Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Staying informed just got easier. Now you can watch live and on-demand Washoe County meetings and content on Roku, Fire TV, and Apple TV right from your home on your schedule. As more people cut the cord and move away from cable, these new options provide a more flexible and accessible way to stay connected with your county. Finding the channel is easy. Just open your Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV, search for Washoe County, download the app, and start watching live meetings, community updates, and more on demand. Accessibility matters. Our streaming channel offers closed captioning. Simply enable it in your device settings for a more inclusive and easy to follow experience. Stay informed, stay engaged. Watch Washoe County your way. Now available on Roku, Fire TV, and Apple TV.

Hmm?

Thank you.

THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.

IT IS 6 O'CLOCK ON AUGUST 4, 2026. I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE WASHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. COULD WE HAVE A DETERMINATION OF QUORUM, PLEASE? MICHAEL FLICK.

HERE. LINDA KENNEDY. HERE. WENDY LEONARD.

HERE.

DAN LAZARESKI.

HERE.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Jim Barnes.

Here.

Amy Owens. We have a quorum.

Would you all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you, could we have the ethics law announcement?

Yes, commissioners are reminded that if there's any matter or any person coming before the commission 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. You must furthermore 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 today, you should disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting.

Thank you. Could we have the appeals procedure?

Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you qualify as an aggrieved 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 Planning staff immediately at 328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and application fee.

Thank you very much. At this time, do we have any general public comment? I have no general public comment in chambers.

I have no general public comment online on Zoom.

Thanks very much. Has the board been able to review the agenda? Okay. I have a motion to approve the agenda as written. Jim Barnes, second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Has everyone been able to review the draft minutes from the July 7th meeting? Pardon me. If so, could I have a motion to approve? Kennedy moves we approve the minutes as written.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

Thank you very much. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. All right. We have a consent agenda tonight. So this is relatively new to the Planning Commission, but consent agenda just is a motion to approve the consent agenda. Or if anybody would like to pull, in this case, the one item off the consent agenda, we can have a full hearing on it. So, if nobody needs to pull that item, can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Female Speaker 1.

Chair, you need to call for public comment on the consent item.

Male Speaker 1. Oh, thank you very much. Do we have any public comment on the consent item? Male Speaker 2. I have no public comment in chambers. Male Speaker 1. I have no hats raised out zoo. Male Speaker 2. Thanks very much. All right. Could I get a motion?

Male Speaker 1.

Commissioner Nielsen will move to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Owens for a second.

Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The consent agenda is approved and we move to public hearings.

Next item is WAB 25-0009, the Novich Abandonment. This is for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in the 30-foot bridle path easement for lots 1, 2, and 5 through 14, as shown on block G of tract map 627, Juniper Hills, recorded as file number 312282. The area requested to be abandoned is approximately 73,080 square feet in size and is located to the rear, the south of the lots, south of Bridal Way and to the west of APN 00909501. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Senior Planner Courtney Wiecki.

Okay, good evening, Senior Planner Courtney Wiecki. The item before you is case number WAB25-009, Novich. So the applicant's request is to abandon a 30-foot bridle path easement within the Juniper Hills subdivision for lots one, two, and five through 14 as shown on block G of track map 627. I'm hoping that we have the right presentation, but I'll go off script here. Staff is actually recommending a partial approval, which would, the proposal is to abandon only an 18 foot wide portion, which is approximately 43,000 square feet. And we'll get into those details a little bit further in the presentation on why staff is making such recommendation. Clicking. Oh, there we go. There we go. Perfect. Thank you. We're going to get there, guys. All right. Here is an image of the vicinity map and the location of the 12 parcels in which the proposed easement for abandonment is located, which is in the Juniper Hills subdivision south of Bridal Way and west of Ross Drive. The parcels are all located within the southwest Truckee Meadows planning area and has a master plan designation of suburban residential, and all parcels have a regulatory zone of low-density suburban. Okay. And so the recorded bridal path easement, um, is 30 feet wide. And the, uh, uh, uh, highlighted portion there is illustrating the proposed easement, uh, requested for abandonment. The full request extends across lots one, two, and five through 14. in block G of the tract map. If approved, the exact retained alignment will be established through revised survey exhibits and legal descriptions. A little bit of background into how we got here today. The applicant applied for a building permit to construct an accessory structure in 2025, at which time they received corrections to locate the structure outside the subject easement. Prior to this, the applicant was unaware there was an easement on their parcel, as an existing structure currently is located within the easement. and this was constructed by the previous owners. As you can see in the above aerial image that was submitted as part of the application there on the south end side, there is an existing structure there. After discussions with staff, the applicant was directed to obtain input from the affected property owners along the full easement segment extending from the applicant's parcel east to Ross Drive across the 12 parcels. Staff determined that approval of the abandonment could not be bifurcated parcel by parcel. Instead, the request for the abandonment should consider a rational segment for abandonment across all parcels in this location within the bridal path network. A little bit of history into the bridal path network. of trails in the Juniper Hills subdivision. Washoe County accepted dedication of the streets and bridle path easements in 1959. The Homeowners Association did not actively maintain those paths as was required by the CCNRs. In 1997 and 98, the county evaluated a trail system and selectively cleared and fenced certain routes intended to form connected loops. throughout the subdivision. That work was site-specific and did not establish an ongoing county program to restore or maintain every bridle path easement for a public access trail. The highlighted portion in the overhead image was agreed upon at that time to be improved and is currently being maintained voluntarily by the homeowners. Hopefully these images are a little difficult to see here. But planning and park staff did conduct a site visit with the applicant and observed the subject easement from beginning to end. Conditions do vary along the corridor and include mature vegetation, grade changes, fencing, landscaping, and other improvements that have limited, limit practical public access currently. In the overhead images there, you'll see a red arrow placed along the pole line, and that's just to give you a sense of really where the property line lies. There is a 10-foot public utility easement that will be preserved, and the assumption is that there's five feet on each side, and so it just gives you a little bit of an idea of where in proximity to the property line and the easement, some of the conditions along that trail corridor. On the left picture there, that is the entrance to the primary applicant's parcel that would need to be improved if that access was improved for trails. And as you can see in that last photo, and I apologize there, there is varying degrees of vegetation, right? So there is another portion there that you can see where it is open, right? So there is a varying, uh, conditions throughout the trail, or I should say easement, right? Okay. All conditions, uh, were required by the contacted agencies can be found and exhibit a conditions of approval. No comments of concern were raised, and that was with the original request that went out to them for the full 30-foot abandonment. Public comment. Three comment letters were included in your packet opposing the complete abandonment. After the Planning Commission packet was distributed, additional opposition was received, including a petition with approximately 60 signatures, each requesting denial or an amendment to the request. It is important to note that not all the signatures are necessarily verified that they're in Juniper Hills, but that's not necessarily required. This is a public trail and would be allowed to be accessed by anyone. The comments emphasize preserving trail access, the rural equestrian character, property values, and off-street walking safety in an area without sidewalks. All in all, the comments demonstrate continued public interest in retaining a usable corridor. Now, for staff's partial recommendation rationale, complete abandonment would eliminate the county's public access interest across this segment of the bridle path easement. The existing 30-foot easement creates a broad encumbrance across those 12 private residential parcels. And I want to just note that when a access easement is more than 20 feet, a setback is taken from the edge of that easement. In this case, the setback is 30 feet, and that 30 feet is typically taken from a parcel line. In this case, because the easement is over 20 feet, we take it from the edge of that easement. Therefore, the setback for any sort of construction of a structure needs to be 60 feet back if it's above that 12 feet. There is a caveat to that, but I just want to give a little bit of a picture of what that looks like with a 30-foot easement on a parcel in that when they go to build, they do have to meet that additional setback beyond what otherwise would not be required if that easement was not there. Public comments demonstrate continued neighborhood interest in retaining a usable public corridor for compatible passage and potential future restoration. Staff's partial approval balances these interests by abandoning 18 feet while retaining a continuous 12-foot wide bridle path easement. And we did confirm with Parks, although there's not a set standard for a trail like this, that that would accommodate for a typical trail width along with construction on both sides. The retained corridor and abandonment area must be shown on revised legal descriptions and exhibit maps to be approved by engineering prior to re-corridation. Staff does believe that we can make all of the necessary findings for an abandonment as described in your staff report and I'm happy to go through those if needed. And I have provided you with a possible motion specifically referencing staff's partial approval recommendation. With that, That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. The applicant does have a presentation.

All right. Thank you. Go ahead.

A 10-foot utility easement is within the 18-foot

It would be the 10-foot utility easement does not solely lie within this easement. It's what? It does not solely. I feel like it did go down a little bit. Sorry. The 10-foot utility easement is on both sides of the parcel, I believe, on both sides of parcels, so there's five foot on each. There is no... modification of that public utility easement. That would not be affected in any way by this abandonment.

So if this is approved, it would...

It would remain as is.

As is, and that would be part of the remaining...

Yes, it would still be protected with the proposal regardless, but I just want to make it clear it would have no bearing on it.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question. Yes, ma'am.

How did you come up with a mandate How did you come up with the 12-18 split? What was the rationale behind that?

We looked at – we reached out to our parks planner to look at kind of common design standards for a trail width of this type, and I believe it was – between eight and ten feet and then the request was that there would be a foot to two feet on each other side and we thought 12 feet was a good compromise.

What is the width of the rest of the bridle path? 30 feet. Don't you think that's a big change?

It would be a reduction in 18 feet and the original request was to abandon the entirety of the easement.

Wouldn't something be more appropriate to split it 50-50?

that is certainly a consideration the commission could consider.

This was- I just think it's very much in favor of the homeowner and against the public that wants to use the bridle path. Having ridden horses, if more than one horse, 12 feet isn't much room. And that's what it was designed for.

Right.

All right. If we don't have any further questions for staff, I believe we can have the applicant's presentation now.

Hello, can you hear me? Okay, thank you. Just a couple quick things before going into this presentation, just to answer a few of Your questions just based on the land surveyor and going through the previous all the partial maps and everything like that with regard to the 10 foot electrical easement based on when our development was constructed in 1959. They do overlap so the 10 foot utility easement you go 5 feet from the parcel line into our property. you've got the utility line and then five feet on that. So really it's a 10 foot utility all landing within the applicant's hour parcels. So it doesn't go to the south side of the, it does not go to the south side of the parcels. I hope that clears that up a little bit. And then with regard to the 12 feet, the slide that she showed up there on the ones in 1997 and 98 that were ruled on, The county came in and they said, okay, we're going to put in, I think at the time it was like $25,000, $28,000. $28,000. They constructed the fence, and any given width of that fence is, I think, eight feet. So the precedent within the community of where a fence has been created by the county is eight feet to ten feet, just to provide some clarity on that subject. Okay, so do I just use the clicker this way? Okay, my name is Chris Novich resident of 4400 bridle way we moved in last July with the idea we were made aware that there was utility easement back there and that there was already a building constructed back there and so we had ideas for this portion of our property that we could. do some things, and then I started talking to some neighbors, and we got in this easement abandonment, and every single one of my neighbors was excited that I wanted to champion this, at least the people whose bridal path it was on, and so I got 12 or 13 signed affidavits joining the application to remove it. Since 1959, it's never been approved, or never been constructed and or used, so we'll get into it. All right. Okay. Basically what we're asking for is, you know, one build segment and nothing there exists today. And I feel like everybody in opposition to this minus maybe one person has been misled a little bit in the idea that we want to get rid of trails that are actively being used. Listen, I got three kids. They use the trails that are actively constructed and being used and they're in the neighborhood ripping their bikes around and they're having a blast. That is not the goal of this at all. The goal of this is simply to get rid of something that since 1959, there hasn't been a penny put into it. It's never been developed. And people have built fencing up to it, mature landscaping. Every home is a second homeowner. They purchase these homes without the idea that there was any sort of usable easement back there. And so you guys have received, I don't know if you've received the opposition, but the opposition provided a bunch of photos that I'd like to kind of dive into. And then we're going to go into the unbuilt alternative, which we talked about in 1998. Also what a licensed land surveyor, his professional licensed opinion on it. And then just kind of wondering and talking about the county's budget and mechanism to build it. So we'll get into that. So the photographs, has anybody here seen the opposition or gone through the packet of photos that was presented? I want to pick out some of those and just kind of go over this. And as we go into it, it's really important to reference the utility easement because that really gives you a great idea of where the actual parcel ends when you're looking at these photos. easements in these photos. So again, locate the pole, anything more than five feet south of private property is not on the easement. That's on a separate build of this and it's not part of this easement. And so this was one of the lines shown. You can see the power pole there. Again, the red line, very rough. But this was cited that, hey, look, there's a trail here. Here it is. Well, that specific, one, it's not a trail. Two, specifically, it's not part of the easement, so it's really not a factor in this decision. The open ground is just again. It's open ground. We live in the desert. You're gonna find segments of open ground This was also provided as you'll see in the next photo. This is a paved driveway To a parcel that again is south of the easement has nothing to do with the easement so it's misleading to say that this is a residential spot if you're on that driveway you're on private property and not on the easement and So the best way to kind of look at this is this is that same driveway and the highlighted blue parcel, uh, ending in two zero would be affected by the easement. But what you can see in parcel four two is that driveway is going in and it's going to parcel four two. That is not part of the easement. Although these properties on the south side of the easement keep getting referenced. And I just want to make it abundantly clear that everything that, People are arguing about, hey, there's spaces here, there's trails here, it's been built. That's not on the easements, so legally it can't really be walked on. And I think you'll get that as people will say, well, I've walked the easements. Well, unless they're hopping barbed wire fences and they're scaling these big undulating things, what the land surveyor said, they're going around those things. A lot of the photos that Courtney, who's been great in this entire process, showed, You're walking on private property. That's not on the easement. Yeah, you might be only four feet into private property, but you are not on that easement. Same thing here. You're facing east in this photo. You can, again, reference the telephone poles as kind of the edge of the property line there. Same thing. See the telephone poles? You can dictate anybody who ever played golf, that looks like about a five-footer right there, right? You wouldn't get into that dirt path, okay? Same thing. Now you're looking west. You can see the westerly mountains right there. Now you're looking west. So that would put the north on the right side there. Power poles come down. And then you've got that driveway right there. Again, just referencing, you know, everything over there. This thing's been here since 1959. It's never been developed. We're not at all trying to take away with what the community has. We love those trails. Our kids ride those trails. That's not what we're trying to do. So again, you can see a parcel 08 there down below with like, it looks like the white trailer and stuff. This is the county mapping system. We know it's not perfect, but there is a reference there. Do you see the shadow of the telephone pole kind of in the corner of the blue? That's the telephone pole. It goes down. You can assume what five feet looks like from space. That driveway is not on that easement. Okay. So again, the photos that the opposition took, I'm not saying she, Intentionally lied about it or anything like that, but there's a misunderstanding there that says those things are part of the easement and they're just not. Going back to 1998, the county did classify the segment as an unbuilt alternative. If you look at the 98 minutes and so kind of piggybacking on what Courtney said, you've got the yellow line that's been that has been built to maintain their signs bridal path. There's been fencing put up that indicates the 8-foot to 10-foot bridle path. There's a trail there. My kids walk it. I walk it. If you look at that purple arrow, that's down by the ponds. That's not what this is about at all. It has nothing to do with that. We love those things. We're not trying to get rid of walking groups that take their kids. My son's here. Some of his best friends used to go to Jesse Beck down there. They used to walk. Their kids are that's not what we're trying to do we think it's a beautiful thing we absolutely do all we're asking is that the green line, which is where the easement is. Since 1959 and even in the 98 minute, you can see, this was designated an alternative unconstructed so 98 when they did have funds to put towards this and they determined. How are we going to do this? They chose not to put funds towards this and mark it as an alternative. It's never been cleared. None of the other things have as well. So our segment fell into the secondary category. And if you, you know, probably not going to happen, we vote sign, but if you'd like to come up and see it, that right there, that corridor, the green line is about 2,660 feet. It's got elevation. It's got three elevation changes of just under 80 feet. So up and down and up and down and with the county costs and everything knowing construction and dirt work. For really people who are worried about the existing trail systems going away to spend that type of county resources for. Three or four people to ride horses over there once every six months does not seem feasible in terms of county funds being spent that's just my opinion is tax as a taxpayer. Again, 28 years non-construction. It was never selected as an adopted route. It was never funded for construction. It's never been built, cleared, or signed. So nobody even knows it's there. I think if there's a frustrating part about this entire thing is if you put everybody who opposes this in a courtroom under oath, I would have to think 90% of them didn't even know it existed until we tried to abandon it. And 100% of them never walked it. And if they have walked it, they're dipping into private property to do so. It's just that's a little bit of the frustration that is coming out in this thing. So the CC&Rs, people talk about the CC&Rs. We have no HOA. CC&Rs are really just done through civil action at this point. I don't think that's a county thing based on my research. You guys aren't in the business of upholding CC&Rs, so that would all be done based on civil litigation. There's no association or no declarant. There's no active homeowners association juniper hills. And again, there's been no enforcement in 60 years this place has been constructed. Again, I just want to keep hammering that point home. This is from the licensed land surveyor. They're going to come up and say, well, I walked it and You know, my wife told me not to broach the subject, but it's like, you know, we could get a bulldozer back there and do it. But the surveyor basically said, this is not constructible. It's too up and down what you'd have to do. And the argument is, well, we could get a bulldozer back there. I mean, it's like, you know, I guess we move mountains to build buildings. For sure, we could. But what's the practicality of somebody who's bought a home with mature landscaping, fencing all the way there, and then coming in and bulldozing or just saying you can walk it? You know, I mean, the... The joke that I've got is, you know, people walk Mount Everest. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd call Mount Everest walkable, you know. So natural rocks, slope obstructing alignment conditions, clear brush will not resolve. You can see boundary fencing, mature landscaping in place for decades. applicants. So you guys can read that. But there is this idea that, hey, if we raise enough money, if we raise enough money for the, you know, we can volunteer and we can hire. Well, I don't think the homeowners are going to allow volunteer money and or somebody to rent it from a liability perspective to have people on their private property. Yes, it's an easement, but they still own the property. doing their own construction on what they deem is right. I would have to assume legally that that money would have to come from the county. It'd have to be a licensed contractor who's insured, and you've got the county insurance from a liability perspective to just come start digging up people's property for public easements. Getting a little long-winded here, but objections, fire emergency access, none of this is going to be touched because it's already there. Our whole thing is like, hey, we're keeping this the way it is now. It hasn't been an issue for 60 years. If you do go in and start adjusting it, then you're bringing all of these things in. Trail connectivity, it doesn't connect to anything. Nobody's ever used it. We're not getting rid of a segment that's ever been used. And defensible space, we're not getting rid of fire codes. If you wanted to build a building back there, whatever, you're still going to go to the building department and understand all of that. None of that's being touched. Findings that the records support, it's never been constructed, improved, or maintained. It's a bridal pass since 1959, classified in 98 as an unbuilt alternative. We've kind of already gone over that. It's never been cleared or accessible. A licensed surveyor came in, documents the terrain, is rock-making construction impractical. County has no maintenance, budget, practice, or funding mechanism. I don't know the budget or anything like that, but I can't imagine that spending to excavate half a mile and build a fence on a half a mile is a good use of taxpayer funds, now or really ever. Again, we went over the photographs, and I've got 12 homeowners. This actually does directly affect. This doesn't affect anybody in the neighborhood, and they can talk about property values. They can do all that. It doesn't affect anything. This thing's never been built. It's been assumed gone since 1959. We're just doing it on paper now. And so I'm requesting that we move to go with the application and formally abandon the entire thing. Um, and I do feel, I want to address one more thing with the little time that I've got left here. You know, I feel like everybody who signed the petition, everybody who's might get up here and speak today is under the impression that we are attacking bridal paths in the community. And that's not at all what we're doing. We like them. Our kids use them. Our kids are really integrated into the neighborhood. They're doing sleepovers, riding bikes everywhere. That's not at all what we're doing. We're simply asking that something that has been quote unquote, you know, verbally official for 60 years, that we just make it official on paper. We're not getting rid of the power, the utility easement, nothing like that. We're not doing anything like that. This has never been used. It's not practical to use it. And there's going to be people up here saying that this is going to set a precedent and all that stuff that, you know, if they come for this one, they're going to go for that one. And I'll be the first to get up here and champion. If somebody wants to get rid of a path that's being used or constructed or whatever, I'll be the first one up here to champion it with them. We do not want that to go. That is an essential part of the neighborhood, you know, but making this, you know, work. For everybody, all 12 people who own this property and going back to the setbacks of you got to be what sounds like minimum 50 feet back. If you have a 30 foot bridle path and then 20 feet on top of that, 50 feet on these acre lots that renders over, I mean, a third of your property unusable. You know what I mean? Like that doesn't seem right, especially since it's never been done. People move in. they see these properties, they might want to build a shed back there or do whatever. And it's like, no, you can't use 50 feet for something that's never been used since 1959. So anyway, with that, thank you very much for hearing me out. Thank you. Any questions? Good.

Thank you. I think we can move to public comment.

I have Marcy Welch. Followed by Chip Cooper.

I'm Marcy Welch. I live at 4365 Bridal Way since 1982, which is over 40 years. When my husband and I purchased the property, we read and signed onto the CC&Rs, knowing that we were to honor the trail easement at the back of the property, as did, I assume, the gentleman asking for this change. We considered the horse trail so close to the city a plus in this purchase. The former owners had had horses. We did not. Our daughters rode the neighbors' horses for years, taking lessons at horse camp and caring for them. We have always enjoyed watching the horses pass, as well as neighbors hiking and others walking their dogs. I find it sad that a relatively new resident on bridle is asking for a change that will affect all our property values. Realtors mention the trails as one of the amenities for homes in this area, a rarity so close to the city, and connecting to other trails, including the Tahoe Pyramid Trail. I have seen and appreciated work crews clearing the trail, which is now beyond my personal ability. We on bridle all live on generously sized lots with rooms to make additions without encroaching on our neighbor's enjoyment of our trails. Changing one does put all at risk. And then I have a question. My question, and I'm not sure it can be answered here, is if the easement is removed or lessened, does that affect our property? property taxes.

I just don't know. This is an opportunity for public comment and not a back and forth question. Okay. Sorry. Yeah.

That's a question I have anyway. Thank you.

Chip Cooper followed by Tammy Ruff.

Thank you, Commissioners, for being here tonight. My name's Chip Cooper. I live at 4285 Ross Drive. I'm not on Bridal, but right at the intersection of Ross and Bridal. And the Bridal Trail does come onto my property. And we moved to Ross Drive in 2000 with the complete knowledge that the easement was there. And fantastic. I had two young kids at the time. They have since grown and are away and have made it known that they want the house when we move on, but we're not moving. And just to what Marcy said, there is a sense of community. There's a sense of openness and good feelings with knowing that that bridal trail system is there. It's used quite readily behind my house, and I certainly enjoy it, whether it be horses, whether it be walking groups, whether it be individuals, whether it be bike riders. My fear is that, as the gentleman stated, it's about precedent. And if we do it one place, what's going to happen the next time? Just I'm not legal mind, anything like that. I just am smart enough to know that someone will come up and say, well, you did it before. You can do it again. So I'm pleased with Commissioner Kennedy's statement on compromise versus the 18 and 12. If there is something decided upon, I would encourage moving that direction versus complete abandonment. Thanks for your time.

Tammy Ruff, followed by Julie Olander.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Washoe County Planning Commission Board. My name is Tammy Ruff. and I reside at 4201 Palomino Circle in the Juniper Hill subdivision. On track map 627, my home is in the lower right-hand corner by the H in numbers 21 on the corner of Palomino Circle and Ross Drive, just three parcels away from access to the bridle path in question tonight. My home was built in 1972 by my in-laws, Robert and Patricia Ruff. My husband Brian and I purchased the home in January of 2001. My in-laws purchased the property because of the natural aesthetic. The bridle paths provided their boys access to trails for hiking and horseback riding. They were well aware of the 30-foot easement around our property and those of other individuals living next to these paths. Our two daughters continue to use the bridle paths walked previously by their grandparents, uncle, and father during their years growing up and living at our home. My husband and I continue to use the paths and expect our granddaughter, Alice, to have access to the same paths and access to nature that earlier generations have enjoyed. A 55-year history on this land is significant and worth preserving. When my father-in-law chose to add a detached garage to our family property in 1990, he complied with requirements to locate the garage within the county regulations. He did not ask for any type of abandonment. The importance of preserving these trails was important to him and to us. Currently, there are three construction projects in my immediate vicinity, two garages and one ADU. All three of these projects are complying with county requirements preserving the bridle paths. All three. Your own documents state future development in this area would maintain open space and provide connections to existing and planned trails, such as access to Hunter Creek Canyon and other Forest Service lands in the southwest Truckee Meadows planning area. I am against making any any changes to the bridle paths. I don't believe a newcomer in the neighborhood who purchased his home and was well aware or should have been well aware of the existing 30-foot easement of the bridle paths should be given any abandonment whatsoever. Similarly, I don't believe anyone, whether they are the original homeowners, landowners or not, should be given any... abandonments of this property either. No one is entitled to any type of change. Please, please preserve these paths as originally designated in 1959 and deny this request. Thank you.

Julie Olander, followed by Krista Waddington.

Good evening, Julie Olander, for the record. I live at 4207 Pinto Drive. which is part of the Juniper subdivision, and I've lived there for 28 years. I have two bridle paths on my back part of my property on the side. The side property is not shown as a path that has been identified by the county. However, it is open and available for people to walk. I walk between Hackmore and Pinto to get to the other streets. So even though some of the paths are not recognized, there are several paths that are on the map that the county has come in and cleared the paths on, but there are other paths that are used that have not been cleared by the county. I just want to say that I am okay with a partial abandonment. I think 10 to 15 feet would be appropriate. As Commissioner Kennedy said, I think a half-half would be fine. But one of the things I'm very concerned about is that if you do go forward with that partial abandonment, that the property owners that signed on for this abandonment, that they clear their paths. That's the problem is maintaining these paths. We aren't expecting the county to come in again and do this. If they did, that would be great. But we as neighbors have gone through and cleared the paths, which is allowed by the CC&Rs. It's not a liability issue. CC&Rs allow the neighborhood to clear the paths. So I would ask a condition be added. If you move forward with any partial abandonment, the people that abandon their property clear it and make it available to walk. Then it would be walkable, and this would be a big loop through the neighborhood, which would be very nice. I also believe that a partial abandonment, a full abandonment can't meet the findings. I don't think it meets the master plan or the Southwest Truckee Meadows Area Plan. There's numerous policies and regulations policies and requirements in there. That area plan, the master plan was put together and it was noted that trails were, we were deficient in trails and we need more trails in Washoe County. And then concerning finding two, which is no detriment, abandoning this trail would be a detriment to the neighborhood. We in this neighborhood, even though this trail has not been maintained, most of us know it's there. I think all the people that are speaking here are not new to where this trail was that it was existing. So I think it would be a detriment. It can connect with other trails in the area. It can connect with Collin. It can also connect with Juniper Ridge, Juniper Creek, and then on to Hunter Creek area. So there's a connectivity that's available there for people to walk around. ride on their bikes or their horses. Again, these paths have been there since 1959. However, I don't believe this abandonment is... In 1998, this abandonment came before the Planning Commission, and they denied it because they could not make the findings. And I hope you can also agree with that decision made in 1998. Thank you.

Krista Waddington, followed by Angela Beale.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Krista Waddington, and I have lived at 4159 Latigo Drive in the Juniper Hills subdivision for over 36 years. I oppose the abandonment of the pass. Over 27 years ago, I stood in front of this chamber with the same request and a similar speech. to keep the neighborhood as it was set up years ago and intended with the bridle paths intact. I stand here asking for your help to retain one of the very important assets that make this community unique. New developers are putting in paths throughout their communities because they realize what we already knew. They are an asset. This is part of what makes the area desirable. because a few don't agree with the rules laid out does not mean that we should take the bridle path system away for all, not today or for generations to come. Even taking one section away could open the door to others and eventually losing them all. When we are asking to preserve the bridle paths, we are only asking to keep what we have and what others are trying to replicate. Juniper Hills was ahead of its time when they did this. I am guessing the easements were of value to every homeowner in Juniper Hills buying the property with the easements in place. The property owners in Juniper Hills agreed when signing their title to abide by the deed and restrictions. In signing, we in sense made a deal with the other homeowners in Juniper Hills to uphold this responsibility. My property is cited by the bridal path. I recently built a large garage on my property and abided by this agreement. I only ask for other owners to follow suit. I encourage you tonight to retain the bridal paths as they were intended. I also would be amenable to making like a 15 foot adjustment, but not total abandonment. And I want to say that in, I probably rode the trails 10 to 15 years before I moved into the area, and I have ridden the path behind the bridle. There were no homes in the area on that south side of bridle until 1988. And so it was open space, but still has not been written in a long time because it has been overgrown, but it has been used. And if we do open it up and make it more accessible, people will use it. It is, as shown on the map, it is a circular path. So just like the gentleman said, his kids enjoy what's open. If this were open, people and kids would enjoy that also. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Angela Beal, followed by Adam Tatelman.

Good evening County Commissioners. My name is Angela and I've lived on Bridal Way for about three years. I own horses and have ridden the Bridal Path trails. I first learned about this easement six months ago from a neighbor. Before then, I always wondered why the Bridal Path behind my house terminated into a street and seemingly didn't go anywhere. Because of this, I have walked my horses on the road to reach other trail outlets, which is not ideal. I believe this trail is a resource that should be preserved and maintained for the future. Every day, I see people using the path behind my house to walk dogs, run, or hike with their children. I am here to ask the county to deny or amend the proposed abandonment. Juniper Hills was designed as a rural, equestrian-friendly neighborhood. We do not have sidewalks or streetlights, so paths like this matter. They give people a safer way to move throughout the neighborhood without relying on the road. There is also prior county history here. In a previous case, the county recognized that this section is part of the larger neighborhood trail network and that abandonment could create material injury to surrounding properties. That is still my concern today. If this section is abandoned, it could reduce future trail connectivity, weaken the rural character of the neighborhood, reduce fire-dispensable space, set a precedent for additional bridle path easements to be abandoned in the future, and create uncertainty for residents who may have private rights to use the bridle path under the subdivision's CCR agreement. The proposed abandonment also appears inconsistent with Washoe County's Envision 2040 Master Plan goals, which support preserving and improving trail connectivity and access. I recognize that 30-foot easement is wider than may be necessary. As a compromise, I encourage the county to work with the community to clear a practical 15-foot walking and riding corridor while allowing additional flexibility for adjacent property owners. Once a public easement is abandoned, it is extremely difficult to restore. I believe the county should be certain it has no present or future public value before giving it up. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the county to deny or amend this application.

Adam Tettleman, followed by Christy Vallis.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Adam Tettleman, and I moved onto 4375 Bridal Way right across the street about three years ago. When I moved in, it was very clear to me that there was an easement not only in my backyard, but sort of across the community as part of the process of purchasing a house. I actually walked a lot of the trails and I wouldn't say they needed to be bulldozed, but some of them are pretty rundown, but I still walk them and I considered them an asset because I work from home and a lot of the times I don't see anyone throughout the day. So seeing people on those trails and using them for my lunchtime is a big thing for me. I go out there trail running, I walk my dog. And I don't want to be running the same trail every day. So it's nice that there are so many different connected trails, and there's just a web of different directions you can go. And I think that's really where the power of the Bridal Paths comes. It's not just a hiking trail from one place to another. It's a web of trails throughout the community. And so in an abandonment of one segment of the trail, it does, in my view, reduce the value of all of the other trails in that community. So I would be amenable to a 15-foot abandonment, but I wouldn't be amenable to abandoning the entire trail because I feel like that would reduce the use overall for everyone. Thank you for your time.

Christy Vallis, followed by Nancy Olson.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christine Vallis. I live at 4965 Ross Drive. Thank you for taking your time tonight to allow me to speak. We chose to make Juniper Hills Community our home for over 25 years. The rural feel, no streetlights, no sidewalks, and low-density housing all were selling points that have helped property values remain high and have made this area one of the most desirable in the county. The bridal paths were an integral part of our decision to make our home here. In 1959, when the Regional Planning Commission approved the subdivision and recorded the streets, easements for public utilities, and easements for bridle path purposes, Washoe County also accepted this dedication. Included with this recording were the declarations of restrictions, which stated, an easement is hereby reserved along each strip of land designated as bridle path. No structure shall be constructed or permitted to remain on any strip of land designated as the bridle path. No debris or other material shall be permitted to accumulate. Declarants reserve the right to enter upon any lot traversed by said bridle path for purposes of maintaining and improving the same. These paths for the benefit of homeowners, even those that are not readily marked. The staff has recommended the 18 feet of bridle path abandonment. In regards to their findings that allow abandonment would be consistent with policy action programs standards, and maps of the master plan, I would argue allowing additional structure on the proposed abandoned easements will change the look and feel of the rural neighborhood. Because the applicant is requesting the abandonment of the easements for 12 homeowners, each homeowner builds an additional structure. This cumulative outcropping of buildings will drastically change the neighborhood character and give a closed-in feeling along the remaining path. Also, of their finding of no detriment, losing even a few feet of the bridle path could cause harm to riders. Horses prefer wider paths to closed-in paths. Narrowing the path could cause harm to riders. Horses allowing the path can... Excuse me. Also, the path connects with other paths in the area. Losing a section that connects to a broader network will change the connectivity of the pathways and push people and riders onto streets. Washoe County Envision's 2040 plan highlights the importance and accessibility of existing trails and keeping their integrity intact. In closing, I personally walked the neighborhood and collected signatures on our petitions. The message from our neighborhood was clear. From young parents to longtime residents, homeowners across the board reject abandonment. They want our bridal paths kept open, untouched, and preserved for the future. Thank you for your time.

Nancy Olson, followed by Sandra Beckett.

Good evening. My name is Nancy Olson, and I live at 4180 Hackamore Drive, and we also own a piece of property on Plateau Court, which is right near Bridal Way. We have significant investment in Juniper Hills, and we want the Bridal Pass to remain untouched. We really enjoy the bridal pass. As a long-term resident of Juniper Hills, I respectfully ask Washoe County to deny the case WAB 25009, a significant attribute of enjoying Juniper Hills. Like other people have said, it's a country-like feeling within the city, and the bridle paths are a major aspect of this uniqueness. I have lived here 40 years in Juniper Hills, and I have seen the bridle paths utilized almost daily by many, many people. In the past and also currently, I have enjoyed riding horses in the trail area as well and up the mountains from my backyard. Please provide, preserve the easement and acre of land, actually an acre of land is plenty of space to construct buildings on and it doesn't need to encroach on the easements. Thank you.

Sandra Beckett.

Hello, good evening to you all planning commissioners and first I'd like to say thank you for your public service. My name is Sandy Beckett and I live at 5485 Fennell Way which is not in Juniper Hills but just down the hill near the river. We bought our house in 1987, nearly 40 years And we consider ourselves extremely fortunate all these years living in a rural setting where kids could safely navigate the neighborhoods up above where a lot of my friends live, riding their bikes down to school at Roy Gomm. I'm here tonight, kind of unusually, maybe representing a walking group of 23 women asking Washoe County to deny the proposed abandonment of the bridal path easement case WAB25-0009. I've been in this walking group for 30 plus years. I was 42 then. and we've been walking the streets, paths, and trails of Juniper Hills all those years. We walk three days a week, and we value the ability to connect these trails which keep us off the streets, which can be dangerous, as I witnessed as a trauma social worker for ten years, seeing the impacts of pedestrians versus autos. Setting a precedent to abandon an easement can impact multiple neighborhood communities, and these trails connect Collin Ranch, Juniper Hills, Hunter Creek, the Steamboat Ditch, and ultimately the Pyramid Tahoe Walk Bike Trail, which is right there in Darostcar Park, which you can access going down the Tom Cook Trail. Abandoning easements forces walkers, equestrians, kids on bikes out onto Bridal Way and other streets. There's no sidewalks, as you've heard. There's no street lights. And there's actually really deep drainage ditches that are right off of those streets, which make it really dangerous to walk on the streets. with no shoulder. These trials have been here since these lots were sold. And my house I bought it was made in built in 59 as well. And previous owners including myself have had to abide by these rules. This is a shared community asset. And I'm asking you to deny this self serving request to abandon this asset. Thank you so much for your time.

I have no further public comment in chambers.

Well, it looks like we do have one more public comment.

Sorry, I was told that I can make a public comment after my presentation. Just a couple of things. Again, I just want to reiterate that everybody who got up here and spoke tonight, this really affects nobody. Since 1959, that's over 60 years, this has never been touched, developed, or anything. What this affects is the idea that these people who buy houses with mature landscaping have to tear up and lose property value because this entire section of homes is assumed that there's nothing back there other than utility easement. Because it's all but been forgotten about by the county in 98, And now, everybody who got up here and spoke, I'm sympathetic to it. We bought in the neighborhood for the exact same reasons that they bought in the neighborhood. You've got space to do what you want. It's open. It's very family friendly to kids. We get all of that. People have said they've ridden horses on it before the development was built south. They're not on the easement. You can't say you rode a horse on Peavine and say it's part of the easement. It's just not part of the easement. We've got, it was brought up that these trails connect to Lake Tahoe now. Like, that's not the case. This entire section of easement has been forgotten about by the entire community since minimum 1998. It's been forgotten about by the CCNR since there was, I don't know when the HOA left, if it was ever even put in place. It's never been developed since 1959. So everybody who says we're getting rid of things, everybody who bought properties knowing full well the easements are there. If I bought a property on the north side of Bridal, you would look out the backyard when you're touring the facility or touring the property and you would say, oh, look, there's a walking trail with a fence and people are walking. That's cool. When you're on the south side of Bridal and you go out those houses and you look at those houses, you look and say, there's nothing there. That's awesome. You know what I mean? So this plea that we're getting rid of trails, there's not a single trail in this application where we'd get rid of it, not one. And so I just want to kind of leave it with that, that this affects nobody. These have never been developed. You're not losing a community asset. You're not doing anything like that. We're not getting rid of anything because nothing's there. Thank you.

Mr. Novich, I need you to come over and fill out a speaker sheet, please. Thank you. I have no further public comment in chambers. I do not see any hands raised on Zoom.

Let me take a moment here.

I see no hands raised on Zoom, so that appears to be all for public comment.

All right, let's bring it back to the board. Does anyone on the board have further questions for staff or the applicant?

I do. I have a question for the applicant when he has a moment. So if somebody were to ride the bridle path, can they ride that complete stretch unobstructed?

No.

Thank you.

Okay. I don't think so.

Sorry, just to add on that really quick, I would add that there's multiple, multiple obstructions currently right now.

I don't have a question.

Oh, sorry, okay. All good? Thank you.

Any discussion or if not, yeah, I'm happy to hear a motion.

consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission not approve abandonment case number WAB25-009 for Chris Novich.

All right, so that would be

There would be a motion to deny and fold. Do we have a second for that motion? Okay, without a second, the motion doesn't carry. Would we like to have any further discussion, or does anyone else have a motion they'd like to make? Okay, I have a question for staff, actually. So it seems like part of all of this stems from the fact that there is an existing nonconforming structure within the easement on the particular applicant's property. that structure would still be non-conforming if we abandoned this easement in full or in part, correct? Because there is a 20 or 30 foot setback from the back property line that would still apply for that structure?

Yes, Courtney Wiecki for the Record Senior Planner. Technically yes, that is correct. I think there might be a matter of legal non-conforming structure. We have done some digging so much like this project that every time we kind of look a different direction there's something new that we learn. We did look into the building permit for that structure and it appears that it was potentially under issued through the city of Reno's sphere of influence. So they may, it gets a little bit complex. So I don't really want to go too far down that rabbit hole. But what I would say is there's multiple obstructions or structures that have been erected in that easement. And if they, if it was to be abandoned or Basically, they could be considered legal non-conforming, and I don't know if either legal or Ms. Oakley would like to weigh in as well on that, I see.

for the record I'll just add yes obviously it is currently in an easement if the easement were to be completely abandoned there's a small chance it would be in a legal location because if it is a smaller structure under 12 feet tall then it would have a reduced rear yard setback so that would be in the case of a total abandonment potentially but in all other cases I can think of it would continue to be in a location that was not in compliance with the setbacks.

And as long as we abandon more, 10 feet or more of the existing easement, then setbacks will apply from the property boundary, not from the inside line of the easement. That is correct.

I have a question.

If we made a

If we made a change to this motion, could we do that in terms of the split of the feet? Could we do that today?

Yeah, we could definitely make a motion for any amount of abandonment that we see fit. Then I'd like to make another motion.

Can I, at this point, are there other questions?

I have a question if you don't mind.

Sure.

Commissioner Leonard, can you tell me if there is a change to the size, if there's a motion to change it to 15 feet, what does that do to the staff report?

This the staff and Courtney Wakey for the record the staff report was written in a way that Is supportive of staffs recommendation. However, it's the pleasure of the board to modify such recommendation I would ask miss Hickman if there is any issue with findings and that maybe we might need to modify in some way since they are explicitly referencing the 12-foot But you can go as far as the full abandonment to any other distance that you suggest. I do want to say I did go back and pull up the minimum width for the Washoe County trail design criteria. I apologize I did not have that readily available. And it says six feet minimum tread width, 12 feet optimal tread width. So I do just want to relay that that is where we came up with that 12 feet. I know that was from earlier in my presentation, but I did want to provide that information.

Is that considered for horses?

Yes, that was equestrian.

Okay.

Yes. That was equestrian use. Yes.

Okay. Well, I'd like to make another motion. I move that after giving recent consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission partially approve abandonment case number WAB25-009 for Chris Novich. LIMITED TO ABANDONMENT OF A 15 FOOT WIDE PORTION OF AN EXISTING 30 FOOT WIDE BRIDAL PATH EASEMENT WITH REMAINING CONTINUOUS 15 FOOT WIDE BRIDAL PATH EASEMENT RETAINED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED as Exhibit A and revised legal descriptions and exhibit maps approved by the Engineering and Capital Projects Division, having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20. I'll second it.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone, for your time on that. We have hearing 9B on special

Would you like me to introduce the next item?

Yes, please.

Okay. The next item is WSUP 26-0008, the NV Solar WRX. It is for hearing discussion and possible action to approve a special use permit for the construction of a solar electric generation facility consisting of up to 450 megawatts of photovoltaic energy production. to the establishment of a 345 kilovolt project substation, a 200 megawatt battery energy storage system, and approximately two mile long 200, or excuse me, 345 kilovolt Gentile extension to connect the proposed solar project substation to the previously approved Sunseeker project substation. three to request to vary all parking design requirements, grading for 1,680 acres of ground disturbance, a request to vary landscaping design requirements, and a request to vary the height requirement from 35 feet to 100 feet for the transmission poles and structures within the proposed substation. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julie Olander for the record. I'm changing hats. So as Ms. Oakley said, this is a special use permit. I'm not going to read all that off again because she just said it all. And I also just want to point out this does have to meet the standards for a project of regional significance because it entails the construction of a transmission line that carries over 60 Bolts or more and that's required by the regional plan just to give you some orientation this plant this location is quite a ways out you see pyramid on Blake on the right and Then the project site and then on the left hand side is sort of a zoomed in version of the four parcels that are involved and And then this is a detailed sort of a breakdown. It's sort of hard to see, but you can sort of see where the arrays are on the left side, and then on the right, it's a clearer vision, so you can see it a little bit clearer. The project will be located on the four parcels I said. Like I said, it's a 1,680-acre parcel, the four parcels together. They're located about 43 miles north of Reno and the Honey Lake Valley. The master plan on the parcels are rural and the regulatory zoning is general rural as are the surrounding parcels. The application states this project is intended to provide renewable energy generation and storage for the greater capacity and service reliability to the existing electrical grid transmission and distribution line in the region. This site does include the following equipment. That is all listed in your staff report. I'm not going to go through it, but basically there's solar fields. It's an electrical collection system. There's going to be a substation there, and then they have the battery energy storage system, the BESS, and then also it will generate a tie line that's going to be connected to the electrical grid, and then that will increase the communication infrastructure there. microwave and fiber optics. This application does not include a transmission line. The subdivision will need to connect to the Northern Nevada's energy Fort Sage substation, which you all have already approved, and that's approximately seven miles from the site. There is a five-mile portion of the transmission line that's already been approved by this body and also by the Regional Planning Agency. However, the applicant is still in the process of obtaining the remaining two miles that they need to connect the substation to the Fort Sage substation. And here's some examples of the substation profile and then also the arrays are at the bottom. So you can get sort of a height idea and so forth. The special use permit is requesting major grading approximately 1,680 acres of ground disturbance. And then the applicant is, so they're proposing to disturb primarily the whole site. The applicant has indicated that the grading will include excavating over 1,000 cubic yards, importing more than 5,000 cubic yards, and disturbing more than 25,000 cubic yards. So they meet the major requirements. GRADING THRESHOLDS WHICH REQUIRES SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO THAT'S INVOLVED. SO NOT ONLY ARE YOU APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SUBSTATION BUT ALSO FOR THE GRADING. THIS AREA HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED BY GRAZING OPERATIONS AND THERE'S ROADS IN THE AREA AND DITCHES. SO THIS ALSO SPECIAL USE PERMIT QUALIFIES AS A NATURAL RESOURCE And that's required by Article 810. There's those three findings that they have to meet. I did provide information on the staff response to those three findings in my staff report. And then again, like I said, it is a project of regional significance. So after this body hears it, it will be moved on to the Regional Planning Agency. Oh, I went too far. They're asking for some modifications. So they're asking for modifications for the requirement of parking. This is an unmanned site. There's just going to be there as they need to be on the site. So they're asking to waive the paving requirements and the parking requirements. And then they're also asking to waive the landscaping requirements. Again, this is out in the desert, and there's really no way to irrigate the planting. So they're asking for a waiver for the civic and commercial landscaping requirements, and then they're also asking for a waiver of the height requirement. So they're asking that those towers can be up to 100 feet high. There was a neighborhood meeting held by Zoom on March 27th. Doses were set up by 67 property owners, and I didn't get the exact number of how many people attended the Zoom. Sometimes they come in and out, so they didn't have an exact number. But the questions are pretty limited. They had questions about the time frame, the location of the site, and then the ownership. 69 parcels were noticed within 3,000 feet of the site. I did receive one email that's included in your staff report, and then several phone calls asking about the tie-in to this site into some of the other ones that have already been approved. You've approved several of these substations transmission lines, and there was some confusion about where these were located versus the ones that have already been approved. So there were some questions about that that I received. Various agencies have reviewed this application and their comments are included in the staff report. The agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval. Staff is able to make the required findings as shown in the staff report and recommends approval. And here's a possible motion. I'm available for questions, and the applicant should be available on Zoom. Did he? Okay. And he's available for any questions also. Commissioner. Oh, go ahead. Question. Yes, Commissioner Fleck.

Question. Yeah. Any estimate of when this thing will actually be built? I mean, we've approved a lot of these things, and I haven't seen a dirt move on any of them.

So I'm going to ask the applicant. This is sort of a it's a it's not an easy question for me to ask. I'm not familiar with the whole process, but it is somewhat complicated. And I believe Austin, who's on the phone, probably could explain it much simpler and as much more knowledgeable about it.

Thank you.

Yeah. So can you hear me? I don't see it at all.

We can hear you. Please state your first and last name for the record.

Yeah, this is Austin Moore for the record. I'm with Verdantis representing Envy Solar Works. And Envy Solar Works is working with the neighboring projects, which were previously approved. in order to develop together to try and, as you say, get some dirt moving and get things underway. It's a long drawn out process and involves federally regulated interconnection to the grid through FERC. And so first, before they can build, they need to attain a large generation interconnection application approval. And so they're currently seeking an LGIA and that only opens in certain intervals. They're hoping to apply this year. It can take multiple years to get the LGIA. One of the previous projects had an approved LGIA, but the developer who was attached failed to execute the interconnection agreement. And so sort of that interconnection process, which is complicated and quite long, can delay actually getting work done. And so part of this project has been to expand the potential for development in the area to increase the likelihood That those other projects can pull together to develop the interconnection necessary to overcome those challenges and actually start moving. So, once the is in, it will be at least a year before the interconnection is approved. uh possibly two or three years uh and then you know these projects are billion dollar projects it's not easy to come across funding for these projects um and so you know then then you need to find uh funding to go build it so it's you know I would say the best case scenario would be that you would see construction in two to three years and that's if everything went perfectly

You're saying two, three to four years after.

I can't hear you.

Commissioner Flecker, I think you're still muted. You're good.

It's on? I hear you now. Okay.

I'll start over again.

So you're saying that it will take three to four years to build after you get all the approvals? Yes.

Yeah, from now, minimum two or three years.

And how many more approvals do you need?

So they need, through NV Energy, they need to get approved for an interconnection. And the interconnection process is... I didn't understand that. Could you say it again, please? Yes. They need to have permission to connect to the grid. And that's authorized through the FERC process, the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee or Commission. And it's an official process that ensures that the cost of upgrading the grid to accommodate additional capacity is distributed in an appropriate way. and so they have to assess all the load that's going to be added to the grid and distribute the cost of all those upgrades across everyone who's applying to to interconnect and so it's um it's basically we don't know exactly uh to the point of the timeline um this approval is for six years so

AS LONG AS THEY CAN GET THEIR BUILDING PERMITS LINED UP AND SCHEDULE THINGS WITHIN SIX YEARS, THEY WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR AN EXTENSION ON THIS ONE AT LEAST. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

Julie Olander for the record. I just got two emails for, I just want to put on the record that I did receive two emails this afternoon that I just got, I was a little, I didn't get the emails until just sitting here and they were in support. So I will get those distributed, but I want to put those on the record that there were two letters basically supporting this, saying that we need more solar in the area.

Thanks very much. Do we have any public comment on this item?

I do, I have Adi Sadeh, followed by Griffin Keenan.

Hello, my name is Adi Sadeh and I'm speaking, I'll start over. My name is Adisa Day, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Protect Our Winters Reno chapter. Our mission is to lead the outdoor movement for climate action. As someone who spends a lot of time outdoors in Nevada, I've seen how hotter summers, drier winters, and more severe wildfires are already impacting the places we love. That's why I was excited to hear about the proposed NV Solar WRX project and interested in learning more about the benefits it could provide for Nevada communities. Projects like this are an important part of building a more resilient energy system. By pairing solar generation with battery storage, this project has the potential to provide reliable, carbon-free electricity, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and strengthen Nevada's energy independence. It could generate enough clean energy to power nearly 450,000 homes while reducing approximately 765,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. I also appreciate the potential economic benefits, including construction jobs and new tax revenue. As the project moves forward, I encourage the county and developer to prioritize strong community benefits by supporting local hiring and investing in Nevada communities. Finally, I encourage continued transparency around revegetation and restoration plans, minimizing new land disturbance by using existing infrastructure where possible, and ensuring wildlife connectivity. Clean energy and responsible land stewardship can and should go hand in hand. I encourage you to support this project while ensuring it delivers lasting benefits for both our communities and Nevada's landscapes. Thank you.

Griffin Keenan.

I AM A RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO DOING ECOHYDROLOGY AND I WAS VERY EXCITED TO HEAR ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AS MANY RENO CITIZENS HAVE FOUND OUT RENO IS THE FASTEST WARMING CITY IN THE U.S. ACCORDING TO THE DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE THE CITY'S AVERAGE TEMPERATURES HAVE RISEN 7.8 DEGREES SINCE 1970 WHILE THE U.S. AS A WHOLE HAS RISEN 2.8 DEGREES IN THAT TIME. Reno is warming fast, which not only makes our streets hot, but increases risk of wildfire, reduces water availability, and decreases our natural wildlife, which maintain the wonderful landscape of this land. As an eco-hydrologist working for UNR, I saw the depressing winter everyone else did. With seven different sites around the lake, I saw all of them snowless by March. One of our field sites on the west shore of Tahoe at 7,800 feet, 75 centimeters of snow was gained and lost in the span of a few days due to warming temperatures and rain. Soil temperatures were higher in April than I've ever seen. Native plants dying from early blooming or wilderness areas we have. so much pride for are being taken by climate change. With Reno being the most impacted city by climate change in the U.S., I believe it is our responsibility to be the most active in making a change. Veering off of fossil fuels for energy is our shot at a future for this city. With an increase in population, technology, and new business coming, we have to rethink our infrastructure and where all this energy demand will come from. With this new solar plant projecting to produce 1,146,480 megawatt hours a year, which is the equivalent to 4.1 billion miles of transport in an electric car, by the way, I think has proven to be the most responsible choice we as a community can make to solve our energy demand. Change is coming, whether we like it or not. It is our choice to decide what direction to take in navigating our rising temperatures. This crisis is not solved by one simple decision, but a series of many, this solar project being another crucial step along the journey. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Do we have any further questions or discussion by the board? If not, would anyone like to make a motion?

I can.

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 with conditions special use permit case number WSUP 26-0008 or NV Solar Works with the conditions included as a good day to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.810.30.

Commissioner Owens for a second. Chair, before we take a vote, can we clarify that the motion contains the additional three necessary findings under development of natural resources pursuant to 810.35?

Thank you. The motion does include the additional three findings as described.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

Okay. Thanks very much. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Is 10 minutes good for you? All right. At 7.32, we'll reconvene at 7.42.

No, it doesn't go on. This meeting is being recorded.

All right. It is 743. We're back in session. Planning Manager Oakley, would you announce nine seats?

Item 9C is WTM 26-001 and WSUP 26-0002, Silverado Village at Eagle Canyon, Phase 3. This is for hearing discussion and possible action to approve 1, a common open space tentative subdivision map for senior housing. on approximately 13.55 acres for 81 lots with an average lot size of 2,400 square feet and houses ranging in sizes from 1,322 square feet to 1,745 square feet and to a special use permit for single family detached residences in the neighborhood commercial regulatory zone in accordance with table 110302051 of the Washoe County Code. THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY SILVER AUTO HOMES NEVADA INC. REPRESENTING WASHOE COUNTY IN THIS MATTER IS PLANNER JULIE O'LANDER.

MS. OAKLEY SAID THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ACCOMPANY OPEN SPACE TENANTIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND ALSO FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. So the project is located out off a pyramid. You can see on the left sort of a zoomed out location map of it.

And then on the right is the more closed-in view of the two parcels.

And then this is a site plan showing how the properties can be laid out. It fit better this way, but the north arrow, as you can see, is down the right-hand corner. So this is going north to your left. the parcels are laid out. So Silverado, this is Silverado phase three, and it will provide senior housing with four different elevation types with two bedrooms and ranging in size from 1,322 square feet to 1,745 square feet. The development is an extension of the Silverado Village at Eagle Canyon to the north, which is phase one and two. And the development will incorporate the same homeowners association, the HOA, and the residents will each have access to the same community amenities, including the clubhouse, the recreation facilities, and the pedestrian pathways. The site requires a special use permit to allow the single family detached. This property is zoned NC, and per Table 110.3, it requires a special use permit. NC allows five units per acre. However, so the density on this 13 acre parcel is 71 lots. However, the applicant is asking for senior housing, which allows a 25% density increase above the base density, which allows a total of 89 lots. The applicant is only proposing 81, with a density of 5.97 units per acre. A deed restriction will be required for the senior housing per the code and the conditions of approval have that in there, that the deeds need to be recorded. And here I give you some visions of how these houses are. You can see on the right the elevations and the floor plans. Like I said, they all have two bedrooms. This is a smaller, this is a Cape elevation. It's 1,322 square feet. This is the Newport, and it's 1,453 square feet. Then we have the Nantucket, which is 1,640 square feet. And finally, the vineyard, which is 1,745 square feet. Again, two bedrooms on all these houses. The site is fairly flat and undeveloped with native vegetation. It's located south of the Silverado Villages Phase 1 and 2, which is another senior housing development that was approved by this body. It's east of the single-family residential development and then west of Washoe County's North Spanish Springs Flood Detention Facility Outlet Channel.

Excuse me.

The parcel has a master plan designation of commercial and open space, which is for the channel area. And then as to the parcels to the south and the parcel to the west is designated OS, that's the channel, excuse me. And then to the east is a suburban residential SR. The regulatory zoning for the parcel is neighborhood commercial and open space, as is the parcel to the south. And while the parcel to the west is zoned open space, that's the outlet channel, the parcels to the east are medium density suburban. That's where the residential development is. Sewer service will be provided by Washoe County and water service by Tumwa. The other facilities are already there, the gas, the power, and waste disposal. They're already available in the area. The closest fire station is Station 46 and it's located approximately one mile from the site at the intersection of Rockwell and La Posada Drive. So the access to the site is by Kalora, I'm not sure. Kalora is that? Okay, Kalora Street, which goes through the other Silverado Village, Phase 1 and 2, and that is a gate, at the entrance to that, those two villages is gated off of Neighborhood Way. The development will cross the Washoe County's flood detention facility, and Washoe County did provide WASHGROUND ENGINEERING DID REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL AND HAS CONDITIONS IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO CROSS THIS, THE CHANNEL. THERE ARE TWO GATED EMERGENCY ACCESSES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SITE. ONE IS BETWEEN LOT 1 AND 81 AND THE OTHER ONE IS CONNECTING TO THE COMMERCIAL SITE TO THE SOUTH. AND HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THAT. You can see where Kalora Street goes up into Silverado Village 1 and 2. You can see where the channel is to the west or to the left. And then the two emergency exits are on the lower part of the map. Landscaping, the applicant is proposing that there will be at least one tree for every 50 linear feet of street frontage. The site will have 6.54 acres of open space with pedestrian paths throughout the development. There are 14 lots along the eastern portion that will have their own private backyards. Otherwise, all the other open space area will be maintained by the HOA, so they'll maintain the landscaping areas. And here's the landscaping plan. So you can see there's a few parcels on the top of the page that have their own backyards, and otherwise everybody else is just, their house is just, they don't have a yard, so they just have the open space around them. So as I said, this is a common open space development which allows the applicant to vary the lot size, the density, just in order to prove the open space and protect natural resources and to achieve a more efficient use of the land and minimize the road building and encourage a sense of community. And the applicant is requesting that each home is considered a lot. So the individual lots will just basically have zero setbacks. So the house is just the lot. And then the houses will have a minimum setback of 10 feet between the houses. And then a 20-foot setback from the curb to the garage, which is to accommodate a two-car driveway. The overall site will have 6.5 acres, or 48% of open space, 4.7 acres, which is 34% for the residential lots, and 2.4 acres, or 17% for the streets. A neighborhood meeting was held on November 6th of 2025. Notices were sent out to 155 property owners, and there were seven attendees. There was concern about access to Firestone Drive and how they would be driving through the site. There was concern about no access to Firestone. There was comments about compatibility between the project and the surrounding neighborhoods, and then also a question about the fencing along the east side of the site. Various agencies have reviewed this application and their comments are included in the staff report. Agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval. Staff is able to make all the findings as explained in the staff report and I provide a possible motion and the applicant is available, is here and has a presentation and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. If the applicant would like to make their application, their presentation.

Good evening.

Stacey Huggins with Wood Rogers for the record representing Silverado, Nevada in this project. Julie did a great job going through the project. So I'm going to go through my presentation probably a little bit fast, maybe. Do I have to hold it for a long time? Okay, sorry. Okay. good for me okay I just want to give some of you I think some of you may have been on the Planning Commission when I came through a couple years ago for Silverado villages one and two you can see it there highlighted in the darker purple labeled senior housing this project outlined in the blue down there on the bottom right was always kind of envisioned to be the last extension of that project. The Silverado team had always identified this as an opportunity to expand the senior housing product out in Spanish Springs. These parcels have been designated or zoned neighborhood commercial for a very long time with no interest in commercial uses out there. And we really feel like the senior housing concept in this area is appropriate. As you can see on the map there, just north of the intersection of Neighborhood Way and Eagle Canyon, you've got the multifamily project right there on the corner. That's an age-restricted multifamily project. Directly north of that is... CASCADES, THAT'S A CONTINUUM OF CARE FACILITY, LIKE A MUCH A LITTLE BIT OLDER AGING IN PLACE FACILITY. THEN THERE'S THE PROJECT TO THE NORTH WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PROJECT AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET AGAIN IS OUR SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT PHASES ONE AND TWO AND THEN COMING BACK DOWN TO THE SOUTH THEN OUTLINED IN THE BLUE IS THIS PHASE THREE. SO AS JULIE MENTIONED, THIS IS A SIMILAR PROJECT. SHE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE This is a very similar project to what was approved in the Phase 1 and 2. Again, 81 lots. This is going to be a gated patio home community. And by gated, again, that's gated at Neighborhood Way, where the primary accesses will be. So residents in this community will have to come through Phases 1 and 2 to get access. into phase three. Very important, Julie mentioned the neighborhood meeting we had. The residents that came, three or four of them lived right off of Firestone, which is labeled on this map there in the upper right-hand corner with the red arrow. They were very adamant that they did not want access through that street. The developer agreed to put a gate there and not have that be anything other than emergency access. The traffic study supports that. Again, based on the limited number of units or lots in this project, the traffic is pretty small and the peak trips are ARE VERY LOW, AND IT'S JUST TO BE NOTED THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE, AGAIN, AS AN AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITY, GENERALLY THESE RESIDENTS DRIVE AT DIFFERENT TIMES THAN OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE DRIVING ON EAGLE CANYON. WE UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S SOME TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAGLE CANYON AND NEIGHBORHOOD WAVE. IDEALLY THESE RESIDENTS WON'T BE HAVING TO INTERSECT WITH THAT. So we have the two gated access points. Again, those are only emergency access points in the what would be the southeast corner of the project. And then the primary access up there in the purple crossing the flood channel. Just coming back again to this main slide, I want to just point out the common area and amenities and the pedestrian access. So this project is designed with private streets that will be maintained by the HOA. There are not sidewalks. along the streets, and that's intentional. We've provided these paseo paths internal, and I don't know if you all can see them, but there are paseo paths running through the middle in all the greenery there. The intent behind that is to put the residents or the aging residents inside the project and not along the street where there could be some safety concerns with vehicles backing out. So we're encouraging them to walk internal to the project to get to the places that they want to go. So there is access all the way through this project on this Paseos connecting to, in this particular phase, there's an amenity building. It's a little bit hard to see, but it's up in the upper... in the northern portion of the parcel. There's an amenity building there. And then, as Julie mentioned, there's also a clubhouse in Phases 1 and 2 that all of these residents will have access to. So there's quite a bit of... recreation and common area that's available to the residents in this community. In terms of parking, each one of these units has a two-car garage plus a two-car driveway. So there's a total of four spaces per unit, plus there are some additional guest spaces provided along one or two of the streets. And then in the very north portion of the project, the upper triangle, which was really approved as part of phases one and two. There's also a parking area there that will provide access to some pickleball courts for these residents. I touched on the traffic. Julie showed you some pictures of the houses. I just wanted to touch on the fact that, again, because these are homes designed for an aging or an older population, the homes include inside a lot of intention for serving that population. So zero thresholds, zero step entries, wider hallways and doors, grab bars as appropriate. Again, they're being very sensitive to this, as we called it in the first project, a tsunami, an aging tsunami, I think they called it. So I went through some of my project very fast. I just want to close by saying this is a great infill opportunity that utilizes existing services and infrastructure in the area. All of those pieces already exist and are readily available to serve the project. This project, we really believe, promotes a walkable neighborhood with internal paseos and connections to the other areas. And the pictures there you see on the screen are indicative of what we think will be occurring inside of this project as consistent with the phase one project so I'm available for any questions the developers here if you have questions for them specifically thank you thank you any questions from the board for staff the applicant's representative or the applicant any discussion would anyone like to make a motion

I move. Public comment. Any comment? Apologies.

Any public comment on this item? There's no public comment in chambers. I do have one hand raised. Bill Oberg, please unmute. State your personal last name for the record. Bill, go ahead and unmute. Go ahead, Bill. I can't hear you speaking, Bill, but you are unmuted. I can't see that you got any volume on your end, Bill, so I don't know. Okay, it seems that I'm not getting any volume for Bill on his end.

So I don't know if we want to... All right, with that, I'll close public comment. Commissioner Kennedy, I think you wanted to make a motion. Yes, can...

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 tentative subdivision map case number WTM26-001 and special use permit use case number WSUP26 for Silverado Homes, Nevada, Inc. with the condition included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all 20 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Article 408, Common Open Space Section 110408 findings and article 608 tentative subdivision maps section 110.608.25 findings and article 810 special use permit section 110.810.30. I'll second it.

Thank you very much. All those in favor second. Any opposed motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. That brings us to the end of our public hearings for item 10 a. The chair appoints Commissioner Owens as the Planning Commission representative to the Washoe County Postal Map Review Committee and Commissioner Barnes as the alternative representative. For item 10B, we need to nominate new chair and vice chair for the next year. Any discussion or nominations?

Commissioner Nelson would like to nominate you to do another year of being the chair. I think you've done an excellent job keeping the meetings moving, and I would appreciate it if you could do it again this year. Commissioner Owens would like that.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Did you do the vice chair? No. I'd like to nominate Mrs. Kennedy for vice chair.

Okay. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Nelson will second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Welcome to the vice chair. Do we have any future agenda items requested by the board? Or requests for information from staff? Hearing none. Item 11A, do we have any reports on previous Planning Commission items?

TODAY BRIEF REPORT THE ITEM TO TODAY BRIEF REPORT THE ITEM TO MODIFY THE COMMON OPEN SPACE MODIFY THE COMMON OPEN SPACE FINDINGS WAS ADOPTED BY THE FINDINGS WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAST MONTH YOU JUST EXPERIENCED LAST MONTH YOU JUST EXPERIENCED THOSE NEW FINDINGS FOR THE THOSE NEW FINDINGS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEN THE HEAT FIRST TIME AND THEN THE HEAT MITIGATION PLAN AND EQUINE CODE MITIGATION PLAN AND EQUINE CODE UPDATE THAT YOU HEARD LAST UPDATE THAT YOU HEARD LAST MEETING IS ANTICIPATED TO BE MEETING IS ANTICIPATED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY HEARD BY THE BOARD OF CO

Thank you very much. Anything from legal? Hearing none, do we have any final general public comment?

I have no general public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised. I'll sue.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.