Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is Tuesday, February 3rd. This is the Washoe County Planning Commission meeting. Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Michael Flick? Here. Amy Owens?

Present.

Kate Nelson?

Here.

Dan Lazareski? Here. Jim Barnes? Here. Rob Pierce?

Present.

Commissioner Kennedy does have an excused absence. She will not be joining us tonight. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Could we have the ethics law announcement?

Thank you. Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you received a gift or loan, you have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity such as family, employment, business, or similar relationship, or if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter that's being considered, you are required to disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. Thank you. You must furthermore abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear that the gift loan interest commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person. Commissioners are also reminded that under the Planning Commission rules, if you've had any contact outside this meeting with any person interested in a matter coming before the Commission, you should disclose the nature of that contact at the meeting.

Thank you. Could we have the appeals procedure?

Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date the decision being appealed is reduced to writing filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment at this time?

I do not have public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right. Has the board been able to review the agenda? Do we have any notes on it? We don't have any amendments from staff.

Mr. Rob, I recommend to approve as written.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Has everyone been able to review the draft minutes from the last meeting, January 6th? Anyone have any notes or amendments to that?

This is Rob. I recommend to make a motion to approve as written.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

Motion and second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right, this moves to the consent agenda. Consent item is a first extension that is granted under state law. Does anyone have any issue with the consent agenda? Otherwise, can I have a motion concerning the consent agenda? I will move to approve the consent agenda. IS WRITTEN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I THINK ROB BEATS YOU TO THE BOTTOM. MOTION IS SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT MOVES TO ITEM 8A. MR. REITER, DO YOU ANNOUNCE?

Okay, item 8A is Amendment of Conditions, case number WAC-25-0018, Rock Springs Solar for WSUP-21-0001. For hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for special use permit case number WSUP-21-0001 to amend condition 1C, which requires building permits to be issued within five years from the date of the Washoe County's approval of the special use permit. The amended condition extends the deadline to obtain building permits for two years until May 4th, 2028. Representing Washoe County in this manner is Planner Julie Olander. Good evening, Julie Olander, for the record.

So before you... So this is an amendment to amend several things in the original So it's condition 1C, which is changing the approval date to issue building permits from May 4th, 2026 this year to May 4th, 2028, two years in the future. And then also remove one parcel, a 12.25 acre parcel from the proposed project and to add a five acre parcel to the proposed project. So this project is, as you can see, that's Pyramid Lake on the right. And then you can see way over on the left is where this project's at. And then there's a larger view of it on the right. So on May 4th, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Special Use Permit 2020. and the approval was to establish 120 megawatt solar photo energetic generating facility with 84 megawatt battery storage system and for major grading to disturb 627 acres and with 426,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,026 cubic acres. yards of fill. And this is also to allow a substation height to exceed the 35 feet and to waive all landscaping and all parking requirements. And the project is on nine parcels, approximately 660 acres. The applicant is now requesting these changes to the two-year to obtain these building permits and states in the application. The project has encountered significant delays beyond the applicant's control. Additional setback arose from the transmission right-of-way threatened in 2022 to 2023. When California Rural Electric Cooperative threatened to condemn a right-of-way through the project site necessitating potential for reconfiguration and halting progression until resolved. And then they also recognized that one parcel was no longer needed to be on the project site. However, there was another parcel, as I stated earlier, that they wanted to add. Parcels within 500 feet of the site were noticed, but however, and And no, I did not, 46 emails went out, or notices went out, and I did not receive any emails or phone calls concerning this application. Various departments and agencies have reviewed the applications, and there were some, I don't believe any changes in the conditions, except the ones that I'm proposing, and the staff is able to make all the findings. and here's a possible motion. The applicant is here and available for any questions, and I'm available for any questions. She doesn't have a presentation, though. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any board questions for staff or the applicant? Do we have any public comment on this item?

We have no public comment in chambers. I do have a hand raised on Zoom. I don't have a name, but I will allow you to talk. Please state your first and last name for the record and please unmute. This is for the Samsung phone. There you go.

Yes.

Just state your first and last name, please.

Julie Wardley.

Go ahead, Julie. You have three minutes.

Okay. During the first project that was built out there, my major concern is the roads because obviously they're going to come in from 395 and then go to Fish Springs Road. All those roads were torn up so severely that everybody got a flat tire. Now, I don't live out there. My son does. But when I have to go out there to see him, even I've received a flat tire. And the problem is the tow truck companies won't even go out there and help you anymore. From Doyle. So my question to you all is, what are you going to do? Are you going to pave the road? Because it's high traffic, it is eaten up by vehicles going back and forth, even until today with the vehicles. Riding on that road, big old rocks. It's not smooth. It's a mud bath in the wintertime. And when vehicles run through there, it makes it even worse, makes it ruts. I literally have videos. I have videos of the road after the first construction and the damage it had done. So what are they doing to solve this? That's my question to you all. Have any of you been on that road and traveled it during the summer or winter? Because winter, when the trucks come through there, they make these big ruts in the road and create major problems for the residents that live out there. Every one of them had a flat tire. Everybody did. So I don't know if you can hear me, if anybody can hear me now.

We can hear you.

Oh, okay. So I'm wondering what they're doing about the high traffic in that area. What are they doing to address it?

Ma'am, this is public comment. This is not a back-and-forth conversation.

Okay. Well, the road... The roads are extremely dangerous out there. And I'm just I can't believe that you guys it's already disrupted the peace and quiet and enjoyment with the first phase of the solar project. Now you're going to add another one.

Thank you for your comment. That's all your time. Do we have any further public comment?

I have no more further public comment online or in chambers.

all right well um do we have some discussion i i do have bearing in mind that uh question for staff on this so uh within the existing conditions of the permit that would be offended condition 2 j is providing a construction haul route plan and addressing construction traffic impacts on the local streets, including proposing additions to these impacts.

Mr. Chair, there was a young lady back there that raised her hand. She wanted to speak, I think.

Okay. I'm sorry. Let's go back to public comment.

She's single.

She's the applicant. She's the applicant.

She's the applicant, and if you have questions of the applicant, she is here.

Okay, thanks very much. My question's for staff concerning, presumably this is not the first time we've conditioned a construction route plan and impact assessment, including mitigations. Can you describe what this generally looks like for a project like this?

Julie Olander for the record so at this point all they're doing is amending the time frame so the hall route and all those all that was discussed and when the item was approved in 2022 so that makes it I don't have all that the applicant might be able to give you some more information on that but from my perspective that was not one of the items I addressed because this is just an extension of time in a sense if you have further questions I'd ask her.

The only condition that really addresses that is condition 2J that requires a construction traffic hall route and a mitigation plan to be submitted before construction is to begin.

No, I understand that. I was just asking if staff could elaborate a little on what that generally looks like for a project like this.

It really is project to project. It's case by case based on the current conditions and whether or not improvements are necessary. So we don't have a typical plan in place for that.

Okay. Any further discussion or questions from the board? Would anyone like to make a motion?

This is Rob. I will. I move that after given recent consideration of the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions, case number WAC 25-0018 for CED Rock Spring Solar LLC, with demented conditions, including an exhibit A to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washington County Code Section 110.810.30.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously.

Chair, for the record, can you clarify that the findings pursuant to 110.810.35, which relate to natural resources, has also been made? It's on page eight of your staff report.

So clarified. Understood, yes. Any additional finding has also been made?

Correct. The five findings required by 810.30 and the additional three findings required by 810.35. Okay.

Well, I made my motion then.

Yeah. Yeah.

To include those. Do we need to revote? Yes, please.

Okay. I'm sorry, we have an amended motion. Do we have a second to the amended motion?

I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The amended motion carries unanimously. Apologies. Item 8B, please.

This is Development Code Amendment Case Number WDCA-250005. We're hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Washoe County Code Chapter 110 within Article 302, Allowed Uses, and Article 406, Building Placement Standards, and creating Article 403, Residential Uses in Commercial Regulatory Zones to allow multifamily residential use types in commercial regulatory zones with the application of multi-family development standards. To establish standards for mixed use, including a minimum percentage for commercial use type square footage, a maximum square foot percentage for civic use types, a ground floor height and facade transparency standards, site development standards for parking, landscaping, and other similar standards, a standard for multimodal and pedestrian safety, and a requirement for municipal water and wastewater services, and all manners necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. If the proposed amendments are initiated, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or recommend denial. If approval is recommended, the Planning Commission is asked to authorize the Chair to sign a resolution to that effect. And representing Washoe County in this manner is Senior Planner Eric Young.

Thank you, Trevor. Good evening. Chair, Commission, Eric Young, Senior Planner, Washoe County Planning Program. This is a development code amendment to propose allowing multifamily in our commercial zoning. This is another one of the housing related development code amendments that you've seen coming forward for the last several months. These are part of the Washoe County master plan and the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners strategic priority following through on the Washoe County master plan. If you want to know or be caught up on this series of amendments that we've undertaken, we do have a web page on the planning website dedicated to that, following along with those amendments, and it's called Master Plan Implementation on our website. You can pull out several master plan amendment or master plan goals. The one that is most appropriate to this proposed amendment is to allow for more flexibility in the zoning and land use regulations to enable more housing types to be built throughout the community where adequate infrastructure exists. So we do have a master plan goal that specifically supports this amendment. But in addition to our own master plan that suggested we look into this, Before the legislature ended their most recent session, they decided to mandate that we do it. So before the end of the session, we were actually looking into this possibility. We held off on it until we knew what the legislature was going to do, and what they did was mandate that we allow By right development of multifamily uses. In all of our commercial zoning districts, and you're familiar with those neighborhood commercial general commercial and tourist commercial. So we are allowed to also include mixed uses. It doesn't have to be just plain multifamily. We are allowed to also allow mixed use in commercial.

And so we are proposing an option that creates that option as well.

To incorporate this new mandate into the development code, the draft establishes development standards and maximum densities for both projects that are only residential, like only a multifamily and commercial, or for also mixed use. So these standards that we are proposing, We have to establish densities for our commercial districts. As you may know, neighborhood commercial currently has a opportunity for five units per acre with a special use permit. But general commercial and tourist commercial don't have any density associated with them. So, we are proposing to continue with the five for single family in neighborhood commercial, but to try and tie these densities to something rational in our development code instead of trying to make it up. We have looked through the other residential districts and tried to establish what we feel are parallel intensities of use. And we believe that the one that most closely matches neighborhood commercial is high density suburban. And so these are densities that match high density suburban for NC. And for general commercial and tourist commercial, we're proposing 14 dwelling units per acre, and that matches our low density urban residential designation. And so we're trying to have some consistency and some logic in how we came up with these numbers. And we're trying to tie them to similar residential zoning districts and similar in terms of intensity. We have to have a minimum square foot if we want to do mixed use. The reason for this is to try and ensure successful projects. We do have some throughout the region, some mixed use projects that are of mixed success. One of the components of success we feel is to make sure that you include enough commercial to make it a viable commercial space. Too little commercial may lead to non-viable commercial space, which is not something we want in that development. We also intend to allow civic use types. We think many civic use types would be appropriate, but we don't want to allow it to only be civic, so we are proposing civic at a maximum percentage. Ground floor height and facade transparency standards are also something important to the ultimate success of a project so that as you're walking by, you don't feel that you're walking by a UNWELCOMING PROJECT, SOMETHING THAT ASKS FOR THAT FORM OF EXCHANGE WITH PEDESTRIANS IS IMPORTANT TO THE EVENTUAL SUCCESS AND SO A HIGHER GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND SOME FACADE TRANSPARENCY AIDES IN CREATING THAT OPEN SENSE AND NOT A CLOSED UNWELCOMING SENSE. We need to have standards for parking and landscaping and be clear on those because we don't have those types of standards necessarily associated with commercial. We need a standard for multimodal and pedestrian safety to make sure that as we mix residential and commercial uses on the same parcel, we have some ability to review that for basic safety purposes. And we also want to make sure, although this would end up being a requirement of the health department, we don't want to just lay it all on them. We want to make sure that it's clear that these projects would require municipal and wastewater service, water and wastewater services. So the proposed changes. Whenever we do this, we have to come up with a purpose and an applicability section. We've done that. To note in the applicability section, this will not apply to the Tahoe planning area. The state statute does not mandate it in Tahoe. It excludes the area in the Tahoe Basin from this rule. We exclude it by only using our commercial zoning districts that exist down here. Neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and tourist commercial do not exist in the Tahoe Basin, and so none of this would apply by that method. So if you just want to do a multifamily project in a commercial zone, how should we approach that? We want to make clear that the standards for landscaping, lighting, parking, loading, noise are all of those that are associated with multifamily uses. So It might seem like that doesn't need to be said, but it's unclear if you don't say it because you are in a commercial zone that often will have its own loading and lighting standards, landscaping standards for commercial. So what are we applying? Are we applying a commercial standard or a multifamily standard? We need to be clear about that. We're also sensitive to the idea that an existing commercial parcel would suddenly be subject to the adjacency standards of a residential area. If you're in a commercial zoned area and you want to build a commercial project and you're next to a residential area, you have to meet adjacency standards because you're next to that residential use. So if somebody comes in and builds this residential use in the middle of your commercial zoning area, we think it's unfair that the existing commercial uses would suddenly be subject to residential adjacency standards. So we wanna make it clear that that wouldn't happen. And once again, we have the language about municipal water and sewer. So if you do want to mix them, what kind of standards are we coming up with? So since we already have five units per acre for neighborhood commercial, we're going to leave that as it is and not create any particular... non-conformities in the future. We have projects out there that were five units per acre in a neighborhood commercial zone, so we want to let that lie. But for future projects that are over five units per acre, taking advantage of one of that seven or nine range that matches HDS, you have to have a minimum of 25%. And In the commercial and tourist, in the general and tourist commercial, all projects have to have a minimum of 25%. A minimum of 80% of the ground floor has to be dedicated to commercial or the civic use types. 80% of the ground floor street frontage must utilize a transparent facade or glass with transparent material. We try and be a little bit more specific here. A minimum of 90% of the ground floor ceilings and all multi-floor buildings must be 10 feet in height. These are all standards that are designed to help ensure the viability and the long-term success of the commercial component of these projects. A really unfortunate consequence of trying a mixed-use project is to have that commercial component fail down on the first floor of your building, the first floor of your concept. That's something we want to try and avoid, and so we're doing that by requiring certain minimum standards that... have been established throughout jurisdictions across the country. Some of these match what we found not just out west, but a lot of cities in the east have really significant mixed use standards. Milwaukee is where some of these came from. And so these are very common standards used to try and ensure that commercial viability. For that pedestrian multimodal safety, we have identified the common standards used by our engineering team to review projects like this and we're making it transparent what you're going to be reviewed by. So these are already the ones that are used by our engineering team when they're reviewing projects, commercial projects, multifamily projects. But we're being transparent and clear here about this is what we're going to hold up to your project. This is the lens through which we're going to be your project, and you have to meet these standards. So these are not... unfamiliar standards to the development community. These are well-known and existing standards that most developers are prepared to apply. This is stated specifically as a form of transparency and to make sure everyone knows that we have attempted to address the issue of pedestrian multimodal safety. So what does it look like when you get into the actual use table we have to show that these are now allowed uses and not subject to any discretionary approval. We also have to apply those densities. As I mentioned, these are the densities that we are proposing. And we have attempted to make these rational and logical by tying them to similar intensities in the residential zoning districts. We did have a neighborhood meeting. I think, let's see here, we had 12 people show up, which I feel is pretty good for a Zoom meeting on this subject. Most of the questions were about how the densities would work. We had a handful of people who were interested in applying this and were actually concerned that the densities weren't high enough. But we explained that we had to... We explained how we came up with those densities and I haven't heard back from those commenters. And we also had some comments as is common about infrastructure and how a project like this may impact infrastructure and whether it makes a difference to have it in a commercial zone versus a residential zone. I also have in your staff report on page 10 a proposed motion if you would like to move this item forward. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about it. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Young. I do have a couple questions. Nobody wants commercial uses to be non-viable. Do we have standards for minimum ground floor height and transparency of facade on existing commercial uses and commercial zoning?

Is this coming back on?

Yeah, I can hear you.

No, Chair, we do not. Okay. And this was... I understand the question. When we were developing this, there were specific mixed-use projects that were pointed out to staff. that were not just the standalone commercial projects. They're specific mixed use projects that did not apply these types of aesthetic and other architectural components. And they were pointed out to me and said, what are you going to do about that? Are you going to make sure that doesn't happen? And so this was specifically about the mixed-use project, and we did not reach out and try to expand it to all of our commercial.

I understand, but there's certainly commercial uses that I might not build the way that they look now, but they are conforming with code. Go ahead.

What happens normally in an apartment complex, there's more than one building. And how do you apply the standards when, I mean, if there's three apartment buildings, facing a street, can all three of them get this mixed use or you select one and it's just one for the whole project?

Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Chair, Commission. That's an excellent question that we have considered for how to apply these in Washoe County. There are a couple approaches to mixed use. One of them is to apply and create mixed use standards for more of a mixed use district or mixed use area that has multiple parcels, multiple buildings, multiple structures. And those standards are about creating that flow in between establishing where the commercial will be and how that will all work together in a district. The other approach is just mixed use on one parcel, or what they call vertical mixed use instead of the horizontal mixed use. So we are working in more of a vertical mixed use environment here to propose standards for single parcels. And when we look across the opportunities in commercial parcels in Washoe County, Those parcels are not particularly large and accommodating to big multifamily projects. There may be a few parcels that could do that. that could propose more than one building. And in that case, I believe we would use as was anticipated the percentages that we have laid out here of how much you are required to have and allow that to be split between buildings. But the building where you do have it would have to meet these standards. So the overall percentages would be based on all three buildings. You could do it in one building and it would have to meet these standards.

Okay, so if it's a 1 building project, then the percentages hold. If you have 3 buildings and they want mixed use in all 3 of them. Then all 3 buildings have. The prescribed percentages as well.

The percentages will be on the project as a whole. Not for each building. They could distribute that percentage between the buildings in any way that they wanted. That's the anticipated concept.

Okay, that believes my problem. Thank you.

Mr. Young, just a quick question on, I know the legislature didn't specifically say it had to go into the Tahoe Basin. Was it in conflict with the Tahoe Area Plan or was it merely anticipated pushback from the citizens or why wouldn't this be extended up in the basin?

It's not uncommon for land use legislation to exclude the Tahoe Basin because of the unique approach of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and their jurisdiction to establish those planning rules across the basin. So applying this on top we're trying to fit this into they're already extremely complex and some say complex some say sophisticated but to apply this to the trpa rules and then only in nevada because then they're you know have to decide how to do it in california um I think it was probably a pretty easy call to say that would be just too much of a complexity to even figure out how to do that. The California legislature often does not do that. and will apply rules that says, sorry, TRPA, you have to do it even in the basin, even though you have all this other stuff. And it's very difficult on them to turn and say to Nevada, well, do you want to do this? California, we're going to have to make the California side do this. What do you want to do? So they would have to do that in this case. They would have to turn to the California jurisdictions and say, well, we're thinking of making you do this. What do you think? And it would be... it would be an extremely complex, difficult conversation. And so this is just one of many Nevada legislative actions for land use where they have, in my opinion, wisely kept out the Tahoe Basin.

I was just thinking, based on TRPA's recent push for workforce housing and they have been changing some of their planning up there, it might be a good conversation to have.

I've got an additional question. You said that developers are familiar with these kind of pedestrian analysis reports, these different standards. Is this something this kind of pedestrian circulation plan or analysis per these different standards is this required developments in Washoe County for commercial or residential as it stands now.

It has been on pedestrian circulation plans for commercial areas. Yes, that can that can and has been applied and asked for. And it's not codified. We're codifying it, right? They have the ability to ask for it. They have asked for it. We're codifying it and making it clear that it's going to be applied.

And if it's not codified, under what conditions do staff ask a developer for the pedestrian circulation plan?

So we have, of course, as you can imagine, both through our code and through other standards, they are all geared towards proving that you meet a certain safety standard. So whether it's tripping a threshold to say you have to submit a transportation analysis, if during the review they say you're going to have this much in and out, you're going to also have this many people, they can say we need to see how you plan to do the pedestrian circulation and the multimodal circulation. They can ask for that plan.

Okay, is that a standard we typically apply to, say, commercial development with residential adjacency?

I don't know. I don't know when that, I don't know the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis when and when that has not been applied, but I have seen it asked for.

All right, do we have other questions from the board for staff? Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, in chambers I have Pat Davison.

Good evening, Chair Lazareschi, members of the Commission. My name is Pat Davison. I'm a resident of District 5. Just some really short comments. First, I want to thank Eric for providing some background information. He is a very patient person, so I appreciate his help. A couple of other thoughts. I'm not familiar with commercial standards, so I'm not going to comment on specific changes being proposed to implement AB 241, but I am excited by the idea of commercial owners and businesses providing housing for their employees this is a great incentive and I hope businesses and commercial owners decide to use it and my second comment was about the neighborhood development meeting there was a public comment regarding concern for loss of commercial neighborhood serving commercial and to me that's a easy thing to solve you rely on staff to flag those problems or potential problems during the initial project review. So just wanted to share those thoughts with you and good luck with your deliberation tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comment?

There is no further public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Thanks so much. To kick off the discussion here, I appreciate that we're mandated by the state of Nevada to create these multi-use standards and to allow residential use in commercial. And I appreciate that separate from that staff is already pursuing a path toward this, uh, in accordance with the direction of the new County plan and with the desires of the County commission. Um, I am hesitant to burden, um, multi-use development with standards that we don't apply otherwise to residential or commercial development adjacent or not to each other. So while I like this standard, I personally would be inclined to strike requirements D, E, and H from the new 403.15 standards. Anyone else on the board have feelings on that? You said D as in dog E and H. Yeah, so this is the minimum 80% transparent glass facade on ground floor. Um. Minimum 10 foot high. On ground 90% of the ground floor ceilings and then the specific. Pedestrian and multimodal circulation plans, these are basically. specific development standards that we're not applying to commercial or residential development in these areas currently.

But going forward, they would be, right?

Not if you did just commercial or not if you did just residential and commercial. Those only apply as written to multi-use. So if you're doing residential and commercial on the same parcel in a commercial zone.

Hey Eric, why would this not apply in other situations only applies to us?

Understand what you're asking. Your preference would be that these standards apply to all commercial.

Well, yeah, so all commercial, I'm sure, Mr.

Chair, I'm sure that you can recognize that all commercial would not fit these standards. There are many different commercial buildings and uses for which these standards would not be useful, or actually be harmful. These standards are tailored specifically for when you have multifamily with commercial mixed together in the same building, in the same parcel. They're not for only multifamily, which has a very robust set of development standards that this board and the county board approved just last year. New, robust, modern standards for multifamily only will apply in these circumstances when it's only multifamily. Washoe County does not have any standards at all in our development code for when you want to mix those uses together. So these standards were drawn from other jurisdictions, including TRPA, which requires us to do very similar standards in the basin. They have a mixed-use standard, which we didn't copy exactly because we never did agree with it exactly, but we pulled back from that. Theirs are really extensive and really designing your project for you. These standards come from jurisdictions like Palo Alto, Milwaukee, Cupertino, San Jose, I'm trying to think of some more of the eastern US areas that have developed specific standards for vertical mixed use, not horizontal mixed use, but the vertical in one building on one site mixed use. that suggest that these what basically amount to architectural, almost aesthetic standards about how that building feels when you walk past it, how that building presents itself to the neighborhood, that that's what it's trying to achieve. Or that mixed-use concept. We have people who have to live there after all. This is their home. It's not just a retail store or an office building. It's also their home. So you want it to have a different aesthetic feel, mixing with commercial. Now, this is just how it's typically approached. If you don't like it, And if you think that we should apply those similar standards or step back and think about how we would apply these to other commercial uses and so forth, we can absolutely do that. And it will not necessarily, it absolutely will meet the state standard. We'll meet the state mandate even without these if you want to take them out. We'll cover the state mandate and we'll be good. And we could have more of an ongoing conversation about the standards that you want, or we could see how a couple play out on the ground and find out if they work or not and need new standards. So I don't want to suggest in any way that it would somehow cause a breakdown in the way that this new ordinance and this new approach would work if you took those out. That it would cause some sort of a disaster to cause the whole thing to be dysfunctional or something. I don't think that's how we would feel about it. But it is a very common and typical approach to develop standards specifically for vertical mixed use. So if you don't want to do it, it's easy to take it out and move forward without feeling like we've ruined anything. But we didn't just make this up, I think is what I'm trying to say. We didn't just make this up.

So, Eric, if I'm picturing this correctly, I was recently up in Washington and I saw something similar to this the ground floor. There was a big lake out in front and they had they had glass on the front. They had a restaurant. And upstairs, it was for the owner and for some employees. Am I picturing that correctly for something like this? Ten-foot ceilings, glass front, residential upstairs where he can rent out rooms and stuff like that?

That's absolutely one concept in that description of the... Not necessarily glass, but transparent facade, the ability to look in and see as you walk past, see inside that first floor somewhat. Yes, that is the concept. And you can find good and bad examples of this everywhere. I want to be really cautious about bashing anyone locally. Right. Everybody in this region is trying really hard, but we all have good and bad examples. And as I mentioned, there were examples that were pointed out to me about, are you gonna let that happen? Is that what this is gonna look like? And those are examples are within walking distance of where we are tonight. You can go take a walk in some of our downtown areas and see attempts at mixed use that are mostly brick along the sidewalk or other covered, not transparent eight foot ceilings on the bottom. And, um, I was specifically asked not to allow that to happen. Um, I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE STANDARDS WOULD SOLVE THAT, BUT THIS IS STAFF'S ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF THIS MIXED USE CAN UNFOLD AND TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT ONE EXAMPLE DOESN'T HAPPEN.

IS THERE ANYTHING MAYBE WE CAN, LIKE, ADD IN THERE FOR, LIKE, MAKE IT LOOK NICE? I'm just saying, you know, for structural, because if commercials are residential, obviously they're going to want it to look similar to the residential, right? They're not going to want it to look like a big, tall warehouse with people living in it. I understand what those people are saying.

It's always my hope that new development learns from the old development and doesn't need to be told what to do. that we can say, oh, the market is going to take care of that. They won't do that again. Nowadays, that doesn't fly. Nowadays, there's a different standard in the development world, so we don't even need to tell people to do that. That's what I wish were the case. And maybe it is. Maybe there just is a development standard out there now where some of these old Old ways of developing mixed use just wouldn't happen now because you just couldn't get anybody to rent the space commercially or rent the space residentially because they wouldn't want to be there. Maybe that is the case.

So we don't have anything in code?

But, you know, this is just an attempt to have something in code to push that idea forward.

If you could give me a second. So, near my house, there's a mixed use development inside a city of Reno special planning district and. It's mostly commercial and there's a couple of apartments in there and it would not meet these standards. It doesn't have necessarily a really building with the minimum 10 foot height on the ground. It doesn't have enough facade transparency. and they don't seem to have any trouble renting out either the commercial or the residential space. I thought on promoting the multi-use is someone who's thinking of doing a commercial development and might, because obviously they can, under this in section, 403.10, they can just go do multifamily residential. If for multi-use they're thinking of developing a commercial property and perhaps they have some height cap available, they have a couple parking spaces, they think let's add some residential use into the area and I don't want to create a standard that would prevent the residential use by complicating the commercial use. Does that make sense?

Absolutely, it makes sense. And that's an extremely valid way of looking at it. And staff takes that approach to all the new development code amendments that we bring you, that in all of this attempt to incentivize things and to create opportunities, Sometimes we create so much standards that we're actually creating incentive and then disincentivize it right inside the incentive. And we don't wanna do that. I understand what you're saying. We're gonna start coming up with a new idea that we really love and then create so many standards around it that it never happens. And we have done that. So it's a very valid concern. And you can absolutely find examples all across the landscape of different ways where it's worked that don't have these standards, right? You can find that. Sure. Um, so these are proposals from staff for the reasons that I have explained. If you want to do something different, I fully understand and respect that because there are so many different ways of looking at this. um so this is staff's recommendation to you tonight if you'd like to do something different let me know and i'll write it up thanks commissioner flick yes i spoke too soon when i that i understood it are you talking about as it applies to these

I'm a little hung up on the vertical concept because we really don't have the vertical concept. I think the tallest apartment complex that I've seen new anyway is about four stories. Yes. And those are multi-individual buildings as well. And I'm just... When you say, well, it'll apply to the whole square footage of each building... Um, that would be that the buildings, uh, footprint is, you know, 100 square 100 say 10,000 square feet. But each building and they have 10 of them was 10,000 square feet. So you do you accumulate the whole thing and then take 80% of that. So now you have it spread out over more than 1 building.

so yes and it might be spread out over more building and what this it allows the developer complete flexibility to work that out how they may work it out and you are right we have not seen multifamily go up high in washoe county our multifamily zoning as you are familiar with is in Sun Valley area. That's where we have recently approved some multifamily structures. We have height restrictions in Sun Valley of, I think, 35 feet. So mostly what you see there, even with multifamily development, is a three-story walk-up. I don't want to alarm anybody, and I don't want to be... hyperbolic here. But we have spent time looking at where our general commercial and neighborhood commercial is, where our vacant neighborhood commercial and general commercial is, and let's remember what the height limitations there are. 80 feet, 60 feet. We can go really high in our neighborhood, in our commercial areas. We have general commercial and neighborhood commercial up and down Mount Rose Highway. We have it scattered around the county in various places. We've got it in Verdi. If somebody comes in and wants to take advantage of the state mandated thing that we have to do to build a 60-foot mixed-use multifamily development on Mount Rose Highway, we feel that it should have some aesthetic development standards. And we feel that these are appropriate for that. And when we look around at the places in Washoe County that this state mandate is making this opportunity available to, we feel like it's something that People may not be prepared for and that we have to move forward with some kind of a development standard that is more than just what exists in the code today.

Do you feel that 60 feet tall mixed use development is appropriate in those areas? Or wouldn't you have put a height restriction on the multi mixed use?

Um, I feel that the way that, I don't know if it's a feeling or just some, I don't want to say a feeling. Okay. This is a result of having looked at where, looked at where this zoning exists. Our commercial zoning is of so many different sizes. In so many different places, we have little tiny general commercial parcels and big giant neighborhood commercial parcels. We have general commercial neighborhood commercial right up next to each other, which doesn't necessarily make sense. It's spread around in places that were probably very rational logical at some time, but you look at it now and you wonder. So what this is getting at is the answer to your question is it's a very case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's probably appropriate to limit that size, but there are other times in Washoe County where, yeah, that size might be appropriate for that zoning district in that spot. So to put the blanket height limitation aside, is not necessarily appropriate. And then I'll let you in on something else that I'll say we did, but it was really our deputy district attorney spent a lot of time to go back and actually watch the legislative session where they talked about this because this was difficult for us to swallow. You know, the lack of a discretionary permit to make it just by right. And we were saying, well, what about an administrative permit? What can we do this? What does by right mean, right? And so it took the time to go back and watch the entire session, watch the entire discussion. And at the end of that, it was extremely clear that That they meant by right, that they meant no discretionary approval at all and not too many restrictions that you make it impossible. And in fact, there was some question about whether 14 units per acre would be enough or would be viewed as kind of the county's backdoor way of making it impossible to do. So we're even concerned about somebody looking at saying, you're not meeting the state standard because you're secretly trying to get out of it. And then by making standards that limit the height, that's the same concern, that we're putting standards on it that were very, very clearly not part of the state mandate. So that's, that's, that's how that happened.

Could you put a height restrict restriction on it with a, you know, caveat that you could get a special use permit for up to 60 feet or whatever's allowed in the county, wherever.

That's an interesting idea that we didn't consider. And I don't know what our attorney would say about that, but it would probably require some thought on, on all of our.

Yeah, I think, I think that would be a definite, Consideration that needs to happen in regards to the concerns that chair has. I'm, I'm tempted to think that it would be a good idea to let the development community come back and say, it's too burdensome to meet these standards. And and leave them in, but that's just my thought.

All right. Well, I suppose one thing to say about concern about neighborhood response to 60 and 80 foot zoning along arterial corridor doors in Mount Rose and Verdi is that they're already allowed for commercial uses and i don't think the neighbors would like an 80 foot commercial use there necessarily any more or less than they would like an 80 foot mixed use use with the same aesthetic standards as a commercial building so uh While I appreciate trying to improve our aesthetic standards, I'm concerned about creating a new standard that's not one or the other. I wouldn't mind trying to apply residential aesthetic standards to a mixed use commercial one. creating a new standard that doesn't meet either of the other ones. I don't love it. But we've talked about this a lot. Would anyone care to make a motion?

Yeah, it sounds like our, kind of our hands are tied and this is your attempt to make it as nice as possible.

Is that? It is, but it's, Tonight is a night to propose changes, and we have our deputy DA here.

Well, we'd like to see it look like a residential neighborhood if they're going to put funds on there. But you're saying that it's by right, so that might be too intrusive for the developers. I mean, think about it. If it's by right, they can do, and I hate to say this, pretty much anything they want to do.

Well, they still have to meet code, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, but there isn't much of a code when it comes to decorative designing. That's what I was asking earlier, right? And so what are we to do? I mean, I'd really like to see you come back if we approve this tonight, come back with maybe a minute where something like that would would be introduced to us maybe at the next meeting or something to go with this so that they can at least look like a residential somewhat or look halfway decent, you know, instead of just a pop up. I don't know. I don't know if that's too much to ask. I don't know. You know, but. It sure would be nice. I know the residents would appreciate it more.

But I'd be inclined to only send this up to the county commission once if we want amendments.

I mean, I'm just saying, I'm just saying it would be nice. I mean, we're, like I said, we're pretty much, our hands are pretty much tied.

So, so Eric out in Spanish Springs in one of the commercial areas, I recall that they had design standards where it was supposed to look western in theme, right? So that's specifically written into the plan. Could something like more residential design standards be written into this?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Nelson, yes. Design standards It's a little bit of new territory for Washoe County. We do have that in Spanish Springs. When you read it, you wonder a little bit how it's supposed to work, and I can remember when we did that. I was there for that, and we came, at the end of the night, we came to an agreement that it would be Western design standards. And so then we met again the next week, and it turns out that every single person in that room had a different picture in their head about what Western design standards meant. And so you, and the lesson there, it's not just an anecdote, the lesson there is that Design standards are one thing in our head about what we want to look at and how we want it to operate. But when you try and codify it, you have to have numbers and you have to have specifics about how is that going to work? How is that really going to look like? And that's really hard to do. And it's not something that our code is... is really proficient at. We don't have a lot of specific design standards for buildings or neighborhoods like that that are very common in more urban areas to have really intense design standards. It's something that we could explore, but it is, in our experience when we've tried it, A rabbit hole, is that right? It's really difficult. And we might even appreciate a little outside help in helping us really develop what an appropriate, really full, comprehensive, right, approach to anything, multifamily, commercial, industrial, residential development.

Well, in our design code, I mean, we show what a terrorist development needs to look like. There's an actual picture, right? And maybe if you've got the numbers here, you obviously have... Base this off of real life. What are those pictures look like? And do they look enough like a residential area? And maybe just having that included might help describe that. We don't want it to look like a tilt up with living above it. Okay. Right. Because you could have a tilt up that could meet these, these numbers.

Okay.

But that's not what we're really after.

So, okay, that's very helpful. So is that your major concern is that it looks appropriately residential?

Yes, I think that's a major concern. And then I think the height needs to be thought about a little bit, whether it's like 45 feet. And then if you want to go higher, then you have to get a special use permit. Those would be my things to look at and bring back.

Good with those. So I see two pathways forward. One, we could amend this to remove the specific design standards that we don't necessarily want to stick, send this forward to the County Commission to implement and request that staff work on a design standard. I think that we're required by state law to implement this before March.

Yeah, the clock's ticking, but I don't, yeah, well.

We're working on it, so I'm sure the legal can make their arguments. Or we could send it back to staff to try to bring the design standards together with this.

So the state approved it in July?

Excuse me?

The state approved this in July, or passed it in July?

With a date by which jurisdictions had to implement it.

That's not even a year after.

Right.

And they thought that that could happen?

Yes.

Okay. They were wishing. I'm sure legal can make their arguments that we're diligently pursuing this effort if we don't want to implement this in a limited form tonight and then come back with the standards later. What do people feel?

I think it can come back in March. Is that enough time?

No. I have a question. As this is written, is it workable within the department to make these judgments and recommendations for us to approve?

Under the current draft? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. I think the current draft is something that absolutely can be enforced. I think the question When you have a vague term like Western theme, that's what Eric was pointing at. That's where it becomes very subjective. And so we like clear standards.

And even the pictures become obsolete after a while. But I understand trying to get a handle on what is rural and what is, you know,

This is probably a question for legal, but did the state, like, are they going to take away our birthday, or what are they going to do if we don't meet the March deadline?

It's unclear, but the deadline written into the statute is March 1st, 2026. The ordinance shall be adopted.

Okay. I would make a motion to amend the proposed... Code amendments to remove D, E, and H from Section 110.403.15. And as amended, move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 25.05. And then the Washoe County... Chapter 110 Development Code with Articles 302, 406, and establish the new Article 403 as amended. Further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in Attachment A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners. Within 60 days of today's date, this recommendation for approval is based on All of the following for all of the 4 findings in accordance with washer can encourage section 1, 10 dot 8, 1, 8 dot 1, 5.

So, just to be clear, you're recommending removing D. G. and H. just D. and H. just D. and H. D. and it's the class windows minimum ceiling height and why would you not want the glass in the front?

Because it's not a development standards that we apply anywhere else. What I like it, if it were built next to me, it would be nice, but we don't apply that standard to commercial residential.

He's trying to make a new standard for these.

I understand. I have made my motion. Would anybody like to 2nd?

Can I amend your motion with adding in the height requirement, a max, and then with a special use permit allowing additional height?

Well, I don't know if we, can we describe that in sufficient detail?

As I read the description, the Planning Commission can approve with modifications. Okay.

So your proposed amendments would be a special use permit for multi-use greater than 45 feet?

Mixed use.

And, excuse me, Mr. Chair, and multifamily on its own? Because people can come, so for any residential use in commercial...

Yeah, if they're allowed to go 60, 80 feet, I think you need to have a special use permit.

And the number that they can go to without the permit would be... Well, we keep it the same at 35, right?

Because that's what it is now for multifamily?

No, that's the... That is the modifier for Sun Valley. Sun Valley is carved out and has a special rule that says 35.

So currently in Washoe County, we only have multifamily going up to 35 feet. Current actual developments being built.

Do we? Is that what you asked? Yes, ma'am, we do.

Okay, then that would be the cap of 35 feet. And then anything above that would require a special use permit.

Okay. And thank you. I've got that and we can describe that. That's very simple language. It just says specifically that is what we would write right in. D, E, and H for your motion are the ones out and then the amended motion is to add that in. Okay, thank you. I think I have it.

That works for me. We have a motion and second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

I apologize, was that five to one?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I'd like the pedestrian multi-models safe thing.

I like that too, and I would look forward if staff comes to us with a standard to apply that in a more general way. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Item 8C.

Okay, this is a development code amendment, case number WDCA 25-0012, for hearing, discussion, and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Washoe County Code Chapter 110 in Division 3, Regulation of Uses, and Division 9, general provisions. These amendments include adding various sections within Article 336 housing and incentives to establish an expedited review process for attainable housing projects and to establish an expedited process for projects which qualify as Tier 1 through 5 affordable housing. These amendments also include amending Section 110-902-15 to add and delete various definitions and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. If the proposed amendments are initiated, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or recommend denial. IF APPROVAL IS RECOMMENDED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION TO THAT EFFECT. REPRESENTING WASHOE COUNTY IN THIS MATTER IS SENIOR PLANNER KAT OAKLEY.

HELLO, KAT OAKLEY, WASHOE COUNTY PLANNING FOR THE RECORD. AS STATED, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH SOME EXPEDITED PROCESSES AS REQUIRED BY ONE OF THE STATE LAWS PASSED IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHICH I'LL GET INTO IN JUST A MOMENT.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, ONE There we go. Thank you. It wasn't coming up on the other computer.

All good. Thank you, Brandon. Could you maybe advance the slide for me? Oh, sorry. Sorry.

Switch the computer.

I apologize for all the delay. We've been having technical difficulties every single meeting.

I don't know what's going on.

And you should be good.

Yes, thank you.

All right, next slide, please. Okay so a little bit of background this is again another one of those housing related development code amendments that you've been seeing for the last year or two to provide just that little bit of background some updated statistics for you all as you know housing affordability is a regional challenge and I've given you some numbers before about cost burden renters in the region and now that percentage of renters spending 30 percent or more of their household income on housing costs is up to 50.5% so over half of our population and because of the this is a regional issue it's also it's a state issue it's a national issue and so unsurprisingly at the 2025 legislative session we did see several bills related to housing and one of them was assembly bill 540 this was the big kind of omnibus housing bill and one of the many things that it did is require the creation of some expedited processes for certain types of housing. And so this development code amendment is proposed to comply with the requirements of that bill. Next slide, please. Thank you. So just to start looking at the change to the definitions because really one of the big things that this bill did was modify the definitions related to affordable housing on a state level. So it used to be that there was affordable housing and that that affordable housing included three different tiers that went up to 120% of the AMI or the area median income. The change that the state made was to change affordable to attainable so it's now attainable housing and there are five tiers that go up to 150% of the area median income. And so you really see them kind of expanding into more of that workforce housing territory with this bill. The tiers are it's attainable housing is a whole category. The tiers are still called affordable housing. So tier one affordable housing. The other thing that they talk about and define in this bill is attainable housing projects. Those are, of course, projects where the income requirements are limited to that tier one through five affordable housing, so affordable to those making 150% of the AMI or less. But they also specify that these projects have received money from the Nevada Attainable Housing Account, which is a funding source that was created under AB 540 as well. And so when they refer to Attainable Housing Project and how we're also proposing to define it in our code we're specifically talking about those projects that do receive funding from the state and there are a little bit different requirements based on whether or not they receive the funding or don't.

Next slide please.

And so The bulk of the bill, as it applies to us, is about creating an expedited review process that meets certain standards for two things. First, for attainable housing projects. So these are those projects that are receiving the funding from the state. They're meeting those affordability requirements. limitations and what the bill requires is that those projects not go to a public hearing. We are not able to require those projects to have a public hearing like a special use permit for example and that would apply to authorizing the use as well as any associated approvals so for example if they needed or if they would typically need a special use permit for grading we would not be able to have them go through that public hearing process. And so what we're proposing as the response to that to expedite that review is to allow projects, attainable housing projects that would otherwise need a permit that requires a public hearing to instead have an administrative review permit. This is a permit that we use for things like accessory dwelling units or some large accessory structures where It is a process that involves a public notice. It involves the ability for us to apply conditions of approval, but it does not have a public hearing. Instead, it goes to the director of planning and building for a decision. And so this is kind of a... middle-of-the-road type process where we still have that ability to conduct a more complex review and apply mitigating conditions as necessary but as required we're not requiring them to go through that public hearing process so that would be the proposal here and of course if people if applicants were requesting to use this alternate pathway to approval we would require them to provide the evidence that they qualify which in this case would really be evidence of the funding received from that state account. Next slide, please. The second piece is there are some requirements regarding expediting the process for what the state calls attainable housing and what we, to try to keep things as clear as possible, are referring to as tier one through five affordable housing. So these are the projects that they are falling within those income ranges, but the state has not necessarily given them funding. And so what AB 540 requires is that those projects be prioritized to the extent practicable over all other projects. And the way we're proposing to do that is to allow those projects to request a staff liaison to help facilitate and guide them through the process and then coordinate with other agencies. As you all know, when we review a building permit or any type of permit, We are a viewing agency. We're also working with our partner agencies and other applicable agencies like the building division, fire, the health district, and so on to go through that process. And so that's why having that dedicated staff person to help coordinate or who's assigned to that project to help coordinate will help facilitate the process. And it's a process that we have used before for very large development proposals and have seen it work well. That's what's proposed as the expedited process that these projects can request. And again, if they do, we're requiring them to provide evidence that they're qualifying as Tier 1 through 5 affordable housing. And also, since they may or may not have a funding source that provides a mechanism for keeping track of and restricting them to those income levels, that they tell us what is the mechanism for ensuring that it is, in fact, attainable housing.

Next slide, please.

So that's all there is to it. Those definitions and then those two new sections of code in Article 336. As you know, for a development code amendment, you must make at least one of the following findings to recommend approval. We in the staff report make the case that all four findings can be made.

Next slide, please.

And here's the recommended motion. I am here and happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks so much. Any questions from the board for staff on this? Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, in chambers I have Pat Davidson.

Hello again, commissioners. My name is Pat Davison. For the record, thanks for this opportunity to share some thoughts on this agenda item. I'm not usually a fan of state mandates because of the lack of tailoring to a unique jurisdiction. However, both of the bills that prompted these code changes tonight head us in the right direction and could actually help Washoe County achieve its housing goals. What has been most important for me is that staff has shown awareness of potential unintended consequences. Something that was remarkable to me with AB 540 is the attention given to the above median income levels, those that are higher than the area median income. This has been a missing part of the federal program where the lower income levels receive preference, and for good reason. The need was critical to find better housing for those currently in substandard conditions, but also to keep others from becoming unhoused in the future. Now the governor and state legislature have not only talked the talk, but walked the walk with new dollars in hand through the Nevada Attainable Housing Account. And they were clear about a priority, so I included a short excerpt in my written comments here. The division in consultation with the council shall prioritize projects that demonstrate the highest potential impact, including without limitation, prioritizing the need for single family homes. Very cool. All right, just a couple of thoughts on some of the specific changes. The expedited review and approval, I always look for safeguards when new policy or code is being proposed. For this change, any project seeking the less burdensome process must provide proof that it is qualified as an attainable housing project. Additionally, as Kat said, tentative map approvals, master plan and regulatory zone amendments are not eligible for this benefit. The administrative review process includes some safeguards, including the noticing to the cab, HOAs, military installations, as well as owners within 500 feet. Owners can provide written comment, the director can modify the conditions, and those decisions can be appealed. My second thought prioritize of projects prioritization Excellent action clear the projects receiving state monies can take advantage of these Just want to make sure for the record that even if a project is not going through the process to get those state monies that they can still request staff liaison if they're catering to that buyer or renter below the 150 ami And last, it's so painful for me after talking about affordable housing for decades that we're giving up that term, but progress. We march ahead here. Anyway, that's it. I just wanted to support the proposed changes. Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment in chambers, and there are no hands raised via Zoom.

Thank you. Any discussion from the board? Hearing none, I move that after giving reason consideration of the information containing the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA25-0012 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 Development Code within Articles 336 and 902 as reflected within the proposed ordinance contained in Exhibit A1 I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date. This recommendation for approval is based on the Planning Commission's ability to make all the following four findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.818.158.

Commissioner Owens, for a second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. I believe that brings us to the end of our public hearings. Do we have any future agenda items or requests for information from staff from the board members? All right. Item 10A, Mr. Lloyd, do we have any reports on previous planning commission items?

That's odd. I do. At the January 13th meeting, the Iveson SUP appeal was heard by the county commission, and it was upheld. Also at that meeting, the The second reading of the code amendment for Iverson also was heard and approved. And the master plan amendment and regulatory zone amendment, WMPA 25-S-0005 and WRZA 25006, and that was for Sunset Ranch, was also approved at that meeting. And that's all I have to report.

Thanks very much. Anything from legal? All right. Do we have any final public comment?

I have no further public comment in chambers or on Zoom. Thank you so much.

It's 737. We're adjourned.

The recording has stopped.