Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, everyone.

It's called a meeting to order of the Planning Commission. It's 6 o'clock, June 3, 2025. Can we get a determination of forum, please?

Jim Barnes. Here. Michael Flick.

Here.

Linda Kennedy.

Here.

Dan Lazareski. Here. Kate Nelson.

Here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

And Rob Pierce.

I'm present.

We have a quorum.

Wonderful, thank you. If you all please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'll say it. 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. Will we please have the ethics law announcement?

for the record commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the Commission today number one you've received a gift or loan number two you have a pecuniary interest number three you have a commitment in a private capacity such as a family employment business or similar relationship or number four if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter being considered here tonight, please remember to disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. And furthermore, please remember that you must 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 persons interested in a matter coming before the commission today, you should disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have the appeal procedure, please, Mr. Lloyd?

Certainly. 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 qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that 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. At this time, I'd like to open up general public comment. Do we have any general public comment?

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

This is Jen Gustafson. I forgot to read the public comment procedures, so if I could just do that briefly.

Yes, go ahead. I thought it was a little short.

I know, I just forgot. All right, this meeting is held in the County Commission Chambers. It's also being held via Zoom webinar. If you'd like to participate via Zoom, you can log into the webinar at the link that's found on the first page of today's agenda, or you can join by typing zoom.us into your computer browser, Clicking join a meeting on the Zoom website and entering meeting ID 842-7265-9406. If anyone is having computer issues, they can join us by telephone only by dialing 1-669-900-9128 and enter meeting ID 842-7265-9406 and pressing pound. For those of you who wish to provide public comment today, you can do so by utilizing the raise hand feature during any public comment period if you're joining us via Zoom. If you're joining us via telephone only, you can press star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute or unmute. And of course, if you're joining us in person today, you can simply fill out a public comment request card. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'd like to open back up item number five, public comment. Do we have any general public comment?

I have no public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right, we'll close public comment, move on to item number six, approval of today's agenda, June 6th. I do not have any changes. Can I get a motion to accept as written, please?

Kennedy moves that we accept the agenda as written. Commissioner Lazareski, a second.

Wonderful. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay, motion passes. Moving on to item number seven. I'm assuming that everybody got a chance to look at the draft minutes from last month. Do we have any changes at this time? We don't have any changes. Can I get a motion please?

Commissioner Flick.

Go ahead. I move that we approve the minutes of the last meeting as written.

And Kennedy seconds.

Wonderful. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right, that motion passes. Moving on, item number eight. This is 8A. It's appointment to Parcel Map Review Committee. There's a recommendation that the chair, me, Washoe County Planning Commission appoint Rob Pierce as a member of the Planning Commission to serve as representative to the Washoe County Parcel Map Review Committee with a term retroactive from July 1st, 2024 to June 30th, 2026 and appoint Kate Nelson as a member of the Planning Commission to act as an alternate in the event of a regular representative is absent with a term retroactive from July 1st, 2024 to June 30th, 2025. It is also recommended that the chair of the Washoe County Planning Commission, me, appoint Linda Kennedy as a member of the Planning Commission and act as an alternative representative to the Washoe County Parcel Map Review Committee in the event that the regular representative is absent with the term effective July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026. Do we need to vote on this? or is this just an appointment?

That would be my recommendation, yes.

Okay, can I get a motion to approve that if everybody's okay with it?

Commissioner Lazareski, I move to make those appointments as written and read.

Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right, motion passes. Moving on to item number nine, it's a public hearing item. It's amendment of conditions case number WAC25-0006 for Sierra Vista AC for WTM 18001 for possible action. Mr. Lloyd, would you please announce that?

Yes, for hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for tentative subdivision map case number WTM 18001 to reduce the front yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet for the house and 20 feet for the garage. Representing Washoe County in this matter is Senior Planner Chris Bronzick.

Chris, for sure.

Thank you. Chris Bronzek, Washoe County Planning. We're looking at WAC 25-0006, which is an amendment of conditions for WTM 18-001, known as Sierra Vista. So a little background, WTM 18-001 was approved by Washoe County on March 6th, 2018. It was for 206 lots and it's common open space subdivision. Common open space subdivisions allow for applicants and staff to modify lot sizes, setbacks, and other things normally requiring larger lot sizes or substantially larger setbacks. And so when the applicants came in originally, they kept it to standard setbacks. Right now they have front yard setback at 20 feet, rear yard setback at 20 feet, and side yards at 5 feet. And so all they're doing with this amendment of conditions is they're changing that front yard setback and keeping a garage setback. So the garage setback would be 20 feet to allow for a standard vehicle to still park within the driveways, but modify the front yard setback to 10 feet, and that would be 10 feet from property line to home. And so that is the only thing that is being proposed, and this would amend a condition 1J. And so part of this, it allows for just a variation within the subdivision. So instead of the entire subdivision being garage heavy elevations, it allows for some variation and makes the aesthetics of subdivision a little better. Additionally, this amendment is intended to expand the buildable area of those existing lots to give larger lot sizes and allow more flexibility. So before you is the existing tentative map. There's some blue shading that shows what lots have already been recorded. And I believe there's 67 total lots that have been recorded so far. Those yellow shaded areas are lots that are either under-constructed or already built. And those lots were subject to the currently approved setbacks of 20 front, 20 rear, and five sides. So as part of this project, substantial notice was provided, 215 property owners within 500 feet. We did receive one public comment today regarding this project. There was concerns related to increased traffic, speed limit violations, and safety concerns for residents. Staff was able to make all the required findings associated with the amendment of condition, and staff is recommending approval. I'm available for any questions you may have.

All right. Is the applicant present? Would they like to make a presentation?

Chris Baker, Banhart Consulting, here on behalf of the applicant. I do have a presentation. It's probably a little bit redundant. I think Chris and I maybe should have spoke a little bit before moving forward here. So as you can see here, Sierra Vista, there's a great aerial photo facing north. As you can see, streets are improved. That is that phase, first 67 lots that Chris had mentioned. Come on. As you can see, we do have the same photos. In this case, north is right, not up. So to give you a little bit more proximity, on the right side of the page there is Leavitt Drive. And Patrician and Palace actually terminate into the project site. And as mentioned, the yellow lots are constructed. The blue or purple lots are recorded. And then there is the remaining portions of the project yet to be developed. Same history, common open space tentative map was approved in 2018. And unfortunately at the time there wasn't a builder or a product line that was associated with the approval process. It was just streets and lots, and that was done. The applicant was the property owner at the time. If there was a product line, I think we probably would have used the setbacks that we're proposing today. They actually do correspond with the 5,000-lot square footages in underlying Washoe County code, which is a 10-foot setback in the front. So we're very consistent. We just honestly didn't have the product line at the time in 2018. And as mentioned, 67 lots are recorded. Here's the request amendment. It is condition one, which has various portions. So it's 1J to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, maintaining the 20 foot to the garage to allow varied front setbacks, which accommodate house forward designs. And again, the intent there is so the streetscape is a little more diverse, so you don't just constantly see large two-car garages. So key points, there's another portion of Condition 1, which is 1R, which does call for a variation of setbacks, but we're really kind of tight. When you have a 20-foot setback in the front and a 20-foot setback in the rear and your lot is only 100-foot deep, you run into situations where you really can't vary those houses too much, so you end up just with kind of a straight line of garages that we're seeing in Phase 1, and we're trying to avoid that as we move forward through the development. It does further the intent by moving away from the uniform garage forward streetscape, like we mentioned. And then it does encourage broader range of housing options, as Chris mentioned. You can get a little bit more square footage in there, which ultimately would lower the price point per square foot. So with that, we're available for questions. Thank you for your time.

All right. Does any board members have any questions at this time before we go into public comment? All right, not seeing or hearing any. Let's open up public comment. Do we have any public comment?

I have no public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right, we'll close public comment, bring it back to the board. Do we have any discussion or questions? If we don't, then I'll open it up for a motion. We turn on our microphone.

Is it on now? There we go. I move that after giving reasoned consideration to 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 WAC25-0006 for JC Sierra Vista LLC with the amended conditions included as exhibit A to this matter. having made all 10 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.608.25. Wonderful. Do we have a second?

I'll second it. Commissioner Flick seconds the motion.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to 8B, Development Code Amendment Case Number WDCA25-0003 for Master Plan Amendment, WMPA25-0001, Regulatory Zone Amendment, WRCA25-0001. 2025 Tahoe Area Plan update for hearing and possible action to approve. Mr. Lloyd, can you read that announcement there? Tell us what it's about.

Okay. I'm going to throw my legal counsel under the bus. She's telling me I have to read the whole darn thing. So here you go.

That's why I stopped. Go ahead. Yeah, the whole thing.

Just giving her a hard time. Yes. For hearing, discussion, and possible action to initiate an amendment to the Washoe County Code at Chapter 110 to update Article 220 Tahoe Area Plan and Article 220.1 Tahoe Area Design Standards. These updates include adding a section to establish standards for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing in multifamily areas. These updates also include amending various sections to amend references to the prior Washoe County Master Plan and update organizational names, clarify application requirements for amendments to Article 220 and 220.1. update references to TRPS code of ordinances related to land coverage, update maximum height and minimum residential density in town centers, add standards for height, parking density and coverage for affordable, moderate and achievable housing in town centers, update standards for bicycle storage, provide for reductions in parking minimums for affordable, moderate and achievable housing and add standards for the submittal and review of the Required parking analysis. Modify minimum lot widths and setbacks for residential and mixed use developments in preferred affordable areas. Modify requirements for encroachment into front yard setbacks on corner and sloped lots. Modify standards for accessory dwelling units. Modify standards for temporary uses. Require development within avalanche hazard areas to record a hold harmless agreement. Modify explanation of use tables to clarify the meaning of A and add administrative review permit. Modify permit requirements for multiple family dwellings in Crystal Bay Tourist, Incline Village Tourist and Incline Village Commercial. Add schools kindergarten through secondary schools as a special use in Incline Village Tourist. Add multiple family dwellings and employee housing. As allowed uses and update special policies in the Ponderosa Ranch regulatory zone, allow single family dwellings by right in the Incline Village 5, Crystal Bay and East Shore regulatory zones and require a hold harmless agreement for development in the Incline Village 5 and Crystal Bay regulatory zones, update special policies for Crystal Bay, remove provisions related to the Tyrolean Village regulatory zone special area 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 the 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 to adopt an amendment to the Tahoe Area Plan, the Washoe County Master Plan for Washoe-Tahoe, to remove references to the Tyrolean Village Special Area. ADD THE TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO TRANSIT. TRANSIT. TRANSIT. UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO UPDATE SECTION RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND MULTIMODAL FACILITIES. MULTIMODAL FACILITIES. MULTIMOD and add dates to data tables, and if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. Any adoption by the Planning Commission is subject to approval by the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners and a finding of conformance with the Tahoe Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Authorities. And finally, number three, subject to final approval OF THE ASSOCIATED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND A FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE TAHOE REGIONAL PLAN, RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TAHOE AREA REGULATORY ZONE MAP TO DELETE THE TYROLEAN VILLAGE SPECIAL AREA, A 2.24 ACRE SPECIAL AREA ENCOMPASSING APN 126-420-02, AND IF APPROVED, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION TO THIS EFFECT. NOW, REPRESENTING WASHOE COUNTY IN THIS MATTER IS SENIOR PLANNER KAT OAKLEY.

All right, Cat, the floor is yours.

All right, Cat Oakley, Washoe County Planning. As Trevor said, this is a development code amendment, a master plan amendment, and a regulatory zone amendment that is called the 2025 Tahoe Area Plan Update. A little bit of background on the Tahoe Area Plan. It is the master plan and zoning regulation for Washoe Tahoe or Inclined Village in Crystal Bay. It was adopted in 2021 after extensive public outreach at that time, and it guides the future of land use and development in this area, both at that high master plan level and also in the nitty-gritty zoning regulations. This particular update to the Tahoe Area Plan was catalyzed by the 2023 adoption by TRPA, or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, of what's called the Phase 2 Housing Amendments. And those amendments establish incentives for deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing. Affordable being 80% area median income or below income restricted. Moderate is 120% AMI or below. And then achievable is aimed at housing local employees and has no income cap. And so when they adopted those amendments, they gave the local jurisdictions certain amount of time to come into conformance with those amendments as our regulations now conflict with TRPAs and so that necessitates an amendment to Washoe County Code and Washoe County Code as it applies to to the Tahoe Basin is is part of the Tahoe Area Plan so that's why we've got to update the Tahoe Area Plan. Since we are doing that there are some lessons learned since we've been implementing the Tahoe modifiers since their adoption in 2021 We have over time identified some code improvements, and so we want to make those as part of this process. And I just want to emphasize, this is a pretty focused update. It's not rehashing the vision that was established through comprehensive public outreach relatively recently. This is just focused on mostly those code elements. A little bit more background just on land use regulation in the Tahoe Basin that is always relevant is that TRPA has a relatively unique growth management system. And they do require, they have caps on the amount of residential tourist and commercial development. And to develop a residential unit, you have to either have a residential allocation or a bonus unit. And there's a limit to how many of those exist and how many of those remain. The numbers are up there on the slide. We and TRPA combined have 235 residential allocations remaining. And then we have 116 bonus units, which those have to be used towards those deed-restricted housing types. And then TRPA has some additional bonus units that are not spoken for and could be used anywhere in the basin. So this is basically what's left in terms of residential units that can be developed. And so that's just something to keep in mind as we talk about the code changes, because regardless of what densities are, if the zoning allows residential units and so forth, you need an allocation to build a residential unit in the Tahoe Basin. To get into the details of the amendments, and I'll try to go over them at a high level, and if you have any questions, I can answer them afterwards, but there are some things that we call scheduled amendments. So those are the items that when the area plan was adopted in 2021, TRPA identified them and said, hey, we can adopt this now, but next time you need to fix this list of items. And so that includes deleting the Tyrolean Village Special Area, including the Tahoe Transportation District, or TTD, in the development of a parking management plan, identifying which regulatory zones can receive transfer development rights, or TDRs, and then applying the code of ordinance rules for community plans to Ponderosa Ranch. In the case of those last two bullet points, that's an example of a case where there was something that used to be in place in our code that wasn't carried over when we adopted the Tahoe Area Plan in 2021. And so by adding them back in, we're regulating things the same way that we have historically. And then to take a little bit of a closer look at the Tyrolean Village Special Area, since that's the only mapping change as part of this project, you can see it's that little red blob. It's being removed. And functionally, that just removes two tourist accommodation use types from one parcel. Those use types were never developed, and they actually were never approved by Washoe County, but were approved by TRPA. And so this is just resolving that conflict. And again, they don't exist on the ground. The TRPA phase two housing amendments are what we received the most public comment on. And so I just want to provide some detail on the types of incentives that they will establish for either residential-only developments or mixed-use developments that have a 100% deed-restricted residential component. So for these to apply, it has to be 100% deed-restricted housing. There are incentives inside of town centers and in areas known for multifamily, and they have to do with parking, coverage, height, and density. So for parking right now, our code generally requires one or two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and the Phase 2 housing amendments would allow reduced parking with an analysis showing how parking demand is going to be met. And so in town centers, there's no minimum to that. And then outside of town centers, it could go down to 0.75 spaces per unit. For coverage, that governs the amount of impermeable surface that can cover a lot, that can be in a lot. We don't really regulate that. We just reference TRPA's code and they regulate that. But just for your information, The existing maximum coverage in town centers is 70%. And with this incentive, there would be no maximum. And then outside of town centers, it's currently 30%, and the maximum would be 70%. And that is if there is an area-wide stormwater treatment system. And I mention that because currently there are none in Washoe County. And so until such time as there were, this incentive would not be able to be used. There's also an incentive for increased height, an additional nine feet in town centers, and then additional height for a shallower roof pitch outside of town centers. And then an increase in density to have no maximum density. So right now, in town centers, the maximum is 25 units per acre. There would be no maximum outside of town centers. 15 units per acre is the current maximum, and there would be no maximum for deed-restricted development. And again, I'll just mention, Regardless of this, you do need those residential allocations or bonus units to build residential units, regardless of maximum density. As I said, we did hear quite a lot about this. And we heard both concern about the specifics of the Phase 2 housing amendments, which I'll talk about more later, but also general support for workforce housing. And so we've proposed some other changes to support de-districted housing. That includes allowing 100% de-districted multi-family housing in Ponderosa Ranch, allowing multi-family through the administrative review process or by right in preferred affordable areas. And that by right is only if it's four units or less. Aligning residential and commercial setbacks for mixed-use development so that there's no conflict in the site design. And then reducing minimum lot width to 40 feet in preferred affordable areas, again, for that flexibility in site design. And then the addition of specific standards of review for parking analyses. And I highlight that because a lot of what we heard from the public was concerned that the ability to reduce parking would have impacts on the existing limited parking in Incline Village and Crystal Bay. And so we've proposed to just add some code to establish a clear and transparent process for applicants and for citizens and some criteria about what we'll be considering to ensure that there aren't unintended spillover effects. if we were to approve such a parking reduction. And we would have the power to approve or deny those requests. The other more significant change proposed under this package is modification to rules for accessory dwelling units. Right now in Tahoe, you need a lot size a minimum of one acre to have an accessory dwelling unit. That was true basin-wide for quite a long time. And then in 2021, it changed for the California jurisdictions. And ADUs, they are a housing opportunity. They're compatible with single-family development. They provide flexibility for different living arrangements, opportunities to age in place. And so that's why we're interested in expanding allowances for ADUs. And what's proposed is removing the minimum lot size. allowing ADUs up to 1,200 square feet on those lots, an acre or smaller, or under an acre, and then allowing detached ADUs under 500 square feet and under 12 feet tall to be five feet from side and rear property lines, which aligns with those accessory structure setbacks and is the same as we have in the valley. I do want to mention short-term rentals are always a concern in Incline Village, and it's relevant to say that you cannot use an ADU as a short-term rental. This is just a graph showing the distribution of lot sizes in Tahoe. You can see lots over an acre on the far right. There's 437 of them, including public lands. So there's not a lot. And you can see there's a lot more opportunity, especially for, for example, the division of units internally to include an ADU for those smaller lots. And so we'd be opening up that opportunity to more lots by making this change. There are some changes that are fixes of typographical errors and clarifications. That includes things like clarifying that A means allowed instead of through an administrative permit, clarifying that the organization of the use tables in our code, adding clarification that development code amendments in this area are also master plan amendments, and then allowing schools in the inclined village tourist regulatory zone by special use permit. And that's kind of a cleanup because that allowance was inadvertently removed after a 2002 area plan amendment added to that use. So those types of fixes. Also some code improvements we want to make. So removing a special use permit requirement for single family homes or for all development in three regulatory zones. Right now, the Crystal Bay, Incline Village 5, and East Shore regulatory zones require a special use permit for single family homes, and they are primarily developed with single family homes. And so what that means is when somebody wants to remodel their home or do an addition or in some cases just do something like reconstructing a parking deck, we have to tell them that they need a special use permit because of our code now. And it reads that way because each of these areas has potential avalanche or other natural hazard risk. But the outcome of the special use permit process has really been requiring a hold harmless agreement. And so what we're proposing is just codifying that requirement for a hold harmless agreement and removing the discretionary process. Another improvement is to decrease the minimum density in town centers from 15 to 10 and then to allow deed restricted housing to go under that minimum density. Minimum density is a tool to make sure that important lots aren't underdeveloped. But what we found is that it could potentially be preventing the small addition of units in town centers. For example, somebody who has a shop, some sort of commercial building, and wants to put a unit on top of it for an employee. And those are the type of opportunities that we don't want to be missing out on for workforce housing. And so proposing this change to resolve that. Other improvements, aligning the process for accessory structures and main structures to encroach in the front yard on a sloped and corner lot. That's an allowance that we have in code currently for those really steep lots in Incline Village and Crystal Bay. And right now, it's a different process if it's for a primary structure or a detached accessory structure. And so that means that, for example, a detached garage goes through a building permit, but an attached garage has to go through an administrative review permit. We're proposing that both of those would go through building permit and then adding some and modifying some language about consulting with agencies that might have infrastructure near that front yard. Proposing to allow Washoe County to recognize TRPA approved temporary uses. We have a temporary use code and TRPA does and sometimes they conflict and that has been a problem that's come up and so we're proposing this change to resolve that conflict. And then adding some requirements for long and short-term bike parking, making updates similar to what we've made for the rest of the county. There are some other cleanup changes, updating organization names, incorporating references to new plans like the active transportation plan and our new master plan. other typographical type fixes that are on the red line. And that's everything that's proposed. So to talk a little bit about public outreach, we have been doing public outreach on this project since last December. There were two rounds of public outreach. First, the kickoff round where we did a kickoff meeting at the Citizen Advisory Board in Incline Village in Crystal Bay. And then we had two very well attended pop-up events. And you can see a summary of the participation we saw throughout on the right. And then we had a second phase, a draft review phase, that occurred in the spring of this year. That included a quick survey, an extended survey, and then citizens actually conducted on their own a survey, the citizens of the St. Francis of Assisi Church. And the church is misstated in the staff report, so I just want to make that correction. And they conducted a survey on their own amongst themselves and provided it to us. And so that was really useful, and we're grateful to them for that. We also did a webinar and two workshops. The majority of the policy-related comments had to do with the Phase 2 housing amendments. From the beginning to the end, we heard concern about the amendments and their impacts, specifically concerns about community character, about infrastructure, and about evacuation. And then also concern about some of the specifics with the definition of achievable housing, the fact that it doesn't have an income cap, concerns about TRPAs capacity to enforce deed restrictions and also their transparency in enforcing deed restrictions, things of that nature. And we also heard, gathered just general information about both existing concerns and concerns about the impacts of the amendments. So prominent themes were fire and evacuation, parking and traffic, and the environment. And also comments throughout in support, again, the provision of workforce and affordable housing. And that graphic just shows the topics we heard about most in one of our surveys. So in response to public input, like I said, we heard a lot about the Phase 2 housing amendments. And when TRPA adopted them, they said, local jurisdictions, you can either adopt this exactly as we've written it, or you can propose an alternative that you can prove to our satisfaction as an equal or greater impact financially on the development of affordable housing. So it would make it cheaper than what they proposed. And we did explore an alternative with them because of the feedback we received. That alternative basically would have included allowing that destricted housing in Ponderosa Ranch, not doing the extra nine feet of height in town centers, and then modifying the parking reduction to provide higher minimums. And they considered that proposal and ultimately provided us feedback that they would not support it. And so what we've proposed is to fully opt into the phase two housing amendments. In this case, TRPA does have the ability, if we were to propose something they didn't support, to adopt their amendments for us. And they have done that for other jurisdictions in the basin. So they do have the authority to approve or deny whatever we propose, which is why we're proposing to opt into the full set of incentives. We did, however, again, create those clear standards for parking modifications to try to be transparent about how we're going to be considering them and establishing a clear process for everyone. And then we also have proposed, again, policies to support workforce housing in response to the comments that we heard about that topic. And there's more extensive response to public feedback in the staff report and exhibit E. The recommendation is approval. There's an egregiously long motion for you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you, Cat. Does anybody on the board have any questions for Cat before we go into public comment? Not seeing any. Let's open up public comment. Do we have any public comment?

I have no hands. Excuse me. I have no public comment in chambers, and I have no hands raised on Zoom.

Wow, okay. We'll bring it back to the board. Do we have any discussion, questions, comments? If we don't, I'll open it up for a motion.

Commissioner Lazarewski, before motion, I'd just like to thank staff for the incredibly thorough outreach and detailed review and proposing something responsive to the public comments and trying to work with TIBA to get a modification. I understand we're not... We're not the authority on this one. They get to tell us if what we propose works or not. But thank you guys for trying to work with them on being responsive to the local residents. If there's no other comment, I'm happy to make the motion. I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission initiate amendments to the Washoe County Development Code and recommend approval of WDCA 25-0003 to amend the Washoe County Code Chapter 110. Within Articles 220 and 220.1 as provided in Exhibit A1, adopt recommendations, adopt amendments to update the Tahoe Area Plan as set forth in WMPA 25-0001. And... recommend adoption of the amendment to the Tahoe Area Regulatory Zone Map to delete the Tirolean Village Special Area as set forth in WRZA 25-0001. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolutions contained in Exhibits A, B, and C 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 ability to make at least one of the four findings set forth in Washoe County Code section 110.818.15e, at least three of the five findings set forth in section 110.820.15d, and all of the findings set forth in section 110.821.15d.

Commissioner Kennedy seconds the motion.

All right. We have a motion and a second. And I would like to say the staff did a great job on this cat. Great job. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. That brings us on to item number 10, future agenda items. Do we have anything? All right. Request for information from staff. All right. Director of Legal Counsel, a report on previous planning commissioner items. Do we have anything? I do have one item that I'm happy to announce.

At the last Tuesday's board meeting, the board reappointed Commissioner Flick to serve one additional term through June of 2029.

Congratulations. Good job. Thank you. Anything from legal? I assume there's nothing from legal? Nothing from legal. Okay. Let's open up public comment. Do we have any last public comment?

I have no public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right. It's 642. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.