Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the meeting to order. And Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Commissioner Niebuhrlein? Commissioner Pertzos? Commissioner Pertzos?

Here.

He says here verbally. Commissioner Rawson.

Here.

Commissioner Reed. Here. Commissioner Rodriguez-Elkins. Here. Commissioner Sperber. Here. Assistant City Attorney Brandon Sendahl. Here. Community Services Director Jim Rundle.

Here.

And we have a quorum. Thank you.

Commissioner Kramer, would you please lead us in the pledge?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay, and I'd like to start out the meeting by pointing out that we have a very large crowd. We're very thankful that you're here. However, we are blocking some of our exit doors. We do have monitors in the hallway or in the auditorium, the area on the outside of the auditorium, and we ask that you, if you don't have a seat, either A, try to find a seat, or B if you could go and monitor the activity on the monitors outside and if you do have a card to speak then you're welcome to come back in whenever it's time to speak but we do have to be very conscientious of our exiting and of the doors so if you don't have a seat if you don't mind if you would please go out into the atrium. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Pardon? No? Okay. And I still see people standing at the back, and I am sorry, but security has advised us that we have to have everybody either sitting or standing outside before we can move forward.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

Okay, I appreciate you wanting to be inside. You can see everything that's going on from outside. We can't get started until everybody who is not seated is out inside of the atrium. Pardon? Please go outside into the atrium. If you... If you would like to speak, you're welcome to come back in. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be able to hear my voice on the monitors outside. Thank you, we appreciate that. We still have a few more people. Unless you're with the TV or security, please exit. And do you three people have a role in the back here that are standing in the back corner? All right, thank you. Okay, it's time for us to have our first open comment. This is general open comment. If you have any comments for any of the items on our agendas, we have designated time for that. If you have any open comment that's general, please feel free to come up to the monitor or you can also have a card filled out and give it to Jules and she's happy to record it. Do we have any general public comment? Okay, seeing no general public comment, we'd like to go ahead Okay, thank you. I am going to wait for the people outside in the atrium. If any of you that are in the atrium have any public comment that's general, not related to the two items on our agenda, please step forward. We'll wait a few minutes for you.

Sorry.

Is there a delay there? Just to be clear, we have dedicated public comment for each of the items later. You can also speak at this public comment. I don't want it to come across that you can't also speak at this opening public comment and the later one.

Thank you.

You are free to speak at both if you want, or there will be dedicated public comment for each item.

Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Okay, seeing no public comment, we're gonna go ahead and move to our first agenda item, which is approval of the agenda.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda.

Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve the agenda by Commissioner Cramer and a second by Commissioner Reed. Do we have any discussion? No. Seeing no discussion, can we have a vote? If, pardon? All in favor? Aye. Do we have any dissent? No dissent. The motion passes. The second item of the agenda is approval of the minutes. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Madam Chair, I move to consider That's not the right one. Consider discussion of possible action to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session held on Tuesday, May 19th, 2026, and the Planning Commission meeting held on May 21st, 2026.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reid. Do we have any discussion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor? Aye. Do we have any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes. And now we move on to our first public hearing item, 7.1, Public Hearing, PCN 26-0007, MPA 26-0003.

uh today we have a series of requests associated with the trekking meadows water authority for tomah uh spring creek well number eight permit subject is located at 36.95 the applications include a comprehensive plan amendment administration reasoning a major deviation and conditional use permits It's okay with you, Chair. I'll be done by all five items in one single presentation. However, I just want to note that each request requires a separate public hearing and separate motion.

Thank you.

On this slide, you can see the subject site located west of Hubbell Drive within the foothills at Wingfield Springs area. The site consists of a .16 acre parcel currently developed with the existing Spring Creek Well No. 8 facility. THE PARCEL IS SURROUNDED WITHIN AN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY ISLAND THAT IS CURRENTLY SURROUNDED BY INCORPORATED CITY OF SPARKS PROPERTY. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS DEVELOPED PRIMARILY WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOA COMMON OWNED AREA OR OPEN SPACE. THE FIRST THREE REQUESTS ARE CLOSELY RELATED AND INCLUDE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ANNEXATION AND REZONING. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would assign a community facilities or CF land use designation to the site. Although the property has been located within the city's sphere of influence since 1991, neither a city nor a Washoe County land use designation has been assigned to the parcel. The annexation request would bring the parcel into the city of Sparks and eliminate an existing county island. Upon annexation, the property would automatically convert from Washoe County A2 zoning to SF40 zoning. The rezoning request would then establish public facilities or PF zoning on the site, which is intended to accommodate public utility uses similar to the existing Tomah facility. Come on. There we go. The proposed project includes modernization of an existing well facility through replacement of aging infrastructure and installation of updated pumping and treatment equipment. The improvements are intended to restore operation of the well and improve reliability of the regional water system in the area. A new utility building is proposed around the existing wellhead and would contain pumping equipment, chemical treatment equipment and associated utility infrastructure. The existing wellhead cannot be relocated and therefore serves as the primary driver for the building location as shown on the site plan or exhibit number four of the conditional use permit major deviation. This slide shows the proposed architectural elevations for the new utility building that staff believes are compatible with the surrounding residential development. The structure incorporates residential style architectural features, including a pitched roof, stucco finish, residential style doors, and gutters. Staff believes that the proposed building will improve the appearance of the existing utility building. The major deviation request is associated with the location of the proposed utility building. Public facility zoning district requires a minimum front setback of 15 feet. The proposed building would provide a setback of approximately 8.59 feet, resulting in a reduction of approximately 43%. The request is necessary because, again, the existing wellhead can't be relocated and the building must be constructed around that infrastructure. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONTAINS, AGAIN, THE SPRING CREEK WELL NUMBER 8 FACILITY, WHICH SERVES AS A PART OF TOMWA'S REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM. THE PRODUCTION WELL WAS ORIGINALLY DRILLED, OWNED AND OPERATED BY SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY IN 1994. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY SCREENED FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH EXISTING MATURE LANDSCAPING, FENCING, TOPOGRAPHIC SEPARATION, AND THE SURROUNDING HOA COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE. IN 2025, THE WELL WENT OUT OF PRODUCTION DUE TO ELEVATED PH LEVELS. With this request, in addition to a new building, the applicant proposes retaining the majority of the existing landscaping on the site. Additional landscaping improvements will be proposed at the time if landscaping impacts are caused by any construction on the site. All right, so there are 20 findings that need to be considered in total with all of the requests which I have grouped together for this presentation. Our findings for conformance and consistency require conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan and consistency with the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan. The proposed community facilities land use designation and public facilities zoning district are both appropriate given the site's longstanding public utility function. The annexation would eliminate an existing county island and bring the property into the City of Sparks, where it can be regulated consistently with surrounding properties. Additionally, the project supports modernization and continued operation of critical public water infrastructure serving the surrounding community. And for these reasons, staff believes the applicable findings related to conformance and consistency can be made. Moving on to compatibility, the findings on this slide focus on compatibility with surrounding development. The site is already developed and operating as a utility facility. and the proposed improvements do not introduce a new use to the site. The surrounding foothills plan development was developed around the existing site, which was established prior to construction of the single family homes. The proposed building has been designed to resemble residential architecture, and existing landscaping and screening will largely remain in place. Operationally, the facility will continue to function primarily through remote monitoring systems with limited maintenance visits and approximately one chemical delivery per month. Staff therefore does not anticipate significant impacts to surrounding residential properties and believe the compatibility findings can be made. Staff has included conditions of approval for the CUP and major deviation and these are intended to ensure that the project remains substantially consistent with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. These conditions are related to architectural conformance, landscaping conformance, equipment screening, and compliance with fire department. Moving on to the last set of findings. For both requests, the Planning Commission and City Council meetings function as public hearings. The statutorily required neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on May 5th. Notice was mailed to 120 property owners within 750 feet of the site, and five members of the public attended that meeting. At the time the staff reports were repaired, staff had not received any letters of support or opposition regarding the project. City staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for all five requests. And as a reminder, a public hearing is required for each item. I do have the suggested motions for each application following this slide. And with that, I'm available for any questions, as is the applicant.

Okay, seeing no questions. I have a question for the applicant. Did you want to explain the motions? Pardon?

That's right.

Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would they like to speak?

Yes, the applicant is here. She's indicated that she would be available for any questions if there are any. They have no objections to any of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit or the major deviation.

Okay. Do you have any questions of the applicant? This is a public hearing where we have five different provisions that require public hearing. The first one is PCN 260007, MPA 26-003. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of that notice? Okay, no one wishes to speak? Okay, seeing no, pardon? There. You wish to speak?

Yes.

On behalf of this applicant?

I wish to speak on this particular project.

That's what I meant. Pardon?

I would like to ask a quick question about this project.

Okay, come on up. And, sir, could you state your name? And you have three minutes. And then also, would you mind turning in one of the forms to Jules when you're done?

I will do that. It's Paul Augustini, and I live at 7701 Rhythm Circle. And I have, I believe, maybe a quick question for you. I think this is the same project that maybe three or four years ago there was a modernization done to it or a major improvement done that required... some pretty high walls to be built around it. I think mostly.

I'm sorry, could you please address the commission? And Kobe's here, he can hear, but procedurally you should be addressing us.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I believe this is the project that a few years back, they did something to upgrade the pump station there. But during that construction, which didn't last forever, but it lasted maybe 30 to 60 days, there were some pretty high sound walls around the site. And I think they probably were effective to mitigate the sound in certain areas, but it was still pretty noisy. And my question is, is there anything going on with this project construction-wise that would warrant having something pretty obtrusive like that being done, or is this pretty much like building a house?

Thank you for your question.

Thank you.

Okay, and... I don't believe that Coby can, I don't, okay, is there any other public comment? Is there any other public comment? Okay, seeing no public comment, we're gonna close public comment. Okay, Coby, would you like to answer his question?

With respect to kind of the first item that he touched on regarding modernization of the site, A FEW YEARS AGO I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD HAVE GONE ON AT THAT TIME THERE IS ALSO A DRAINAGE BATION ON THE SITE ARE ADJACENT TO THE SITE EXCUSE ME BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT CAME INTO THE CITY REGARDING THAT.

OKAY.

if I could Madam Chair, just a quick follow-up on that. Thank you. For the record, Sienna Reed, city planner. In a, let's see, about a few years ago there was some work that was done on the well. That was to ultimately provide for General improvements of it, but it didn't that work didn't go so far as to provide any type of building And so before the Planning Commission tonight, you do have a conditional use permit request that is related to a minor utility facility that is proposing the construction of a building and as it relates to the commenters question about a whether that would create a large amount of noise. It is staff's opinion that that particular construction is more similar to a traditional kind of commercial construction. There would be a building, maybe some associated fencing, but nothing out of the ordinary that would warrant any type of additional conditions regarding noise mitigation. But certainly if the commission has concerns about that and would like to evaluate that with the conditional use permit request, it is certainly within the commission's purview to do so.

Very good. Thank you, Sienna. Okay, is there any other questions about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Commission? No? No. Okay, and we will discuss that issue further on the, which item? Sorry, on the Conditional Use Permit item. All right, and thank you. And if you wouldn't mind giving your card with your name and info over to Jules, I'd appreciate it. Okay, if there's no other comment or any questions, could I have a motion from the commissioners?

Madam Chair, I move to adopt Resolution Number 248, Adopting the Comprehensive Planned Use Amendment MPA 26-0003, associated with PCN 26-0007, based on findings CP1 through CP4 and the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report. Second that.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reed. Do we have any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please cast your vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Okay, and is there any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes.

I'm sorry.

Okay, so we're gonna open the public comment on the next item which is PCN26-0007AX260001. Is there any public comment on that item? Is there any public comment on the second item?

Yeah, this one?

Yeah, that's all I'm asking, yeah. Yes, it's just this one item. Seeing no public comment, could I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the annexation request ANX26-001 associated with PCN26-0007 based on findings A1 through A4 and the fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reid. Do we have any discussion? Seeing no discussion, is there any dissent? All of those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, and the motion passes. Any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes. On to the third public hearing, PCN 26-0007, RZ 26-0001. Do we have any public comment for that item? That's on the rezone. Do we have any public comment for the item? Seeing no public comment for that item, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair.

I move to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of RZ26-001, a request to rezone the site located at 3695 Hubbell Drive from SF 40 to PF based on findings Z1 through Z3 and the fact supporting these findings as outlined in the staff report.

We have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reed. Do we have any discussion? Nope. All in favor?

Aye.

Any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes. And now on to public hearing, PCN 26-0007, MAJ 26-0002, consideration and discussion of action and major deviation to reduce the setback. Is there any public comment? Is there any public comment? Are you raising your hand for public comment on this item? Okay, could you come forward please? And if you could give your card to Jules. Okay, thank you. Sorry, I don't have that.

So this is regarding the Foothills 158 unit home development, correct?

Okay, no, sir. We're still on the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. Yes, sir. We will be hearing that, though, next. We have two more votes for this. OK, so. And also I wanted to say thank you for coming in very quietly. I we found out that there was no sound out there, so we appreciate that. OK, so there's no public comment for the major deviation to reduce the setback for this particular project. Seeing none, I'll entertain a vote.

Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the major deviation request MAJ26-0002 associated with PCN26-0007 based on findings MD1 through MD5 and the fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to conditions of approval one through four.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reed. Do we have any discussion? Seeing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Is there any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes. And now the final is PCN26-0007, CU26-0007, consideration, discussion, possible action for conditional use permit to construct and operate a new water utility building on 1.6 acre lot site located at 3695 Hubbell Drive in the public facility zoning district. Is there any public comment on this? We've already got your comment. Thank you, sir. Is there any other public comment on this item? Seeing no public comment on this item, is there any discussion from the commissioners?

Chair, can I add something? Yes. Chair, so earlier in these items, the public asked the question of staff regarding noise mitigation. There are seven conditions attached with this application. Should the Planning Commission want to entertain or discuss with the applicant on noise mitigation approaches, this would be the opportunity to ask the applicant. If you have a desire for a condition, this is the opportunity to do that as well. Thanks, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Do any of the commissioners want to discuss that issue with the applicant? Okay, please go ahead.

Is the applicant here?

Thank you, and please state your name for the record. Good evening, Cynthia Albright, representing Tumwak.

Hello, Cynthia. Thank you for being here. Can you just speak to what sort of sound mitigation that you guys are doing already during this project or what you would be planning to do with that?

Well, this project is really just constructing a CMU building on the site around the specific wellhead. There's no other construction proposed. It's not going to be any more noisy than a residential structure being built in the neighborhood. So there is no sound mitigation proposed.

Thank you. Ma'am, sorry, how long is the project proposed to take?

The project won't be started until next year and they anticipate it'll take anywhere from six to eight months maximum.

Okay, six to eight months. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Sienna. Where'd she go? There you are. Could you please come up and give construction hours for the site?

Yes, my pleasure. Thank you, Madam Chairman, the Commission, again, Sienna Reed for the record. Currently, Sparks Municipal Code construction hours for Monday through Friday are 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and no construction is permitted on Sunday. This isn't a planned development handbook. To the best of my knowledge, the planned development handbook defers to those construction hours. I do, however, want to note that recent state legislation does preempt the hours in handbooks as well as the SPARKS Municipal Code within the timeframe between April 1st and September 30th. all construction seven days a week must be allowed to begin at 5 a.m. And then it would follow the applicable code in terms of the ending time. So all of that said, it is very possible that construction could begin at 5 a.m. based on the handbook's code or the preempted code by state law. and ultimately the building is quite small as noted by the applicant and COBE staff would be hopeful that that construction would be over within a relatively short time frame compared to something larger like a residential subdivision or say a large commercial building.

And so, pardon me.

Can I ask a question? Yes. Sienna, you stated this is in the footnotes handbook?

That's correct.

The rezoning on here is.

My apologies, Jim. It is surrounded by the foothills. It is in a standard zoning district, so the the standard zone would apply and we would be using standard city code for the hours or for the time frame that's outside of the April 1st to September 30th time frame. So that would be 5 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday and then. 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday with no construction on Sunday. But again, that April 1st to September 30th timeframe, we do have to follow state law.

And so does state law allow for mitigation issues or the project to provide for some sort of, he was indicating that there were some sort of barriers that other projects have had?

state law preempts in terms of construction hours so construction would need to be allowed to start at 5 a.m. if there are other conditions that the Commission would like to place on the project such as any type of sound barrier. That is something that the Planning Commission could consider. At this point in time staff has not recommended that type of noise mitigation to the Commission but certainly you could consider some type of barrier whether that's just CMU meister units, you could even require that they be filled with sand to further

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAK and it required 24-hour operations which increased the amount of noise and proximity to the houses in that area quite extensively and that was where the noise mitigation was required because they could not stop that would allow the well to implode on itself they'd have to start all over again so the operations were 24 hours but that was to dig the well I think the application in front of you today is for the construction of a building unless the applicant to provide different context. So I think that the noise should be different on this item rather than the temporary use permit they received to do 24-hour drilling for the Will site.

Okay. So the barriers he was discussing were because it was a 24-hour project as opposed to the current project which is during the state required construction hours. Okay. Thank you for your help. Thank you. That helped. Okay, and where are we? So we need a motion for public hearing PCN26-0007, CU26-0007.

Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the conditional use permit request CU26-0007 associated with PCN26-0007 based on finding C1 through C5 And the fact supporting these findings is set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval 1 through 7. I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Reed. All in favor?

Aye.

Is there any discussion? Is there any dissent? Seeing no dissent, the motion passes. And now we move on to public hearing PC and to 6 dash 0, 0, 0, 4 MP 8 6 dash 0, 0, 0, 1 consideration discussion and possible action on a request to amend the comprehensive plan land use designation from open space to low density residential or a 34.75 acre site generally located Northwest of the intersection of this to Boulevard and Black Hills drive AP and to 526-010-04.

Madam Chair, I have to make a disclosure to make. Yes, Commissioner Rossin. So I need to disclose that my wife is currently running for the Sparks City Mayor and will be on the general election ballot in November. While I've maintained separation from her campaign as a planning commissioner, I believe she has made some negative comments regarding the Red Hawk Land Company applications for Wingfield Springs and the foothills at Wingfield Springs. I have worked to maintain my neutrality and independence from her campaign, and while I do not believe any statements made by my wife during her campaign would actually influence my decision here, I understand that the question of ethics isn't just whether I believe my personal independence is compromised, but instead it's whether a normal person's judgment in my situation could be affected. Given the interplay between my role as a planning commissioner and my wife's campaign activity, I believe that an appearance of impropriety exists and that her campaign activity could serve as an influence on my vote, or that my vote on these items could be perceived as a political favor for her campaign. I have conferred with the city attorney's office, and in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety, I am going to abstain from voting on this item. I believe this is a clear situation where the independence of judgment of a normal person in my position could be affected. I will not advocate for or against approval of this item, will not take part in any discussion, and will abstain from voting on this matter. In order to ensure I do not influence any actions on these two items, I will leave the room. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay.

Madam Chair. Yes.

I would like to personally thank Commissioner Rawson for abstaining from this item. I have the utmost respect for him and I appreciate his openness and candor on this item.

I agree. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Sienna.

Right. Uh, thank you, madam chair and members of the planning commission. Um, again, Sienna Reed city planner here tonight to present two requests for the foothills at Wingfield Springs that were submitted by the Red Hawk land company. Uh, with your permission, madam chair, this presentation covers both agenda items related to the foothills at Wingfield Springs. That would be a comprehensive plan amendment as well as an amendment to the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development handbook.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

So before diving into each of the requests, I wanted to provide a brief overview of the differences between the city's comprehensive plan and a plan development. 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, as well as the infrastructure and services needed to serve that growth. As part of the comprehensive plan, it is the land use map that identifies the type and location of various development types. Importantly the comprehensive plan is not regulatory so for instance a comprehensive plan supports diverse housing types across the city but it doesn't specify the maximum height that a home can be. On the other hand, plan developments are regulatory zoning documents. They function as custom zoning codes for the area that they cover and include deviations from the city's standard zoning districts and procedures. So here, for example, a plan development handbook might allow for 5,000 square foot lots, whereas the most comparable city zoning district has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. In addition, various findings must also be made to modify an existing plan development. These are set forth in state law as well as the city's municipal code and are more extensive than those required to modify a standard zoning district. The request before you tonight to amend the city's comprehensive planned land use map seeks to change the land use designation for a 34.75 acre site generally located northwest of the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive from open space to low density residential or LDR. You can see that site bound in red on this slide and then in blue you can see the larger foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development boundary and that is the area ultimately that is being considered for the larger plan development handbook changes 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 the changes primarily seek to allow for the addition of 158 dwelling units within proposed village 16 This necessitates increasing the total number of permitted residential units from 2,260 to 2,418. General updates to text and figures are also proposed to reflect current development conditions, reference technical studies that were prepared to support the amendment, and also comply with federal rules regarding accessibility of information on local government websites. The city received both the comprehensive plan land use amendment as well as the plan development handbook amendment request from Red Hawk Land Company in January of this year. In March, staff provided an overview of our comments on both applications to the applicant. In May, staff received responses and revised materials from the applicant. We evaluated that information and provided one additional round of comment. The applicant addressed those additional comments towards the end of May and then confirmed their desire to move forward to the June 29th Planning Commission meeting. So here we are this evening with the Planning Commission's consideration of these requests. If the Planning Commission denies the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and recommends denial of the Handbook Amendment, then both requests will proceed forward to the City Council and that would likely be sometime in August. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and recommends approval of the Handbook Amendment, then the comprehensive plan amendment would need to be considered by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission and that would likely also be sometime in August and council consideration for both of the applications would come forward at a later date. To give the Planning Commission a bit of background on the foothills at Wingfield Springs, the 690 acres that comprise today's foothills at Wingfield Springs area were included in the Northern Sparks 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 a 7,181 acre area of land that was included in the City of Sparks' sphere of influence as part of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. NSSOI land use designations applied to the 690 acre foothills at Wingfield Springs site ranged from 1 to 10 dwelling units per acre as well as open space designations and specifically the 34.75 acre site proposed for a 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 approved. The handbook was adopted with a maximum dwelling unit count of 2,260 and through four handbook amendments that maximum dwelling unit count has remained unchanged. In 2005, there was a site plan review approved to allow for three golf course holes in the area proposed for a future Village 16. These holes were intended to be an expansion to the lake's course. And while aerial imagery shows that the holes were constructed, they were never used as part of Red Hawk's golf course offerings. And this area ultimately reverted to unprogrammed open space somewhere around 2010. In terms of the organization of this presentation I'm going to focus on some of the key aspects of this request before moving on to the findings that the Planning Commission needs to consider tonight for each of the applications. So here focusing first on land use compatibility as we've discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate a 34.75 acre site from open space to low density residential or LDR. The associated handbook amendment seeks to amend the foothills at Wingfield Springs master plan map, which is essentially the handbooks land use category map from open space to builder lot for the same site. It is staff's opinion that these changes are generally compatible with surrounding land uses. Properties directly south of the site are designated LDR, located in the builder lot category and developed with detached single family homes designated within village four of the plan development handbook. Locating the builder lot designation for Village 16 as proposed is generally compatible from a land use consistency perspective because Village 4 is designated builder lot and each village would be subject to the same use, architectural and dimensional standards such as height, setbacks, lot coverage. Approximately 14 acres located to the north of the subject site would remain designated open space on the city's land use map and within the handbook. Similar open space designated lands, many of which contain drainage facilities, are present in other locations throughout the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development. As proposed, the remaining open space designated area would provide a buffer between the subject site and properties to the north that are designated LDR and multifamily 14 on the city's land use map and within the cottages and patio homes land use categories within the handbook. In addition, there is a narrow open space buffer. It's approximately 50 feet in width. It's a little bit hard to see on this comprehensive planned land use map because You're seeing that red boundary of the overall foothills plan development as well but it is on the west of the subject site. That buffer would separate the single-family homes supported by the proposed LDR land designation and builder lot category from existing single-family homes located in the large lot residential land use designation to the west of the site and those homes are located in the Wingfield Springs plan development. While staff does believe the proposed requests are generally compatible with surrounding land uses, the request must also comply with city policy regarding infill development. This policy, which is policy MG 13 of the SPARC's comprehensive plan, requires new infill development consider and be sensitive to the physical features of existing neighborhood. And it is staff'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 that existing neighborhood. Since 1991, the subject site has been designated open space and adjacent residential development has been oriented towards that area. Further, residents that have purchased lots adjacent to that open space relied on the provisions of the handbook to guide the character and location of the development. The requests as proposed are substantive change in staff's opinion that undermine the reasonable reliance of residents on the handbook. All right, so shifting gears here, there were a variety of technical studies that were prepared to support the requests submitted by Red Hawk Land Company. First up, the preliminary drainage master plan identifies existing stormwater flows, which you can see in blue on the left here. Those flows are conveyed over land through the site from a channel that's located in the Golden Eagle Regional Park to a pond located near Silverton Way in Wingfield Springs. Before those flows are ultimately released to 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 located within a mapped FEMA zone a special flood hazard area and areas that are designated zone a by FEMA are located in the 100 year floodplain and they have based flood elevations established. To facilitate development of the site, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing drainage way and construct an engineered drainage channel with three inline detention ponds. You can see the proposed drainage channel in purple in the image on the right of this slide. The city contracted with House Moran Consulting to provide a third party review of the proposed drainage design. House Moran did find that 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 the final drainage infrastructure design at the subdivision stage of development. Additionally, a conditional letter of MAP provision or a CLOMAR and a letter of MAP provision or a LOMAR may be needed to be approved by FEMA depending on the final design of drainage improvements. The handbook requires that any future floodplain mapping actions be coordinated with FEMA as well as the city's local floodplain administrator. And if a CLOMR is required, it does need 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 on any portion of an existing parcel with an existing dwelling unit unless that parcel is already located within a mapped floodplain. Moving on, the preliminary sanitary sewer report submitted with the requests analyzes potential impacts to the city's sewer collection system. Here, the city of Sparks maintains a sanitary sewer model that can evaluate the impact of new flows on downstream collection system capacity. And so the city did perform a conveyance capacity analysis. Under existing conditions, one sewer main is flowing over design capacity and 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 dwelling 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 downstream sewer mains with larger pipes. And additional analyses of sewer collection system conditions, capacity concerns and mitigation measures would be evaluated during the subdivision review process should these applications be approved. looking at the treatment of sewer at the Truckee Meadows water reclamation facility. The City of Sparks uses a factor of 165 gallons per day for single-family homes and an additional 158 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 further evaluated during the subdivision review process should the requests be approved. The applicant also submitted a traffic study analyzing the impact of 158 additional dwelling units on the existing roadway network. The traffic study estimates that 1,436 daily trips would be generated by these units. Approximately 111 of those would be in the a.m. peak hour. That's between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. And then 147 of those trips would be in the p.m. peak hour. That's between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. As proposed the subject site would be accessed from two local roadways along Vista Boulevard. You can see those in the image overhead. Those access points are expected to be right in right out due to the existing median on Vista Boulevard and as such there would be no allowance for left turns out of the site. The traffic study asserts that all intersections operate at acceptable service levels with 158 additional residential units at opening year. At cumulative year, which is 2050, the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Wingfield Parkway operates below policy level of service, or LOS, both with and without the project. So here, the regional transportation plan identifies a Vista Boulevard capacity project will be constructed during the 2035 to 2050 time frame. And the traffic study assumes that this capacity project will widen Vista Boulevard from four to six lanes between Wingfield Parkway and Hubbell Drive. In addition to this assumed widening of Vista Boulevard at 2050, the traffic study identifies the conversion of a southbound through and free right lane at Vista Boulevard and Wingfield Parkway to one shared through right turn lane and one right turn lane. Staff reviewed the traffic study and do have substantive concerns. 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, this project would widen Vista Boulevard from two to four lanes further north between Passage Drive and Hubbell Drive, and 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 to access the site are going to make a U-turn at the intersection of Vista Boulevard and Black Hills Drive. You can see that intersection here in the street view.

Let's try to hold down so we can listen to the report. Thank you.

As you can see on this slide, 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 location will increase rear-end collisions with stopped northbound vehicles, as well as sideswiping as vehicles try to maneuver around those 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 at both the opening and cumulative years. So collectively with these deficiencies staff cannot understand operational impacts of the proposed requests and therefore can't conclude or recommend that acceptable roadway levels of service can be maintained. Moving on, the city requires the submission of a fiscal impact analysis for all requests to amend the city's comprehensive planned land use map over five acres and has adopted standard fiscal impact analysis guidelines that applicants are required to use. 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. This analysis finds these units will 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. Overall, the analysis finds the proposed units will have a positive fiscal impact with the 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. Station five is located across Vista Boulevard from the subject site at 6490 Vista Boulevard. Should the proposed request be approved and future development occur, The handbook requires any homes located outside the six-minute fire response time due to Sparks Fire Department operations to install fire sprinklers consistent with the approach to development prior to the construction of Station 5. The Sparks Police Department provides police services 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 here the Washoe County School District reviewed the requests for foothills at Wingfield Springs and then also the two applications that were submitted for Wingfield Springs this past January their comments didn't distinguish between the four different applications and so on their comments what the school district has done is estimate that all of the applications both those in Wingfield Springs and Foothills at Wingfield Springs combined would generate 332 students and that would be comprised of 162 elementary school students, 79 middle school students and 91 high school students. The schools that are currently zoned to serve the site are Van Gorder Elementary School, Sky Ranch Middle School, and Spanish Springs High School. The school district's comments do indicate that more refined student generation estimates and information regarding the timing of enrollment growth would be available should development proceed, but that funding mechanisms are available to support enrollment growth. Moving on with this slide to wetlands, the National Wetlands Inventory shows that 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 this is a determination that's made by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the City of Sparks. An analysis of environmental impacts and permitting requirements related to wetlands was prepared by integral consulting that was submitted on behalf of the applicant. And that analysis recommends that the site be evaluated for federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction and also account for a recent 2023 Supreme Court decision that specifies for wetlands to qualify as waters of the United States. They do have to have a continuous surface connection to regulated water bodies. with no clear demarcation between the waters and the wetlands. While the handbook references this information prepared by Integral, it does not specify when a jurisdictional determination must be complete in relationship to the subdivision review process, nor identify the timing for federal permit approvals if waters of the United States are found. That said it is staff's opinion that the handbook should clearly identify when a jurisdictional determination is required such as prior to the submission of the first preliminary preliminary subdivision map. Also staff feels that the entities that are need to be coordinated with in terms of the jurisdictional determination should be identified as well as the timing for federal permit approvals if waters of the United States are in fact present. As this information is not in the handbook, staff do not believe it is consistent with city policy that specifies the degradation or destruction of wetlands should be prevented or mitigated. Focusing next on threatened and endangered species. Here, United States Fish and Wildlife Service data shows that the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development is located within habitat for the Carson wandering skipper, the kiwi, as well as the Lahotten cutthroat trout. The integral consulting analysis that was prepared to support a wildlife analysis does indicate that the likelihood of either the kiwi or the hot and cutthroat trout occurring on the site is very low, as it's unlikely that either fish species would swim up the North Truckee drain. However, it is recommended that the length of the North Truckee drain be evaluated to determine whether or not there's an opportunity for those fish species to swim upstream and ultimately reach the foothill site. Additionally, integrals analysis identifies the Carson wandering skipper has been recorded in the general vicinity and that saltgrass that's needed to support larval growth could occur along the margins of the lakes course or near waters and wetlands. Noting this, surveys for saltgrass are recommended and if it is found, then site surveys for the presence of the Carson wandering skipper are also recommended. While the handbook does refer 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. Here it is staff's opinion 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 ultimately 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. 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 as well as drainage improvement designs to minimize impacts to wildlife. It's staff's opinion that those wildlife safety design features 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. All right, so at this point in the presentation, we're going to shift into the findings that the Planning Commission needs to consider this evening, and these will take some time to walk through. We'll start with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and then transition to the findings related to the Plan Development Handbook Amendment. So starting off here with finding CP1 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This finding requires that the proposed land use change conform to the Regional Plan Land Use and Intensity Designation. The 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan designates the subject site within the Tier 2 land designation and it's also located within the Truckee Meadows service area. properties within the Tier 2 land designation are characterized by suburban development with some higher density nodes but specifically residential development in Tier 2 is limited to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. As proposed the comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a density of six dwelling units per acre or less consistent with the Tier 2 land designation maximum limitation of 30 dwelling units per acre or less. Ultimately staff does believe that finding CP1 can be made. Next up we have finding CP2 that requires a comprehensive plan amendment implement the goals of the City of Sparks comprehensive plan. As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment does support goals related to minimizing the per capita cost of providing public facilities and services through infill, advancing Goal MG4, Goal MG6, as well as Policy MG11. Likewise, as infrastructure constructed by the applicant is ultimately dedicated to the City of Sparks, locating additional infrastructure in an area that's 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 that supports policy H1. However, while the amendment would increase residential land supply, the city's existing zoning districts have capacities to support population growth projections for the next 20 years, as identified in the 2024 Washoe County consensus forecast. While some goals and policies are supported, others are not. In terms of allowing for infill development as proposed, it's staff's opinion that this would not be sensitive to the physical features of the existing neighborhood, that's been discussed previously in this presentation, and would therefore be inconsistent with policy MG13. As discussed the proposal to change the comprehensive plan land use designation to LDR would remove a large and contiguous open space area that is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. Additionally as previously discussed in the presentation staff have substantive concerns regarding the traffic study and are unable to determine if acceptable service levels can be maintained for roadways impacted by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment which is inconsistent with policy CF1. Other policies related to wetlands, floodplains, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife habitat are more appropriately addressed in the planned development handbook. And so I'll touch on those policies when we get to those findings related to the planned development handbook. Moving on to finding CP3 related to compatibility with surrounding land uses as previously discussed in this presentation the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would redesignate the subject site from open space to low density residential 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 as you can see in the map to the right in that yellow category and the remaining 14 acre area of open space to the north of the site would provide a buffer between the subject site and the properties that are designated LDR and MF14. You can see the MF14 designation in the light bloom. The open space buffer proposed west of the site would also separate single family homes supported by the proposed LDR designation from existing single family homes located in the large lot residential land use designation to the west of the site. 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 Land Use Amendment, the statutorily required neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant's representative on May 13th. There were a variety of members of the public that attended that meeting. They expressed a variety of concerns, including previous flood events, a loss of open space that currently supports wildlife and recreation. There were concerns around the city's available sewer treatment capacity. And other commenters noted that there was initial marketing of the homes as being adjacent to open space. In addition I do want to note that on June 15th public notice of this meeting was published in the Reno Gazette Journal and while not required by state law but because the city was doing mailings for the plan development the comprehensive plan amendment was also sent via 2,600 mail notices on June 15th to all property owners within the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development and within 750 feet of that outer boundary. All right, so transitioning with this slide to the findings related to the amendment of the Plan Development Handbook. So first up we have finding PDA that requires the request be consistent with the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan as well as the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. This request is consistent with the Regional Plan for the reasons I already discussed. And in relationship to the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan, it is staff's opinion that the handbook is inconsistent with policies 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 that regulatory zoning document should contain a high level of detail regarding technical studies and federal permitting for wetlands and threatened and endangered species in relationship to the subdivision review process. The handbook does not adequately address these topics and therefore staff believes it's inconsistent with policies RC7 and RC12. Further, the proposed handbook does not address wildlife safety design features that are recommended by endow, which also does not further policy RC 12 related to natural habitat impacts. Ultimately, staff does not believe that finding PDA can be made because the request in staff's opinion is not consistent with the city of sparks comprehensive plan. Next up, finding PDB focuses on consistency with surrounding land uses. Staff does believe the request is consistent with surrounding uses for the reasons already discussed in this presentation and that finding PDB can be made. Very briefly, locating the builder lot designation adjacent to an existing builder lot designation is generally consistent. with the single family homes to the south and the open space buffers north and west of the proposed village 16 that is proposed to accommodate 158 dwelling units would further separate homes in that proposed village from existing single family homes north and west of the site. Staff also believes that finding PDC can be made. The 158 detached single-family homes again are estimated to generate 7.3 million dollars in revenue surplus to the city's general fund as well as a 5.1 million dollar revenue deficit to the road fund and that results in a total net surplus of 2.2 million dollars over the 20-year analysis period. 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 those 158 detached single-family homes. This proposed modification represents a substantial change to the plan as initially approved in 2003 and then most recently amended in 2009. The area proposed to convert to builder lot is a large and contiguous open space area that is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. Eliminating the open space designation as proposed does not further the mutual interest of residents and owners in the preservation and integrity of the plan and therefore staff does not believe finding PDD can be made. Additionally, staff does not believe finding PDE can be made. 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 acre area designated open space based on the foothills at Wingfield Springs master plan map included in the handbook. Redesignating that open space area to builder lot, it is staff's opinion again that that is a substantial change to the handbook that materially impairs the reliance of residents on the provisions of the plan. Next up finding PDF. Here this finding specifies that an amendment cannot result in changes that would adversely impact the public interest. As discussed throughout this presentation staff have substantive concerns regarding the assumptions and methodologies used in the traffic study and are unable to determine if roadway service levels needed for roadway capacity and safety can be maintained. And potentially unsafe movements in terms of those turning movements have not been adequately analyzed. Ultimately, if the development were to proceed forward, that could have an adverse impact on the public interest as it relates to roadway safety. In addition, the proposed changes to the handbook do not adequately identify how impacts to wildlife would be addressed. Missing from the handbook, as we've discussed, are federal permitting and process requirements under the Endangered Species Act should a protected species be discovered, as well as specific requirements guiding the timing and coordination for species surveys. Also missing from the handbook are wildlife safety design features recommended by NDOW. And so should the handbook be approved without those standards addressing impacts to wildlife, adverse impacts to the public interest could also occur. Next up is finding PDG this finding requires the amendment be consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire plan development. Here staff find that the proposed changes the handbook represent a substantial departure from the plan development again that was initially approved in 2003 and most recently amended in 2009. Total open space would be reduced by 20% in a manner that removes a large and contiguous open space area that is a key physical feature of the existing neighborhood. This change is not consistent with the preservation of the entire plan development. Staff therefore does not believe finding PDG can be met. However, staff does believe that finding PDH can be made because the handbook changes proposed to facilitate the addition of Village 16 with 158 dwelling units are fully interior to the foothills at Wingfield Springs planned development and therefore adverse impacts to land abutting or across the street from that outer boundary of the planned development would not be impacted by the proposed change. I do however want to note for the Commission that there has been public comment from a private property owner to the west of village 16 outside the foothills at Wingfield plan development boundary while the proposal would have a 50 foot excuse me a 50 foot open space buffer and that would actually be adjacent to an existing The public comment does identify concerns regarding impacts to properties outside the foothills plan development boundary. Looking at finding PDI, staff does believe that finding PDI can be made. This finding requires 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 staff believe this finding can be made. Amendments to plan developments require both newspaper and mailed notice. Notice was published in the Reno Gazette Journal on June 15th of this year. And again, 2,600 mailed notices were also sent on June 15th. That's to all owners of property within the foothills at Wingfield Springs plan development boundary and within 750 feet of that outer boundary. Do you wanna note that staff, city officials, members of the city council, as well as members of the planning commission have received a significant amount of written public comment in opposition to the request before you tonight. The exact number of comments is difficult to quantify because many comments were sent to multiple SPARC staff, planning commission and city council members. Many of them were also re-forwarded several times. That said, generally concerns expressed by members of the public include infrastructure capacity limitations, roadway congestion, limited water availability, fiscal impacts, emergency service provision impacts, adverse impacts to wildlife, negative impacts to property values, alteration of community character, the loss of recreation assets, the adverse impacts to views, adverse impacts to privacy such as noise and lighting, and also the loss of long-standing open space that compromises community reliance on the provisions of the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development Handbook. So with that, members of the Planning Commission staff is recommending that the Commission deny the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment because it does not comply with finding CP2 regarding consistency with our Comprehensive Plan. Staff is also recommending the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council for the request to amend the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Plan Development Handbook as staff believes it is inconsistent with the five findings that you can see listed on this slide required to amend a plan development. You do have suggested motions on this slide. They're also in your meeting packet. I do want to note that both of the items before the Commission tonight do require separate public hearings when we get to that point and with that I will wrap up for staff and be available for any questions that you have.

And do we have any questions for staff from the Commission? Any commissioners? Did you have a question? No? Okay, seeing no questions from staff, is the applicant here? Sorry, one moment. Yeah, okay. We're gonna, sorry, we're gonna go ahead and take a 10-minute recess. I apologize, thank you. Take 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, if we could go ahead and take a seat so we can continue. We could go ahead and take a seat so we could continue. I'd appreciate it. Very good. And so, yes sir, thank you for coming up. This is the applicant. Oh, I'm calling the meeting to order at 732.

Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Madam vice chair and members of the planning commission. I appreciate you having me here tonight. My name is Blake. My name is Blake Peters. I'm here on behalf of the Red Hawk Land Company. Our address is 6600 North Wingfield Parkway, Sparks, Nevada, 89436. And we would also like to thank Sienna and all the staff for all their hard work in putting this together. It's been a... It's been a very quick process, I will say, to try and review this large amount of information, so I appreciate the entire staff's ability to disseminate that information, and obviously for Siena to communicate that very clearly, so we appreciate that, and feel like, frankly, most of the findings that Siena went through actually are in support of the project, but that's another item. Our responses, Really, Sienna did a very nice job of presenting the project overall from a planning standpoint. So we didn't feel the need to go back through and do a full presentation of the project so much as a response to the findings that Sienna and staff have put together and that Sienna just presented. And by the way, I did just And what I'm about to read to you, I did also just provide that to the commission secretary, so that is now on public record.

Thank you.

Thank you. So let me take a quick step back, too, just to give a little bit of historical context. I appreciated Sienna's timeline. know kind of going from 2000 to 2005 into 2010 um prior to that you know when the project was first the overall project was first developed um you know there back in 1995 there was a 404 an army corps 404 permit issued for the overall project um and and that is a lot of what the material is that we're that we base our development plan on and of course that will be confirmed but there is a lot of the information that we're looking for that that is to be specified additional information and additional surveys consultation with the with the public agencies the Army Corps US Fish and Wildlife much of that was conducted back in 1995 and so anything that we're going to do now is going to piggyback on that on that material and on that permit that was issued back then, even though it was that long ago, the Army Corps did take a position and we are in consultation with the Army Corps on this, which of course we would be on any project that had any waterways whatsoever, ponding, anything at all. That's a necessity. So walk through our response to findings. The first finding, CP1, just conformance with the regional plan and intensity designation. We actually agree with the city's findings under CP1 that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is in conformance with the regional plan land use and intensity designation. We have no issue with that whatsoever. We feel like that staff's findings supports the project. We support staff's finding on this issue. Going to CP2. Excuse me, under CP2, finding CP2 states that the proposed development would not be sensitive to the physical features of the existing neighborhood. However, policy MG 13 refers to the physical features regarding zoning, building mass, structure placement, height transitions, landscaping, streetscape, and access. Those are the compatibility elements that it refers to. If you walk through each of those elements, proposed development is actually is consistent with the adjacent villages in each of these regards the zoning and density are equivalent to or less than as sienna stated uh they are six units per acre and that is the that is consistent with each of the neighborhoods that are adjacent to this um it's either at or below the the existing density of those neighborhoods The, and specifically villages four and five are directly adjacent and those homes are also on the same 6,000 foot builder lots as the subject site. So those would be the exact equivalent. Those are the two adjacent properties, the two adjacent neighborhoods, adjacent villages. Village 13 is also adjacent to the site and that was built out at 5.44 units per acre. So very comparable, just slightly below what we're proposing here. The other neighborhood, the other adjacent neighborhood, Village 14, actually consists of cottage homes that were built at a higher density of 10 units per acre. So I don't know that you would say that they're compatible, six units per acre and 10 units per acre, but we're certainly less than or equivalent to the adjacent uses. So in terms of compatibility, we feel very strongly that that supports that. Secondly, the building massing will be equal to or less than the existing massing in the adjacent neighborhoods. We're going to be either one-story or two-story homes. These 158 as proposed would either be one or two-story homes. And as you see in the existing neighborhoods, the existing villages, really all the homes are either one or two-story, predominantly two-story. So again, compatibility on the building massing. The layout of the units would be a match with the existing structure placement. The idea is not to introduce a new product. The idea, especially of infill development, is to match the existing environment and fill in and complement the existing environment as opposed to being something contradictory to that. So the layout of the units will be very, very similar, if not the exact same as the other builder lot villages. The housing heights, of course, as I just mentioned, will be equal to or less than the heights of the existing homes. Landscaping and streetscapes will be equivalent to the existing. Those are all gonna be in the conditions of approval that we have development standards, design standards for the street frontage improvements, and those will all remain consistent with the adjacent villages. We look very much forward to having that continuity of all the amenities, the trail system, the road frontage improvements, the landscaping, and really all the features. You'd really want them to be blended nicely so that the 158 units would blend seamlessly into the existing neighborhoods. Last, the access to the proposed development will come off of Vista Drive. It's been one of the policies that's called out is that Vista Drive actually is utilized to the utmost. And so having our accesses off that main, off of Vista Drive rather than coming through the existing neighborhoods is the way that we thought that would be most compatible. So those are just to address policy MG13 issues. Going next, there's a discussion about if the response time for a fire department would be over six minutes that the homes would need to be sprinkled. We have no objection to that whatsoever. We agree with that policy. And any homes that would be over six minutes of response time would be, we'd have sprinklers installed. Interestingly, though, the station number five that was built, you know, very close to this property, that was built, but it was not manned previously or not staffed previously. And then just in the last month, the resources from station six have been reallocated to station number five. And so if you look today, we've got pictures to show. To show this as well, pictures taken today of out in front of 6, there's a sign that says this station is no longer manned and is not offering service, whereas unit station number 5 is now operational and has fire engines and ambulance there. and no sign out in front about restricted use or anything like that looks to be fully operational. That's just a side note. Even if we were over six minutes, we have no issue with this policy to provide sprinklered homes. The next is finding CP2. CP2 states that staff are unable to arrive at a recommendation that acceptable service levels can be maintained for roadways impacted by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and that this is inconsistent with policy CF1. However, The traffic impact study prepared by Wood-Rogers dated January 19th, 2026 calls for less than significant impacts to roadways. The study sites of the additional vehicle trips generated by 158 additional housing units will only trigger the need for major improvements to Vista Boulevard. Those improvements are already included in the planned CIP improvements to Vista Drive. And we did just learn some new information here tonight that of which portion of Vista Drive is planned to be expanded from four lanes to six lanes. And we'll have to look at the timing of that versus the timing of the development. But overall, the phasing of the project is generally supposed to mimic the phasing of the public improvements that would serve that project or that project that the project would utilize. More to the point, the compliance with policy CF1 uh cf1 cf1 stated objective to maintain or upgrade the condition of this adjacent arterial roadway this project certainly certainly uh you know between our fees that we pay for the cip projects And for this one specifically, certainly we feel like that this project is contributing to that and upgrading the condition of the adjacent arterial roadway. Then of course, as I just mentioned, it also maximizes the utilization of this roadway by increasing the number of households utilizing this thoroughfare. I know it sounds odd, but that is what is called specifically for in goal CF1. We're abiding by CF1, so we're in agreement with that. Binding CP2 also states that the existing zoning districts have capacity for 12,000 additional housing units, and that the projected demand for new housing is up to 8,693 new homes, and that there is a surplus of zoned land that equates to, that would generate a surplus of zoned land that equates to approximately 3,300 homes, 3307. That, if you project that out, That's about 434 homes demanded every year, the demand for new homes. That really goes directly in contrast with an article that was presented in 2024 that was published. It was actually written by Mayor Ed Lawson. And that called for a drastically lower number of available land for development. It actually called for only 2,000 acres of remaining developable land for residential homes. And in 2024, that article said that the remaining lot inventory would run out in 2027. So quite a discrepancy from the 2027 level. that was supported by UNR studies, by the way, in that article, and the regional board's projections of 12,000 new lots that are available and that those would last until approximately 2052. Quite a discrepancy between 2027 and 2052, but I think you would all agree that adding 158 lots in an infill location that utilizes the existing infrastructure, if nothing else is adding to that inventory of developable land that can be utilized for housing. So for those reasons, we feel like this is directly in support of policy H-1. Regarding policy RC12, which is regarding species and wetlands, Integral Consulting's evaluation letter, dated May 21st of 2026, just a couple of months ago, identifies the potential for saltgrass to provide habitat on site for the Carson wandering skipper. We, as the applicant, agree with this finding and that additional surveys will be required. That is normal course of action for any development project that surveys will be done and conducted at the time of the year when those species or habitat items can be evaluated properly. You wouldn't, for instance, you wouldn't evaluate a habitat in late August or September when it's all been evaluated. when it's all wilted essentially after the end of the summer heat, you would evaluate that in April, May when it's, you know, in the springtime when everything's in full bloom so you can actually see the plant life and really get a good indication of that presence. So we have no issue with that. We fully expect to conduct those surveys. And to take that one step further too, of course those surveys will be done, and as as additional consultation with US Fish and Wildlife potentially on species, just like additional consultation with the Army Corps potentially on any potential impacts to wetlands, which we don't believe there would be at all. There are no wetlands currently designated on the property. We, of course, will consult with each of those public agencies as we get through this process. So to answer Sienna's question about timing, you wouldn't usually provide at this level, at this point in the development process, You wouldn't have the development defined properly, defined closely enough to be able to give that information to each of those public agencies for them to fully evaluate at this time. That's a little bit further down in the process. It's sort of like something that may be required before another item. It may be required before a building permit, that type of thing. Certainly we would need, before any development occurred, before any construction occurred, any of those consultations would need to happen as necessary, but they wouldn't have happened yet. And so right now, the best that we have is the reliance on the initial evaluation that Integral has done of the wetlands and species and habitat, and reliance on those historical documents, specifically the 1995 Army Corps permit, the 404 permit. So again, if evidence as we do these surveys, as we move forward, and any evidence of the Saltgrass or the Carson Wandering Skipper is found, then Integral will be the lead consultant to conduct these surveys and to coordinate with those agencies. And that's in furtherance of policy RC-12. So generally, you can see there's a bit of a theme that a lot of the findings are actually in agreement between staff and applicant. And where we do have an issue, where we do take exception is what I just mentioned in terms of wetlands. You know, policies, RC7 is if wetlands are determined to be present, then you would have to mitigate in accordance with federal law. Okay, if a jurisdictional delineation, a new jurisdictional delineation is conducted, is determined to be necessary, is conducted, then that will determine whether there are wetlands that at that time would potentially need to be mitigated. We don't believe that to be the case, but... That's, we certainly feel like that we are in concert with policy RC7 at this point. So the applicant, we as the applicant disagree with finding CP1's statement that wetlands are present within the subject site. Again, as part of this Army Corps 404 permit issued on April 25th, 1995, a jurisdictional delineation determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are located within the proposed project site. maintaining compliance with the existing 404 permit will prevent and mitigate the degradation or destruction of wetlands in advancement of the policy RC7. Furthermore, Integral will continue to consult with the Army Corps to ensure that the proposed development does not cause any additional disturbances that could be potential future mitigations or additional mitigations that have not already been complied with. Next, regarding FEMA and the floodplains and CLOMARs and LOMARs, that's a standard anytime that you have a low-lying area or really any development project, frankly. You do a consultation with FEMA and determine whether a CLOMAR or LOMAR would be required for the project. In this instance, In furtherance of policies RC15 and RC16, which require the CLOMAR and LOMAR in consultation with FEMA. So in furtherance of those two policies, the new drainage improvements are being designed currently by Wood-Rogers to either maintain or exceed the capacity of the existing drainageway. So the... It'll bring me to one other point here real quickly. As a result, the base flood elevations will not be increased, and consultation with FEMA on a CLOMAR or LOMAR is not anticipated to be necessary at this time. Just one bit of background as well, and another bit is, I don't know how many of you have actually been to the property or been right near the property and actually seen the property, Back in, as Sienna mentioned back in 2005 when it was actually developed, it was fully developed as three holes for the golf course. There were supposed to be three holes that were going to replace three of the existing holes. The intention there was that these three holes were to be built, they were to be added to one of the two courses as three replacement holes that would free up three holes on one of the other two courses for development of housing, very similar to what is being proposed currently.

Excuse me, let's be respectful to the speakers.

And actually, if you look at 2005 and how it was developed, it was ready to be placed into play. The greens were all done, the golf pathways were finished, all the greenscape, all the landscape, everything was completed at that point. And those were ready to be inserted into the golf course and take three holes out of the golf course. The only reason it wasn't inserted at that point was because that was just going into a downturn in late 2006 and into 2007, and a decision was made not to incorporate those at that time. But those were fully developed with the intent of Allowing for development of holes on that site to allow for development of homes on on on another portion of the golf course So that was the intent behind that those were we look at that as depending on what business you're in, you would look at those, at that development back in 2005, you'd look at those three holes as completed and all the work that went into it, all the construction, all the trades that went into that, all the golf professionals, everybody else that came in, that is a fully developed three hole, a set of three holes for a golf course. So to say that that's somehow a pristine, natural environment that, you know, that, that has wetlands and it has this and it has that. It's just not the case. It was a fully developed property. And if you look at the acreage even, just as a fact check on that, please, just for a second. Humor me on this for a second. If you look at what the acreage is for a golf course, per hole, you're about 10,000 square feet. or excuse me, about 10 acres, excuse me, you're about 10 acres per hole. So if that, at three holes, for three holes, you're about 30, you're about three acres. And excuse me, you're about 30 acres, sorry, I'm quoting the math off the top of my head. 10 acres for one hole, 30 acres for three holes. You add the golf cart paths and some of the open space around that, and it comes to about 34 acres. That is exactly the footprint that we are proposing to develop. That leaves the drainage channel that that's in a different configuration now, but it leaves this 14 acres for that drainage channel and for the open space so that the drainage way the drainage passageway can serve in the same capacity it does today. So just a little bit of background there. So we all understand where this came from. And then under cp3 so that was just cp2 with with each of the items that were really um you know that that we either had a differing opinion on or that that we did in fact disagree with staff on look at the the first one we we were in complete agreement on cp1 um that was cp2 that i just covered and then going into cp3 The applicant, we as the applicant agree with staff's assessment under finding CP3 that the comprehensive plan amendment will be compatible with surrounding land uses. That finding was made and we appreciate that finding being made. Lastly, the same token, finding CP4, is that, regarding public notice, and we as the applicant agree with staff's assessment under finding CP4. The public notice was given and a public hearing held per the requirements of Nevada revised statutes and SPARC's municipal code. Furthermore, of the 60 public comments received prior to this hearing, Only 23 of those comments were specific to Foothills. Some were both to Foothills and to Wingfield. Quite a few, I'd say the majority, were directed toward Wingfield. And so out of those comments, we had 23 that were directed specifically at Foothills. Just wanted to clarify that point as well. I have a little bit of information here, if you would like some information on the fire stations, just to show what I was talking about, and the article from Mayor Lawson as well to support some of the things that we said here today. Happy to provide those to the commission secretary so we can get those on public record as well. And I'll bring those over to you now. I appreciate your time. It's an honor to be in front of you. the study session was very very helpful last week really appreciate your your time there and We're here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Mr. Blake. Do any commissioners have questions of the applicant?

Okay, Commissioner Kramer really Am I on okay Mr. Peters You guys are relying on a 1995 Army Corps of Engineers permit, which is 31 years old. Has anybody done an update of that permit or any update of that study?

Yeah, so as I said, at this point in the development, you would rely on the historical documents. Any consultant that evaluates the wetlands would rely on that as the historical data and then would update it based on current site changes.

So nobody is thought to reach out to the Army Corps of Engineers and say, hey, we are looking to do this. Is there something that we need to do prior to submitting an application to the city, prior to... doing any of the legwork. Because to me, the legwork that you guys have done is minimal and doesn't state any timeline or anything going forward. So you also address access on Vista Boulevard and your traffic study is incorrect according to RTC. RTC says they are not going to widen Vista from... where you're at to hubble to six lanes and you're stating tonight that you just found that out tonight. But that portion of I think I think that happened that it was not funded and that that was not it's not in there it's not in their plan there they they put a plan out every every year and it takes what Shelley correct me if I'm wrong twenty thirty year out. Yeah. So that should have been in their 30 year plan. That's not in their 30 year plan.

Their 30 year plan was a, an expansion of a Vista drive from four to six lanes. That was what we were aware of. We weren't aware of the constraints about where that stopped.

So, so now you want to have people going northbound on Vista, making a year U-turn at Black Hills and getting into a development right there. Is that correct? I mean, that's what your plan states.

That's what the plan states currently, yeah.

So you are planning to put 316 new vehicles on that stretch of roadway from Wingfield Parkway to Black Hills, and you expect people, the 316 cars, to make a U-turn to get into their property? I'm asking, it doesn't make sense to me.

No, I'm sorry, please no clapping, no booing. Let's be respectful to all of the speakers, including the applicant. Thank you.

That does not make sense to me. That is dangerous and irresponsible of your client to think that people should do that to get into their homes. The other issue I have is Fire Station 5. I lived out there for five years, and I know exactly the area that you are talking about. I see children riding their bikes, children fishing, parents walking their kids, all of it. And you guys are going to take that away and build homes on it?

All due respect, it is private property.

Understood, but you have to conform with the city's development plan.

Right, but as it stands currently, it's being utilized when it shouldn't be utilized by the general public, by members of the community.

Then maybe what you should have done earlier is enclose that and make it private property so people couldn't use it. But that's part of open space. Is that not correct?

It is.

It's part of what the... Part of what the plan was.

It is private property, though, currently. It is designated as open space currently, but it is private property. There's not public access to use that property currently.

Then why don't you close it off?

We're glad to do that.

I mean, if they can't, if it's not designated as open space, then it's now private property.

It's always been private property.

But it's part of the development. It is considered open space.

Well, it's a little bit like the well, it's a different piece. It's a, it's a piece.

It's not, don't, don't compare the two. That's not, it's not a good comparison.

I'm not, excuse me. I didn't mean to make a specific reference. I just meant another piece within the development. It is private property.

You're asking us. to take your word for it, and I know that the city will do their due diligence, but there is no timeline for any of the studies, none.

Well, can I ask you, so if you've ever consulted with the Army Corps or any of the public agencies, you know, Jim, could you give us an indication of a standard protocol, of a standard length of time for a public agency to issue a permit? What would be the standard that we should apply to that? Chair, is this the question you're asking? The applicant is getting to ask questions. I'm not trying to redirect it to you. I apologize. I'm just saying there is no standard. And so as you get into a process like that, I've done hundreds of permits.

But in this, it does not say when a permit is pulled, we're going to do this study.

Actually, I think I specifically said that for those two, the two fish species are not anticipated to be present on the site. We've already had a survey done, an initial survey. They did come out and walk the site, and that's what Integral's letter provided insight on. So that was done, the integral gave their opinion of the 1995 wetlands delineation and whether that was still applicable and how that applied to the waterways, the drainage channels that are on this property. So that determination was already made and they've already determined that salt grass, which does support the skipper, is prevalent on site. They don't know that the skipper is actually prevalent or not, but that survey needs to be done. And that's, literally, I'm just saying those two surveys have to be done at the right times of the year. So we're happy to provide that information. That was not something that was At that time when we were putting together the handbook amendment application, that was not something that we thought was timely at that point. If we want answers to that now, we're happy to provide that now. And like I said...

But did you specify in your handbook application that at the time that the wandering skipper migrates, that that particular survey would be done?

We said that the integral letter says specifically that both of those are, looks like both of those could be present on the site and that surveys need to be conducted. Integral said exactly that, and that is with our application, specifically cited in our application, actually. So yes, yes, we do. Okay.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

some of the same concerns, specifically the traffic impact study. I can't understand why when staff asked you to reevaluate that study based on the assumptions that were made that were incorrect, why you didn't go back and you chose not to revise the traffic impact study. Why did you not take staff's recommendation and look at that traffic study again?

staff only gave us about two weeks to provide or to uh to update those those studies in order to get into planning commission and to stay in planning commission on june 29th the all at that time before any of this had been conducted, before any real evaluation had been done, we were already being told that the staff was going to deny our application or recommend denial anyway. And so they gave us the option of updating the traffic study, but said that they were going to recommend denial either way. And so they left it up to us and we said, you know what, if incorporating the staff's comments into the traffic impact study If that wasn't going to further their opinion or give them additional consideration, and we were given such a tight timeline, actually our consultant was not able to meet that timeline. So we said, let's move forward, and we wanted to come before you to present the project to you because we knew the staff was already recommending denial.

Okay. Questions? I don't have any more questions.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners? Is Commissioner Priestos still on the line? Yes. Does he have any questions?

Do you have any questions? I have no questions.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your time.

Thank you.

Okay. So this is a... Pardon? Pardon? Okay, thank you. All right, this is a public hearing, and we have a number of people who would like to speak. What I'm going to do is call three names. The first one will be the first kind of like a batter's box, and the other two will stand over here. If you have written out a request to speak I have that. I also have requests or actually where they don't want to speak but I'm going to read these as well so that I can record your opposition or approval for the project. If you have any comments that have already been made by a prior commenter, it would help all of us to condense the time if you would respectfully try not to repeat the same thing over again. If you have any additional concerns, of course we'd like to hear them. And you're always welcome to submit your comments in writing as well. So we're gonna go ahead and get started. The first one I have is Brian Moore. And William and Kay Hertz, I'd appreciate it if one of you, unless both of you would like to speak. And then Steve Yearley, I believe, or Pierce, sorry. Steve Pierce is the third person. If the other two that I called could come over here so that you're ready to go, that will help shorten the timeline. Sir are you Brian Moore?

I am.

Hi.

Hi.

You may go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you very much commissioners. Appreciate you taking the time. I am a resident out at Wingfield Springs. I am on the board of the Wingfield Springs HOA and we made a commitment right at the very beginning of this whole development issue that there was a joint concerns whether it was in Foothills or Wingfield Springs that we would present our oppositions together. And that's what I'm doing here this evening, although it's not specifically Wingfield Springs. It is for the foothills. And so I'm here to express my opposition. I've actually come before you prior to. So in honor of what you just said, I'm not going to repeat what I said before. Frankly stated, I'm in opposition. I have two other comments I want to make. First of all, I want to tell the city staff. our appreciation for the incredibly hard work that they've put into this it's not an easy process. And there's a lot of of turbulence around this I'm sure all of you know. But the phenomenal job they've done in reviewing this has been incredible and extremely much appreciated. Likewise, the same thing for you. This is very difficult, and the due diligence that you've done in reviewing this information, taking the time that you have, and demonstrated your sensitivity to the residents of Wingfield Springs and the foothills is beyond appreciated and I just want to tell you that and I just want to thank the other homeowners that are here as well, although we do have a temptation sometimes to get a little bit emotional and rightfully so because our lifestyle is in jeopardy. But I just want to thank the residents here for the incredible respect they have shown tonight. And please, for those of you who are going to be coming up to speak, just continue that same level of respect because these people here deserve our respect. So thank you.

I appreciate it. And also, I forgot to mention, there is a strict three-minute timeline. How about William and Kay Hertz? I had called them. They may have less. Are you... Okay, thank you, I'll move you over here. Okay, and so I'll go ahead and read whether or not you're in support, and it says that you're in opposition of building homes. Thank you. Okay, Steve Pierce.

I was in opposition, I wasn't gonna speak.

Okay, thank you, so you're in opposition. Steve Pierce is in opposition, he's not requesting to speak. Tom Sosinski.

Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Sosinski. I'm a homeowner in Wingfield Springs and a member of the Wingfield Springs Preservation Group. First, echoing what Brian said, I want to begin by expressing sincere appreciation to the city staff. Their review of both the Foothills and Wingfield applications have been incredibly thorough, thoughtful, and professional. We truly value the time and expertise they've dedicated to this process. Regarding the Foothills applications before you tonight, city staff has provided a detailed analysis that addresses a wide range of concerns raised by both the city and our community. Their thoughtful findings support a recommendation for denial. We also want to thank the city attorney's office for concurring with these recommendations and their readiness to defend them. These applications proposed significant changes to a long established carefully planned community. As you can see from the many residents here this evening, here and out in the hallways, and many that couldn't be here tonight, these proposals have created a substantial concern. Our respectful request is that the Planning Commission uphold the staff's recommendation and deny these applications. To the applicant, we believe that strong community partnerships are built through open dialogue and collaboration with the residents and the city to explore reasonable alternatives. That could include developing in more suitable areas in the city and the sale of the golf courses to organizations interested in preserving them and the community. Finally, I want to thank each commissioner for your time, your patience, and your willingness to hear from our community, whether through previous meetings or the many emails you have received. We truly appreciate your thoughtful consideration on this important matter. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Suszynski. Okay, the next three are Diane Craig, Tim Suszynski, and Michael Craig. Diane Craig. OK, thank you. So we have Diane Craig opposing the development. Thank you. Go ahead, Kim.

I really didn't want to go after my husband, but here we are. My name is Kim Sosinski, and good evening to you commissioners. I appreciate you allowing us to speak today. I recognize that you're in a voluntary role, and it's not easy. You are often having to ask to weigh interests, but your responsibility is clear to protect the health, safety, and welfare and the long-term interests of residents that are in the City of Sparks. Tonight, I ask you to remember who is sitting on each side of this issue. On one side is a billionaire developer with significant financial resources, professional consultants, attorneys, and ability to pursue projects elsewhere if this one does not move forward. On the other side, there are thousands of residents who have invested their life savings like we have into their homes and to the neighborhoods. Families who chose this community based on plans, promises, and character that exist when they purchased their properties. People who volunteer in the community, support local businesses, and help pay for the taxes that help fund the city. The decision is not simple about where homes can be built. It's about whether the proposed project is the right project, is in the right place, is in the right scale, and whether it serves the broader interests. Consequences of your decision will not be temporary. Long term after this developer builds his houses and leaves the area, and leaves this area, we are going to be left with the consequences. Your responsibility is to not maximize the developer's return on investment. Your responsibility is to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the city's plans, policies, and visions of the future. This applicant tonight spent a half an hour explaining away most of the staff's objections to this project because they're gonna fix it in the future. And I think that needs to be looked upon. The residents before you are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for thoughtful planning, responsible growth, and decisions based on the best for the entire community. We will remember the Planning Commission and we hope that you have the courage to make this community first. I respectfully hope that you will make that decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we have Michael Crane who wants to speak in opposition. And I'm sorry. Michael Craig. Yes, sir. Oh, Craig. Okay. Thank you. Also, Richard Williams and Bill Huddleston. Sorry if I'm torturing your name. If you wouldn't mind please coming down here, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Madam Chair and all the delegates, thank you very much for your time and your patience. We do understand that this is a tough situation that has been given you. What I have, and I've already given it to the girls, is a letter from the EPA of Nevada that stated in 2024, the Donovan pit was denied. I lived in Donovan or up near Donovan. Two years have passed or close to two years have passed and nothing has been done. My ask of you is, is to go and actually do something that would benefit all these people who are taxpayers. Understand that the sewer system is at capacity. That's what this letter said. And today, at 3.30, it's still in denial. So my ask of you is to really sit down, look at all the houses that are being built northwest of Raley's and add up all the businesses that are going in. And can this sewer actually do more than what's already being planned as a build? That is your responsibility. That is my request and my ask for you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. And we have Richard Williams and then Bill Huddleston and Jim Brake. Please come down if your name is called. Richard Williams is speaking in opposition.

Good evening, Madam Chair and honorable commissioners. I didn't prepare anything this evening. My name is Richard Williams. I live on Aston Circle in Wingfield Springs. We're a small, I live in a smaller HOA that's part of the bigger HOA of Wingfield Springs. It's a town home community. And I volunteer, I serve on the board. We have a situation here, as you've outlined, that there's a lot of, from what we can hear there and what we know and what we're finding out, a lot of determinations, a lot of assumptions being made, a lot of facts and forward moving requests and Actions before your honorable selves that The community is not comfortable with This is a very very important situation This is a very special area of Wingfield Springs. We're surrounded by beautiful hills. There's only so much land And the community has grown to love what they've come to be able to use I know that the land that is open space is It is private property. But there's longstanding public domain usages and laws that have guaranteed people a variety of freedoms. In fact, Google Maps places the Wingfield Trails going through this property. It's actually listed there as a trail. But I want to say the history of this development company speaks for itself. And you can research this yourselves on Google or gather it through AI. But the Sino Development Corporation, Albert DeSino, who is also the primary owner or manager or director of the Red Hawk Development, had overlooked a great deal of environmental components. And this is highly documented, and it resulted in a $3 million fine against the company. And it also brought about, at his direction, the destruction of a project where the red-legged frog was removed from its habitat. All of these can be read. All these should be studied. They should be taken into consideration. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. And now we have Bill Hedleston. Bill Huddleston. OK, I don't see him, but he was wanting to speak in opposition. And next, Jim Brake, and then Patrick Ebinger, and Neil Schwartz. Yes, sir, are you Jim Brake?

Yes. Good evening. Thank you for hearing our concerns. I moved into Foothills area five years ago and have enjoyed the open space around us, including the ponds. Lots of wildlife and good sunset photos. And when we moved in, our realtor, I asked her about the open space in the area, and I said, oh, this is great having all this open space, hiking to the east and the ponds to the west. And she said, well, this is Nevada, so you never know what's going to happen in the future. And that was kind of a warning, and hopefully she was not correct in this case, and that that open space will remain open space FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. AND IF IT DOESN'T, IF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT, I WILL ADVISE EVERYONE I KNOW THAT SPARKS IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO MOVE IN. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. AND NOW WE HAVE PATRICK EBEINGER. I'M SORRY?

A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY EBEINGER OR EBEINGER, WHATEVER.

THANK YOU.

So thank you, commissioners, for listening to us, and I'm going to go ahead and join along with what Brian had said and what Tom had said about we really appreciate all the thought that you guys have put into this. We know it's sometimes a thankless job. I am a president of an HOA in the Foothills area. It's a volunteer position, so I understand what it's like to have constituents that are talking to you, and it can be a tedious job. First of all, I want to address the traffic study. I'm pretty sure that that traffic study is also probably from 1995, to be honest with you. I have a lived experience of driving all over in sales, so I'm on the roads quite a bit at all hours, and none of those numbers match what my lived experience is, period, by a long shot. But what I want to talk about today is a The traffic in general and the potential mental health crisis that overdevelopment can bring. Now, this is a macroscopic traffic model based on driver psychological response. It's a compilation of 369 of the top PhDs that have done traffic studies. And they submitted them on academia.edu if you want to go to that and see them. So basically it says, a sudden surge in population, rapid development, and a sharp increase in automobile and truck traffic produces predictable, well-documented psychological impacts on both residents and drivers. The core takeaways of these studies is chronic congestion along with driver aggression, distraction, and risk taking, while also degrading overall traffic flow and community well-being. So the core psychological impacts on drivers in rapid growth areas is chronic stress, irritability, and negative effect. Sudden congestion creates persistent delays, unpredictability, and sensory overload. Research shows that traffic adversities narrows drivers' thought action repertoires, triggering fight or flight responses, and aggressive driving behaviors. So the overall driver experience is a heightened irritability and frustration, lower emotional regulation, increased likelihood of honking, tailgating, and hostile gestures. And I'm telling you, I see it every day. And you guys know that we just had guys getting off Pirabit Highway and Los Altos and going to fisticuffs with each other. So it's already there. We don't need to exacerbate it. So cognitive overload and reduced attention, rapid growth often outpaces infrastructure upgrades, which is the case here because you're not going to do roads until 2050. Inconsistent traffic environments, traffic psychology research highlights how distraction and cognitive strain degrade lane stability, reaction time, and speed consistency. So this makes more red light single running, slower hazard detection, and people tailgating behind slower vehicles so the one thing i want to say in the in finality here is that we've got social fragmentation oh sorry i'm sorry that's okay thank you you got the idea traffic is a major problem thank you madam commissioner for acknowledging that appreciate you so neil schwartz no let's no clapping please neil schwartz and then we have edward

Goni, Goni, Centris Drive, if that helps, and Kristen DeHaan.

I want to thank the board for my time. My name is Neil Swartz. I've been a realtor for over 30 years. I'm also a candidate for District 31, so these people behind me may be my constituents, but I looked into this project. I've done development with wetlands, and I I wrote some legislation that's on my website, and it's been published on KOLO TV and some other places. You can't build on wetlands. There's a project right now that's very similar to this in Lake Las Vegas, and I recommend you all take a look at it. That project has over $100 million worth of... of suits to the Pultes in this Del Webb community. And it's not only going against the city, it's going against the developer. So please take a look at that. You know, these people behind me bought a lifestyle. I know what that's like because I've sold people lifestyles. And they deserve a chance to be heard. And they deserve a chance to continue to live the way that they were promised when they bought that home. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Edward J. Goning. Thank you, sir. Speaking in opposition.

Good evening, Madam Commissioner. Just want to let you know that I strongly oppose this whole entire action. As you all know, we have many residents out here that strongly oppose. Since I moved out here in 2015, I've seen crime rates go up. These people don't have to worry about that. All these other residents have to worry about it. How many kids have actually gotten hit out here? That traffic study? That's not going to replace some of the kids that get hit in the future because we have, what, 300-something cars? I believe it's page 162 in their manual that everyone has public access to. I believe it says something about carpooling. I don't believe I want to start carpooling, all right? That's not something I want to do. And then as far as the recent water studies and everything else, we started looking at some of those actions. We have that strong burst of water, rain, and stuff like that that came through, I believe it was a couple weeks ago. Everyone remembers that, how Vista Boulevard actually flooded. Where does that water go? Right behind my house is where these guys wanted to fill up, went up 11.2 inches. I monitor all that stuff because, well, that's flood insurance, right? So I monitor all that stuff. I got time to do it. I also run on that course. So I'm an avid runner. I've run throughout this whole entire area. I've seen traffic go up. Let's look at the fire stations. So when that fire went up on Vista Boulevard, I was right there. I saw that fire go up. I actually got a burned shirt from that. So who responded to that? That was Reno Police Department. Not Sparks, Reno. Sparks Police Department is kind of short. Now budgeting starts cutting, we cut police, we cut everything else. So we started looking at the fire department. They just don't do fires, they do emergency services. These guys didn't plan for that. So that's all my motions right there. What I'm gonna say, I strongly oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We have Kristen DeHaan and Wayne Allen and also Randy Pfizer.

Hi, my name is Kristen DeHaan, and I have lived on Antinori Drive since 2005. My family was the first family in Ironstone, and we oppose the building of any houses on that rewilded space. We do not want development of the rewilded golf course that is right next to my house. This is an amazing place for birds, ducks, muskrats, fish, coyotes, squirrels, turtles, and the list goes on. Did you know that in the late winter we saw a sora and a Virginia rail in the area? These are very hard to find. And just a few weeks ago, we saw the Virginia rail again. And in the spring, we heard more than one sora. Did you know that the state bird, the mountain bluebird, uses our ponds as a place to rest? We were one of the only places last year in Washoe County that had the mountain bluebirds. This winter, when it was snowing, the pond areas were filled with these beautiful birds. Our ponds also have gadwalls, ruddies, redheads, coots, grebes, both pie-billed and Clark's grebe, cliff swallows, night hawks, cooper's hawks, northern harriers, buffleheads, mergansers, quail, yellow-headed and red-winged blackbirds, We have Buick's wrens. We have quail. We have the red-tailed hawks. We have cedar, waxwing, cinnamon, teals, black phoebes, cormorants, western kingbirds, marsh wrens, avocets, black-necked stilts, ruby clown, kinglets, bush tits, gold finches, lesser gold finches. This might seem really boring to listen to. We've also got brown-headed cowbirds, long-billed dowitchers, great egrets, great blue herons, night herons, pipets, say's phoebes, belted kingfishers, pelicans, Canada geese, mallards, and so many more. Just last week, we saw 11 white-faced ibis flying above as we walked, and some of them are in our very first pond, which is closest to Vista. Our ponds are an incredibly important part for various migrating birds. I don't know if you've seen any or all of these birds, but they are all amazing. On top of the birds, we have a family of coyotes, as well as bunnies, squirrels, and kangaroo rats. We have bullfrogs and western toads, which show just how healthy this ecosystem is. Our ponds are home to so many species, how is it OK to destroy where they are finding respite? Since 2020, our community has been using this space as of the rewilded area. People walk there every single day. Families have created and maintained areas for bikes. People fish. People are fishing. Families have created and maintained areas for, sorry, I took my Girl Scout troop there several times between 2015 and 19. Our Boy Scout troop was there as well. I've seen other youth organizations studying the wildlife in this area. Sparks has very few third spaces. Third spaces are safe spaces for families, for communities that don't cost money. It is a place where you can make friends. I have made a friend who has a dog with my walking just because he wanted to show me a rainbow that was across that area. Destroying this space, it makes no sense. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Okay, we have Randy Pfizer.

I'm Randy Pizer in opposition. The project intends to fill in five lakes. That was stated at one of the community meetings. In a case of fire, the nearest water sources for helicopters to access water will disappear. The Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District posted an announcement on June 22nd stating, quote, Washoe County has already seen several wildland fires. Local wildland fuels have dried to the point that catching containing and extinguishing a fire start is very difficult and less likely, increasing the risk to our citizens. We are those citizens. I drove through the flames of the Oakland Hills fire in the early 90s and barely escaped with my life. Fire moves unbelievably quickly. People were hosing down their houses. You put sprinklers out, it's not going to make a difference. So fire moves so quickly, taking away these lakes could easily cause entire neighborhoods to burn. Last year, many residents watched the water helicopters getting water right from the lake on Vista. Don't let our community lose this valuable resource, and please don't vote to put us at greater risk. Thank you.

Thank you, and I'd like to remind everybody that this is about the Foothills and Wingfield discussion is going to be in September. Oh, we don't know that. Sorry, we don't know that. Gay, hang on, sorry. Guy Fuse? Did I call that? Go ahead and come up, sir. I'll find your card. And then also Guy, Greg, sorry, Greg Fuse and MARIE ANDREENY.

GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS. MY NAME IS WAYNE ALLEN. MY WIFE AND I RESIDE AT 2757 SILVERTON WAY. THAT OUR HOME BORDERS THE FIRST FAIRWAY OF THE LAKES COURSE. And we moved in there in 2004, 22 years ago. I ordered an appraisal report before the purchase. And I'll quote you something out of there. It states, and under additional features, the subject property also has sweeping, unobscured, Panoramic view of the golf course, valley, and mountains. I think the city staff did an excellent job with their project, with this project. And they would say that is open space. I agree with that. I'm going to add a word to it, though. I'm going to add a word called precious space. Precious open space. Let me give you my definition of, excuse me, priceless. Priceless, and let me give you the definition, my definition of priceless. It's something of immense value that cannot be given a dollar figure. That something is the memory of a wonderful living environment for the last 22 years at the Red Hawk Resort. Those wonderful memories would be tarnished and irreplaceable if the pending request of Red Hawk Land Company is approved. The past and current beautiful living environment at the Red Hawk Resort has been a heritage for almost 30 years. The lake's course was opened in 1997. The future heritage will be destroyed and will be irreplaceable. The Red Hawk Resort will suffer A major downgrade. Beverly Schumacher is in opposition.

Susie Young is in opposition. John Young is in opposition. Katie Petroni is in opposition. Dennis Humphrey is in opposition. Dolores Blackwelder-Casa is in opposition. Taylor Palmer is in opposition, is in favor. Okay, it was written. All right, thank you. Is in opposition. Jose Garcia is in opposition. Don Evans is in opposition. Bill Hecht is in opposition. And he has a note that would be read into the record. No? I'm sorry? Oh, it would be part of the record. Bruce Van Klimput is in opposition. Cynthia Klimput is in opposition. Reed Peterson is in opposition. Mike and Stacy Whitaker are in opposition. Tammy Vineyard is in opposition. Kimberly Finch is in opposition. Dave and Debbie Irish are in opposition. And we have somebody that does not wish to speak. Annie Story is in opposition also. If there are anybody else who would like to speak? If not, we're going to move to the motion. Closing public public hearing next and then we're going to move to the motion. No. Do y'all have any questions Planning Commission? Yeah, yes, yes, yes. And so do you have any, okay. Do you have any questions on this one?

I don't have any questions. I just want to make a comment. I want to thank staff. I want to thank all of you here for the public comment. We respect your comments. We respect your respectfulness. That is very greatly appreciated on such a hot topic here. And again, thank you to staff for a thorough, thorough job on what they've done. Jim, your staff has done a great job. And thank you guys for doing that and presenting it in a manner where we have a great understanding of it.

Thank you, Commissioner Kramer. Please hold your applause. Please hold your applause. Thank you. Does Commissioner Priestos have any comments or questions?

I have no questions at this time.

Okay. And now we're going to call for a motion for public hearing, PCN 26-0004, MPA 26-0001. Madam Chair.

I'm prepared to make a motion. I move to deny the Comprehensive Plan Use Amendment MPA 26-0001 associated with PCN-0004 based on noncompliance with finding CP2 and the fact supporting this finding is set forth in the staff report.

Okay, we have, excuse me, we have a motion from Commissioner Kramer and a second from Commissioner Reed. Do we have any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Commissioner Priestos? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing no opposition, the motion passes. And now we move on. Thank you. Please hold your applause. Now we move on to public hearing PCN 260004 PD26-0002. Do we have one moment? Staff has already done their presentation on the handbook. Would the applicant like to speak to the handbook at this time? Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak on the handbook?

Thank you, members of the Planning Commission. We don't have any additional comments, additional presentation separately on the handbook versus the comprehensive plan amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

We're here to answer any questions on either.

Thank you. Does the commission have any? Okay, sir, we do have a question. Sorry. Mr. Peters? Yes.

The biggest thing I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this project is the PDD, the mutual interest of all the residents of the area. Is there anything that we're missing as far as seeing how the mutual interest is being met here? Just that's the thing that I'm really having a hard time getting my head around.

If you could specify a little bit more what you mean by the mutual interest.

Yeah, in PDP it says that the staff needs to find that the mutual interest of the residents is there. And I don't see how this project meets the mutual interest of the residents in the community. So this is me just asking, is there anything that we're missing or anything that staff maybe didn't consider as far as how this does meet PDD?

I think if you look at our comments that were submitted on record, those are the comments that we would reiterate in response. Perfect. Thank you. Anything else?

Are there any other questions for the applicant? EVAN, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER PRIESTOS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

NO QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO HEARING NO QUESTIONS, CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT, DO WE NEED TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON SPECIFICALLY THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. Closed public comment and I'll entertain a motion. Yes.

A motion and move to forward to the city council a recommendation of denial of the request to amend the final approved handbook for the foothills at Wingfield Springs Development Standard Handbook, PCN 26004-PD26-002. based on non-compliance with findings PDA, PDD, PDE, PDF, and PDG, and the fact supporting the inability to make those required findings as set forth in the staff report.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Sperber and a second by Commissioner Niebuhrlin. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor? Any opposed? Sorry, Commissioner Pristos?

Commissioner Pristos? Aye.

Aye, okay. Any opposed? Seeing no opposition, the motion passes. And now we move on to general business. Announcements, presentations, recognition items, and items of social interest, special interest.

Okay. Is that in the sun?

If I could make one quick comment, there was a mention that Wingfield Springs would be considered in September. That's the tentative date. That might change at this point. We're looking probably at September, but those meetings will be posted in the future.

Thank you. Okay, so we're at item number nine, announcements, presentations. Pardon?

Okay.

Okay, 10.1. Now it's time, if y'all wouldn't mind leaving quietly. We're still conducting business. Thank you. Okay, why don't we take a three-minute recess so that people can exit.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you. Sorry, better wait another minute.

Okay, calling the meeting back to order and we are on 10.1 comments from the public, the general comments from the public. Is there anybody here wishing to speak about anything? Okay, seeing no one wanting to speak on public comment I'm going to close public comment and now we have staff comments and announcements.

I don't have any, thank you, Chair.

Okay, we.

Excuse me, Madam Chair, I do. Yes. This is Jim Rundle's last Planning Commission meeting.

Oh, yes.

Before he rides off into the sunset.

Thank you.

I'd like to say thanks. I personally have learned a ton from Mr. Rundle, and we're all sad to see him go.

Absolutely, he saved me tonight. So thank you for everything that you've done. Thank you, Jim. We appreciate it. You're going to be sorely missed, though you'll still be kind of around, poking us when he shows up coming in. Would you like to say anything?

Well, Commissioner King earlier today, this evening, you had made a comment of my staff, and I just wanted to say it's our staff. And they've done an exceptional job. Unfortunately for them, it's of no surprise to me that they did an exceptional job. I would put that team up against anyone in the country. And so if this were the World Cup, I know we'd have a pretty good shot.

Very good. Absolutely. We really appreciate them. Very good.

Jim, thank you for your service to the City of Sparks. For how many years?

It depends on if you count how many hours, but in the eyes of PERS, it's 25.

Congratulations on 45 years, and thank you for your service to the City of Sparks. Absolutely.

We appreciate you. Okay. Are there any other comments? Thank you for doing that. Any Commissioner comments or announcements? Any other Commissioner? How about Commissioner Pristos? Does he have anything to share?

No, no comments.

Okay, very good. Then we're adjourned. Thank you.