indicates the use is subject to TRPA review and the county is subject to design review. And that's the bright line here. The use has already been determined. The use is not in question. So I appreciate the creativity of the argument, but I don't think the argument has merit. So with respect to use, that has already been adjudicated at the proper venue. No appeal was lodged, no objection was made, and that termination is final. Other than that, if you have questions that I can help respond to, it would be my pleasure to do so. I would encourage you to support the staff's thorough analysis and deny the appeal and approve staff's recommendation. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Feldman. You have questions for Mr. Feldman?

No, I have questions for a variety of people and a statement to make.

May I hold the statement and the questions? And let's have a break since it's 2.30. And that will give everyone a chance also to consider what we've heard thus far for 10 minutes. And we'll reconvene at, geez, I guess that would be 37 minutes after. Thanks very much. our recess and I had left off speaking with Commissioner Walder who had a series of questions for the presenters thus far. Commissioner.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I feel a little inadequate after following four lawyers but I'll try and bring it back to layperson language and comments. First of all for the record I have no personal or financial interest in the project or any neighboring properties I visited the location. I've read all of the TRPA materials, including the public comments made at the governing board meeting. I've read the meeting minutes. I've read the supplemental materials posted at 11 a.m. and again at 4.45 p.m. on July 13th. Linda, thank you for your presentation. Ms. Valino, I appreciate your detailed arguments, the ones you submitted in the letters dated April 27th, May 8th, July 7th, and your presentation today. It's a given that in Tahoe Township, project approval and the requirements and conditions imposed can be confusing. TRPA, in my view, is both a blessing and a curse. But applicants, any opponents, and Tahoe residents must understand what role the Planning Commission plays in this process. Our question today is whether all of the eight findings, packet pages 81 through 87, can be met. The appellant originally in their April 27 letter argued that findings A and G could not be met. They later on May 8th and again today offer arguments on all eight findings. But to me, many are not Douglas County issues but should have been raised with TRPA nine months ago. I make these comments to build a public record should this matter be considered by other bodies in the future. So Linda, let me start with you. I visited the project and the surrounding area several times in the past week. There are a number of buildings on Dorla Court, most of which were on the south side next to the applicant's property. One appears to be vacant, but the others appear to house about 20 or more different tenants. And this includes the four or five businesses at 303 Dorla Court, which I would note has a sign saying 400, and appears as both 303 and 400 Dorla Court in the Douglas County Assessor Records. So, Linda, I'd just like to have, for the record, have any of the tenants of the appellant's building submitted comments on this project?

Linda Doherty, for the record, I have not received any comments from any of the tenants.

Okay. And have any other building owners or tenants voiced concerns?

None that identified themselves as such.

Thank you. And then I would like to take this opportunity to give further clarification and edification on the point made by the appellant about the traffic study. And I'd like to read into the record, and I will submit the actual language for inclusion in supplemental materials just because I do think this is an important area. This was an email that I received this morning from the transportation consultant, Leslie Suen, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., And it's not that long, but I hope people will indulge me because I think it's important. We incorrectly used the standards from Douglas County, Colorado. My sincere apology on this oversight. Douglas County, Nevada does not have intersection level of service standards. It only provides level of service standards for roadways, which is not applicable here. Therefore, the intersection LOS standard that would be applicable to this project is the TRPA standards. The TRPA standard is listed in the report for US 50 Elks Point Road as LOSD with up to four hours per day of LOSE. The intersection is therefore not currently operating within the TRPA standard and will continue to do so with the implementation of the project. This conclusion of the study remains unchanged. Though the intersection is currently failing, the TRPA regional plan states that vehicle LOS standards may be exceeded when provision for multimodal amenities are adequate to provide mobility for users. That's policy 4.11 of TRPA. As the project has several elements that encourage non-auto level travel, and is adjacent to trails and recreation at Nevada Beach, the project's impact to the intersection of US 50 Elks Point Road is considered acceptable and the conclusion of the study remains unchanged. So I just wanted to put that on the record so that we could have that documentation. Now, Chris, the representative from Tahoe Douglas Fire, are you still on Zoom or did you have to get off? We'll skip him for the moment then if he comes back on. I just wanted to give him the opportunity to make any comments about their relationship.

One moment. Colleen, is the fire, Central Fire District's representative still on? He's still logged in. All right, then, we'll just.

Yeah, he just commented. He's still here. He has no comments.

OK. OK, thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to offer that opportunity since he took the time and the effort to be a part of our discussion. So Ms. Vanilla, can you come forward because the next questions, I think, are all in your bailiwick. Again, thank you for your effort in your presentation today. Thank you. Your office is in Reno, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Can you tell me how many times, if any, have you visited the property we have under review?

I visited the property once.

Once. Okay. Do you know how many buildings there are on the south side of Dora Court and adjacent to the property under review?

Forgive me, I'm not great at cardinal directions, but I'm going to think. So I know on our client's property, there's one large building on our client's property right there. And then across the way, there's, I'm going to guess, five buildings right across the way right there.

Okay. Well, there's four on the south side adjacent to the property in question, including the building owned by G&T. And there's two on the other side. But there's a large number of tenants in all of those buildings. Mm-hmm. If this project presents the negative qualities you've raised, why do you think none of the other property owners or tenants have raised concerns?

I don't know that we can definitively answer that. I think most of the people that submitted comments, public comments, didn't identify their address or their connection to the project.

Well, I think I know most of the people who submitted public comments, and I don't believe there are owners of any of those buildings or tenants. I may be wrong, but...

I'm sorry, Garrett, go ahead.

May I, Mr. Chairman?

Certainly to answer the question, but please present your name and write your name.

I will. Thank you. For the record, Garrett Gordon. I'm with Womble Bond Dickinson. I appreciate the question, Commissioner. I would say because the noticing doesn't go to the tenants. It goes to who owns the property. And so it would go to the address of the property owner, not necessarily the tenants who may not know this is even being proposed.

Thank you. That's a very good point. But there is a noticing sign that's clearly visible from Highway 50, and I would imagine that the tenants have to travel on 50 in one direction or another at some point in the last 10 days since the sign has been up. So the noticing is fairly obvious, and I would think if they would have concerns, they would raise them. But we'll move on. Now, do you know how long G&T Properties has owned 303 Dorla Court?

I don't, but I can certainly find out. OK. Since 2018.

Since 2018. OK, thank you. And it appears that there are four or five tenants there, right? Is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

Thank you. And do the owners, Gary and Tracy Saunders, have an office at 303 Dorla Court?

I'm sorry.

Could you come forward and speak into the microphone just so our clerk doesn't have to?

Put your name on the document and then articulate your name into the microphone. And I realize it's a simple answer, but this is for record keeping.

No problem.

Thanks.

Gary Saunders. I'll try and talk English. I'm from New Zealand. I'm the owner of G&T properties. One of the owners of G&T is Gary and Tracy Saunders. And just to go back to your first question there, the reason that I'm objecting to is the driveway, the proposed driveway, runs right next to my property. And we have invested money over the last two years to see about actually expanding our property. There's zoned residential and commercial. and we've invested a lot of money and we were looking at the option of potentially building some affordable housing on our property, which we believe we can with the research we've done, and I even engaged an architect. And then I found out that the driveway was going to run right against our boundary. And then it loops into the forest, just as it gets close to the development, anywhere near their yurts, and then magically disappears back into the forest and then comes up into the middle. I don't know why it doesn't just go straight into their property, if it's good enough to go against mine. And I apologize if I've got off track here, but I've lost the original question. Sorry.

Well, I appreciate all of the information you provided. The original question was, do you have an office at 303 Door to Court? Yes, I do. You do have an office.

I own a business called Pilot Brands.

Thank you very much. Now, have any of the tenants and any of the three of you could answer this? So please choose who you want to speak on these last three or four questions. Have any of the tenants in your building expressed objections to you about the campground project?

I had discussions with one of the tenants, or one of the employees from the Conservancy Department, and he was surprised the development had gone ahead. But other than that, no, I think they're leaving it to me to fight the battle, and... This has not been cheap, but we'll be prepared to fight.

Okay, thank you. Two more questions, then again you can stay there if you feel best equipped to answer this question. Your property Only borders the access road. So I appreciate you're saying that those are your primary concerns, but you're aware that it will be buffered by a 50-foot landscaped buffer? Are you aware of that?

It's not the way the plans showed. So it's going to be 50 feet from my property line to the driveway? To the start of the driveway? You think the driveway is like 50 feet deep?

Well, I would leave that to our staff to explain the 50 foot, but I think we discussed that previously. And that appears to me to be a pretty sufficient separation to protect your property from any interest.

We also have a very nice forest view right now, which will, a lot of those trees are going to come down.

One moment, one moment, sir. on the issue of the buffer.

Yeah, Tom Dallaire for the record. The 50 feet starts on their property at where it aligns with the back of this gentleman's property and US Forest Service. There isn't a 50 foot buffer towards Elks Point. It's literally on the property where the campsites are going to go.

Between the property and the road. The new road?

It doesn't show that.

It's actually on the campground property is where the 50-foot buffer is from the, I guess it's the north side of their property.

I'm confused because I deal with this not in engineering or in legal. So if I stand on their property line, to walk to the road is 50 feet?

No, it's right up against their property. It looks like they are proposing about six feet of fill to the road, to the top of the surface of the road, and then it starts veering off where their property hits. It would be nicer to have a map on the screen, but where their property hits. hits the boundary of all of these parcels, kind of where they come together and hit the U.S. Forest Service property. I have it on a...

If I may, so the record's clear. That road runs adjacent to Mr. Sanders' property line.

I'm looking at the map now that Lori has got on her computer, and I believe I understand that better, so thank you.

It's just what we're talking about, the road. I don't know why the road comes to Elk Point, Elk Point Runway can't come off Highway 50. That... I would withdraw my dispute if they would do their access road from 50. That's all I want.

Yeah, I don't think we need to get into that. There are traffic safety considerations off of 50. And then Ms. Vanilla talked previously about the narrowness and the tightness of the road. And I think from personal observation, I don't find that to be uniquely narrow or tight, particularly by Tahoe standards. that elk point road and i if i counted correctly there are seven different entrances and exits off of elks point road for the various other buildings there are three on the north side for the real estate building for the windham timeshares and for the church and there are four uh entrances and exits on the south side of Elks Point Road for the real estate office, for the restaurant, for the fire station, and Dorla Court. So I think I would kind of dismiss that argument. Yes, please, go ahead.

Commissioner, those are all incredible facts which we think should have been studied in a traffic report that used Douglas County, Nevada standards I can appreciate a last-minute email came to you, but that's not the complete record today I mean at the very least we should continue this for a Douglas County, Nevada traffic study Looking at the narrowness all the access points you mentioned making sure we're getting the level of service correct from endot to Douglas County Nevada to the circulation plan you just mentioned I think to have a complete record, at the very least, we should come back with a new study to make sure what you're saying is reflected by a traffic engineer on the record with Douglas County, Nevada standards would be our suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestion, and I need to tell you that the access, and I'm speaking now to the applicant, pardon me, not the applicant, the appellee, the Access from 50 has been presented to us as emergency only. Do you follow me? Not as an access road.

Just to get on the road, if you go down Elks Point Road during summer, there are cars parked all the way down both sides. I mean, it's chocker. And you're right, there are driveways along there, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

And I would say the traffic study, again, used Colorado standards, didn't address what happens during an event. It's an event center. That's the language they used in there. How many trips are coming in and out during an event? Maybe 200 or more. I think, at the very least, we should research or have analysis done on what does the event center look like? What did the employee housing, the ADU, those trips look like? I don't believe they were included in the analysis. What does Douglas County, Nevada standards look like? And the circulation plan and level of service, I think would be a good document to have on the record here.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.

I have one more question, and I don't want to be argumentative about those points until we get to the deliberations point of the proceedings. My last question, and again, whoever wants to answer this is welcome to. What specifically is the material harm that the property at 303 Dorla Court or the tenants would be caused by this project?

Thank you for that question, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for the indulgence to answer. So I'm looking at the findings, A through H, right? Every property owner in this county who you know, elects the county commission and appoints the planning commission is due the right to have the county code interpreted to its benefit in regards to a project. A, consistent with the adopted master plan and zoning regulations. The harm is no one could anticipate that there would be a boutique hotel, a boutique motel on this property. As far as having a property owner have the foresight to know a campsite per code is tents, is RVs. The word cabin is in tourist accommodation. You saw the traffic study they used. They used the motel. DESIGNATION TO CALCULATE THIS. SO I THINK AS FAR AS YOUR FIRST QUESTION, YOUR QUESTION FOR LEVEL A, RELIANCE UPON DOUGLAS COUNTY CODE AND DOUGLAS COUNTY PROCESS. I HAVE NOT MENTIONED ONCE TRPA BECAUSE MR. CHAIRMAN WAS SO ADEQUATE IN HIS WORDS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TRPA TODAY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY HERE, DOUGLAS COUNTY AND HOW THEY'RE INTERPRETING THIS. AND NO ONE IN OUR OPINION COULD INTERPRET THIS BOUTIQUE GLAMPING tourist accommodation facility to be a campsite. So just reliance upon code. Let me go down to H. I don't want to take up all this time here and go through each finding, but H. Materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. I've done a lot of land use projects in the last 20 years. Every time there's trees removed, there's a tree study. There's a drainage study. There's an erosion study. None of that was put on the record here. There's a traffic study that uses Douglas County, Nevada standards. That's not on the record here. There's a discussion about use, and we have a court case that says both jurisdictions are different. You have the right to interpret use based on the reliance of a property owner. So I would say, yeah, there's an issue here and a lot of holes in this application. And I think we should be able to sit down with the applicant and with staff and plug those holes. Because if not, we have a very deficient record of a lot of studies that should have been done, that are normally done for something like this, that weren't. And we're just asking for a fair shake to have those studies and analysis done, Mr. Commissioner.

Gary Saunders again. If I can also add, the damage to myself is right now I have a property with a beautiful forest view. Walk through the forest straight to Nevada Beach. If this proposal goes ahead, I'm going to have a driveway. I'm going to be looking at a driveway, looking at 220 to probably 250 cars a day drive in front of my lot line. And the pollution, the noise, and it will devalue my property substantially.

And I guess I just want to make the legal argument as far as what Mr. Sanders said. We pulled a title report, and that forest area easement from the Forest Service, it's my understanding and it's my review that that's been rescinded. It's been abandoned. And our consultant appeared up at TRPA saying, And so the record is clear that we were on record up there. But at the very least, if we're going to have a roadway going through U.S. Forest Service that is adjacent to this gentleman's road or property, at the very least, we should confirm whether or not there's a recorded easement. Because if I look at it, it's been abandoned.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any questions, further questions? Commissioner McKelvey?

This is more for AJ. I guess what I kept getting back to is the definition of a developed campground. And the TRPA has made this definition as I understand it. Can you give me some insight into that?

Thank you. AJ Hames from the district attorney's office for the record. The way that plan reviews are divided for projects up at the lake... partly dependent on where the project is going to be located, but are generally described in chapter 700 of the Douglas County Code. And it states there that the county's primary role is to perform design review and building inspections. Whereas it says the county, the county's derogation to TRPA's planning and zoning jurisdiction and enforcement authority is also recognized as in our code. So there is a distinction there as far as what the various agencies are to do. TRPA is charged primarily with planning and zoning jurisdiction and then the county is limited to design reviews, building permits, site improvement permits, things of that nature. So when TRPA makes a zoning determination, the county doesn't in the design review process does not second guess or reevaluate that designation. Notwithstanding, I think staff have evaluated that determination and actually agree with TRPA, which is what they've presented here today, that this does fit the definition of a developed campground. It is, the county's role is limited to design reviews and building inspections and building permits, site improvement permits, things of that nature per our own code. Thank you.

Any further questions? before I have public comment. Yes, question? Thank you, Chairman.

I too am a little concerned about the use of event center, weddings, and that type of activity, particularly in light of some business that we've conducted here in the last several months. And I guess I was somewhat surprised that there's no description of that. I see no projection of numbers. I see no evaluation of noise. Are you going to have music? Or is this going to be just small, you know, half a dozen people at a wedding thing? I did hear that there will be some electric shuttles to get people from motels elsewhere or outside of this clamping ground to the event, but there really isn't a whole lot of analysis of that as well. So I guess I'd like to hear more about that and as i as i review the conditions of the proposed conditions of approval i don't see anything that addresses events uh maybe i maybe i missed it but i don't see anything that addresses events so perhaps somebody could clarify that this really isn't a event center in the sense that there are going to be hundreds of people That it's, you know, small events, quiet, no loud amplified music, I don't know. But I'm curious as to why that was not addressed in more detail, both in the presentation of the project and the analysis of the project, since it has created some controversy in this room in the last several months. Not this project. Thank you.

Commissioner St. John? And I see who approached the podium. Mr. Feldman, you wish to respond to that issue?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Lou Feldman for the record. There is no intention to have this be an event center or a significant wedding venue. It is appropriately characterized as glamping. It is high-end camping. There may be some small events. If there are events bringing outsiders in, they will be shuttled in. I can't help but observe that over a million people visit Nevada Beach every year down this road. with boom boxes and all kinds of activity immediately adjacent to this site. And I think we are not the problem. We are a very insignificant factor, but I respect the question and I'm happy to represent that significant activity is not anticipated. It's accessory to the primary use.

Could you put a number to that?

I wish I had that expertise. I didn't pass the wedding planner class, but the intention here is, you know, I do have broader experience, and I can tell you the hospitality industry that hosts weddings makes their money on food and beverage. And they have significant infrastructure to facilitate that trade. That doesn't exist on this site. So this isn't designed to accommodate the kind of impacts that I think are being discussed.

Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Pleasure. Any further questions from the Commission? I'd like to open the public comment now on this particular item, item two on our agenda. Colleen, I am going to wait on those that are on Zoom to call until after folks here in the room have made comments. Is that all right with you, ma'am?

That is fine. Still, Chris is the only one out there.

All right, thanks. Elizabeth Learnhardt, resident of Suffolk Cove. I've been following this project since it was first put in front of TRPA. I was going to go over all the shortcomings, but as counsel for the appellant, was very thorough in looking at all the legalities and pointing out the shortcomings. of the review that TRPA did and the egregious criteria that were used that everybody missed at the TRPA, I would like to comment on certain things that I see as a resident. The only reason I'm here today is because somebody pointed out to me that there is a sign that's very poorly accessible off Highway 50. On Sunday, I risked an accident to go there and try to interpret it. I could not read it from the road. I couldn't park there, I couldn't walk there. I took a picture and enlarged it, and that's why I'm here. And then I looked at your agenda and found it's on the agenda. I don't think that is appropriate notice for the public. In addition, to just elaborate on the event and wedding venues, that was not mentioned to my recollection at the TRPA. The problem is that in this county, we do not have separate criteria for buildings or approvals at the lake. Different to Washoe County, who basically has their own criteria and the process goes from TRPA approval to the county and then back to TRPA. This county, and this is personal communication with Mr. Walder, decided that it is not a good point to fight the TRPA, so they accepted the TRPA criteria. Well, as this project points out, it causes a lot of confusion. It is very intransparent, and the TRP doesn't always follow their own rules. So in addition to that, I won't belabor it. It is a flood zone. There is a flood drainage that goes under Elks Point Road from the church parking lot to the area. I don't know how on the application for TRPA the applicant can say it's not. And I don't know how TRPA approves of that. The other main problem I have that nobody mentioned is the exit for the emergency on 50. It's across from Alex Point, no, Sewer Plant Road. It's a very dangerous exit. position. The previous fire chief was very much against it. Having a similar exit at Skyland where I live is really giving people that are pedestrian or bike user or e-bike users the access to use it. And with 30 e-bikes being offered, I don't know what that's going to do. There's a poor visibility and that hasn't chimed in on it. I really think it's premature. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Further public comment in the room?

Gary Saunders. I'll just add to the little bit we talked about before about the amenities with regard to weddings, et cetera. The property does include a commercial kitchen as well. So I don't know what sort of campground has a commercial kitchen.

Thank you, sir. Further? public comment from those in the room. Colleen, I'm going to ask, do you have anybody with their hands raised on Zoom?

Thank you, Chairman Bruno. No, I do not.

I appreciate your diligence. Thank you very much. And now I close the public comment, and I return it to the Planning Commission for discussions, motions, or further actions.

I have a couple little things. Mr. Chair.

Yes, ma'am. The chair recognizes vice chair.

Linda, in our staff report on page 86 under height in the third paragraph, it says that the under TRPA, it says that the tree houses, barbecue pavilion, ADU and main lodge are all above 26 feet in height, which requires special height findings under TRPA and it gives a bunch of numbers. However, on page 81, under our findings, it says, that the building heights are in the proposed range of 10 feet to 23 feet. And also on page 100, we have the same thing. Building heights are in the proposed range of 10 feet to 23 feet, below the maximum of 30 feet to 38 feet. What are we talking about for building heights, maximum building heights? Do you know?

Linda Doyle, for the record. Sorry, I'm trying to find it in here. There are structures that don't exceed the maximum, but was it the clubhouse?

Yeah, the tree houses, barbecue pavilion, ADU, main lodge are all Above 26 feet.

And they are not allowed to exceed the canopy height, which they do not. Let's see. Sorry, I'm trying to find this information.

But it doesn't give a maximum height of what they are. So I'm just curious as to what the height. Now it just says it won't extend above the canopy.

Page 120 of your packet has elevations. And I'm sorry, I'm having trouble pulling it up on the computer. It pulled up this morning, but now it won't display it. But there are some heights listed there on the elevation drawings. It describes the height of these structures. Let me ask Mr. Feldman if he knows the maximum height.

I may have missed it in the pack, but I couldn't find it. I believe it's only two people.

I apologize. We're working on that.

Since it was approved by TRPA, it's not hypercritical.

And they do determine the allowable height versus the county when it's for structures in the basin.

Because staff report says one thing. I can see the confusion. I apologize. That's OK. And I guess what it leads to is whether or not those structures will be visible from the buildings on Dorla Court or vice versa. Will they be looking at the buildings on Dorla Court? Even though I know that there is a buffer of trees, they will be removing some trees because a lot of the trees are sick or have some type of infestation, and they will be doing a vigorous replanting.

Linda Doherty for the record. And also there is a slope between the properties as well. So I mean there will be trees removed for various purposes which that was all reviewed by a professional forester and there is a permit in with the Forest Service. They just have it on hold right now until they know the outcome here. I don't think there will be any part that's 100% screened just because of the nature, you know, the forest. You can still see the trees through the forest. But the landscape buffer is required to help with the screening and that would be on the property boundaries between the two uses, the commercial and the recreation.

I don't think the heights are in the staff report anywhere. the maximum heights. So I think we should add it before this. If it goes to the Board of Commissioners, I think that they should be in the report somewhere. And also, I wanted to note that in the staff report, we do have the tree removal plan from February 2025, and also a traffic study from LSC Transportation. from 2025, both are very thorough. And then one thing that I noticed in the information from the appellant is that they cited for us to reference the Tahoe Dempsey Plan area. And I thought that the Round Hill Community Plan from 1993, while it's old, that I felt it was more appropriate to cite because it's adjacent to this property and not across Highway 50. And one of the things that's in that community plan, it says that the Dorla Court area should continue to serve as a local serving community, a local serving commercial node and tourist center. And that the policies must stimulate the rehabilitation of existing commercial to the high quality expected in destination resort communities. And I think that's really important. I think that that's one of the things that this does. I spent all day yesterday going through this report. It's so thorough. the information that the appellant provided, that staff reported from the staff report, from TRPA, it was amazing. And it's very difficult when we have so much information to go back and forth, back and forth, comparing and contrasting. But honestly, I could not find anything that would make me feel comfortable with objecting to any of the findings. So I have to support the determination of staff that this project meets all the findings. And that's where I am. Thank you.

Further comments from the commission? Motion of any sort? Commissioner Lyle?

Thank you. Thank you, Linda, for a very thorough report. We rarely get so much detail, but I appreciate the effort. I did want to just make some comments about the determination. I think staff's determination and TRP's determination is actually correct as far as the land use. If I was going to stay in a boutique resort, I would definitely want a shower and a toilet. And so since this is not providing that in all the units, I think this is definitely a campground. I've been to KOA campgrounds that have had way more amenities than this one. So I believe that this is the correct determination for this use. But I did want to talk about the events. Is that something that was included in the discussion at TRPA or is that something that has been just kind of tagged on to this project as it's moved forward through the process? Linda Doherty, for the record.

They have not provided a lot of detail, and I've been thinking about this. I could amend the conditional approval letter to address that, and that way it's covered, because that wasn't included, and that was my bad, sorry.

Yeah, I think that certainly would be something I would support, is basically indicating that the the events are something that Douglas County would like to have further evaluation on. Because I do think that that is certainly one of the big things that could cause some complaints from nearby businesses and residents. But again, I think the information on the trip generation, the noise, the tree removal, I have no grave concerns about this. The ADU also, what about the representation by the appellant that it should be limited to 1,000 square feet? Could you guys address that, please?

Linda Doherty for the record. So as how it works now is outside of the basin, we do apply these standards and the allowable square footage of habitable space is determined by zoning and lot size. But it's different in the basin and TRPA is reviewing that and so what they apply is what we accept. Great, thank you for that. Mr. Chair.

AJ, please. Comment on Commissioner Lyles.

To build off that answer that Linda gave, there are specific standards that are incorporated into the basin. So table 20.702.3, that's the table that incorporates valley standards into Tahoe Basin developments. Accessory dwelling units in... uh, this type of, of district, which is designated with the, the prefix S this is S right? The section that is incorporated is 20.668.010, which is accessory dwellings within non-residential zoning districts. And so that is the standard that was correctly stated by the appellant's attorney. It is limited to one accessory dwelling. That's 26.668.010D. And also the accessory dwelling shall be limited to no more than 1,000 square feet. That's 010 subsection B. So those were correct statements.

Okay.

Does the accessory dwelling unit currently meet that requirement as shown on the site plan? It seems larger than that. Maybe it is pretty small. Well, as long as the footprint that is approved is within the 1,000 square feet, then I find that it's not in conflict with the approval. And I support this project.

There is one item that was raised by Commissioner Lyle and also the appellant that troubles me. And I recognized but interpreted the commercial kitchen to be for the nine inhabitants of the auxiliary dwelling unit, namely the employees that would be there permanently. However, it doesn't say that in the conditions. such that the appellant has a point. If you have a commercial kitchen, why couldn't you have a group of 300 out on the lawn? You follow me? And I think that we should take a look at that condition and maybe tighten it up to make sure that there's a direct connection between the commercial kitchen and the permanent inhabitants, the nine lucky people.

Commissioner McKillop And I have kind of the same some of the same questions about this event area and I was wondering and my question would be Would they require any kind of special use permit beyond that to have events there? Anybody

Sorry, I'm thinking. I'm going to ask Lou Feldman to address that. All right.

Mr. Feldman, the question is basically, to distill it down, how can you limit the number of individuals at a gathering or an event at this particular property? It is not subject to a special use permit, but rather we're giving permission design review for the entire campground. Do you follow what I'm saying? There is no condition we could put on that that we could review at a later date and say, well, you violated it because now you have, you know, it's a circus that you just put there and everybody's coming to watch the performance.

Mr. Chair, Lou Feldman again. The first thing I would note, and I completely understand and am trying to be responsive to the question, this type of question typically would be coming from residential neighbors. And events typically occur on weekends and the neighbors to this property are commercial tenants in commercial buildings. There are no residential neighbors. So in terms of real world impacts, the probability of a weekend event having an adverse impact on the quality of life of the adjacent occupants is pretty remote. With that said, some people work weekends. I work weekends sometimes. Not as much as I used to, fortunately. And I think that some reasonable condition We are limited by parking. We are, quite frankly, pretty distant to any adjacency. So I guess I'm trying to, in the real world, understand who would be adversely impacted by 100 people or 50 people. I'm struggling to put that in a real world context. But with that said, a condition of approval that requests that we submit a plan on how we're going to manage events for the review and approval of the planning department to me seems like a reasonable protection for you all.

Thank you, Mr. Feldman, because I can imagine a circumstance where the event is, for example, and I'm just speaking if you create a small hole we have to be careful as the planning commission that five years from now a mac truck doesn't drive through that small hole so if you had a beach party for example with all the glamping and it was all taken over and it's a wedding so they all purposefully rent the units for this event And then you call in or drive in all the folks with a van so that you have a very highly impacted event. And they all trail down to Nevada Beach where every year I've had to pick up garbage on that beach. Every single after the 4th of July. You're in good company. And this would be yet another 4th of July happening here. in April and in June and maybe months after months. So there has to be some protection, at least in my mind, that that doesn't happen. And I know that I'm making a hypothetical here, and perhaps that's the danger of having four lawyers talk on this issue, but I think that a condition of the type that you're speaking of may be appropriate. Thank you. I didn't respond adequately for you.

99.9%. Go ahead, sir.

And give your name, please. For the record, Garrett Gordon. I think it's important to note that when you analyze residential adjacency, it's not what's currently there. It's what's currently zoned. And my client's property, he can put residential there and in fact has hired an architect to do so. And so I do think there is a residential adjacency impact to residentially zoned properties would be the appropriate analysis. And second, my client would ask in the event that there were conditions put on this today to give us that 50 feet. that other properties that have had that roadway next to it do in fact get to entertain. That 50 feet would be important to us, and I think equitable and potentially address the residential adjacency issue in the future would be great. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Further questions? Mr. McCullough? If I just complete my comments.

I know whenever you have a project, you have neighbors who'd hope that that property would stay empty forever. And life isn't like that. And I think this is a relatively good project. I think there's aspects of it that may be very fortunate, for example, for older people that don't want to pound stakes and put up a tent. So basically, I will say that I favor this project. Thank you.

Thanks very much. A question for our district attorney, or although I, as you know, in the past I've promoted AJ to attorney general, and I do so now. Can a condition of approval place a limit on the number for an event? That is the number of people.

AJ Hames, um, for the record, your, your limitation on conditions of approval is that they have to be related to a finding. They would have to be necessary for that finding to be achieved.

I would commend the public health and safety requirement. Number eight of the eight requirements. THAT WOULD BE SERVED BY LIMITING EVENTS TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE NOT ALLOWING THEM TO EXCEED THAT AMOUNT. WHAT TROUBLES ME IS HOW THE HECK WOULD THAT BE ENFORCED?

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ENFORCEMENT, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT. IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE THROUGH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE I IMAGINE FOR A LOT OF THIS. But the project description and justification doesn't mention anything about events. Therefore, the project wasn't analyzed about that. The actual two references that they reference in here about events is the lawn, event lawn. It looks like they have outside of maybe whatever that structure is. Is it 1,000 feet? Is it 2,000 feet? I don't know that either. I've been trying to search this application documents to see if I can determine that too. I don't see a floor plan of the actual larger structure. Did you have a floor plan of the larger structure on that, Linda, when you were going through this?

Linda Doherty, for the record, no, that was not given to me.

It's a design review application also, which is conceptual in nature. The concept still has to be flushed out through engineering and put into design under an SIP, Site Improvement Permit. And then that usually is when the more detailed analysis is happening as far as the drainage goes and the alignments. It's very conceptual today. They do show two-foot contours. There's a lot of terrain to navigate on this site. And I think the drainage is going to change substantially when they go through the actual design of this conceptual plan. And so I don't think that evaluating the site or putting conditions on it, I mean, we could do a condition on, add a condition if necessary for that this isn't an event venue and make that very clear. But if you have somebody coordinate The entire or half of even half of the camping site and then they have some sort of gathering. I don't know that we'd be able to control those kinds of things that happen at the at the facility, but I don't see how this can be like my wedding is going to be here. And if you want to camp, great. We have we have shuttles to the hotel. If you want to go to a hotel and stay, I don't see how that can be. advertised and published and actually offered as a service at this facility. It's really for the camping enthusiasts that don't actually own a tent. So that's kind of what it looks like to me. So anyway, that's my two cents.

That's worth more than two cents, our Director Dallaire, but it is not the concern of My concern is not the venue doing this, but individuals using that venue to the detriment of those that both live around there or use the facilities such that the appellant might be substantially burdened by having repeated Gatherings in excess and that's I was just thinking throughout loud solutions that might be put in the conditions but I recognize the difficulty and Enforcement AJ Thank You mr. Jerry James the record just to note there are use categories under the TRP a code of ordinances that include certain types of

They're called assembly and entertainment or public assembly or group entertainment. And so this is not seeking approval of any kind of assembly hall or anything like that. So if what ended up happening was they were operating the lawn area as an assembly hall and it met those requirements, that would be a zoning violation because that's not an approved use. don't think that's what's being proposed but if it it morphed into that over time that would not be an approved use and i don't think the approval of the design review um approves a use which is not allowed in the zoning district i am getting the impression

Loud and clear that, Mr. Bruno, what you're hypothetical is never going to happen, and don't even worry about it. But I guess I spend enough time down on Nevada Beach or adjacent to it that that's why I had that concern. Is there a motion?

I'd like to just make one final comment before the motion. I agree with the comments that were made. I would feel comfortable if at least that was addressed in your supplemental, as you described. And I'm becoming more comfortable the more we talk about it. I've got to say I've learned a few things here. I guess I've spent more time wilderness camping than glamping, so this to me didn't look like a campground at first. But then again, I'm also convinced by our legal team that that's not my concern today, is the definition of campground and the definition of the land use. So I'm going to stay away from that. um i i guess i'm a i heard the comment about there is no easement for the access road i guess the project's going to die a quick death if they can't produce an easement isn't that right from from the planning folks but again i again i don't think that's my concern today that's something i would I would assume, would be flushed out in the final design process when these types of legal documents are provided for review. So I'm going to stay away from that as well. So with those concerns sort of... addressed in my mind. I am familiar with the area. I used to go up to the Resource Conservation District office there all the time. We had our meetings in the fire station. I go to the beach there. It's the quickest beach from down here. So I'm very familiar with that area. And I get why Tahoe needs more camping.

I get that.

And so I can see the compelling purpose for this. But anyways, at this point, I am ready to vote in favor of the motion. I suppose you're looking for a motion, aren't you?

No, no, no. Thank you, Mr. St. John. Commissioner Walder.

I'm prepared to make the recommended motion in the staff report on page 73 unless other people have further comments or concerns. would like to amplify their concerns about the straight motion.

Only, this is the chairman speaking again, only that in accordance with Mr. Feldman's comment that there be some type of restriction on the type and frequency of the events that might be occurring on the lawn which is adjacent to the commercial kitchen and the permanent employees. In that fashion, we take away one of the objections that I heard from the appellant, and I think that would be helpful, that there would not be a basis for a later complaint that what we allowed morphed into a complaint. problematical situation. In other words, we could take care of it now. Oh, AJ, I apologize. You're going to tell me once again that I am very paranoid and perhaps too much so to be in the Planning Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I wasn't going to say that exactly. I just was reiterating that it is a design review. I mean, if a residential or if this were a multifamily residential project, for example, it would have to come forward for a design review. And if that multifamily project had a large grass area, approval of the design review wouldn't necessarily approve events at the multifamily project. development. It would just be approving the design. And so I think that's what's being accomplished here. But certainly any conditions that you feel are necessary to meet the requirements of the design review, I think are appropriate. And if you feel that that's an appropriate condition, then there's no reason to not add it.

Thank you very much. Very cogent and wise statement. So I will turn back to my colleague, Commissioner Walder, and say that if it were limited to 10 events in excess of 30 people,

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer not to to be too restrictive or too prescriptive. Maybe might be a better legal word, right? Yes, I would welcome mr. Feldman's comments, but I've drafted some supplemental language to the Basic recommended motion if my colleagues wanted to hear that Before we before I offer it formally Mr. Feldman this might take care of it.

So go ahead sir. I

So I would just have the straight motion and then say with an additional condition to meet finding H that the facility submit a plan on how the facility will conduct events such as weddings using the event lawn.

Weddings or events?

I said conduct events such as weddings or weddings or events. Such as. Such as weddings. I mean EG, comma. Using the event lawn. Does that seem like it passes muster?

It does for me. Thank you, sir.

Or in the clubhouse? Sure. Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll put slash clubhouse. Okay. Are we ready?

We are indeed.

Okay. I move that the planning commission uphold the conditional approval of the design review because the appellant's arguments are not supported by the evidence and the findings listed in in Douglas County Code 20.614.040 are met. And with an additional condition to meet finding H, that the facility submit a plan on how the facility will conduct events such as weddings using the event lawn slash clubhouse.

Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Commissioner McKillop is seconded. Is there a discussion on the motion?

I don't think it should be facility submit. I think it should be applicant.

Do you accept that friendly amendment? So amended. Does the second accept that amendment? Very good. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you all very much.

At long last, we are at item three on our agenda. For possible action, presentation, discussion, and direction to staff, regarding pending updates on proposed articles 4-6 to the Douglas County Code, Title 20, Douglas County Development Code. Douglas County Community Development staff and Anne Marie Lane, NCE, are the presenters. Who will speak first?

Thank you, Chairman Bruno. Go into the Zoom to share.

Oh, okay.

It doesn't exist. So as Andrea is pulling that up, again, Kate Morales O'Neil for the record. So we are gonna go over today articles four through six. And I just want to be clear because I know there's been some confusion. We're not coming to you today for any type of approval. Like we want you to approve 4, 5, and 6. What we've done is we've reformatted the existing Title 20 into this new format. So what exists today in Title 20 is what's in 4, 5, and 6. What we're looking at from you today is your input from those articles, what you know of 4, 5, and 6. Any specific areas you would like us to look into or look to updating certain sections. We have, after the last Board of County Commissioner meeting, I think it became apparent to us that right now when you try to look at the red line, it is like overbearing because it's all red, because we've completely reformatted everything. And then we've made some minor updates, nothing drastic, like we've updated certain definitions or added more clarity, things like that. So what we talked at from our staff level after the BOCC meeting is perhaps the next time we see you, we are coming to you to approve the new format and the new layout. And then we can say goodbye to the old Title 20. And then we start working on the red lines. So that's kind of where we are now. We still need to talk to county manager's office to see if they like that plan. But we feel that would be a lot easier for our community members, for yourselves, to really identify the red lines. Because right now it's a lot. It's a lot for Ann Marie because she's the one doing everything, like doing all the red lines. So I just want to be clear today, because I know a lot of people think we're moving forward with approvals, but we're not. We're just trying to get input. That's why we're bringing three chapters at a time or three articles at a time. So I just wanted to kind of update you and discuss or share with you what kind of plan of attack we're looking at now. And we'd like your feedback on that idea too. If you think it might behoove us to move forward with approval of the new layout and the new design and the new articles, then we come back, work on whatever ideas you give us today. And then once we get the format approved, then we can start really sharing those red lines and coming back for actual approval. So that's where we are now. Moving, we have Tom DeLair over there just to introduce staff. Andrea Pauling, myself, Kate Morales-O'Neil. And then we have Anne Marie Lane. Nora Pazella is not with us today. She also works for NCE. And then Sherry Bowman also from Resource Concept who does our graphics, our new graphics. She's done a tremendous job. She's not able to be here today too. so what is title 20 it is our consolidated development code and we look at it as our rule book it consists of land use and zoning districts development standards procedures and safety and protection Those are all things that are covered in Title 20. So why update the code now? I don't think I have to tell any of you or share with you why this update is important. So we have a fragmented patchwork within Title 20 now. So we've had a lot of amendments over the years and what happens is all those amendments get put into code and then it becomes very disjointed it's really and i think it also causes a lot of conflicts and contradiction because we have an amendment that might have fixed one area and didn't realize that in another section of code it still contradicts whatever that amendment might have been. Hard to navigate, I think we're all familiar with how hard it is to navigate Title 20. One of the things that the new layout has done is to consolidate and put everything into areas that make sense. So everything that's related to zoning districts is in one area. I did mention at the last meeting, one of our hopes is to really utilize hyperlinks within the code, which will be great. Those aren't hard to do, but you can imagine within Title 20, that's a lot of hyperlinks, but that would be ideal to, again, easy to navigate to jump to a related section. Also, we have outdated standards. I mean, it's not to piggyback onto the last item, but glamping is a new thing. That is a new type of campground that probably needs to be addressed moving forward. Event venues, we've talked about that too. What do those look like? You know, people having wedding venues and using ag land, and those are just a couple, and you might come up with some others for us to look at. This is the proposed code outline. Again, nothing new. You've seen this before. The one thing we did do though is it was Article 7. That was the old design criteria manual. If you remember, there was a design criteria that was Part 1 and Part 2. That's Part 1. We now made that part of Title 20. It was always challenging because there was one sentence in Title 20 that deferred to the design criteria. So now all of that document is incorporated in Article 7. And then we also have now 12 chapters. Code enforcement now has its own chapter. And then applications procedures. And then we also added building and construction permits. And then the appendices. So we're now up to 12 articles. Again, this is just spelled out. Don't have to go over them. That's just spelling out all 12 of them. And then I'm going to pass it on to Andrea to go over our schedule, current schedule.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Andrea Pauling for the record. You've seen this tentative update and timeline before. I just wanted to point out that this is subject to change, and it may be changing as we continue to move through the process. We've had to change some meeting dates. workshops, things like that. So I always like to say that ahead of time. This is subject to change, but this is our general overview. So in July, we're here with you today to present. We went to the BOCC for the first time. Their first presentation that you received earlier on was July 2nd. We were a little delayed just based off of other projects we were working on. So we were able to present to them, presenting to you. And then tomorrow night, we have our fourth public workshop. That one, we always encourage the public to come out, anyone to come out. It's at CVIC Hall. We make them very consistent, same place. same time, same day of the week. And so it's always going to be on a Wednesday, and it's always going to be 4.30 to 6.30. This will be our fourth workshop, and we're going to be going over and discussing more in-depth articles 7 through 10. And then I just want to bring up that we're going to come back in August, so these are going to be kind of very quick and a quicker turnaround. We're coming back in August to the BOCC to present what we're presenting to you today, and then we're presenting Articles 7 through 10 to you also in August on the 11th. Again, some of these may be subject to change based off of what Kate had just gone over regarding some of the internal conversations we're having about how we want to get this code adopted and maybe the steps in order to get it approved and adopted. So this is some feedback we got through May 20th. We have some updated feedback that we just downloaded yesterday, July 13th. We'll be presenting that in detail tomorrow night at the workshop, but today I'm presenting the May 20th just because this is what we presented in the workshop earlier on. So At this time, we had 50 respondents that gave us feedback online. This is all collected through our Title 20 website link, and it's an open link with SurveyMonkey. We explained this to you guys before, but always like to reiterate that. It's an open link, open survey, and it'll be open until we're honestly done updating Title 20, just so we can continue to get that valuable feedback from our residents, from you, from everyone. So number one, it's RV and trailer storage. That's always the number one topic. And still after we downloaded the data yesterday, we had 145 respondents and got quite a bit more feedback. No surprise, this was the number one topic still, even after we almost tripled our feedback. So one of the biggest ones, I'll kind of give you a general overview. There's four pages of this. I don't want to read it all to you. I know you guys have had it in your packet and you've been able to look at it, but just highlight a few things. There was an 80% opposition, just they strongly opposed new restrictions regarding parking and RV storage. The 72-hour standard, there's 100% agreement that 48 to 72-hour grace period for driveway loading, unloading, things like that should still be in place. The half-acre threshold, the public proposed automatically exempting properties that are half-acre or larger from any kind of strict visual screening or fencing. And the financial impact. There was a lot of feedback regarding if we have to store our recreational vehicles off-site, it introduces a cost that they didn't already plan for. The next kind of high level feedback we were getting was infrastructure and safety metrics. Things like the 7 million gallon water risk, two route safety mandate, making sure, and we've all talked about this often, about dedicating to emergency entry and exit routes for all subdivisions. Then the density gap buffer, demanding strict boundaries to prevent the South Shore Area Plan's 25 unit acre maximum density from bleeding into standard residential zones. Some more feedback was the land use and code clarity requests, master definitions page. They were very in 100% agreement that we need to have a central area for all definitions. They're scattered throughout all the chapters right now. And as you can see with all of the things we've been updating you on and at the workshops, we do have a dedicated area for definitions now. The top five critical clarifications the public wants to see, campgrounds versus glamping. That was number one. I know, convenient that we're going over that today. Conservation easements versus open space. They really want a clear definition of these. Stormwater retention versus detention basins. VHRs versus agritourism. And then commercial versus noncommercial accessory dwellings. And then last bit of feedback, just agency coordination and exclusion. So I always say this wrong. HelaPAD and hospital exclusion, five agency alignment. They'd like to see a mandate in Title 20 right now that updates explicitly the coordination. and development reviews with these five. Nevada Energy, Southwest Gas, Kingsbury GID, Douglas County Sewer Authority, Carson Tahoe Health, Tahoe Douglas Fire, and then the Tahoe and Valley Divide. There's over 90% of the Tahoe Basin Commons that request a complete structural split in the code between basin regulations and Carson Valley. All right, so that is my update. I'm gonna go ahead and refer this to Ms. Anne Marie for the next slides.

I thought green mango, my apologies.

Anne Marie Lane for the record, I'm with NCE. I know that this can be a little bit boring, but it's easier for me if I can see your face. So that's why I'm standing. And they say sitting is the new smoking, so gotta keep my health up. This slide, we're going into Article 4. So on your left here, that's what the current code looks like. And what we did is we pulled all the overlay districts out into their own article. And this slide, highlights the proposed reorganization of the existing overlay district regulations into a standalone article. Under the current structure, overlay districts are dispersed throughout the zoning standards section, making them more difficult to locate and navigate. This reorganization of the existing overlay district regulations is intended to improve readability by grouping similar regulations together in one location. Next slide. There was one edit that I wanted to draw your attention. So on the left is what the current overlay district for, and this is within the livestock overlay district standards. highlights it. Oh, there's my arrows. So the livestock under the current code, donkey is listed in two separate categories. And this is in the animal unit equivalency table. And it's listed as both a full animal unit alongside horses and mules. And then it's also listed as a half animal unit alongside ponies, miniature horses, and burros. And this is in relation to how many animal unit equivalencies you can have within this overlay district. So the proposed amendment up on the right of the screen clarifies this distinction by replacing the second reference to donkey with miniature donkey. And this proposed change is intended as a clarification and refinement to improve enforceability and user understanding, rather than a major policy shift within the livestock overlay district regulations. In chatting with staff, it's thought that this redundancy of listing donkey twice was an error in just accidentally eliminating the word miniature in front of donkey. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. Next slide. We're on to Article 5. This is where all Tahoe Area Plan regulations will be. Under the current format, Tahoe Basin regulations are grouped into three general sections addressing applicability, zoning districts, and standards, and Tahoe Area Plan regulations. The proposed structure retains these existing sections while improving overall organization and usability by proposing consolidated land use tables as part of this reorganization. So there'll be two tables, the community plan consolidated land use table, and then the plan area statements consolidated land use table. So these tables are not changing what's allowed in each of these districts. It's just making them easier to navigate. So currently this is how the tables look within the current code. And it's about 21 pages of tables to flip through. Next slide please. The proposed reduces that to 13 pages. And our hope is that it's easier to navigate for both users and staff.

If I may, Kate Morales O'Neil for the record, to clarify for the Tahoe Basin regulations, the Tahoe Douglas Area Plan that is being developed at the time, the draft, one of the conversations and one of the things we're looking at is how we address, because the plan area statements, the Tahoe Douglas Area Plan is going to replace, so to speak, the plan area statements. We still have to incorporate the rules and things like that, but One of the conversations, identifying these areas by zoning versus these plan area statements, because it's really confusing. And the last thing, the zoning, the S-07, because that's referencing a plan area statement. So Ascent has worked on that within the new update. So these tables may look different the next time you see them and they may be even more consolidated versus listing all of these plenary statements. But again, this is about taking the old code and reformatting it into the new code. So that's why it was done this way. I just wanted to throw this out that this in particular may look different.

And moving on to Article 6, floodplain management. Currently, you can see how it looks on the left. The only significant change proposed within Article 6 floodplain management is the reorganization of the floodplain management definitions into their own dedicated section. That way, if you need to define something related to floodplain management, it's easy to navigate to. These definitions are largely governed and regulated by FEMA requirements. So as part of this update, definitions that were statutorily outdated have been revised to reflect current terminology and regulatory standards. And those updates are identified in the red light document for ease of review. um overall the proposed revisions and organization and administ are sorry pause overall the proposed revisions for articles four five and six are organizational and administrative in nature and are intended to improve clarity usability and consistency uh this concludes our detailed review of articles four five and six And now I'll give you a brief overview of what articles we will present in detail at our next meeting. So at our next meeting, we'll review and present Draft Articles 7, 8, 9, and 10. One update we want to highlight relates to the naming convention of Article 7. At the previous meetings, the original title was Land Use Specific Criteria. design standards, it generated some confusion during public discussion. And in response to that feedback, the proposed title has been revised to land use regulations and design standards. This revised title is intended to create clear organizational hierarchy and improve terminology consistency throughout the code. And the distinction is based on the following framework. Zoning regulations are where uses are permitted. Land use regulations are the standards and conditions for those uses. And design standards are the appearance and site design requirements. And development improvement standards are the infrastructure slash site improvement requirements. So this updated terminology is intended to improve the clarity for applicants by more accurately reflecting the purpose and content of the article. Article 8, are we on Article 8? Yes. Development improvement standards contains the regulations related to infrastructure and required site improvements associated with development standards. While zoning regulations, again, identify where uses are permitted and land use regulations establish operational standards for those uses, Article 8 focused specifically on the physical improvements necessary to support that development. Next slide, please. So looking ahead, Article 9 is applications and procedures. This will be consolidating the various application processes, the review process and noticing requirements and approval process into a single standalone article. And similarly, Article 10, Code Enforcement, consolidates the enforcement provisions, violation procedures, remedies, and related administrative processes into one dedicated article. Yes, go ahead.

Andrea Pauling, for the record, we just went over a new outline or an updated outline with you. So I just want to reference that Article 10 is no longer code enforcement. Article 11 is code enforcement. Article 10 is building and construction permits. Sorry, I should be having my glasses on right now. But anyway, we just wanted to clarify that for you just so it wasn't confusing. This is something we changed prior to changing this or around the same time. All right.

I'll tell you, iterative process, getting feedback and making changes at the same time, well is great because we get a lot of feedback. It keeps us on our toes. So sorry about that. And I think that's it from my portion of the presentation. Next slide is right.

So the next slide is just an example, and you've seen this before, of the existing graphics. You found those throughout the design criteria manual. And now proposed new. So using actual businesses and whether it's residential streets and what the tree line is supposed to look like, landscaping. so using kind of real life but turning them kind of cartoonish we thought was a better visual than no offense to the old artists who did that but i think they serve a better purpose and better visuals do you want to do this

So this is an example of the red line draft that are posted to our website. Language in red is language that has been added. Language that is removed is crossed out, but it's kept in black just to help with readability.

Back to you?

Back to staff. Tag, you're it.

All right, back to me. Andrea, for the record. Pauline, OK. So this slide, we talked a little bit about the feedback earlier on and the updates, the interactive website. I want to dive into that a little bit. This website has been up since, gosh, later last year, maybe about October, I believe. And we've had a lot of updates that is posted on that website. So anytime something changes, any really anytime we have a workshop all the materials that we present uh... including the presentation but all the feedback that we download up until that date is all uploaded onto the website uh... we have uh... maps that we've given out at these uh... at the workshops, binders that are full of the red lines and proposed changes. All of that has been uploaded onto the website. So we're really trying to keep this updated. And I can tell you we are in it every week and make sure that anything new that's being brought out is updated here. Just want to go over this a little bit. That QR code, there's also links, but that QR code can bring you straight to the Title 20 website. We encourage you to tell... everyone you know, including yourselves, to get on there and give us your feedback. I know sometimes people are like, oh, yeah, we can put in our feedback, but nobody really listens. I can tell you we do. We read every single one. I spent the afternoon yesterday a good hour just reading through all the new comments that were put in. And so we are tracking that and want to make sure when we have our public workshops that everyone that attends is aware that that is in our feedback. Next steps. Everyone always wants to know what our next steps are. this it's ever changing as you know and from what kate started explaining to you earlier on is that we may be um you know changing changing paths just a little bit on next steps for adoption uh again we'll have we'll have continued conversations but our workshops are going to continue we're going to continue to update as we go come back to planning commission you you folks, and then also going to the Board of County Commissioners and making sure that you guys are updated on every step of the process as it changes. Like we said in the beginning, next step is tomorrow night, July 15th. We are going to go into depth more on articles, we say 7 through 10. We are also going to comment more on 11 as well, which is now code enforcement. And then we're going to be coming back to you in August and Board of County Commissioners in August. Any questions for us? Comments? We also take constructive criticism.

To me. About me. Ourself. Yeah.

On the thing about the recreational vehicles, is there anything specific to people living in recreational vehicles? I don't know how that happens very often, but in the ranchos, we had one that was there on Kimmerling for more than a year. With a hose and extension cord going out to the sidewalk and it was parked on the street and various phone calls got no effort. But is there anything in the code that would specifically talk about people living in a recreational vehicle?

Yes, Kate Morales-O'Neill, for the record. Good question, Commissioner McCallop. Yeah, that's not allowed. You can get a temporary use permit. So let's say I bought a piece of property and I'm going to build my home. You can get a temporary permit to live in our RV, but the building permit has to be submitted and issued, and then you get... i want to say it's a hundred and it's either six months or six months to a year it might be up to a year but there are there are limitations you can't just live in an rv on any property you you can't do that you could correct you you could also um yeah that would be dcso we don't you know monitor what happens on the street However, you could have a guest at your house for up to 14 days. I believe it's 14 days. I always throw out these things like I really know the code, but I'm pretty sure it's 14. I always say I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure.

I'm pretty sure.

Well, at the last BOCC meeting, I said it was an acre. I said I think it's an acre, but I was wrong. In fact, my wife in code enforcement corrected me right after the meeting that it is half an acre. So RVs requiring... fencing and that that does read that is a half a day i thought it was an acre but it does start at half an acre um but in any case back to the rv so yes it does it does require you know there are stipulations in in certain instances where you can have a guest at your house but you can't just live in your rv uh you know on your property that's terrific because uh thank you the north bay

is suffering from folks that just park in a driveway and live. And by the way, you're not just saying these things. A fact or law is anything that is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. So you're doing the right thing.

That's good. Chairman, I have one. One minor comment, when you mentioned donkeys, you really hit me in my heart, because I'm a long-term donkey person. Burro and donkey are the same animal. Burro is Spanish, donkey is English. So if you want to save a word, pick one or the other. But I could see where originally it was meant to say miniature horse donkey or burro, as miniature horse, miniature burro, miniature donkey.

Commissioner John, so I thought the same thing. I thought one was Spanish, one was English. But apparently, and this came up at our public workshop, and since then I've done some more research, they have different lineage. Now, I am not a rancher, and I have not dealt with pack animals before, so I don't fully comprehend the difference. But there are some residents who are very adamant that they are different. They're different.

Anyways, as a, like I said, long-term donkey owner, My understanding is burrow is often referred to the wild burrows, the feral burrows on BLM property. Whereas if you have a donkey in captivity, I just Googled it and according to the internet, it says they're the same biological species. So for what it's worth, not a big deal, but you mentioned donkey and you got me going.

For sure. Well, we can research it more. I thought they were the same thing.

Yeah. Anyways, that's true.

I think what you're addressing is a mule. Because a mule is a partnership of a horse and a burrow. Correct. And they're big and stubborn. So I think you mean a mule. Not a donkey. For a full count, it would be a mule, not a girl or a donkey.

If it's a donkey, then it's a henny.

It's a male donkey, a jack, and a horse.

Yeah, but if it's the other way around, it's not a mule. It's a henny.

You guys are tired, obviously.

Whatever.

It's the byproduct of a horse. You've left out the hennies.

Well, I think with this...

Sorry, Jane.

Perhaps what this comes to is that maybe we need to get a definitive answer.

I apologize. This is the chairman's prerogative. That's a really well done set of slides and indeed really good work so far on one through four. Thanks. It's understandable. What you and this commission may leave future generations is something that is a little bit more manageable and usable than past iterations without casting any criticisms on the original drafters.

Can we comment on the other stuff now? Mm-hmm. OK, on the Tahoe section, on the tables, on 420 through 431, it says Genoa Lake. I'm assuming you mean Genoa Creek. You'll have to double check that, but I think it's Genoa Creek.

And really, for the record, I've made note of that, and I will cross-reference that.

I'm not a Tahoe person, but I thought that was kind of funny. And I love the whole Tahoe Basin section. It's wonderful. It puts everything so clearly on our part, our accountability, and theirs. I was wondering, though, In 502, it says under zoning districts and uses, it says article three, blah, dah, dah, dah, dah, do not apply. And the next sentence, article seven, does not apply. I was wondering if we should emphasize that, the do not apply and does not apply. Do you have a page number? 396. Sorry.

In 502? Yes.

Under zoning districts and standards. Bottom of the page. Under A. Yeah, to emphasize, they do not apply and does not apply.

Do not apply.

You could definitely bold that. I think that's valid.

Yeah. I think the more we emphasize the two roles, the better. And then I did have a question on page 411 under 7B. And this is for the engineers in the group. You say under building signs, Each primary used within a project area may be allowed one square foot of sign area for each one lineal foot of building frontage. And I didn't know why it said lineal instead of linear.

Yeah, I believe Tom Blair for the record. I believe it's the linear foot of the frontage of the property so if you own 500 feet of Frontage on a road then you get 500 square feet of signage Yes, I think so

If I may, Kate Morales O'Neill for the record, if there's any, those type of things are great to point out, but if there's any areas, like direction you want to give us, like we hear this too often or you hear from your constituents, like of really areas you feel that need to be updated. specifically you don't have to be specific like change that from 10 feet to 14 feet or something but you you get what i'm saying just areas that you really think we need to focus on the night sky ordinance do we want antennas you know in certain residential districts is that an area to look in do we do we still do you want us to keep evaluating rvs or keep it as is Do you want to see application procedures easier? So those type of things, if there's any, and it can be later. It could be after the meeting and you get on our web link. But I just want to kind of put that in your heads that if there's anything that, in addition to those, your comments or me.

Commissioner Walder? You open the door. Cell Tower shouldn't be monopoles. Shouldn't have to be monopoles, right? But no, in all seriousness, excellent job. Formatting and ease of finding things, graphics, wonderful. Excellent job. My suggestion would be further public outreach. If we can put the signs, I think you have sign posters with the QR code. Kale Community Center, I don't know if they have one. or put it on their bulletin boards. People use that facility extensively, and that might get you a little more feedback. You might even want to put something at Tahoe General Services on the counter there because that gets a lot of foot traffic. But as much as you can do, I don't know if you need to hold a workshop in Tahoe. You sometimes get poor attendance at things that are not Tahoe-centric. But excellent job. keep up the good work and then I think your your idea of Cleaning up the formatting and the design first and then doing the verbiage second Go ahead vice chair.

Okay. I have a couple more when I was reading a section on page 375 about animals and We talk about the setbacks about buildings used to house animal livestock and farm animals. Then in number seven, we talk about corrals, stables, pens, animals, cages where animals are kept and how they must be at all times maintained in a sanitary manner. But we don't elaborate enough on that. I think we need to be a little bit more specific because all we say is all manure must be disposed of on a weekly basis. But it's not specific enough about how it's supposed to be disposed of. Because I know there's a house in Genoa that has a horse or two. And how they dispose of their manure is they chuck it over the fence. And to me, that's not disposing of the manure properly. because it gets into the ditch at the side of the road and it washes down the street. So I don't know if there's a way that we can work on this section because if people are going to be pet owners, animal owners, if we're going to allow it in neighborhoods, we need to be a little bit more forthright about the sanitation that goes along with keeping animals, because chickens are filthy and stinky, and horses can be filthy and stinky if people don't take care of them properly.

Thank you. I thought that the animal sections were particularly germane to the way livestock is currently being used in other areas. Let me explain. The fact that you have the factor of, you know, a goat is 0.2, etc., will help say you can have so many animals per acre or so many animals in such a pen. Let me tell you why. Animals are now not used for milk or meat. But in many areas, and ever increasing, they are used to have antigens injected in them, and they create antibodies, particularly goats. And the antibodies are then studied and become part of almost all the cancer research that you see. And because it's not human antibodies that are tested, it's animal antibodies. So the horses, the mule, pardon me, the donkeys, and the goats, people will try to impact if we ever get one of these biotechnology folks, they want to be ranchers, but they impact a number of animals that you wouldn't ordinarily expect to see. So it's consistent with the concern about manure and disposing of manure. But I read those sections and I go, wow, we are ahead of the game with respect to these kinds of things and what's happening in various places, including California. where a lot of biotechnology is showing up on the north coast of Santa Cruz. So, congratulations.

You had asked last time we came around about driveways, and I know we've had the discussion on the Planning Commission over the last few years about driveway length. Mark, Ned, and Rip specifically brought up driveways not being long enough because we have longer vehicles, trucks, and they put a trailer hitch on it and they're extending out into the sidewalks. So I'd like to see a little bit more fleshing out perhaps about either setbacks from garages from the curb when we get into design standards. or lengthening of driveways or something to account for longer vehicles. And either creating an ordinance about removing trailer hitches or something to accommodate the extra length so people are not encroaching on the sidewalks. We have an older population. People are going down with walkers, scooters, and other things. And I think that's something that we need to take into count in our Title 20. Thank you.

Any further commentary for our presenters today? Thank you very much. Oh, sorry, we're not allowed. No, go ahead. I apologize.

I just want to compliment on the changes. When I first moved up here, everybody said, don't even look at Title 20. It's a nightmare. You can't find anything. So, wow, what an improvement, and good job. Thank you.

All right, anything further? Thank you very much once again.

Thank you, Kate Morales-O'Neill, for the record. Thank you all so much. I get the consensus that Um, if we did move forward the, with the formatting and get that approved, that did sound like a good idea. It sounded like the consensus. Okay.

That's exactly right. We want to be able to take a vote on it, but certainly was a consensus.

It's just feedback. So when we do move forward and talk to, um, County managers, we just want some input on, on how that kind of what, what that would be like.

Yes, ma'am. So that concludes item three on our agenda. I would now like to ask if there are any concluding comments from the public. And for that, I'm going to also refer to Colleen. I'm sorry to keep you up. Are you still there?

I am here, but nobody else is.

So thank you very much. We thought there was going to be much more discussion from the Tahoe Basin folks. on our item to then then ended up being the reality. Thank you, Colleen. I'm sure it was less interesting seeing this from afar than having been in the room. But thank you very much. And that concludes public commentary. There being no further public commentary, thank you all for your participation and particularly our panel, our commission. We're still awaiting our last member, which we don't yet have. And please encourage your friends to apply to the extent that you know someone that is adept at these kinds of issues. It would be very helpful. Be very helpful. Steve, thank you. Very, very cogent, very salient and appropriate commentary, and we appreciate that very much. This meeting on Bastille Day, where France went down to Spain, two to nothing, I am informed, but it's also still a wonderful birthday on Bastille Day. Thank you all. The meeting's adjourned.