City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

this if I need to talk, right?

all right this is the reno city planning commission meeting tonight today's date is wednesday september second two thousand twenty six the time is six oh one p.m. We will begin with the pledge of allegiance from our new commissioner. Item A2, roll call. Madam Clerk.

David Jockerman.

Here.

Jacob Williams.

Here.

Alex Velto. Here. Manny Becerra is absent tonight. Christina Delviar.

Here.

Sean McCoy. Present. Jan McKenzie. Here. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission.

thank you madam clerk we will now move to item a three public comment I will kindly remind everyone that including the consent agenda and items under business items there will be an opportunity to provide public comment at each of those items madam clerk please

it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to three three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you're called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you'll be afforded three minutes if you're an attendee in the zoom meeting it would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand we have a few public comment cards in person. Lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there's disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We did receive correspondence that were general in nature and not specific to any items on this agenda is reported to the planning commission have been entered into the record and we do have a few public comment cards in person. We will start with Tony harsh and then move to donna keats.

former city council person. So usually you see me down here when I have a problem with process and procedure, which I do. So I'm just bringing your attention to the use of the consent agenda, which I have big concerns where that authority comes from. Just briefly, As much as we would like to be in a spaceship moving very quickly through hearings and public engagement, the city operates more like a battleship. We move rather slowly, but very deliberately. And just like any city or battleship, I would say more than a battleship, an aircraft carrier, which is about the size of a city. major concerns about the use of the consent agenda before we actually know how that was engaged with and how you're using it and what the procedure is. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Toni. Next, we'll hear from Donna Keats.

Good evening, Commissioners and Mr. Raley. My name is Donna Keats. Well, I was at your last meeting, so you already know what I think about item E1. So my general public comment is to ask you during your discussion of item E1 to please go through the process of how you arrived at your authority to create a consent agenda. Because between last meeting and this one, I've done a little bit of homework. I see that it's allowed by the open meeting law. I also see in Robert's Rules of Order it requires that you actually do a, make a, spaced out what the real rule is, the point of order or something. You have to actually have a written rule before you can implement what you're doing. So now you have three projects approved under a rule that I haven't been able to find any evidence that you have the authority to make. So I'd like you to discuss that. I realize if you decide to put a consent agenda on tonight and change your bylaws, that counts as legalizing it. However, the consent agenda having projects for which the Planning Commission is the final stop of all the review, you get to say yes or no. Seems to me that you are therefore, you can put it in your bylaws, but Title 18 requires public hearings, and so a consent agenda is not exactly a public hearing. Can you see this at all? I don't know where it is. Okay, so Title 18 defines a hearing. Finds a hearing. Anyway, it says what you're supposed to do. Maybe I don't have the hearing definition up there. I think I do, but anyway, it's about public engagement. So a consent agenda doesn't have any public engagement. I think you have some conflicts using your bylaws to rewrite Title 18 without an actual text amendment to say, I realize that it says, or the rules by the deciding body, but you have no rules and you've been deciding anyway. So there's a problem for the things you've already approved. And it's a problem going forward because it's a disservice to the public. There's all kinds of open meeting law things. If you look at NRS and read what the intent of that was. It's going to be a big nightmare if you put your items that you're the deciding body for on there. I'm not objecting to a consent agenda. I think it's perfectly appropriate for many things. I don't think that the fact that you might think that somebody's side setback is not of consequence so you put it on a consent agenda, is really appropriate, because you don't know who shows up. How many times have I showed up at the 11th hour and actually, like last meeting, asked you to pull that item? It generated discussion, because I had information you didn't have. So I'm asking you to, during item E1, Please explain how this actually happened because there's nothing in the record It was nothing on July 1st Then there was a memo on July 9th that it was implemented implemented on July 15th. How did that happen? The Commission never made a motion never approved it. There was no discussion that all of you liked the idea How exactly did that happen and who had the authority to make that statement and give that direction to staff? And I think the public has a right to know how this actually came to be. Because as of right now, you need something, you know, you need a rule to allow you to do this. And you don't have one. So anyway, thank you very much. And I'll address the other stuff during the time of you want.

Thank you, Donna. With that, we do not have anyone else on Zoom with their hand raised or any other public comment cards in person.

Thank you Madam Clerk we will now move to item A4 this is approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting September 2nd 2026 and I understand we have a request.

Yes I have a request to not go with the consent agenda and actually hear the item.

So pull item C1 for presentation.

Yes please.

understood can I get a motion to approve the agenda subject to that condition Commissioner Val to approve or move to approve Commissioner delvier second motion in second all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none motion carries unanimously item a 5 this is approval of them we have two sets of minutes to approve tonight we'll take these in separate motions the first one is for August 5th 2026 at 6 p.m. commissioner delvier second motion from velto second from delvier all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries unanimously now moving on to 19th of august 2026 6 p.m. meeting commissioner velto moved to approve commissioner williams second motion and second all in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed I was not in attendance abstention from my would you like to abstain for the from the okay so we have the 19th of August we have one abstention from delvier and the 5th of August two abstentions from Commissioner McKenzie and delvier Okay, that concludes item a 5 moving on to item B staff announcements.

Mr. Raley Thank You mr. Chair a couple quick announcements first. We'd like to welcome Jim McKenzie to the Planning Commission first meeting tonight our September 16th meeting is going to be cancelled we do not have any items scheduled for that agenda so that meeting will be cancelled and then as a reminder our October meetings are back-to-back so we have a meeting on October 8th and then the following week on October 14th so it is a little bit of a scheduling change we'll It's been set but just a reminder. I will not be at those meetings. I will actually be out of the country So Laura Knox will be taking my place for those meetings. So appreciate that some council updates Moot the Moose Ridge zoning map amendment was approved by council at their last meeting the zero North Virginia Street Which is the one you approve the conditional use permit for as well for the landscape maintenance? business with outdoor storage that zone change goes next week as does the lighthouse Sierra SPD and

Thank you, Mr. Raley. We will move on to item C1. This is a staff report for possible action, acceptance of the City of Reno annual report to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency. For this item, we will begin with a presentation from staff, followed by disclosures, if any, and then a public comment. Please proceed.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. For the record, Lauren Knox, Senior Planner. So this item is the 2026 Annual Report to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission. I'm going to provide you a brief overview of the report, which can also be found attached to your staff report. So first you might be asking what is the regional report? So the regional annual report is a requirement by the Nevada Revised Statutes as well as the regional plan. So it's created by each local government as well as each affected entity which those are our service providers generally. And basically what we do is look at what we've done in that past year or during the reporting period to further implement the regional plan or any kind of work tasks that are related to regional planning. So with that, I do want to point out this isn't the entirety of the work we do here in planning. This is really just the stuff focused on regional planning. This helps us ensure we're being consistent with the regional plan, and then it also helps regional planning track what we're doing and help make the collective decisions for the region. The format of the regional plan is based on a template that's provided by regional planning staff, and it generally covers the regional plan format. Part of this update, the kind of bigger piece of this, so the regional plan was updated in 2024. Part of that process is that our master plan, so the Reimagine Reno master plan, is submitted to regional planning for a conformance review against that new regional plan. So we submitted that plan, they did their conformance review, they found our plan in conformance with the regional plan, with what's called a list of scheduled additions. This is a very common thing, so if anything's added to the regional plan, it basically tells us, okay Reno, here are the things we need you to address in your master plan. So a lot of the work you're gonna see covered in this report is that work to further implement that plan. So we'll go ahead and start with population growth. So the regional plan requires us to utilize what's called the Washoe County Consensus Forecast. That is the population estimate that's developed by the Chucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. So we use all of those population estimate figures within our master plan. And then we also use it for any of our kind of long range planning pieces. TMRPA is also now taking the lead on developing the housing model, which is used for the governor's certified population estimates. So we work with regional planning on that piece as well. And then this portion of the regional plan also addresses affordable housing. So we've been involved in a number of housing related work items. This includes meeting the new Assembly Bill 540, attainable housing requirements for our master plan. And then additionally, the city developed a new housing needs assessment in 2025. We adopted the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. And then also, we support affordable housing through a variety of various funding sources as well. So that's further detailed in that report attached to your staff report. So next we have what's called regional form. So the regional plan establishes a priority hierarchy of where we want growth to occur. The plan does this through the use of what's called tiered land use designations that each have different density or intensity requirements. So the city's master plan conforms with this and implements this vision through our land use and structure plan. which essentially aims at maximizing development in our core areas and really trying to incentivize infill and redevelopment. This allows us to be efficient with our land use and our service provisioning. So related to regional form, the development code cleanup was adopted in January of 2025, which is during the reporting period. The code cleanup contained a few policy additions that were related to regional planning, specifically in the utility corridor and sites section of the plan. And then a larger work item was actually an update to our sphere of influence. So our sphere of influence is the area that we intend to grow into in the next 20 years. This is in the regional plan. It's a product of the regional plan. So during that regional plan update I mentioned in 2024, staff reviewed our sphere of influence, and there were about 5,800 acres within that sphere that were federal lands and really not something we intend to develop within the next 20 years. As you may know, federal lands, turning that over to any sort of private development is a literal act of Congress and that's probably not gonna happen in the next 20 years. So this allowed us to really be more targeted and realistic with where growth is gonna occur. It also helps regional planning actually look at the full framework, look at their land designations and say, okay, this is where we maybe anticipate growth. This was adopted, I want to say. The sphere of influence change was adopted by council and then worked into the regional plan update. And again, through that master plan update that we used to implement that new regional plan, we amended all of the maps to ensure that it was clear that the sphere of influence is what it is in the regional plan. Lastly, for regional forum, these are just more case processing statistics. So in that time frame, we adopted one annexation, seven master plan amendments, and began processing 391 planning-related cases. Again, that's further outlined in the report. For public facilities, the regional plan contains a table that attempts to ensure adequate facilities and services are provided at the time that development occurs. So the city has adopted the concurrency management system. It's an aspect of our master plan. It's been in there for years and years and years. Additionally, Team RPA developed and maintains a lot of facility-related GIS data and information. So part of this report is us also providing them updated information or updated data as they request it. Lastly, the regional road impact fee was recently updated. This is a collaborative effort among all of the jurisdictions here. So another key piece in regional coordination as well. Another big effort of that bigger regional plan update was the natural resource plan. So in that new regional plan update, there are a variety of natural resource related policies that were included in the new plan. That included natural resource consideration areas, source water protection discussions, and a policy on Truckee Meadows Trails Plan and how we should reference and use that plan within our master planning efforts. So again, the master plan was adopted to include those specific policy pieces and making sure that we're implementing those new policies. Also relating to natural resources and really regional coordination, and I'm gonna address that on the next slide as well, but we address Assembly Bill 96, which is related to heat management and heat mitigation in the master plan update. So out of this came a policy where we're gonna be working with our local jurisdictional partners and coming up with a coordinated community resource related to heat management, specifically for things like cooling spaces and having one location to find information. That's going to be kind of an effort piece coming up as well. The last element of the regional plan is in regards to regional coordination. So as a region, we collaborated on the Assembly Bill 213 reporting related to housing. So we all worked together to develop a template and be able to provide the state the information that they were requesting. So again, City of Sparks, Washoe County, Reno, we all worked together to make sure we're providing the same type of information and we're coordinated there. We also worked on some larger regional topics and processes. This is things like school development review, as well as data center regulations. Both of those are still ongoing pieces, but it's a big kind of coordination piece for us. And then the 2025 legislative session was within this reporting timeframe. So again, on matters that are of import to the region, we try to work together to respond to the legislature or to implement those pieces. Lastly, the report touches on some upcoming 2026-2027 items that are in our workflow related to the regional plan. So again, continued engagement on those regional topics I discussed. Schools and data centers are probably the top topics in that realm right now. We're also going to be tracking our suburban mixed-use land use and how that interacts with the regional tiers. That is a piece that was part of our scheduled addition list, so it's something that regional planning staff is also working on. The 2026 consensus forecast, again, that's the population estimate piece. Their new numbers are going to be released soon, so we'll work to incorporate that into our master planning efforts. That heat management planning coordination policy I discussed earlier is another piece we'll be working on. We're going to continue focusing on attainable and affordable housing as we generally always do. And then the 2027 legislative session is coming up, so we'll be engaging in that piece as well. With that, I have a motion overhead, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for the presentation. Now, I don't think there's any disclosure, so if there are any, please state so at this time. Seeing none, we will now move to public comment. Madam Clerk.

We did not receive any correspondence for this item. I do not have any public comment cards in person, and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? If so, please raise your hand. Please step forward. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

My name is Phillip Legoy.

I live in Collin Creek Road in Reno, and I just want to ask the question, what the heck is the heat management plan?

Can I get an explanation for that? They can't answer questions during public comment, sir, so I recommend using your three minutes.

Okay, well, that was all I had to say.

Okay. Can you fill out one of those green cards for me when you get a chance? Thank you.

Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will now close public comment and move to questions from the commission.

Thank you, Lauren. I appreciate it. Thank you again. I read through everything and appreciated the insight here in context. For the 20-year plan, did it start in a certain year or is it more like a rolling or does it sort of depend on the topic itself?

Are you talking about the 20-year, the regional plan? Yeah. Okay. So the regional plan does have a general 20-year timeframe, and that sphere of influence timeframe also aligns with that regional plan requirement, which is a 20-year plan.

Got it. Okay, thank you. And then to the person who just, the public comment that just came up, Obviously, I'm very aware of the data center conversation. I'm aware of the school conversation. In terms of the heat mitigation, just kind of curious as to how do these kind of conversations or how does it work? We're presenting the plan to, obviously, city council will look at it and approve it. We submit it to regional and then regional sort of takes over ownership of that or how does it sort of work and what are they looking at?

No, so it's kind of two different pieces here. So this annual report right here, so what regional planning does, every single planning commission and effective entity body provides an annual report. Regional planning staff will compile those reports, talk about any trends they might find. It's a state law requirement, so they'll post all of the reports to say kind of how we're all working together. So that's how the annual report works. It's from the planning commission specifically. So that's one process. The heat mitigation piece. So AB 96 was put in place in this last legislative session. And with that, the state law changed in terms of what needs to be included within our master plan related to heat.

I got you.

So there were some specific criteria, things like ensuring we're talking about shade, we're talking about trees, ideally trees that are native, trees that are drought resistant, talking about things like building materials that are more conducive to not absorbing the heat in our urban areas. Specific policies related to cooling spaces. So there were certain requirements we had to include. We actually had a lot of those items already within our master plan. It wasn't quite as defined, so we made some amendments to ensure that it's clear how we're talking about heat and what policies might relate to heat. For example, building waste heat recovery. It's a big conversation in the data center conversation. And that is a piece that we pointed out in the master plan specifically and included additional discussion around. so that if something like that ever comes up, there's something in the master plan that we can say, yeah, we think this is a good idea, this is something we should attempt to implement. So it's taking all of those pieces and saying how we're addressing heat on various levels.

Got it. And then, you know, obviously, there's unincorporated parts of Peavine, which experienced the fire recently, and then it comes into Reno, where the data centers are potentially going. And so how does coordination with that happen?

work is that done at the regional level or even the state level or are we just saying like this is what we're going to do for Reno I'm just kind of curious as to what the that process looks like are you talking about coordination in terms of land use planning are you talking about coordination on the emergency side of things both actually so I can't speak to the emergency side of things but generally when there is a an emergency um local jurisdictions generally work together to attempt to mitigate the impacts of that ensure we're responding together ensure our resources are pooled to to how tackle whatever is needed in that realm. So a lot of that's on the fire side during a fire piece. There's obviously recovery as well. That's another piece that's going to be coming into play here. On the land use side, that regional plan I discussed earlier, so the different tiers, for example. So it's talking about kind of, let me go back to that map.

Thanks for your patience. I should probably read that, read the new sections that were added that I have not read yet. So I will do that as well.

And it's a very, it's a very intensive, a lot of information. So I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

The regional land designation. So basically this is a big overall framework for how we all work together. As you can see, there's no jurisdictional lines on here, right? So the county also has a master plan. they're also implementing a lot of the same stuff. So in terms of how we coordinate land use intensities, densities, different facility and service requirements, these kind of land tiers help us all make sure that we're looking at those in the same way. So the Peabody area, for example, some of that is in the same tier. Some of it's in a tier one land. So it's not dependent on the jurisdiction. It's more how does that general area, how do we look at it being developed?

Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Sure.

If there are no questions, we'll move to deliberations and entertain a motion should one be made.

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to make a motion.

Please proceed.

All right, Commissioner Williams, for the record, motion to accept the 2026 annual report and forward the report to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency.

Commissioner McCoy, a second? motion and second all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none motion carries unanimously that concludes item c1 we will now and we are taking all the items in order tonight we are moving on to item d1 this is a staff report for possible action case number ldc26-00075 805 ryland street fence height deviation for this we will begin with the presentation from miss picotti

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members of the Commission. Welcome, Commissioner McKenzie. My name is Leah Picotti, and I am an associate planner with the City of Reno Development Services, and this evening I'm presenting two applications. The first one here is for a fence height deviation at 805 Ryland Street. This subject site is located just east of the intersection of Ryland and Wells. The site is approximately 0.66 acres and the request before you today is to exceed the four foot front yard fence height standard by 50% to allow a six foot fence along that frontage on Ryland. Subject site is located in the mixed use zoning district. The site is currently developed with a building that houses the youth parole board and two duplex buildings for a total of four units. It's the eastern side of the property that they're asking to exceed that fence height for general safety for the residents of those duplexes. So the key issues we looked at here were general code compliance and compatibility with surrounding developments and uses. Here you can see the duplex that's closest to Ryland. This is the existing conditions as of today. These duplexes were built in the late 1950s and early 60s. You can see along the bottom of the screen there, there is an existing wall that is somewhere between three feet and five feet high. Not exactly sure how long that wall has existed, but it's been there for quite a while. The applicants were having some trouble with vandals climbing over that wall and hanging out in that front yard and so in July of 2025 they contacted the city of Reno and said hey, what can we do and we recommended that our code enforcement officers come out and do what's called a septet or crime prevention through environmental design and So our code enforcement went out there, they took a look at the property, and they made a big list of things that they could do to improve. But one of those things was to secure the site with a six-foot, see-through, decorative, anti-climb fence as close to the public right-of-way as planning will allow. So they came over to planning, and they said, hey, what do we have to do? And we said, you've got to go through this major deviation process. So initially, when they submitted the application, they wanted to keep the wall. And they wanted to do like wood pickets on the top of the wall. However, if you look to the right-hand side of that photo, you can see that blue building next door. And right there is parking. for that building that backs out onto Ryland. So when we took a look at that, we looked at the existing wall and the proposed pickets, and it was really gonna end up blocking the view for people backing out of there. So we went back to them and we said, how would you feel about taking the wall down? And they were a little bit apprehensive about that, but they did agree. So they came up with a plan to remove that wall and to install a fence like the one that's shown there in green. This is their site plan that was submitted. You can see there that along that southern property line where that green line is, is where this proposed fence is going to go in. Along that yellow line, they've installed a six-foot chain link fence without a permit. that does go six feet all the way up until Ryland. So as part of this deviation, we're also allowing that portion of the fence to deviate from the four foot fence height so that they'll be able to permit the unpermitted chain link fence and install, remove the wall and install this new proposed six foot metal fence along the front. In looking at compatibility, this is consistent with the area. There's not a lot of residential around there, so I do understand that they're having some issues, but installation of this six-foot fence will improve their access control and the safety for these residents. The major deviation recommended findings are on the board. Staff was able to make all of the findings. With that, that concludes my presentation. The recommended motion is on the board. I believe the applicants are here or maybe virtually. I haven't met them yet. So hopefully they're here, but they do not have a presentation. I am here and available for questions. Thank you.

Leah, Adrian is online.

Wonderful.

Yes. we' ll promote her so she can answer a question.

there' s no okay now we' ll move to disclosures from the commission. starting on my right commissioner valto. commissioner valto no disclosures. commissioner mccoy no disclosures.

no disclosures from me.

commissioner jockman same. commissioner williams same.

We did receive public comments from the NAP that were distributed and added to the record, but I do not have any public comment cards in person, and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? So please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will move on from public comment and go to questions from the commission.

McCoy. Commissioner McCoy. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record, I've got a question for staff, and I don't have engineering here, but it's really simple. I think I may have overstated some things in my mind, but my understanding is that all fencing must maintain a clear vision triangle pursuant to RMC 18.04.809C2, and I get that the fence here is going to be somewhat see-through, the wrought iron, but I guess what I'm trying to find in the record is whether or not the clear vision triangle has been cleared by engineering with the fence in the chain link fence and it whether or not it's something that they're willing to kind of confirm for us that you know the division triangles is. It applies and it doesn't create a problem.

Thank you commissioner by the party for the record, yes, our engineering staff did look at the revisions that were submitted by the applicant they looked at the They looked at that corner where the chain link fence will meet the new fence, and they do not have any concerns about vision with the roll removed.

Thank you. Commissioner Dalviar.

Commissioner W. I just have one quick question and I can't quite tell from the picture but is the six-foot fence on the side where the yellow was does that is that a low is that like in a lower is that property lower than the others because you can see it's kind of it's not coming it's not meeting the same height in the picture the six-foot fence that is there today is not in this picture okay Thank you. That's all.

Commissioner Jockman, so I have a follow-up question to what Commissioner McCoy said. Madam Clerk, would it be possible to put the slide up that had the, or maybe you have the clicker where it highlights where the fence will go in green, I think?

Yes.

So the site distance triangle that staff reviewed, is that for the parking to the east? Correct.

Correct.

Now, the parking to the east, that looks like it would not be permitted today. It looks really bad. So I'm struggling with how to think about this one because I could see that there's possibly an issue, but I can see that that parking should not be permitted and it exists. Could you perhaps shed some light on that? That's kind of what's going through my head there.

Yes, and you are absolutely correct. It would not be permitted today. We don't allow for commercial uses to back out onto public right-of-ways. However, it's existing, and as long as that neighbor doesn't make any substantial changes to that property or come forward and apply for anything, they can continue to use that property that way. So we don't have a mechanism within the major deviation application to impose any kind of conditions on the neighbor. All we can do is look at the property that we have before us and what we can do to improve an existing problem.

Commissioner John, I spoke with Doug Buck, our development review manager, who's sick this evening, but I did speak with him. They have reviewed this. If you pull up, and I apologize, we don't have access to it right now, but a Google Street View, you'll see that the two westernmost parking spaces on the adjoining site would actually, if they backed out, would have to back out over a curb. So people are actually backing onto the sidewalk and moving further to the east, which is well away from that vision triangle as well.

And then my last question here is, obviously on the north side of the roadway, vehicles are traveling westbound in this case. So the site distance triangle is most pertinent to what's coming from the east, is that correct? That is correct. Not from the west? Yes. Thank you. Nothing further. Do we have any other questions from the commission? If there are none, we will move to deliberations.

I'm ready to make a motion unless somebody has discussion. Okay. Please proceed. In the matter of LDC 2600075 based on compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Williams I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? hearing none motion carries unanimously that concludes item d1 we will now move on to item d2 this is a staff report for possible action case number ldc 27 dash 00003 3005 natalie street major deviation.

The second application I' m presenting tonight is for another major So the subject site is located at 3005 Natalie. It is on the corner of Natalie and Cicelyne. It is currently a vacant one-acre site. The applicant is requesting to reduce the required 30-foot front setback by less than 50% to allow for them to develop a new single-family home. The reduction will result in a front setback of 17 feet 9 inches. The subject site is located in the single family residential three unit per acre zoning district. You can see the zoning map up on the screen and all of these parcels, even though they very much differ in size and shape, are all located within that same zone. So the key issue we looked at here was compatibility with surrounding development and surrounding residential uses. So this site plan is really confusing. I added some color to it so we could kind of go through it. But basically, the yellow line is where the existing 30-foot setback would be. And the green line is where the proposed 17-foot 9-inch setback is. Aside from the fact that this parcel is irregularly shaped and on a corner, Steamboat Ditch runs just to the south. So not only do you have the Steamboat Ditch access road that goes across the southern portion of the property. You also have a 50 foot septic setback from that, which has made development of this lot very difficult, probably why it hasn't been developed to this day. So again, you have it on the corner, so you have two fronts and two sides. That makes it a little bit complicated already. And then you add in all of these extra easements and steamboat ditch with a lot within a regular shape. And it just makes it extremely difficult to build. which is why they've come forward with this major deviation. So should the major deviation be approved, the applicants would be allowed to build that 2,300 square foot as proposed on these plans. Here's an aerial view. I looked at compatibility with the surrounding neighbors. Now, these are all residential homes, but as you could see on the parcel map on that previous one, they very much vary in size and shape. So we already have quite a few irregularities in this area. And then coupled with the fact that most of these homes were built in the 60s and 70s, And SF3 did not exist at that time. Most of the houses in the area don't conform to that 30-foot setback anyways. So staff is comfortable making the finding that this is consistent with the character of this area. Major deviation findings are on the board. We have found that it does not significantly impact nearby properties. It does enhance the overall design of the projects because those existing setbacks protect Steamboat Ditch, thereby reducing the buildable area. It doesn't constitute a special privilege because... It's not a unique benefit that's unavailable to similar situated properties, and as you can see in that aerial, most of the houses around there don't meet that front setback anyways, and it will not be detrimental to the public health. With that, that concludes my presentation. The recommended motion is on the board. I'm available for questions, and I hate to say this, but I don't know if my applicant has a presentation.

would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time you are under no obligation to you do not have to give a presentation not sure I'm speaking to but they're online okay I don't believe the applicant is online and I don't see them here okay so we do not have an applicant presentation we will move to disclosures I'll start on my left this time commissioned LVR received and read materials that's it Commissioner Williams same Commissioner Jochman, no disclosures.

Commissioner McKenzie, no disclosures.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Volta, the same.

We will now move to public comment. Madam Clerk.

We have a public comment in person from Donna Keats.

Good evening. It's Donna Keats. As I've told you repeatedly, once I have to stay here all night, I can say something about every project, so I'm back. So this project is in Ward 2. I'm a member of the Ward 2 NAB. It came to Ward 2. And although I desperately want this young couple to build this house and this property, they're perfectly suited for it. They're really concerned with Steamboat Creek, the vegetation, everything else. What the NAB was not able to get out of them was why they needed a deviation. I don't know if you read the NAB comments, but there's an eloquent one from Ms. Dolan in there describing, she's an architect, describing, anyway, there were a lot of NAB comments related to this, and we didn't really, couldn't get anything out of them about other design plans they might have tried or why they actually really couldn't fit a house in there. The schematic is horribly confusing, so that was difficult, and I got, you take out all these setbacks. I tried to ask them why they couldn't just rotate it a little bit and push it back, And I got a lot of pushback from somebody in the office and the audience. That was the end of the conversation. So you might want to consider, I mean, this just goes to the whole thing about what your job is here to do. What's the need for the deviation? Do they have to build the house exactly like they have to build it? Because I'm not sure that they do. They didn't. indicate that they had to. They didn't come with any information about the front setbacks on the properties around them because I don't think they knew it was going to be relevant, not because of any other reason. But in the neighborhood, you know, it probably doesn't really matter if it's 17 feet. But I think from your point of view, you kind of need to justify why a major deviation is necessary in order to make the findings. So that's, we've been through this how many tens of times at this planning commission with these deviations and haven't really settled how to look at them yet. So, although I'm not speaking against this project, I'm just saying that a lot of people on the NAB, the ones who submitted the comments, had an issue with not seeing any evidence about any other architectural things or building footprints that they may have tried and why it was actually necessary to have the deviation. It may simply be that they had bad graphics and didn't understand that they should make some better graphics so that everyone understood the building envelope better. But that's what happened at the NAB, and the NAB wasn't entirely satisfied that they needed a major deviation. So you might want to consider that. Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

We do not have any additional public comment.

we have any request to speak in chambers at this time if so please raise your hand. Seeing no request to speak we will close public comment and move to questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Williams. I have one for Miss Picotti. Hi, based on the diagram we saw that thank you for putting the lines in there we're talking about I just want to clarify in general terms we're talking about a deviation that affects just a point of the garage. Am I wrong by saying that?

Leah Picotti, for the record, no, you are correct. The actual residence itself is set back, and you can see kind of the shaded area where the driveway is proposed to come in there, and it'll come in to the garage. So it's actually the garage that is encroaching.

Okay, so being pinched in between private road access, steamboat ditch... sewer line and the Thing of the property. The only thing they've encroached on is the portion triangle of the garage.

That is correct. Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much Commissioner McCoy Commissioner McCoy for the record miss Bucati. Thank you for your presentation tonight and I appreciate those lines. That is very helpful for us to sit and look at tonight. My question is regarding finding two of major deviations. And at the risk of becoming the major deviations guy on this commission, I am trying to really understand how we are kind of getting to these findings. And for me, when I look at the rule, we are looking for project changes enabled by the deviation that enhance the overall design of the project or the public benefits resulting from it. Now, I don't read that to mean that the applicant must show that it can't be built without the deviation, but I do think it requires more than basically saying, and I'm not going to say that that's what's happening here. But my concern is we're basically saying the deviation makes the plan possible. And to me, I'm looking for an explanation of how the project is improved. And so the question I would have is just what specific change is enabled by reducing the setback to 17 feet 9 inches, and how does that change improve the project's design, operations, or public benefits? That's kind of what I'd just like to make very clear on the record so that I can move on this one.

I think Mike's going to take this one.

Commissioner McCoy, I'll answer that. Lee and I actually kind of, for lack of a better term, tag-teamed the review on this project. what the real constraint largely on this lot is besides the regular shape there' s no sewer in this neighborhood so it' s going to be on a septic system so northern nevada public health has very specific setbacks from leach fields from the Realistically the only way you're left with a very small building envelope so to push that house back is still maintain those separations from the septic Fields you'd be cutting into that steeper area in the back which would result in some significant grading which actually would have a visual impact within the neighborhood Where we looked at it that this setback is consistent with other setbacks in the neighborhood without creating that visual scarring that could occur should they be forced to push that house further to the to the east and

Okay, yeah, thank you. I'll take that again Commissioner McCoy for the record just Wanting to make sure that when we make these major deviation findings that we are identifying For the record what the changes and how that change is enhancing the project as opposed to just making it Possible if that makes sense, so thank you for the explanation Commissioner Jockerman is the engineer who?

prepared these drawings available for questions and Okay. So this is on the lines of what Mr. Raley just said. I can see that there's a utility easement to the page down, which I believe is south. And so they would have to go into that if they were to not get this deviation, obviously. And then the grading I can see in the topographical lines there, it's about 12 feet there's a lot of terrain change as you go up to Simbo Creek right so if they were to not have the deviation granted then you would be I mean I guess I'm speculating a little bit but I could see that they would then need a grading permit perhaps from this body to put the same house in there so they're they're potentially required to request one or other the other just to put a home on something that's zoned for a home is that a fair assessment of how I'm looking at that

I would say that is a fair assessment.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Delviere, so, and again, I was a little confused looking at this, and I appreciate the lines and understand it a little better now. So they're coming in on Natalie, but could they potentially even just turn it a little bit and come in from the other street? Or did they think about other potential designs where they wouldn't need the setback? That's a great question for Mike.

They did not propose that. I mean, potentially they might be able to, but if you look at the spacing from the intersection of where the driver would have to come in, without really getting too close to the ditch in those setbacks, I think... this is likely a better design the other thing to consider it largely functions almost like a side yard even though it is a front yard setback the way the house is oriented it's it's really more of a side yard which allows them to kind of have a better orientation for the house itself from a livability standpoint.

Understood. And I do understand, obviously, there are some difficult properties there that make this interesting. I think just in general, this question comes up a lot. How is it adding to, again, the neighborhood? Or how is it adding to the design? And I feel like we still are having trouble that and we often kind of fall back on well it kind of fits with the terrain so or it might you know this way they don't have to mitigate the the obviously they would probably come before us for the grading and and I understand that but It is, again, this isn't the first one we've seen where we're trying to understand like of those three options, like which one does this fit in and how does it fit? And so I'm struggling a little bit to make the findings, but maybe we'll have some more discussion.

If I could just follow up. So if you came in off of Susilene, for example, there's approximately 12 feet of grade to catch from the street to the house. It's a very confusing example.

If we do not have any other questions, we can move to deliberation. And I'll jump at once. Commissioner McCoy.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy with the record. I think I can get here tonight. I don't know that needing to keep a piece of that corner of the garage. or losing that somehow would make the property have to move into these other setback areas. I think you lose the garage or you downsize the garage. I know the driveways in this area are often very crazy or steep or situated in such a way that it will make it difficult. This is something I'm going to keep working on and trying to understand a little bit better with regards to the major deviation findings. But based on the grading potential and how that might impact the view and the change if we were looking at moving some of these things, I think I can get there tonight. But it's close. It's a close one for me tonight.

Commissioner Jockerman, so I'll add something to that. I I think it's Perhaps it's a bit peculiar that this parcels undeveloped when the entire neighborhood has been developed for like use and I think that's probably this the Difficulty of the site is perhaps why? And so it's not surprising to me to see this come later than the rest of the development and request something special I'm frankly this is the only thing they' re asking for in order to make this home work so seeing in my head the alternatives for how you put a home there such that you' d be infringing on a utility easement or steamboat ditch and then you' ve got the leach field I think this is actually maybe the best way for this project to go in terms of a

Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to make a motion.

Please proceed. One is ready.

Commissioner Williams, for the record, in the matter of LDC 27-0003, based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and I can make all the findings.

Mr. Vell to a second we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye aye any opposed hearing none motion carries unanimously that concludes this item D to now d3 this is a staff report for possible action this is a recommendation to City Council case number LDC 2 7-0 0 0 0 5 Codexa, I think that's correct codexa residents master plan and zoning map amendments For this we'll begin with a presentation from staff.

Mr. Foster Excuse me. Good evening members of the Planning Commission Jeff Foster associate planner for the record This first case that I'm bringing you tonight is the codexa residents master plan amendment zoning map amendment LDC 27-5 The site is about five acres in size. It's actually 4.61 acres by survey, located at the terminus of Cadexa Way, about 0.39 miles southeast of the intersection of Rio Wrangler Parkway and Desert Way and Cadexa Way, and it's within the city of Reno's sphere of influence. It is currently undeveloped with no permanent or habitable structures. There are some legacy non-permanent ranch features only. The request before you is a master plan amendment from unincorporated transition to large lot neighborhood and a zoning map amendment from UT 40 and LLR 2.5 to LLR 1. No specific development plan has been proposed. LLR 1's one acre minimum limits the five acre, again 4.61 acre parcel to a maximum of four single family lots. The general development pattern in the area is undeveloped, as you can see. It's also residential. The three adjacent parcels to the north, northeast, and east are also five acre privately owned undeveloped parcels. To the south and west of the subject parcel is BLM land. You can see that by my fancy little logos there. And this BLM land surrounds all four of the five acre parcels. Further to the south and the west is the Tallis Valley East planned unit development with single family residences. The key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility of the proposed master plan land use designation and zoning with surrounding land use designations and development, as well as provision of public utilities and services. Again, the master plan land use is unincorporated transition, and the proposed master plan land use is large lot neighborhood. The existing UT land use designation includes unincorporated land within the sphere of influence, which generally does not have immediate access to municipal services, but will likely develop within the next 20 years. The proposed large lot land use designation is primarily for single family detached homes and may be located where public services and infrastructure are limited. Large lot land use is appropriate between rural and more intensive residential uses or at the city edge to assure compatibility with unincorporated land. It provides opportunities to preserve the rural character of the existing neighborhoods in the city and its sphere of influence. To that end, there are six goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. The approval of the master plan amendments is subject to conformance review by the Regional Planning Commission. An initial review by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency did not identify any potential conformance issues. Again, the zoning district is a mix of UT 40 and large lot residential 2.5. LLR 2.5 does not conform with the current UT designation, and the proposed change to large lot residential one acre requires the master plan amendment that we were just speaking about. The UT40 district is intended to preserve properties that the county has planned for large lot residential development in a city zoning district without modifying the plan density. Both the existing LLR 2.5 and the proposed LLR 1 districts are intended to accommodate rural single family residential uses. In the staff report, you may have noticed exhibit B, which is a table of comparison of allowed land uses. I inadvertently used an older version of the table. I did want to point out that there are only minor differences in comparison with the current version of that table in code. Specifically, UT40 is the same other than indoor manufacturing is no longer allowed with a conditional use permit. Minor utilities are allowed by right, as with all zones, and manufactured homes are allowed by right. For large lot residential, one, the only change is that a communication facility equipment only is now allowed by right, which previously required a minor conditional use permit. I'm getting all that out there on the record, a request from Commissioner McCoy. Just simply identifying that the table of allowed land uses in the staff report is an older version, but it's a very minor changes in comparison with the current table of allowed land uses. Overall, with fewer allowed uses and more extensive entitlement requirements, the requested LLR1 zone is more restrictive than the current UT40 zone, and it also mirrors the LLR2.5 that currently exists on the site. Specifically, UT40 has more uses that are allowed by right, 9 versus 8, more that are allowed with a minor conditional use permit, 8 versus 5, and more that are allowed with a conditional use permit, 12 versus 5. Examples that stand out include a mobile home park, governmental facility, religious assembly, outside amusement and recreation and animal and animal byproduct processing that are all allowed in the current UT 40 With the conditional use permit and of course, they are not allowed under the proposed llr one Moving on to the development standards On the screen are the current UT 40 and llr 2.5 standards as well as the proposed llr one standards As you can see, the front and rear setbacks are the same all the way across the board. LLR 1 has the same max height as the current LLR 2.5. And basically, the main difference that I wanted to point out is that the LLR 1 has the ability to subdivide the parcel with up to four parcels with a parcel map. Here are the recommended findings for a master plan amendment. Staff can make all recommended findings. And here are the recommended findings for a zoning map amendment. Again, staff can make these findings. Here's the recommended motion. I will be available for questions after the applicant makes his presentation. The applicant's representative makes his presentation.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Brooke Oswald. I'm with the RET group. Welcome. I want to first thank Jeff for his professionalism in processing this application and the great staff report and presentation. Moving through this, I want to try not to repeat too much of what Jeff did. He did an excellent job of defining where the project is and what it is. This is just a quick summary. The address is actually 5840 Codex Away. The APN numbers, it is in Ward 3. It is that unincorporated, but in our sphere of influence. means that the city of Reno has jurisdiction. It is a unique site because it's surrounded by the BLM land that'll go into a little bit more. It is plus or minus five acres. As Jeff stated, it's 4.6 acres. So when that is actually subdivided or parcelized, that would only allow four and not five residential units. And what we're looking for tonight is that large lot residential one unit per acre. Quickly going over the site, Jeff defined the site area on this really. The important document here is to show that we have that BLM land in yellow surrounding the site as Jeff notified. There is an easement that runs through that BLM land up into the project site and access is provided that way through that easement. At this time, one of the findings is not necessarily access. Where we would really be looking at is the tentative map, parcel map process where access needs to be provided legally to each project site, and that would be insured at that point in time. We are on that rural edge, and we've seen a tremendous amount of development in that area with the Tallis Valley projects. That's provided a lot of density, but it's also providing that access and that Veterans Parkway and some of those other things we're seeing through that development. Once again, this is just going over that split zoning. That's actually taken, the zoning's taken from the county zoning and then translated over, and that's how we get the city of Reno zoning. You're about 82% unincorporated transition and large lot 2.5. As Jeff noted, that unincorporated transition is really that land that's sitting and waiting to be developed. As we've seen, development is really knocking on the door of this development. And I think what they're proposing is something very appropriate of where, as we go up that hill, we're seeing that density lessen. But that's still ability to provide housing and residential uses. I think, too, just the regional tier is tier two, which is our suburban tier. That's just out of our tier one, which is our downtown, our most dense. So that is similar to, you can see the much denser development, which is also tier two surrounding this. The master plan zoning map amendment, that gives us that one uniform designation. As far as developing, that makes it really easy. When you split the parcels like that, we're setting with different setbacks, different priorities. Only one unit can be built on the current, how it's currently configured. So this offers a little bit more flexibility, not only in housing, but those lot sizes. Sorry, the lot configurations. Staff recommended approval. They can make all the findings, no condition on this. And as Jeff was stating, that LOR1 is really what's driving that master plan amendment. This is why Jeff went through this. This is the unincorporated to the large lot and the consistency through that. We have gone through and done the master plan meeting, and I'll go through that a little bit more as we go through. So from a master plan, Jeff showed all those specific policies, but really looking, that's that responsible growth that we're concurrency management services are planned and are phased as the rural edge develops and they were not committing anything ahead of time. Natural resources with those larger lots, we're conserving that sort of uh... opens private held open space and and maintain the access to those uh... urban land and rural land space that is surrounded by the BLM and this in many ways the improvement of codexa and some of those things would provide additional access and then hitting our foothill neighborhoods which is part of our structure plan uh... the open space continued public land access and the mixed of lot sizes so one thing that we do have the opportunity with this is to use the cluster cluster ability that allows us to make lots smaller while preserving larger areas of open space. So in theory we could cluster four half acre lots and then preserve the rest in open space. So there's many ways to configure this with using current code that even helps us to preserve additional open space in this project. This is just showing it's a little bit cut off and just straight, but basically showing how our zoning and really just going to one unified zoning district that allows a conformance and the flexibility in the building envelopes on the property. What it does is it updates mass plan zoning to be consistent, resolves that split zoning, it supports low intensity large lot family use, and it keeps the council, right now it's keeping the parcel boundary exactly as it is. There's no building or construction proposed with this, there's no subdivision by this request, no change in the parcel boundaries or the existing access, and there is no development at this stage, very high level, no development is required. We are seeing that compatibility by context as we're going up that hill as Jeff noted to there are three surrounding five-acre lots you know that would have a similar opportunity and not asking for anything that one of the other properties couldn't ask for. We see that natural transition and lessening of density as we go into those open spaces. As Jeff noted, this is actually a more restrictive use zoning. Even though we're seeing four units instead of the one with the UT, it does allow a lot of those commercial and other uses that may not be desirable as we're seeing that area develop. And then the services are in place. We are in the city of Reno. Anything coming forward would be reviewed by city Reno police and fire and through that. And then possibility with the remoteness of this site, we would be looking at... no municipal water or sewer, so well and septic would be possible in that. And that would be a process we'd go through with county health to determine what's appropriate and the land required and how that would happen. And then there are services obviously have come in to the adjacent Tallis Valley, and there's opportunity potentially there in the future. We did go and present at the Ward 3 NAB on October 4th. We had the neighborhood meeting October 17th. We had two attendees on that. One was the adjacent property owner. There were no concerns about this, and they were interested in just what was happening. And then we've gone through that full agency review, not only the city of Reno, but all the way up to the regional, who's reviewed it and had no conformance issues with it. So just a quick, on our review of the timeline, so just where everyone understands, and Jeff has done, as we can see, this came in on the intake day for master plan on July 13th. We're hitting here September 2nd on things. So Jeff has been very efficient in processing this and moving it forward. With the decision tonight, it's recommendation, then it will go on to city council. That's the master plan on resolution and the two meetings for the ordinance adoption for the zoning, and then we're on to regional. So we still have several meetings ahead of us for public input and to comment. Just to go through really quick the case, I'm with the EREC group working with Jeff. Christy Corp has been the engineer on this, providing the survey and engineering of record on access easements and everything, and then we also are working with Danielle Weiss with the shift group who will be moving forward as soon as we determine what's allowable on this with architecture. It's a family that owns it. We expect a family, almost a family compound of a couple structures of homes and within this, this is something they would like to build their own home on. I'll leave with just my information. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Questions from the commission.

I'm sorry. Disclosures from the commission. My apologies. I'll start over here.

Commissioner Valto received correspondence regarding the project.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner McKenzie, no disclosures.

Commissioner Jockerman, no disclosures.

Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material.

Commissioner Delviere, read and received material, and I'm familiar with the site.

Madam Clerk, public comment.

We did receive correspondence for this item that were forwarded to the Commission and entered into the record, but I do not have any public comment cards in person, and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will close public comments and go to questions from the Commission.

Commissioner McCoy. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record, this is, I mean, whoever wants to answer this, staff, the applicant's representative, it's my understanding that Codex is a private road, and is there any kind of legal basis for accessing the parcel off of that?

Yes, through the engineer in the survey. So the access is actually through BLM land. And there's currently an easement set through that BLM, you know, the access easement to those parcels through that BLM land. Now, it is a private road. We'd anticipate it would stay a private road and be private road standards. Anything, if it was to be adopted by the city or anything, would have to be brought up to current city standards, which would probably require a wider easement, curb and gutter, and so forth. Okay.

And then my final question is, I think it was mentioned that there's Maybe it was a little back and forth whether or not there's septic, so I was hoping you could answer whether or not there is actually septic on the site now, and would that support the division if it is broken up into the four lots?

Currently not septic on the site. We're just, because of the remoteness and some of that, we're anticipating trying to hook into the... The sewer line, we are looking at that with the recent development and what that would entail. But because of the large lot and the size, that does allow possibly for the septic and a possible well if water's not available.

Commissioner Williams, I think it's maybe for Jeff. defer if necessary sir. Just one kind of observation as far as conformance goes in this it currently conforms I'm guessing with all four parcels but once we change this is this the first domino for the other three parcels or can you can we address that?

Commissioner or sorry Jeff Foster Commissioner Williams when you say it currently conformed I'm not sure I understand.

All four parcels are currently listed are currently zoned the same

So the master plan is UT for all four?

Yes.

All four of them have different percentages of the county zoning, the, is it general rural? and HDR, they all have the same kind of similar zoning, not necessarily the same percentages.

Okay, the map, I got that part. Okay, once we change it out to LLR, right, then it becomes one lot of the three

once the master plan is changed to large lie and once the zoning is changed to large lot one that would be potentially a Domino you know as for the other pointed I think they can all apply for basically the same thing okay I think mr. Oswald kind of mentioned that okay I just wanted to confirm thank you Jeff Commissioner Jochman I'll ask a question of you mr. Foster so there's sort of two thoughts on my head right now I is it one is it fair to say that

this recommendation for approval would bring us closer to building more homes which is something that the master plan guides us strongly to do so yes one versus or sorry four versus one okay correct yeah the second question is that it would appear as though we're putting this on an island like we don't have the same the land use of the master plan land use adjacent to that. Am I correct in thinking about that as well or is that not correct?

it would be a different master plan land use than the three other parcels that are there the three other five acre parcels and then of course the

Okay, but that's inherent in the fact that there are four parcels that are an island and you know surrounded by BLM land Sure, so I guess I would ask the next question to the applicant representative Help me help me get behind why we should have this parcel be on an island And in its adjacency to the other parcels that do not have that master plan land use I

Yeah, and I think we see changes in master plan all the time, and I think it's the appropriateness of why we're changing this master plan. That has a lot to do with the terrain and the limit of development, and also as we're seeing that surrounded open space. So what many of the policies say is you move towards those open space, you decrease your density. So we see a higher density in Tallis Valley, and as we move up that hill to those open spaces and less developable areas, That's where we see the density start to reduce, and hence that's why you're getting the large lot, which is driving the master plan of the large lot to be in conformance. So I hope that helps to make sense, that we do see those transitions, and this is a transition area as we go up the foothills.

Okay, yeah, this is ultimately a recommendation to City Council, so I'm just thinking of how I phrase those thoughts through as this proceeds.

Good question.

Thank you.

And I think just to the question, if you don't mind, just to the domino question, I think domino is a tough word. I think each of those applicants has to come in. With the housing, we'd see 16 to 20 homes up there at a max, right on 20 acres. And so very low density in a small, confined sort of area. That does allow... sharing of utilities, road maintenance, a number of those other things. So in looking at that, I think that's actually sort of supportive of seeing that development of those parcels that we do have potential to develop on.

Any other questions from the commission? If not, we can move to deliberation.

I can... Commissioner Delvear, thank you. Just from a deliberation standpoint, Commissioner Delvear, by the way, I think I still have a lot of questions, but I believe those would come when we start looking at tentative maps and things like that, right? Like, how are you going to... How are they going to access public land? And, you know, you talk about... NFN 9 and 8 and, you know, G26 and the transition, like, how is that going to work? And then, obviously, the question is coming up about the other three UT40 lots. But I think that this, for tonight's discussion, I have what I need. And I think the other questions will come up when we start doing more planning down the road. So I'm good.

seeing nothing I guess I'll just say this is sort of the same thoughts I had previously I think I like that this out this request brings us closer to more housing and I saw that in the presentation I was left with that I do have pause when it's a zoning exercise that creates an island but I also recognize that the master plan. guides us to More housing and our jobs as planning commissioners is to follow the master plan when we can so I'm in support of this those are my thoughts and Yeah, nothing further I Can make him Can we can we put that?

Thank you so much Commissioner, in the matter of case LDC2700005 based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that the city council adopt the master plan and zoning map amendments by ordinance subject to conformance review by the regional planning commission. And I can make the findings.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item D3. We now move on to item D4. Same duo, I think, right? So this is a staff report for possible action. Again, a recommendation to City Council. Case number LDC26-00019. This is Hillside Four Square Church Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment. We will begin with a presentation from staff. Mr. Foster.

Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. I will first start out by pointing out that I am not the planner on this case, so any questions that you may have, I will immediately defer to Mr. Raley. So I am just presenting it on his behalf. All right, the project site is about 6.78 acres in size. You can see it's on the south side of 395 near Clear Acre Lane. It's comprised of two parcels, as you can see. The requests before you are a master plan amendment from single family neighborhood to suburban mixed use and a zoning map amendment from SF3, single family residential, three units per acre to mixed use suburban. There's also a request for a tier amendment from tier two to tier one. Some background, the project site consists of two parcels that are bisected by right of way for Sutro Street. The southern parcel is developed with a church that was constructed in 1987. And the Sutro Street extension, a little bit of a tongue twister, is no longer planned. And therefore, the right of way for that is anticipated to be abandoned in the future. In terms of compatibility, you have the Sun Valley mobile home park, single-family uses to the west, multi-family to the southwest and to the south. You also have light industrial and commercial to the south. The site is within walking distance to the neighborhood services and transit, and it's also proximate to UNR employment centers and the freeway. The master plan land use again is single family neighborhood proposed to be changed to suburban mixed use and on the screen are four goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. The zoning district currently single family three units per acre, proposed to be changed to mixed use suburban, which allows for expansion of the church facilities, including a school, and it would also allow for multi-family residential. Keep in mind that any non-residential use will require discretionary review, and that's because of residential adjacency. Impacts will be evaluated with a site specific project at that time. Here are the development standards for the current SF3 and the proposed mixed-use suburban. Here are the recommended findings for a master plan amendment, and staff can make the recommended findings. And here are the recommended findings for the zoning map amendment. Again, staff can make the recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion, and I will not be available for questions.

I hope that the applicant's representative will now be making a presentation.

Once again, Brooke Oswald for the record with the OREC group. Before what we have is master plan zoning map amendment. We also will be requesting that council support a tier change from tier two to tier one. This is something we recently saw on the Clear Acres project that was before this body. That was the project just to the north of this that came in. Very similar in some SF zoning, just a mix of zoning and sort of qualifying that to get in. So very same in not only location, but what's being asked for here. 320 Sutro Street. Sutro is a terminus now. I'll go into that little remnant piece there a little bit and a little bit of history and why we haven't moved forward with an abandonment at this time. We are two parcels. Those two parcels were created by that condemnation, and that's why we're seeing the two parcels on this that used to be one parcel together. It's approximately 6.78.

We're looking at the Mass Planning Zoning Amendment on this.

What we're proposing, proposing to turn the current SF zoning to MS. A lot of those SF, those older zonings up there that are looking at those large lot, that was before the city moved out. The city really has become, has moved out. The density has increased. As you can see around this is multifamily of a higher density. Additionally, we're just off that McCarran loop, which is that boundary that we're really looking at, you know, that SF1 or just outside of that. I have met with Regional, both on the Clear Acres and talking about this project. And then if you did notice, Lauren did mention it tonight as part of that conformance review of the SMU master plan that they'll be looking at because Regional realizes there's a disconnect between those densities, how their tiers are and their densities, and that's bringing those into conformance and finding those working together. As I said, I have talked to regional about this, and this is where some of these conversations are starting because of these two projects. It's a church campus. It's been there for 40 years, been a fixture in the community. They offer daycare and a number of other services for our community. They'd like the opportunity to expand possibly elementary education or other sort of things. There's been a lot of flux in this property, and that's largely due to 395 and the expansion and different roadways and alignments at different times. I wouldn't say coming to an end, but it's getting close. The sound walls are all up there now, which creates a better environment for them along there, and they've seen sort of where the property lines are and where they've done. They have allowed NDOT to stage on their property through a lot of this and have worked with them to do that. uh... the abandonment and why didn't we come in with the abandonment so and uh... when and uh... acquires properties of uh... uh... eminent domain that means they come and assess the property and they pay the landowner for the property they have the power because of the the public good to be able to do that this was that happened to this property it was originally i think determined that sutro would go under this was changed and On the Clear Acre site, you can also see that alignment was changed and those access points were changed. So with that condemnation, instead of the owners we often see on an abandonment where they're donated the land in the beginning and when it's no longer needed by the city, then it can go back to the adjacent landowner, this is owned in fee. They currently don't have a development project or know what's going on, and being a church, they don't want to spend excessive amount of money forward. But as they move forward with development, what we'd anticipate is seeing the abandoned coming before city council at that time. So that's why we're seeing the split at this point. We did go to the Ward 4 neighborhood meeting. And we are seeing, as noted, this area is built out. The area really has built around some of that older remnant zoning that's been there. We amend the master plan to that suburban mixed use that I talked about with the regional. Rezones both the parcels to that suburban mixed use. When those parcels come together with the abandonment, they take over the adjacent master plan and zoning map amendments. So what we'll see is a consistent zoning across that property instead of split zonings. It lets that campus grow and that community institution, schools, learning centers, childcare, church expansion, and then we're taking forward the regional tier change. No development with this. No loss of city review. We anticipate site plan reviews under RMC. That could happen with non-residential development, as Jeff mentioned. And then there's no single family interface. What we're seeing around us is multifamily 30, 30 units per acre, 21 units per acre. We're seeing commercial developments and slight low impact industrial developments. It's a logical extension of that MS up Sutro. It really kind of just fits the pattern in the terminus there. It can't expand anymore. This is really the developable land in this area. It uses that vacant land that was created, that vacancy, through the old Comden Nation and some of that. So it opens that land back up to development, which is great to continue to grow. The MS placement criteria, it's just, as Jeff mentioned, right by employment centers. It's just off McCarran Loop. It's close to services. Those are all the MS sort of where we would see that MS zoning. I cut this a little shorter. We're at the planning commission tonight. We go to, with your recommendation, we would go to council for two hearings and then on to regional. And then we would actually go to the regional board with this for that tier adjustment. So we're seeing at least another four more meetings on this. Master plan amendment, substantial conformant with the master plan. It meets all those policies. Zoning map amendment, same. It meets all the general criteria. And the ask is just that you adopt the master plan tonight and recommend city council approve the master plan and zoning map. the information of who we've been working with. I'll just leave with that available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. We will now move to disclosures from the commission. I'll start on my left. Commissioner Delviere.

Commissioner Delviere, received and read materials and I'm familiar with the site.

Commissioner Williams, read and viewed material and also familiar.

Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures.

Commissioner McKenzie, no disclosures.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Mr. Bell so no disclosures that concludes disclosures Matt Commissioner my apologies public comment okay madam clerk public comment please yes we did receive correspondence for this item that were afforded to the Commission and and entered into the record we have one public comment card in person from Valerie Bishop Valerie, just go up to the podium, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

My name is Valerie Bishop, and I'd like this for the record that I am formally opposing this project. My concern is physical safety, escape route, emergency evacuation, nowhere to go, on Sutro. It is a dead end. With the View Apartments exiting Sutro, with the mobile home Sun Villa Park exiting Sutro, Sutro doesn't even have a white line down the middle of the street. This is an endangerment to human life. The tax dollars won't bring quality of life to victims. There's nowhere to go on Sutro, and the other fairway is Clearacre. With this project above Selmy, which is .02 from McCarran. Now I drive McCarran every day, and it's an inch-by-inch traffic most of the time. Obviously, in evacuation, we just stay in our homes and burn. Thank you.

thank you Valerie with that I do not have any other registered public comment.

Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers at this time if so please raise your hand. Seeing none we will now conclude public comment and go to questions from the commission commissioner Valto.

Yes, this is probably for you Jeff couple questions for you. I'm sorry you know you said you want to come back up I just want to talk to you again. I have two topics I want to cover for you, with you. First, I want to understand, it's oftentimes when we see these projects for master plan amendments, we really want to know what's going to be built. Can you help us understand what are we supposed to consider tonight when we don't know what the project is?

Well, considering that it is currently, let's go back. All right. So currently single family master plan land use and with proposed suburban mixed use, that really does open up the box in terms of what could be developed, right, in terms of commercial uses, even light industrial uses, et cetera. That's in terms of the master plan. The zoning mixed use suburban versus SF3, similar story. It really does change what is allowed to be developed, SF3 being primarily a residential zone, or being a residential zone versus mixed-use suburban allowing residential, including multifamily, but as well as a bunch of other uses, commercial and industrial in nature, school facilities, et cetera, as mentioned on the screen here. So with that, I would also see if Mike has anything else to offer.

Sure. So for the record, Mike, really, When we evaluated this site, we looked at it very similar to the Clear Acre Commons because no project is being proposed at this time. But what's a little bit different from this compared to Clear Acre Commons is the majority of the site, as you can see actually on this side, is already developed with that church, which leaves a fairly small remainder piece that could be developed. Given its location at the end of Sutro, it's really... we would see an expansion of the church or multi-family residential is the likely to come in. Jeff mentioned light industrial if that came forward that would likely would no matter what would trigger discretionary review potentially even a conditional use that size the site it's the way staff look at it is somewhat self-regulating in terms of that's gonna limit the number of units it could physically go on there under the MS zoning and then once again when something does come in when we have a site specific project just like we discussed with clear acre that will trigger a traffic impact analysis you know depending on the use if it's a school It will trigger either a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit based on the number of students. So there will be additional review of anything that comes in on this site.

Thank you. And then I have a follow-up question. One of the public commenters asked about or mentioned escape routes and emergency evacuations. Is there any material difference in what is allowed by right now versus what is allowed after the zoning change in terms of

access to this area in terms of access access him is what really what we would look at is and is the density so obviously the zoning would allow for significantly more units than what would be permitted under the sf3 We would look at that when if they were to come forward for example with multifamily which could go straight to a building permit In addition to traffic analysis, fire would look at that for that very reason. So it would be reviewed to make sure that it met the current city standard.

Thank you. Commissioner?

Commissioner Delver?

Commissioner Delver.

Okay. Fantastic. Just kind of a little follow-up with that. You can probably sit down. I'll just ask Mike. Thank you. If, you know, you just made the comment that if it was a multifamily unit, it might not come before us or it might not have to go through some other... For example, if apartments were proposed, the potential triggers to come back to this board would be for grading, potentially with a major site plan review.

But MS does allow for multifamily use by right.

Right. So to Ms. Bishop's concern and other concerns that we saw, and especially because of the recent fires and issues with evacuation, it's a dead end right there. And there's children in that school. And I How do you get those kids out? They don't have buses there. The parents drop them off. So are the parents going to be able to drive up during an evacuation to pick up their kids? And it goes up a hill and around a corner. So there's a lot of public safety concerns that I have with this particular situation. And my concern is if we do approve it, then by right, they can go ahead and put even more dense housing in there. So are there any conditions we can put in place or ways that we can think about this differently so that we do have to evaluate it more frequently to protect public safety and our first responders?

Sure. That's a good question. so we can't condition this because it's a master plan amendment is on change so we don't have the ability to condition I will say that this there's not a school there now so if a school were to come forward that's a discretionary review and that will trigger a discretionary review process okay which we can place conditions in terms of it may be an evacuation plan and that will also get circulated fire to fire we'll look at it police will look at it it goes through all the departments um If it's multifamily that comes in, which as we say, just based on partial size, we anticipate a smaller ratio. But we do look at that a building permit. Just because it is permitted by right doesn't mean that those issues are not reviewed during the building department review. So for example, fire is a reviewing department on that. If they identify significant concerns, there is a chance that they would not get a building permit if they could not demonstrate compliance with Reno Municipal Code.

Okay, thank you. And it's a daycare that's there now, not a school, but yes, understood. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner McCoy. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy for the record. Just to kind of follow up on the safety issue, I'm glad to hear that this will be looked at when they decide what they're going to do with it in the future. I just want to ask whether or not traffic and fire is comfortable and whether or not they've even looked at it yet with what we're proposing. Is that a question that's been asked of them given... The dead end nature, are they on board right now given that Sutro dead ends there and there's a potential abandonment of that right away? Is there a concern about the legal and emergency access?

At this point, they have not done a detailed analysis because there's no project to evaluate. I will say that we have had discussions regarding the abandonment, which Public Works has no issue with that. Basically, it's right of way that will never be used. Originally, Sutro was intended to go under the freeway. Those plans have since changed with the redesign of we have to go back and look at what was actually built so that will never happen. Abandonment of that right-of-way we do see is happening in the future but as far as evaluating a specific project same as like I said with clear acre commons there was nothing to review at this point.

I have a quick question about the tier 2 to tier 1 I understand that' s not anything we' re looking at but can

So at a regional level they have a series of tiers and so one through four I think and they largely revolve around densities and developable areas. So we're seeing one really with that McCarran loop within the McCarran loop and just outside of that and so we've recently seen the project to the north go to a tier one large fairly vacant property want to see develop. What's happening is there, because of those tiers limit by density, when the zonings come in that allow, even though they may not build up to 30 units, right, that allow that, they need to make sure it conforms to the tier. And so they're looking, and I think that's sort of what's going through the master plan with regional is they're looking at how these tiers impact our ability to build housing, our ability to grow, some of those things. So they're really trying to align with the city more on that. Does that help or answer your question?

Yes. And, Commissioner W.R., if I can follow up, you know, the fire department has very strict secondary access standards in terms of how many units you can have at the end of a dead-end street. That would be fully evaluated, that building permit, if this did come in for multifamily use.

Okay. Thank you.

May I speak to that just really quick? I think, so there is topography on this site and what we often, we always think of density in the worst case. It's site constraints that really start to limit what we can do. Now, once you have 20% landscape come in and you have your required parking, that really starts to cut down your envelope of building and then that density. Obviously, as a 55-foot height, I don't think we'd ever see that just because of what would be required with parking and everything else on that. So the site really starts to constrain the development.

I understand that it's a pretty small space and I understand that but I also am concerned about that along with the potential of the school and the kids and trying to evacuate them when there's no other.

And I think to Mike to look at I think too as a community we're going to be a lot more conscious about our evacuation about how we do that our preparedness and hopefully we look at that as Mike said I think you have you do have the ability to start condition some of these emergency plans and some of these other things that do come through through development and any development would be go through fire and police and i'm sure they're going to be very clear on that as mike says fire has strict double access standards and a number of height standards and setback standards and things that they need to make sure that they can do their job properly all right i just know that some of this won't come back to us so this is kind of like our one opportunity to make sure we're getting it right yeah i understand

Commissioner Jockerman, so I'll ask, in the Clear Creek project to the north was mentioned once, so this question's for staff. On that, in that hearing, I expressed questions about whether or not the traffic finding is applicable at that stage. And that item, Commissioner Rohrmeier at that time noted to me that it was not applicable. Should I be reviewing this application in the same way? yes correct because at this point that because i i can also you know understand that there are concerns about access how that might do we don't have a project so it's very hard to identify what that's what would be applicable but for this type of request that finding has been identified as not applicable that's correct and i would i would look over to legal to see if they concur but that that's that's Yeah, so obviously the the Commission here is strongly saying that I guess I'll save that for deliberations. Thank you Do we have any other questions from the Commission I

I'll ask one question, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Williams, for the record, most likely for staff. So about compatibility, the report basically says that points to the south, right, with multi-story, multi-family use, but it doesn't really address the west, which is Sunville Estates, which is single-story. What about if I'm taking this at face, saying just imagine this church is going to build another church building, a school. What about a 55-foot building with five-foot setbacks is compatible to the single story to the West?

correct and that's like I say that's something that actually as staff we looked at and it was really our number one issue in evaluating this the code does have step back standards for additional setbacks for buildings that are over over 35 feet so that would come into play so we would anticipate increased setbacks if if as Mr. Oswald pointed out the worst case scenario building was built to the maximum height

Okay, so effectively after the 35, even though 55 is allowed, and five is only required by this zoning, the step backs would play in above 35?

Correct, and I'm going off the top of my head, but I believe it's roughly one additional foot per foot of building height. So one to one.

Okay, all right, that helps me. Thanks, Mike.

One more question. Maybe this is more clarification and it's probably for you. And again, I recognize that we don't have a plan and we don't know, but can you just estimate the number of units that the apartment might have? Because I think that would help us understand, like, is it 12 or 20 or...

I think what we would see is if the church is to expand, they would extend to the east and up where they have their current parking lot. So we would see the multifamily on that. As you can see, that SF3 is less than a third of the total property. So we're probably down to an acre and a half or somewhere in there. We're now on that. You could build three. It doesn't do the density, but there is also an incredible amount of slope through there. Yeah. and some other cuts and different things that really start to just impact. I can't off the top of my head say what could be developed or what would happen there, but I think you're going to see something very comparable to your surrounding densities with your MF30 to the west and your MF21 to the east. I think you're – I would – And I would actually say it would probably be closer to the 21 that you're going to see.

Right, and that's kind of what I figured. Again, I'm pretty familiar with that area, and I recognize that you just can't build 17 stories of one apartments.

Some setbacks off the sound wall and some of those other things that are going to be there.

Okay, thank you.

If there are no further questions, we'll move to deliberations. Okay, Commissioner Valto.

So, you know, if we start by looking at... what is compatible with the surrounding area. I think what's proposed, while it's not identical to the surrounding area, is reasonably compatible with what kind of the existing use is and with the surrounding area. I hear this concern about fire. I am not particularly, I don't know if there's enough evidence in the record that this would create a difference between the use that's now allowed versus what's already allowed. I understand that there's some more intensities, but I think those are limited by the topography. I was looking at, you know, from Google Maps, kind of looking at what the layout is, looking at the design or the sizing of the parcels, and it seems difficult that there'd be really extensive development, even under the allowed uses, especially without some serious grading that would trigger some sort of review so I you know I tend to trust that our city would when it goes to building her it would be able to evaluate this so I think that addresses some of my concerns that I've heard from the public about fire safety so with that I do feel comfortable with this but those are kind of my thoughts.

The only comment I and Commissioner Williams for the record the only comment I wanted to make is that this part of sutro has the most odd delineations in the street and if anybody has ever gone down the street to the south Effectively if if cars from this apartment complex because of the way the lines are placed in the roadway a very narrow going southbound a weirdly wide Lane going north if cars are parked along the southbound side of sutro you have to go into wrong wrong way traffic and To get to get going through there. So I don't know That would be my only concern as far as fire and safety goes. I mean from from an aspect of egress I think being this proximity close to McCarran is very important and into the freeway I know that some communities are much worse and when it comes to how close they can get to a major arterial. But this part of Sutro is a little worrisome just because of... And I don't know if this is a public works thing or if we can send that up there, but if anybody hasn't been up there, it's very oddly placed, and it's not even by any mean... So that's just kind of my only thought. I don't think it really relates to the project itself, but it is a very odd street and very difficult to get down if somebody's coming the other way.

Yeah, Commissioner W. Sorry, Commissioner W. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Williams. And again, I think for what we're supposed to be doing here tonight, I can make the findings, but I do have some pretty strong concerns depending on what goes in that I hope will be mitigated by other parties and organizations as they go forward. If they do build a school, there'll be a lot more students going in there. There'll be a lot more cars going in when they're being dropped off, when they're coming out. And again, if there is any kind of emergency, not just fire, the concern is to make sure that they can get out. There will be more cars if there are apartments there. And it is sort of an awkward street to come in and out of. But again, I don't know that that necessarily is what is our purview for this issue at hand tonight.

Commissioner Belto, is that at hand?

Yeah, I mean, they always say curiosity killed the cat. I have a question for probably you, David. If they were to... It seems like there's an avenue for it to be flat to go directly onto the highway from this parcel. I understand that is not something that will ever happen or could happen, but in the event of an emergency, is that something like, can you put a gate there and open it?

I will not grant that. I shouldn't answer the question, I guess, but I've never heard of NDOT granting an emergency fire access to. Understood. Okay. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

thank you Mr.

Chair.

I guess commissioner jockman I will speak next. I have a lot of thoughts about access and so forth and I' m struggling with what we' re trying to review at this time and I can also see that the process that they will undertake requires them potentially to have two points of ingress or egress, depending on what the project actually is. But this is not a project, and it's a zoning exercise. So within the scope of that, we have effectively two requests that are before us. There's the change to suburban mixed use. And then the MS part for the zoning. And the suburban mixed use, like I said on the prior item, this one's not going on an island, so I like that. I have a little bit of pause about the MS change because it's not on an island, but that adjacency is across a freeway, which... really next door so I have a little bit of pause about that I think that's a discussion within our purview at for this stage at this time that's kind of where my head's at at this point.

Commissioner McCoy. Thank You chair Commissioner McCoy for the record I think I share all the concerns that have been expressed I know we can't condition this but I would I would definitely strongly encourage that when some of these things come back that might not necessarily have to come back before this board, that staff consider doing so, given the concerns that we have with what might be, since we don't know what will be. And that's where I'll leave it. Thank you.

Commissioner W.R., and Mike, you mentioned this, and it was to Commissioner Velta's question. Based on the current zoning, if they were to do something with the current zoning, would there be similar issues that we would run into? Again, obviously, we're trying to...

balance this for the school use. It's essentially identical. They'd have to go through the same process. Um, but for the, it's really the right when it comes down to what's the biggest change or what can they do? It's the residential density for sure.

I got you. Perfect. Thank you.

Happy to make a motion.

Sure, is there any further discussion from the Commission? Okay, if... Sorry about that. There is an additional opportunity for public comment, but not at this time. Commissioner Velto, please proceed.

In the matter of case number LDC26-00019, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that city council approve the master plan and zoning map amendment subject to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission slash governing board approvals. And I can make all the findings.

Commissioner Williams, I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. I guess there was a pause there. Any discussion? We have a motion in front of us. I'm not hearing anything. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That concludes this item. We will now move to... Actually, we've been going for two hours. Let's take a five-minute break. The time is 7.58. We'll return at 8.03. Okay, we will reconvene the next item is Item e1 this is a staff report for possible action. This is about the Reno City Planning Commission bylaws So for this item, we will have a presentation from staff We will have public comment and then we will go to the Commission for probably questions and deliberation concurrently on this item Okay, Ms. Shai, please proceed.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Thanks for having me on this side of the screen. Callie Shai, Agenda Coordinator for the City of Reno and staff leads on to the Planning Commission for the record. Today I'm bringing you an item to consider changes to the current Reno City Planning Commission bylaws. So for some background, Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 278050 requires the Planning Commission to adopt rules for a transaction of business. The current bylaws, which were attached to this item, outline commissioner responsibilities, including the roles in terms of the chair and vice chair, meeting processes, and consideration of agenda items. The bylaws also advise on use of staff, decorum, parliamentary authority, and rules for amending the bylaws. The current Planning Commission bylaws were last modified in April of 2023 and adopted by Council in May of 2023. This set of amendments sought to address video conferencing protocols in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, updated terminology to align with Title 18, and made other minor administrative changes. I'm presenting this item tonight at the request of a few commissioners at our last couple meetings, particularly to take a deeper look at the rules surrounding the consent agenda. With that said, let's spend some time on the Consent Agenda. As you all know, the Consent Agenda was implemented beginning with the July 15th Planning Commission meeting at the request of Chair Jockman. The goal has been to make meetings more productive and allow the Commission to focus on more controversial and or complex projects. Under the current process, the Administrator, our Planning Manager, Mike Raley, works with the staff planner to determine if an item is placed on the Consent Agenda or within the regular public hearing items. Items on the consent agenda should be routine and non-controversial and recommended for approval by staff. Typically, project types that have final decisions made by council, wherein the planning commission makes a recommendation to council, are not placed on the consent agenda. If, after an agenda is posted, an item receives significant public comment in opposition or staff feels that certain aspects of the project should be addressed before the body, staff may choose to pull an item and have a full public hearing. Commissioners may also choose to pull an item from the consent agenda. If a commissioner is receiving public comment on any item, and especially an item on the consent agenda, they should forward the comments to the staff liaison for inclusion in the meeting record and distribution to other commissioners. In drafting the consent agenda memo, which is included in the attachments for this item, we look to neighboring jurisdictions, including Washoe County, the City of Las Vegas, as well as the City of Henderson, as these entities have used a consent agenda in a similar manner. If directed by the Commission tonight, we will add the consent agenda to the draft bylaws for your review and possible approval at the next meeting. In addition, staff is proposing a few administrative changes to clarify how the Planning Commission currently operates and ensure compliance with code and state law. The full list is included in the staff report, but I'll go through them here as well. The first change is the name of the body from City of Reno Planning Commission to Reno City Planning Commission. We've been using Reno City Planning Commission for a while now, and this will just make the change official. Next, we'll remove references to outdated city ordinances and ensure that all references refer to state law, NRS Chapter 278, as this section establishes the planning commission. We'll also change all references from the city clerk's office to the city manager's office, since the city manager's office deals with administration of all of our boards and commissions as of last year. Another addition would formalize the appointment and resignation process in the bylaws. The current bylaws require commissioners to submit a resignation in writing, but do not provide any information on the appointment process, so staff intends to outline the current process in the redline draft. We're also looking to broaden the meeting schedule. The Planning Commission currently meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. Next year, we will be shifting our meetings around the Reno City Council schedule as that is predicted to change, but we still have to maintain compliance with state review timelines. The proposed change will have meetings stay on Wednesdays or Thursdays as needed, bimonthly, which is similar to our current schedule. Next, the bylaws state that commissioners unable to attend a meeting must notify the administrator by 5 p.m. the day before the meeting. We welcome feedback on this potential change, but for awareness, staff begin the noticing process at least 10 days prior to a meeting, so knowing if we'll have a quorum in advance is critical. In the staff report, we've proposed a change to 10 days prior to a meeting barring any emergencies, of course. Another change asks that commissioners communicate with Mike as the administrator and myself as the staff liaison regarding attendance and other meeting-specific notifications to ensure clear communication. To continue, given the consent agenda process, all correspondence or public comment received by an individual commissioner should be forwarded to the staff liaison for inclusion in the record. This ensures all commissioners have the same information when deliberating on an item. Currently, the bylaws require that commissioners be provided 10 days written notice to amend the bylaws. We'd be looking to update this to the Nevada Open Meeting Law agenda posting requirements, which is 9 a.m., three business days before the meeting. This would be for the second step in this process, the final review of the bylaws, not this current initial item. Under the current process, we will provide written notice to all commissioners 10 days prior to the next meeting for approval of the amended bylaws. Lastly, there are a few clerical errors and unclear language we'd like to clean up, which you would see in the red lines. So for this item, we're seeking direction from the Commission on the proposed administrative changes, as well as any Commissioner-proposed amendments. Of note, any proposed changes must be included in the final motion approved by the body. Staff will take the amendments included in the motion and draft a red-lined version of the bylaws, which we brought to the next meeting for possible approval and recommendation by City Council. With that, the recommended motion is on the board, and I'd be happy to get feedback and answer any questions.

Okay, we will now move to public comment. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Clerk, Acting Clerk.

Thank you, Chair. Additional correspondence was received for this item. These were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record. In addition, we do have one speaker registered in person. We'll start with Donna Keats.

Can I go ahead and not go in?

Pardon? Tony, please state your name for the record. When you begin speaking, you will be afforded.

I guess we should do any, before you speak, my apologies, do any commissioners have a disclosure they would like to make? I guess regarding communications, yes. So any disclosures from the commission, we'll start with Commissioner Valdez.

Yeah, I've had extensive conversations with people about the consent agenda and meaning of public hearings.

We'll just go down the aisle. Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner McKenzie, no disclosures.

Commissioner Jockerman, no disclosures.

Commissioner Williams, same as Commissioner Velto.

Commissioner W.R., no disclosures.

That concludes our disclosures. Please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Thank you. Tony Harsh for the record. I believe you all received a letter from Molly Mnookin in your packet, and I'm just very supportive of that letter, and I'm hoping that you all had an opportunity to read it. The main concern that I have, and I would like to reiterate, is the importance of the public being able to address you. And it's, as you just witnessed with Mrs. Bishop, this is where we come to interact with you. And it's intimate and we can bring our concerns. So many times this happens spur of the moment. And also we are, some NABs do not meet, some NABs meet infrequently, and I think it's very, very important that we keep the process open for the public to interact. So that's it, thank you.

Donna Keats.

Hello again. I'm not really sure. I sent a letter with an attachment with a lot of detail in it. Did anybody read that by any chance? A couple people. Okay, good. Well, then I don't have to repeat it as much as I thought. As you can tell, strongly object to what I consider to be subversion of the public process by putting your decision items on a consent agenda. There are six things that you're responsible for. You've got four of them listed as being, quote, routinely placed on a consent agenda. You see tonight, people show up. All of a sudden, one person. This last meeting, you think maybe nobody cares what you're doing. This last meeting had 334 views on YouTube from your last one, even though there were like four of us here to speak. And I think that not having open deliberations about the things that you are a deciding body for is a true disservice to the open meeting law, Robert's rule of order, we won't even get into that one, but it's a true disservice to the public. It's also a disservice to yourselves because every conversation you have, you learn from each other. Some of you have expertise in different areas. Some of you have been here longer, less time. You learn from each other. If you have a decision-making thing on a consent agenda and you're trying to think this through in isolation, you have points from staff saying, we recommend approval, here's why it meets. You go, oh, well, that sounds good. But you don't have the benefit of the other questions that other people might have. So you go, oh, and then you each individually in isolation say, oh, that's good. This communication and learning from each other, learning from staff, even seeing how your audience is reacting might give you pause. I mean, one public comment is important. It generates discussion. One public comment about this getting trapped on Sutro got you to think about whether or not approving this apparently slam-jump proposal was worthwhile. And I just really think... I would almost be ashamed of my city if they took their decision-making items and put them on a consent agenda and cut the public out of the process. I'm not even sure that's strictly legal. I can go all kinds of roads with that. I'm not a lawyer, though. But we got a couple who have opinions, maybe, but... What you've done to date isn't strictly legal, I'm sure of that, because you never had a motion to have a consent agenda, and now you've approved items on a consent agenda. Now you're in a pickle and you have to take corrective action. So I don't think this particular element of your consent agenda is ready for prime time. I don't think you really know what you want to put on it, or how you want to handle it, or who's going to do the criteria. The applicants have a right to know what the criterion is. Everybody has a right to know. And you guys have not defined it about how are you going to make that decision. What seems minor and insignificant to you is not to the people that it affects. And you have no way of knowing it unless you have a hearing, like you're supposed to have, because we don't know a lot of times what's going on here. we just don't so when you pull something I Don't know anyway That's really the main thing but the complexity of the project is not really the right Criterion because it may be not complex to you, but complicated for me if it's happening next door, so Thank you all very much Thank you Do we have any other requests to speak online?

There are no other requests to speak in chambers or online I

okay that concludes public comment we will now go to questions and deliberation.

Commissioner W.R., so this, you know, this has been, for me, like, this is part of my role here is to deliberate on these. And I feel like if we don't have a lot of public comment or they are pretty straightforward, then we tend to get through them pretty quickly anyway. So I've always just been unsure about why we have these and why we have them on. And, like, even today, like, of course I read what Lauren wrote. But for me, I just wanted to sort of hear... her own way of presenting it and really see if there was any questions or um you know to miss keats point like people bring up stuff that i hadn't thought about and then it makes me question not that i'm opposed to it or we're gonna you know decline and everything like that but i still just want to hear it and understand it so and i'm not even necessarily opposed to the consent agenda concept i'm just trying to understand what a fair and um more objective way would be to establish what could or should be in the agenda itself. And again, I still think it's a little vague to say if there's no public comment or whatever, because again, part of the public comment is coming here. And so you can say there wasn't any public comment, but that's the reason why we have these open meetings is so people can come and make the public comment. So I just would like clearer definition so that it's not subjective. And I feel like it can be a little subjective the way things are written right now.

thank you commissioner delvier and I guess I will say I received a request to we have multiple topics that may come up during these deliberations so for the sake of all of our sanities if we can keep to one topic at a time we've opened up with consent agenda so I think it would be great if we could stick to that topic for the first portion of our

This is super interesting, I will tell you. So I don't wanna talk about, so there's should we or could we? I wanna talk about could first. So I start kind of thinking about this with like what is a public hearing? And the reason why I start with that thought process is conditional use permits under statute have to have a public hearing within 60 days. Reno Municipal Code says there must be a public hearing on major site plan deviations, major deviations, and alternative equivalent compliance requests. So those all have to have a public hearing. So what is a public hearing? I eventually want to turn to the city attorney's office to get an opinion on this. Is a public hearing just... This whole meeting we're having, or is a public hearing us opening the item and going through staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comments, discussion, questions, et cetera. What is adequate for there to be a public hearing under the law? I don't fully know the answer to this. And my research on this seems like, and also hearing what I think I'll hear from the city attorney's office is that you need to have a notice meeting and a meaningful opportunity for the public to be heard. and then for us to make a decision. So I think if we're gonna do a consent agenda, I think we need to relabel the agenda to make it so it's a public hearing for the consent agenda. And we need to, in my view, probably have a public comment on that consent agenda. And if the public has specific concerns that are not just, I don't like the consent agenda, but rather specific to the project, we should really consider removing it from the consent agenda. if we're gonna have a consent agenda, but that all depends on what is a public hearing, whether we've satisfied it. So with all that said, I would like to hear from either Jasmine or Carl, what is a public hearing? What is sufficient under the law? And do you have an opinion on what we have to do to comply with that?

Jasmine made it for the record. NRS, the Nevada Revised Statutes, don't have a cohesive definition of public hearing, nor does Title 18. We have interpreted public hearing as a meeting under the open meeting law. using that definition. So under that definition, this would be a public hearing and the fact that the consent agenda is a consent agenda doesn't negate that all the noticing requirements are still in place and the public still has an opportunity to be heard. It just allows you to expedite matters that you don't believe require a full-on presentation by staff and the applicant. So yes, I believe that these are, this is the public hearing and the consent agenda item is within the public hearing.

Can I ask a follow-up question, Chair? Are there examples of things where there's a hearing required and they still go on a consent agenda for counsel?

Yeah, for example, city council for privileged business licenses, like for an alcohol license, they have to make a finding that the person applying for it is in good standing. And those routinely go on consent agenda. So it's really, you know, something that can be expedited. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, commissioner Dale, we are still consent.

Um, yeah. So, and again, I'm not necessarily opposed to consent agenda. What, what I, what I'm looking for is, you know, to, um, you know, to the, to the point of the attorneys, like this, you know, this is something that can be there. And again, and that's not subjective. I just feel like we're being a little bit subjective about what we put on there. And maybe we're not. It's just I'm not privy to the process that we're going through to get to those agenda items. But the other thing, too, I think is the... the agenda for this meeting comes out the Friday before. And oftentimes that means we're asking the public to like, you know, look at it over the weekend and then come prepared, et cetera, et cetera. And so sometimes, you know, the folks that I talk to, they're just like, well, I'll just show up and see if I even want to make comments, right? And so if there's a way we could, and maybe this is part of the process or how we go about it, maybe the agenda comes out sooner So that people can then make those comments that we can then forward on to staff So that we can either leave it on or take it off and yeah, I don't again I don't necessarily have any answers and again, I'm not necessarily opposed to consent agenda items I just want to make sure there's a clear process and a less subjective way of putting them on there Commissioner McCoy.

Yeah Thank You chair Commissioner McCoy I've done a lot a lot of thinking about this and I started off by thinking about what our role is here on the Planning Commission. What is the purpose of this commission? And for me, it's really the primary advisor for the City Council on land use development. We are supposed to be here to hear projects and ask questions and deliberate on these issues. And so when I think about a consent agenda item, For me, depending on what we put on that could potentially conflict with that purpose. And so I do have my concerns. I'm obviously open to discussion here tonight. So even moving past the can we do it, for me, I'm still wondering about should we. And if we are going to do it, I'm going to be looking for some significant guard whales. I appreciate the presentation and the memo. There's references to other institutions that are using the consent agenda item. For me, it's not exactly apples to apples when we look at Washoe County that meets once a month. And maybe they put a time extension on I think the last last last thing I checked on their consent agenda was a time extension Or even comparing it to Vegas So the most recent agenda I looked at they had like 47 agenda items and like seven of them were consent And so when we're averaging about four projects every every you know two weeks. I don't know Why we have the consent agenda item in the first place. I don't know what the the benefit is in If we're talking about saving time and it's on a project where there's no controversy, there's no opposition, there's no, no, no, no, no. We're getting down to, so we have a five-minute presentation from staff, maybe an applicant, maybe there's a question or two. We're talking 10 minutes. What are we saving at the expense of the concerns about transparency and our role as planning commissioners up here? With those out of the way, the things that I would like to see would be, if we're going to have the consent agenda item, is limiting it to generally routine matters, scheduling, administrative corrections. We don't even do it for minutes, by the way. There's never opposition in the minutes, and we don't consent agenda item in the minutes. Accepting forwarding filing routine reports. I appreciate that sometimes we want to hear the report. Sometimes I've read the report ahead of time. I don't have any questions. I would probably be okay moving that along. But for me, it doesn't make sense for applications that require public hearing, discretionary findings, project-specific judgment. Those, to me, are the matters that which council is going to rely on. expertise, if you will, and the work that we do to help develop the record for them down the road. If we're just passing things on, you know, consent agenda item, there's no real record. So I would leave Conditional use permits major deviations variances major site plans maps comparable applications those types of things should be on the regular agenda And and I think if we're gonna have this in the bylaws, we should we should specify that And and kind of go there so that that's kind of where I am right now is that I think if we're gonna have the consent agenda should be limited to kind of ministerial or generally routine non-hearing matters And kind of go from there. If we are going to have it, I do believe that any commissioner should be able to pull an item. I believe the pull should be automatic as it is with city council. There shouldn't have to be an explanation. We shouldn't need a second vote. We shouldn't need presiding officer to do it. And I think that's important. I think if a removed item, this is something else I saw in there, if we remove it, it's going to have some kind of a limited discussion piece. And so you can have a situation where we just start stacking things on a consent agenda item, and then you end up having a limited discussion on that simply, but for the fact that it was placed on the consent agenda item. I don't think we should do that. I think an item removed from the consent agenda item shall be heard and considered separately. I think that the applicant or an authorized representative should be there and ready to answer questions as well as staff. And, you know, I did contemplate maybe, you know, if we see something that's very routine and we don't really need that, then maybe there's a way where the commission by majority vote could even look at continuing it if it's like, hey, nobody's here. It was on consent. We've pulled it. But I do think the applicant needs to be there. And there were a few other ideas, but I think that's the bulk. That's the majority of kind of where I am right now. So thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Jochum and I'd like to say something to do so and perhaps to help frame the discussion Mr. Clerk could you put exhibit B on the slide this is the staff memo I believe that had a table of you know all these agenda placement I guess they were suggestions but obviously we are gonna deliberate on how we would like and what we would like to see on a consent agenda And so I guess I would start off by saying that I have a pause about putting conditional use permits on consent agenda. I don't think they should be on the consent agenda. there's been public comments about ensuring that we keep public comments as a part of the process so in our current bylaws as you can see in this table we've got condition use permit and the far right column there's I guess I'm viewing that as a suggestion or a possible ability that we can have from staff I don't think that CUP should be on the consent agenda. ever. I'm trying to think through other ones where there's ways like certainly the time extension one that makes sense to be on a consent agenda. I think if I have seen a few of those we don't even have findings really like we do with a typical item one of the public comments suggested that we don't have the items that go on to city council I disagree with that I think those should all follow this table everything that goes to city council we should hear and deliberate on because. arguably, they want our input. They've formally asked for it. We should give it. And therefore, our comments are, I've said this before, but our comments are arguably more important than our vote on those items because they may watch the tape. So I'll leave it at those two things. With some of these other items, I can see avenues where I would it reasonable to have them on consent agenda as far as how we would modify the bylaws to address that that would be similar to how we have it structured with. Article 6 so that outlines how we're supposed to hear all items for our bylaws which is staff presentation. applicant presentation disclosures Then public comments so that the public has the opportunity there have been times in the recent past where I feel as though some in the past now Commissioners would misuse our public comment item to speak about each other when we have plenty of opportunities to already speak during these items So, you know, I don't think we need that and that's in the past But I do think we should preserve public comment for every agenda item that we have But within the confines of a consent agenda we could ask for at once and if we obviously have nothing Then we could proceed Maybe it makes sense to prompt that under the initial public comment section So that we can tee that up to remove it from the agenda and hear the item That gives them the opportunity so that it's not right before a would-be staff presentation I'll leave it at that for now. I have other thoughts, too Yes

commissioner mckenzie being the new kid on the block. I got a lot of good information from this discussion which I don't see, if it's for expediency, how a consent agenda is going to streamline anything. If the public or one of us can pull it off anyway, what's to stop somebody from pulling off everything on the consent agenda? Then we're in deliberations about whether or not it's coming off the consent agenda. And then I just think this is our job, and I think we should just do it.

Commissioner Williams, I think you haven't spoke yet.

Yeah, no, I haven't. Commissioner Williams, for the record. I have a couple thoughts. I think we're going to this place, at least I feel, that we're going to this place where we're assuming staff, the worst of our staff, the worst, that they're trying to get out of these things, that they're putting things on their... that doesn't make sense to them or they just want to expediently go through. So I think we're thinking the worst of what we've kind of asked staff to do, which is to help us streamline some of these things, which is it's done in so many aspects of boards like this. So I'm struggling with that a little bit. I think what I struggle with the most is the common Criticism we're getting is we're preventing the public from doing something and that's just not true Because the comments that we're getting about preventing people from doing what they want to do they're doing during public comment, so There is nothing that changes in this if five or six or seven of us understand a presentation by staff about what they're going to suggest to the regional board, and the public gets an opportunity to read it, and we have a question, I don't understand why we'd sit and watch something in staff time, which is paid time, which is city resources, just to hear it. If somebody wants to talk about it, they have an opportunity to come talk about it. This is the process. They get up, they speak their concerns, and we have an opportunity to take that consent agenda or not. Am of the fact that I think we should have two commissioners required to pull a consent agenda item because it's being misused and And I know it doesn't play into what you were trying to elaborate Commissioner McKenzie But I think there is what we've seen through this committed consent agenda. Is that? Particular commissioners just pull it because they want to hear themselves talk I think in a Functioning board commissioners should be able to come together and discuss if they have issues at least two of them And that helps the process. I know probably be might be on my by myself on that I sit on boards and that's how we do it On other boards that I sit on but I don't know I I want to get past the fact that we're not preventing anybody from not speaking if they can speak and we can react based upon what they say nothing changes and It just allows us to get onto bigger, more important things, more time. All of us are coming here, serving the public, doing our job. I just don't know what the big hubbub is about. Maybe I'm by myself.

Commissioner Valto, I think you had your hand raised. Would you still like to speak?

Yeah, please. I do think what Commissioner McKenzie said was really important, and I was kind of thinking this before, is it seems like if we have a rule that says anyone can pull any consent agenda item, and anyone here disagrees with the concept of a consent agenda, we're gonna accomplish nothing by putting this in the bylaws. because whoever that is is just going to pull every single one and we'll have done nothing. So I do think in order to... I think for this portion of it, in particular in the bylaws, I think that should be unanimous if we want to agree on a consent agenda. Otherwise, we shouldn't do it. I think also... I agree with you, Commissioner Jockerman. I don't necessarily think a CUP should be put on the consent agenda. Some of what Commissioner McCoy said as well, or a lot of what he said, I agree with. I think to expand on it, though, I think if any member of the public voice is a concern that is tied to a finding that we have to make on any project that's on the consent agenda, I think we should also pull it. I think they need to be heard. Now, whether the staff has to give the typical presentation that's lengthy or they just address that portion of the public's concern, I think that's up to the discretion of staff, but I do think we should pull it if you have a public comment, in general public comment, that's like, this is gonna cause traffic, we shouldn't just do a consent without at least hearing from staff on that point to make sure they're heard. Now this is difficult because Alex, me personally, wants a consent agenda, but me as a planning commissioner, I'm stuck with this dichotomy here, and that's what makes this difficult.

commissioner mccoy. thank you chair I wanted to high five commissioner mckenzie we have a job to do we are here to do a job and I' m here to do a job I' m here tonight to do this job tonight is my wife' s birthday we made a plan at a point when I accepted this role that we were going to commit to it as a family that' s why I' m here and I' m here to do a job my concern isn' t just do we have an opportunity for people who might want to come in and ask questions The public has a right to watch us do our job online, in person, even without asking a question. And if we premise it based on, well, if nobody's here to ask a question, then we can kind of do our job through consent. then I don't feel like we're really doing our job. And so for me, I have strong misgivings about the idea of a consent agenda that isn't going to be ministerial, and I don't see myself supporting a consent agenda that requires more than any one person pulling that item. I just don't. I don't think that that's... That's appropriate if somebody wants to have a discussion from up here and wants to do their job. I don't think it should require a friend to have to support them to do that job. And I'm not saying that as somebody who would consistently pull every item. I mean, we've had these consent agenda items. To the extent they're legal or not, I'll leave that up to legal. I haven't pulled every item. I've pulled the ones where we've had opposition or questions, and that would be my position. I do understand that there's concern about how it may be misused. You don't know who's going to be in this chair a year from now. But that's kind of the issue with consent agenda item in the first place. You're going to have it. It needs to be kind of one of those situations where it's not getting us out of work and doing our job. And I certainly don't think and haven't seen staff or got the impression that staff is doing anything to get out of here earlier. It's just, for me, it's all a matter of transparency. I think there is a significant issue with public perception and the lack of transparency in government right now. Being on this side of it, I don't see it from back here. I feel like everybody's doing their job and everything is, you know, on the level. But there is definitely a perception, having come from the public most recently, that things are happening in closed doors. And I'm worried how consent agenda is going to be interpreted With that perception not that I think it's actually anything nefarious is going on But I think I have concerns about just the perception of it and that's where I am kind of you know Very hesitant about what this might look like and and then ultimately what is the benefit? What are we gaining? How much time are we actually saving by by having this with four projects five projects, you know every every couple of weeks So that's kind of where I am I'm open to some idea of it, but I do have my kind of holding points. I

Commissioner Delvio, I have a couple of just sort of thoughts. The first is, to be honest, with the consent agenda today, I actually felt bad about asking for it, and I should never be in that position where I feel bad to want to hear a presentation from staff. Um, but that's how I felt and I don't appreciate that. Um, and so just even how they're, how it's kind of presented, um, was, and again, this is just my own personal feelings tonight. I've had a bad week, so that might be part of it. Um, but the other, um, piece is that, and I agree with, I agree with what everybody is saying. Um, I'm just trying to figure out like how, um, from the standpoint of what we need to accomplish tonight, what's the process, right? Do we make recommendations? Do we continue this so that we can come together and have better criteria put in place? What's sort of the process for this? I don't even know who to ask. I mean, I know there's a big blank line on Callie's slide, but... Sure, Callie, for the record.

I'll let Mike speak to it after I start a little bit as he is the administrator and makes the decision. I think there's difficulty in putting specific criteria on what can and cannot go on a consent agenda because projects are so different. So when we look at the complexity of a project, what kind of project... In that table, that last column, typical placement, one says consent, one says public hearing, that's not a hard and fast rule. I think the thought process is if this body has final authority, then I think the thought process was it makes sense for this body to have the ability to approve that via consent. The projects that this body makes recommendations to council for are more complex projects. They're master plan amendments, zoning map amendments, SPDs, things that NRS has identified as needing higher scrutiny and that it goes to Planning Commission and the City Council. So, to come back, it, I, don't do Mike's job, but I assume that it's difficult to kind of look at all the pieces and determine where something goes, but there are a lot of factors. Mike and staff are reviewing the initial application, it's going to NAB, we're hearing what the NAB is saying, we're getting or not getting feedback from the NAB, and then we're seeing what comes in after the NAB. We post the agenda, we see what comes in. So it can be very hard to tell if we're going to get public engagement and public opposition. So I think that's why, to set the record straight, we can hear public comment on consent agenda items. That's part of the process. I know that maybe with the rollout it was a bit unclear, but that's completely part of the process. It's part of the process for council. So it would be hard to put, I think, in the bylaws specific criteria because I think flexibility is important. is good to have in this case. Mike and staff are subject matter experts. They are spending upwards of 60 days reviewing these projects. They, for the most part, know them very well. So that's why we kind of leave the discretion up to Mike, and that's why there weren't specific criteria in the memo. I don't have specific criteria for you today, so if it's something that this board wanted to look into, we would need to talk about that here and get it in the red line document. the city of henderson. I hope that addressed your questions.

if you want me to elaborate on that the way that staff had looked at it we did review and actually watched meetings from the city of henderson and the city of las vegas and the city of north las vegas. We looked at how they were doing it. I think there' s as commissioner mccoy mentioned there' s some that for example attended a map extension that doesn' t have When it comes to specific projects What what we had established was anything that would move on to council and mr. McCoy is absolutely right that there's an expectation that the council the reason you're making a recommendation is that you're gonna provide feedback to council it makes no sense for that to be on a consent agenda and We have several projects that come through where it might be something as simple as maybe a condition amendment to a project where we've had zero public comment, zero community input in terms of responses to courtesy notices, to public notices, no negative comments from the NAB. If somebody shows up to the NAB, In opposition, we look at that, and even if the NAB comments are glowing, but somebody shows up to the NAB and they're opposed to it, that was gross to pull it off. And I think the way we looked at it, our backstop was if somebody came to the hearing on a consent agenda item and said, well, I want to speak on this item, it would be pulled from consent and heard. So that's how staff looked at it.

Thank you for that, and I think, so actually I have a few more questions, but I think, you know, we talked about this a couple weeks ago when we were talking about some of the processes and the things that go on before they even come here, and the public doesn't see that, and I don't see that, and so what you just described I was not even aware of, right? So And I get it, and I trust the city planners and what they're saying for sure. But I think we need to somehow publicly explain the process or the fact that they can have public comments, even if it is on the consent agenda. And at that point, we could potentially pull it off. I think we need to do a better job of describing it and how and why and that kind of thing. My actual question, though, is actually like from a procedural process tonight. What if if there are things that we do, are we voting for it, against it or? You will.

So this item is to direct staff to initiate amendments. So given the changes that you proposed today, we would go back, take the bylaws document, make red lines with whatever's included in the approved motion, and we'd come back with them. So the consent agenda's not currently in the bylaws. If this body directs us to put the consent agenda they want to move forward with the consent agenda with the specific rules and procedures that you outline, we will draft them and they will go into the draft that comes back most likely on October 8th. So anything that you want to change, add, take away. we'll just need it in the final motion and we'll come back. That next meeting is not the end all be all. If the commission sees the red line documents and says, I still want to change this, I think we need to talk about this again, we'll come back before we go to council.

All right, thank you. You're welcome. If we're trying to solve a problem, there are oftentimes agenda items where we hear a presentation, we all look at each other, and then there's a motion to approve. That's not all the time, but that's certainly sometimes. If we're trying to solve a problem to make it more expeditious, can we categorize some things as expedited hearings where there's an expectation that staff will give a shorter presentation, the applicant might give a shorter presentation, but then we still have an opportunity for the public to voice their concerns? Is there maybe a middle ground here that gets buy-in so we don't just have things constantly removed and we kind of defeat the purpose, but then still have, still kind of move forward in a way that makes it more expedited?

And if I can add on to that, Commissioner Delvia, like even at that point, do we need the applicant's presentation? Like maybe we don't even need that, right? I mean, not that we don't want to give them the opportunity to speak.

One more thing to add on to that. I absolutely agree. Things like extensions, purely administrative, we can throw that on a consent agenda because there's no findings. That checks out. I'm just trying to see if there's a middle ground so we can actually solve a problem versus create another way to have people pull off and then we solve nothing.

Commissioner Williams, I think we tried that at one point and we had one commissioner that would Stopped the expedite. I think we've done gone through that path before and it was the same kind of outcome same Commissioner pulling it for whatever reason that they wanted to and I think we've done that which I Kind of agree with you that think a motion to expedite or a couple of that maybe in the beginning motion X by c1 and c5 based upon the thing we found ourselves in that same position where somebody just wanted to hear a sorry, but themselves speak, and it was pulled anyways. So I would be okay with that also. I think we end up in the same spot. We have, depending on where you're at, you just pull it or deny the expedite. So I don't know if that fixes anything, even though I wish it would.

So, yes, go ahead.

Commissioner McKenzie, I just think if we predetermine what needs to be expedited just by, you know, we can make this one short and sweet, it just sounds like we're trying to bypass stuff. If it's going to get pulled anyway, then we have doubled the amount of time that we're going to take just to take all the allegedly seemingly simple things, put them in the order where we can go ahead and expedite. ABC, whatever, and then we get into the stuff where it's going to take longer, public comments, presentations, and so on. If there are some simple things that can be done at the beginning that we know we don't have to go through the whole elaborate thing that you've mentioned a couple times, that's expediting. Otherwise, it's not expediting, and it does give the appearance that we're just trying to streamline our job so we can get home and watch TV, which, you know, that's not what we're here for.

So commissioner jacqueline i've been waiting to speak for a minute i don't understand why the focus is so much on optics with the you know how are we doing our job when all these other jurisdictions have implemented this if we've got this in a number of jurisdictions in nevada and i'm aware of it occurring in other states why can't we have that for some items and staffs clearly telling us right now we need discretion to identify which ones would go on consent or not. And therefore the question here I think the crux of it is how much power do we want to give staff preparing the agenda but on the higher level I'm wary of anyone who has concerns about just having one because it's seems like it's everywhere else and we can't have nice things so like that's that's just that that doesn't land with me because it's in a number of other jurisdictions I'll leave that point at that Commissioner McCoy Thank You chair Commissioner McCoy for the record

I think for me personally, you asked the question about optics. The fact that we rolled this out without even having this discussion first has already created the issue with optics. So that's my kind of point on the optics issue. Just because other jurisdictions do this doesn't mean it's appropriate for Reno. And I would like to see a comparison. like for like, where this actually makes sense. I don't think it's enough to say, well, it happens elsewhere. It's good enough for Reno. I think we should really be looking at what is the need, what is driving this, If we recall, I think the first time we had the consent agenda rolled out, it was back in July. There was nine items. It was a significant agenda. And to me, not knowing that this wasn't a process that had already been provided, didn't know where this is coming from, made sense to me. This seems like a lot more than we had before. It seemed kind of reasonable. But if we're looking at it, we're saying we have two to four every hearing. I still don't know that the basis is there. And I don't want to say, well, just because other places have it or we've been publicly shamed because Reno doesn't have this great thing that other communities do. I don't care. I want to know and I want to understand why we need this as a body. And I'll concede. I've been on this for 90 days. So I don't have the history to go, oh, yeah. Boy, wish we had that sooner. But I do see things where this could be useful. I do see things on the ministerial stuff where this could be helpful in expediting, although minimal gain based on the time. And I'm not too concerned about the motivations of why somebody wants to pull an item or not. The fact that it may have happened once, I think we're assigning a lot of... motivation and purpose behind people that aren't even here, frankly, whether it's staff or otherwise. To me, that doesn't matter. I think we're all here trying to do our job, and I want to be able to do my job without having to convince somebody else to support me doing my job up here. I'd be happy to support the idea of Redline coming back that opens up in the bylaws so it's clear the consent agenda is there limiting it to ministerial tasks, some of the simple things we've already talked about tonight, time extensions, reports, things of that nature. But even then, I would still expect to be able to pull it. I take Commissioner Delviar's point. She wanted to hear the report and ask some questions. And I would never want to be able to deny her that opportunity because she was the only one asking for that. And so that's kind of where I am. I'm still struggling to see the actual need for it, but I'm willing to support some version of it to the extent it's limited with guardrails. And that's kind of where I am on this particular piece for direction back to staff. I do have other bylaw topics that we'll get to. We're focusing on that agenda piece right now, but that's kind of where I am.

Commissioner Jochum and so I agree I think you made a really good point I I'm supportive that only one Commissioner has to request pulling an item on on a tentative on a hypothetical consent agenda for any any single item and I also thinking back about what you said with regard to how many items are on there because that meeting had nine I don't know if we're able to but maybe we don't have a consent agenda unless there are at least five items or or or maybe more than that because that that is where the consent agenda arguably has more purpose is I've been here for meetings that had nine that went till midnight and we have had times in the past not in the recent past but we have not gotten through all the items And in those cases, I think a number of them did not have public comment. I'm not pointing to a specific example at this point, but I can see those scenarios where it just seems appropriate. And to your other point about bigger jurisdictions that are seeing more, that's when it may come into play. So Commissioner Valto.

Just to add on that, the times were like there are, Part of the reason why we have so many of these items is because we have these timelines we have to comply with. So sometimes we just stack all these items. And there have been times where we've had meetings go till, I mean, thankfully not recently. We have meetings go till like 1, 1 in the morning. And you have a room full of people here that want to make comment that have things to do the next day. And it's just, it's burdensome. So I do, I mean, if we can find a way to address that problem, that would be very helpful.

Yeah, Commissioner Jockman, that's probably where I, you know, would have thought of the idea as, okay, nine items, if we have ten. We seem to generally be in a lower period for development applications. The city had layoffs last year when things tapered down in the planning department, and things have not really picked back up. Obviously, the hottest land use right now is banned in the city, so... there' s the backdrop so we aren' t seeing many items and therefore if we don' t have at least five or something I' m literally just throwing that number out there' s not the value there I agree with that.

what' s our next topic chair?

I guess Ms. Shai do you feel as though you have the direction that you seek I know it' s always tough listening to seven people you don' t know

I'll be listening closely to the motion to see what goes in there. So I would like a little bit more. I think if I were to draft based on what I've heard tonight, it would be kind of all over the place. I'm happy to draft a consent agenda section and it can be stricken at the next meeting if that's what the board decides. But I think there are some pieces that still need to be kind of tied together. To your point about a limited number of items, I don't know that that would be applicable more often because if we do have maybe three items, one of them's a time extension, do we say we're not gonna put that on the consent agenda because we have less than five? I do think Mike would have, I think it would be helpful for Mike to have discretion given the feedback of this body. What sorts of things would you like to see on there? What sorts of things would you not? And we can definitely put them in the bylaws. If you say you want time extensions on there, you want condition amendments, we can definitely do that. And there's always an opportunity to pull. There was, I think Commissioner Velto brought up expedited items. And I think that just moves forward. Do we notice the public that this is on the consent agenda when the agenda is posted? Or do they find out when we get to the meeting and someone makes an announcement at the approval of agenda step that we're going to expedite this? So how do we balance those two things? So I would like direction to see if you would like me to move forward with drafting it. I'm hearing that we want maybe one commissioner to be able to pull. that we want certain projects to not be placed on the consent agenda. Um, I don't know. It's, it felt like we got into the weeds a little bit.

Do you question about, sure.

Yeah. Do you mind if I, I'll try to summarize my understanding of where I think the consensus is. So, uh, ministerial things that do not require findings should be on the consent agenda. So reports, time extensions, other things where there's no statutory findings or code findings. Um, Not things where there's going to be approval by the city council because our findings are important. I think there's possibly disagreement over other things that are discretionary unless there is over a set number of items on the agenda items at the meeting, which means there's a reason to do it. Any board member could remove it. I'd suggested that anybody in the public, if they had a comment tied to a finding, that would warrant removal. I'm not sure if other people agree with that. Any other...

I guess you didn't cover, did you say if you wanted a minimum number of items?

To trigger the consent agenda? Yeah.

It sounds like with the time extension where there's no applicable findings, that would be a default agenda, a consent agenda item. But you did not cover the, if we want a minimum.

Yeah, I don't know what the number would be, but if we have a busy agenda where it makes sense to institute a consent agenda, we'd probably have to figure out a number. Um, yeah.

Yeah, I think, I mean, Commissioner Delvey, I think that is hard because you don't know how long some of them are going to take. And by law, we have to have some of them anyway. And so I don't know what that number would be. And so I don't know if there's flexibility in saying, like, we can put this in the bylaws, but we could change it. But that just seems kind of complicated. So I might leave that out for now and see how the other changes go. work for us, and then maybe go back to that. The other thing that would be helpful, and I don't necessarily know that it's a bylaw, it would be part of the bylaws, is like if, And I have a better understanding of the consent agenda now, and I will going forward. So as soon as I get the agenda on Friday, I will go through it, and I will try to get back as soon as possible if I want something pulled versus doing it the day of, which is what I did today, right? So if there's some way that we can kind of help procedurally, help people, and it would help, I think, everybody here so that we would know if it's coming off or going on in public and you guys... And again, I don't think that's necessarily part of the bylaws.

I think that's more of a process So Commissioner Jochen, but I'll try to provide some proposed specificity to how this might look back to Exhibit B Mr. Clark if you don't mind we have One two three four five different items that were listed as consent agenda if you can scroll to the bottom Okay, so I stated, and I think I've heard consensus or at least no opposition to it, that CUPs would always be given public hearings. Commissioner McCoy, I don't know if you said it, but I'm thinking that you would say it. The major deviations, not on consent agenda. This leaves us down to three. So those would be major site plan reviews. Those would be alternative equivalent compliance and time extensions. That would be on consent agenda three. typical staff still would have the discretion to not put them on consent agenda, but that would be I guess the The the mode the most common occurrence for those type of items so we'd be talking about those three types Going on the consent agenda with any one Commissioner having the ability to pull it we did not touch on the The the reports in that. And we didn't touch on it in exhibit B, so I think it might be of value to have some discussion around that. But that's what I'm kind of hearing. And you're asking for directions, so I'm trying to get us to something that's a high enough level of specificity.

Yes, that's very helpful.

Regarding the reports, I guess the question is what's the goal or intent of them? If we don't need to have a big discussion here, then is it something that we just are assigned to read? I'm just not sure what the intent of the reports are. and some of the trainings. I mean, not that I would put the training on. I'm like, actually, no, I'm just kidding. Right, and so I'm just trying to understand, like, what is the intention so I can have a better idea of, like, what a good procedure might be for that.

If I may tag a question onto that. So are there certain types of reports or ones where we're actually adopting versus we're accepting such that it would be tied to the motion?

perhaps that's the direction to staff I guess maybe I'm asking a question I don't know I think Mike really would be able to speak to that better I don't see so I guess when when I think reports like for example Lauren's report tonight where that's not going to council that's gonna go I I would say any report that would move on to council where they're gonna consider your comments which is why, for example, like text amendments, that's another perfect kind of example where you're not actually voting to make the change, but you're providing recommendations for, like, the data center, for example, that we would not want that to be on a consent agenda. For obvious reasons. But, you know, I think any report where, you know, you're asking to accept a report or That's not going to be reviewed by council. That's what we would put on a consent agenda.

So like tonight, we're approving it to go to regional.

Right. I would say tonight, Lauren's report is more of kind of a procedural manner rather than a public hearing type thing. It's simply a report. Here are the facts. Got it. Okay.

All right, Commissioner McCoy, did you have your hand raised? Yeah, I just, I thought your proposal, I really appreciate that. I do have still some concerns about major site plan reviews, but I'm willing to at least let that go forward in your proposal, and I can continue to think about that one. Whereas I kind of started, you know, if we got to make findings, then I feel like that's not... consent agenda worthy, but I'm, I'm for tonight's purposes, I'd be happy to let that kind of go on and I'll continue to think about it until we see the red line. Um, I, I agree with the reports, you know, if our work is to make the questions and the comments and how that go up, uh, tonight to me, it was a statutory obligation. Uh, and so it's really, we're just looking at the report and saying, yeah, this, this is, This is our report because I think it's coming from us. But if anyone wanted to pull and have a discussion on it or have a presentation on it, I think that's totally fine. And perhaps we look at it as a matter of I have one quick, simple question. You know, this is consent, but I do have one question. I don't need the presentation. I don't need this. I just need one question answered. And maybe that's something we talk about. I don't know how we redline that. I don't know how we make that in the bylaws, but I could see that being something where I don't need the full presentation. I don't need this. Is there a way to... To expedite. Expedite, I think, is the word I'm thinking of. But I'm open to that idea as well, but it's still...

It's I appreciate I appreciate the cut the conversation tonight and I look forward to seeing what you bring back on that piece So Commissioner Jochman, so yeah, I think Perhaps you don't have to give a reason but it is nice to state that because there's definitely gonna be times where a Commissioner has one question. They don't necessarily need the presentation They just want to make sure something's on the record for items that would be on consent agenda. So that would be a you know request to pull question. But I guess then the only thing I' m trying to think through is if it' s a presentation just to be respectful of staff to give them a heads up if that' s the reason for the request. Because they should be afforded time to prepare the presentation. Do you feel like this has given you more direction?

Yes.

Regarding consent agenda?

Yes. Happy to draft the consent agenda section in the red lines.

Great. Regarding this topic, do we have any other deliberations from the commission? Okay. There were other topics, so let's move on.

Attendance yeah, I'd love to start Mr. Williams for the record Attendance we talked a lot today about this first item about doing our job. So I hope this plays well I'd like a new minimum in-person attendance procedure. I'd call it Article 3, new Section 10. It requires in-person attendance for at least 75% of the commission's regular meetings calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. And video conference under Article Section 7 shall not count towards this requirement. I'll leave it there.

Should you please repeat that, just so there's a lot to that?

Minimum in-person attendance requirement for the commissioners. At least 75% of the commission's regular meetings calculated on a calendar-based 12 months, and video conference does not count. Okay.

Yes, sorry, I was thinking about it.

I strongly support this being put in our bylaws. I think we owe it to the public to be here in person. There are certainly times where I cannot be here in person. The only times I'm not able to be here in person, aside from I think once in my seven years here, it's because I've been out of state or in Vegas working or out of the country. And I think that there are sometimes exceptions, but the assumption should be we are here in person to address the public's concerns.

So I totally agree with this and I think we need to we need to make this change I Didn't understand the last part of what you said Whether could you please repeat that?

So it would be the 75% basically on a 12-month calendar basis. Okay, and the video conferencing does not apply to this requirement That means that you can't you yours it has to be in person and

Well, that's what in-person means, right?

Just want to be clear. I think you're stating that you view that as redundant, that part of this? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, if that's what it means. It's like you have to be here physically or be here physically.

By saying in-person, then yeah, I would, by stating in-person, that's sufficient for me as well.

Great. I was leaning on redundant.

Commissioner McCoy.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, I certainly believe in the idea of doing the work, and I have not been by videoconference yet. I hope not to be, but I do recognize that that may be something that happens. I've certainly seen other commissioners do that. I worry about the calculation, the language. I mean, I feel like I need an abacus to figure out what 75% of a 12-month rolling. That's so beyond me. It's why I'm with the law school. So I am a little concerned about setting up these metrics, especially given it's a departure from Resolution 9452, which governs all the other boards we have. And I understand that we should be here, we should be doing the work, but I am a little hesitant about the idea of putting in some type of bylaw that requires X, Y, or Z. And the reason for that is also because what happens if you're not? What's the teeth in these bylaws if we don't actually follow them? And I'll get into that in one of the other article items. But what happens? What is our goal with this presentation idea? And is there a softer way, like if you can't be here in person, but you can be here by audiovisual means, do you require the video to be on? I know a lot of employers look at that when they look at their kind of work-from-home policies. Your camera's got to be on. The public needs to see you. Those are, I think, maybe some ways we can consider this. I also know that illness is going to happen. Emergencies are going to happen. work conflict, the things are going to pop up well before a 10-day notice or something along those lines. And so I would be very cautious about moving into something immediately on this. I would like to see something that's a little more consistent with other boards, something from legal that talks about this is what we can do and this is how we'd enforce it. I know that there was a legislative push before my time to allow... commissioners to pull their appointments. I wasn't there then, so I'm not going to speak on that. But I do think these are appointed positions. We don't always do them the way that everybody else is going to like it. It's a matter of public record. I certainly appreciate everybody who's here doing the work, you know, because it makes it a lot easier. And I also think it provides a better discussion. So I understand the purpose of the request. I'm just a little concerned about the execution and the enforcement But I certainly wouldn't oppose the idea of having you know staff come back with red language on it And I'll just kind of leave it leave it at that So Commissioner Jochum and I guess this might be a question for staff or perhaps from legal I think Carl So the city charter

already stipulates attendance it addresses attendance in some level I believe the charter states that you must basically attend every third meeting because you cannot in other words it states that you cannot miss three in a row is that correct?

Yes zoning code the planning commission section in our zoning code states that something to the effect and Jasmine can correct me that council members have cause to remove a planning commissioner if they miss three meetings in a row. That's how I interpret that section.

And it's up to the discretion of the administrator in that situation. Is that correct or your city council? It's actually the council that would make.

So I myself or Mike would take an item to council that says this planning commissioner has missed three meetings in a row. You have cause to remove them and it's but it's the choice of the council member to remove them.

So in the logic, consistent with the logic that Commissioner McCoy just stated about having teeth and also getting out an abacus, I think is what you said, I agree with those concerns. I can see an easier way that's enforceable by constricting the number of virtual attendances. The administrator currently in our bylaws. This is loosely discussed. It's up to the discretion of the administrator I'm not sure that the administrator should have that privilege to Let commissioners attend virtually Every third meeting or whatever it might be. I think that there are emergencies we should have a succinct line added to the bylaws that limit the number of virtual participations the administrator can grant. So the administrator shall not grant more than maybe it's five or eight I don't want to create a bylaw that infringes on what's in charter because we're below that.

Ultimately, it would be up to City Council. Okay So I I don't have an opinion at this point in time, but I can do some research with you and we can Can I ask a question Does the City Council approve our bylaws?

Yes Okay, so if we were to put in place something in the bylaws that would arguably constitute cause that could allow them to remove Planning Commissioner, is that correct? So if we were to say in our bylaws no more than X amount of Zoom appearances and someone does a lot of Zoom appearances, that would give cause for removal, so there would be teeth. The issue before the referencing Commissioner McCoy had to do with the fact that a council member appoints somebody and then if there's a new council member, they can't. remove them because that person's already in place and should on that, yes, no, it doesn't matter. But I think that's distinct from this where if the city council approves it, then there is cause and there is teeth because they can enforce the bylaws because they've approved them. I mean, I just think there's a, I don't mean to make this about any one commissioner, but I haven't seen one of our commissioners in like a year and a half. It's really hard to develop the type of camaraderie that's required for us to engage in very serious discussions with respect when I don't see a person. We will all disagree a lot of times. But I see you, we connect, we have conversations. I respect you and I know who you are. Those conversations are productive. It's really hard when we're not face-to-face engaging and doing the work. So I respect what you're saying. That's my concern with this. It's just a productivity thing.

Commissioner Jockerman, so yeah, I'll easily agree with that. For anyone who I disagree with, and we have disagreements at times on this potty, the public deserves to hear us say it to each other's face. So I agree with that.

Commissioner Williams, I was going to suggest 25%, those of us that need to break down, it's about six meetings. So no more than six meetings in any calendar year on Zoom with a required disclaimer that they have to keep their camera on. So I'm in line with that.

Is that on when speaking?

What's that?

Camera on when speaking or just camera on?

I think the city rule outside of this body is constantly on for the entire thing. So I don't know why we wouldn't align ourselves up with that. Okay. You know, Alex, to your point, I'll say briefly. Yes, you're right. Yes, it does roll down to just one. But the reality is if that's the case, Technically, we could all just stay home with our families on our couch and not do this job that we were elected to do, which everybody spoke about before. And then what would the public come to see, right? Because if there's no rules and if people are just going to use the system. I don't know. You can find yourself in a place where people decide they don't want to come downtown anymore to do all this, to fight the traffic and the parking and the roadblocks and the time and all that. We'll just all sit at home. So I don't know. Like I said, we spoke a lot about doing the job. I think this is a way that we get back to that for the public.

Commissioner McCoy, for the record, yeah, I think I can look at something like that. You know, the concern is if we have canceled meetings, things of that nature, and all of a sudden that percentage starts to look a little differently. But I'm definitely happy to keep, you know, having the discussion, see what comes back. But, you know, things like... you know, the Zoom requirement, camera on, limiting how many of those you can have. So it's really like an emergency-type situation, or you know you're going to be... If you're on vacation, be on vacation. I don't want to deny that of people when we volunteer. It's hard to kind of know any year in advance, especially when the meetings keep changing from Wednesdays and Thursdays and things of that nature, things come up. So I'm open to continuing the discussion. I appreciate... Commissioner Williams' position and, you know, just look for that, you know, what that minimum might look like and then obviously hear back from legal and see what they're comfortable with. Because if this could provide a basis for the commissioners to say, I need to get somebody else in there, then I think that's a worthy change. If, you know, you have somebody, and I'm not speaking about anyone or anything, just the For me, everything is the general. I want to have these rules apply, not because we have a specific need right at this moment, because it makes sense, period. And it's possible. So I'll look forward to seeing that.

Commissioner Dalviar.

Thank you. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I've worked in corporate a long time, and usually you give people the benefit of the doubt because they're adults and they're doing their job. And so I think this seems a bit petty, I guess, but I'm okay with it. But, I mean, I work a lot. I work out of the country. I work and I do the best I can to be here. If I'm in town, I will be here. If I'm not in town, I will... set up a starlink to try to be on, and sometimes I just can't do it. But it makes it seem like I'm intentionally not showing up, or I'm being kind of treated like a child, to be honest, if you put some of these things in place. I mean, I'm not opposed to it, because I'm going to show up to every meeting I can anyway and I'm not going to sit here and like go through my calendar and say oh this one I'm going to be on zoom and this one I'm going to be out of the country and this one I might have COVID I don't know um so I just I just think it's kind of unfortunate that people feel we have to even do this I think if we're in alignment with what other boards and commissions are doing I'm totally fine with that um but and I mean I can't guarantee that I'm not going to be on Zoom seven times, but every time I'm here, I'm committed and I'm prepared. So I just feel like this is, I don't necessarily know that we need this, but it is what it is.

Can I just say for the record, sorry, just real quick, I've never felt once, Commissioner Delvier, that you were not prepared, not here present, not all about this. Like I know, I don't hope you don't have that perception, but I've never felt that way about you at all.

No, and I understand that, but then I guess the question is, what's the objective? Do we need to set expectations better? Like, you need to read the agenda by Friday, or on Friday you need to come prepared, you need to participate. Like, what are we really trying to get at, I guess? Because do we care? If I'm going to be prepared every single time, it shouldn't necessarily matter that... I'm not here physically. I mean, I disagree. I think we should be here as much as... I think if you can be here in person, you should be here, right? No question. But I guess the question... Sorry, I'm totally losing my voice today. I guess the question is like, what are we really trying to get at? Is it participation? Is it... I mean, there was previous commissioners who literally... asked one question in the last six months and i don't think they were prepared um and i and they were here every time so does that mean that they're better because they're here even though they didn't ask a question so i'm just kind of i'm just trying to figure out like at the end of the day what what are the actual goals we're trying to accomplish yeah

I would echo what Alex said in his first statement to you, Commissioner Delviar. I think we were appointed to represent, the wards were appointed to represent. And if you're not here and you can't do the job or you're gone too much, I don't know how you represent the wards that you're supposed to represent. So while I agree that it sucks that you have to put these things in place, like treating us like children, but the reality is if you can't do the job, you're not representing the people you're supposed to represent. That's a problem, I think.

But then aren't there, are there other opportunities to have that commissioner or commissioners or whatever I don't know if it's removed or reprimanded or again, what's the ultimate goal? The ultimate goal is to make sure people are here, they're present, and to your point, they're representing not just their ward, but all of Reno.

The city, yeah.

The city, right? And so I'm just, and maybe it's in addition to, you know, like if they're not here and they're not present.

Again, what's the ultimate goal? I think what Commissioner Velto kind of discussed was that without these in our bylaw, an outlaw or an outline or even a recommendation to, to fill the, to make those changes. And I think that's kind of what we get to. And, you know, I'm being very stringent on my thing. I've just came up with numbers.

Can I be here for five and a half times on Zoom?

Just kidding. Yeah. I mean, that's the thing, but the way, the way, you know, the way it is now, you could miss to attend on Zoom, miss to attend on Zoom. So you're here for, Six meetings. Is that doing your job? Is that representing? No, definitely not. And so I think even though I'm being a little more strict because I just had to throw out a number outside of the requirement for the camera to be on. But it's just purely about doing the work, representing the city, how we're supposed to think. And if you can't do that, then I think we should give the council an opportunity to find somebody that can. So I don't necessarily care what the number is. Okay, that's the goal.

That makes more sense than policing who's on Zoom and who's on first. Oh gosh, I had a thought and I forgot what it was. But, again, that makes more sense. I understand that. I'm happy to discuss numbers, too. And, again, things that we wouldn't necessarily put in the bylaws, but things that we should be thinking about. Like, any time I know that I'm not going to be here, like, I let Mike know, I let Callie know, and I let my ward representative know and find out if there's anything I should be talking about. And even when I had an emergency last week, I was like... If we don't have quorum, because I'm not going to be here, I will be here. I will not be as effective, but I will be here if that's part of the issue. And so I think that there's just some things that we as commissioners need to think about and consider too. And again, not that they would go in the bylaws, but how do we help each other out? And maybe I'm not going to be here, but I have some points that I want to make. And so what's the best way for me to do that, right?

Yeah, Commissioner Jockman, so you touched on that, and I will maintain the effort to keep within the scope of the topic at hand, but it is related to attendance, and that was communication of absences. So we have had times, even in the recent future, where we are barely at quorum, and all of us will have individual things going on, but I've said this repeatedly. before probably on the record but we're supposed to have seven votes on this body and we do we saw them have seven votes on this body so that creates a problem at times when we have certain items that require you know to even be heard and this is just a structural problem that's occurring within the commission so for me that's the purpose that I'm hoping to address by a bylaw reform. that's that's the purpose and This you know are we treating ourselves like children? Okay, maybe maybe maybe there's a little bit of that but this will result in a better Commission that has better attendance Well into the future and I'm comfortable getting behind that so on that notion though, I think maybe there's some discussion that should ensue about how many times you can participate virtually and Because and I even disclosed in one of the prior meetings You know Staff doesn't know if they have to tell Applicants and so forth if we're even going to have a quorum That's not a properly functioning body. I've made my point. I'll be quiet

Commissioner McCoy. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record. I just want to make sure, and that's why whatever we come up with, I want to make sure legal gets back to us, because I don't want to invite a lawsuit. I don't want to have a situation where we're moving somebody because of, you know, something that we had in our bylaws that maybe shouldn't have been. The other thing I want us to keep in mind is that we talk about, you know, being here, being in person versus Zoom on camera. You could be either and you could do nothing. You could be an empty seat up here doing nothing. And there's no recourse to remove you. And so I want to keep that in our discussion, in our mind when we're talking about doing the work. Just because somebody's here doesn't mean we're forcing them or can force them to actually participate and be active. The one distinction I'll make, and it's because Chair's comment was, at least you're here in your quorum and you're part of the vote. And, you know, I've been here a short period of time. We've had meetings where it's just four. And, you know, we've had applicants come up and say, I need all four votes. The only way this moves on is with four votes, so I hope you guys are all going to be in unison here. And that seems shocking to me, that there have been a couple of times where there's three of the seven missing. And that's just the way it is. I don't judge anybody for that. But I just want to make sure that what we're accomplishing, if the goal is to try to encourage more participation and carve out for replacement when somebody just doesn't show up and do the work, that were kind of very Specific and limited in that and then I want to see what legal has to say just not tonight but with whatever the proposal is Because I I do think it's it's relevant and I do think it's it's an issue But where we draw that line on the numbers, I think that's gonna that's gonna be very important So with that miss shy Are you feeling as though you have enough direction given the comments provided for the?

topic of attendance

Yeah, I think we can look into that. I would be interested in maybe seeing a number. I will say that based on just some of the conversations about, you know, what is the number, and I think I'm sure City Attorney Mangia and I will talk about it once we're drafting. But my understanding is that council has the final say in whether a commissioner is removed. So I don't know that even if we put something in the bylaws that says if a commissioner misses six meetings, attends more than six meetings online, I think the step there is just to bring it to council. I think we just need to bridge this gap of making sure that the council is informed of what's happening at the Planning Commission as far as attendance. Maybe that's where we get a better connection between our council members and who they've appointed. Tyler might hate me for saying this, but maybe some sort of annual report, something where we report on what you're doing, attendance, that sort of thing to the council so they're apprised of what's happening here. Not to tell on any commissioner here, but I think we can go that route. I think it's about keeping council aware of how these meetings are flowing. I mean, we're here and it's 9.30 at night. It's a three and a half hour meeting that a council member will have to watch to understand everything that's happened here. But I do have direction to move with...

Attendance if we do want to discuss a number in the motion We can include that easy enough to change in the red lines when we come back the Commissioner Williams real quick Does anybody object to changing it to align with the city that if you're gonna be on video conference? Your camera must be on for the entire duration of the meeting. Does anybody object to that?

No

No.

Okay. So does that help you a little bit? Okay. I think that was one item. Okay.

Part of video conferencing. Got it.

Yes. And I think the suggestion of six seems fair. We have, what, 20? It's 25%. Yeah. We have 22 meetings, 24 meetings a year?

Okay. Yeah, 24, assuming no cancellations, nothing special.

There you go. 23.

But six is an easily administrable number, like the 25%. Yeah. Yeah. Sex is very specific.

Seems fair to me. And I want to draw back to this camaraderie thing. For me, it's all about, I like seeing y'all. It's fun to talk before the meetings. That makes us better at our job because we like each other, we respect each other, we talk about things. That is so important, and that's what we need to have. And I just feel like we've lost some of that, and we need to get back to it.

Commissioner McKenzie is there something we're focusing on attendance, but is there some kind of language that could be in there regarding? Participation that attendance matters because of the perception of participation like a policy goal Yeah, that might make more sense but I mean showing up and having your face on the camera shows that you're participating and Sitting here not doing anything shows that you're here It doesn't necessarily show that you're participating and we can't really police that that's a perception that we all have to decide We're going to be here. We're going to be grown-ups, and we're going to do our job, but if there's a policy about Participation I think that could be helpful and it's not just checking our report card to make sure we've been here enough to get a gold star and

commissioner document so if it is some sort of policy thing that Probably where Commissioner McCoy's had is that is is there any enforcement behind that which is where my head's at at least in that and that could just end up being something that's wielded by commissioners to each other as to you're not following policy and which is all just to say that that's not teeth, but we could give out a game. I don't have a solution to that. It's not a critique. I'm not opposed to it.

Participation is definitely subjective. Chair, you can give out gold stars at the end of every planning commission meeting, like a hockey game.

going to get some gold stars. Commissioner Delviar. I don't want to just talk to talk to get gold stars either, but I think one of the things we brought up when Angela was here as well is getting the agenda and the documentation on Friday. It It limits our ability to be as prepared as we could. And I'm still pushing for getting some of the information earlier because I would have more conversations. I'd be much, I mean, not that I don't come prepared, but I would be more prepared if we were able to get some of the information sooner.

Yeah, happy to speak to that. I cannot make any promises about posting an agenda earlier. Like I said in the presentation, we follow Nevada's open meeting law, three business days, 9 a.m., so you should have it by 9 a.m. Friday if we're meeting on Wednesday. We follow that for all of our boards. And I'll say that there's a lot that goes into getting an item on the agenda, staff report submitted three weeks in advance, Mike reviews it, Jasmine reviews it, it goes through, we have to conduct the noticing once we know it's on the agenda. I'm happy to give a presentation on what public engagement looks like on planning projects. I've done it at all six of our NABs, tracking a project through intake, NAB, review, planning commission. So while I can't promise that we're going to post it earlier, I'm happy to provide the commission with the full gamut of where everything is stored. And the commissioners are more than welcome to use Mike as a resource. Just give Mike a little bit more work. Because he's reviewing these with staff planners all the time. And as you all know, we can't. distribute things to the commission before the public sees it. So staff reports and other things that aren't included in the public record before the meeting is posted. We're just tied there.

Understood.

But I get it. I did give that presentation to Mavs. I think Shannon already saw it. So he's a pro. But yeah, if we want a future training on that, happy to give it. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioner Williams, you and I have always agreed on that. One thing that has helped me, and I don't know if you did it, I signed up for the email alert about the upcoming development projects. And I've actually called Mike a couple times to ask, well, just like, hey, where's this at, you know, in the thing. So, I mean, that has helped me. I still do agree with you three days is not enough, especially over a weekend and then into a business week if you work. But that has helped me just slightly, those upcoming development project emails.

Yeah. We have newsletters for each of our wards as well, wards one through six. So we publish the NAB newsletters there so you can see what's coming to a NAB. But we can look into other, I mean, briefing styles or something like that.

Yeah, and again, I'm not trying to add more work for us. I just want to work more efficiently. Absolutely. So... And those newsletters that go out about what's coming out, they're actually pretty funny. I don't know why. It just adds a little touch of humor to them.

So Commissioner Jochum and it sounds like we've discussed the two topics of I guess I'd say Particular interest so far staff did put in the staff report a list of other items that they had proposed changes to some of these could be described as clerical references to NRS and so forth On your screen Thank you. So that's kind of an open door to discussing other topics Commissioner McCoy Thank you chair.

Yeah, I've got a few to talk tonight, but I'll see what other people have to say One of the comments I made earlier is you know, what are these bylaws actually mean? Are they aspirational goals or are they things we actually need to adhere to and When I signed up and I looked at applying it was like, okay first And third Wednesday of every month my schedule accommodates that not a problem. This is gonna work and when I was appointed the first meeting was on a Thursday and How did this happen? The website didn't disclose that we were having meetings on Thursday. Take a look at the bylaws. Bylaws don't authorize us just to randomly have meetings on Thursdays. And so what the bylaws actually say on meetings is that the meetings shall be the first and third Wednesday of each month, period. There shall be at least one regular meeting per month, period. In the event the city council schedules a meeting which conflicts with a regular meeting, which does happen, at the discretion with the consent of the majority of the planning commission, we can have an alternative meeting instead. I don't know if that's ever been done. I certainly haven't seen it in my time here. The way I read this, and I've heard it said multiple times, I'm an attorney, but I'm not your attorney. The reality is, If we have a Wednesday meeting that works, and I'm looking at October, there's no justification in our current bylaws to also have a meeting on a Thursday because we will meet that one month requirement under the bylaws. So then that doesn't authorize us under section two to then have an alternative meeting date on Thursday. And I, you know, so for me, I'd like, I'd like this to be very clear. I don't want it to be more like, well, it could be Wednesday. It could be Thursday. I want it to be very clear. Here's the process. This process seems to contemplate the planning commission voting to have a the majority of us setting it on another calendar than Wednesday and Thursday. And so this is just one of those questions that I continue to have when we talk about bylaws is, well, what are the purpose if we're not following them? And what happens and what does it mean for the projects that we hear on a night that isn't actually authorized in the bylaws to hear these projects? So I would love to have this very clear, very clean, but I also want to make sure we're going to follow it. Like whatever it's going to be, Let's follow it because I don't think we should have any bylaws that we're just not following. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why have them if we're not going to be following them? But that was just on the meeting schedule issue. That was my feedback on that. I don't know if anybody else has any comments.

for that one could we put regular meetings will be held X and Y dates or at the call of the chair with X amount of notice and that way we don't have to actually have a vote on it we'll have enough time to prepare because I hear what you're saying I mean we're not really following that but there might be a way to word it that just allows gives us flexibility.

If I can respond yeah please the because we are kind of at the mercy of council's schedule we could adopt the same procedure that council uses, wherein staff drafts the meeting schedule for the following year, and we can bring it here for you to review and approve. I don't want to put something extremely specific in the bylaws that we must adhere to, but if we have something where we take the council schedule, council approves it at a regular city council meeting, and then all of our other schedules fall into place. So, planning commission comes in, we're also at the mercy of regional's schedule, so that's why things shift a little bit too. But in that way, you'd be able to see the full schedule and approve it. I will say we are constrained by NRS and zoning code timeline. So if we're looking at October, for example, we have that first meeting on a regular, I think it's on a Thursday, got shifted because of council. And then we have the next one on the following Wednesday. We do... Depending on how projects flow through from intake to the hearing date, there is usually a 60 to 65 day timeline. So it takes a lot of work to look at what are our intake dates and what corresponding planning commission date can we hold them. That's why we have to shift things around and things get weird. But if this commission is amenable, we can bring the proposed 2027 dates to you at a future meeting for you to approve. If there are weird things that need to be shifted, I will have to look at the timelines and see if something can be shifted. For the most part, we've exhausted all resources trying to prepare the 2027 schedule.

Just to follow up, I appreciate that, and I would totally support being able to set the calendar out a year in ahead. That would be very helpful. And I don't have a problem with what the bylaws say now. I'm just a, if it's going to be in there, let's follow it. And if we're not going to follow it, Let's change it. So it's something we do follow because I think we're accountable to our own bylaws The public wants to know why aren't we following our own rules? Let's let's do it.

So I'm supportive of that Yeah, Commissioner Jochum and I agree strongly with everything there. So I guess the it's interesting, you know perhaps we vote on the schedule but but then we should not have the ability to criticize the first and third Wednesday because to that point we've all agreed to that I actually remember I made sure I could routinely attend those meetings and then there was a Thursday one and you know that that could be a structural conflict for some people so yeah we should do that once a year and then if there are deviations from that schedule we can we can discuss it

Yeah, and I think we'd be able to bring deviations during Mike's staff announcement at future meetings when those come up. There are some internal changes. I know right now the planning meeting schedule is not really easy to understand. It's not really stored in one place except for the intake calendar. So we do plan to add you all to the calendar invites in 2027 and in ensuing years so that you're getting those, you can put them on your calendar. But yeah, happy to bring this idea up.

Could you, when you do that, could you possibly use a different email address if we request? Okay, great.

Any other, it sounds like, so that was a good suggestion. Do we have any other items for discussion regarding changes to the bylaws? Commissioner McCoy.

Thank you, Commissioner McCoy, for the record. This is going to be probably an easy one. I like the idea of clarifying the resignation and vacancies. I haven't seen that language yet. When I read it, I'll be honest, when my predecessor who sat in the seat before me in this position, when I heard that the resignation letter had been delivered, I thought I was going to be starting. and that's because the bylaws say that the resignation is effective upon delivery to the city clerk and The person was able to sit an extra month in here and decide cases. That was kind of a shock to me So so I would like that to be kind of very clear if we want to build in the opportunity for somebody to say I'm gonna I'm gonna resign and let me build in, you know a window of time to kind of wind that down Let's make that clear in the bylaws so that that it's everyone's on notice That's all I have to say on that.

Commissioner Jochman, this is a general comment pertaining to the table that was provided I would I would say, you know in the proposed general changes obviously make a change to NRS That's that's gonna be pretty easy. I don't think we'll likely need to debate that but but try to only make changes that do carry teeth to them if they are I guess I would say punitive in any way so we talked about attendance, right and keep the changes short, sweet, and to the point, and ideally with teeth when they have.

Yeah.

Commissioner McCoy.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board Commission, for your indulgence. I heard it said a couple times tonight about open meeting law. It requires, you know, 9 a.m., three days before. To me, that's the floor, and I don't know that we need to adopt the floor. I am happy with having more notice, and we can certainly decide as a body that we want more notice. The concern I have is that we're talking about reducing it from 10 days to three days. And you said tonight, but that doesn't mean from tonight, I don't see anywhere in the bylaws where it talks about a two-step process. And so for me, I'd be a little more comfortable with reducing the open meeting. I'm not saying that I would fully support it based on the three-day concern, because that's when the public's going to get to see it, and they get three days to digest it. I would like there to be more time for people to see the changes we're making. But at a minimum, we need a two-step process so that it's not... Three days from now, we're changing the bylaws. So it's not in there now. I didn't see that kind of discussed in the proposal, but I would like to see, if we're not doing 10 days, that we're at least kind of recognizing some type of two-step process. So in that event, it would be more than 10 days, from my perspective, like from when we're talking about it and putting people on notice. But then you still have that issue of the red line and how long they have to have that. But we can talk about that later, but I just wanted to make that point.

On that point, we could parallel what we do, like a lightened version for text amendments. There'll be a hearing. All bylaws and amendments shall be proposed at a hearing and then shall be posted X days before. That would probably address the concern. At least we can talk about it. We address bylaws once every five years, so I don't really see any issue with us guaranteeing a hearing on it.

Ms. Shai, do you feel as though you have sufficient direction on some of these various items?

Okay, so we're going to keep the proposed name change. We're good with that. We've been rocking with that for a while. We're going to remove outdated references. No one addressed the administration question. That's just kind of a clerical fix from city manager's office to city clerk's office to city manager's office. Commissioner McCoy wants the resignation protocol. We'll include some things about how the current process of appointments is going. We will kind of edit the bylaws about the meeting schedule, and we'll bring the meeting schedule forward at the end of every calendar year for the next calendar year. Commissioner attendance notifications. Let's hit on that.

Yeah, Commissioner Jockman. So I guess that was where I was going with the prior comment was, you know, commissioner could have an emergency one hour prior there are things that are inevitably out of any individuals control and I recognize that staff wants to limit those last-minute disruptions but I just I struggle to see an ability to actually address this in the bylaws in a way that is substantive So I'm open to a suggestion if I guess staff wants to come up with something that that carries weight on that but I I still also want to have the ability to You know, it's just reality. I guess that Car crash family emergency. We've heard some of those You know, those are based in reality and there's just no way to I think regulate some of that

And I think really what we're looking for are planned absences. So you know you're going to be on vacation, or you know you have a conflict, or you know your son's in the school play. You know those in advance. We've had some instances where it was that day that we get a call, oh, I'm out of town, I can't be there. And as you mentioned, for example, tonight we had a master plan amendment on the agenda. If we don't have a minimum of five... commissioners here we can't even hear the item so that's where it becomes an issue for us.

Thank you for that clarification I appreciate it and yeah that triggers an entire re-noticing effort by staff right which is very arduous so we want to avoid that.

I guess that kind of leads me to one question for Mr. Raley. The current bylaws as far as video conferencing give you the power to say no. So I just wonder, is that something that we can just apply to the administrator when we have those issues and somebody says, oh, hey, I'm not going to be there tonight or I have to be, you know, I don't know.

I like the idea of having criteria so that it's a level playing field for everybody, whether it's at my discretion or my predecessor's discretion or whoever. I think it needs to be a level playing field for everybody and a reasonable expectation of what people expect, whether that would be allowed or not.

Right now, correct me if I'm wrong, there's no expectation. It just gives you...

the power to say no correct okay commissioner jockman at some point we're asking for doctor's notes and we're really treating ourselves like children here so i think we're it sounds like we're aligned on a cap for the virtual limit i recognize that the administrator currently has that discretion but we this is how it's played out and that's that Any other comments from the commission regarding anything pertaining to the bylaws?

Chair, I just had one thought. I keep looking at bi-monthly, and I keep asking myself, is it every two months?

Oh, great question.

So perhaps it should be twice monthly?

Twice monthly, sure.

Hearing no objections. So in order to make a motion on this, you've obviously heard us provide some direction in a few different ways. of scope, can we proceed with the motion as presented or do we need to add things in the proposed motion? How would you like to see that presented?

Great question. I'm going to take it over to Tyler and see if he has thoughts.

Thank you. Is this like a continuance?

The motion to direct staff to bring the amendments back in a red line version.

Yeah, okay. Yeah. Thank you very much, Callie Tyler-Shaw, General Manager for the City of Reno for the Record. I think just to make sure the record is clear, if you could include in the motion where it has the blank, something like administrative changes and the following specific changes related to the consent agenda and attendance as discussed by the commission I think we have enough from the commissioners to go off of based on their consent what they want and I would say if any commissioner disagrees with what's been discussed by the commission so far this would be your opportunity to say no or not vote yes on this motion basically that will give staff the What we need from the Commission to move forward with bringing red lines back to you all for discussion and potential adoption to Council

thank you. thank you. commissioner jacobo one second there' s different items that are in play here when this is brought before us for this direction that we' re providing are we able to entertain parts of them in different motions or must we see this all together? I think that' s a question for legal.

Okay. Thank you. I think it would make, this might be a multi-meeting kind of thing. It might make sense for us just to say move to direct staff to initiate amendments to the current city of Reno, yada, yada, yada, consistent with staff's understanding of our comments tonight. And then once we get it back, we'll say yes, no, maybe so.

I would Okay. Suggestion heard. Commissioner McCoy? Commissioner McCoy, for the record, thank you. Yeah, I don't have a problem at all with kind of moving forward with the vote tonight. I was going to just kind of request if there's an appetite for it. To that point, in your point about how do we vote on all of it when it's just maybe one thing, I would kind of like to see an article-by-article decision matrix. With the complete red line amendment, maybe even a clean copy so people can compare when it's made a part of the exhibit on the record. I would like to see a separation from the non-substantive kind of cleanup stuff like, hey, this is just cleanup. There's nothing here. And then here's substantive policy choices. These are things that we're changing for reasons. that we've identified tonight. If we can possibly identify the purpose, I think we've spoken a lot tonight about the purpose and the motivation behind some of the requests we're looking for. And I don't know if we have alternatives. If you guys heard things tonight where there might have been a little bit of competing stuff, but if not, that's fine. But I want to I want to make it kind of just that it's based on what we've said what the Commission has provided you tonight Not necessarily your understanding because I don't know I can sit here today and say that you understand exactly What we're going on and I want to hold you accountable But I think what we've provided enough tonight for you to kind of do some of those things I know that might be more work And so I'm happy to kind of you know, not go that way, but I think that would be very helpful to kind of understand Much like the consent agenda item, if we were able to go through it when we finally make the vote, line by line or section by section, I foresee there might be ten changes, and I might agree with nine of them. I wouldn't want to have to vote against the amendment simply because I disagreed with one. I'd like to be able to kind of support all those other changes, and it would be good to kind of have that outlined, I think, in the record for everybody to be able to provide comment on the shortened three-day open meeting law notice that they're going to get. That's just my thought.

I have a motion I'm ready to make. My concern just with like what was just said is like we have not collectively said anything because we haven't agreed. So it's really hard to make the motion like with what we've said. Let me try a motion and then we'll see how it goes. Chair, we take a motion.

Yes, and we'll have discussion after any second.

I move to direct staff to initiate amendments to the current Reno City Planning Commission bylaws, including the recommended administrative changes and the specific changes that were contemplated by the commission during this meeting, and that such changes shall be listed in both the red line and clean format, distinguishing between ministerial changes and substantive policy changes in a manner that would allow for the commission to evaluate changes on a case-by-case basis.

Does that work? Commissioner Delvier, I second.

We have a motion and a second. I said I would offer discussion. Do we have any discussion? Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. That concludes item Wherever we won. Thank you miss shy for your patience with us on that one. I really appreciate it. Hmm I don't need to this is a staff report for possible action We are to recommend to City Council to Reno City Planning Commissioners for appointment to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission We'll take these one at a time.

Mr. Chair before we take any action. We do have public comment on this item my apologies

Yep, so we have no presentation from staff. We'll open public comment. So, Mr. Clark.

We'll begin with Donna Keats. Donna, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Donna Keats. Do you want to go? I want to nominate you. if you'll accept a nomination. I would like to nominate, have Christina be nominated because you've been working her over for three or four years on this by now. And it's finally her turn. And I'd like to see her appointed to regional. I recommended her the last time this all came up when there was a lot of ugly going on around here. And I went to council and she declined, I think, is how that happened, I don't know. So wondering if you would be willing to accept, otherwise I'll make another suggestion. Just give me a nod and I'll leave it at that during my three minutes.

Donna, public comment isn't for substantive discussion if you would like to use the remainder of your time.

Okay, all right. And I think I would like the commission to please consider Sean McCoy for one of the positions. I think he's, in his short time here, has demonstrated an amazingly quick study. He was my chair of Ward 2 and did a fantastic job. I think he would be great on regional because of his attention to detail and his depth of understanding of the law and sticking to the point That's my comment. Thank you Mr.

Chair, we don't have anyone else registered to give public comment and there's no one online for public comment Thank You mr.

Clerk, so we will now close public comment and entertain motions from the Commission the first vacancy is resulting from the, so I'll just read this out of the record. One vacancy is for a partial term member resulting from the resignation of Commissioner Gonfantini. This would go through February 24th, 2029.

Move to nominate Commissioner Williams. Yes.

Okay, I can second that.

Can I add on the record? So Commissioner Williams is serving a partial term through September 30th on regional. Is that your knowledge, Mr. Commissioner Williams?

The staff report states that Commissioner Williams just completed his term. That's the second one.

Yes, his term is ending September 30th. So the term resulting from the resignation of Commissioner Gonfiantini would commence today. the second appointment is for a full term after commissioner Williams completes his partial term from October 1st through September 30th 2029 so I don't know that we can appoint him to this first partial term when he is still serving through the end of the month.

I withdraw my motion. I move to nominate commissioner McCoy.

Commissioner Jockman, I'll second the motion. Any discussion?

I guess my discussion is... So when would that be through again? Sorry, I'm just trying to get my... Today through...

Yes, September, I believe February 24th of 2029. Okay.

September 2 through February 2429. Okay.

and I will add I believe there' s a separate commissioner mccoy serving a partial term on the city level so this is a function of that reappointment and so forth there' s always things.

then he could be appointed for a full term after that?

if he were reappointed by city I'm not sure he would have to be, I think his term, if city council were to reappoint him to, this is going to be a question for legal.

It's three years.

If he were reappointed by city council, then I believe his term would just go through February 24th, 2029, because that's the motion we're making right now.

That's correct. I guess it's always confusing for me how we do kind of like the partial and the full because I would think because one of the reasons I didn't want to do the partial was because it was partial and I don't know if Commissioner McCoy has a preference to do a partial or a full or if we take that into consideration I guess.

Do you have a preference?

We have a motion and a second, so we're in discussion. I have no preference. I'm honored that I've had public comment as well as the nominations from this commission. I would gladly serve in either capacity. It does not matter to me. I'm honored to be considered, so thank you.

Any other discussion? Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The second vacancy is for a full-term member resulting from the completion of Commissioner Williams' term ending September 30th, 2026. So that is... not this will not be effective immediately this is Effective October 1st this term shall commence October 1st 2026 through September 30th 2029 I will remind everyone these are recommendations to City Council.

We do not have this authority for appointment Commissioner Williams, I like to nominate Commissioner delvier Commissioner Val tall second.

We have a motion and a second again any discussion?

we have some discussion yeah yeah discussion Christina last time you pushed to the side all right I you know I want you to have I think you deserve Williams I'm sorry I just want to note sorry is this a procedural thing and you have no interest in doing it but I do want to support you do deserve it and you are a good member of this count come in Commission so thank you I I do appreciate I do appreciate it

The last time around, it was, again, it was a partial, and I just felt like I couldn't commit to, I just wanted, I feel like I'm a better team player if I'm in it for the long run. So that was my concern with being on the partial. And that was why I wanted to address that with Sean ahead of time as well, to see if he had the same feelings I had. Great. Okay.

So we're in discussion. Do we have any other discussion? Love it. You were part of the motion, so I would expect some level of that. Okay. Motion in a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item E2. Item F, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Williams, I have no report because the last meeting was canceled and the next meeting is the 24th, I'm pretty sure.

Okay, that concludes Item F. Item G, Future Agenda Items. Nothing further tonight. Seeing nothing from the Commission, we'll move to Item H, Public Comment. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Chair. We don't have anyone registered to give closing public comment, and I don't see anyone in the chamber who would like to give closing public comment, and there's no one online.

All right. We've covered all our business. Item I for adjournment. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned.