Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the July 7th, 2026. This meeting is being recorded. We're going to go ahead and call the July 7th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. It is 6 p.m. Can we get the roll call, please?

Mike Flick. Mike Flick. Thank you. Linda Kennedy. Go ahead and unmute, Linda. Just a moment, let me unmute. Okay, now we can hear you, Linda. Go ahead and say you're here. Here, I can't hear you. You can't hear me now? Now I could look before it could. Yeah, because you're muted. So we're good. Thank you. Kate Nelson here. Jim Barnes here. And Amy Owens present. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

To the Republic of the United States of America. To the Republic of the United States of America. This is for.

Legal can we have the ethics law announcement please.

Commissioners are reminded that if, with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commissioner today, you've received a gift or a 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 being considered, you must disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. Furthermore, you must abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear the gift loan interest commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person. Commissioners are also reminded under 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.

Thank you. Kat, can we have the appeal procedure, please?

Yes. 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 aggrieved person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that 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 application fee.

Thank you. We'll move on to public comment. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the agenda. However, action may not be taken on any matter raised during this public comment period. until the matter is specifically listed on the agenda as an action item. Comments are to be made to the Planning Commission as a whole. Do we have any public comment?

I have no general public comment in chambers. It looks like I have one hand raised on Zoom. Rob Pierce, go ahead and unmute.

Rob Pierce for the record fellow Commissioners county staff members of the public, as my four year term on a planning Commission comes to an end. I want to take a few moments to simply say thank you serving on this Commission has been one of the greatest honors of my public service. When I accepted this appointment, I made a promise to myself and to you that every decision I made would be based on facts, policies before us, and what I believed was the best term interest of Washoe County. I may not have always been right. but I can only say that I gave every agenda item my full attention and my best effort. Over these past four years, I've learned that planning isn't just about maps, zoning, or development applications. It's about people. Every item we considered represented someone's home, business, investment, or neighborhood. That responsibility was never lost on me. It made every decision meaningful. To my fellow commissioners, thank you. We didn't always agree, but we always shared the same responsibility to serve the public. I appreciate the thoughtful discussions, the different perspectives, and the respect we showed one another. Those conversations made me a better commissioner. To our planning staff, legal counsel, and everyone who worked behind the scenes, thank you for your professional patience, countless hours of preparation, and your work does not go unnoticed by the public. But I know that each and every effort that you put into every staff report, every recommendation, and every meeting, we could not function without you. I also want to thank the members of the public who took the time to participate in this process. Whether you supported a project or opposed it, your involvement made our decisions better. Good government depends on people who are willing to engage, and I appreciate everyone who came forward to share their views. As I leave this commission, not by choice, I do so with gratitude and optimism. Washoe County is a remarkable place, and while growth will continue to bring challenges, I know there are dedicated people who will continue to make thoughtful decisions for our community. Although my term in this commission has ended, my commitment to serving Washoe County has not. It's been a privilege to serve alongside all of you and I'll always be grateful for this opportunity. Who knows, maybe at the next county commissioner meeting, I'll get another four years. Thank you for your friendship, your professionalism, and dedication to this community. God bless each of you, and God bless Wausau County.

Thank you, Rob. I do have one person in chambers who would like to speak at this general public comment. Veronica Cortez.

Good evening. Happy, what is it? I think we're on Tuesday. So I am Veronica Cortez, the lunch lady. I'll be on the ballot for 8027. Proudly representing all of Sun Valley, south side of Golden Valley. Sorry I'm out of breath because I just ran in. But it is important that I'm here because I do sit on the cab, but right now I'm not representing the cab of Sun Valley. I'm really just representing the citizens, the concerned citizens, because... We did have a cab meeting last night and it was a rather colorful cab. Now I've been on the cab for about a year now and I have always collected minutes and agendas because I wanted to be the best representative I could. And so now after about being there for about a year, I realized that We're being played and it's sad. Sun Valley is a huge cash cow for Washoe County because we're unincorporated and we need help for this and we need help for that. But you know what? We don't.

We got a lot of millionaires out there.

We got a lot of concerned people that own their own businesses, and they're being victimized by the county, whether it's planning and developing, whether it's the health department, whether it's the new assessor's fee that they're imposing on us for owning a business, which I gotta look into. It's a new two-year thing. Anyway, I've been here talking a couple of times about voter fraud also, because apparently the ROV has a report, and they have up to 4% that they can be, I guess, not accurate on the voting itself. And they explain how some of the machines were turned to training mode or auxiliary mode, and they had to be double pressed, or how the ballots were double. Anyway, a bunch of stuff going on. In a whole, some valley has a lot of stuff going on. We just had that food truck Thursday where two people got ran over in the sidewalk. I mean in the crosswalk. I keep saying sidewalk. But the sad thing is that's not the first time people have died in that same sidewalk and nothing's been done. Why? Because it's a handoff between Washoe County, between SVGID, between NDOT, between RTC. I don't even know. But after a year, I do know. Because I paid attention. And I sat in all of these meetings. And people say, why? For Sun Valley. My grandparents were there. My parents are there. I'm there. My children are there. My grandchildren are there. My horses are there. My goats are there. My chickens. That is my life. I don't want to leave. I want to live peacefully. We didn't ask... We didn't ask for the things that they are imposing on us. And like our county commissioner said last night, you're either with me or you're against me, but it's going to happen the way I want. So I would just leave you guys to your conscience. I hope God guides you in your decisions. And I would hope that if we do have a candidate for District 5 commissioner that does want to get on, I would hope that he gives us our agenda item that we deserve and requested since November last year.

Thank you.

I have no further public comments in chambers, no further public comment on zoom.

Thank you. Um, we'll move on to item six, um, the approval of the July 7th, 2026 meeting agenda. Does anybody have any issues with the agenda? If not, can I get a motion?

Commissioner Owens, I move to approve the June 2nd agenda meeting. Commissioner Kinsey seconds.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Passes unanimously. We'll move on to item seven, approval of the June 2nd, 2026 draft minutes. Do the commissioners, I'm assuming you've all read the minutes. Are there any changes that need to be made or is everybody good with the minutes?

If so, commission a motion. Commissioner Kennedy moves we approve those minutes. Do I have a second?

Commissioner Owens for a second. All those in favor state aye. Aye. Any nay? Okay, that passes unanimously. Now we're gonna move on to the public hearings. Cat, can you please introduce item 8A?

Yes, this is for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in a 13-foot-wide portion of a 33-foot-wide roadway and utility easement, coterminous with the northern property line of Parcel 1 on Parcel Map 4615. This application is submitted by Points West Survey on behalf of Van Hoose Family Trust. The subject property is located at 5399 Mountain Ranch and consists of approximately 2.47 acres. Should I read the second? Okay. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Tim Evans. Thank you.

Thank you. Here we go.

Tim Evans, Planner.

So the case before you today is Abandonment Case Number WAB 26-0005. So the subject property is located at 5,399 Mountain Ranch Road, and it is approximately 2.47 acres. And the subject property and surrounding parcels are developed with a single family dwellings and accessory structures. The property is located within the southwest Truckee Meadows planning area, and the property is zoned high density rural. So the request before you today is for an abandonment to abandon Washoe County's interest in a 13-foot wide portion of a 33-foot wide road and utility easement that is coterminous with the northern property line of Parcel 1 on Parcel Map 4615. So there on the screen is the site plan that was submitted with the abandonment application and highlighted in yellow towards the top of the screen is the proposed area of abandonment, that 13-foot wide portion. And so upon receiving the application, the application was sent to various departments and agencies for review. A total of 12 agencies received it for review. And one agency, excuse me, provided conditions which are included in Exhibit A of the staff report. And so noticing did occur for this project. A total of five parcels were noticed in relation to this abandonment, and one public comment was received, and that was in opposition to the abandonment. That being said, this abandonment did go through two revisions. So the first iteration of the proposed abandonment was to abandon the entire 33-foot-wide road and utility easement. And so due to comments from engineering and in relation to this comment as well, We ended up or the applicant ended up revising the proposed abandonment to only abandon 13 feet of that 33 foot wide road easement And so staff is able to make all three required findings as detailed in the staff report And staff recommends approval with conditions and provides the motion on the screen as well as in the staff report and And I am available for any questions, and the applicant does not have a presentation.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item?

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

Okay, we'll bring it back to the commissioners. Are there any questions for staff? Do I hear a motion?

Commissioner Owens, I'll make a motion. I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve abandonment case number WAB26-0005 for the Van Hoose Family Trust with the conditions included in Exhibit A to this matter, having made all three findings in accordance with the Washoe County Section 110.806.20. Thank you. Do we have a second?

I believe that was Commissioner Kennedy seconding. All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Opposed, state nay. Passes unanimously. item 8B.

Yes, this is amendment of conditions case number WAC 26-0008 for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for special use permit case number WSUP 23-0032 and the NB energy transmission line. The request is to amend condition 1D for the approved special use permit in order to grant an additional two-year extension of time to obtain building permits for the construction of WSUP 23-0032 was approved for a major public facility use type by Envy Energy to construct, operate, and maintain a new 10.8-mile-long, 120-kilovolt overhead transmission line connecting the California substation near Verdi to the Bordertown substation. This application is submitted by Envy Energy and crosses 26 parcels. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Tim Evans.

All right, thank you. Tim Evans, planner. So the case before you today is amendment of conditions case number WAC 26-0008 and it's in relation to amending conditions for special use permit case number WSUP 23-0032. So to give a bit of background, so in 2023 the Planning Commission approved special use permit case number WSUP 23-0032. with conditions of approval for a major public facility use type, and it was in relation to having a 10.8 mile long line, 120 kilovolt overhead transmission line connecting the California substation near Verdi to the Bordertown substation. And so overall, between the total line amount, it's 11.9 miles, but there's 10.8 miles within the portion that we are taking a look at today. And so there on the right side of the screen, you can see all the parcels that this line would traverse if constructed, and it's a total of 27 parcels. So the request before you today is to amend condition 1D specifically. And so the reason for that or that amendment that's being proposed is in relation to granting an additional two-year extension of time to obtain building permits for the construction of the project. And so on the screen is the site plan that was submitted with the application and you can see as shown earlier the parcels that this line would traverse if constructed. And so the project was sent out to various agencies and departments for review. A total of 24 agencies received the project application for review and no agencies provided conditions in relation to this project. And so noticing did occur. A total of 860 parcels were noticed as a result of receiving this project. A total of 18 public comments were received. So after the creation of this PowerPoint, an additional nine comments were received. And all comments were in opposition to the project as a whole, as opposed to what we're actually discussing today, which is specific to amending that condition. So the comments were really specific to the original approval for WSUP 23-0032, as opposed to just this condition amendment. So staff is able to make all five required findings as detailed in the staff report. And staff recommends the Board of the Planning Commission approve WAC 26-008 and provides the motion on the screen as well as in the staff report. And I am available for questions and the applicant does not have a presentation.

I have Ken Gensheimer. I'm sorry if I mispronounced that, Ken. Please go ahead and do your three minutes and state your first and last name for the record.

So I'm going to go to three minutes for him.

And we always ask to state their first and last name for the record. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kurt Gensheimer. I'm a Verdi resident and program manager for the Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship. a non-profit that builds and maintains multi-use trails across California and here in Washoe County. The alignment for this power line will run through the middle of a popular trail network known as the Peavine Maze. The maze is a rare recreational asset for Nevada as it is one of the only legal motorized single track networks in the state located in a forested alpine environment close to a major population center. The approved alignment will cut a 100 foot wide swath through this forest impacting the trail network both visually and physically. For the past five years, I've been working on two grants, one through Nevada OHV and another through Nevada State Parks on maintaining and improving the trails in this network. Just these two grants alone represents $350,000 in taxpayer funding. And by the time construction is complete, more than 1 million in funding will be committed to these trails. In reviewing the staff report for this permanent extension, nowhere did I see even one mention of the impact this project will have on existing recreational assets. There's talk of sensitive habitat, wildlife, archaeological impacts, and other considerations, but nothing addressing the destructive impact this project will have on legacy trails that Washoe County residents use and love. There is also no mention of anyone consulting either Nevada State Parks or Nevada OHV, both state agencies with considerable investment in this trail network. In the staff report on page 9, there are five findings that the county sees as being satisfied. Under finding D, it states the issuance of the permit will not be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. I strongly disagree with this finding. Anyone who has actually seen firsthand where this power line will be going will conclude it will absolutely be detrimental to the character of the area. While Washoe County may not have control over the alignment, I would like to see Washoe County add a stipulation to this permit extension requiring NV Energy to minimize its impacts to recreational resources. As it is evident, there has been no consideration given to the impacts this project will have on a regularly used trail network. Without any stipulations in place to protect existing recreational assets, NV Energy can come in, construct the power line, destroy trails, and walk away without any responsibility, putting the burden of reconstruction on the backs of volunteers. Which begs the question, who will be paying for the repair of these damaged assets that both state and federal agencies have contracted with us to build and maintain? Maybe this request is too little, too late, but I feel the lack of consideration for recreational assets that are vital to the quality of life for Washoe County residents must be called out. And perhaps there is some sort of recourse to remedy the situation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Thank you. Do the commissioners have any questions for staff?

This is Commissioner Kennedy. I have a question. The decision has already been made that this is going to happen. Is that correct? All we're deciding is whether we're going to give them more time to do it.

Tim, that's for you.

I'm Evan's planner. My apologies. So, yes, in relation to the scope of this amendment of conditions, that is what it's in relation to. It's a two-year time extension specific to allowing the applicant to obtain building permits, and that is the entire scope of this amendment of conditions. It's not in relation to the previous approval for the original special use permit or anything like that. This amendment of conditions is very narrow as to what the Planning Commission is actually reviewing today. And so it's just that two-year time extension for the building permits.

So anything the last gentleman spoke about may be interesting but is not relevant to what we're discussing and voting on tonight?

Correct. So that would be beyond the purview and scope of what this amendment of conditions would address. Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions? Commissioner Owens, has any part of this project been started at all?

Tim Evans Planner, so as far as the project itself goes, it has not started. Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy again, when was this approved originally?

Tim Evans Planner, so let me pull that date up for you. Okay, so actually a correction to what I stated earlier in my presentation. So it was actually approved on May 7th, 2024. So it was not 2023. So that was a typo on my part, but it was approved on May 7th, 2024.

Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Commissioner Owens, I'll make a motion. I move that after giving recent consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions case WAC26-0008 for NV Energy with the conditions included as Exhibit A to this matter having made all five findings and according with the Washoe County Code, Section 110.810.30. Thank you. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Nelson will second. All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, state nay. Nay. The motion passes four to one. Thank you. Can we move on to item 8C, please?

Yes, this is Development Code Amendment Case Number WDCA 26-0003, the Equine Business Code Update. This is for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Washoe County Code Chapter 110 within Articles 300, 302, 304, 342, 400, 410, 412, and 809. THESE UPDATES INCLUDE ADDING SECTIONS TO ESTABLISH A PURPOSE FOR ARTICLE 342 AGRICULTURAL USES, ESTABLISH APPLICABILITY FOR THE SAME, ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUINE FACILITIES AND ALLOW INCORPORATION OF A DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS REQUEST WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT. THESE UPDATES ALSO INCLUDE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS TO ADD ARTICLE 342, AGRICULTURAL USES TO THE DIVISION 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS, REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL STABLES USE TYPE FROM TABLE 1103020503, ADD SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE EQUINE FACILITY USE TYPES TO TABLE 110302-05-05. UPDATE THE KEY TO TABLE 110302-05-05 TO REFERENCE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMITS TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND TO INCLUDE A NOTE. REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL STABLES DEFINITION FROM ARTICLE 304 USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. MODIFY CERTAIN DEFINITIONS TO CLARIFY THEIR APPLICABILITY TO EQUINE USES AND ADD DEFINITIONS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE EQUINE FACILITIES. Update the list of tables in the Division 4 table of contents. Remove off-street parking requirements for commercial stables and add them for equine facilities. Update language related to accessible parking spaces and related development requirements. Allow unpaved all-weather surfaces for agricultural uses with 20 or less parking spaces. Add reference to agricultural uses in Section 110.412.0 purpose. Exempt equine facilities. ECOIN FACILITIES FROM ARTICLE 412 LANDSCAPING EXCEPT FOR PARKING AND LOADING AREAS, SPECIFY THAT PARKING AREA SCREENING IS ONLY REQUIRED ADJACENT TO THE PARKING OR LOADING AREA, UPDATE TIMEFRAMES FOR THE PROCESSING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT AND ALL MATTERS NECESSARILY CONNECTED THEREWITH AND PERTAINING THEIR DUE. AND REPRESENTING WASHINGTON COUNTY IN THIS MATTER WILL BE ME SO I WILL WALK DOWN TO THE PODIUM. Hello, Cat Oakley, Washoe County Planning. So as I just went over, we're here today to talk about the Equine Business Code Update. And this is an item that is a long time coming. It has a long history. And so I will cover that as part of this presentation. So starting with a little bit of background, as you all probably know the board of county commissioners does prioritize projects for us in the long range planning side of the house each year and this is one of those items that has been prioritized for us and so that's why we're we're looking at it and it's and what it is is to re look at our code provisions as they relate to equine businesses and try to ease that process for citizens. And so this project is really a response to public feedback for several years now regarding challenges that equine business owners encounter establishing and running their businesses. And the goal here is to make it easier while still minimizing and managing the impacts that we need to. This is a timeline. I'm sorry, it is a little small up there, but the key I wanna point out here is this started in 2024, actually, when the county engaged a consultant to do a survey, do some public outreach, and do some research around equine business code. And I will go into this all more in detail later, but then at the beginning of this year, we really started the actual code update process with some more public outreach. kind of sharing what we learned in 2024, getting some feedback on what equine businesses are out there, what people want to see. We did some drafting, and then we went back to the public with that draft. We actually did that twice. And then now we're here at the public hearing process, the beginning of it. So quite the long journey to get here. To kind of ground us in where we're at now in our code, in Washoe County code, we've got kind of one equine business use type. It's a commercial stable. And in most places where that's allowed, the use type is allowed with a special use permit. So the full public hearing process, and that would apply to any business with three or more horses. The other thing of note is that a commercial stable is classified as a commercial use so it requires a commercial structure it requires of course a business license and then triggers all of our typical commercial development standards so that would be the parking landscaping lighting type standards. The one exception to this is the Warm Springs planning area where they've got some different regulations for boarding stables and they have more permissive permitting in most cases just depending on the number of horses per acre so that's the exception but in general COMMERCIAL STABLE IN WASHOE COUNTY RIGHT NOW REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IS TREATED AS COMMERCIAL USE LIKE ANY OTHER. WE'RE GOING TO DIVE INTO THE one of the things we heard, the biggest things we heard was that this one size fits all type definition and approach was a challenge because what it meant functionally was that a very small business with three or four horses is treated the same and subject to the same standards and review process and everything as a much larger business independent of lot size, independent of anything. And so what we're looking at is dividing, creating a new equine facility use type to replace commercial stables and then dividing it into three tiers based on the number of horses. A lot of discussion went into this kind of tiering decision and so I'm happy to dig into it if you all have questions but for now I'll just highlight that the small facility would be one through eight horses, the medium would be nine through 20 and the large would be 21 or more. And then as the table shows what this allows us to do is to have different permitting requirements based on the size of the business, based on where it is. In general for those small equine facilities they'll be allowed by right so no discretionary permits and you can see that they're not really generally allowed in the suburban areas it's more in those rural areas of the county which is consistent with where they are currently allowed. the medium equine facility mostly they would be allowed by administrative review which is a bit of an in-between option it's discretionary so we can do some site specific review consideration and apply conditions of approval but it doesn't go through the full public hearing process and then the large equine facility in most cases will remain a special use permit to allow for that that more robust review since they are bigger potentially more impactful businesses the other thing a big part of this amendment is creating a new article article 342 for agricultural uses right now our code doesn't really have a home for regulations or allowances specific to agricultural uses so we're creating that and then creating a section specific to these equine facilities and as um as you all know we've kind of covered this before for other items is when we are allowing things by right where they used to require discretionary review, often there's a need to codify those things that were always just conditions of approval. So that's part of what this section is doing. And the other thing that it's doing is actually creating some allowances and some flexibility that's not currently there in our code. So to go through it starting with some of those, codified aspects, so establishing a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet, which is consistent with our minimum lot size to have two or more livestock on a property, establishing some general hours of operation, and then excluding livestock shelters from setback areas to help minimize impacts on neighbors. We also added a couple provisions just allowing additional review and mitigation for potential impacts to source water. So that would be kind of well areas or regulated waterways, which would be our major creeks in the Truckee River. So circumstances that will not apply in every case, but we want to make sure we catch them when it does. Then creating some flexibility here. So Bathrooms is a big item that came up for these business owners. It's a big cost to build a permanent bathroom. And so we worked with the Northern Nevada Public Health District and with Washoe County Building to kind of facilitate this allowance for the use of temporary bathroom facilities for those small and medium equine facilities that are not operating out of a structure. So creating some flexibility there that doesn't currently exist. Reducing landscaping requirements from what they are now, certainly, which is those full-blown commercial landscaping requirements. Still requiring some buffering, kind of depending on the size of the business and the proximity to the property line, but in general, pulling that back quite a bit. Establishing some more permissive permitting allowances when there's a large general rural property, so at least 35 acres. And the equine facility is not very close to any of the property lines, recognizing that that's going to have a much lesser impact. And then also allowing in the low-density suburban zone on parcels where there's less than three horses associated with the business, allowing those by right as well. So that we're, in that case, staying consistent with how it would be currently. And then lastly, adding some standards related to compliance with animal welfare regulations and coordination with Washoe County Regional Animal Services. These are the highlights. There's a lot of detail and I'm happy to get into any of it if you all have questions. We're also proposing some other amendments that impact not just the equine facility use types but some other use types or all use types in our code in some cases. So starting with the top, we are modifying the agricultural parking requirements to allow unpaved parking for uses with 20 or less parking spaces. What we heard from the horse community is that horses and pavement don't mix, and pretty much every time we get a commercial stable request, or we have in the past, there's been a request to waive the paved parking requirement. We have generally always done that, and so that's a case where it makes sense to codify that, and in general to do it more broadly for those agricultural uses where, like I said, we would generally see a request to waive that requirement. Modifying the parking area landscape requirements to only require a buffer along the parking area rather than the whole shared property line, that is kind of a little bit of a cleanup that we're making as part of this process. allowing director's modification request to be combined with administrative review permits. This is really a procedural thing that seems like a small thing, but what it will prevent is people needing to do two separate applications that are ultimately being decided on by the same person. So just a bit of streamlining there. And then lastly modifying time frames for processing administrative review permits Administrative review permits we've been kind of using them more broadly than we used to for the different housing types for now this Originally their genesis was pretty focused on accessory dwelling units. So now that they are Part of more complex reviews. We're just wanting to make sure that we've got enough time to conduct those reviews and so that's the intent behind this change and Now a number of topics came up in this process that are outside of our scope. I just want to mention them. Water rights requirements, fire sprinklers in commercial structures and commercial septic. These are all things that are regulations from other agencies that present challenges to people. We can't directly impact those because they're not our regulations, but what we can do is try to provide better information. So one thing that we are almost done with is creating a permitting guide for equine facilities just to consolidate all the permitting information, provide it up front so that people hopefully don't get too far down the road and then hit a roadblock that they weren't expecting. So that's a non-code thing that we have done as part of this process. To go over the public engagement a bit, there's a lot here. So I'll kind of skim over the top of it. But like I said, we started in 2024 with that survey and those open houses. We had almost 1,900 survey responses and over 100 open house attendees, which the only comparable engagement we've seen for anything is with the master plan update. So very significant engagement. This year, we started with the first phase of public outreach. We were focusing kind of on gathering information about existing business models, sharing out the phase zero information, getting some input about where people want to go. We had about 50 participants with that, and generally those were folks who were directly involved in equine activities or equine businesses. After we came up with the draft, like I said, we put it back out to the public. For review for that, we had an online webinar. We had some focus groups. We had an online survey. We got 54 survey responses, 20 focus group participants and actually got a lot of substantial feedback particularly around the tiering system and so we did some significant revisions and put it back out again to make sure we got it right and we got 18 responses on that round and so a summary of public engagement is in the staff report and there are actually links to much more extensive summaries but The bottom line is there was a ton of public participation, and I think it led to hopefully a regulation that will make meaningful changes and is usable for everybody. So I'm going to take a sip of water. For Development Code amendments, one of the four findings needs to be made. The staff report contends that all four can be made. And the recommendation is for approval. Here's a motion, and it is in your staff report, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. That was definitely a lot of work. Since Washoe County is the applicant, you've given your presentation. Is there any public comment on this item?

You have some public comment in chambers. I have Catherine Yarte. Followed by Deanna Newcomb.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening. My name is Catherine Yarte. My husband Daniel and I own and operate Team Yarte Horsemanship, a horse training business located in Rancho Haven that has been state licensed since 2019. I'm also the founder and president of the Nevada Equine Council. I'm here tonight in support of this amendment before you. This issue personally started for me in August of 2023 when through a county code violation notice, we learned firsthand the limitations of the county's existing code as it applied to equine operations. As we worked to come into compliance with the county, I learned just how outdated the code had become and how poorly it fit with the reality of running an equine business in Washoe County. In 2024, that led me to found the Nevada Equine Council to give equine owners and business owners across the state an organized voice in this and other processes. Since then and through today, I've worked directly with planning staff, Washoe County Commissioners, individuals from Northern Nevada Public Health, Washoe County Building, and fellow business owners through nearly three years of research, outreach, and revision. The collaboration has been consistent with everyone willing to sit down together, listen to concerns, and work through the details of how these codes affect equine operations day to day. While our own business will be licensed under the existing codes, I want to be clear that the equine community as a whole will benefit from these changes going forward. These conversations around our business led to waivers to the current requirements such as the commercial landscaping, fencing, paving, striping the parking, and more. It opened the doors to meaningful discussion for alternatives around the bathroom requirements and operation out of a commercial building for smaller and rural operations. It's worth remembering what's at stake behind these codes. According to the American Horse Council, their most recent national economic impact study, the equine industry added $177 billion in value to the U.S. economy in 2023. That impact supports 2.2 million jobs across the country directly and indirectly just from this industry, reaching well beyond ranches and pastures, including agriculture, tourism, veterinary services, and other support industries. Washoe County equine businesses are part of that picture, and codes that reflect how these businesses actually operate matter to that broader economic footprint. The amendment in front of you, or code change in front of you, reflects that work. It recognizes that horse businesses don't fit neatly into a one size fits all code, and it gives equine operators in this county clearer and more workable standards to operate under. I ask you to support these changes as it represents years of good faith work between the community and the people affected by it and the county itself and a meaningful step forward for equine businesses in this county. Thank you.

Deanna Newcomb followed by Landis Whitmer.

Good evening.

For the record, my name is Deanna Newcomb, and I'm an 18-year resident of Washoe County. I would like to address the proposed Equine Business Code Amendment. Since moving here in 2008, I have alternately boarded horses and leased a barn with property to keep horses. As a horse owner with a vested interest in the equine businesses, I first want to thank Commissioner Andriola for her continued leadership and support of the current initiative to revise and update the equine business codes for Washoe County. None of the proposed changes would have come about if not for her taking on this task and spearheading the project. I also want to thank both Kat Oakley and Kelly Mullen for their perseverance and dedication to capturing and compiling all of the many comments and coming up with the proposed code amendment. I'm sure they and other Washoe County staff members have multiple hours tied up in this project and I appreciate their attentiveness while listening to our comments and suggestions as well as our grievances. I want to say that overall, I think the proposed amendment has many great qualities, certainly making the permitting and business startup procedure much more reasonable and more aligned with equestrian needs. The tiered approach better suits the different types and scales of equine businesses. However, in reviewing the amendment, I noticed that the little guy may be in trouble with the revisions. Historically, a small backyard stable in low density suburban areas could have one or two boarded horses with no need for a special permit, neighbor approval, or special procedures. As the draft amendment stands, these same folks in LDS areas would now be required to have an administrative review to board these same one or two horses. This change, although it seems small, impacts all LDS areas throughout Washoe County, which is significant in some communities such as southeast and southwest Truckee Meadows, Pleasant Valley, Washoe Valley, the North Valley, Spanish Springs, and Sun Valley. I would propose the definition for a small equine facility be revised from small equine facility refers to facilities with a maximum of eight horses associated with the equine facility to read small equine facility refers to facilities with three to eight horses associated with the equine facility. If this changes, the amendment is not made, will this mean that people that historically boarding one or two horses on their property will need to acquire administrative review or approval? How much time will be given to apply and receive approval, or will there be a grandfathering clause, and when will it be retroactive to? If people cannot acquire review and approval, where will the displaced horses go? Again, I would like to commend all those involved with the process to amend the current equine business codes. It has certainly been a long and sometimes arduous procedure. However, I would ask that the consideration be given to my suggestion to revise the animal numbers associated with small animal equine facility. Thank you for your time.

Landis Whitmer.

Thank you, Washoe County Planning Commission. My name is Landis Whitmer. I'm from the historic Silver Circle Ranch. I came here today to listen and to applaud the combination of all of these people working together for the equine community is very uplifting and is amazing. I am concerned about the administrative review necessary in LDS low-density suburban areas for any boarded horse. That is a big change that I wasn't aware of until today. I didn't read as clearly as I should have. I do believe that this will affect many, countless, countless family-run small farms, and I think that that does need to be noted. I wanna thank Commissioner Clara Andreola and all those in the Washoe County staff and the community who have worked so diligently to bring this equine code to this updated status. Thank you very, very much.

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

Thank you. Bring it back to the Commission. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff?

I do. It's Commissioner Kennedy. This is for Kat. What would it take to take this back and make that small, well, sounds like a small, maybe, probably isn't, addition to this proposal FOR THE ONE OR TWO HORSE BOARDING SITUATION.

CATEGORICALLY FOR THE RECORD IT WOULD TAKE NOTHING BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY DONE. I HAD HEARD THIS COMMENT. AND SO THERE IS IN THE AGRICULTURAL USES SECTION THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT STATES THAT EQUINE FACILITIES SMALL EQUINE FACILITIES IN THE LOW DENSITY SUBURBAN ZONE WITH LESS THAN THREE HORSES WOULD BE ALLOWED BY that's gonna stay consistent with what it is now.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Yes, Kennedy would like a motion. I move that after given reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff Report information received during the public hearing. The Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 26-0003. to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 development code within articles 300, 302, 304, 342, 400, 410, 412, and 809 as shown in exhibit A1. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report to 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 four of the following findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.818.15 E. Consistency with master plan promotes the purpose of the development code response to change conditions and no adverse effects.

Thank you. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Owens, I'll second.

All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Those opposed, state nay. That passes unanimously. We'll move on to 8D. Are you coming back here? Are you staying up there?

I'm going to introduce it from here. Thank you. This next item is Master Plan Amendment Case Number WMPA 26-S0001, the Heat Mitigation Plan. It is for hearing discussion and possible action to amend Envision Washoe 2040 to create a heat mitigation plan and, if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. And representing Washoe County in this matter is me again. So. As I just stated, this is to create a heat mitigation plan. And a little bit of background on this. So this is an item that's actually coming out of the most recent legislative session in 2025. The legislature passed AB 96, which required the creation of a heat mitigation plan for jurisdictions in Washoe and Clark County, specifically in the conservation element of our master plan. THAT ARTICLE SCREEN SHOT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE SLIDE JUST ILLUSTRATES THAT HEAT IS AN INCREASING ISSUE IN THIS REGION, WHICH I THINK WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCED. AND WHAT THIS LEGISLATION DID WAS REQUIRE US TO ADDRESS SOME SPECIFIC TOPICS IN OUR MASTER PLAN. AND SO WE, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT HEAT OR EXTREME HEAT AND IN FACT THERE IS A POLICY IN THE REGIONAL PLAN REQUIRING US TO ADDRESS URBAN HEAT. SO THAT IS ALREADY IN OUR MASTER PLAN. And as you can see, if the list of items on the slide that AB 96 requires us to address, we have addressed a number of them, and that would include access to public cooling spaces, to public drinking water, and then shade over paved surfaces. There are a couple additional items that we had some room to add. So cool building practices and then a preference for native tree or drought tolerant species. And then this screenshot on the right hand of the slide shows an urban heat map that I'll show you in a bit more detail later. And it's zoomed out from just the metropolitan Marino Sparks area to show that as Washoe County, we, of course, have many unincorporated, more rural areas and extreme heat. It impacts those areas as well. So it's not just about urban heat. It's also about extreme heat more broadly. And so we took this as an opportunity to make some robust narrative and policies around that in our plan as well. A little bit of background on you know what we're even talking about I won't belabor it because I think we all are probably familiar but a lot of this is related to urban heat islands and those are areas of concentrated heat that's created by developed areas that have a lot of impervious surfaces like buildings like pavement those surfaces absorb heat during the day and then they radiate it or you know release it in during the day but also significantly at night and so that's why we see those more built-up areas have warmer temperatures and we actually now This is a change from when we adopted Envision Washoe 2040 in 2023. We have some really great mapping of the heat island effect in our region. And that came out of a heat mapping project in 2024 that volunteers undertook. They drove around with temperature sensors three times in a day and created this model which shows the heat differential between neighborhoods in the Reno-Sparks area. The maximum map differential was 23 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, of course, some of these areas are up in the forest. They're higher elevation. They're shaded. So we would expect those to be cooler. But you can see even in the valley areas right next to each other that would have a similar climate are very different temperatures. And that has to do with the built environment. And so we have this great data now to integrate into our plan. And we also have the interesting insight that even those more sparse suburban development with low tree cover, even those areas concentrated heat in the day and the evening, you can really see that kind of out towards Spanish Springs. And so that just points to the role that the county also has to play in mitigating the urban heat island effect. So I mentioned it's not just urban heat, it's also extreme heat. And also rural areas. So this temperature map just shows the departure from normal temperatures on average in 2025. So this is where we're already at, not even talking about where we're going. But I'm sorry, it's zoomed out. But the Washoe County on average is one or two degrees hotter already than historical averages. And so we're seeing that increase in heat. We're the fastest warming city in the nation, I think many people know. We also there's some recent data about how we also have the fastest warming summer. So we have the highest number of days above average temperatures in the summer of all cities in the nation. And the departure from our average temperatures is also the highest by almost twofold of any other city. And it's about it's over 11 degrees hotter we are in the summer. So we're experiencing a lot of heating. Rural areas are also vulnerable to this. There are chronic and acute health impacts of heat. It's not just heat strokes and and things of that nature. It's also the long-term health impacts. And there are also other non-health impacts, such as economic ones, social, agricultural. And so as we expect these extreme heat events to increase, again, this all just points to why this was a germane topic for the legislature to direct us to look at. So we took that opportunity to try to do something a bit more robust than what we have, and even than what they've required, and to just provide an overview of that. What we're looking at doing is reorganizing the narrative in our master plan to create a heat mitigation plan that addresses both extreme heat and urban heat. So right now, just urban heat is in there, so add in a bit. Modifying and adding policies related to extreme heat mitigation and management to help people understand what is part of the heat mitigation plan, adding a red sun icon to mark policies that are relevant to that plan, and then adding four new action items to Chapter 3 of in Vision Washoe 2040. I'm not going to go over every single thing, but just provide some of the highlights. So like I said, we're reorganizing information we already have in the master plan, and we're also adding. So adding some more detail about air quality impacts of heat, about the impacts to community character, social vibrancy, isolation, people going out less when it is hot. addressing more directly the risks to rural communities, including things like water impacts and energy reliability, and then also touching on the direct and indirect impacts to the Tahoe Basin. We are incorporating that great map data that we have now into the plan so that we have better information to work off of. We're adding some more detailed information about tree canopy and the benefits of expanding tree canopy, and then we also are referencing more of the relevant plans to extreme heat which includes our regional hazard mitigation plan, our climate action plan and the regional transportation plan. We talked to a bunch of agencies as part of this process including all those folks and Northern Nevada Public Health and others and so this narrative is the result of better knowledge and better coordination around this topic. We're also adding many new policies. Talking about coordinating with emergency management around this issue. Talking about raising awareness and knowledge about extreme heat this this policy 4.2 is an exciting one because We actually developed this with planning staff at Reno and sparks. So the idea is that we're all going to have this policy and Of course, if it is adopted and then work together to develop heat management resources, looking at public cooling spaces, public drinking water and developing a map of those resources, because, of course, people aren't going to care whether the cooling centers in Reno Sparks or Washoe County. They're just going to go do it if they need it. So working together on that. More policies about energy resiliency, blackouts in a heat wave can of course be very dangerous, and so energy is part of the conversation, shade is part of the conversation, and specifically focusing on those populations that are especially vulnerable to extreme heat, including children and seniors. Increasing shade in public infrastructure where we can, so at a bus stop would be a great example. Again, looking at the rural areas, so assessing the need for rural-focused extreme heat strategies. And then also supporting cool building practices, which was one of those items from AB96 that we needed to add in. So supporting things like awnings, light-colored roofs, living roofs, increasing insulation, those items that keep buildings cool even without energy expenditure. So a lot of new policies, some revisions to policies as well. And I'm only going to touch on the ones in the adaption and resiliency element, but there are others throughout the plan that I can talk about if you all would like. But referencing extreme heat more explicitly, being a bit more clear and direct about supporting expansion of the tree canopy, particularly also looking at resources like the Truckee River where we really want to keep it shaded and cool. Supporting those green building techniques like green roofs, green walls, cooling pavements. And then removing policies that we've replaced with other policies. So this is an example of one about working with Reno and Sparks to address public drinking water and cooling centers. We've added that new policy to address that. So this one would be duplicative. Lastly, we are adding four new action items to chapter three. So three of those would be short term related to creating some new code and goals related to tree canopy coverage. assessing the need for those rural-focused heat strategies, and identifying the areas of the county most at risk from extreme heat so we can really direct our efforts and resources, and then adding one new midterm action item, which would be to explore incentives for cool building practices in the development code. In terms of our public engagement, we did host two neighborhood meetings, one in person and one online. We had two attendees in aggregate from those meetings, but we did get better better engagement on an online survey we put out that we got 35 responses to. We did make some revisions based on the public input we received, adding some narrative about the Tahoe Basin, adding additional policy language about expanding the tree canopy in the Truckee River corridor, adding detail about cool building practices, about measurable goals for tree canopy, and then also, of course, as always, various small things that we needed to clean up to make it read more clearly. And so, Three of these five findings need to be made. The staff report makes the case that four of them can be made. One of them, the compatible land uses finding, is not really relevant because there's no change in land use classification. And then the recommendation is for approval. There is a motion on the screen and in your staff reports, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners to staff? Do you have any questions for staff?

I guess, can we identify any of these cooling places that exist today?

Yes, for the record. So currently when there is an extreme heat event like a heat wave, we We, Washoe County, Washoe County Emergency Management activates existing spaces like libraries, like community centers that are already open and already air conditioned and really advertises them and directs people to those places for cooling.

Okay, so basically you're saying public buildings for the most part are the shelters in the event of ultra high heat and they will always, you know, have refrigeration in these buildings. How do we handle a more, I'm concerned about the water. You know, we see a lot of developments which we approve, basically have to approve because they meet the requirements. And then you come along and we get into the data center arena, which is a huge water usage type of industry. And then we look at what's after that. And I'm just, do we know what the regeneration rate OF WATER COMING INTO OUR FACILITIES TODAY IS GOING TO BE LIKE IN THE FUTURE? ARE WE GOING TO GET MORE WATER OR ARE WE JUST STUCK WITH PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE HAVE?

I'LL SPEAK AS MUCH AS I CAN TO YOUR QUESTION. IN GENERAL, CLIMATE PROJECTIONS FOR THIS REGION POINT TOWARDS HOTTER in different precipitation patterns. So transitioning from having as much snow in wintertime precipitation as we have to having more rain, in some cases, more extreme oscillations as well. So maybe wetter years and drier years. That's according to the IPCC climate reports. Now, in terms of planning for water as it relates to the heat mitigation plan, one of the big intersections between the two is actually with tree canopy and with shade because, of course, trees are great for cooling and they're great for shade and for, you know, happiness and all sorts of things, but they take water. And so, yes, there's the need to consider maintaining a balance and other potential sources of shade. In terms of how we, you know, outside of the heat mitigation plan, how we regulate water and deal with water as development comes in. We, of course, have Nevada's water rights system, which is, you know, built on certain existing understandings of what water is out there. And so, you know, how will that evolve over time as our precipitation patterns change? I have no idea. And, you know, it is more in the state's purview rather than in our purview. But I think in terms of this heat mitigation plan, where water comes into play is A, having it available to people because it helps them when it's hot, B, the canopy side of things, and then C, just trying to, where we can, pursue opportunities to build more resiliency, whether it relates to water or just relating to more cooling spaces, more shade, those things that can help people with those hotter times when they do come, however they are impacting them, whether it's water or in other ways. I don't know to what extent that is helpful.

You know, it's a real dichotomy here. I mean, I'm concerned about the people that are here now have a solid source of water 20 years from now. And getting a handle on how, you know, and I'm all for this heat plan, but I want it to be more than just a paper document. And I don't see how we're going to, and I'm looking just at water, the tree canopies and that sort of thing could be handled. But we got to start looking at what gets approved today so that we make sure that we have enough tomorrow.

And I will just add that, you know, of course the master plan directs a lot of the work we do in terms of updating our code and any programmatic work, but it is also, as you all know, a finding that needs to be made for every discretionary process. And so I think that having more robust policies that do talk about things like THE IMPACT TO WATER IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT MORE EXPLICITLY AND HAVE A WAY TO CONSIDER THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

I KNOW THAT THE, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD HAVE RECLAIMED WATER TO WATER THE TREES AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND THE DRINKING FOUNTAINS, I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO BRING UP SOMEPLACE WITH THE POTABLE WATER. I know how effective the canopies can be, and it's nice. But it's going to take time for that to happen. And I'm just babbling here. I'm done. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

We need to do public comment.

Oh, sorry.

It's okay.

Is there any public comment on this item?

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

Okay, now we'll entertain a motion if there's no more discussion.

Commissioner Kennedy moves 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 adopt the resolution contained AT ATTACHMENT A OF THIS STAFF REPORT TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN AS SET FORTH IN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NUMBER WMPA 26-0001 HAVING MADE AT LEAST THREE OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WASHOE COUNTY CODE SECTION 110.820.15D specific findings that can be made. I further move to certify the resolution and the proposed master plan amendments in WMPA 26-0001 as set forth in the staff report for submission to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners and authorized the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Do we have a second? All those in favor state aye.

Aye.

Those opposed state nay. The item passes unanimously. That will close out our public hearing. Are there any chair Commission items any future agenda items or requests for information from staff? I did see that Trevor sent out the RTC information Late this afternoon to everybody. So if you haven't seen it check your email any other items Seeing none, we'll move on to item 10. Is there a report on previous planning commission items?

Yes, for the record. I do have a report on a couple items. So WDCA 26-0002, which was the common open space findings amendment that was heard by this board, had its first reading with the Board of County Commissioners and is scheduled for a second reading next week on the 14th of July. the two other DCAs the attainable housing and the small unit density incentive DCAs were adopted by the board on June 16th so those are now in effect in the code and then lastly and I don't know if you already got this one so sorry if I'm duplicating but the master plan amendment to add designations to those parcels that were in the sphere of influence rollback from the city and then to add some items to our master plan for regional conformance was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on May 26th and we'll go next to the Regional Planning Commission and that is all of the updates.

Thank you. Do we have any legal information or update? Perfect. With that, we will go to final public comment.

I do have one public comment in chamber, Veronica Cortez.

Good evening again, Veronica Cortez. Great meeting. I love these meetings. I learned so much from, I don't even know what they're called, maybe planners or developers. I don't even know. But I did learn a lot. And what I took off of today's meeting was that The heat comes from the parking lots that they're making because it's hot. So by not having the horse people having to make parking lots, it kind of helps with the heat. So that's a good thing. Very excited about that because I love horses. In fact, I have a nonprofit called Valley Amigos. We teach horseback riding, ranching, and farming. We just did the two-day kids rodeo at Rancho San Rafael. One of our members took second place at the Reno rodeo. And we'll be down at Urban Roots this month. We do the food truck Thursday. But yes, love animals, love agriculture. Good job on that. What I did want to come this time was I have some paperwork here. And what these are, these are just like past minutes. And yeah, mostly just past minutes. So I'm going to start with the one from the November 4, 2025 Washoe County Planning Commission meeting minutes where Vice Chair Pierce requested an agenda item clarifying the desired pattern of growth in the Sun Valley area. So it's been since November. We've been talking about the development and how we really need to look into it. So going to the January 4th CAB meeting in Sun Valley, They were still expressing concerns about the loss of influence and voting power that citizens' advisory boards once held. Specifically, Mark Newman mentioned that the past CAB members had a significant say in community matters with the ability to vote on issues and bring them to commissioners. However, over the time, this has diminished, and now decisions are mainly made through the hub system, which is often inaccessible to residents unless the issue's in their immediate vicinity or major project. We're already in January. We're still having problems with the planning. And then Michael Ryder, who I believe at the time was a county commissioner, explained how the Citizens Advisory Board, how their role was in ensuring community involvement in decision-making. He mentioned how the CAB's influence have been significant in past projects like Highland Village. but that it is essential for maintaining balance between development and the quality of life for residents. And he suggested the boards would have more voting power, speaking of the CAB, when it comes to decision making on these projects. Then we have the president of the HOA out there, Judy Jensen, also helping that we can work collaboratively with the CABs and your development board since we live on this stuff. So going to February, it looks like we're still having this concern about infrastructure. So if we can please get somebody who's actually going to stay on the board or be on the board, can we please get an agenda item for the desired growth, pattern growth in Sun Valley? I think we need it and deserve it. So I'll be here. I'm Veronica Cortez, the lunch lady, always advocating for Sun Valley. Thank you for your time.

I have no further public comments in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.