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.

All right, it is 6 p.m. September 1st, 2026. I call this meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission to order. Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Michael Flick? We're doing roll call, Michael. We're doing roll call to establish a quorum.

Here.

Thank you. Jim? Here. Can we speak louder at the mic?

Here.

Thank you. Kate? Here. Nelson? Dan Mazareski. Here. Amy Owens.

Present.

Wendy Leonard.

Here.

And Linda Kennedy.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Would you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic and Justice Sproul.

Can we have the ethics law announcement, please?

Yes, commissioners are reminded that if with respect to 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 before the board tonight. 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 the 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 need to disclose the nature of the 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 agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

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

I have Carolyn White in Chambers. Please state your first and last name for the record. Thank you.

My name is Carolyn White, and I'm a resident of Palomino Valley. For the past year, my neighbors and I have been working together to ensure that development in our area doesn't negatively impact our community or the limited resources we all rely on. Tonight, I was prepared to speak to you about the Palomino Farms Development Application, which proposes a subdivision of 34 homes on 2.5 to 2.82 acre lots at the corner of Whiskey Springs and Pyramid Highway. The applicant has requested the hearing be delayed, and so it will be to October 6th, is what we've been told. But I had planned to speak, so I thought I would say a few words in the interim. 34 houses may seem trivial compared to a lot of the subdivision proposals that cross your desks, but in both proportion and precedent, it is significant. The 1992 Warm Springs specific plan, which created the zoning on which the development application relies, remains largely unfulfilled today, as do the various infrastructure improvements which were imagined as necessary components of any dense development in our area. If approved, Palomino Farms would be Palomino Valley's first subdivision and would more than double the number of parcels under five acres in our planning area. But like the parcel maps that precede it, it will rely entirely on domestic wells, clustered septic systems, and existing PVGID-maintained roads. It proposes something very different than what the planners and original landowners imagined when they came up with the Warm Springs Pacific Plan and does little to address the community's concerns about water quality and availability, traffic, strain to our grid, or emergency response times. There are currently another 810 acres of subdividable land for sale in the Warm Springs Pacific Planning Area, and this application will likely serve as a blueprint for future applicants looking to develop in our area. I hope that you will use this delay to carefully weigh the implications of that and to consider the community report my neighbors and I spent the last year compiling. County staff have indicated to us that this is the moment in the planning process that the voices of ordinary citizens carry the most weight. I hope that's true. I'd also like to invite those of you who aren't familiar with Palomino Valley to come out and see it for yourselves. What you'll find is a rural valley whose residents are largely dependent on dirt roads, wells, and septic systems, and who regularly drive half hour to buy groceries or gas, and who generally chose to live there for exactly those reasons. It's also beautiful. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I look forward to speaking to you in October.

Thank you. Is there any further public comment at this time?

I have no further public comment in chambers. I do have a hand raised on Zoom. Doug Flaherty, please unmute and state your first and last name for the record. We can't hear you, Doug. I see you're unmuted, but we can't hear you, so you might be muted on your end.

Doug?

For some reason, we can't hear you. All the controls look good. We're going to go to the next person. We'll come back to you after Mr. Viner. Mark Viner, go ahead and unmute. State your first and last name. Mark Viner, did you want to do a public comment? You have your head raised.

Yes. Can you hear me?

I can hear you just a moment.

Can you? OK, testing testing. Alright, hello, my name is Mark. Yes, my name is Mark Viner. Doctor Viner. I've been a psychiatrist 30 years and re living as a neighbor of Palomino Farms. I've raised my family here. I practice medicine here. And uh. I've made the commute every day. Anyway, I'm just an ordinary citizen. And when I live out here, there's plenty of nice smelling grass from Palomino Farms. It's rural. There's a brand new Reno event center right there, the Ironwood, except And there's a lot of lizards and deer and just beautiful wild animals. But the problem is there's no people, okay? And I've waited 30 years to have the opportunity to have people up here. As a psychiatrist, it's important for the community mental health to populate this area a little bit with regular houses, right? It's not healthy mentally to keep it so rural and isolated when we're only a few miles north. If you look at Clark County and what happens, how they develop from the south, okay, you could see how far behind Washoe County and Reno is up here in the northern parts. And it's beautiful land and it would be very great to have 35 new neighbors and families. I don't want to relocate to an apartment in downtown as I retire. I want to stay on my 10 acre farm here and have DoorDash and maybe a little convenience store so I don't have to drive. So I'm really in favor of this development and I Really hope you guys do it. I pray you approve it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. I still have Doug Flaherty. Doug, go ahead and unmute and see if it'll work this time. Yeah, sorry, Doug. I don't even see sound coming from your mic, so I don't know what's going on. I think it's something on your end since we just spoke to Mr. Viner. We do have more public comment available later in the meeting if you'd like to try again, try to troubleshoot your issues, but we have to, at this point, move on. So no more public comment for item 5.

All right. Thank you very much. We do have some updates to the agenda. Item 9A, the Montrose sewer. Item 9C, the Incline Village Waldorf. And Item 9F, Palomino Farms are all continued to a future meeting.

This is Commissioner Kennedy. I'd like to make a comment. I would like to thank the planning department for informing the commissioners. of the changes in the agenda ahead of time. I know that I spend hours preparing for this meeting and it was very gracious of you to let us know ahead of time that these would be areas that we could skip this month. And it was very much appreciated. I hope you continue to do this as things change. Thank you.

All right, with those amendments, any other notes or changes on the agenda? Otherwise, do we have a motion to approve as amended?

This is Kennedy. I move we approve as amended.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. We have the minutes from the August 4th meeting. Any notes? Otherwise, do we have a motion to approve?

Commissioner Kennedy moves to approve the minutes as written.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

All those in favor? Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. All right. Item 8A. We recently had a planning commissioner move on from the planning commission to potentially bigger and better things, but we have a resolution to read in appreciation of his service. Whereas Rob Pierce has since his appointment to the Planning Commission on July 1st, 2022, as the at-large representative north of the Truckee River, been an active and enthusiastic member of the commission, serving the county and its citizens with dedication and distinction. Whereas Rob was very generous with his time and energy and always demonstrated a passion for serving the residents of Washoe County. Whereas Rob rose to serve as the chair of the Washoe County Planning Commission. and provided exemplary leadership to the Planning Commission by serving as chair for two years, whereas Rob always treated all of his fellow commissioners and staff with the utmost respect, whereas Rob always asked insightful and thoughtful questions, was diligent and conscientious in making decisions, Whereas Rob stated publicly that throughout his tenure, he approached every meeting, every application, and every vote with the understanding that decisions have lasting impact on the residents of Washoe County. This commitment to thoughtful, resident-centered decision-making exemplifies the spirit of public service that Washoe County values. Whereas Rob was a dedicated planning commissioner, he was very thorough with his reviews and often performed site visits prior to commission meetings to better understand the project in preparation for meetings. Whereas Rob volunteered his time and talent to serve two years on the Regional Planning Commission from 2024 to 26, and whereas Rob volunteered his time and talent to serve four years on the Parcel Map Review Committee from 2022 to 26, whereas Rob, in his statement before the Planning Commission on July 14, 2026, described his appointment to the Planning Commission as one of the greatest honors of his life. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Washoe County Planning Commission does hereby commend Rob Pierce, for his extraordinary concern and devotion to the citizens of Washoe County through his service on the Washoe County Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, and other commission-appointed boards, and be it further resolved that the Washoe County Planning Commission will sorely miss the unique contributions of Rob Pierce and extends Rob its best wishes for a happy and prosperous future.

If it's possible, and Rob, I don't know if you have something to say beforehand, but we would all like to take a photo with Rob if that's possible.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you. It has been a privilege and an honor to be part of this team, to learn about county planning, to learn how things work. And as you all know, I'm running for County Commissioner District 5. This has given me the knowledge and experience that I need to be a good commissioner should the public appoint me or elect me to that position. So I want to thank you all. You're all professionals. Looking forward to working with you after the first year, again, if I win. And I just wish you all the best. You guys are doing a great job for the county, and thank you.

Is there any, let's switch it on back. Sorry, I got to take it. No. No. Good night. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Grabs.

All right, we're on to public hearings. As discussed, 9A is continued. Would you announce item 9B, please?

All right. Item 9B is Master Plan Amendment Case Number WMPA 260003 and Regulatory Zone Amendment Case Number WRZA 260004 and Special Use Permit Case Number WSUP 260013, the Lemon Drive Project for Hearing Discussion and Possible Action. to adopt an amendment of the Washoe County Master Plan North Valley's Master Plan land use map to change the Master Plan land use designation for three parcels, APNs 552, 19002, 20, and 21, totaling 9.19 acres from suburban residential to commercial, and if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. Any adoption of the Planning Commission by the Planning Commission is subject to approval by the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners and a finding of conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Authorities and subject to final approval of the Associated Master Plan Amendment and a finding of conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan recommend adoption of an amendment to the North Valley regulatory zone map to change the regulatory zoning for three parcels from 3.8 acres of of low density suburban and 5.37 acres of medium density suburban to neighborhood commercial. And if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect and to approve a special use permit per Washoe County Code 110-81030 as required by Washoe County Code Table 110-302-021 for three existing residences, a 1,857 square foot residence on APN 552-19002, a 1,440 square foot residence on APN 552-19002, and a 2,180 square foot residence on APN 552-19021. The application is submitted by Reinhard Gold family trust on behalf of Elmer Vasquez and Nilsa Chavez and Reinhardt Gold Family Trust. The subject properties are located north of the intersection of Lemon Drive and Buck Drive and consist of approximately 2.07, 3.3 and 3.8 acres. The proposal is being reviewed under Development Code Article 820 Amendment of Master Plan and Article 821 Amendment of Regulatory Zone and and is situated within Commission District 5 within the boundaries of the North Valley's planning area. Representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julie Olander for the record. So as Mr. Lloyd explained, this is a master plan amendment changing the suburban residential to commercial, the regulatory zoning from low density suburban to neighborhood commercials and a special use permit to allow the existing three homes to remain on the properties. So the parcels are located off of Lemon Drive primarily, and the pink, just to give you some orientation, that's all the city of Reno. So this is a pocket of Washoe County jurisdiction. Parcels and on the right you can see the parcels sort of close up The three houses on the properties are owned by the applicant and they want to remain have them remain there until the properties are developed by Into a commercial use the silver state kennels on were located in one of the parcels at 600 lemon Drive it is now closed and There are commercial uses to the south, and the residential uses are to the north and the east. And then Lemon Drive, which is a major arterial, is located to the west. Lemon Drive Estates subdivision is the residential development that is located to the north. And here's showing the master plan request change. You can see where it's orange still on the left-hand side, and then on the right-hand side, It would be red, which is commercial master plan designation. And then here's the RZA request. Again, it's showing on the left the existing, and then on the right it would all become neighborhood commercial. I'm not sure why that parcel is white. It should be pink. I apologize for that. Here's a view of the parcels. You can see the subdivision that's to the north of these parcels. There's a fence, there's a drainageway, and then there's a bit of a slope. And then looking towards the east, there's some distinct hillsides over there, so there's some definition there that's just showing that there's open space in that direction. The change to the master plan use is to allow, to commercial would allow the regulatory zoning of neighborhood commercial. That's the reason they need both of these steps to be taken. And according to the applicant, the state, the owners have joined this rezone assembly as they are at the point of feeling squeezed out given the surrounding area has been part of land use change and intensity changes to a more commercial character. The area has been developed, as I pointed out, to commercial uses to the south and then Lemon Drive to the west is that major arterial. And I just want to go through the special use permit process a little bit. There are the three houses existing on each individual parcels. I've listed there with the square footage. And per Washoe County Code, if you propose to change the zoning to NC, neighborhood commercial, Special use permit is required so in this situation They have to have the special use permit to be approved also to be able to remain in those houses and and then as development occurs the Applicant will sell the properties and then move into a you know move from this location Water on the site will be provided by trucking by this water authority and then sue over provided by Washoe County The site is located off of Lemon Drive, as I pointed out, and has direct access to 395. There is no proposed development yet, and so at that time when the development comes in, traffic will be assessed to meet Washoe County code requirements. Truckee Meadows Fire Station 44 will provide fire and emergency services to the site. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 21st. There were three people at the meeting. However, one was the applicant and one was the applicant's representative, and the one person there had no significant comments. They seemed to think that commercial located at this area was a reasonable choice, and so they didn't really bring up any real concerns. Approximately 1,000 The property owners within a thousand feet of the site were noticed that was six or three notices I did not receive any emails or phone calls and a legal ad was placed in the Reno Gazette Various agencies reviewed the application and their comments are included in the staff report Again, this is a master plan zone change those there's no Can they can't provide conditions for that and when I reached out to the individual? agencies about the special use permit, which usually has conditions of approval on it, because these are existing homes with the understanding that they will be removed once commercial development occurs at that site. They didn't have any other comments or conditions for that special use permit either. I have a possible motion. Staff does recommend approval for these three items, and the motion can be found in my staff report. I'm available for any questions, and the applicant's representative is available. He has a presentation, which he will present by Zoom online.

Excuse me, John, I just, oh, never mind, he accepted.

Thank you, Julie, for the introduction. Commissioners, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Thank you. Chair Lazar-Resche. Commissioners, my name is John Kropotek. I'm with KLS Planning. I've been working with the property owners representing them since they decided to move forward with this land use change. Let's see. I need to share my screen at this point. Is that correct? I believe it is.

Correct.

Okay, I don't want to assume anything because there's so many potential glitches in the. Remote these virtual presentations, so bear with me, please let me know if you can see that.

We can see that we could see it.

Okay. Thank you very much. And I also. Appreciate the opportunity to I had a 1 month vacation up at Tahoe with my wife scheduled. Excuse me a 1 week vacation schedule a year ago. So I. Appreciate the opportunity to present remotely. I disclose it to staff and share that same with you. Some of this is similar to the slides to what. Is the lander shared, so I'm going to zoom through them quickly. The summary stuff. She already did a fine introduction on. And just the last bullet point there is that at this time, this is land use and the special use permit without a project yet. Here's a little different perspective on what's going on around the site, which is largely driving this request. The owners of Silver State canals closed 2 years ago. They operated for about 40 years. And Carolyn Gall, who ran that operation, made it super clear to me that they were sort of one way. You heard the term in the introduction, squeezed out. That's what's going on. It's built up around them. There's obviously a cluster to the south. adjacent to the site that's all commercial, and then surrounding a great deal of commercial intensity. And then there's that for-rent product to the north and then open space on the east. So it was an opportunity, if you look at the shape of the parcel and the collection, excuse me, of the applicant in the application area, the three parcels, it's thought out such that they have enough real estate and a cohesive application a collection of parcels there to make something. From a planning and development perspective, I think there's an opportunity there. There is existing LDS and MDS going to NC in the zoning. There is suburban residential and commercial corresponding in the exact same way with the master plan. So there you go, existing proposed zoning, master plan existing proposed. Then you have that collection of commercial parcels adjacent to commercial. Wanted to touch on this. I think it was a key issue when we met with staff in our pre-application and our plan review process. We wanted to make sure we're doing a responsible job with the north buffer. The one in satellite view at the top half of the page, you can see that what we have to work with is a 30-foot buffer, that existing a wall and a decline, there's a depression to the residences to the north. So we're confident we can, in more precise development planning, get a good handle on making sure that there's compatibility there. Similar on the east, it happens to be GR and open space because of the rock outcropping, as you see in the image on the top half of the page. And then as Julie pointed out, there's a perspective of it. It's a big rock outcropping just across the property. So no real adjacency issues there is what we're really trying to show. Uh, there's the list of property owners that we, that we noticed for the community hearing. And, um, as staff pointed out, I said, 1 attendee, and we said she said 3, she's correct. Because I didn't include myself, but the 1 person was actually favorable to this. Request because thought it would be more commercial and retail services to serve the residents of North valleys. And there's our notice that we did so. That is all I have. Glad to answer any questions. We are certainly in agreement with the staff report as written. First time in my career that I've seen a special use permit that didn't have a condition. That's a unique thing. So it's a good thing. So thank you for your time. I'm here for any questions or any further consideration you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kropotek. Do we have any questions from the board or staff or the applicant's representative? Do we have any public comment on this item?

I have no public comment in chambers, but I do have a hand raised on Zoom. Catherine Yarte, please state your first and last name for the record.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Catherine Yarte, for the record, also for the record, I was the one attendee at the meeting. I am fully in support of this change. I'm very familiar with the area. I actually my first job at 16 was at Silver State Kennels. So I've been familiar with this area for a very long time. I completely agree with everything that was presented that it is very squeezed out. There's no logic to keeping that as a larger property for individual use. Making this a commercial property is a very logical next transition for these based on the development that's happened around it. I also stated during that meeting, if I could wave a magic wand and choose what the development is, I would love to see some affordable senior housing just because it's so close to public transportation. But just getting like some small shops where we can get some locally owned businesses in there and restaurants and support local business for residents in Lemon Valley and in the North Valleys to be able to give back to their communities. It's a great spot for it. And like I said, I think it's a fantastic transition seeing as how the homeowners are on board with that. And I fully as a community member and former resident of that area, fully support and back this project. And I really hope that the board will see fit to approve it as it stands. So that's all I have. Thank you.

I have no further public comment.

All right. Thank you. Any discussion from the board? Yes. Hi, Commissioner Leonard.

The timing of this coming on the heels of the Hawk Fire when 42,000 residents were under evacuation orders and thousands of them were trapped in traffic in that immediate area for hours. They could not get out. I think that I could support this. after a time that we hear from our emergency services on how they are going to provide updates to alleviate the traffic concerns with evacuation resources in our area. and on the heels of that I would move to continue agenda item 9B master plan amendment case number WMP260003 regulatory zone amendment case number WRZA260004 special use permit case number WSUP260013 lemon drive to a future meeting No earlier than 60 days to provide adequate time for updated emergency preparedness planning and evaluation for this area of concern. This additional time will allow appropriate coordination, review of emergency response capabilities, and consideration of any measures necessary to protect the public health and safety.

All right, well, I hadn't called for motions yet, but no worries. Were there any other comments from the board before we address that motion? Okay, we have a motion. Do we have any seconds for that motion? Hearing no seconds, the motion does not pass. Do we have other motions? Kennedy moves.

Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, Linda. Okay. Kennedy moves that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission adopted resolution contained at attachment A of the staff report to amend the master plan as set forth in master plan amendment case number WMPA 26-0003, having made at least three of the following five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.82015D and 110.208.45. I'm just going to indicate the titles. One is consistency with master plan. Two is compatible land uses. Three is response to change conditions. Four is availability of facilities. And five is desired pattern of growth and north value areas plan finding section 110.208.45. All right. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Nelson will second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. Thank you. All right. I will go for the regulatory zone amendment. I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included as attachment B. Recommending adoption of the regulatory zone amendment case number WRZA26-0004, having made all the findings in accordance with the Washoe County Code section 110.821.15D. I further move to certify the resolution as set forth in the staff report for submission to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners and authorize the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission.

Commissioner Nelson will second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Nay. All right. And as to the special use, I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Board of Adjustment WASHER COUNTY BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE NUMBER WSUP 26-0013 FOR ELMER VASQUEZ, NELSA CHAVEZ, AND RYAN HARTGOLD FAMILY TRUST, HAVING MADE ALL FIVE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WASHER COUNTY CODE SECTION 110.810.30.

COMMISSIONER NELSON, A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

AYE. Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. All right. Thank you. That brings us to the end of Item 9B. 9C is continued. Would you announce Item 9D, please?

This is Master Plan Amendment Case Number WMPA 26002 and Regulatory Zone Amendment Case Number WRZA 260003. I'm reading the wrong one. I do apologize. Is that the right one?

I'M SORRY. I JUMPED AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I JUMPED AHEAD. I'LL BACK UP.

I JUMPED AHEAD. I'LL BACK UP. THIS IS CASE NUMBER WDCA 26004 FOR I'LL BACK UP. THIS IS CASE NUMBER WDCA 26004 FOR AGRI-TOURISM. THIS IS CASE NUMBER WDCA 26004 FOR AGRI-TOURISM. FOR HEARING DISCUSSION AND AGRI-TOURISM. FOR HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE AN FOR HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT AND APPROVE A POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO AMEND WASHINGTON AMENDMENT AND APPROVE A within Articles 302, 304, 342, 410, and 412. The proposed amendments would make the following changes to define agritourism as a new use type under agricultural use types, add agritourism to Table 110.302.05.5, and establish the applicable permitting requirements for regulatory, by regulatory zones. RENAME THE PRODUCE SALES USE TYPE TO FARM STANDS. ALLOW FARM STANDS BY RIGHT IN THE RURAL REGULATORY ZONES OF LDS, LDS2, GC AND NC. MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF FARM STAND IN ARTICLE 304. UPDATE ARTICLE 342 TO ADD SECTIONS ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AGROTOURISM FARM STANDS AND STRUCTURES USED FOR FARM STANDS. ESTABLISH PARKING STANDARDS FOR uh... and farm stands in article four ten parking and loading exempt agritourism uses from article four twelve landscaping and all matt uh... matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining there to you the proposal is being reviewed under development code article eight one eight amendment of development code in this applicable to all districts if the proposed amendments are initiated the planning commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinances submitted recommend approval with modifications BASED ON INPUT AND DISCUSSION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. IF APPROVAL IS RECOMMENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION TO THAT EFFECT. SO REPRESENTING WASHOE COUNTY IN THIS MATTER IS PLANNER JOLENE BURTETTO.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

JOLENE BURTETTO. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE PRESENTATION FOR THE AGRITOURISM ORDINANCE. Starting off with some background, the Agritourism Code Amendments were prioritized by the Board of County Commissioners. This was in response to public feedback regarding challenges encountered by farmers and ranchers interested in starting agritourism businesses and farm stands. We heard that there was a desire to diversify income streams, provide education to the community, and connect customers directly to growers and producers. And just so that everyone's on the same page when we say agritourism, what do we mean by that? Well, agritourism businesses can take many different forms, but it's essentially a business where visitors are coming to a working farm or ranch for education and enjoyment. Uses include educational workshops, tours, and UPIC operations. This is a look at our process for drafting these amendments. starting in October 2025, that's when this was prioritized by the BCC, and we started our initial brainstorming. In spring 2026, we had phase one of outreach, which included one-on-one stakeholder meetings, we circulated a public survey and had 18 responses, and we hosted an in-person community workshop with eight attendees. After that, this summer, based on feedback, we created our first draft of these amendments, and we coordinated with other departments, including building and the health department. And then later this summer was phase two of our outreach where we brought those amendments back to the public. We had another survey, we requested feedback from some of those initial stakeholders, and we hosted a virtual neighborhood meeting with six attendees. We incorporated some more of that feedback and that brings us to where we are right now, which is the fall for adoption of the revised draft. And before I go into an overview of those amendments, I wanted to touch on what it currently looks like in the Washoe County Development Code. So right now there is no definition for agritourism. So if somebody is wanting to start this type of business, they have to do a bit of a hodgepodge of other agricultural and commercial use types. And this is going to trigger things like the commercial parking and landscaping standards. For selling produce, we do have a use type called produce sales. It's allowed with a special use permit in several zones. But as you know, a special use permit is a lengthier review process. It requires a public hearing process. Produce sales is allowed currently in the general rural zones with a minimum of 40 acres. And then the definition is very narrow. It specifies that a produce sales business can only sell produce grown by the seller. So we wanted to broaden that definition. based on what we heard from the needs of the community. The proposed changes. To start off, for agritourism, we are proposing adding a definition for agritourism businesses under agricultural use types. A key part of that definition is that agritourism businesses are secondary and supplemental to a primary agricultural use. And then as I mentioned, typical uses are those workshops, tours, you pick businesses. For farm stands, we are changing the name of produce sales to farm stands. It's more descriptive of what's actually intended under that use type and avoids confusion. We also revised the definition to allow for the sale of value added goods. That would be somebody being able to create something from beeswax that is produced on their farm. And then also the minimum lot size required is being reduced from that 40 acres to 35,000 square feet. This is a look at the use table where agritourism and farm stand businesses would be allowed by right. That's the A. And then AR is an administrative review, which is an internal review process where we would make sure it's an appropriate use type for that regulatory zone. Other amendments include Article 342. This is where we set the standards for agritourism and farm stands. Under agritourism, a Washoe County business license needs to be obtained for both the primary agricultural use and agritourism. We set limits to the hours of operations, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and it allows for the use of portable bathrooms, which is important as many of these areas are in rural areas. And then for farm stands, it establishes allowed structure size based on lot size, allows for temporary structures to be used as farm stands with the provision that they are moved out of view when not in use, and it carves out a bathroom exemption for temporary farm stands that are open for less than four hours a day. Other amendments include Article 410, which establishes parking requirements of one parking space per employee during peak employment shift and a minimum of two spaces. That's for both agritourism and farm stand businesses. Article 412 exempts agritourism and farm stands from the landscaping requirements. And then Article 304, this is pretty minor, but it adds seedlings to the definition of crop production use type to allow for the sale of seedlings without being considered a full blown retail or wholesale nursery. And now we do recognize that there are still going to be challenges for somebody who wants to start one of these businesses. One of those challenges is that utilizing existing structures like a barn, if you wanted to convert that into a classroom, that does require modifications to meet the building code. And then camping and overnight visitors would still be considered different use type we already have that established in the code it might be considered a commercial campground a bed-and-breakfast maybe even a short-term rental so that could be done in conjunction with this but will require those standards to be met and then large events like festivals are not included in agritourism that would still need to go through the special event permit process which includes things like notifying the neighbors and a more extensive review of the impacts and then If approved, staff plans on creating an Agritourism guide, an implementation guide, to help people through this process. And with that, we do provide a possible motion of approval. And I'm available for questions, and I'm here with my colleague, Chris, who co-authored the staff report.

Thank you so much. Any questions from the board for staff at this time? Do we have public comment on this item?

I have a hand raised on Zoom. Catherine Yarte, please unmute. State your first and last name for the record.

Hello again, Catherine for the record, I just want to thank staff for working so hard on this. This came up during the equine code amendment quite a few times that I was pretty heavily involved in and it's a very valuable use. People are. Wanting to do these types of things when I was reached out to during the equine amendment process. I learned there was there's no definition for beekeeping in the code. And so people are looking for ways to be able to do these side businesses and to share their their homegrown products and to do it within a legal framework of the county. So I just want to thank staff so much for really listening to the feedback that was given during the meetings and creating a very workable model that people can follow so that we can continue to support these initiatives. home-based and agricultural-based businesses that really lean into, you know, the history of Nevada and some of the just the great things that this area can provide. And we've really moved away from that farm-to-table feel, and this is a great way to bring that back. And I hope that that will help to continue this industry for this region. So I just want to say thank you. It's a great plan, and I look forward to you all approving it, hopefully. So thank you.

I have no further public comment.

Thank you so much. I would also like to thank staff for coming forward with the proposal to amend our code in a way that legalizes stuff that's already happening, does it without a whole bunch of burden to the community members who are doing beneficial things that people like and pay for and create a nice community. We don't have to make everything totally bureaucratic. That's my only comment on that. Any further comment from the board on this item, discussion? Would anyone like to make the motion?

Community would like to 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 recommend approval of a WDCA 26-000. Linda, are you still there?

I think we lost you.

Linda, we can't hear you anymore. Linda, I don't know what's going on. We'll go ahead and have someone else make the motion.

All right. I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 26-0004 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 Development Code within Article 302, 304, 342, and 412. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date. This recommendation for approval is based on all four findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.818.15E. Commissioner Owens for a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Lloyd, would you announce? Can I, just for the record, Linda lost connection off Zoom at 6.53, just so everybody's aware, for the record. Okay. Well, hopefully we'll get her back. Item 9E, LaFawn Lane.

Okay, this is master plan amendment WMPA 260002 and regulatory zone amendment case number WRZA 260003 for hearing discussion and possible action to adopt an amendment to the Washoe County master plan forest master plan land use map to change the master plan land use designation for one PARCEL TOTALING 40.01 ACRES FROM 36.81 ACRES OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND 3.21 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE TO 29.6 ACRES OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND 10.4 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND IF APPROVED AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION TO THIS EFFECT. ANY ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE WASHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND A FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE TRUCKEE MEADOWS REGIONAL PLAN by the regional planning authorities. And subject to a final approval of the associated master plan amendment and a finding of conformance with the Truckee Meadows regional plan recommend adoption of an amendment to the forest regulatory zone map to change the regulatory zoning for one parcel from 36.81 acres of medium density rural and 3.21 acres of open space to 29.61 acres of low density suburban and 10.4 acres of open space And if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. The application is submitted by Metzger Trust. The subject property is located 0.25 miles southeast of the intersection of Mount Rose Highway and Fawn Lane. The proposal is being reviewed under Development Code Article 820, Amendment of Master Plan and Development Code Article 821, Amendment of Regulatory Zone. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Senior Planner Chris Bronsick.

Good evening. Chris Bronzek, Senior Planner. So we're looking at WMPA 26-2 and WRZA 26-3. This is for the Fawn Lane MPA RZA. So the request is to approve a master plan amendment and a regulatory amendment for one parcel adjacent to Fawn Lane. The MPA is to change it from rural residential to suburban residential and to increase the open space designation. So, as mentioned, the suburban residential is proposed to be 29.61 acres. Open space is increasing from 3.21 acres to 10.4 acres. And the regulatory zone amendment is to change from medium density rural, which allows for one dwelling per five acres, to low density suburban, which allows for one dwelling per acre, as well as increasing that open space regulatory zone. And the LDS and open space zonings coincide with the master plan acreage changes. Before you is the a property in question highlighted. And it is South of mount rose highway and adjacent to on. The properties to the West are developed with residential uses those properties range from 1 acre to 5 acres and they have an existing designation of suburban residential. Additionally, those properties to the west have a low density suburban regulatory zone already. Properties to the north and east consist of undeveloped federal land. Before you is a side-by-side comparison of the master plan amendment request. As you can see, the proposed master plan amendment IS VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TO THE WEST AND SOUTH. SIMILARLY, THIS IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON FOR THE REGULATORY ZONE AMENDMENT, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TO THE WEST AND SOUTH. So access for this property currently is granted from Fawn Lane through multiple recorded easements on the southwest corner of the site. There are additional access opportunities from the north and east. There is a roadway utility easement that was established by a recorded document 347026, which is the original patent deed for this parcel adjoining Fawn Lane. All records that staff were able to review indicate that there are 33 foot roadway and utilities serving the parcel. This property is located within the tunnel service area and tumble will serve the future development. Wash County will provide sewer adequate sewer capacity for future development has been confirmed and There will be requirements for private easements, sewer easements to cross private property. So because this is an MPA RZA, there is no development project associated with it. No development project has been submitted or reviewed as part of this. So any future traffic counts will come with any future development that comes forward. However, this project was, this application was submitted to NDOT as well as Washoe County Engineering. Both reviewed the application and no concerns or comments regarding traffic impacts were provided. Fire Station 36 with Truckee Meadows Fire will serve this site. So there was a neighborhood meeting held at the South Valleys Library on April 16th. There were 15 attendees as part of this request. Concerns related to site access, lots under one acre on the subject parcel, and number of homes for the future development. There was an additional neighborhood meeting hub where people could submit comments, concerns, opposition, support, and we received two results from that, and they were in opposition of this request. Additionally, we did receive public comment. That public comment should have been provided to you one of the exhibits we also received additional public comment in the last couple days which should have been provided to the commission earlier today the overwhelming majority of those public comments were in opposition to this request before use of the noticing map staff went out 1,200 feet, noticed 36 individual property owners, and an ad was placed in the RGJ. So, NDAR was provided this application as part of the initial agency review. Staff did receive comments from the Department of Wildlife late last night. That agency review document should have been provided to the commission before this meeting. It was regarding mule deer habitat. And so a brief summary is this is Endow mapped mule deer habitat. However, due to existing development that has taken place, this is no longer a functioning migratory route for mule deer. Staff is able to make all the required findings associated with this request. And the motions can be found within the staff report on page 18 and 18 and 19 for both the MPA and RZA. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation separate?

Yes, they do.

Okay.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Eric hasty. I'm with Wood Rogers, and I'm representing the applicant Who's also here in attendance tonight? Chris take a job of going over the presentation. I'll try to not add on to that and just go through some of the Things that we considered when submitting this this application. I think we're all familiar with the project site it again it is a little bit over 40 acres and it's within the forest area plan and As stated, we did host a neighborhood meeting in April. There was about 15 attendees from the surrounding community. We did hear concerns considering the increased density within the area, concerns about the lot sizes of the homes, and then traffic along Fawn Lane. And so, you know, me being from the area as well as the applicant, we were also aware of some of the other developments that came in, understood that this was going to be a concern and something that we wanted to address through this request tonight. So to give you an idea of what we're proposing, what we did was we looked at not only the existing master plan and zoning on site, but also the site features themselves. This is a slope map here showing the slopes on the site where the green areas indicate areas that are relatively flat. They're under 15%. These are generally considered good for development. And then the darker red areas are those that are over 30%. And so we did take this into consideration when we proposed the master plan designations and the lines as well as the same as the zoning. I would also like to point out that there are residents to the west that currently are adjacent to the property. The property to the north and to the east is owned by the Forest Service. So there is some interest in protecting that open space as well. The current master plan designation, Chris did a good job going over this. I'd just like to point out that there is about a little over three acres of open space right now, and that's really in that area that I was just showing you on the map with the really steep terrain. And what we're proposing to do would be to increase this by over seven acres, so increasing the open space. to 10.4 acres of open space. So this not only protects the steep slopes, but also provides some buffer to the existing residents there. And looking at the zoning, this is the current zoning designation. It is MDR. And again, we are proposing to do the same thing, increasing that open space and proposing the LDS zoning. So we're going to low density suburban. And I'd just like to read something in the forest area plan that is in the Washoe County comprehensive plan for this area. So the regional plan designates that the area within the TMSA in the forest area plan as Tier 3. So this area is in there. They're in the Tier 3 TMSA. Areas outside of the TMSA are rural. This means that over the next 20 years, the area within the TMSA will continue to experience and accommodate suburban development at a current maximum density of about one to two dwelling units per acre. So this is what we're proposing. Excuse me. And this is in line with not only the master plan, but what is compatible with the surrounding area. So we're asking for the zoning that is within the LDS, which is adjacent to the property. This will allow for one acre lots minimum. And this, when we're comparing it to the existing zoning, will show you what the development standards will be. So really, when you have the existing MDR zoning designation and you compare that with the proposed LDS, the site setback is really the only thing that's changing as far as the setbacks go. and we're reducing that from 15 feet to 12 feet. But I'd also like to point out that we are putting in this 30 to 40 foot buffer near the adjacent residence. So if there was a building there and they were on the side, they would have to be set back even further because of this open space buffer that we're proposing with this request. With this request as well, this will allow for 29 lots. If we were to just propose on the entire development with just including that open space, we would be able to have about 38 lots. So with this request, we are limiting the amount of potential lots that can be on there for future development. Just looking at this, this is how the land use would look overlaid on a 3D image. So you can see that those steeper slopes are really protected. Those pink areas that are shown there are relatively flat areas. And you can see how those buffers are in adjacent, especially when you look up at the northwest picture there, how that buffer interacts with that existing development there. Again, just going over the availability of facilities, we did do a discovery there. I'd just like to point out, right, again, there is no development that is associated with this at this time. But for future development, we have done a discovery from Tumwa. There is the availability to extend water resources to this site if it should be needed. However, this will be evaluated with future development. Wells are still an option. It just depends on what that development consists of. Again, I think Chris did a good job of saying how sewer is available.

And police and fire are already servicing this area.

Looking at site access, there are a number of easements that are available to this project. These do access from Fawn Lane. Again, site access does not need to be established with rezoning, but considering that this is a part of the availability of the facilities and one of the findings, then I just wanted to go over this real quick. U.S. Forest Service is also adjacent to the site from the north and to the east, and so this is a possibility of secondary access as well. So all those details will then be provided once we come forward with a development. So I'd just like to recap that we did submit this application in May. We did incorporate the comments from the neighborhood meeting. Staff recommends approval. And I'm available for any questions. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Questions from the board for staff or the applicant's representative?

Chair, I have a question for staff. So just a quick question on the density. If they were to come back with a project and do a cluster development, Could that increase the density that we're seeing today?

Chris Bronzek, Washington County Planning. No, so cluster development or common open space development allows for them to cluster, but they would be limited to what the underlying zoning is. So if it changed to low-density suburban and allowed for 29 dwellings, they would still be limited to 29 dwelling units, even in a cluster.

Okay, thank you. One other question, and I don't know if you know the answer to this or not. The U.S. Forest Service parcels that are to the north and to the east Are they part of Mark Amadei's lands bill or our senator's lands bill?

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with whether it's part of that lands bill or not.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a question for county staff. This might be for engineering though. The applicant's representative indicated that wells were a possibility to serve water to this. My understanding of the Truckee Meadows service area was that if you're in the Truckee Meadows service area you don't get to sink new drinking water wells. You have to get service from Truckee Meadows.

So I will first correct something, and then I'll refer to engineering. So my presentation said that it was in the service area. It is in Tumwa's territory. Based off page nine of the staff report, it states that if they do everything that they need to do, and they dedicate water rights to Tumwa, they would then get annexed into the service area. And then Tumwa would provide water for them. I'll refer to engineering for additional comments.

Diane, an additional comment. question along the same line. So what you're saying is there is definitely an opportunity for there to be wells and septic tanks. Is that true?

That's true.

However, but so therefore you're proposing that we have wells and septic tanks on one acre acre lots. I would say from experience in most of the county, that's inadequate for that type of water and drainage. Go ahead, Steph.

So Northern Nevada Public Health would regulate anything related to well and septic. However, again, there's no development before us.

In northern Nevada, public health has standards of five-acre minimum lot sizes for new septic.

Correct, and that change, I believe, happened earlier this year.

What I'm saying is I would be uncomfortable saying they could have one-acre lots when there's no water guaranteed by TUMWA. or set or sewer available to this area.

Okay. That's a fair comment. I will just reiterate that as the code and health code currently works, if development went forward on this parcel with wells and septic, regardless of what the underlying zoning was, minimum lot sizes of five acres would apply in order for new septic systems to be installed. Is that accurate, staff?

Because they have one acre lots.

No, they have zoning that would allow for one acre lots. If this is approved, there would be zoning and master plan that would allow for one acre lots but if they came forward with a tentative map proposal for one acre lots and septic that would not meet Washoe County health standards and if they came forward with a tentative map proposal for septic systems the lots would have to be a minimum of five acres average.

And that is correct. I will respond to that. Yes, the health rules will limit the size of the lots to five acres unless they connect to a community sewer system.

Okay. I'm a little confused as to

What is going to be the lot yield on this, if this is going forward?

Are you asking the total number of lots that would potentially be?

Well, yeah, I understand that there's going to be some that are just under three-quarters of an acre and some that are going to be an acre.

And what you have before you is a request to change the master plan land use as well as the zoning. No, I understand. So we don't have in front of us a proposed tentative map at this time. There is the potential through a common open space development to reduce the lot sizes below that one acre, but that would require dedication of a certain number of acres of common open space. Now, what is before you is a request to increase essentially up zone or intensify the potential from what is currently allowed. Currently, the property would allow for seven total lots to be created. With the proposed amendments, that would be increased up to a total of 29 units, I believe, if I'm not mistaken.

29 units. 29 units.

That's an increase of, yeah, 22, essentially. An increase of 22 units. Thank you.

All right, do we have public comment on this item?

I have public comment in chambers. I have Ken Taylor, followed by Mary Jo Spiro.

Hello, I'm Ken Taylor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm opposed to this for two reasons. One has to do with access and the process, and the second has to do with emergency egress. I'll address access first. Pardon me, but staff misrepresented this by saying that this was adjacent to Fawn Lane. This parcel is not adjacent to Fawn Lane. In order to get from this parcel to Fawn Lane, you have to cross private land. There are easements across this private land, but that... The ability of the development to use this is contested. And in a nearly identical case on Fawn Lane, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that similar easements could not be used in this way to access Fawn Lane. So it's unclear yet whether or not they even have access to Fawn Lane. Also, there is, as has been stated by staff, access along a fire service road in the back of the parcel, which has not been considered at all. So access is an issue here, and it seems to me premature that the Commission here would spend all this time, staff time, public time, considering a parcel for rezoning where we don't even know if they have access to it yet. It's kind of like we're dragging everybody through this. So I would encourage you just to postpone the decision on this until the applicant can prove and demonstrate that they have access to it, because it is contested right now. And secondly, it has to do with emergency egress. Like just about everybody on Fawn Lane, we're really concerned about the traffic on Fawn Lane. You may recall that the Ascente development has been proposed on the south end of Fawn Lane. So traffic is increasing, and as that gets built out, it will be even more increasing. This commission reviewed a plan for the second phase of Ascente, and this commission decided that a condition for approving the second phase Beza Vicente, which has not been done yet, would be that an additional access point be developed along the backside. And the reason was because Fond Lane is only 22 feet wide. So, you need access there. It's a big problem for us. We're really concerned about it during fire evacuation. And, you know, I think this is the time to address it. You're adding 22 more homes. You're setting a precedent for many, many more times that. This is the time to address the issue about can you put enough residents down that road, 22-foot-wide road, during a fire evacuation. So for those two reasons, one, they don't have access yet. It's premature. The access is contested, I guess would be the way to say it. That's one reason. And the second reason is this serious concern that we have about fire access. And you saw this during the Hawk fire, just how much of a problem that is. Thank you very much for your time.

I HAVE MARY JO SPIRO FOLLOWED BY I APOLOGIZE I CAN'T QUITE READ THE NAME. IT STARTS FIRST INITIAL D IS NEXT. MARY JO SPIRO FOLLOWED BY FIRST INITIAL D AS A DOG.

GOOD EVENING. I'M MARY JO SPIRO AND I'VE LIVED ON FOND LANE FOR 39 YEARS. AND I THINK THE WOMAN WHO SPOKE ABOUT PALOMINO VALLEY. Hit it on the nose. We moved out there because it was rural. If you want to live in the city, live in the city. If you want to live in rural, live in rural. Please don't change that. It's already been changed by the Ascente Toll Project. I don't know if any of you have driven out there, but if you have, when you start on Fawn Lane, you'll see all of our old country homes. And you get to the end of Fawn Lane, And you see these two-story, large, million-dollar homes that don't fit in out there. I don't know if you guys live out there. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But that's not our community out there. As Mr. Taylor said, the traffic is horrendous. I know eventually the semis are going to stop, but right now they pound... down and back all day long. So now we're gonna put another 29 homes in there. How long is that project gonna go? Are we all gonna lose our wells? Are we all gonna be forced to do Tumwa? Again, what is this benefiting us? It benefits the county, because they're gonna get more money for taxes, et cetera. That's a no-brainer. What is it benefiting us who, again, moved out there? Sure, there's some people that are not out there for 40 years, but there's still quite a few of us that are. Please, please listen to us. We moved out there because we like the rural lifestyle, and that's changing. Please don't let this impact us even more. Thanks.

Like I said, I can't read the name. I apologize. The first initial is D. You have a public comment. I don't want to read your address. I didn't want to. Okay. Could you please state your first and last name for the record?

Doug Crow.

Doug Crow.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And followed by Jeff Church. So I've been on Fond Lane for 32 years plus, and all I've seen is a lot of bad, bad construction. And it was approved by you guys. Ascente is built on a fault line. Hey, whatever. But this 29 homes, there's no way Fond Lane can handle more wells or septic tanks. Period. There's no way. I had to deepen my well down to 455 feet. It cost me $24,000. The county gave me $9,000 back. So these are some serious issues. If they decide to do wells and septic tanks, it's gonna dry us up. There's not enough water for 29 more homes in that bowl. Another thing is fire evacuation. There's none. Fawn Lane is a narrow road, one mile long, Only in, only out. That's it. There's no other way out of there. So when we had a fire two years ago, you should have seen the chicken show that went on trying to get out of there with the people trying to get out of there. It was ridiculous. I'm surprised somebody didn't get ran over. So to me, the Hawk situation, we should take a serious look at that. That is really serious because that fire was right above our house. We're back up against the hill. The fire was right there. And it was basically a really crummy show to watch everybody trying to evacuate and get out of there down a narrow little road, which we love the real life. That's why we're there. Most people die there. They don't sell their house. They die there because it's Fawn Lane. The reason it's called Fawn Lane is that's where the deer go to have their babies every spring. We got 40 head of deer. I don't care what Indow says. They probably didn't even look at it. They have a lot of babies this year. We got nine, almost like a dozen babies this year. Where are they going to go? We just keep building and forcing them out. I sent pictures. I don't know if you got them. I sent them to Chris. And I mean, we've lost five deer, ran over by construction employees going to Sente. Okay. Nothing's been done. There's been no car counter on Fawn Lane. There's been no traffic control on Fawn Lane. So it's just been kind of a bad situation for us because we've been there for so long. We love the area. But seriously, to add 29 more homes and they don't have a plan for water, sewer, or septic? That's gonna be really ugly because there's not enough groundwater to support 29 more homes. That's basically all I got to say. Thank you.

Jeff Church, followed by Jonathan Lesperance.

Good evening. My name is Jeff Church. I own property right at the bottom of the hill from the development. I apologize. I'm right off the plane with no sleep from overseas. Came straight here. The master change plan as requested must be for a compelling reason, like baseball. It's gotta be for a compelling reason to overturn what people have done in advance. Importantly, there's an OML violation here. I ask you to ask Chris if the application you have is accurate, because it's not. There are seven cases, six plus one being filed, related to this property. Not one, not four, six, all in our favor that says there is no access. Nevada Supreme Court on down. If you look at the aerial view on my property, you'll see my barn, brand new, just built, approved by planning on the alleged easement. The applicant has already told me that my barn has to be moved or demolished upon approval. My barn, brand new, hundreds of thousands of dollars would have to be moved, and you approved it, the Planning Commission. I just handed over an attorney letter because, again, I apologize. I'm just off the plane. It goes into great detail. But I ask you not to act until you talk to your attorney. until you review the Spittler decision and all the other decisions. And just as soon as we can, there's going to be a seventh. Please look at Exhibit F, page four. That makes it clear. Exhibit F, page four, is a blank public document. 100% redacted. Many of the people up here have the completed one that was given upon request, but the other people don't. That's about as blatant an OML violation as you're going to get. Then add in the endow report that just came out. We even had time to review that. Another OML violation. I emphasize there is no access to that property. None. It's been to court five times, six times. I point out also in the attachment, there is no water or sewer. Maybe there will be someday. There is no. I have it from Tumwa. I have it from the county. There's no sewer, no sewer planned, no water planned. There's a case pending right now. The adjoining property, the Fittler property, right now I'm in front of Judge Breslow. You're jumping the gun if you approve this, and then Breslow rules differently. He has already ruled that it's a debatable question. That's all you really need to hear. It's a debatable question in the courts, not for you. Chris is not an attorney. Ask your attorney. Let's let the judge decide. This just cannot go on. Let's avoid litigation. We don't want to litigate. It's already been litigated so many times. We don't have to do it again, please. Thank you.

Jonathan Lesperance, followed by Francine Maroury.

Good evening, commissioners. Jonathan Lesperance, Bond Lane resident for the record, speaking on behalf of myself. I will echo the points brought up about access being contested. I think there are advantageous opportunities for access through some of the easements shown across the currently federally held properties that don't have to encumber the private residences. For context, I share a common property boundary with the subject property for tonight's discussion. Recognizing that there is not a development before you at this moment, I do want to reiterate infrastructure concerns, primarily water and sewer. Public water would be advantageous for the community from a fire protection standpoint and also mitigate the potential impacts to the aquifer that have already been stated by others. Septics are not desired and really present an untenable risk for the water quality in this aquifer. We're already within a nitrate plume on the lower end of the Galena Fan. There's likely PFAS contamination. The county's investigating that as we speak. CONDITIONS FOR POLLUTANCE WOULD BE ILL-ADVISED SO I THINK PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO SERVE THIS WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD. POTENTIALLY YOU COULD CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVING WATER AND SEWER IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS. ONE OTHER ITEM I WOULD MENTION While the application correctly states this is not in a FEMA flood zone, it is in a localized flooding area. We have infrequent but severe flooding on the southwest corner of this property. I know because my property is part of that terminal basin that gets affected when we have especially rain on snow events. I will point out the applicant has been responsive to a number of the concerns that we brought up at the neighborhood meeting. I want to state on the record I really appreciate the additional open space proposed. I think that's a benefit to the community and the buffer along the western boundary while it's not required it's really appreciated by my family that we would have that buffer as a potential benefit for the applicant's proposed project.

concludes my comments for this evening thank you so much francine maruri followed by douglas hi my name is francine marari i'm speaking on behalf of my mom and dad they owned seven acres adjacent to directly above where the Mercer Trust is trying to develop. We actually tried to come here at 5 o'clock. We were told by the security guard that this meeting was canceled, so my parents ended up going home. I rushed back down here, so I just have a note from my parents, so I'm going to try to read. It says, hello, my name is Jerry Marari. I am 75 years old. My husband, Antonio Marari, 81, have lived in Nevada over 56 years. We reside at 15490 Fawn Lane. We bought the seven acre parcels. Well, they bought five acres in 1985, but they currently own seven acres. We have built seven single family dwelling houses that we have leased to various individuals and some family members. Over the years, as the houses were built, it became expedient to provide a common driveway to the main access road, Vaughn Lane. We constructed and paved a 12-foot wide driveway. Each tenant uses this common driveway alongside this private paved driveway. Our water wells, established landscaping, 40-year-old trees, power poles, rock walls, brick and stucco pillars, fences, gates, both electric and manual. blacktop, and shrubbery. All have been upgraded and maintained and paid for by us, the landowners. We have paid all the taxes on all of these properties. The private paved driveway that runs between the following addresses, 15490, 15400, 15420, 15430, 15440, and 15482 is not a public access. This access were intended to provide a corridor access to the smallest tract of five acres. There are other granted easements to the parcel. I know he did show on the slide There was some easements on the north and on the south. But the easement that was in the middle that accesses through the 15400, 15420, 15440, and 15482 is a private easement or a private driveway, I should say.

Douglas Nussart followed by Brian Arnold.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Douglas Nussart. I'm speaking on behalf of tonight of my in-laws who own the seven acre parcel that Francine had just spoke about directly in front of the proposed merger trust development. And as a resident utilizing our private driveway daily, We are speaking in strong opposition to this master plan amendment and regulatory zone amendment. The developer's application is built on hidden facts and fails to meet the strict legal findings for infrastructure availability and public safety. As Tumwa's official discovery documents under work order 25-0449 expose, this project is a physical impossibility. Standard number 12 explicitly mandates that utility easements must be 20 feet or greater in width. Our private driveway is only 12 feet wide. The developer physically cannot fulfill Tumwa's spatial engineering standards without illegally encroaching past our property boundaries and onto our rental parcels. We do not and will not grant permission for this encroachment. The developer must be forced to utilize the alternative raw easement corridor located at the northern end OF THESE PROPERTIES INSTEAD. FURTHERMORE, TAMWAW STANDARD NUMBER FIVE MANDATES THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRE TWO SEPARATE SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY. BECAUSE WE HAVE DENIED ACCESS, THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT HAVE EVEN ONE LEGAL UTILITY PATHWAY. TAMWAW ALSO NOTES THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE WATER RIGHTS IN THIS AREA TO SATISFY THIS PROJECT. DESPITE PROPOSING HUGE ESTATE LOTS UP TO TWO AND A HALF ACRES IN The developer has mathematically factored in exactly zero gallons per minute for irrigation demand. This omission proposes an unstudied threat of depleting the localized water table that our family's seven homes and dozens of our neighbors rely on via private domestic wells. Finally, look at the aerial satellite map and the topographic slope maps. A MASSIVE ACTIVE NATURAL DRAINAGE WASH AND RAVENE CUT DIRECTLY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY SURROUNDED BY SEVERE 20 TO 30% HILLSIDE SLOPES. TEARING UP THIS SENSITIVE TERRAIN AND ALTERING A MAJOR NATURAL WATERSHED VIOLATES COUNTY HYDROLOGIC CODES AND WILL CAUSE CATASTROPHIC STORMWATER RUNOFF TO FLASH FLOOD DIRECTLY DOWN ONTO OUR PRIVATE PROPERTIES, DRIVEWAY AND HOMES AS JONATHAN WAS JUST SPEAKING ABOUT. Also, funneling nearly 300 daily vehicle trips for an unlooped dead-end subdivision onto a narrow corridor creates an unacceptable wildfire evacuation hazard for this entire South Valley's pocket. Because the developer lacks legal utility access, violates Tamawa's spatial and two-store supply mandates, conceals irrigation demands, and creates severe regional flooding evacuation hazards, I urge this commission to protect local residents and vote no on this rezone. Thank you for your time.

Brian Arnold. Followed by Forrest Orme, I believe. Forgive me if I butchered your last name.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brian Arnold. I'm a homeowner, property owner on Fawn Lane. Current count on Fawn Lane of homes before Ascente development went in was right about 60 houses. Ascente was approved for 219 to 225 homes. with Fond Lane being a primary ingress-egress. The current road width of Fond Lane, somebody mentioned 22 foot earlier, I measured it 24 feet. There's currently no sidewalk, no hydrants, no curb and gutter, no storm drain system. It is a rural mail delivery out there. It's also a rural bus route. I do have a child that takes Washoe County bus to and from school every day. I have high concern that we put another 29 homes on Fond Lane with the current road width and without any additional improvements. How is it the commission allows a development like Ascente to be built as the primary ingress and egress for that many single family residential homes? to issue the first building permit for that home, the Commission should have required those improvements have taken place on Fond Lane. To even think about another 29 homes without those improvements being done and performed by the developers and builders who are making these requests to you is ludicrous. Furthermore, the easements. I'm currently in a litigation being sued for my private easement access. Your Planning Commission DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE LAWS AND LOGISTICS BEHIND THESE EASEMENTS. THESE ARE STA LAND PATENT TRACKS. EVERY ONE OF THESE FIVE ACRE PARCELS HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED AS LOW AS 1.2 ACRES. YOU CAN GET UP TO FOUR PARCELS Now, I stood in front of you last year. You actually reduced an easement on one of these land tracts down to 20 feet. There was an easement reduction approved by your commission, requested by your planning department. Okay, so let's say we need 33 foot for ingress and egress on one of these easements, and that private landowner goes, well, shoot, you guys just approved a reduction down to 20 feet. I wanna reduce it to 20 feet. Which is it? Is it 33 feet? Is it 20 feet? Do we get to abandon them? Do we get to, you know, do they have to stay? This is, to me, it seems like the commission needs to do more homework and more research on what these easements actually are. I pay property taxes for this private easement that I own. Northerly and southerly, 33 feet. I told the commission, I intend to do a 20-foot reduction, just the same as you approved for the neighbor on the border and properties to me. So with that consideration, I oppose this.

Forest Orme.

Hi, commissioners. My name is Forest Orme. I'm a property owner on Fawn Lane. I strongly oppose the addition of 29 new homes. Mostly for a few reasons that have been reiterated by a number of people before me. I have two children, ages five and three. We like to ride bicycles, and it has become untenable for us to do so due to the amount of traffic, both from construction vehicles, et cetera. There's no sidewalk that is safe for them. and it's embarrassing to say that on a rural road, we have to drive somewhere else to ride our bikes safely. I'm concerned specifically too about the fire risks and the ability to escape safely with the addition of 29 new homes. I'm concerned about the wells and the lack of water that we're gonna have as global warming heats up. It makes this a harder and harder place to live, the chance that we're gonna have to get that our wells are going to run dry is going to be higher and higher. Like Mr. Arnold, I too am involved in a lawsuit regarding the easement that I currently live on. I've been told that it is both a public road and also a private easement. And so I don't think that it is established law that this land that they're going to develop 29 homes on has access via these easements. It is still under active litigation. Thank you.

I have no more public comments in Chambers. I do have some ads raised on Zoom. Luke Busby, please unmute and state your first and last name for the record. Luke, I'm not seeing your microphone. I see you're unmuted, but I don't see your microphone working, like there's no volume coming from your end. So I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to have Casey go next and see if you could fix your audio, Rob's Luke. Casey Reinhart, please unmute. State your first and last name for the record.

Can you all hear me? Casey Reinhart?

I can hear you. Go ahead.

Oh, good, technology. My name is Casey Reinhart. I am a recent resident of Fawn Lane. I wanted to just voice the perspective of somebody who has lived here for just over one year and moved to Fawn Lane with the intent of living somewhere rural. Yes, I have not lived here for 30 years, but these neighbors have welcomed me and my family, and we moved here with the intent to live in a rural location. There were many other highly dense places within Reno where we could have chosen to live, and we chose to move somewhere that was not that. Please do not undo a decision that our family made less than a year ago with the information and the maps that existed at the time. Thank you.

Okay, Luke, we're going to try again. Go ahead and unmute. State your first and last name for the record. It looks like you're still muted, Luke. All right, Luke, I'm getting no response, so we're going to have to move on. I apologize. So I have no more further public comment on Zoom.

Thank you very much. Let's bring it back to the board. I have... some additional questions for staff regarding adequacy, availability of facilities. So setting aside for the moment, if we approve the master plan and zoning change, that will allow the creation of 29 lots in a future tentative map. Those 29 lots, if they don't enter into the Truckee Meadows Water Authority service, would be entitled to sink domestic wells and take two and a half acre feet per year to serve their domestic uses. So in the absence of a clear plan to receive service from Truckee Meadows water of more centrally planned water service it seems that this up zoning would potentially create additional draw on the groundwater in this specific area in an area that I know that we have concerns about groundwater drawdown. So can county staff speak to what availability of facilities is in terms of adequate existing or planned? Is the concept of a plan adequate or do there have to be a will serve letter and access easement for water service?

We have the Division Director of Engineering and Capital Projects, Dwayne Smith, to answer that.

For the record, this is Dwayne Smith. I'm the director of engineering and also serve as a county engineer. I just wanted to take a minute to maybe help you as you go through your deliberation process tonight to put a little context around the processes that would come after this potential approval of the RZA MPA that's in front of you tonight. What I'm speaking to is when a tentative map, which would come for this development, And what the standard process would look like. And that would certainly include the conditioning of municipal wastewater. Yes, the service area is within Washoe County. And so we would require through that tentative map process that this development under Washoe County Development Code would be municipally sewered. It would be the responsibility of the developer to bring that sewer line to collect that sewer from these 29 units and then successfully convey that to one of the interceptors, which would then go to the South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility for treatment and effluent management. So the water side, while I do not want to speak specifically to TUMO, I want to continue that kind of vein of discussion that under Washoe County Development Code, we would condition this project for municipal water service as well, placing the burden on the developer to bring municipal water service to this parcel. These are a couple of the things I wanted to comment on. You mentioned sinking wells. I am formerly with the Department of Water Resources before we merged with TUMWA. I will tell you that there are certain things that can and cannot be done. And one thing that cannot be done is simply, during a parcel map process, create domestic well credits unless well... unless actual water rights deeded and approved water rights were purchased and approved for use on those lots. So there's a lot of work that would have to be done and even to consider something like a domestic well approach. And again, we would be conditioning them through the tentative map process for municipal water and municipal sewer service. I hope that helps provide a little bit of clarity. Let me speak also to the roadway issues. And while I certainly am not and will not pretend that I'm a lawyer, we do have our district attorney here tonight to answer any of those legal questions about access. But I did want to also comment on levels of service and access onto Fong Lane and then onto the Mount Rose Highway. Any future development that would come into Washoe County for consideration would include those considerations for impact that might reduce the existing levels of service to a point that other mitigations would have to be put in place. So as we understand through development, development does and is required to mitigate those impacts. So if there were future impacts associated with this development or any other development to that point, those appropriate mitigations following Washoe County Development Code, AASHTO, IT, all the requirements that we've adopted, national requirements that we've adopted in our code, would be brought to bear as part of that consideration and conditioning any future projects. So I hope that maybe clears up just a couple of those pieces for you.

I do have follow-ups. Does a 29-unit tentative map rise to the level of triggering a traffic study?

Typically not. But as a county engineer, I can require, even on developments that are less than the threshold, to comply with the requirement to understand what those impacts might be.

Okay. And in the case of water rights, when you propose a parcel split that creates additional domestic well possibilities, the water right credits that you have to bring to the table, how local are those water rights? Is it within the basin? Is it within the

Hillside, I guess the the question of bringing water rights from the Truckee River and saying that that works for a well and the Mount Rose Fan is potentially challenging Ultimately, that would be the purview of the state engineers office And so they would be the ones that would have to accept those but in general terms It would have to be within that hydro basin But again, I want to be clear that we would be conditioning any future development for municipal water municipal sewer. I

Okay, because we can't condition the regulatory zone amendment and master plan amendment. Correct. So we have to rely on staff and their intentions here.

And our standards of practice when those developments come in and under the development code, that's exactly right.

I have a question, sir. Do we, when the developer goes ahead and brings sewer to the property that he wants to develop, And let's say it's a thousand feet. Is it typical for the municipality to go ahead and enter into a reimbursement agreement as future development takes up that they assess that future development to sort of reimburse for a portion of that line that he put in? Do we have that or no?

And again, Dwayne Smith, County Engineer. What you're speaking to, Commissioner, is if Washoe County, in our review process, identified the need to upsize that pipe to handle future developments or other considerations, there is a mechanism that that Washoe County could request that and enter into an oversizing reimbursement agreement for enlarging that pipe.

Not bringing it, but just enlarging it.

Correct. We would only pay that proportional share for that oversizing if we deem that to be a requirement. And we do do that from time to time. Thank you, sir.

I just have a quick question regarding the traffic studies. I've been serving on this commission for a very long time, and I don't think I've ever seen a traffic study done or being requested by staff to be done when they don't meet the threshold. Can you provide any examples of when you've required that?

Again, Dwayne Smith, County Engineer, I will tell you, Commissioner, that I have not in the past 10 or 12 years required that for smaller developments. But one of the things that we will consider under any development is how that might, let me say it this way, if previous developments are approved, And they bring those levels of service thresholds to a point which they may reduce and drop below Washoe County standards. And this development may trigger that level of service to go over that threshold. Then I would require that. But in our deliberations and our understanding and our studies, associated with the development application. If it doesn't appear that it would reach that threshold, which it would reduce that level of service to the point at which some type of mitigation would be required, then I wouldn't require that. It wouldn't be worth the effort, the time, and the money if it wasn't going to substantially reduce that threshold.

And the threshold you're speaking of is like a level of service of C. C. Is acceptable.

That's correct.

How do you tie that with, I know there's a lot of concern about evacuations during fire events. How has the county decided on moving forward with any increased review of developments in regards to possible evacuation plans?

You're asking a very large question, Commissioner, and it involves more than just Washoe County Community Services and Planning and Engineering. But let me speak to a couple of things. First of all, as you're, again, considering this RZAMPA, you're not considering a development tonight. But when that development does come in, let's be real here, that's the next step in the process. that development would have to abide by the requirements which include primary access and secondary emergency access. So no development would be allowed if it didn't meet both of those requirements. That secondary fire emergency access or emergency ingress and egress, this is certainly something, and as of late, is on everybody's mind, and it's on our minds as well. So when we consider our development code, we also have to look to our partners, our emergency responders, Kelly Echeverria, Washoe County's Emergency Manager, Chief Edwards, Treke Meadows Fire Protection District, and the list goes on, that these are the professionals that we talk with to understand if there would possibly be a change required. At this time, there is no change being contemplated, but if those discussions led to those changes and development code would need to be updated as an outcome of that, we would fully support that.

Thank you.

Further questions or discussion from the board?

Chair, a couple of things. I forgot to tell you that Commissioner Kennedy came back on at 6.54 for the record. Also, Mr. Busby would like to do his public comment. He dropped off. He's now back out and thinks he's able to have audio, but I don't know if we could let him do his comment. Is it too late?

I'm fine to reopen public comment for Mr. Busby.

I thought so. So, Mr. Busby, I've unmuted you. Go ahead and unmute.

Okay, I think you can hear me now. Thank you so much.

I can hear you, so go ahead.

It's okay. I'll be brief. Good evening. My name is Luke Busby. I'm an attorney. I represent Jeff Church, who you heard from earlier, who owns property near Subject Parcel. His property is on Phone Lane. I submitted a written objection letter before this hearing, and it covers everything I'm about to say in more detail, but it has supporting documentation, and I just asked the letter be made part of the record for both items. There are three central problems that we identify with these applications. One is a recorded seven-law limit. Second is access, and third is an open meeting law issue. Issue one, the parcel is already limited to seven lots by a court settlement in Churchview Olson, second judicial district case number CV0402492 reached in 2026. And that easement settlement was recorded and it runs with the land and it's binding on all future owners, including the applicant. and the applicant bought this property without on the record. Now, there's something in the record from the applicant's lawyer calling the limit a recital, but if you read the settlement, it clearly adopts the recitals as true and makes every provision essential. It also says that any dispute over the settlement should be subject to dispute resolution before the district court, not the Planning Commission. So you're essentially being asked to resolve a easement dispute as a result of a court settlement through the Planning Commission process, which we think is improper. Issue two, the access route runs across strips of land along Fawn Lane that are gated and are being subject to litigation right now in Spittler versus Salit Rero in case number 2502801. That case is currently active before Judge Breslow, as Mr. Church mentioned. And there's various disputes involving these access easements along Fawn Lane. And Judge Breslau recently denied motions to dismiss the case saying they're genuine issues, a fact essentially related to these easements. So those issues are typically better left to the courts to resolve, not to be resolved in the course of the planning approval. Issue three is open meeting law. Now, some of the information in the application was redacted. And just a few days ago, in a case called Las Vegas Police Protective Association versus Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board, it's an advanced opinion, 2055, and it was decided on August 20th, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court held that Claim confidentiality doesn't override disclosure requirements in the open meeting law. And a copy of that decision is attached to my letter, and I just ask that you review it with your counsel. The bottom line is we're asking you to continue these items, post the complete application without redactions as required by the open meeting law, re-notice the hearing. And otherwise, Mr. Church asks you to deny both applications for the substantive reasons explained today. And I thank you for your time and for allowing me back on after my Zoom crash. Thank you.

All right. I will close public comment again. I do have questions for counsel concerning... representations of staff about future conditionings of a hypothetical parcel map. We cannot condition master plan and zoning changes that's not within our authority. The staff has represented certain things about future potential conditions of a potential tentative map for development. Are those binding?

You cannot condition that, and that would not be binding. That would be for consideration when that tentative map is in front of you.

Okay. So I can 100% take staff at their word that that's their current intention, but different staff, different time, we all get raptured. Someone else is sitting up here and someone else is out there. representations about the future conditions of a tentative map might or might not apply, they would be for consideration.

To the extent the representations are based on actual code language, you can rely that the code will be followed. But when a representation is being made when the code does not specifically set forth that requirement, that is something that would have to come before you as the conditions when the tentative map comes forward.

Thank you.

I have a follow up for council. Is there a deed restriction to seven parcels on this?

There is a private party settlement that the county had no involvement in and is not bound by.

To explain that a little bit more.

The settlement agreement that has been referenced is not binding on the county. The county is not obligated to make decisions with that settlement in mind.

So there's no official deed restriction restricting this parcel to only seven possible lots?

No.

Thank you.

Any further discussion from the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion? I'm going to be honest, I'm struggling with this because the availability of facilities is potentially there. but it's not clear to me that it is there specifically in terms of water. Um, the sewer access would be existing health code would enforce that five acre minimum lot size average. If there's not a sewer main to serve it, but we don't have that same guarantee on domestic water service. And with that in mind, I don't think that I can make finding four right now. I guess I will go ahead and make a motion if no one else wants to. I move that after giving reason and consideration of the information contained in the staff report, and the information received during the public hearing in Washoe County Planning Commission reject the resolution contained as attachment A of the staff report, not pass the master plan amendment, or the regulatory zone amendment because I cannot make finding four availability of facilities for freshwater service to this parcel at the increased density that we would be considering.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second that, not being able to make finding number four availability of facilities.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. That brings us to the end of our... Mr.

Chair, if it's okay, can I read the appeal procedure? Please do. All right, most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission, And you qualify as an agreed person or party. You may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you. That brings us to the end of our public hearings. As far as future agenda items or requests for information from staff, we've had a couple of times tonight from Commissioner Leonard and Commissioner Nelson that the issue of emergency evacuation and road capacity in the event of wholesale evacuation come up i know that this has been a repeated issue brought up with respect to incline village and that there is a study ongoing on it i think that i'd like to hear more about what the um standards are for road service when it comes to evacuation obviously day-to-day road service and evacuation are totally different things in terms of capacity so what are the engineering standards and what are the conditions that county staff consider adequate to serve and what is the county doing as far as emergency preparedness if the expectation is not that everybody can evacuate all at the same time in a timely manner what are our um alternatives that we're proposing and i i guess uh i don't know what form staff thinks would be appropriate to kind of bring this back to the board and just to to tee up off of that a little bit is

I understand that you have to have a primary egress and ingress and a secondary one for emergency. But when that leads to only one other major roadway, such as Lake Fawn Lane, it goes to the Mount Rose Highway. You can go east, you can go west, that's it. So you can't go south. So that is where... my thinking is like sure those people have two ways to get to the mountains highway but once you get there you only have two ways to go and one way is probably going to be blocked right um so that's kind of what i would like staff to start to look at um in regards to the evacuation. I've gotten stuck in two evacuations and it is very unsettling. I will agree when you're stuck waiting in traffic and you have nowhere to go, it's very unsettling.

Yes, I would add to that. For example, there was a point where those in Palomino Valley were stuck because they could not go north because of the fire by Pyramid Lake and that road was closed and Pyramid Highway was closed. So there was no way out. So it is definitely a topic that the county really needs to take some time to really investigate.

I would add on to that that our emergency services and our emergency planners do an outstanding job and no one could foresee what happened in the recent fires. I didn't plan on being evacuated twice in two weeks or being under evacuation orders twice in two weeks or not being able to be let back in. However, I would like to see the planning division specifically actively engaged in conversations with emergency services and not just left to the side on that. I think it's very important for our future that this division become active even if you have to kind of force your way in.

I will second that one.

I also have another request for staff. Congressman Amadei has a lands bill that's going through Congress right now, and I think Cortez Masto also has a lands bill. All of those U.S. Forest Service lots that are within that lands bill to be transferred to jurisdictions, could we get a map of that just so we can see where the possible growth in the future is going to happen if that if one of those lands bills get passed.

I will search for that map if it is available. Yeah, I will provide it to this planning commission. I'm a little... If I can get more clarity on the previous request, because what you're talking about, obviously this is in... Clearly, it's at the front of everyone's minds with the recent bug and hawk fire. It's unclear what the request is or the ask is specifically of planning as clearly this is multi-jurisdictional. It's not just Washoe County. It's multi-regional. In fact, it's quite... quite possible that we're going to be seeing some bills that are going to be coming forth as a result of the recent fires as well. So if I can get more clarity so that I know what to provide this planning commission with the understanding that, yes, fires, they're a big deal. We rely very much on our partnering agencies, the fire departments, the emergency management team, engineering staff. It's a multidisciplinary function. And so if there is a request of planning, I would like to fulfill that request, but I need more clarity in terms of what it is that you all are looking for.

One of the things I'd like to know more about, and part of it goes to what the engineer talked about, is I'd like to really understand why we don't do more actual traffic studies on all of our proposals because What has happened in the last couple of months is a result of the growing traffic, and we do not get adequate information about the proposals in terms of the traffic impact of most of the proposals that come before us.

Okay. I guess I will try to narrow my request. One is to give us a definition of, I mean, I think I have a sense that what we design for in terms of traffic is normal daily loads, not mass evacuation. So, I guess a statement from professional staff on how we treat the concept of mass evacuation in terms of traffic planning. And to whatever we have in terms of evacuation plans by neighborhood, I know that they've been pursuing one in Incline Village, but we have a lot of this county at fire risk. It's not just Incline.

I hate to say it, but it's almost a traffic study on the main arterials of the area, when you have a certain area, like the Mowers Highway, four lanes, and a center lane. So obviously, you're going to halt traffic and push, you know, five lanes of traffic in one way. But then when it gets to like, if you have to evacuate west, then it goes to a two lane. So what is the capacity of some of these evacuation routes? And I think that would help ease people's minds. Highway 395 has the evacuation capacity of 45,000 people. That's what we asked it to do. So can it do that? If not, does that mean that we have to start, does the emergency group need to start having their ready, set, go actually go to a go more quickly? or stage it in such a way that you can, the capacity of that road is 20,000 vehicles in an hour. Do we know what areas that is and how to get those people out?

I'd like to add a couple months ago when we had the report about the standard capacity of roads, based on national standards. And I questioned them that they use national standards to decide what our traffic patterns were. And I don't think they took the actual conditions of our community into effect when they did that. And what has happened the last few months is a good example of the fact that they can't just use a typical city of our size and use their stats for determining how we handle things.

Trevor, I think that maybe a good question to ask would be when we reach a capacity in an area, if there's a traffic capacity in an area, what's the next step? You know, as we're taking these plans and we're adding new homes in small parts and pieces, is there anything that's going to trigger a review from planning to say, oh, wait a second, we've reached a capacity. Something else has to be done with those roads. So maybe just get a, is there a guideline? Is there an overview that we can look at in specific areas for specific evacuation routes that we could confidently say, No, this is part of the plan. We do know that this is the capacity for an evacuation, and maybe that just triggers the emergency services to evacuate sooner, a little bit earlier, if they can. But is there a capacity there that would give us guidance

I have to assume that all of this has been studied and there are certainly answers to all of these questions. We can reach out to our partners, emergency management primarily, but it will certainly involve some work on our part to track down this information and find out where this is. And again, it is multidisciplinary. It's not certainly one one division that's going to be looking into all of this. So we will certainly provide those answers to you, probably in a memo form. And then if there's follow-up questions after that, then we can proceed in that fashion.

We recognize how massive this is, so thank you for looking into that.

Yeah, as you've seen, this comes up all the time when a new development is proposed. People feel that the existing egress is inadequate for emergency evacuation. If we can have anything to point to in terms of how we're meeting national best practices or whatever, I think that would be real helpful in making findings. Appreciate that.

Okay.

Mayor Mrakas, Alright 11 a new report on previous planning Commission items.

It's my turn? All right. Yeah, there's a couple of items to report on. At the August 25th BCC meeting, they heard the first reading of the equine business DCA. The second reading is scheduled for September the 15th. Also at that August 25th meeting, the master plan amendment for the heat mitigation amendments were heard and approved by the planning, I'm sorry, by the county commission. And that's all I have to report on.

Thank you. Any updates from legal? All right. Do we have any public comment at this time?

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

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.

The recording has stopped.