City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call to order the Spark City Council meeting for Monday, August 24th with a roll call.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Lawson?

Here.

Council Members Abbott?

Here.

Vanderwell? Here. Anderson? Here. Bybee?

Here.

Rodriguez?

Here.

City Manager Laufen?

Here.

City Attorney Duncan? Here. We have a quorum, thank you.

Okay, we have our invocations today. Barb West, Pastor Barb West.

Thank you. Let's pray. Our Father in heaven, we're so thankful that you have given us such a fine mayor as Ed Lawson. Thank you too for putting together such a good city council. And we pray a blessing upon each and every one of them. Lord, we pray that you would come today and help all of the decisions for the Red Hawk people to be your will. We also ask you, Lord, to be with the firefighters and the first responders, be with the people that are flying the airplanes to help put out these fires. And Lord, we're just asking you to keep everyone safe and all of their possessions safe as well. Thank you, Lord, for this day and for all that's going to be accomplished by this fine council. Thank you that we're able to be here and we lift it all to you in Jesus' name, amen.

And I just want to ask, we're going to observe a moment of silence. Some of you may have heard we lost our Parks and Rec director. She passed away last Thursday. Sad loss for the city of Sparks. So we have a moment of silence for her, please. Thank you. All right, let's go to Pledge of Allegiance.

Dion, will you lead us, please? Join me in the pledge, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you. All right, 4.1. 4.1 is public comment. It's Mark Markell.

A Yucaipa man was in critical condition Friday at Loma Linda University Medical Center, where he was taken for treatment of head injuries after a car crash Thursday, authorities said. Mark Markell, 24, was thrown from a 1977 Datsun as it overturned on Live Oak Canyon Road at the eastbound intersection 10 off-ramp at 4.30 p.m., said California Highway Patrol Officer Amber Drysdale. The driver was driving south on Live Oak Canyon Road when he lost control of the car, struck a curb, and skidded into the off ramp. The vehicle rolled over several times and landed on top of Mark Markell, Drysdale said. Mark, did you want to say anything?

I would like to say good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, city council members, city attorney, and city manager, and whoever else. But anyways, I'm here today to warn you and show you what can happen if you ride with a drunk driver. You just heard what happened yesterday. Now, look at my face, and you can see I've fallen on my face. This is just since, well, it's been 30 years. I don't know, 89. But anyways, I'm just here to warn you not to get in the car drunk driver, thank you. Thank you, Mark.

We appreciate your message every quarter or so when you come to see us. All right, is there anyone else in public wishing to speak on any item on 4.1? Okay, we'll move back to approval of the agenda. Let me get in the right place. Okay, Mr. Abbott.

I move to approve the agenda as submitted.

Mr. Anderson. I'll second the motion. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. 6.1, consideration possible approval of the minutes for the Spark City Council meeting for August 10th, 2026. Any questions, additions, subtractions? Ms. Spivey.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to approve the minutes of the Spark City Council meeting for August 10th, 2026 as submitted.

Ms. Vanderwill.

Second.

I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. 7.1, Boards and Commissions Vacancy Announcement. Who's gonna read this one?

There are two vacancies on the Sparks Building Code Board of Appeals, each for two-year terms ending September 30th, 2028. There's one vacancy for a registered professional structural civil engineer and one mechanical engineer or mechanical plumbing contractor with at least 10 years of experience, five years being responsible charge of work. Applications will be accepted until August 28th, 2026 at 5 p.m. Persons interested in serving on these committees should complete a community service application online at the city's website, www.citysparks.us slash getinvolved. Simply complete the volunteer application form and hit submit. Thank you.

Okay, move on to consent items. Anyone wants to pull a consent item? If not, I'm looking for a motion.

Mr. Rodriguez. I move to approve the consent of items 8.1 and 8.2 as submitted.

Mr. Anderson. I'll second the motion. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Madam Clerk, first reading 9.1. She's doing double duty today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the first reading of bill number 2859 to rezone a 1.88 acre parcel located at 3940 Pier Midway, Sparks, Nevada, APN 035-183-01 from SF-40 single family residential to C2 general commercial. A public hearing will be held and Bill 2859 will be acted upon at the regular meeting of the Spark City Council on Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 2 p.m. at Spark City Council Legislative Building located at 745 4th Street, Sparks, Nevada.

Okay, 9.2, Madam Clerk, first reading.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a first reading of Bill 2860, an ordinance amending Title V of the SPARKS Municipal Code entitled Business Licenses, Taxes, and Regulations to redefine the chief license officer, modernize the business license application denial, appeal, and enforcement processes, update administrative references throughout the title, standardized language for clarity and consistency, and provide for other matters properly related thereto. A public hearing will be held and Bill 2860 will be acted upon at the regular meeting of the Spark City Council on Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 2 p.m. at the Spark City Council Legislative Building located at 745 4th Street, Sparks, Nevada.

All right, Madam Clerk, 9.3, first reading. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a first reading of Bill 2862 for modification of a final approved plan for the Sparks Galleria Plan Development to one, modify development standards applicable to gasoline service stations permitted in the RCS02B land use designation located at the southeast corner of Shoppers Way and Galleria Parkway that contains the Costco fuel station by increasing the number of fueling dispensing nozzles from 18 to 24 and creating sign standards specific to gasoline service station canopies. And two, clarify the convenience store service station definition. And three, add sign standards applicable to convenience store service station canopy signs. The Sparks Galleria plan development includes approximately 133 acres generally located east of the Pyramid Way, north and south of Diss Drive, and west and east of Galleria Parkway in the NUD New Urban District Sparks Galleria zoning district. A public hearing will be held and Bill 2862 will be acted upon at the regular meeting of the Spark City Council on Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 2 p.m. at the Spark City Council Legislative Building located at 745 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada. Thank you, sir.

Okay, we'll move on to 10, public hearing and action items unrelated to planning and zoning. Madam Clerk, 10.1, public hearing.

have printed this one bigger.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Public hearing, consideration, discussion, and possible adoption of resolution number 3494, authorizing the transfer of $3,873,459.53 of the city's 2026 private activity bond capacity allocation of $7,746,919.06 to the Nevada Housing Division to be used toward affordable housing.

Jones. Need to turn on one of those mics. There we go. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and members of council. For the record, my name is Amy Jones, housing specialist. Mayor Lawson, I would like to request to present items 10.1 and 10.2 together.

Please.

Thank you. I am before you today to recommend the transfer of the city's 2026 annual allocation of private activity bond cap. The city's annual allocation of private activity bond cap for 2026 is 7,746,919.06 in bond cap. Private activity bonds are tax exempt bonds issued by the state to provide financing for qualified projects or programs. The city has the opportunity to transfer a portion or all of our annual allocations to programs that benefit City of Sparks residents. At the January 26th city council meeting, council directed staff to create an annual application process and established the following priorities for the transfer of the city's private activity bond cap. Priority number one is new construction rehab or acquisition rehab of multifamily affordable new rental housing projects in the City of Sparks. Priority number two was home ownership programs supporting City of Sparks residents. And priority number three was new construction rehab, acquisition rehab of multifamily affordable rental housing projects in Washoe County. On April 1st, city staff released the city's private activity bond cap allocation, notifying the public of the opportunity to apply for the transfer of the city's 2026 annual allocation for affordable housing projects in the city of Sparks and Washoe County. The notice was advertised in the Reno Area Alliance to End Homelessness listserv and the March, April, and May Nevada Housing Coalition newsletters. The deadline to submit an application was June 1st, and the city received two applications from the Nevada Rural Housing Authority and the Nevada Housing Division. Nevada Rural Housing Authority submitted an application requesting $3,873,459.53 or half of the city's private activity bond cap for their single family home ownership programs for City of Sparks residents. This meets priority number two, Nevada Rural Housing administers multiple single-family home ownership programs, including Rural Rocks, Launchpad, and Home at Last. Eligible households are first-time homebuyers, veterans, and households that meet income qualifications. The programs may assist homebuyers to secure 30-year fixed mortgages, obtain below-market interest rate, and or down payment assistance. The Nevada Housing Division submitted an application requesting 3,873,459.53 or half of the city's private activity bond cap for the development of affordable rental housing in Washoe County. This request meets priority number three. Private activity bonds support the new construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, serving households earning 60% or less of the area median income. If the city chooses not to transfer the 2026 annual allocation of private activity bond cap by August 31st, the bonds do revert back to the state of Nevada and they will determine how the bonds will be distributed. Nevada Rural Housing provides housing programs throughout the rural communities in the state of Nevada. Their programs include rental assistance, weatherization, home repair, home ownership programs, and the development and management of affordable housing. Over the past 18 years, the partnership between the City of Sparks and Nevada Rural Housing Authority has resulted in the transfer of 39.9 million in private activity bonds. Nevada Rural's housing home ownership programs have provided 550 million in mortgages to 2,355 City of Sparks residents, 11.4 million in estimated federal tax savings, 15.6 million in down payment assistance. And in 2005, Nevada Rural Housing's home ownership programs supported 25 City of Sparks residents with the opportunity to purchase a home. The Nevada Housing Division continues to be a strong partner, supporting new opportunities to increase the production of affordable housing throughout the state of Nevada. This is through the Low Income Housing Tax Program, the Supportive Housing Development Fund, Housing Trust Funds, Nevada Attainable Housing Account, and Homeownership Programs and Weatherization Assistance Programs. In 2024, the Nevada Housing Division issued $199,150,000 in bond cap, supporting the development of 781 new affordable housing units and rehabbing of 150 units in Washoe County. In 2025, the Nevada Housing Division issued $124,845,000 in bond cap, supporting the development of 604 new affordable housing units and rehabilitation of 115 units in Washoe County. This does include Kiley Ranch by Vintage, I apologize, Kylie View by Vintage, located in Kylie Ranch. And this project will include 300 new affordable housing units serving households earning less than 60% of the area median income. Both the Nevada Rural Housing Authority and the Nevada Housing Division provide needed affordable housing resources to the residents of the City of Sparks and Washoe County. Staff is recommending the two separate motions listed on the screen to transfer the city's 2026 annual allocation of private activity bond cap to each of the agencies as requested. And this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. And there, a public hearing is required for each of these items.

Okay, questions from the council? All right, seeing none, I am looking for a public hearing. They're laughing because I always mess up the public hearing part. We'll open it to anyone in the public wishing to speak on this particular item. All right, we'll bring it back to the council. Looking for a motion if there's no questions. Ms. Benderwill.

I move to adopt resolution number 3494, authorizing the transfer of $3,873,459.53 from the city's 2026 private activity bond capacity allocation to the Nevada Housing Division to be used towards affordable housing.

Mr. Rodriguez. I'll second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Let's move on to 10.2. Any questions from the council? Seeing none, we'll open it for public comment. Anyone in the public wishing to speak on 10.2? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the... Oh, please, sorry.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a public hearing consideration discussion and possible adoption of resolution number 3495, authorizing the transfer of $3,873,459.53 of the city's 2026 private activity bond capacity allocation of $7,746,919.06 to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority to be used towards single family ownership programs in the city of Sparks. Thank you, sir.

Okay, do I need to open a public hearing again or we got that covered? Yes, all right. Open this to a public hearing. Anyone in the public who should speak on this item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Now we're looking for a motion. Mr. Anderson.

I move to adopt resolution number 3495, authorizing the transfer of $3,873,459.53 from the city's 2026 private activity bond capacity allocation to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority to be used towards single family home ownership

programs. Mr. Abbott? Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Moving on to item 11, planning and zoning public hearings and action items. Madam Clerk, 11.1. Thanks, Amy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Public hearing discussion of possible action to adopt resolution number 3501, changing the comprehensive planned use designation from open space OS to low density residential LDR for a 34.75 plus acre site generally located northwest of the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive, APN 526-010-04. Thank you. Deanna, you have a presentation?

I do, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Lawson and members of the City Council. Sienna Reed, City Planner, here today to present two requests for the foothills at Wingfield Springs, submitted by Red Hawk Land Company. Before proceeding forward with this presentation, I would like to inform the Council that the applicant has submitted a request to amend both this Comprehensive Plan Amendment as well as the associated request to amend the Plan Development Handbook. to the planning commission to allow for the applicant to revise a traffic impact study to address staff comments. So at this point, would council prefer to consider that remand request or have me proceed forward with the full presentation?

I think we have the good people of Sparks here today. I think we need to hear this item and I believe the applicant is here too. Yes. So yeah, let's hear the item. And at the end of the presentation, then the council will decide what action to take.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Are you gonna present 11-1 and 2 together?

Yes, perfect. I will present both of those items related to the foothills at Wingfield Springs, a comprehensive plan amendment under 11.1, and then the request to amend the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development handbook under 11.2. And with me here this afternoon is Brandon Sundahl from our city attorney's office. In case as we get to questions, there might be some legal questions before you. All right, so before diving into each of these requests, I wanted to provide a brief overview of the differences between the city's comprehensive plan and a plan development. So the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan is a long range policy document. It contains goals and policies that guide where and how growth and development occurs across the city, as well as infrastructure and services needed to serve that growth. As part of the comprehensive plan, there is a land use map, and it's that land use map that defines the type and location of various different development types. Importantly, the comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document. For instance, the comprehensive plan supports diverse housing types across the city. It does not specify how tall a house could be. On the other hand, a plan development, that is a regulatory zoning document. Those plan developments function as, in essence, custom zoning codes for the area that they cover, and they include deviations from the city's standard zoning districts as well as procedures. So, for example, a plan development handbook might allow for 5,000 square foot lots, whereas the most comparable regular city zoning district would have a minimum lot size of, say, 6,000 square feet. In addition, there are various findings that must also be made to modify an existing plan development. These findings are set forth in state law as well as the city's municipal code, and they are more extensive than those that are required to modify a regular zoning district. The request to amend the city's comprehensive planned land use map before you today seeks to change the land use designation for a 34.75 acre site that is part of a larger parcel generally located northwest of the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive from open space to low density residential or LDR. And you can see on this slide that larger parcel is bound in red. Then you can also see that the larger foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development, that is outlined in blue. And the proposed changes to the planned development handbook very much relate to that portion of the parcel bound in red, seeking to allow for the addition of 158 dwelling units. And so on this slide, you can see the full list of proposed changes to the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development handbook or handbook. As I mentioned, those changes primarily seek to allow for 158 dwelling units within a proposed village 15. And that was the area bound in red on the previous map. And just to use my cursor, this is the area that is proposed to accommodate the new village 16. In terms of allowing for 158 lots in Village 16, that change also necessitates increasing the total allowed maximum dwelling units from 2,260 to 2,418. And then there are also general updates to texts and figures proposed. Those are to reflect... Current conditions reference technical studies that were prepared to support the amendment, as well as comply with federal rules regarding accessibility of information on local government websites. To give you a bit of background on the timeline of these applications, the city did receive both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Plan Development Handbook Amendment request from Red Hawk Land Company in January of this year. In March, staff provided our review comments on both of those applications to the applicant. Then in May, staff received responses and revised materials from the applicant. We evaluated that information and then provided one additional round of comments. The applicant addressed those additional comments towards the end of May and confirmed their desire to move forward to the June 29th Planning Commission meeting. On June 29th, the Planning Commission considered both requests and ultimately denied the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forwarded a recommendation of denial to the City Council for the Handbook Amendment. So here we are today with Council's consideration of both requests. If the City Council denies the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Handbook Amendment, that constitutes final action on which a lawsuit could be filed. If the City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Handbook Amendment, there would need to be additional actions. First, the Planning Commission would need the opportunity to prepare a report to City Council on the change that was adopted by the Council, but not adopted by the Planning Commission. If such a report were to be provided, Council would need to consider that report. If there is no report provided, then the change is adopted. Additionally, the Regional Planning Commission would need to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. And were that comprehensive plan amendment found in conformance, the comprehensive plan amendment and handbook amendment would be finally adopted. If the comprehensive plan amendment is not found in conformance, then the comprehensive plan amendment would be denied and the ordinance adopting the handbook amendment would not be valid because that action is contingent upon the comprehensive plan amendment being found in conformance with the regional plan. So in essence, a lot of linked actions would need to take place in the future. Moving on to a bit of background, the 690 acres that comprise today's foothills at Wingfield Springs were included in the Northern Spark Sphere of Influence Plan or the NSSOI plan in 1991. The NSSOI plan provided a planning framework, including land use designations and the provision of services and infrastructure for 7,181 acres of land that were included in the City of Sparks sphere of influence as part of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. The NSSOI land use designations that were applied to the 690 acre foothills at Wingfield Springs site ranged from one to 10 dwelling units per acre, as well as open space designations. And specifically, the 34.75 acre site proposed for Future Village 16 was designated as open space. Later in 2003, the 690 acre foothills at Wingfield Springs area was annexed to the City of Sparks and the foothills at Wingfield Springs Development Standards Handbook was finally adopted. The handbook that was adopted included a maximum dwelling unit count of 2,260 dwelling units and through four amendments to the handbook since then, that maximum unit count has not been changed. In 2005, there was a site plan review to allow for three golf course holes in the area proposed for a future Village 16. Those holes were intended to be an expansion to the lake's golf course, and while aerial imagery shows that they were constructed, they were never used as part of Red Hawk's golf course offerings, and ultimately the area reverted to unprogrammed open space around 2010. All right, so in terms of the organization of the rest of this presentation, I'm gonna focus on some of the key aspects of the requests before moving on to the findings that council needs to consider this afternoon. So in terms of those key issues, we'll start first off with land use compatibility. As I've discussed, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate 34.75 acres from open space to low density residential. And so on the left hand side of that slide, you can see the proposal here with the low density residential proposal in yellow with remaining open space along the northern portion of the site. The associated handbook amendment seeks to amend the foothills of Wingfield Springs master plan map, which is essentially the handbooks land use category map from open space to builder lot for the same site. So on the right hand side of the side here, you can see the proposed builder lot designation within the handbook. The planning commission found these changes are generally compatible with surrounding uses. Properties directly south of the site are already designated low-density residential, or LDR. They're located in the builder lot category and developed with detached single-family homes. Those are in Village 4 per the handbook. And locating the builder lot designation for Village 16 as proposed is generally compatible from a land use consistency perspective because each village would be subject to the same use, architectural, dimensional standards such as height, setback, and the like. Approximately 14.02 acres located to the north of the subject site, as I mentioned, would remain designated open space on the city's land use map and then also within the handbook. There are similar open space designated lands, many of which contain drainage facilities that are present in other locations throughout the foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development. And so as proposed, the remaining open space designated areas would provide a buffer between the subject site and properties to the north that are designated low density residential. And then MF14, you can see that MF14 designation in the lighter blue or teal color. As proposed, the remaining open space designated area again would provide that buffer to the properties to the north that are designated LDR and MF14 on the city's land use map and then designated cottages and patio homes pursuant to the handbook's land use category map. Do wanna also note that there is a narrow open space buffer, approximately 50 feet in width, proposed along the western edge of the subject site. That buffer would separate single family homes supported by the proposed LDR land use designation and builder lot category from existing single family homes that are located in the large lot residential category to the west of the subject site. While the Planning Commission determined that the proposed requests are generally compatible with surrounding uses, the requests do also need to comply with city policy regarding infill development. This policy, which is policy MG13 of the SPARKS Comprehensive Plan requires new development, new infill development to consider and be sensitive to physical features of existing neighborhoods. And it is the Planning Commission's opinion that the proposed requests are inconsistent with this policy. As proposed, the request would remove a large contiguous area of open space that has been a key physical feature of the neighborhood in order to support infill development within an existing neighborhood. As discussed in the background, since 1991, the subject site has been designated open space and adjacent residential development has oriented towards that area. Further, residents that have purchased lots adjacent to open space relied on the provisions of the handbook to guide the character and location of development. And the requests as proposed are a substantive change that undermine the reasonable reliance of residents on the handbook based on the planning commission's decision. To support the requests that were submitted by Red Hawk, there have been a variety of technical studies that were prepared. On this slide, you can see some of the maps from the preliminary drainage master plan. It's this plan that has identified existing storm water flows, which you can see in blue on the left on this slide, are conveyed overland through the site from a channel located in the Golden Eagle Regional Park to a pond that's located near Silverton Way in Wingfield Springs before ultimately being released through a stormwater channel that conveys stormwater to the Truckee River via the North Truckee drain. Flows move through the existing open space area through a defined drainage way, which is a mapped FEMA Zone AE special flood hazard area. Areas that are designated zone AE are located within the 100-year floodplain with base flood elevations determined. To facilitate development of the site, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing drainageway and construct an engineered drainage channel with three inline detention ponds. You can see the proposed drainage channel in the image on the right-hand side of this slide. And in terms of that engineered drainage channel, it's this purple area. The city contracted with House Moran Consulting to provide a third party review of the proposed drainage design. House Moran found the preliminary concept of an engineered drainage corridor with a series of detention features as modeled is a feasible conceptual approach to stormwater management. Should the request be approved, more detailed and refined grading and hydraulic modeling would be required to support final drainage design at the subdivision stage of development. Additionally, a conditional letter of MAP revision or a CLOMAR as well as a letter of MAP revision or LOMAR may be needed to be approved by FEMA based on the final design of the drainage improvements. The handbook that is before you today does require any future floodplain mapping actions be coordinated with FEMA and the local floodplain administrator. And should a CLOMR be required, it would have to be completed prior to the first grading permit. And notably, the handbook does specify that any floodplain modifications may not result in any base flood elevation being located any portion of an existing parcel with an existing dwelling unit unless that parcel is already within a mapped floodplain. Moving on to the preliminary sewer report that was submitted with these requests it analyzes potential impacts to the city's sewer collection system. The City of Sparks maintains our own sanitary sewer model that can evaluate the impact of new flows on downstream collection system capacity, and a conveyance capacity analysis was performed to evaluate these requests. So here, under existing conditions, one sewer main is flowing over design capacity, and then assuming a peak sewer flow of 165,900 gallons per day, a second main could exceed design capacity with the addition of 158 single family dwelling units. Under future conditions, and with the addition of these units, several pipe segments could flow over design capacity. The applicant is required to mitigate the impact of new development on the city's sewer collection facilities, which could include replacing existing downstream mains with larger pipes. And additional analysis of sewer collection system conditions, capacity concerns, and mitigation measures would be evaluated during the subdivision review process should these requests be approved. Looking at treatment of sewer at the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility or TUMWRF, here the city of Sparks uses a factor of 165 gallons per day for single family homes and 158 additional dwelling units would generate 26,070 gallons per day of sewage. The city currently has treatment capacity to serve these units and this capacity would be evaluated further during the subdivision review process should the request be approved. Looking next at the traffic impact analysis that was submitted by the applicant analyzing the impact of 158 dwelling units on the existing roadway network. Here the traffic impact study estimates 1,436 daily trips would be generated by these units. Approximately 111 of those trips would be in the AM peak hour and 147 of those trips would be in the PM peak hour. As proposed, the subject site would be accessed from two local roadways along Vista Boulevard, and you can see that in the image overhead. These are expected to be right in, right out due to the existing median on Vista Boulevard. And so as such, left turns out of the subject site would be prohibited. The traffic study asserts that all intersections operate at acceptable levels of service with 158 additional residential units at opening year. When you look further out at the cumulative year, which for this study is 2050, the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Wingfield Parkway operates below policy level of service or LOS, both with and without the project. And so the regional transportation plan identifies a Vista Boulevard capacity improvement project will be constructed in the 2035 to 2050 timeframe. And the traffic study assumes that this capacity project will widen Vista Boulevard from four to six lanes between Wingfield Parkway and Hubble Drive. In addition to this assumed widening of Vista Boulevard to improve level of service at 2050, the traffic study identifies the conversion of a southbound through and free right at Vista Boulevard and Wingfield Parkway to one shared through right turn lane and one right turn lane. Staff reviewed this traffic impact study and have substantive concerns that were provided to the Planning Commission. First, RTC staff verified that the Vista Boulevard capacity project is not planned to widen Vista from four to six lanes between Wingfield Parkway and Hubbell Drive. Rather, the project would widen Vista Boulevard from two to four lanes further north between Passage Drive and Hubbell Drive. As submitted, the traffic study does not reflect RTC's stated planned improvements. Second, the traffic study assumes 90% of trips traveling north on Vista Boulevard to access the site will make a U-turn at the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive. That's the intersection that you can see here shown in right on this slide. As you can see, this intersection does not currently have a dedicated left turn lane to accommodate U-turns, and the traffic study does not analyze this movement nor identify any improvements to support this movement in the opening or cumulative years. Staff is concerned that U-turn movements at this intersection will increase rear-end collisions with stopped northbound vehicles, as well as sideswiping as vehicles attempt to maneuver around stopped vehicles. And third, the traffic study does not include adequate details on the growth rate methodology used to project future traffic volumes. This makes it difficult for staff to determine if the traffic study accurately represents operational conditions, both at the opening and cumulative years. So collectively with these deficiencies, it's not possible to understand operational impacts of the proposed requests and therefore conclude that acceptable roadway levels of service can be maintained. Moving on to fiscal impact analysis, here the city requires the submission of a fiscal impact analysis for all requests to amend the city's comprehensive plan if that request is over five acres in size. To assist applicants and provide consistency between analyses, the city has adopted standard fiscal impact analysis guidelines that applicants are required to utilize. The fiscal impact analysis submitted was prepared in accordance with those guidelines and evaluates the impact of 158 detached single family residential units constructed between 2040 and 2043. The analysis finds these units will generate $7.3 million in a revenue surplus in the city's general fund and a $5.1 million revenue deficit in the city's road fund. Overall, the analysis finds the proposed units will have a positive fiscal impact with a total net surplus of $2.2 million over the 20-year analysis period. Looking next at public safety services, fire service would be provided by the Sparks Fire Department and Station 5 is located across Vista Boulevard from the subject site. Should the proposed request be approved and development occur, the handbook does require that any homes located outside the six minute fire response time due to Sparks Fire Department operations install fire sprinklers consistent with the approach to development that was taken prior to the construction of station five. For police service, the Sparks Police Department provides police service to the Foothills at Wingfield Springs and both requests were forwarded to the Sparks Police Department and no concerns were identified. Looking next at schools, the Washoe County School District reviewed both requests along with two applications related to Wingfield Springs that were also submitted to the city this past January. The school district estimates that all applications with 764 combined homes would generate 332 students comprised of 162 elementary school students, 79 middle school students, and 91 high school students. The schools currently zoned to serve the site are Van Gorder Elementary School, Sky Ranch Middle School, and Spanish Springs High School. The school district indicated that more refined student generation estimates and information regarding the timing of enrollment growth would be available as development proceeds, but that funding mechanisms are in place to support future enrollment growth. Moving on to wetlands, the National Wetlands Inventory shows the subject site proposed to accommodate 158 dwelling units contains mapped wetlands. The current jurisdictional status of these wetlands as waters of the United States is unknown, and that's a determination that is made by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the City of Sparks. The analysis of environmental impacts and permitting requirements related to wetlands that was prepared by Integral Consulting was submitted on behalf of the applicant to the city. And that analysis recommends that the site be evaluated for Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction and account for a 2023 Supreme Court decision that specifies wetlands that qualify as waters of the United States must have a contiguous surface connection to regulated water bodies with no clear demarcation between waters and wetlands. While the handbook references this information prepared by Integral, it does not specify when the jurisdictional determination needs to be complete in relationship to a future subdivision review process, nor identify the timing for federal permit approvals should waters of the United States be found. The Planning Commission found that the handbook should clearly identify when a jurisdictional determination is required. That could be, say, prior to the submission of your first subdivision map. They also found which entities the jurisdictional determination should be coordinated with should be in the handbook, as well as the timing for federal permit approvals if those waters of the United States are present. As this information is not included in the handbook, the planning commission did not find that it's consistent with city policy that specifies the degradation or destruction of wetlands should be prevented or mitigated. Focusing next on threatened and endangered species, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service data shows that the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development is located in habitat for the Carson wandering skipper, kiwi, and the Lahotten cutthroat trout. The integral consulting analysis indicates that the likelihood of either the kweewee or the Lahotten cutthroat trout occurring on the site is very low, as it's unlikely that either fish species would swim up the North Truckee drain to the subject site. However, it is recommended that the length of the North Truckee drain be evaluated to determine if there is an opportunity for either of those fish species to swim upstream and reach the foothills site. Additionally, integrals analysis identifies that the Carson Wandering Skipper has been recorded in the general vicinity and that saltgrass needed to support larval growth could occur along the margins of the lake's golf course or near waters and wetlands. Noting this, surveys for saltgrass are recommended and if it's found, then site surveys for the presence of the Carson Wandering Skipper are also recommended and should be conducted. While the handbook refers to integrals analysis, it does not specify when in the development process those surveys are required, nor does it identify permitting approvals necessary under the Endangered Species Act if a protected species is discovered. Ultimately, the Planning Commission found that the handbook should clearly identify when surveys are required, reviewing entities, and the timing for federal permit approvals if a protected species is discovered and an incidental take permit and associated habitat conservation plan are required under the Endangered Species Act. As this information is missing from the handbook, the handbook amendment does not further city policy regarding minimization of impacts to natural habitats and migration corridors in terms of the Planning Commission's decision. Additionally, the subject site within the foothills at Wingfield Springs is located in year-round habitat for mule deer. The Nevada Department of Wildlife, or NDOW, reviewed the requests and recommended wildlife-friendly fencing and drainage improvement designs to minimize impacts to wildlife. The planning commission determined that such wildlife safety design measures should be addressed in the handbook. As they aren't, the handbook amendment does not further city policy regarding minimizing potential impacts to natural habitats and migration corridors. All right, so at this point in the presentation, we'll move on to the findings that need to be considered this afternoon. These will take some time to walk through. Organizationally, we'll start with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and then transition into the Plan Development Handbook Amendment findings. On this slide, you can see finding CP1 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It requires that the proposed land use change conform to the regional plan land use intensity So pursuant to the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, the subject site has a tier two land designation. It's also located in the Truckee Meadows service area. Properties that are located in that tier two land designation are characterized by suburban development with some higher density nodes. Residential development in tier two is specifically limited to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. And the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan would allow a maximum density of less than six dwelling units per acre consistent with that tier two land designation limitation. And the planning commission found that finding CP1 can be made. Next up, we have finding CP2 that requires the comprehensive plan amendment implement the goals of the comprehensive plan. As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment does support goals and policies related to minimizing the per capita cost of providing public facilities and services through infill, advancing Goal MG4, Goal MG6, and Policy MG11. Likewise, as infrastructure constructed by the applicant is ultimately dedicated to the City of Sparks, locating additional infrastructure in an area that is already surrounded by city-owned infrastructure does maximize the utilization of that infrastructure consistent with Goal CF1. In addition, the request would increase the supply of land that can accommodate residential development in a location where existing infrastructure, public facilities, and services currently exist, in support of policy H1. While some goals and policies are supported, others are not. On this point, allowing for infill development as proposed would not be sensitive to this physical features of the existing neighborhood and is therefore inconsistent with policy MG13. As discussed, the proposal to change the comprehensive plan land use map to LDR would remove a large and contiguous area of open space that is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. Additionally, as previously discussed, there are substantive concerns regarding the traffic study that make it impossible to determine if roadway levels of service can be maintained, which is inconsistent with policy CF1. Other policies related to wetlands, floodplains, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife habitat are more appropriately addressed through the planned development handbook. And so I'll touch on those policies under the planned development handbook findings. Moving on to finding CP3 related to compatibility with surrounding land uses. As previously discussed, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would redesignate the subject site or 34.75 acres of it from open space to LDR in an area that's predominantly developed with single family homes in a manner that is generally compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with finding CP3. Properties to the south of the site are already designated LDR and the remaining 14.02 acres of open space would provide that buffer between the subject site and properties to the north that are designated LDR and MF14. The open space buffer proposed west of the site would also separate the single family homes supported by the proposed LDR land use designation from existing single family homes. located in that large lot residential land use designation to the west of the site. And that's the area in darker green that you can see here. Finding CP4 requires public notice be given and a public hearing held as required by state law and the Sparks Municipal Code. For the comprehensive plan amendment, the statutorily required neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant's representative on May 13th. Attendees expressed a variety of concerns, including previous flood events, loss of open space that supports wildlife and recreation currently, sewer treatment capacity, and the initial marketing of homes adjacent to open space. In addition, on August 13th, public notice of this meeting was published in the Reno Gazette Journal and 2,600 mail notices were also sent on August 14th to all property owners within the Foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development boundary and then within 750 feet of that outer boundary. Transitioning with this slide to the findings related to the amendment of the Plan Development Handbook. Finding PDA requires the request be consistent with the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan and Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. The request is consistent with the Regional Plan for the reasons already discussed. In relation to the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan, the handbook is inconsistent with policy MG13 related to infill development and policy CF1 regarding acceptable service levels for the same reasons that I discussed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In addition, the handbook as a regulatory zoning document should contain a high level of detail regarding technical studies and federal permitting for wetlands and threatened and endangered species in relation to the subdivision review process. The handbook does not adequately address these topics and the planning commission therefore found the handbook inconsistent with policies RC-12 and RC-7. Further, the proposed handbook does not address wildlife safety design features that were recommended by NDOW, which does not further policy RC-12. Ultimately, the Planning Commission could not make finding PDA because the request in their determination is not consistent with the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan. Next up, finding PDB focuses on consistency with surrounding land uses. for the handbook amendment. The Planning Commission found the request is consistent with surrounding uses for the same reasons that I've been discussing throughout this presentation. And the Planning Commission ultimately found that finding PDB can be made. Very briefly, locating the builder lot designation adjacent to an existing builder lot designation is generally consistent with single family homes to the south. and open space buffers along the north and west of the proposed Village 16, proposed to accommodate 150 dwelling units, would further separate homes proposed in Village 16 from existing single-family homes north and west of the site. The Planning Commission also determined that finding PDC can be made. On this point, 158 detached single family homes are estimated to generate a $7.3 million revenue surplus in the city's general fund and a $5.1 million revenue deficit in the city's road fund with a total net surplus of $2.2 million. Next up, finding PDD requires the amendment to the plan development further the mutual interest of residents and owners of the planned unit development in the preservation of the integrity of the plan as finally approved. The proposed amendment would convert open space to builder lot to accommodate the development of 158 detached single family homes. And this modification represents a substantial change to the plan as initially approved in 2003 and most recently amended in 2009. The area proposed to convert to builder lot is a large and contiguous area of open space that has been a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. Eliminating that open space designation as proposed, the Planning Commission did not find that that change would further the mutual interest of residents and owners in the preservation and integrity of the plan, and therefore the Planning Commission could not make finding PDD. Additionally, the Planning Commission could not make finding PDE. This finding requires the amendment not impair the reasonable reliance of residents and owners on the provisions of the plan development handbook. Residents of the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development have located and in many instances purchased land adjacent to the 34.75 acres designated open space based on the foothills at Wingfield Springs master plan map included in the handbook. Redesignating that area from open space to builder lot is a substantial change to the handbook that materially impairs the reliance of residents on the provision of the plan. And there is public comment to that effect that has been submitted to the city council, especially for property owners that are immediately adjacent to that open space area. Moving on to finding PDF, this finding specifies an amendment cannot result in changes that would adversely impact the public interest. As discussed throughout this presentation, there are substantive concerns regarding the assumptions and methodology used in the traffic study that make it impossible to determine if acceptable roadway levels of service needed for roadway capacity and safety can be maintained with the additional 158 dwelling units proposed by the handbook amendment. And in addition, potentially unsafe turning movements that have not been adequately analyzed could adversely impact the public interest. In addition, the proposed changes to the handbook do not adequately identify impact. do not adequately identify how impacts to wildlife would be addressed. As we've discussed, missing from throughout the handbook are federal processes and permitting requirements under the Endangered Species Act should a protected species be discovered, as well as specific requirements regarding the timing and coordination for species studies. Also missing from the handbook, as discussed, are wildlife safety design features recommended by NDOW. Should the handbook be approved without standards addressing impacts on wildlife, adverse impacts to the public interest could occur. Moving on to finding PDG, this finding requires the amendment be consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire plan development. Here the planning commission found the proposed changes to the handbook again represent a substantial departure from the plan development initially approved in 2003 and most recently amended in 2009. total open space would be reduced by 20 percent in a manner that removes a large and contiguous open space area that has been a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood this change is not consistent with the preservation of the entire plan development as was found by the planning commission and therefore the planning commission could not make finding PDG However, the Planning Commission does believe that finding PDH can be made because the handbook changes proposed to facilitate the addition of Village 16 are fully interior to the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development, and therefore adverse impacts to land abutting or across the street from the planned development boundary would not be impacted by the proposed changes. The Planning Commission also believes finding PDI can be made. This finding requires that the amendment not be granted solely to confer a private benefit on any one person. Should the proposed changes be approved, they would allow any interested party to pursue development within and as permitted by the handbook. And lastly, finding PDJ relates to public notice, and the Planning Commission believes that this finding can be made. Amendments to plan developments require both newspaper and mailed notice. For the planning commission meeting, notice was published in the Reno Gazette Journal on June 15th of this year. Again, for just the planning commission meeting, 2,600 mailed notices were sent out to June 15th to all property owners within the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development and within 750 feet of it. I'll reiterate that public notice for today's city council consideration was also published in the Reno Gazette Journal. That was on August 13th. And then 2,600 mail notices were also sent on August 14th, again, to all property owners within the foothills plan development boundary and within 750 feet of it. As you're well aware, the city has received a significant amount of written public comment in opposition to the request before you today. The exact number of these comments is difficult to quantify because many of the comments were sent to multiple staff members or council members or planning commission members. But that said, the concerns expressed by members of the public include infrastructure capacity limitations, roadway congestion, limited water availability, fiscal impacts, emergency service provision, adverse impacts to wildlife, negative impacts to property values, alteration of community character, the loss of recreation assets, adverse impacts to views, the loss of a park-like setting, adverse impacts to privacy, such as additional noise and lighting, and the longstanding loss of open space that comprises, excuse me, the loss of longstanding open space that comprises community reliance on the provisions of the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development Handbook. And with that, the Planning Commission has denied the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request based on noncompliance with finding CP2 regarding consistency with our comprehensive plan. And the recommended motion you can see on this slide is for Council also to deny that request. The Planning Commission also forwarded a recommendation of denial to City Council for the request to amend the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development Handbook based on noncompliance with five findings required to amend a plan development. Motions to that effect are also on this slide and in your packet. Do want to note, kind of take us back where we started, that the applicant has submitted a request to remand both requests to the Planning Commission, and that is an option that's available to Council today. With that, I will wrap up for staff and be available for questions at the appropriate time. I do want to note that both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment and the Plan Development Handbook Amendment do require public hearings.

Okay, does the appellant want to speak?

Um.

Give us your name for the record, please. Of course. Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and members of the council. My name is Blake Peters. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Red Hawk Land Company, LLC, for two matters before the council, which are the developer's applications for both the handbook amendment and the comprehensive plan amendment. So it is fundamental to these decisions before you that the land we're discussing is private property. Its previous designation as open space was to accommodate three holes as an addition to the golf course, which at its core is a business. It was never a park or other type of public property. Moreover, the state of Nevada consists of 70,766,000 acres and 87% of which are already designated as open space, as open land, and it's designated as public land. With all the existing public land in Nevada, why is it important to keep Red Hawk's private land as open space? Question for him.

Please.

The amendments Redhawk is requesting conform to the surrounding use, which is neighborhood with low density residential homes on prime development property, which are needed in the greater Sparks, Reno area. Denial of the changes requested by Red Hawk would deprive Red Hawk of its ability and any opportunity to use and develop its land for the best and most economically viable use, and instead dedicate and lock up private property for a public use, potentially in perpetuity. To be clear, Red Hawk will be financially harmed if this occurs. The city cannot properly have it both ways. wanting the public benefit of an open space and public uses, but not compensating a private landowner for it. We're asking for fair treatment and consideration. If the city or any other entity is interested in purchasing the property, Red Hockey has yet to be approached. We remain open to that dialogue. To recap, The Sparks Planning Commission held a meeting on June 29th, 2026 regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application MPA260001, which proposes designating a 34.75 acre subject site from open space to low density residential. Red Hawk filed responses to the city staff findings. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the application at its June 29th meeting. The matter is now before the council. A few points do need to be corrected for the record. The applicant, we were given two weeks to update our studies prior to the planning commission meeting on June 29th, two weeks to incorporate staff's comments. Yet now that we have incorporated those comments, we weren't able to do that by June 29th, but now that we're able to have made those additions and incorporated those comments, staff is now asking for three months in order to review those changes that we've made. It does seem to be quite a discrepancy there. Again, as Siena mentioned, there are three findings that were favorable to this project. Regional plan conformance, CP1. Staff found the proposed density of less than six dwelling units per acre is consistent with the tier two land designations, maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Number two, CP3, compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff found that the amendment is generally compatible with the surrounding uses, which are predominantly single family homes designated as low density residential. The housing supply argument, it was determined that within the coming decades, the existing zoning district will run out of housing supply. The proposed development extends viability, which is greatly needed. Then of course we have three adverse findings. The inconsistency with policy MG 13, as Sienna mentioned, that is neighborhood character. Staff found the development would not be sensitive to the physical features of the existing neighborhood because it removes open space that has been a key physical feature since 2003 in the planned development handbook. The applicant countered that MG 13 refers specifically to zoning, building mass, structure placement, height transitions, landscaping, streetscape, and access. And the proposed development matches adjacent villages in all those respects. Traffic roadway concerns, policy CF1 was the second finding. at burst finding. Staff stated that they were unable to arrive at a recommendation that the acceptable service levels can be maintained for roadways. The applicant countered with the Wood-Rogers traffic impact study, again, provided in January 19th, 2026 originally, that shows less than significant impacts and that the needed Vista Boulevard improvements are already in the city's planned CIP. And we did confirm that that is still on the books as an improvement. Number three, well, let me add to that the improvements that are being made to Vista Boulevard. The updated traffic impact study that we've just finished, that we've just completed and that we'd like to submit for your review, proposes a new left turn entrance into the project from Vista Drive, a new left turn pocket. This new left turn pocket would be installed between the fire station number five and Black Hills Drive. and would eliminate the concerns about residents having to do a U-turn in order to enter the project. That has been proposed and analyzed in the new, in the traffic impact study that has been presented, or that will be submitted to the city now. Third item, the third adverse finding was the environmental issues. The staff stated that the site is a mule deer habitat, may contain saltgrass habitat for the Carson wandering skipper. His map theme of zone AE flood hazard areas and the National Wetlands Inventory shows map wetlands. The applicant pushed back on wetlands citing the Army Corps 404 permit from April 25, 1995, finding no jurisdictional wetlands on the site. On wildlife, the applicant agreed to applicant surveys, to additional surveys, excuse me, and noted that the wildlife friendly fencing will be addressed in the handbook amendments. We have since had a consultation with the Army Corps. This consultation occurred on July 21st, rather, and we're preparing a new wetland delineation for their review, which came at their direction. We are in consultation with the Corps and we will continue to be. Wildlife surveys are now underway and will continue to be conducted over the next three to four months to capture the changes in seasonality that are required for those surveys. Next, although a neighborhood meeting was held on May 13th, 2026, and it drew 215 attendees and 60 public comments were received, The applicant argues that only 23 of these comments were specific to the Foothills site. The remaining 37 comments related to a separate request, MPA 26-0002, and should not be considered. The remaining, excuse me, the largest concern raised was the loss of open space and that homes were originally marketed as adjacent to that open space. The open space designation accommodated a golf course, not a public park. In fact, the community never had public access rights to the three unusable holes contained on the applicant's private property. And that are the subject of this hearing. Further, the priority property, the prior property owner, excuse me, the prior property owner had an inability to operate these holes due to naming rights and licensing issues that meaning the land is fallow, not functioning as open space and certainly not functioning as open space. Moreover, the applicant has the rights to use and develop its land, which must be balanced against the historic zoning designations. I would like to mention that Red Hawk on August 17th, 2026, requested a 30 day continuance of the hearings on these matters. So the Red Hawk would have a fair opportunity to address the comments received by staff and planning commission on the traffic impact study. The extension request was denied by the city on August 18th, 2026. Red Hawk respectfully requested reconsideration. The city again denied this reconsideration on August 19th, 2026. And the only alternative offered by the city was that Red Hawk agreed to remand the matters back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. I'm here to present on both matters and I'm happy to be here to do so. It's my understanding that according to NRS 241.0203D6 and Roman numeral three and the city's agenda, the city may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. I would like to request that you, Mr. Mayor, consider granting Red Hawk a 30-day continuance of these matters to be continued to September 28th, 2026, to afford us a fair opportunity to address these comments received by staff and the Planning Commission. Alternatively, Red Hawk requests the matter to be remanded to the Planning Commission as suggested by city staff for additional study and review.

Thank you. Any questions from the council? Okay. Thanks, Blake. Thank you. We have a question. We'll bring you back up. Sienna, you have... Question from the council for Sienna.

I do, Mr. Mayor. Sienna, I've got several questions to kind of clarify our timeline of events moving up to the request we just heard on the continuance or the remanding back to planning. So I want to kind of be clear and maybe I'm sure that our residents that are here would appreciate also. When exactly did the applicant request that we remand this or continue it?

Through you, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Council Member Bybee. So initially, staff received a request for continuance. That was Monday evening last week at 5.36 p.m. Ultimately, staff reviewed that correspondence, provided a response back to the applicant, identifying that there were various procedural concerns with the continuance request, namely that the technical record between the Planning Commission and the City Council would not be the same. So there was some additional correspondence noting that there are a variety of options before the applicant to have that same technical record considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. One of those viable options would be to request a remand to the Planning Commission of both items. Another viable option would be the withdrawal of the applications and potential resubmittal of new applications. applications, both of those in essence would allow the Planning Commission to consider the same technical record moving forward. But again, that request came in, as I mentioned, Monday evening last week, so one week ago today.

Okay, and to be clear, you reminded us that the technical record and the decision made, the whole packet that went to the Planning Commission is what we are hearing here today. and that no matter what application you're putting in, you can't change what that packet includes. We have to hear, we have to, our vote is based on the set process. I don't know if legal needs to get on this, but basically the packet that the planning commission had is what we hear today, that staff were planning or no one else would have had opportunity to add to that if we were to change that. Is that true?

Yes, Brandon Sendell with the City Attorney's Office for the record. There are a lot of issues raised with changing the technical record between mainly that for a comprehensive plan amendment, the planning commission actually approves or denies a comprehensive plan amendment. It's subject to the certification of city council, but also there's a recommended recommendation of either approval or denial of the handbook. If that gets changed between, and there are, and there's a different proposal under the traffic study, that recommendation doesn't really help the city council at that point. But the fact that both of these items require a two-step procedure in order to get to city council, there are problems. That's why in Siena's response, we outlined that Continuance isn't really a valid option because city council would be considering a completely different application, at least as it relates to traffic, which is why the two other opportunities were recommended.

Okay, and continuing on that timeline, I read the staff reports for these items, and the reports say that the City Council provided the applicant with a memo on May 14th, 2026, identifying staff's concerns with the traffic impact study, is that correct?

Yes, Council Member Baby, that is correct.

Okay, and then the applicant responded on May 21st, 2026 that they wanted to proceed forward without revising the traffic study, correct?

Yes, that is correct. And of note, that memo outlined a variety of traffic study concerns for the traffic study for foothills at Wingfield Springs and also for the other two requests that came in this January for Wingfield Springs. What's notable about that is that the applicant chose to take a pause on the Wingfield Springs applications to take more time to work through those traffic study comments and other comments. Whereas they directly indicated that for the foothills at Wingfield Springs, they wanted to move forward as is. And therefore staff took those items forward to the planning commission.

Okay, and then the application.

If I may, Councilwoman, I believe Mr. Peters said something along the lines of the staff only gave two weeks to update the staff report. The two-week deadline was in order to make the June Planning Commission meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the communication deadline essentially stated, if you want to make the June Planning Commission meeting, we would need the responses back within two weeks. Otherwise, it would need to go to a later Planning Commission meeting.

Okay, then following up on that, the application with the unchanged traffic impact study was heard by the Planning Commission on June 29th, correct?

Yes, Council Member Baby.

Okay, and then for our meeting today, we gave notice of today's meeting. When did we notice today's meeting to the public through our mailing and the RGJ?

For the Reno Gazette Journal, public notice was published on August 13th. And then for notices that are sent out via mail to property owners, those were sent out on August 14th.

Okay, so those both went out last week, and then we received the request last Monday, the 17th at 5.36 p.m., requesting either a continuance or remanding it back to planning, correct?

That's correct. The request for a continuance came in last Monday at 5.36.

Okay, just wanted to get that timeline straight. Thank you.

Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First off, I want to say, Sienna, thank you very much. I appreciate the presentation and all the work that you put into this project. I do have a question. I'm looking here at the comprehensive plan goals and policies, and I was hoping you could help me understand it a little bit better. I'm looking specifically, the applicant brought up policy MG13. And as I understand it, it was staff's recommendation as well as a unanimous planning commission finding as well that the open space portion of that MG 13 was a key physical feature in the findings. Is that correct? Part of the existing neighborhood?

Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councilmember Anderson, yes, that is correct. Staff recommended and the Planning Commission found that the open space land use designation is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood.

Could you maybe expand on that a little bit better and help me understand what the key physical feature means?

Yeah. I think you kind of have to step back a little bit and go all the way back to that Northern Spark Sphere of Influence plan that we were talking about throughout the presentation. The property has been designated open space since 1991 in that plan. And there are a variety of other actions that have taken place since that Northern Spark Sphere of Influence plan adoption. There was a handbook that was adopted with designations consistent with that open space designation. the entire land plan within the foothills at Wingfield Springs and development for the areas around that open space designation that was oriented around that area. And then ultimately, you know, it has become a key component of that existing neighborhood because lots were oriented towards it. Folks have, you know, relied on our comprehensive plan land use map as well as the handbook when they've, made choices to purchase property and locate within that area.

All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And also thank you for letting us move forward and hearing this today as well. I know you're a timekeeper. And Sienna, thank you and your staff for this. Just a lot of information. And I was taking a lot of notes, but you're answering them along the way. But with that being said, I do have one, maybe two. On the policy CF1 with our city's services and stuff like that, can you kind of cover or kind of reiterate why the planning commission can make those findings?

Yeah, so for policy CF1, that policy relates to acceptable service levels. And in terms of staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and what the Planning Commission ultimately found, they could not find that the proposals were compliant with that policy predominantly because of the traffic impact study. And again, just the deficiencies that I walked through in the presentation, again, we just really couldn't... come to a determination that roadway levels of service could be maintained or that traffic operations would function in a way that it didn't have adverse impacts to just overall roadway safety.

Thank you. I know my colleagues probably have other questions, but thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Vanderwill. Thank you. Thank you, Sienna. I have reviewed, of course, and read both applications, the handbook and the comprehensive plan amendment. My question here is, is if we denied the handbook amendment, but approved the comp plan amendment, what does that look like?

Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor, to Council Member Vandal, that is a great question. I actually think I'll let Brandon walk you through the legality of that portion of it.

Brandon Sendahl again for the record.

Is your mic on?

Yes. Maybe I'll bend down a little more.

I'm crowding Brandon out over here.

Up until about a year or two ago, it raised an issue. There was some uncertainty in the development industry about inconsistent comprehensive or master plan designations as opposed to zoning designations or here a handbook designation. But The Nevada Supreme Court in the recent city of Las Vegas versus it was the 180 land, the Badlands decision clarified that yes, zoning trumps a master plan or a comprehensive land designation is in terms of. having the right to actually build or construct something there. So I don't believe it would allow any actual development. It would muddy the waters in terms of having inconsistent comp plan versus handbook zoning designations, which could raise issues in the future. But I don't believe it would allow development independently. Is that it?

Mr. Abbott, you're up.

Perfect. Well, first off, thank you all for being here too. Appreciate all the emails, all you guys showing up, everyone that's out in City Hall. I know it's a packed house today. And thank you, staff, for all the hard work on this. So Brandon, I actually have just one follow-up. Ms. VanderWaal's question, kind of a little light bulb. Just to make sure I understand. So the impact would be, if we were to pass a version of that, like she mentioned, the impact, We're not sure, I guess. Is that kind of correct? I'm a little confused, sorry.

I think the recent Nevada Supreme Court decision gave some clarity on it. But then again, statutes can change, regulations can change. Or, you know, there could be a... Applicants can make good faith arguments to change the law or that this is slightly different and it should be different. It would just be... that it would muddy the waters. But yes, in my opinion, the handbook would govern. Okay, thank you.

Do you have any questions of the council?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In terms of the finding on reasonable reliance, Sienna, can you explain what that means to homeowners living near open space? And the reliance comes into play a lot and impact on residents. So what does that reasonable reliance make mean in regards to that open space?

Okay. Through you, Mayor Lawson, to Council Member Bybee, You know, when it kind of started out at the beginning of the presentation, one of the things that I wanted to highlight was that the findings to modify a plan development are much higher, right? There's a higher kind of bar or threshold than just to modify a standard zoning district because these plan development handbooks, they're custom zoning regulations. And so one of those findings to amend a plan development handbook is that the changes can't impair the reasonable reliance of residents and owners on the provisions of those plans. And so As we've been discussing, the handbook was adopted in 2003. It's been amended four times. None of those changes have made substantial modifications to this open space area. For residents that have chosen to locate in the foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development, particularly in proximity to this open space area, they have relied on that custom zoning document, the plan provisions. So they have made choices about which lots to buy. Do they want to be adjacent to open space? Do they potentially not want to be adjacent to open space? But it is those provisions of the plan on which they have made decisions those decisions and it is the opinion of staff and the finding of the Planning Commission that the proposed changes are substantial and material and that they would impair the reliance of those residents that made those decisions in terms of locating adjacent to that open space if it were to just completely be removed and filled in with houses. Again, you really have to evaluate, you know, what is the history of the handbook and what are the nature of the changes and how would those changes impact those homeowners living near the open space area? And, you know, for those that relied on the provisions of the plan, it would fundamentally negatively affect homeowners.

Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Go ahead.

Sorry. Does the handbook set the zoning for this?

Through you, Mayor Lassen, to Councilmember Abbott, that's correct. The handbook is the regulatory zoning document for the Foothills area.

Got you. Thank you for that. Any questions for the appellant from the council? Okay. Then I guess we should go into... public comment, and here's how we're gonna do this. I'm gonna call out four or five names at a time, and then I will come up, speak. I think we're queuing everyone over here in this door, is that correct? And then you'll have your three minutes, and then I'll call some more people. Let's start with opening the public hearing with Reed Peterson, followed by Claire Lebeau, followed by John Belfort, followed by Linda Celeste.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. and condolences for the sudden loss of Nancy O'Connor. She was a kindred spirit of mine. Anyway, I have two words, detrimental reliance. The... Application is going to harm people who live adjacent to that open space. Before the golf course was developed there, the lots immediately adjacent were marketed as golf course spaces. and carried a premium for that. So I think that's something that you need to be aware of and be assured. So at any rate, I just wanted to encourage you to respect the work of the city staff who denied the application, respect the work of the city planning commission who denied unanimously the application. And that was it. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you. Claire Lebeau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council, and also what an impressive staff. I learned a lot in the last hour. I know you all have been reviewing these documents significantly, but I think it is reassuring to us to know how much you're diving in and looking at all angles. And many of us come at this from one angle and that is I bought my house here and this is what I care about, but everyone's opinion matters and you get to decide where we go from here. So thank you for that. I came in with a lot of notes that I think don't need to be read because so much was covered by staff. But a few things that I noted as we went along, 1,436 vehicle trips per day on a road that is going to be widened in the year 2035. So if you know a third grader, When they're a senior in high school, that road will be widened and we will all feel the traffic impacts from now while they go all the way through the rest of elementary school and all the way through middle school and all the way through high school. Those are easy numbers to throw around, but we'll all feel those impacts day to day. And the comment by Mr. Peters about private land versus public open space, and I think this was addressed at the end by staff, it's been that way since 2003. And a lot of us have made significant life choices based on the precedent that was set, what was followed and based on this handbook and our reliance is not just on the handbook, our reliance is on all of you, because now you decide how to interpret the handbook. And that's not just gonna be the case for this, that's the case for everything. So as we're making our life decisions based on what did the handbook say, what has been published, Take it very seriously to say, oh, we're gonna make a change to this now because there's an application. We're making decisions based on what's been published and what's been maintained for more than two decades. And so we would ask that you do the same. And I would ask that you vote against this, again, as staff and as the Planning Commission have recommended. Thank you.

Thank you. John Belport, followed by Cynthia VanCleanput.

Good afternoon, my name is Jonathan Belfort. My comments directly relate to the development and property issues before you today. And what has occurred involving the Wilcox Ranch Property Owners Association. Located only a few miles away from this proposed development. For approximately five years, Jeffrey Merritt Wilson and I have documented and reported what we allege are serious matters involving property and title rights, the Wilcox Ranch POA, governmental conduct, and failure to act despite repeated notice to public officials. This is not merely something I'm alleging at a public meeting. This is an extensive, documented, and court record. Our principle pending action is Washoe County District Court case number CV25-02453. Our filings concern allegations involving property and title rights, fraud and concealment, governmental conduct and constitutional violations. We have formally asserted damages of $5 million each against Washoe County and other alleged responsible parties. We have also reported threats against us during the course of investigating and reporting These matters, I take those threats seriously. I am deeply concerned about the conduct of Washoe County District Attorney's Office under Christopher J. Hicks and participating deputies. Our filings alleged serious improprieties, failure to act following documented notices and violations of our rights. These allegations deserve independent and impartial investigation. Mr. West Duncan, as the incoming district attorney, I am putting you on notice of these matters today and respectfully ask you to personally review this record when you assume office and determine whether independent investigations and corrective actions are warranted. I am also appalled at the failure of the Washoe County Commissioners to meaningfully address what we contend are continued violations involving property and title rights. Thank you very much.

Cynthia Van Cleemput, followed by Brian Moore, followed by Chantel Hendricks.

Good afternoon. I'm one of the people who live on that open space. And we're one of the original owners that still live there. We paid a premium to live on open space. What do we get out of it if I end up with a house in my backyard? There's no buffer there. They keep saying we have a buffer to the north and a buffer to the west. There's no buffer to the south. So we lose. And everybody else on our street loses. And when you talk about the traffic study, was it an independent one or somebody they hired? It would be interesting for the city of Sparks to have an independent study done so that the public can trust it. Because who knows what Red Hawk did. So we enjoy what we have out there. Everybody enjoys the whole environment. We live in a beautiful area and to all of a sudden have another 158 homes, And over 300, minimum 300 people, 1,100 car trips a day, that impacts us as a community. So hopefully it's considered. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Brian Moore, followed by Chantel Hendricks, followed by Kim Suszynski, followed by Mark Ernst. Brian Moore.

You're up first.

We got a disconnect between me and the clerk. So let me, I'll find you and we'll get you. If your comment card is here, we'll get to you, please. Yeah, go ahead, Brian, you're up.

I didn't take up my time.

Are you saying you're long-winded? Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and members of the City Council. My name is Brian Moore. I'm a resident of Wingfield Springs and part of the Wingfield Springs Preservation Group. We are here to speak on items 11.1 and 11.2 concerning the Foothills application and the developer's request to remand it back to the Planning Commission. As we've done consistently throughout this process, we come to you with respect and professionalism. However, with increasing levels of concern, due to the fact that we are limited to three minutes, and because we have extremely important information we want to put on record, we're going to have four separate presenters, all part of the Wingfield Springs Preservation Group, share information with you as it relates to this issue. I'll begin with my portion of the presentation. Before considering the request by the applicant to remand it back to the Planning Commission, let me run you through the timeline, which was done previously as well. On January 21st, 2026, the application was filed. March 19th, city staff met with the developer for a detailed 90-minute meeting outlining their concerns with the project, including expressed concerns regarding the traffic study. On May 7th, the developer provided some revised materials regarding the traffic study and several other items. On May 14th, city staff notified the developer in writing of concerns still unresolved and informed them that they had until May 21st to provide the information if they wanted to make the June 29th planning commission meeting. Following is a relevant quote from city staff to the developer. Before going through the work of submitting further revisions to the handbooks or traffic impact studies, staff would like to be fully upfront and share that after conferring with all city departments, including the city attorney's office, Our preliminary recommendation is for denial of each of the four planning applications, primarily based on noncompliance with the comprehensive plan and staff's inability to make various findings for modifications of plan developments related to the reasonable reliance of residents and owners. In full candor, the recommended cleanups and revisions likely would not alter this recommendation of denial on the core planning and plan development findings, but would take steps towards removing staff's other concerns. I'll end my piece of the presentation and turn it over to the next person. Hopefully you're calling them the same order we planned. Well, who do you want to see next? Well, you don't want to. Chantal Hendricks.

That's who I'm going to call. Chantal Hendricks, followed by Kim Suszynski, followed by Mark Ernst, then followed by Linda Celestri. I have a different list on my computer than I have in front of me.

Thank you, Mayor and council members. Good afternoon, my name is Chantal Hendricks, and I'm gonna continue where Brian left off. This is still part of the quote for the city staff to the developer. So quote, you have previously expressed a desire to have the four subject planning applications considered by the planning commission on June 29, 2026. If you would like to move forward to this meeting, staff would need revisions to the handbooks and traffic impact studies, as well as responses to the two questions no later than 5 p.m. on May 21st, 2026. Alternatively, you may proceed forward to the June 29th Planning Commission meeting with the applications, materials, and revisions currently provided. Please let staff know if you plan to submit a third round of responses and revise materials, or if you would like staff to proceed forward to the June 29th Planning Commission date with current application materials and revisions, end quote. On May 21st, the developer did provide the city staff with letters from Integral Consulting with responses to some of the concerns, but did not provide a revised traffic study. On May 21st, Blake Peters, the representative for the developer responded, quote, We received your email last Thursday, May 14th, and immediately began to address the comments our team could respond to given the five business day deadline. Wood Rogers was unable to update the Foothills Handbook Amendment and incorporate responses to each of your comments. Integral was able to update their letter to address each of your comments regarding wildlife and wetlands. And that is referred to in those sections of the Foothills Handbook Amendment. There was not sufficient time to address the substantial comments on the Wingfield Handbook Amendment or the traffic comments on either project. Given those constraints and the optional approaches that you offer below, we will proceed to Planning Commission on June 29th for Foothills only. Again, our team was able to incorporate all of your comments in the attached updated Foothills Handbook Amendment. We are comfortable proceeding to the Planning Commission with the Foothills traffic impact study in its current condition without any revisions, end quote. On June 29th, the planning commission meeting was held and the developer was asked questions from the commissioners as to why they did not do any updated surveys specifically on the traffic study. where they indicated they had just heard that the RTC was not scheduled to widen Vista Boulevard to six lanes for possibly 20 to 30 years. They stated, quote, we chose not to look at it again because we only had two weeks to get it done, end quote. I'm gonna hand it over to my other person here.

Okay, thank you. Kim Zasinski, followed by Mark Ernst, followed by Linda Celestri, followed by Ron Moreland.

Good afternoon, my name is Kim Sosinski. Thank you for allowing us to speak today. We have several comments regarding the request for remand. The developer chose to separate the applications on May 21st and to move forward with the planning commission knowing full well the traffic study was an issue. That was 95 days ago. Before going to the planning commission, the city staff indicated that even if they address the traffic concerns, there would be more likely still recommended denial based on various other issues. The developer chose not to change anything 88 days ago. Sensing how the Planning Commission was leaning with the question that they were presented, the developers could have informed the Commission right then and there, prior to the vote, that they would like more time to update the various studies. The developer chose not to. They were informed by the city staff that if the planning commission denied the project, it would go to the city council in August. They also allowed the planning commission to make the motion, proceed to vote 56 days ago. On August 18th, we were able to view the agenda set for today and identify those items. No request for remand is listed on the agenda six days ago. The developer emailed the city staff on August 17th after hours, as you had heard, to provide a new traffic study. The city reviewed this and they came up with three alternatives, as you heard, withdraw the application, have the city council vote as presented, and three, submit a request to remand back to the planning commission so that staff consider any updates. Given the many, many opportunities this developer had previously had to address their application deficiencies, it does not seem logical that this developer would be given the option to remand back to the Planning Commission and staff. I would also like to say, before I turn it over, that I respectfully request that you respect our residents in the future for Wingfield Springs issues. It is not showing favoritism to accommodate your community in one room. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark Ernst, followed by Linda Celestri, followed by Ron Moreland, followed by John Ordaz.

Good afternoon, my name is Mark Ernst and I will conclude our presentation. First and foremost, please be reminded that a traffic study was not the only concern the city staff presented to the developer. We ask you to consider the impact this is having on our community. Residents are being held hostage by this developer. Some have sold their home under market value. Others have been unable to secure a buyer due to the uncertainty of this project. Tensions are running high simply from the unknown. The city is under no legal obligation to remand these applications. We therefore ask you to do two things today. First, deny the request to remand solely for a new traffic study. City staff indicated traffic, excuse me, indicated traffic was only one of several issues and a revised study would most likely not change their recommendation for denial. The opportunity expired when the developer chose to move forward with the study as presented. Second, Proceed today with your vote on the foothills project as submitted. The developer was informed of staff's concerns multiple times. They heard the planning commission's concerns and still chose to advance the applications in their current form. Our community has been left in this position because the developer failed to address the issues raised by city staff. Now at the 11th hour, they seek to delay. If you still decide to remand, we urge you to impose tight definitive timelines for any and all required studies. The developer has long known of staff's concerns. The community deserves to know. Where does this end? Where does it end? This needs to end today. The time has come for a decision. We hope you will honor the residents of this fully developed master plan community by doing what is right for the Foothills and Wingfield. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Linda Celestri, followed by Rod Moreland, followed by John Ordaz, followed by Lynn Knickerbocker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Linda Celestri. I live at 2347 Old Waverly Drive in Sparks. I support the Planning Commission City Attorney and staff's original recommendation to deny this application. In fact, I support denying all of the applications as they come in. With or without a new updated traffic study, all it takes is driving down Vista Avenue in the morning or in the afternoon. It recently took me 30 minutes to get from Prater to Bering on Vista. And that's without waiting until 2035 for some widening to happen. I think that any of us can attest to the traffic congestion on Vista. Anyone living in the area can tell you how much the traffic and the traffic patterns have changed since all the development between Vista and Pyramid off of Wing Hills Road and La Posada. There's been a pretty big impact. Adding more houses will not help that at all. Another concern that I have after spending 30 years in local government, the last six of which I was a city department head and part of our city development team, I can tell you that the ongoing impact to the city budget is going to be substantial. This is in addition to capital improvements that you may make with developer impact fees, because those can't be used for ongoing cost. So when you look at the cost going on and on, $2.2 million over 20 years is not gonna cut it. break that down 110,000 a year, we would have used that already in the gas price increases for city vehicles. So in closing, I believe that this Foothills proposal will significantly, excuse me, significantly increase traffic, strain water, sewer and emergency services, lengthen emergency response and evacuation times. And we've all seen the chaos that evacuations can cause in the last few days. and even add strain to services such as parks, recreation, and the ongoing maintenance of city property. It will also permanently change the character of our master plan community in a very negative way. City staff, city attorney, and planning commission previously gave this matter due consideration and their recommendation should mean something In my humble opinion, this is just another developer stall trying to push this past the upcoming elections to a time when it may be more favorable for them. Thank you for your consideration.

All right, Ron Moreland, followed by John Ordaz, followed by Lynn Knickerbocker, followed by Robert Michalowski.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. I'm here to enunciate my issues with this development. But the prior speakers have said just basically what I was gonna say to you. There is no point in everybody getting bored hearing the same thing twice. So that's it. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Revity is always welcome. John Ordaz, followed by Lynn Knickerbocker, followed by Robert Michalowski, followed by Annie Story.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is John Ordaz, and I want to say my friends at the Wingfield Springs Protection did a great job. I respectfully ask you to deny the Foothills application and not remand them. These applications were submitted in January. City staff identified significant deficiencies and recommended denial. And on June 29th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended denial. I understand the reason for remand is to allow the applicant to update his traffic study. My question is simple. What has changed? Since June 29th, has any new funding or road capacity improvement been authorized for Vista Boulevard north of Los Altos? That wasn't already contemplated when the Planning Commission considered this project. If not, the underlying transportation conditions haven't changed and a revised study can only change calculations. But it cannot create road capacity or by itself resolve the traffic and safety concerns that were raised. and traffic was not the only reason for denial. The staff identified comprehensive plan issues involving roads and city services, wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space, and neighborhood character. Open space has been a key feature of this community since the plan development was approved in 2003. The applicant is asking to change approximately 35 acres from open space to low density residential and amend the Foothills Development Standards Handbook for approximately 158 homes. The staff characterized this as a substantial departure from the plan development and the residents have relied on the city's adopted master plan development standard handbooks and those documents should mean something. Sparks City Attorney Wes Duncan has publicly stated that his office agrees with the city staff recommendation of denial and is prepared to fully defend the recommendation if necessary. So why should additional taxpayer resources and staff time be spent sending these applications back through a process that's already been completed? A remand means additional staff time, review, and public resources. So I respectfully ask the mayor and council to address this question publicly and on the record during this meeting before making the decision on the remand so everyone that attends can understand the basis for it. If the underlying traffic and safety conditions haven't changed and the other findings remain unresolved, what specifically has changed since due 29th that justifies a remand? I respectfully ask you deciding this application based on the record that's already been developed through the public process and uphold the recommendations of your professional staff and planning commission. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Lynn Knickerbocker, followed by Robert Michalowski, followed by Annie Story, followed by Jim Piccanini.

Good afternoon. My name is Lynn Knickerbocker. I respectfully urge you to deny the request to change the land use designation in item 11.1 and reject the development proposal in item 11.2 before you. The Foothills was approved as part of a broader master plan community consisting of residential villages, open space systems, trails, recreational amenities, school sites, drainage corridors, and supporting infrastructure. The project was designed as an integrated community in which multiple systems work together across both the foothills and the Red Hawk at Wingfield. Changes to one component may affect the integrity of the entire development framework for both. The original handbook demonstrates that open space was not excess land waiting for a future development. It served environmental, recreational, community design, and infrastructure functions relied upon by the city, the community, lenders, purchasers, and adjoining property owners. Any conversion of designated open space areas must therefore be evaluated not only for density impacts, but also for its effects on the broader functions originally assigned to those areas. Should also be noted that the three holes, golf holes were approved after original open space designation and reverted back to its original status when the three holes were not executed upon. City staff and planning commission raised questions regarding homeowner reliance. The issue is whether substantial modifications can occur without demonstrating that the findings supporting the original approval remain valid. Homeowner reliance isn't limited, however, to those living on open space or on a golf course, but to all who live in the neighborhood that purchase due to the natural beauty open space or golf environments provided. Changes should also conform to the basic structure of village layouts and buffer zones in existence today. This current proposal does not. The preliminary blot map does not maintain and respect existing property lines, resulting in 10,000 square foot large lot homes having two up to 5,000 square foot low density homes proposed behind them. The Planning Commission noted that 25 plus year old studies were being relied upon to support both the change in land use designation and the proposed development. I would suggest that neither wildlife, hydrology, nor geological conditions are static. Therefore, without due diligence, a change in land use and approval of this proposal is premature. The Planning Commission also challenged the traffic study and proposed access to Village 16. Based on this, the further findings of the city staff and the planning commission, a rejection of both these items seems appropriate. Thank you so much.

Appreciate it. Robert Michalowski, followed by Annie Story, by Jim Piccanini, and Carol Stevens.

I hope I was saying your name correctly. Mr. Mayor, it's Michalowski. You're close enough. I've heard worse for trains. Just for the record, my name is Robert Paul Michalowski. I live at 6695 Bambi Drive. I am not in the Red Hawk area, but I am adjacent to it. And the changes to Red Hawk will also negatively impact my quality of life. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, ladies and gentlemen, city staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to be clear. I am not opposed against growth. The city of Sparks is growing and responsible growth is necessary. But the question is whether or not this development represents responsible growth or if, excuse me, or whether existing residents will be asked to absorb its costs and consequences. Many of us chose the Red Hawk area because of the community that existed when we purchased our homes. We made major investments based on reasonable expectations about traffic, infrastructure, open space, neighborhood character, and the quality of life. Those expectations matter. The recent fire, the Hawk fire, demonstrated why traffic and emergency access cannot be treated as afterthoughts. Thousands, tens of thousands of our neighbors had to evacuate while roads were closed, traffic redirected, and emergency responders needed access to those same routes. That is not a theoretical traffic study. We saw how quickly a crisis can overwhelm a limited road network. Adding substantial residents and residential density means adding thousands of daily trips. Where would those vehicles go during an emergency? What will happen if a major roadway is closed? How will residents evacuate while firefighters, police, and emergency personnel need access? Those questions must be answered before any additional density is approved, not after an emergency exposes infrastructure limitations. There is also a financial responsibility issue. New development is often described in terms of tax revenue and economic activity, but that's only half the question. Will long-term revenue exceed the lifetime cost of roads, utilities, police, fire protection, and other public services? That requires an independent financial impact analysis, not developer projections. If the taxpayers must finance infrastructure and services for decades, short-term revenue may not represent a true financial benefit to Sparks. Quickly, thank you. I would ask that you do not approve this development. But if you do, I respectfully request that the council require first a comprehensive traffic and emergency access analysis that includes evacuation scenarios. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Annie Story, followed by Jim Piccanini, followed by Carol Stevens, followed by Marie, I'm going to butcher your name, Andreani.

Good afternoon, Mayor and the respected City Council members and other guests here today. Can you hear me? Okay, I tend to talk kind of low. Let me bring it up. Hello, everybody, the Mayor and respected members of the City Council. My name is Annie Storey. I'm a homeowner and I'm the elected board president of the Foothills at Wingfield HOA, which formerly voted to oppose these applications on the behalf of our community at their request. I'm here today to urge you to follow the strong professional recommendations of your city staff, the planning commission, and the city attorney by voting no on the Foothills applications. Regardless of things that I hear about lawsuits, I don't think you even think about that. I think you just think about what's doing right for the community. So I hope you don't take any of that into consideration. When I and my neighbors bought our homes in the foothills, we did it based on a reasonable reliance of a clear master plan community handbook. We invested our lives, our savings, and our families into a neighborhood built around open space, environmental buffers, and a specific quality of life Proposing 158 new homes, and we know there will be more, there's other applications coming, for the foothills into designated open space breaks the promise to our community. And as we all know, like I said, Wingfield Springs is next, and that's a lot more homes. Infrastructure, our local roads, water resources, and public services are already tight. Adding this level of density without adequate capacity strains the basic city services that every, Existing taxpaying resident relies on every single day. But beyond this, there's an undeniable concern and the fear of many neighbors I speak with on traffic and public safety. On a normal day, traffic funnels through the limited bottleneck quarters like Sparks and Vista, which even widening in limited areas we know will not completely cure. But we don't just live through normal days. We live in a region surrounded by brush and wildland hazards when wildfire threats are an ongoing reality. We don't have to imagine what the bottleneck emergency evacuation looks like because we just watched thousands of our neighbors go through it, including my son and my daughter who were evacuated from their homes. And adding 158 new homes and then more means hundreds of additional vehicles competing for those same exact egress routes when every single minute counts. That isn't just an inconvenience, it's a life safety hazard for our first responders and for our families. Your own city staff and planning commission recognized a lot of these risks and others when they recommended denial. Please, I ask you to stand with the residents who live here, protect our safety, and uphold the integrity of our master plan. I respectfully ask for that. And I please ask that you deny the Foothills applications, not remand.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.

All right, Jim Piccinini, followed by Carol Stevens, followed by Marie Andrini, followed by Randy Pizer and Brenda Camp. Carol, Piccinini's up now. He left.

Jim, isn't it Jim?

Yeah, he left.

Jim Piccinini.

And announced his name three times, so. You're gonna miss out. All right, Carol Stevens then. Yeah, I was expecting someone else.

They're always better looking than me. What can I tell you? Mayor, council, appreciate the time here today. My name is Carol Hardin Stevens III. There were two before me, I can't help it. 6547 Raydale Sierra Court, Sparks, Nevada, halfway down the sixth fairway on the Lakes course. I've lived there since May of 2015. Ladies and gentlemen, the city of Sparks has approved a well thought out master plan. And now at the behest of the CINO group or the Red Hawk group, they want to undo all that work. Everything you folks and your predecessors have done before you. Clearly the CINO group is way more interested in creating a housing development than abiding by all the work and the efforts accomplished by you and your predecessors. On no planet do their efforts to undo all that has been done represent the wishes of your constituents. There are over 4,700 verified signatures on change.org, vehemently against their proposal to tear up the lakes course and the foothills capacity and build additional 760 matchbox homes on the Wingfield side and the other 156 on the foothill side. much as the CNO group didn't sell us our golf course homes, which is a pure, pure fact. Our golf course homes, the city of Sparks created the master plan that allowed our homes to be built on that open space. Present homes for sale are being adversely impacted by just the possibility of this development. I'm one of them. My house is for sale. I'm getting that rumor. Two doors down, they lost a sale because of this rumor. Just the fact that it's out there in the public arena is costing us money. The Spark City Council will have to bear the backlash from your constituents for our real estate losses if you allow the CINO Group to change what you have already created. In the strongest terms permissible, we who reside in Wingfield Springs and the foothills developments demand that you reject this entire proposal out of hand and in perpetuity. Thank you.

Thank you. Maria and Carol. Thanks, Carol. Maria and Grady, followed by Randy Pizer, followed by Brenda Camp, followed by Brock Banway.

Ready to go.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, board members. I really appreciate it. Letting me speak about this. I brought some paperwork to show you. I moved into this house December, okay? I just purchased it. And it was listed as the property backs up to an open greenbelt that was once slated to be a third green, but is now a natural preserve, a nature preserve. That was listed, okay, that way in the MLS by Dixon Realty. So then I hear about this plan that came up by Mr. Cino, and that is not something that I wanted to hear. I didn't buy the house for the house, I purchased the house for the open space behind me. And what I find very interesting is that Mr. Cino was awarded the 2023 Waterfowlers Hall of Fame in California. I left four different messages for this company and finally someone returned my call and I said, this man does not care about waterfowl. He wants to rip out everything behind us where there's water and birds and animals living, coyotes, bunnies, natural things. He just wants money. And the sad part about it is you can't take money with you. This man is an elderly gentleman. He's got a lawsuit between himself and his son. So he's just not doing the right thing. I think what would be better for Mr. Sino to leave a better legacy would be to dedicate this open space behind my house to as a natural habitat. I'll be glad to make a bench for him with his name on it. And the golf course, I really do think that he should donate the golf course since he got it in a lawsuit with his partner. I think he should donate the golf course to junior golfers. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing for kids to come and learn how to play golf? And I thank you very much. So obviously, no, I'm in denial of this whole thing. And I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you so much for listening to me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Randy Pizer, followed by Brenna Camp, followed by Brock Benway, followed by Elaine Wang.

Hi, everyone. I'm Randy Pizer on Lepus Drive. I want to address a different issue related to fire safety that really hasn't been addressed before, that the five surrounding lakes all over Wingfield are supposedly going to be filled in. They are designated dip and zot sites. That's a term I learned about the helicopters that dip in and grab the water to put out these fires. And the plan includes filling all of those water sources in. And putting sprinklers on lawns, did that stop any of the fires that are happening now? Absolutely not. This is a major issue that has not really been addressed. And so please put that into your consideration for this entire issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Brenda Camp, followed by Brock Benway, followed by Elaine Wang, followed by Neil Schwartz.

Good afternoon and thank you City Council for your time. My name is Brenda and I'm a homeowner in Village 4 of the Foothills Division of the Wingfield Springs Community. We bought our home in this community because of the location of the master plan community approved by the city that was next to a designated open space golf course. I understand the balance between growth community needs, interest of an existing community, an earlier approved plan, as well as rights of a property owner requesting to do something different with their land. From the initial information that was available to us, our property align appears to have three lots up against it. From our house and front porch, these lot lines will be 17 feet away. I live on the south side border. I live in one of the 18 homes that would back up to a proposed 30 new homes without even a buffer space. We will have years of noise, dust, disruption, and a major change to our neighborhood, quite the opposite of what the community master plan, which was designated for, and the key reason why we purchased our home to begin with. Who represents us or helps our family recoup our property asset value loss given this radical change to the earlier approved plan? The plan states it will keep 14 acres of open space. These 14 acres appear to be required due to water runoff drainage needed, not so much as usable open community space. You're gonna need the drainage for sure as this property has three very large existing ponds with water flowing through it. These three very large ponds where houses and roads will be built will be gone. I see no mention of keeping a walking path, some kind of a space buffer between the proposed houses on the south side, or even a small pond replacement in the proposal. Just side by side, 158 packed homes. I don't think it's right that this plan gets changed because of an earlier business decision to stop using this part of the open space golf course area and now wanting to change the plan to build something completely different on it that negatively affects us and our community. We bought our home for this community plan and if you approve, it's feeling like our home's gonna be treated as acceptable property value damage given the dramatic land use change. So I humbly ask and respectfully ask that you do not approve the change to the existing community plan. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Brock Vanway, followed by Elaine Wang, followed by Neil Schwartz, followed by William T. Stewart, excuse me.

First of all, Mr. Mayor, you said my name perfectly, thank you.

That was purely by accident. It's rare, it's very rare, thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm here to ask you to deny this proposal. We hear the word growth constantly when developments like this are proposed. But I think we need to ask a simple question. Growth for whom? Those of us who already live here have experienced growth in traffic, congestion, development, and demands on public infrastructure and services. What we do not see growing at the same time Same rate are the roads, services, amenities, and infrastructure necessary to support it. And this proposal asks us to sacrifice something that cannot later be replaced. Nearly 35 acres currently designated as open space. One of the reasons people, including myself, choose to live here is precisely because it is not wall-to-wall development. We value the landscape, wildlife, open space, and connection to the natural environment. Once that land is developed, is gone forever. We can never get it back. And this decision does not exist in isolation. A separate proposal for more than 600 additional homes remains pending nearby. I understand that as a separate application and decision for another day. But residents experience the cumulative effects of development, not applications one at a time. Every individual proposal can be described as manageable when considered alone, but hundreds of houses become thousands precisely by approving them one development at a time. The city has an obligation to people who already live here. Existing residents should not continually be asked to accept greater congestion, greater demands on services, and permanent loss of open space in the name of growth. Responsible growth requires adequate infrastructure. But infrastructure is only part of the question. Not every piece of available land needs to become a development. Some places are worth preserving precisely because they are still open. And once we lose them, no road improvement or new public service can ever bring them back. And this is not simply the opinion of residents opposed to development. Your own professional staff recommends denial. The planning commission unanimously denied the comprehensive plan amendment and recommended denial on the related development amendment. The city's review has raised concerns about roads, fire services, natural habitat, neighborhood character, and consistency with the city's own comprehensive plan. So I would ask you one final question. If residents are saying no, your planning commission is saying no, and your professional staff recommends denial based on the city's own planning standards, who exactly are we saying yes for? Please represent the people who already live here. Please preserve open space, then please vote no.

Thank you very much. Thank you. William Wang, followed by Neil Schwartz, followed by William T. Stewart, followed by Kirsten DeHaan.

Hi. Mayor and City Council, my name is Elaine Wang and I'm speaking today to urge the City Council to deny this application. This community is already a fully developed master plan community based on precisely the concept of community of homes around the golf course and such open space. Just take a look at the unused part of the golf course at the foothills near my home at any day. people jogging, biking, entire families taking walk and bike together, and kids dirt biking, scooter riding, and play after school. And these are not just the people living on the golf course, but our entire community. Not only the foothills, I think of Winfield Springs, and our entire Winfield community. The golf course open space is the foundation of healthy living and happy family life for our entire community that our entire community have relied on for decades. And the Nevada state law NRS 278A.410 protects our rights to such open space. NRS 278A.410 says, no such modification of the plan by the city or county may affect the rights of the residents. And just look at all the people showed up today and say no to this application. This development in this application most certainly severely adversely affect our entire community's interest as it destroys the healthy living and happy families around such open space that our entire community have bought into and paid for. Also, the golf course landowner says the golf course is their private property and is losing money and using that as an excuse. But the truth of the matter is the golf course landowner have likely already made a huge amount of money selling the developable lands around the golf course, the original development, precisely based on the concept of community of homes around the golf course and the open space, which all of us, the homeowners of this entire community have bought into and paid for and chose to live in the city of Sparks because of that. So this golf course open space's real business value for the golf course land owner, in fact, have already been fully realized. And we, all of us, the existing home owners, actually paid for those profits and the real business value of the golf course already when we bought our homes.

Thank you, Elaine.

Yeah, so.

Thank you.

respectfully ask the city to reject the application.

Thank you. Listened like my wife. We're going to have to take a 10 minute recess or so. Our video has gone down so the people in the other chambers can't hear what's going on in here. So give us about 10 minutes and we'll hopefully have that back up and running. All right, let's call back to order the Park City Council meeting.

Okay.

All right. Our technology problem has been solved for now. We'll see what happens.

Yep.

Neil Schwartz, followed by William T. Stewart, followed by Kristen DeHaan, followed by Helga Canfield. Mr. Schwartz.

Green is on. Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and City Council. My name is Neil Swartz. I'm a candidate for District 31, which Red Hawk is part of. I've been a realtor for over 30 years, and I've done development. I see some serious problems with this development, one being the wetlands. But before I even get into that, there are numbers they showed you today that are not positive, they're negative. And the reason for that is once they start building homes and get rid of the open space, the values of those homes are gonna go down and the property taxes or revenue is gonna be less. So it's something you should take in consideration. The second thing that I see is that everybody's talking about the road problems once they start building. You've got road problems out there right now. If we have a fire in that area right now and they have to evacuate like we have had in some of the other areas with the Hawk Fire, you're not going to be able to get out of there. We need to get roads fixed out there. Right now, even in the area that I live in, which the Vistas, especially out at Red Hawk. The roads are turning to gravel. They all need to be repaved. Somebody's got to find the money to take care of that. Excuse me for a moment. Massive. I have produced some legislation that I have presented dealing with building on wetlands, which is partly due to what's happened in Lake Las Vegas. If you're not familiar with that, you should check it out. But Pulte built a lot of homes on wetlands. The homes are all sinking. There's $100 million in lawsuits. So basically, right now, this project's a pig, and the developer's trying to put lipstick on it, and it's still a pig.

Thank you. All right, William T. Seward, followed by Kristen DeHaan, followed by Helga Chanfield, followed by Sean DeLock.

Good afternoon, elected officials, William T. Stewart, for the record. Well, it was up there. You know what happened? Oh, there we go. By now, I pretty much hear everybody's phone pinging because we got another fire north of Township 22, which is still in Washoe County. So it's great that all these people are out here. I'm kind of segue a little bit so far as what's going on with Hood Hills and everything else. And I would appreciate you guys denying that plan as well. But so far as fire prevention and protection, having people make sure they have a plan. The people that are evacuated, if they don't know about watch duty, make sure that they do. That should be something on everybody's phone. It's really easy to do. If you have any questions, I'm in the back. You can just go on your phone, type in watch duty, and it'll come up and it'll give you the perimeter, the evacuation routes, all the things that you need to be aware of so far as what fire does. Because as we well know, we've had multiple fires over almost 200,000 acres in Washoe County alone this year burn. And we're only in the middle of August. And we'll continue to get drier and hotter and we'll have more winds. And I don't know if there's somebody out there lighting these things, but the areas that they've been lit is very suspicious. So know that. I mean, I could go off on this for a bunch of time, but my other question, another topic of discussion that I wanted to talk about besides fire prevention is, if you'd bear with me for a second, is question six. And question six is on the ballot. And we have an issue before us because abortion is already legal in Nevada.

Hey, Bill. Yeah. We're talking about the particularly the Red Hawk. If you want to make general public comment, you can hang around till the end. I'll be happy to hear it then.

Okay, well, I was trying to talk on normal public comment, but that was canceled beforehand.

But this is a specific hearing item for this Red Hawk project.

Okay, so I can't talk on this topic at all?

Oh, you can at the end. Okay.

Okay, so this topic so far is development and growth, everything that's been said already, fire prevention, education, access, roads, police, fire. We don't have enough police and fire right now. How they can respond to more incidents with more houses, with more demand on sewers, more demand on water. Our sewer plant is already over capacity. How are we spending money so far as infrastructure is concerned for our city? If we can't flush toilets, where are people gonna live? There's all kinds of things that the city needs to deal with, not only roads, public service, public safety, the developers. This master plan has been already on the books for a long time. I don't know why we need to go back and revisit it to fill in more open space for more homes that we can't actually have public service to provide services for. I'll stick around hopefully to the end so I can actually talk on abortion. And question six, that everybody should vote no on. Please, thank you very much, and God bless.

That was my fault, Bill. I didn't notice that you had public comment, not 11-1. So that's my fault. I apologize.

No problem.

Kristen Dahan, followed by Helga Canfield, followed by Shonda Locke, followed by Linda Brown.

Good afternoon, my name is Kristen DeHaan. I have lived on Antinori Drive since July of 2005. Our family was the first family in Ironstone. My family opposes any building of houses on the rewilded, not fouled, space and the golf courses. The rewilded golf course is right next to my house and it is amazing and diverse ecosystem. The seniors will tell you these are not wetlands, but they are. I believe they became wetlands when the golf courses started being built with ponds. This past winter through spring, we saw two Sora and a Virginia rail in our ponds. Our state bird, the mountain bluebird, uses our ponds as a place to rest. We were the only place last year in Washoe County that had the mountain bluebirds. This winter when it was snowing, the ponds were filled with these beautiful bluebirds. We have also had gadwalls, ruddies, redheads, coots, grebes, cliff swallows, night hawks, cooper's hawks, currently a family of four, northern harriers, buffleheads, mergansers, quail, yellow-headed and red-winged blackbirds, buick's wrens, red-tailed hawks. We have cedar waxwings, cinnamon and green teals, black phoebes, cormorants, western kingbirds, marsh wrens, avocets, blacknecks, stilts, spotted sandpipers, kinglets, bush tits, lesser goldfinches, Wilson's phalaropes, brown-headed cowbirds, the list goes on and on. On top of these birds, we also have a family of coyotes, as well as bunnies, squirrels, kangaroo rats, bullfrogs, western toads, dragon, and damselflies. Our ponds are home to important species, and it is not OK to destroy where they are finding respite. Since 2020, our community has regularly been using this rewilded space. People walk there every single day. Families have created and maintained areas for bikes. People fish. Families have fun in so many ways. From 2015 to 2019, I took my Girl Scout troop there several times in order to pick up trash and to view the different wildlife. Our Boy Scout troop 443 has been there as well. I've seen other youth organizations studying the wildlife in this area. I understand that Mr. Ceno equates this with walking into his garage uninvited and I beg to differ. Sparks has so few third spaces, which are places outside of the home and work or school, the first and second places, where people of all ages can go to connect with their community. They are spaces that cost nothing and are there for everyone. They are spaces where strangers can become friends. I've been lucky enough to have had this happen with a fellow early morning walker, Doug and his dog, Takoda, and I have also met another birder, Linda, who is there regularly looking at all the birds. But when I met Doug, he just wanted to show me an amazing picture of the rainbow that he saw over the ponds. He just wanted to share. Destroying this beautiful space makes no sense. We need as much wildlife and third spaces, safe spaces for our families and community. This has been a community space, my community space. Our community has been keeping it cleaned and maintained. On top of all this, our ponds have been regularly used to fight fires that have threatened the entire Wingfield community. Please, do not let this area be destroyed and do not build on this thriving ecosystem. Thank you so much. Save our ponds and our community.

Thank you. Helga Canfield, followed by Sean Duloc.

Helga is left.

Huh?

Helga is right here.

Helga is left? Okay. Sean Duloc? Am I saying it right? Well, see, now that's how my redneck pronunciation would be. That's right. That's one of those names.

Mayor? Council? I live... south of the area that we're talking about. And I have two main points I'd like to bring up, mostly just for the reason because they haven't been brought up today. The first, unless I have wax in my ears, I could have swore I heard a well-paid attorney say earlier, right to you guys, that at no point in time have they allowed the community onto their land. Now, I don't know everything about easement, but I know how easement is established. It's established by usage. And the owner of that land put capital improvements into that land to build a walking path on that land. And then they attach that walking path to our walking path through our green bill. Now, any reasonable person that come across that path would say, hey, a path. And that's exactly what happens dozens, even hundreds of times every single day for more than 20 years. Now, if that doesn't establish easement, what does? My second point is on the traffic. Now, this seems to be a big topic. And if only we had a study. Oh, wait, we do have a study. I know because you guys paid for it and it's your study. You presented it to me and our community because you want to make an access road out to East 80 going to the business park. We know Vista is already over capacity. You guys have proved it with your own study. And that's it for me today.

Thank you. Linda Brown followed by Sean McCaffrey.

Mayor, council members, my name is Linda Brown and I live on the 12th hole of the Lakes course. And I respectfully ask that you uphold the recommendations to deny the proposed Red Hawk development. This decision is about more than adding homes. It's about protecting safety, environment, quality of life, of the Wingfield Springs community. The proposed 764 homes could add roughly 2,000 new residents and nearly 7,000 to 7,600 daily trips every day, which means more traffic, longer emergency response times, a greater strain on roads and services. We also have to consider the environmental impacts, wetlands and open spaces, slow storm water, reduce flood risk, filter water, and support wildlife. our decisions define who we are as a community. If we choose short-term gains over long-term safety and sustainability, that choice says something about our values. But if we protect natural spaces, plan responsibly, and ensure community safety, we show future generations that we value thoughtfulness over convenience. Please put the long-term interests of our community first and support the recommendation to deny this application. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Sean McCaffrey, that's my last comment card. If anyone else wants to comment after Sean McCaffrey, please fill out a card for me.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. For the record, my name is Sean McCaffrey, resident of Wingfield Springs. And the reason I'm speaking today is because when the applicant had this chair a couple hours ago, one of the rebuttal comments that he made was that there were only 43 people in opposition in one of the last meetings. So I want to make sure that more than 43 people spoke today and let them know that in mass, we're in opposition to this project. A couple other things that he had to say, too, that I want to take umbrage with. One is that, you know, he indicated that the applicant, the representative indicated that the parcel was private land. Well, it's private and it's part of a master-planned development and master-planned community, and that's a contract. And the applicant had no problem capitalizing on those lots when selling them for a premium back in the day when the development was created. And at that time, these homeowners paid premiums for these parcels under the premise that it would stay open space, and with the premise that it would be what it is today, part of this master plan community. Now the applicant wants to come in today and say, well, we're gonna change that, and we wanna capitalize on the fact that it is private land. Well, you can't have it both ways. And if you're going to capitalize and charge a premium for land that's designated open space when you're creating this master plan community, Is the applicant now going to reimburse or make right or make whole those homeowners that own those properties today if they plan to develop on the land behind that? That doesn't make any sense. And the findings of the Sparks Planning Commission and the findings of staff are pretty clear. And hat tip to all those involved, and hat tip to Wingfield Springs Preservation Group for their well thought out arguments. Your job, you know what your job is, but I think it seems pretty simple. It's the voice of one individual, one entity in this community, which is the Red Hawk Land Corporation against tens or at least thousands of people in this community in strong opposition. And so what weighs more? Is it one entity who wants to continue to profit off of being in this community? Or is it the thousands that make this community their home, that make this community what it really is and contribute to this community every day? And so at the end of the day, I really hope that you take the position of all of us who are speaking today in opposition and say, you know what? The findings of the commission, the findings of staff are up to snuff and we're gonna do our due diligence and continue to stand up for what's already been, stand up for the findings and vote in disfavor for this application. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk, do you have any more public comment? Anyone in the public wishing to speak on this item? Okay, I'm gonna close the public comment, bring it back to the dais, and I'm going to ask for a motion from the council. You have three choices. One is to approve, one is to deny, and one is to remand. So who wants to take a shot at a motion? Ms. Bybee?

I think, Mayor, we have multiple motions prepared with all of those. We would have to get a flavor for what you're looking for, and then we can load that.

Have you told her what you want? Charlene, have you told the clerk?

They were going to give me the three. If they want, I'll show them on the screen.

Oh, so tell her what you want up for a motion. Sometimes technology's not our favorite.

I don't know how she reads that. It's like this big. My glasses are...

Okay, it's your- Excuse me.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before I make a motion, I would like to thank everyone for being here. All of you in this room, all of you in the outer rooms, those of you who couldn't get inside. The amount of input we have received for seven months hundreds of emails, the number of calls, people's houses. I mean, personally, I'm your councilwoman, so Ward 4 is mine. And I appreciate not only all of your involvement, but really the fact that you were respectful, the fact that the Wingfield Preservation Group did an amazing job organizing you, providing information, and really, keeping everyone, you know, you forget until you sit on this side that, just getting yelled at and people being really angry at you doesn't usually work, that really being supportive and we will listen and we will do the best that we can, but you being respectful has meant a lot to me personally. I'm only gonna be here till November, so this is the end of my 12 year ride, but thank you all for that and for being here. And then regarding the motion I'm about to make, I was in looking at policy MG 13 and looking at staffs and planning commissions finding that the open space here is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. I support strongly. And with that, I move based on noncompliance with finding CP2 set forth in the staff report to deny the request to amend the comprehensive plan land use designation from open space to low density residential LDR for a 34.75 acre site generally located Northwest of the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive within APN 526-010-04. Thank you, Ms. VanderWaal.

Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Usually we don't allow that, but you know what? You've been patiently sitting here for three hours. All right, Madam Clerk, let's go on to 11.2, second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the second reading public hearing discussion and possible adoption of Bill 2861 to amend the final approved plan for the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development, the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Development Standards Handbook to one, change the Foothills at Wingfield Springs land use designation for a 3.75 plus acre Site generally located northwest of the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive, APN 526010-04, from open space to builder lot to facilitate the addition of a proposed Village 16 that allows up to 158 residential lots. Two, increase the total number of permitted residential units in the foothills at Wingfield Springs from 2260 to 2418. Three, generally update texts and figures throughout the handbook to reflect the proposed addition of Village 16 and associated technical studies. Four, generally update texts and figures to reflect development and procedural changes that have occurred since the initial adoption of the handbook. And five, modify and or remove various figures and texts throughout the handbook to comply with the federal rule regarding accessibility of web information and services for state and local government entities. The Foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development consists of 690 acres generally located south of La Posada Drive, north of Golden Eagle Regional Park, and west of Voyage Drive in the NUD New Urban District, the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Zoning District. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. First off, any questions for Siena from the council? Any questions for the appellant from the council? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. I want to open it up to the public. Anyone in the public wishing to speak on 11.2? We kind of covered it in 11.1. I will bring it back to the dais. And I am looking for a motion. Ms. Spivey.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With regards to the handbook, I strongly support staff and planning commission's findings on PDD and PDG not being in compliance and not being able to meet those findings. PDG is substantial departure from what the plan is supposed to be, the original plan development, and PDD is the mutual interests of residents. And based on that, I move to deny the request to amend the final approved plan for the foothills at Wingfield Springs, Development Standards Handbook, PCN 26, based on noncompliance with findings PDA, PDE, PD, excuse me, PDA, PDD, PDE, PDF, and PDG, and the facts and analysis, excuse me, supporting the inability to make these required findings as set forth in the staff report.

Mr. Abbott. Second. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries unanimously. Two more items, if you would bear with us, so we can all get it out here at the same time. Any public comment? Okay. Announcements from the Mayor, City Council, City Manager. Mr. Manager, you got anything? Nothing today, Mayor, thank you. Council, you got anything? Oh, come on. You got to come up here and identify yourself.

You didn't ask for public comment. Yeah, you asked for public comment.

I did.

Yeah, he asked you guys for public comment.

Thank you, Mayor. My comment is about the easement and the walking path. There seems to be some confusion around that particular topic for the people that live there. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Sir, could we get your name for the record?

Oh, sure.

Sean Dulac.

Thank you, Sean. All right, anyone else with a public question before I close that again? All right, public comment closed. Announcements, manager doesn't have, city council, you have anything? No, mayor has nothing. We're to my favorite subject. We're adjourned.

Your girlfriend, too.

Thank you guys.

It's sort of hard, but you guys.

I will call today's Sparks Rural Development Agency meeting to order the roll call.

Thank you, Chair Abbott.

Here.

Agency members Lawson. Here. Bybee. Here. Vanderwell. Here. Anderson. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Chief Administrative Officer Louthan. Here. Chief Legal Officer Duncan. Here. We have a quorum, thank you.

Thank you very much. Public comment, any public comment? I see none. I'm assuming we're good on cards. Perfect. Item 4.1, approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion. Agency member VanderWaal.

Move to approve the agenda as submitted.

Thank you, agency member Rodriguez. We have a motion and a second, please vote. I'm in. Sounds good, yes, aye. Aye, aye. Passes unanimously. Item 5.1, consideration, discussion, and possible approval of the minutes of the Sparks Redevelopment Agency meeting for July 27th, 2026. Looking for a motion. Agency member Anderson.

Move to approve the minutes of the Sparks Redevelopment Agency meeting for July 27th, 2026.

Thank you. Agency member VanderWaal.

Second.

Perfect, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. Passes unanimously. Item 6.1, Consent Items. Consideration of possible acceptance of the report of the claims and bills approved for payment or appropriation transfers for the period of July 15th, 2026 to August 11th, 2026. Looking for a motion. Agency Member Rodriguez. Thank you, sir. Are we good on that? I think we've always had to read it, agency member Rodriguez, I'm sorry.

I move to accept the report of claims and bills and appropriation transfers for the period of July 15th, 2026 through August 11th, 2026.

That was a perfectly read motion, good job. Agency member Lawson. Second. We have a motion and a second, please vote. Passes unanimously. Item 8.1, comments from the public, any public comment? I see none. Groovy 8.2, announcements for the agency and chief administrative officer. See none. Item nine, Mayor Lawson's favor. He's already standing up. We will adjourn at 5.14.