Can we have a roll call, please?

Sure thing.

Um Rob Pierce.

Present.

Marilyn Kramer.

Uh Michael Flick.

Here.

David Jacqueman.

Here.

Dan Lessarsky.

Here.

Carl Nieberline.

Sorry, one more time.

You were muted, Carl.

Um, Carl Nieberlane.

Here.

Shall we read?

Here.

Carrie Rohrmeier.

And Manny Bacera for Alex Volto.

Uh present.

We have a quorum.

All right, wonderful.

Thank you.

Y'all please join us in saluting the flag.

Allegedly.

One nation.

Undervisible.

Liberty and justice as for all.

All right.

That moves us on item number three, approval of the agenda.

I don't have any changes.

I haven't heard of any.

So I make a motion that we approve it as written.

Commissioner Lazaruski, second.

Commissioner Jockman second second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor of approving the agenda say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Okay.

Do we have any general public comment?

We have none.

The general public comment.

Okay.

On to item number five, approval of the minutes from September 25th.

I assume everybody's had a chance to look at it.

Do we have any changes?

Not hearing any.

Can I get a motion to approve as written?

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the September 25th Regional Planning Commission meeting.

All right, we have a second.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

All right.

Motion passes.

All right.

So we've got item number six, consent item.

Uh possible adoption to the advanced schedule of the RPC meeting dates for the calendar year 2026.

Can we get those please?

Do we have those?

Uh Mr.

Chair, this is Jeremy's for the record.

In your packet is a schedule of those meeting dates.

This is on the consent, but if you'd like to pull it, I we can pull it up on the screen and go through the dates.

Did everybody get a chance to look at those?

Yes.

Yes.

Does anybody have a problem with them?

Okay.

Do we need to vote on it?

Yes.

Yes, please.

Yeah.

Can we get a motion to accept as written?

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept as written.

All right, we got can we get a second?

I would second and seconds it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

All right.

Motion passes.

All right, item number seven, business of the day for possible action consideration of possible action to form a subcommittee on the RPC to address regional coordination.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Once again, Jeremy Smith for the record.

I'll just I don't have a presentation for this item, but just wanted to say a few words.

Uh through this all of the cases that we review, regional coordination is really something that uh is at the heart of our work.

And I think what we're doing here is looking for opportunities to continuously improve that piece of our work.

And what we typically do when we have a new task in front of us that concerns the commission or the board is we form a subcommittee to kind of take it not offline but to a different set of public meetings and prepare some recommendations of with that smaller subcommittee to bring back to this body to see where we want to move forward.

And in this particular case, we would be addressing the concept of regional coordination.

What are the mechanisms in the regional plan?

Are there areas that we could see room for improvement?

Or you know, are we applying all those concepts in a way that meets the the statute in our mandate?

Typically, the subcommittees that we create are comprised of the current chair, current vice chair, in immediate past chair, and in so doing, we ensure that all three jurisdictions are present on the subcommittee.

And so that's our recommendation today is that uh this body makes a motion to form a subcommittee comprised of those three members, and then upon that uh creation, I will reach out and schedule uh the first public meeting of that subcommittee to address the the regional coordination.

Okay, okay.

All right.

Um I'll make a motion to approve to approve that.

Commissioner Bissera, second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

All right, motion passes.

Excellent.

Um business of the day item B, public hearing.

Regional planning performance review, CR25-Jazer 29, and regional plan amendment, RPA 2500 four for Sunseeker.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

As this is Jeremy Smith again for the record.

We're gonna have Chris Tully give us this presentation.

If we can make it as he moves his way.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Chris Tolly, Team RPA.

This item is a conformance review and regional plan amendment for the Sun Seeker Solar Energy Generation Facility and those case numbers CR25-029 and RPA 25-004.

As noted, the proposal is a project of regional significance and regional plan amendment, and we'll cover the details through this presentation.

Washoe County, the Washoe County Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit on May 6th of this year, and the Washoe County Commission sponsored the proposed regional plan amendment on July 15th also of this year.

Finally, the regional planning staff is recommending that the proposed PRS and Regional Plan Amendment conform with the 2024 Trucky Meadows Regional Plan.

And on the right hand side, you can see the regional form map.

The location of this proposal is on Rainbow Way, which is approximately four miles northeast of the intersection with Fish Springs Road.

The subject site is approximately 28.5 miles north of the main body of the Truckey Meadows service area.

And the subject site is approximately 1,128 acres in size, and that is comprised of 23 or 22 or 23 parcels.

Should be moving to the next guys on.

There it goes.

The proposed electrical substation is also a regional utility site and necessitates the amendment to the Treky Meadows Regional Plan to be reflected on that subsite be reflected on map three.

In regards to the review criteria, policy RC9 of the regional plan identifies the review criteria for conformance review of a master plan amendment or project of regional significance in this case.

The five criteria listed in this policy are shown on the slide, are those which the RPC must consider when evaluating conformance.

So in regards to population growth.

This requ request includes no change in residential density and will not change projected housing capacities.

In regards to regional form, the subject site and proposed facilities are located in the rural area.

In regard to public facilities and services, the proposed project will not require the provision of those.

In regards to natural resources, the policies regarding natural resources contained in the 2024 drug regional plan are sufficiently addressed by the Washoe County Master Plan and through Washoe County Planning Staff's analysis of the pro of the project.

The analysis Washoe County planning staff part of the review and analysis.

Again, approximately a 22 entities afforded the opportunity to review.

Of the reviewing entities, approximately eight provided comments, including in DAO.

Endow comment commented that and commented and provided conditions for the proposal and identified that they have their own required application process for energy generation projects.

Did not identify any development constraints on the subject site.

And utilities are exempt from this policy.

Additionally, a review of the 2024 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan Map 5, natural resource consideration areas identified.

The proposed footprint of the project does not overlap with any of the identified NRCA layers.

And finally, the proposed solar energy generation facility supports regional plan policy NR2.

And then finally, in regards to regional coordination for policy RC9, TMRPA does ensure that regional coordination is at the forefront of our work, and we coordinate with jurisdictional staff and other relevant entities during the conformance review process.

Now, in regards to policy RC 10 for the regional plan amendment, we've covered most of the subjects.

However, we'll add a few.

And again, these are the criteria for the regional plan amendment portion for consideration by both the RPC and the RPGB.

The establishment of a 250 megawatt solar energy generation facility would provide a source of renewable energy to the service area.

The proposal to amend map three of the regional plan to add a utility site is not anticipated to influence or impact regional capacities or growth projections.

And when analyzing the case with a vision, goals, policies, vision, goals, and policies of the regional plan, staff did not find any conflicts with the proposed amendment.

With that, the proposed motions are on the screen and also, I believe, on page 20 of the packet.

Does conclude my presentation, however, team RPA and Wash County staff are available for any questions?

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions this time?

Anybody online?

Do we have any public comment?

We have none.

All right, bring them back to the board for discussion.

All right.

Open it up for our motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to find the Sunseeker P uh project of regional significance and conformance with the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in this staff report.

Commissioner Biseris second.

All right, we have a motion second.

Vote on them individually, right?

Yeah, we have to have a regional plan amendment as well.

Do we vote on that separately or okay?

So we're going to vote on them separately.

So we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

All right.

I move to adopt uh RPC resolution 25-04 regarding an amendment to the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in the staff report.

All right, do we have a second?

Sorry.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Flick seconds it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any opposed, say nay.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Next one is Regional Plan Conformance Review, City Areno Project Regional Certificates.

Stone Gate.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Once again, we have Regional Planner Chris Talley for presentation on item 70.

Good evening again, Commissioners.

Chris Holly, TMRPA.

This item is conformance review for the Stonegate Hines Ranch project of regional significance.

That case number is CR25-018.

As noted, the proposal is a project of regional significance or PRS for employment.

We'll cover the details through the presentation.

The Regional Planning Governing Board found the associated master plan amendment in conformance to the regional plan at their October 9th meeting.

And finally, regional planning staff recommends that the proposed PRS conforms with the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

And you can see the regional format on the right hand side of the screen.

The subject site is located north and south of U.S.

Highway 395 and west of White Lake Parkway in Cold Springs.

Subject site is approximately 1,767 acres in size and is located entirely within the tier two regional land designation.

The proposal being considered for PRS, and that is focused on the employment threshold, which you can see at the top of the screen.

PRS thresholds being reviewed, and that is necessitated, and we'll get in get into it on the following slide briefly, but for an increase to the employment threshold from the existing threshold of 2,257, and that is proposed to go up to approximately 8,881.

Again, that's the employment threshold.

The rest we're providing here just as a contextual piece for the overall project.

And when we talk about the overall project and what was alluded to earlier in the presentation, the regional planning governing board finding the associated regional plan or amendment to the City of Reno master plan in conformance with the regional plan, these are the resulting land uses as part of that process.

What we saw was the previous land use configuration was primarily residential, and this land use configuration switches to industrial and results in that increase in the employment number that we saw in the previous screen.

Moving on, similar to the previous project, policy RC9 of the regional plan or 2019 regional plan in this case sets the review criteria for the RPC when considering the proposal.

And given the proposal was submitted to the City of Reno prior to the adoption of the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, they elected or Stone Gate Hands Ranch elected to be processed under the 2019 regional plan.

This is a typical component that regional planning goes through when we have an update to the regional plan in terms of what applies.

And we get a get into that if there are any questions.

So in regards to population growth, the change to industrial to the industrial land use on the site increases the estimated number of jobs in cold springs and reduces the housing potential.

Nevertheless, this reduction does not significantly alter the region's ability to meet forecasted demand for residential, although it does shift where that housing demand might be met.

Again, we're looking when we look at regionally, we're looking at tier the tier two regional land designation.

Even considering the proposed shift from being primarily residential development, the subject site will still provide housing units of approximately 1,350 for the region at variousing at various density ranges.

In regards to regional form, as noted, the subject subject site is located in the tier two regional land designation of the Truckee Meadows service area.

Part of the regional plan development and tier two is generally less dense and occurs at suburban levels with a variety of residential and non-residential uses.

Region wide tier two is an appropriate regional land designation for additional employment opportunities.

For example, the North Valleys, South Reno, and Spanish Springs.

Trucky Meadows Regional Plan Policy RF11 compatible compatibility factors requires that local government master plans address land use compatibility.

And that regional planning considered compatibility at the regional level.

As noted, the primary use of the subject site has changed from residential to industrial.

From a regional perspective, the change will provide for a more balanced set of land uses in the Cold Springs and North Valleys area, with a marked increase in potential employment opportunities through the industrial areas.

Additionally, the proposal is anticipated to be more compatible inside of Cold Springs in terms of public facilities and services.

Finally, the city of Reno evaluated the proposal as being compatible with the surrounding areas.

Their determination was based in part on the utilization of the parks, greenways, and open space land use designation as a buffer between the proposed industrial land use and the residential land, residentially designated areas in Washoe County, which are to the north northwest.

In regards to public facilities and services, as noted, the project is being considered as a PRS and being reviewed for conformance with a regional plan due to a change in the land use from primarily residential to primarily industrial.

The employment number associated with the previous land use configuration was 2,257.

And that is estimated to increase up to 8,881 under the new master plan configuration.

Given that the related conformance review for the amendment to the city of Reno Master Plan found the conformance was found in conformance with the regional plan.

This section, in regards to public facilities and services, uh is reiterating the information that was related in that particular conformance review.

For the public facilities and services, the subject site anticipates utilization utilizing Great Basin Water Company for municipal water delivery and the cold springs water reclamation facility for wastewater disposal.

The stormwater drainage management flood control improvements will be conditioned or required during a future development phase.

And likewise, the transportation improvements will be determined based on the future development phases.

Finally, the impact on schools has been reduced, and the Washoe County school district anticipates being able to accommodate the student generation, students generated by the proposal.

In regards to natural resources, overall, the proposal is not anticipated to significantly impact natural resources.

Our view of the map for development constraints area shows that a portion of the subject site does have slopes greater than 30% or natural slopes, which is a DCA or development constraints area.

These identified steep DCA sloped areas will coincide spatially with the proposed location of the parks, greenways, and open space land use.

Finally, in subsequent development application processes, such as a tentative map, use permit, grading permit, there will be opportunities for entities such as Endow to identify specific concerns and or conditions regarding natural resources.

Finally, in regards to regional coordination, TMRPA, as with as with the previous item, ensures that regional coordination is at the forefront of our work.

And we coordinate with jurisdictional staff and other relevant entities during the conformance review process.

For this particular case, TMRPA staff provided an initial review memorandum or multiple initial review memorandums for the subject case.

And coordinated with coordinated with multiple entities, including the City of Reno, Great Basin Water Company, Tumwa, Washoe County, and the Western Regional Water Commission.

With that, the proposed motion is on regarding the PRS on this screen.

And then also I believe on page 41 of the packet.

This does conclude my presentation of our TMRPA and the City of Reno staff are available for questions.

Ms.

Chair, if I may, sure.

Uh yeah, so uh City of Reno staff are available with the presentation or to answer questions as necessary, as is uh their applicant, the applicant's interested party also is available for questions uh as desired.

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody have any questions?

I do.

Um I don't know who would be the best answer to this, but with employment would come vehicles and the freeway um on and off ramp is I know that's not the city of Reno, it's in Washoe County, but it does come into play because of the employment.

You have to get on and off the freeway.

Has anybody taken into account um what NDOT may say about 18-wheeler trucks, 80,000 pound trucks coming in, going out, coming up and down the hills.

Is there going to be a truck lane?

Is there accommodations?

Can you talk to me about the safety aspect of this, please?

Did you want to address sure we can provide the the regional perspective and our understanding of the INDOT?

They do provide comments on particular projects, however, that appears to be primarily associated with uh projects that um may impact their actual right of way in terms of improvements being proposed, like an encroachment to their right-of-way.

But I'll invite Lauren to Good evening, Lauren Chelsea with GCW, traffic engineer for the applicant for the project.

All of the phases of this project will go through the standard City of Reno process and where uh traffic impact studies will have to be updated, provided for review by the city and for N DOT.

And all of those improvements will have to meet NDOT's requirements as we go through that process.

So again, there will be a study with each phase.

Those come with tentative maps.

We have to meet all the standards or and that won't permit those improvements.

So we certainly have looked at the traffic volumes, the truck percentages.

We believe all of those items can all of the requirements can be met.

The project can be mitigated.

That's evidenced by uh the previous traffic study, the master study for Stonegate being effectively approved by NDOT, the city, we had mitigation measures to work through all of that.

This traff this uh project, the rezone generates less traffic in every way than that previous project, so it it goes um effectively by observation that we can certainly mitigate the new traffic loads, which are less than the previous.

So there's policies in place, processes in place to deal with all that, and we will certainly do it as appropriate through the process.

Right, I understand that, but you're asking for 11.75 million square feet of manufacturing distribution and data center.

With that comes almost 50,000 daily trips.

You're asking us to approve project of regional significance without any kind of traffic analysis from NDOT or anything like that, just based upon we will get it.

Um we provided a com um again, Lauren Chilson.

We provided a comparison to the to the current zoning of this action and demonstrated that there were less peak hour trips, less daily trips, more trips remaining within the North Valleys.

We did quantify um all of those items in that comparison.

So while there's not a full traffic impact study at this time, there is the former one that demonstrated the project could be mitigated and a comparison today that shows everything is less than that one.

So again, we can we can demonstrate that it can be mitigated and it will be.

The the previous one, from what I could find, was based upon improvements of the freeway saying that they they would be done, they're not done.

I couldn't find any anything basically from NDOT in the records on this.

Um you're talking industrial, which you know, most industrials are storage facilities which would transport freight, would hold freight, transport it, which means 18-wheelers, most 18-wheelers fully loaded or about 80,000 pounds.

That's a steep hill.

That's a safety aspect in my mind.

Sure, and that will be that will certainly be addressed in those studies and endot review.

I will add that in the comparison that we provided in the traffic analysis, that report has a section of NDOT what we called concurrency, which shows that effectively all of the improvements that were necessary on 395 as a condition um for building phases of Stone Gate have been completed.

That comparison is in the um in the traffic study and analysis that was provided.

I have it with me if you'd like to see.

Mr.

Chairman.

I have a question.

Um reflection of what we have today.

There seems to be very little coordination between say street improvements and development.

Uh the city's in gridlock in a lot of areas at specific times.

And there has to be some way to coordinate the transportation side of development with the actual usage of that transportation.

And since we're looking at a lot of acreage, we're switching it from residential to industrial, which I'm I like.

Uh but to the chairman's point, we get a lot of big rigs.

I come from Spanish Springs to here, and normally since I get bored driving.

I count the big rigs.

All right.

And on certain days, I get a hundred of them between here and Reno.

Um when you put that kind of impact on the freeway, um, you have a significant problem.

And so when in when I don't think you can answer the question, but when is the mitigation to the traffic impact, say of trucks going to be built on the freeway?

You know, I mean, it's not going to be coordinated so it's ready when the development is ready.

But that's my concern, and I'm uh Chairman maybe get tired of me bringing this subject up, but I'll continue until they get some answers on getting us out of gridlock.

Well, if I may, there are answers.

It's called the Regional Transportation Plan, and it and it identifies the improvements for the next 20, 30 years on the regional roadway system.

So where is the money?

The money is through impact fees, of which this project pays $18 million.

Uh and it comes in increments.

Obviously, we cannot.

Transportation infrastructure always lags development by a little bit for the reason that impact fees need to be paid to support that.

It can't get ahead by this is a region.

This is, by the way, this has nothing to do with this project.

This is the regional question you asked as what happens.

Each project pays impact fees, and we're slightly behind.

That's typically the case with most infrastructure, water sewer, you name it.

The short story of it is we have a regional transportation plan.

The state also has a statewide transportation plan, which is identifies what the highest priorities are, what is going to be built.

I brought the list of projects that uh are planned on 395 in the North Valleys.

Happy to share that with you.

It's it's in our report as well.

But there is a plan.

It just takes a little bit of time.

Impact fees are a part of the answer.

Mr.

Chair, if I may I'll also add to that.

All of them.

As far as the money is concerned.

Yeah, go ahead.

Oh, yeah.

Uh this is Jeremy Smith for the record.

In response to that, I think uh Mr.

Chilson's comments are correct.

There is a rant regional transportation plan.

And in fact, we work closely with the Regional Transportation Commission as part of our shared work program to provide uh the understanding of what is enabled out in the landscape and what our best guess of the future is going to be.

And so that happens at a minimum every four years.

But with amendment processes or updates to the consensus forecast, we can, or maybe corridor studies, we can address those things in between those required for your updates to the transportation plan.

But for instance, now that the MPA has been approved, we're going to need to change our assumptions around what is going on in Stonegate that will have effects on the project list to some degree, not not, it's not driven completely by spatial modeling or mapping, but it's a valuable input to the process through which the Regional Transportation Commission uh selects that project list that they can fund, and those are in two time frames, a 10-year time frame and an additional 15-year time frame, give or take.

Then there is also identified unfunded projects.

So we we recognize that as a region that uh we we have more concerns on traffic than we have the dollars to to fund projects for in that window, but we are constantly checking back in with that process to to see if we need to move things around.

I understand that, but uh uh we're always playing catch-up, it seems like on anything the government gets involved.

But um the current system really clearly isn't working.

And uh I don't know what it's gonna take.

Certainly not on this level, but uh um it's gotta be addressed.

The gridlock is just gonna get worse.

I'm not against this project at all.

Um but um I am concerned about uh the traffic and um and the impact that traffic is gonna have until this 10 or 20 year uh avalanche of funds are gonna come in here to to build this stuff.

That's all.

Can somebody please um tell me what RTC says they're gonna do?

There's there's always they've got a table.

And um if you look at Red Rock Road, there's a major issue there with with the stead um trucks and and or Red Rock trucks coming from the airport and stuff like that, and they've got it listed for improvement in 2050.

What are they saying about this area?

Because I couldn't find anything on it when I'm asking.

I have a list of the planned roadway capacity projects that are listening.

What you guys would be using on a daily basis for those 50,000 trip trips.

Daily trips, sorry.

49,778 daily trips as it's called out.

61 percent of those will be trucks fully loaded.

Uh first of all, only about it's called out in your seven, eight, nine percent of the total project is trucks of of the total ADT.

On the I have a slide here.

If we can get I'm sorry, thank you.

It's a this is the list of projects in the RTP in the North Valleys area, specifically around the project.

With regard to White Lake Parkway intersection, sorry, interchange, that will be improved by the project.

It's not programmed by the RTC specifically for a time frame, it's in the private segment of that document.

It will come through the impact studies as defined that will define what needs to be performed and then the improvements we've made by the project.

So that's not going to be listed in the RTP in that main section.

Usually see it's in the it's in the unfunded private section.

But it's there.

You don't have a copy of that because I looked at all that and I couldn't pull up.

I'm happy to pull up the RTP and show you where it sits in that table in the appendix.

It's an appendix E.

So but within the next 10 years, there's no plan from what I could see in writing.

No, not by the RTC because the project because the project leaves those improvements when they're necessary.

Okay.

All right.

Does anybody else have any other questions?

Mr.

Chair.

This is Jessica Purney for the record.

I just want to say a couple comments that I think might help the commission with the matter that's before it.

So the master plan amendment has already been found to be in conformance with our regional plan.

So what's you are here today to determine is whether the estimated increase in employment itself conforms to the plan or not.

And as you all know, you are bound by the plan, you're bound by our statute.

Specifically, the statute is quite specifically worded that you are not allowed to consider the merits or deficiency of the underlying project.

So you're here today.

The scope of your review is to determine whether this increase in employment conforms with the regional plan or not.

And it's an estimate.

So what you're not here today is to determine whether or not you agreed with the change from residential, the diminution of residential to the industrial use, because that's already settled by the governing board's determination of conformance.

And so that's really the scope of your review.

And if you determine that the increase in employment doesn't conform with the plan, you need to be able to find a plan policy and state the reasons why you don't find that to be in conformance.

But I just wanted I wanted to set the stage so you understood where we're at.

Um and again, you've I sound like a broken record in of regionals specific and limited statutory jurisdiction.

Part of the regional coordination effort in the charge of regional planning is the coordination with the local jurisdictions, and many of our plan policies are essentially saying local jurisdictions, you must have these types of policies in your plan.

So the City of Reno's master plan has been found in conformance with our plan, the 2019 and the current plan.

The local jurisdictional questions that will be answered through the development of this area as they come up to City Areno will be determined under that plan.

And so that will be a local jurisdictional determination.

And I think that can help you at all in your decision making of this is what City Arena will be determining, and then this is what regionals determining right now.

So we have to have faith in our regional coordination efforts and our local jurisdictions master plans because they have been determined to be in conformance with our plan, and City of Reno will follow their plan and considering any individual proposal that comes forward in this area.

So I just hope that is helpful for the commissioners.

Sorry to interrupt uh many Bassara and Carrie Romeyer have the um have their hand up uh thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh go ahead, you were first.

No, go ahead.

Uh you had a question.

My question was about traffic.

I'm trying to think about whether or not it's within the purview of our role up here.

So I'll defend the way that I look at it is employment, you got to have a means to get there.

And during employment, you have to be able to move vehicles around.

That's what I'm looking at.

So I'm looking at the transportation table with public facilities.

Yeah.

So anyway, so Kerry, go ahead.

Kerry, you had a question?

Yes.

Hi, can you hear me?

Barely.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'll try to speak louder.

Uh thank you for your time, Commissioner Roermeyer.

I have a question about the analysis.

We're considering the apployment, and I appreciate Jessica General Counsel's advice and how to understand this.

On the one hand, we're being told that the 11 million square feet is generating a ton of employment.

47,000 new jobs.

On the other hand, the staff report references data centers and warehouses and other low employment uses.

So if it it does end up being an un low employment use, which we were told previously, then will that not trigger the improvements to the transportation system?

I think that is an area of concern that I'm trying to understand for conformance review.

If it does end up being a low transportation generator, then those will those intersection improvements, interchange improvements take place because then it would be very disadvantageous for this development if there's that incompatibility.

It's a great question.

And you know, this is our chance as regional planning to ensure that we are upholding our man our state mandate to analyze this PRS aspect.

And as legal counsel pointed out, based on the previous uh 2018 approval of the Stone Gate PUD, the job count in there, it would only take about 260 more jobs to trigger our review as a PRS for employment because it's it's gone up.

All the other thresholds in that PRS uh resolution have gone down.

Uh so even with this estimate of jobs, and that's exactly what it is, it is an estimate.

We also at Team RPA did an independent, we could maybe call it back in the napkin, but you know, independent uh estimate of what could be out there.

And we found anywhere on the order of six to ten thousand jobs, depending on how it it builds out, but certainly more than ten percent.

And so I guess the point here is that we feel pretty comfortable that this change in master planning has necessitated the PRS review for jobs.

It's gonna be higher than 2500 of the previous number.

We don't know exactly what it will be.

And so I I don't know that we know exactly today what the impacts will be to those improvements that are necessary through the process.

But we're going to be watching collective, you know, with our partners, uh, what happens out there, and you know, keep keeping an eye on it.

Um and you know, in the future, other reviews may be necessary to to meet our statutory mandate.

So you know, today we're we're making sure that we don't abdicate our mandate that we have this change that has occurred, the resolution and laws written as any requests for the use of land, which a master plan amendment is, and I think we're all in agreement that it will increase the number of jobs well above 10 percent of what had been analyzed previously.

But in terms of the individual intersection improvements that will be needed to support whatever actually manifests out there, I I don't know how we can predict that at this time.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

Go ahead.

So I would like to direct this question to uh city of Reno staff if that's all right.

You bet I and I guess is the city of Reno formally the applicant here, or is it okay?

Thank you.

So if I'm please correct me if I'm wrong with any of this.

My understanding of the initial zoning and application for uh Stone Gate seven or so years ago involved the plan for a diverging diamond interchange to go in to White Lake Parkley.

Do you do you recall if that's correct?

Um Jeff Foster, excuse me, Jeff Foster Associate Planner City of Reno.

I do not specifically know about the proposed interchange.

Um Lauren, would you be able to speak to that?

Or is it all right if you're that would be fine, yeah.

Chillson again, yes, you're correct.

The the original again that 2018 action had a full traffic state that covered full build out of the entire development.

It did plan a DDI in association with those that scale.

Sure.

And so I I understand as a part of this application that's yes, that uh overall trips may go down, but it is a fair comment that heavy vehicles will increase because it's going from residential to industrial.

So I guess going back to City of Reno staff here, if I may, the um can you help me understand the process by which we you know we have industrial that's going to be zoned?

We're going to have building pads that come in.

They may be data centers, they may be heavier industrial uses with regard to heavy vehicle percentages on those roads.

So that that is a comment that I understand from the the chairman.

The um what process will the various building permits that come in under that new zoning will will they be required to do in order to look at the you know the structural integrity of that bridge, for instance?

Because I recognize that it may not be a level of service concern given that there are fewer vehicles, but um, you know, I I believe that bridge is pretty old, and you know, at what point will they be required to take a look at it?

So again, Jeff Foster, associate planner.

Um I I do want to come back to another part of your question, but first directly the you you mentioned building permits, and in all likelihood, prior to building permits, there are going to be additional entitlements that are necessary to be able to develop out there, um, whether it be a major site plan review, conditional use permits and things like that.

So, as a part of those entitlement processes, the uh traffic impact will be it's it's one of the parts of the uh applications.

So a traffic impact study will be required for each of those individual entitlements that will be necessary to develop the industrial area or any parts of the area where an entitlement is triggered.

So that would even pre-day or uh you know uh be prior to the build in permit stage um that those uh analyses would be done.

Is that I I think so.

I I I have a little bit of uh I recognize that you're making a point that there may be additional entitlements and there may be some that come back before us to allow us to have that additional opportunity, be it I I guess it would be the city of Reno for those, because it probably wouldn't come before this board.

But in the event that they have an application that does not require discretionary review, can you tell me the process by which that um interchange would be looked at?

So they would still be future permit.

Yeah, so the the overall development scheme out there would still be analyzed through the the succession of of building permits.

Um we still have the requirements in Title 18 for traffic impact analyses, um, depending on the number of trips that are generated or the the peak hour trips that are estimated to be generated for any given project, whether it's an entitlement related or specifically at a building permit stage.

So that is still part of the process looking at the the traffic impact analysis would be done um for any uh sizable project out there where that would trigger that would trip the thresholds for the different levels of traffic impact analysis.

Okay, and I think the the the fail-safe is that even at the building permit stage, you know, if if something is not required to get an entitlement, it would be required to go through the building permit pro as a part of the bill and permit process, the the uh traffic impact analysis would also be required depending on the size of the project and the and the peak hour trip generation as a result.

Okay, so if I may what ask one final question, you said sizable.

So um that does that mean that they could come in with some small projects, those aren't going to be analyzed, they would just pay the impact fee, but at some point there you have a point by which you will be taking a look at that bridge and the interchange?

Yes.

With those, okay.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

Manny, did you have a question?

I I do, Chair Pierce, thank you so much.

And Madam Clerk, um I'm not sure who this is for necessarily, but I'll let staff and folks kind of put ping pong.

Um the staff report states that the employment estimates may not accurately reflect actual build out.

So for the purposes of RC9, what information should this commission tonight rely on as the most accurate projection for employment impacts?

Um as our general counsel kind of highlighted too, that we should really try to focus in on.

And secondly, are the reference job numbers initial jobs, like those that are required for going vertical, if you will, then kind of go away or get drastically reduced, or do the numbers actually represent long-term sustainable jobs long after build out is fully complete.

Whoever wants to take that.

Chris Tali team RPA, I will tackle a portion of this.

So basically, when we have uh an application come before us, like even the previous version of Stone Gate, we at TMRPA are relying on what in part in part relying on what the the application states for an estimate.

So that's kind of the official uh information we receive as part of uh the packages that come from either the city of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County that state uh this particular project, and they're estimating this number of jobs, 8,881 in this particular instance.

There are other cases such as uh a development in Spanish Springs, where the changes brought forth um in our estimation triggered a project of regional significance.

So our estimate was behind that, but it is still just an estimate.

So we have uh when we look at an application, even though it may not show up in the actual analysis, team RPA staff is crunching the numbers to ensure that what is being put forth is a reasonable essentially reasonable number.

Uh and we recognize that it really isn't, and this is the same when we look at our spatial modeling unrelated to you, uh Stone Gate, but you know, there isn't a certain future that we're moving to.

It is an estimate of what the future will be.

And so I think it's more accurate to say that there is a range based off of the particular implementation of you could say the city of Reno's zoning on the site that allows particular uses, and that is I don't remember exactly the numbers we put in the staff report, but it is in the neighborhood of 6,000 to 10,000, which is what I also think uh director Smith said.

So that is a portion, and I've forgotten what the other part of your question was.

Well, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, if I may, this is Jeremy Smith for the record.

We have Eugenia Lairmo who pres uh provided the economic analysis to the city, the applicants party, the Stone Gate group.

And I think she could answer some questions for you on how they arrived at the 8,881 jobs.

Sure.

That would be really helpful.

So first off, Chris, thank you so much for the initial response.

And I look forward to the follow-up response.

And I'll just kind of throw out a um a follow-up uh since we have uh additional input uh coming in um from the folks providing those estimates.

Uh I guess what I'm curious to also know, in addition to my first question is what in what scenarios could the estimate the estimated employment vary significantly from the 8800-ish jobs.

And are we talking about potential variations in tens, hundreds, or thousands of jobs if it's not accurate?

Um commissioners, Mr.

Chair, but Eugenia Eugenia Larmore, I prepared the fiscal impact analysis that the city of Reno requires for the approval of the project.

And part of that was estimated in the employment impact of the project.

The city of Reno in their fiscal impact guidelines provides guidelines for estimated employees.

In this case, the ones that apply here are retail employees of 500 to 700 uh square feet per employee or per square or employees per square foot, and industrial of 750 to 2,000 square feet per employee.

Yes.

So we used misinformation.

We applied it to the build-out of the project to estimate the number of employees.

Very close to what the staff report arrived at.

Um that's how we arrived at the 800, about 8900 employees.

On the very first question by Commissioner Bacera, these are operating employees only.

We're not looking at construction employees.

This is assuming the building is up and operating and visa deploy employees working in those buildings.

And the numbers are based.

Um, I can't speak to exactly to how the EPS was the consultant that the city of Reno hired to arrive at these numbers, but we have done these numbers in the past, and we looked at the assessor, the Washoe County assessor numbers by land use, we collected square footage information, and then from Dieter, the Department of Employment, we correct collected employment numbers.

You divide square feet by employees, you get a ratio by land use of these numbers.

That's what we used.

Um I've used these uh ran by the Center of for Regional Studies at UNR in the past, and they're very consistent and they're consistent with again the staff report numbers.

On the question on of variability, significant variability uh in the industrial sector.

If you have manufacturing, you have you can have people shoulder to shoulder, you're going to have high density of employment.

You have manufacturing, you have a warehouse where it's one person or gosh, a robot, you have square feet without any employees.

So there is significant variability, and the number of employees will really depend on what is actually built for the project.

So I'm not sure if that answered.

I I I think it does provide some insights and clarity, right?

Uh, and I do appreciate that so much.

I think one of the challenges I'm facing here is that uh is with that variability and just a trends, right?

Like you you mentioned, it's there could be situations in which uh people are hired for shoulder to shoulder work, like in it uh maybe assembly lines for manufacturing, but there could be other scenarios where there could be more um uses where is it shoulder to shoulder, so the FTE or or full-time head count is much smaller, but we're not sure.

And I believe uh staff mentioned earlier that we just don't know what they're gonna build.

Uh so it just kind of puts us in a little bit of bind and uh it seems like we have to roll the dice a little bit, and uh I hate to do that to such a community, but uh this does help.

Thank you so much.

And I'll I do have another question or two, but I'll yield for now.

Do you want to ask them now or do you want to wait?

Uh Chair, thank you so much.

I'll go ahead and wait.

That way we give others a chance.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Sure.

I just want this is Jeremy Smith the record again.

While I don't have the specifics of what might be coming in the future, I think we've had conversations and we're we're we're all seemingly aligned on the same page that there could be requirements for a subsequent review and we have more surety of what's going on.

And so uh certainly at the local jurisdiction process that's gonna happen.

That's gonna necessitate all of the checks and balances that exist there.

And uh in and of itself, a given project could re-trigger this.

And you know, again, it's tough for me to say for sure that's gonna happen.

I don't want to do some scenario building on the fly here, but just keeping it open to the fact that you know we're gonna continue to watch this, uh, how this continues to develop out there.

And again, our our partners at the city have responsibilities that they must meet.

And if our responsibilities through state law or our resolution are triggered, then we're gonna meet those as well.

So I I think um we have again, I want to come back to it would be improper for us not to consider this increase at this time of the request for the use of land, even though we have very much an estimate in hand, and it's very much potentials.

We know, I mean, I can say confidently that this change in primary usage on the that large site is going to lead to a greater than 10% increase in jobs compared to the previous review.

I think if I'm wrong, well then uh exactly.

I'm out of here.

But uh no, uh it just seems I mean I can't say with absolute surety, but I'm really darn convinced that that we are moving in that direction, and that's why we wanted to make sure we brought this review for you to consider, because uh this is our this is our moment for sure to have this process and and to you know discuss this.

Thank you.

Well one last question.

Okay, so um when you when you go uh with a with a specific project and you're gonna build so many square feet, how do you go ahead and determine how much parking you're gonna require?

Um it's normally a function of square square feet.

And is that a uh a method to fine-tune how many people you plan on working in that facility?

Um I think that comes in later, doesn't it?

Yes.

Go ahead.

You can answer them, but uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for the record.

Andy Durling with Wood Rogers, also representative of the Stone Gate Development.

Um those are very specific to you know, tenants that are actually coming in.

So um to Eugenia's point, right?

A manufacturer that's coming in is gonna uh necessitate quite a bit more parking than uh uh uh typical kind of logistics center.

Um so what we do when we're designing these facilities, we try to kind of um plan for a mix of those.

Um if you know that a tenant's coming in, it's a build-of-suit, then we would obviously design for that.

Um by and large, you know, what Eugenia was kind of saying is how she derived her numbers, what um um regional staff uh is deriving their employment numbers from, right?

It's kind of a um industry standards in our region.

So they're looking at what is a typical development of this nature in our region and applying those typical um employment generations, parking generations, things like that.

So, you know, we're not um looking at you know big swings here.

It's really kind of we understand what the industry is requiring uh and try to design these for a multitude of different tenants that could come in there uh to make it a viable project.

I'm just assuming that if you once this gets rolling, um you'll probably have some buildings up there on spec.

Could so what you know you're gonna have so many square feet of warehouse space or or some commercial space and uh but you still have to determine part of that process is how many how many parking spaces you're gonna have to have there, and that's a function of how many people are gonna be in there plus the the normal traffic for the business.

Yeah, absolutely.

And uh and again, right, based on um, you know, kind of industry specific, not just um you know, rules of thumb, if you will, uh, within that type of development that we see nationwide.

Um that's how we derive traffic studies, things like that.

And then from an employment um generation standpoint, you know, we can look at we have a lot of these types of uses around our region.

We can look at what type uh or what amount of uh employment and parking and things like that they're generating, and you know, uh understand sort of what is um typical for us in this region.

Okay.

Does anybody online have any questions?

Oh, Kerry, go ahead.

I see your hand.

Yes, thank you.

Um I have a question that was following up on Director Smith's comments um about you know thinking this is the right time.

Can you explain to me why this is the right time?

Is it maybe advantageous or would it be helpful if the PGO the projects of regional significance conformance review was kicked down the road a bit when they have a clearer understanding of who the tenants are, of what the square footage is would be, of uh the buildings and how many employees that type of use would um employ.

I mean, does it I I guess that's it.

There's just such variability here.

We're talking about scales of thousands of people.

Uh it seems to me like what is the impetus for right now?

Could you help me understand?

Sure, this is Jeremy Smith of the record.

I I can see our legal counsel wants to chime in on and I'm gonna defer to her first.

Thank you, Jessica Prenti for the record.

Commissioner Rohrmeier, this is truly a creature of the way our project for regional significance guidelines is framed.

Because the master plan amendment is an approval for the use of land, and by virtue of this particular amendment, there's an estimated increase in employment.

Therefore, this agency, this body must conduct its conformist review of what is presented now, the project now.

It's not a specific project.

Literally, the project is the master plan amendment that you're looking at.

So you are looking at this, and I know it's seemingly difficult to reach your decision, but you're looking at this on a very generalized level of will an estimated increase in employment in this area conform or not to the map to the regional plan.

And that's why we're conducting that's why the review is being conducted now.

Because we have to adhere to the statutory um language and the project for regional significance guidelines of this body that's embedded in our regional plan.

I hope that's helpful.

But but there isn't like a date within 120 days or something.

I'm just curious.

I this is not necessarily specific to this project.

Is there a specific time frame?

No, there is not.

The project for regional significance statute requires conformance review before final approval at the local jurisdictional level and before construction commences.

We don't have anything in front of us that is contemplating actual construction.

But before there's actual final approval by the city of Reno, this body must sign off on the conformance review for the increase in employment only.

Thank you.

I believe it in that.

Commissioner Bessero for the record.

Um, thank thank you.

Um maybe maybe it's for our general counsel um or or staff, but what sections of RC9 specifically does the employment component for this PRS align to for our evaluation tonight in terms of the findings?

This is Jeremy Smith, the record great question.

The way we've styled the 2019 and 2024 regional plans is that uh any of the policies uh can apply to a case.

Uh, but it it does depend on the specific policy and and the case.

And uh yeah.

Great.

Thanks, Dr.

Smith.

And I think I think that I think that that was a little bit of the uncertainty around uncertainty, because I believe uh Chair Pierce try to underscore that point as well when trying to speak to transportation and infrastructure and so forth, and um and trying to see how there's this interconnectedness um with employment and those those things.

Um and I was just trying to get clarity around that.

So with that, I guess um my follow-up question would be if the final job count ends up being thousands of jobs different from today's estimates, you know, in the 8800-ish or so.

How does that change the PRS evaluation under RC9 tonight?

And how should the commission account for that uncertainty when seeking to make those findings?

And that was that last part was a question we asked earlier.

Just gonna get a little bit more clarity on.

I this is Jeremy Smith for the record.

I just want to go ahead and go on the record again as saying we're we're doing this review at this time step based on this decision for the use of land.

If through the subsequent processes, there is some sort of development agreement of some kind that re-triggers this process because we have specificity and those thresholds are re-triggered.

That's when we're going to lean heavily on, I think any finding we have tonight in terms of the action of this body.

But also we're gonna consider in collaboration with with jurisdictional partners, is it appropriate to look at it again?

And I it sounds like a bit of a, you know, I'm not trying to evade your question.

I just don't know exactly what is coming forward.

And I think we need to be recognize that uh there could certainly be the case where we bring another portion of this back for some sort of PRS analysis.

It could be triggering something else.

I mean, generally, we're not looking at anything but employment because previously in 2018, associated to a planned unit development, there were there was an analysis of the interaction between the impacts of that development and the PRS thresholds.

With this change to the master plan, all the other thresholds, all those other pieces, the traffic piece, the water piece, the student generation piece, they've all decreased.

And so there is no uh stipulation in the resolution that a decrease triggers a PRS review.

It's it's it's an increase of 10% or more.

And so honestly, I feel uh do we have to make this determination now, even if it's in a um it's not a preliminary status, it's it's related to the MPA, and it's a function of the fact that the jobs are going up no matter what.

Exactly what is going to happen on the site, we don't know yet.

And so uh, you know, there isn't I don't know that we know exactly how that's gonna go, but there is potential that we may need to look at pieces again.

Okay, thanks, Dr.

Smith.

And kind of with that, I'm just you know, and what maybe Marvel multiverse would staff feel squirmish about uh a certain threshold being passed with employment, like is it 10,000 or is it 20,000, even if some of those things are unknown, like at what point uh does staff say, you know, not sure if 20,000 or 50,000 or maybe maybe a million is fine, right?

I I just don't know.

Um is there such a scenario in which a certain number is maybe not just unacceptable, but maybe gives us pause or where we should collectively uh have pause?

Uh this is Jeremy Smith of the record.

I think it's a great question.

I I don't have a a uh a magic number uh that we think of in terms of uh a total change, but I will say that we do a lot of work similar to the work done by Eugenia to look at the the existing uh pattern of development in these different land use designations, and we look at the existing job counts in there so that we can understand these factors and we use that in our modeling.

Uh what I've what I have noticed is that there does seem to be a shift in recent development with some of the bigger warehouse type developments to uh larger square footage per employee.

Typically, industrial has the highest uh square footage requirements per employee compared to retail or you know other types of of uh non-residential development.

So you know, as part of our modeling work and uh our data tracking, that that's how we get there.

So it's not so much that there's some number per given area.

We're trying to reflect, you know, is this within uh what we see elsewhere in the region?

And that's how we arrived at these uh estimates.

Okay.

Great.

Thanks, Dr.

Snapchat.

I'll take a step back for a bit here in case others have questions.

Uh question for staff.

Um apologies.

Can you confirm that policy PF 1 didn't change between the 2019 regional plan that we're considering here in the 2024 one that Yes, hi Jeremy Smith for the record that that the standards table did not change?

Okay.

So uh under PF 1, Table 3.2, uh regional road facilities need to be available adequate or planned within the first 10 years and existing facilities plans.

And if they're not, we're supposed to have been provided with a uh feasibility analysis stating what the necessary improvements are going to be, what the funding source is going to be, and what the steps are to get those improvements into the facilities plan.

Um did we get an analysis that current facilities are adequate to serve the planned development or an analysis of what feasibility is required to serve the development?

Crystal ITMRPA, I think the important point uh at least in staffs looking at this is that uh the previous Stone Gate looked at really improvements.

Um the previous version of Stone Gate and and their traffic counts were basically built into what NDOT, I believe, was considering for all improvements through 395.

And in the negotiation process, I believe with the City of Reno, they didn't necessarily tie themselves to the actual improvements being completed on 395, but to the notice to proceed being secured.

So that was essentially the threshold when we look at the overall project as it fits in with the more regional look at transportation.

And so there's that particular piece of the finding.

We know that in general, um the traffic counts are going down.

Granted, there is an increase.

Uh I don't remember off the top of my head that the large semi-portion of that share.

But in terms of looking at the existing approvals out there, and this is again reduction and impact to the region.

And that is also looking at the what we've been talking about, I think, is the City of Reno's responsibility to review any forthcoming project, which could be a tentative map, could be a use permit, could just be a building permit, and to rely on their zoning code to basically condition or establish the appropriate uh traffic improvements to the more localized area.

Hopefully that gets answering your question.

But in terms of staff analysis, yeah, we're we're looking at the existing approvals and what was considered at that point in time and what the change or the delta is for this current iteration and and how it fits it within that.

So uh Director Smith, yeah.

Let me make sure I'm understanding this.

So from a regional staff perspective, the forthcoming city zoning review that would be required before any actual uh construction permits or development is fulfilling the need for a feasibility analysis that will require concurrency of infrastructure to serve Jeremy Smith of the record, it's a great question.

I think per Commissioner Giacomin's point, you know, we we took a close look at the standards table and how that's being met when we did the MPA, and that we we didn't uh redo that for this.

It's it's we're relying on that.

To the degree that I understand it, uh, yes, there is a series of improvements that have been accomplished in association with the the previous PUD.

There's a series of improvements that are contemplated in the RTP in the first 10-year time frame that would meet that standard.

Uh in terms of the adequacy of what is available on the freeway itself, I think that is designed for the throughput of of this level of traffic.

And I'd have to look into the LOS the level of service standards in terms of what is actually exempted.

But I think through all of those reviews in association with the subsequent reviews that would be necessary to effectuate any actual development on the site, that's how we believe that that this is being met.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any more questions?

Not hearing any.

Do we have any public comment?

We have none.

Okay.

Close public comment, bring back to the board for final discussion.

Um the way I see this is this project is based upon table two, page two of the report for Wood Rogers.

It calls out 49,778 daily trips.

That's almost 50,000 daily trips.

It's commonly known that if a property has an industrial rating and normally means storage of supplies, warehouses, blah, blah, blah.

The memo calls out for 11.7 square feet of manufacturer distributing data.

The memo goes on to state possible negative impacts related to increased employment are addressed under the other thresholds, such as traffic.

So that got me thinking like the weight of a fully loaded 18-wheeler truck, ingression and egression, 395 north and south with an average of 80,000 pounds.

There's a potential safety issue in that aspect of the project.

And that go ties in with employment.

Now let me be clear.

Anderson Hill is a steep hill, north and south.

It's a very dangerous stretch of roadway and inclement weather as it stands.

I cannot imagine how bad it's going to get with the flow and a potential addition of 61% of 50,000 trucks.

And it's called out in the staff report on page 39 in the middle of the page that the existing proposed vehicle trips, ablick tricks are likely to be relatively similar, changing from a primarily passenger vehicle trip to a mix of majority of industrial vehicle trips at 61% of the total trip count.

So that kind of concerns me.

The Red Rock Road entrance exits go north and south, which is just one exit away, is already suffering from major truck traffic, and it's encountering that it's encountering on a daily basis.

In fact, I've seen numerous accidents because of truck traffic already, because there isn't a truck acceleration lane yet, and there's no improvements planned until 2050 at the present moment.

Numerous requests have been made to add a truck lane and have been submitted with the normal not at this time reply.

Although there is over 10,000 homes already approved for the area, they still do not want to put a truck lane in.

With all that said, I've done more hours of research on this than I care to talk about.

But the residence areno sparks a Washoe County safety is more important to me than anything else.

Safety of our residents should be number one.

And that is my big priority here is the safety of the residents.

The employment aspect of this request come into play with the requirements of freight and truck drivers and personal employment vehicles.

Yes, we may see it again, but at this point in time, I cannot find the transportation aspect of request based upon the 2050 regional transportation plan, PF1 table on page 94, which clearly calls out a regional road facilities are available and adequate.

And I don't think that they are.

Yes, thank you.

I I am I stand with our our chair.

I I see a strong nexus between employment and transportation impacts in this case, those related to heavy truck traffic versus the light passenger automobile, um, the rise in employment in this way.

Now, granted, this is based on highly variable scenarios for which we have no details that would have been well spelled out if there had been a development agreement in place of this path.

And I I also see safety and uh infrastructure issues and um will not be supporting this.

Okay.

Shelly, looks like your hands up.

Yes, thank you.

Um I think council was very clear that this project is about employment, not traffic, and no matter what type of industrial goes in, I do find that this project will offer significant employment and is in conformance.

So I will be voting in support of this item.

Okay, Manny.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um lower my hand here.

Uh first, I just want to briefly acknowledge uh our staff there.

On one hand, the record shows a significant reduction in certain impacts.

On the other hand, there's still considerable uncertainty about what we actually develop on this site.

Um so we're doing the best to kind of estimate here.

And so I don't envy the position staff are in, but I do respect them and appreciate the work they've done with the limited and evolving information available.

So my findings tonight are based fully on the requirements of RC9, what general counsel underscored and the information and the record before us uh through tonight's discussion and what's been submitted.

And I'll also say, as someone who works in a tech space, um, and there being a trend of automation um more and more, and that being industrial, it it really concerns me, and I do take pause in variability in numbers.

So while we might be suggesting 8800 numbers today or 6600 tomorrow and so forth, um, it's hard for me to roll the dice on our community.

So I will uh unfortunately not be able to support uh this matter before us this evening.

Um and I'll explain a little bit more why when the vote comes.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Chair.

Or not this will just screen.

We have kicked this around for two meetings now.

One was the MPA, and now we are at one very specific point, and we are looking at the 30,000 few view foot view.

We can't say that this project is going to go forward tomorrow, next year, two years from now.

It could take them 10 years to get to where they need to go.

And if I heard correctly, all it takes is 267 jobs to put this before us.

That's it.

We're not talking about 8,000 jobs, we are talking at the bare minimum 267 jobs.

That's it.

That's all we are looking at, and that is a 10% increase in what is out there and what we have been asked to look at.

We've talked transportation, which has no bearing on what we're looking at tonight.

None.

I understand the safety concerns every day.

I drive Pyramid Highway, every single day, and the truck traffic has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger.

I drive ABA I-80 every day.

Truck traffic is tremendous when there is an accident out at Mustang or East, traffic is gridlocked in this area.

We have a traffic issue.

We all know that.

We can't decide what NDOT is going to do.

That is not up to us.

If we want to push N DOT, we need to go to our state legislators and say, you guys got to do something for us here in the north.

They haven't done it.

We don't have priority, and we are living with that.

They are finally working on 395, but we don't know that there's going to be 50,000 trucks going over that overpass.

We have no idea what they're going to build out there.

So I'm looking at this area as an opportunity to provide housing and employment.

And I will support this.

Okay.

For employment, you have to have a vehicle to get to and from work.

Not necessarily.

Oh, well, there's no there's no train that goes to not.

Not necessarily, sir.

Just saying.

I look at it as you got to have a vehicle.

Um this is Commissioner Bissar, if I may, I don't want to interrupt too much, but I did want to respond to a certain point just made.

Like uh it could take up to 10 years for this project to begin.

And that's actually a concerns.

Uh you know, this is how we kind of ended up here.

So this project 20 years ago was going from industrial to residential, and then so much time went by and now if it could potentially take another 10 years because we have limited information to work off of, and we don't have a magic eight ball, then it's plausible we might be re-evaluating this project again from industrial to residential, right?

So I just going off of the information provided.

Right.

Right.

Well, that's what I'm going off of.

And according to Wood Rogers, they're calling out industrial uh very little housing.

It's called foothill neighborhoods.

Uh Mr.

Chair, can I ask a question at this time?

I just want to make sure that I didn't misrepresent on page 39 of the packet.

Um I pulled this number from the traffic analysis, but I think I inadvertently associated the word truck to it.

The 61% of total trip count.

Could I mean we can ask Lauren to speak on that?

It's related to the industrial land use, but does not necessarily mean trucks is did I get I think maybe that was me that got that wrong.

That is correct, if I may just be very clear on the record.

The truck traffic for the entire project, 39,000 external trips is the correct number, is not going to exceed 10 percent.

10 percent of that number.

We're talking about 3900, nowhere near 50,000, just to be crystal clear.

I was just going by your by the memo that was written by you guys.

Sorry.

Anybody else have any other comments?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, go ahead.

No, I'd just like uh counsel to restate what you said earlier tonight.

So I'm I'm a little confused now.

Jessica Prenny for the record.

Thank you, Commissioner Flick.

And that's understandable.

This is not the easiest item.

So to set the stage for your I assume there's gonna be an emotion and there's gonna be a vote.

The master plan amendment, which has set the land uses in this area, has been approved.

It is in conformance with the regional plan per the governing board.

That is set in stone.

No pun intended.

Um this is coming back to you, and this originally would have been packaged together, but because of the negative technical denial of the MPA by this body, had that go to the appeal, and now we're back here for this narrow component of review for a project of regional significance of truly the increase in employment, and it could be as much as estimated by the applicant, the 8800, even if it was only a true 10 percent increase, 267, I think is the number.

We were you were reviewing the potential for the increase in employment and see if that increase in jobs conforms with this regional plan for that area.

That's that is what is the issue before this commission.

Does the increase in employment conform or not to the regional plan?

If they never reach 8800, so be it.

That's none of us have a crystal ball.

No one knows how this is going to get developed out at this point in time.

But the question before you is whether that increase in employment, which has triggered this PRS review conforms with the regional plan or not.

Not whether or not the prior concerns you had in evaluating the MPA entirely, whether or not those are really not an issue here.

I hope that's helpful.

Anybody else have any other comments?

Uh Commissioner Jacoban, I I just wanted one final clarifying point because it it did note that there are 61% of truck trips uh as a part of this.

The uh and I'll ask this if the applicant, if I may, Mr.

Chair.

The um can you give me a rough understanding of what percent heavy vehicles are associated with industrial zoning?

Yeah, trucks um for for various industrial uses be estimated at 15 to 35 percent of those uses.

Again, we're not talking about data centers, but if it were, that's effectively zero, right?

So that type of industrial use would have effectively no trucks.

So you know, the total of the total trips in the entire project, 50% of them or so are related to industrial, right?

Of those, something on the order of 15%, right?

So what are we at?

9.5%, 10% in total.

It's that's it, right?

Because we're talking about 15%.

Is that because part of this is still not industrial?

Is that what we're doing?

Correct.

I mean, this half of the project trips are still residential related.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to get that clear because we're rendering a decision based on the information in front of us.

Thank you for the question.

There was a change from what was in the staff report.

Thank you.

Anyone online?

No.

Okay, not hearing any more discussion.

Um I'll call for for a motion.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion.

I moved to find the Stonegate Hydes Ranch project of regional significance and conformance with the 2019 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in the staff report.

Okay, do we have a second?

Commissioner I'll second that.

And that was Shelly Reed, second.

Okay.

So we have a rule call.

Yeah, let's have a roll call vote.

Um you guys call out roll call, please.

Ron Pierce.

I vote I I vote no.

Um based upon the transportation plan and um what I have heard and seen and read on this, the public facility services um do not match what I would um call safety aspects of the PF1 table.

Based upon page 94.

Um PF1 table on page 94 of the 2050 regional transportation plan.

I don't find them available and adequate.

Marilyn Kramer.

Aye.

Michael Flick.

Hi.

David Jacqueman.

Aye.

Dan Lessaruski.

Aye.

Carl Nieberlein.

Aye.

Shelley Reed.

Carrie Rohrmeier.

Nay, and nonconformance with PF1 under the 2019 regional plan.

And Manny Biserra.

Sure.

Uh do you might unmute?

Yes.

Nay, based on the record this evening, and cannot make the required RC9 findings for this PRS at this time.

Uh, specifically by the increase in employment.

We're obligated to evaluate where those employment related impacts are compatible with population growth, regional farm, public facilities, natural resources, regional coordination.

And um in this case, the shift to a major industrial employment node seems to create a significant housing employment imbalance in cold springs.

So for those reasons, I'm able to make the purest in conformance with the 2019 regional plan under RC9.

Perfect.

I believe motion passes.

Okay, motion passes.

All right, moving on to business of the day, item number D.

Um, presentation possible approval of 2024 trucking metals annual report.

Mr.

Chair, thank you very much.

We're happy to uh bring forward this annual report presentation.

And we have Shawnee Sousa, who's gonna sit at the cleric station to give us this run through of the updated website.

All right, hi everyone, Shawnee Seuss at TMRPA for the record.

I'll be taking you through our team are this year.

And just as a refresher, this started in 2019 after the regional plan update.

And since then we've really been improving upon it.

Um, but this visual interactive feature was really important to us at the time.

And last year we also added um this housing component.

So we originally had population dwelling units, land use employment and summaries, but like I said, we want to improve it every year.

So we added housing.

Um I'll take you through each of these sections, and just so you're aware, the requirements for this annual reporting do come from NRS, which requires each local government and affected entity to sub to submit a report to the RPC and RPGB each year.

And this coordinated annual reporting program helps with gathering data to show how the region is performing with our regional plan.

And some of you might remember uh at the last time I presented for you our regional plan update.

We also had to kind of work on those time frames because the legislature changed the annual reporting time frames from calendar to fiscal year.

So that's also affecting this timeline as well as the PIP timeline.

So we move this to a little later in the year, and we're still gonna be kind of adjusting to that.

You might actually see this update more frequently as we do not only adjust to the legislature, but also the team RPA work.

So we're working on our background kind of GIS architecture at Team RPA, as you guys know, we're improving our own work.

So that combination is gonna make it so you're gonna be maybe seeing this more frequently as we update it.

All right, so now I will go through each of the sections just briefly.

So first we have population.

Here you can see each of the jurisdictions, and if you hover over, you can get more specific, you know, information.

And over here as well, you can look over time.

And you can also isolate by jurisdiction.

So we can see, you know, who's been more consistent, who's grown over the years.

And then as you go down, you can check out our average growth rate at 0.81%.

And we get this from a variety of sources.

You can take a look right down here, how we get to those numbers.

Then next we'll take a look at dwelling units.

We break it down not only by jurisdiction, but also by tier.

And a lot of times you can kind of look at it at um through, you know, are there were there certain projects for different years that might have affected these?

So maybe there's more in you know, tier two one year, and that could be reflecting, you know, maybe there was a bigger project to show that.

Once again, if you guys go through this on your own, you can isolate that by tier.

And then this goes a little further when you were looking at dwelling units to take it from single family to multifamily.

And that's like I said, when you when I was talking about, oh, you might see, you know, if different projects have come through.

When we see these jumps, most likely there was a big project that came through to associate with that.

So maybe it was a big multifamily or single family, and you'll see that reflected here.

Once again by jurisdiction, and then by tier.

Next, this is our housing section, which we added last year.

We really want to tie this in because we have that regional strategy for housing affordability, and with that, we wanted to make sure that we're kind of keeping that sentiment alive with a housing affordability and trying to really track you know how our community is doing in that area.

So here you can see maybe 2020, we were at 399,000 for our medium home sales price.

But from 2020 to 2022, we jumped up to 565,000, and we've remained consistent over the last few years.

Average rental price for two bedrooms has actually gone down three dollars.

So that's uh, you know, something to note too.

Almost our median income, slight increase, percentage of those who own versus rent.

And here's our our vacancy rate.

This actually has gone up a little bit.

I cannot recall exactly, but it was at I think maybe 2.15%, so it's gone up about seven or 0.7% for our vacancy rate this year.

And just as a reminder, we do have our housing tracker that is on a different tab, our affordable housing tab here.

Um we are in the process of actually updating that.

Tyler is updating that.

So that will be updated within the next week or two.

So be sure to check that out.

Next, we have land use.

So this is breaking it down before we had dwelling units.

This is looking more specifically, you know, is it commercial, is it industrial, multifamily?

So you can see those acreages here.

Once again, um, you know, breaking it down by jurisdiction, then looking at it uh team RPA's regional land designations.

We also look at our master plan land use changes, and here you can see the acreages, and over here you can see, you know, in 2024 we had 10 master plan amendments, two projects of regional significance, and three regional plan amendments.

Next, we have employment 1.05% for our growth rate.

Here you can compare our covered employment in Washoe County by industry in 2023 to 2024.

Once again, you can isolate and see how the industry you know changes per year.

And this number over here, the gain in count of employees since 2023, we actually did see what I would say a significant decrease.

We usually see this in the thousands.

Last year from 2022 to 2023, it was at 4,000 something.

This year it's only at 181.

And even during COVID, I want to say it was never in the hundreds, it's been in the thousands.

So significant decrease this year.

Once again, you can check out kind of that similar to this, but looking at the percent share of decrease or increase since 2020.

And then finally, each of the entities and the jurisdictions submit a summary.

We take that and um condense it for you, but you are also able to review the full report that they submit.

So you can look at each of their stuff more in detail.

All right, and that concludes my report.

Yeah, and you can get to it from projects and resources and Treky Meadows annual part.

Thank you.

I think so.

All right, is anybody have any questions?

Commissioner Vicera, uh just a quick one.

I mean, a couple statements too.

This is very cool.

Um especially with data.

I I was wondering, is this updated real time, or is it like on a cadence of 10 days, or is it just a snapshot you know of one year looking back?

So uh our plan is to update it more of a time, and we really want to get to the goal of updating it quarterly.

For this one, because of that change from calendar to fiscal year, we had to bring this to you a little bit later.

Um, but depending on the data, like if you notice with the housing data, we take that from the Census Bureau and it has it's ACF and we do the five-year.

And so that actually doesn't come out until December.

So we take what we can and um for now, and so that some of them may have the 23 number, but we update that when we see that it's updated.

So all of this is as far as we can get those updates for each of the different points.

Oh gosh, I love this.

And so who is uh this made for?

Is it the general public or is it folks like us, like on planning commission and other planning practitioners?

I want to say everyone, but of course, planners, jurisdictions, affected entities.

I feel like that's of course who's going to be using it the most.

Um but yeah, we think it's cool.

We hope everyone looks at it.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, can I just weigh in on on the questions if you don't mind really quickly?

You know, with the 2019 regional plan update, we recognize that this function of annual reporting, which is required by state law, was was kind of getting buried.

And we wanted to reinvigorate it with some statistics and information to help bolster the the reports from the local jurisdictions, and those reports are really the requirement is that they talk about how they've furthered the goals and policies of the regional plan.

And I think that's really useful stuff.

But they used to talk about capital improvements in that process, but now we have we're about to hear about the public infrastructure plan update.

We have another vehicle to accomplish those updates.

So we're really focusing in on uh the statistics as of right now, it's an annual snapshot.

But as part of what the work we're doing with the GIS architecture, we were looking to get more real time.

So please stay tuned for more on the data based the database is awesome.

Um $64,000 question.

Any idea why the 181 decrease for the employees?

The anomaly.

Uh Mr.

Chair, and great question.

Jeremy Smith again.

Um I will be doing some more research to dig in on that.

I will say that the data that are readily available and accurate are the covered employment data, which come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that are served up by DEDER, the deployment department of employee training, employment training, and rehabilitation here in the state of Nevada.

And it is the stuff that is reliably reported monthly to the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, when we characterize jobs, especially for our modeling for the future, we want to look at all jobs.

And there are some jobs that fall outside what's called covered employment, basically means they're not paying into unemployment, things like sole proprietorships, real estate agents, sometimes religious institutions.

There's other uh employment types.

And so I'm curious to look and see to what degree we may have seen greater increases in the total employment by looking at that uncovered portion.

Um, I don't it remains to be seen, but I wanted to make that point that even though it's a only 181 jobs, that is just the covered portion, and and there could be increases in other sectors that aren't reflected in that data that we look at.

Well, this is awesome.

Nice work, you all, and I'll spread the good word.

Yeah, I have to say that I'm I'm impressed.

Who did most of the work?

It's definitely a group effort.

We all contribute in various ways, but I just make it look cool.

So you did a great job.

Thank you.

I like it.

Yeah, great job.

Anyone else have any comments or all right?

So um I move to accept a submitted annual reports of the 2024 Trekky Meadows annual report.

Commissioner Bacera, second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

Next one is the um Pip.

Good evening again, Commissioners.

Chris Tali, Team RPA.

Wait for the slides to show up.

Right.

So this is the 2025 update to the public infrastructure plan.

I've been wrestling in my head what 2025 actually means, but it's the year in which we do the updates because the data we are bringing forth, as we will see, isn't necessarily based on 2025 once we get there.

There we go.

Oh, one too far.

All right.

So the public infrastructure plan was created as part of the 2024 Trucker Meadows Regional Plan update and PF3, policy PF3 required pests, to require the creation of the plan.

Now it requires basically maintaining and updating the document.

Some pieces like the actual PIP document, we update on an as-needed basis.

And then for the PIP dashboard, we update that on an annual basis, and that's quite quite the process.

So for the initial um initial set of data, and this was for the public infrastructure plan, not necessarily all staff's time trying to understand what the appropriate approach was to collecting the data.

But it was for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, and that is for the added assets.

And then when we're talking about the capital improvement plan that are provide that are created at each of the jurisdictions and entities similar to the assets, uh, that was fiscal years 24 through 28.

So that is what I think of when I think of the added assets, that is looking backwards to stuff we've actually done in the region.

And when we're talking about capital improvements, is what we think we're gonna do as we move out approximately the next five years.

So for this year, we essentially incremented it by one year.

So we moved the added assets up to the next fiscal year and the capital improvements up to the next five-year time frame.

And what we are currently working on, and this this is what we've always understood this is gonna help us do is to build a historical perspective.

And then also what we uh discovered in looking at the the financial reports is that the jurisdictions and entities are putting forth bits of statistics that we can put onto our dashboard that also helped underscore things such as the miles of storm drains, etc.

And then one of the key components that we brought forth um as part of the public infrastructure plan was the concept of reinvestment and growth.

So with reinvestment, and this is again one of the key components, reinvestment, we're essentially rehabbing existing facilities, existing services that are being provided by the entities and the jurisdictions, and growth is adding essentially more capacity.

I think that's the the simplest way to think about it.

And then as we see for each of our conformance reviews and some of the regional plan amendments, we look at the five facility and service domains, and those are again water, schools, stormwater flood, transportation, and wastewater.

So this is our statutory component that we've tied to not only looking at our regulatory, but also our cooler projects, such as the public infrastructure plan, sorry.

And a reminder about who we're working with, uh Tumwa, WCSD, TERFMA, RTC, SVG ID, Sparks, Washoe County, and both the airports, City of Rena, Western Regional Water Commission, and we are working on establishing a relationship with a Great Basin Water Company.

We do collect their data, but we are want to have additional conversations with them as we move forward.

All right, so to conclude or getting close to concluding, so what we're looking at for the future of the public infrastructure plan, and that is in part to finish validating the information that we've assembled for this year.

So we're I think we're essentially 90, maybe 95% complete with validating, and that is looking again backwards and forwards and making sure we're reaching out to the jurisdictions and the entities to get to let them know what we've compiled and to make sure it makes sense to them.

And then as was referenced in the staff report, incorporate the language regarding the Cold Springs water balance analysis into that document, and that would likely go into the water, wastewater, and stormwater flood sections.

And then what we're gonna be working on, and I had this I well as I was going through and working on the data, was thinking tying the spatial component to all this, which we've wanted to do, and then Jeremy came forward to me in a conversation and basically said the same thing, and I'm like, great, we're on the same wavelength.

But and that is looking at the added assets and the capital improvement plan and trying to tie basically each line item to a specific location on the ground.

It could be the Tummer facility or the RISW facility or particular waterline and the ground, but getting to that next step of getting tying that information, the data to a location.

And then expanding the historical understanding, and that is basically showing the trends for these two cycles.

This is something that we're gonna be working on over, I don't know exactly how long, but once we've finished validating, it would be pretty easy.

I've already got some work here to compare or to represent what the two different fiscal years look like or time frames.

And then big thanks to Hansford Economic Consulting.

They helped us basically get to where we needed to be for the initial public infrastructure plan and the spending summaries, and then did the heavy lift and brought me in to understand what that left lift was.

And theoretically, next year I will be doing more of the lift, and Hansford or Catherine will be providing some eyes to ensure we're still on the right track.

So again, big thanks to them or her.

This is the website, and hopefully we got it keyed up so we can go there.

And if you guys just scroll down to the first set of charts, I should have gone over there.

But okay, so this is where I wanted to underscore.

So what we have up there now is the current fiscal data.

So what we look at uh the top line basically for all the added assets, it has increased by 269 million dollars.

So that I think is in large uh large part of that is looking at the schools, and this is a great point to highlight when we're looking at like let's say the um Debbie Smith CTE, the career technical academy equivalent high school.

So the way that that asset is captured on the school district's balance sheets is once it's complete, it shows up.

So they are they're doing year, they're doing work on it for years, but it doesn't actually arrive at their balance sheets and then gets reflected in our data until the project is essentially completed.

So there will be variability on a year-over-year basis depending on what infrastructure projects are completed and what our people are working on.

So that's one thing to highlight.

And then when we're looking at, and that is the added assets is the left chart, and then when we're looking at the CIPs, is the right.

So the CIP difference year over year is about a billion dollars.

So we we're at about four, let's say call it four and a half, and that has gone up to five and a half, and that is again that's looking forward over the next five years to what projects we at the jurisdictions and the entities anticipate working on.

And what we look when we look at the CIPs, what my assumption is, and I think Catherine has the same assumption, or she has the same assumption, I cribbed off for her.

Um, but that is we have the most specific set of data really for the the close time frame for the next year as those get approved, and as we move out to the next four years, it's more of an estimate, but still we have an approximate spending uh that has gone up through the CIP process of around a billion.

And that is again reflect reflected on the right-hand side the the sum of those two parts.

And then when we are able to look backwards, uh we we are at the stuff that was actually built, we get the reinvestment and the growth, but we can also understand what a developer contributed in terms of dedicated assets to the jurisdiction or the entity.

So we get that look going backwards, we don't get that look going forwards.

If you want to scroll through the rest, so we have potable water, and then we have some of the statistics that we put forth, schools, stonewater flood, transportation, and some more statistics.

So I will leave it there if there are any questions.

Uh I've go over some more stuff.

Um, but we will have a comparison of the two years, and as we move forward in time, uh three five years, I think this is just gonna increase in terms of um benefits for the region, regional understanding.

And we do have a motion that is essentially accept.

If you have any comments, uh, you can provide them as well or feedback.

Thank you.

Nice job.

Great job.

Do you have any comments or questions?

I do, Commissioner Masera uh online.

Um just what uh Chair Pierce mentioned this is this is great as well, uh, alongside the prior report we just uh saw or the annual report.

Always a fan of uh good data viz, and this follows that previous one.

Chris, I'm curious how can the public uh you all and maybe city staff and those of us on this commission actually use the the the PIP dashboard to make data informed decisions and understand infrastructure readiness when we're reviewing reviewing projects like those tonight, potentially and others before us and other words is is it intended to help inform those type of discussions, or what are the use cases as staff envisions for this NIFT dashboard?

Yeah, it is intended to help.

I mean, I think at this point in time, we have got the data out there.

We are engaged in refining our process to make sure that we are capturing it and getting it up expediently.

I think really the nexus between decision making is probably the next implementation in terms of looking at where infrastructure has been um finalized in terms of being an added asset, or where it is planned over the next time frame.

So then we have a spatial component, which you know, when we were going through this um working with the jurisdictions and entities, and we worked with Tama initially because uh we had uh Mark Forey uh used to be the executive director of Thomas.

So we had a great relationship already um as well as with other working staff.

So we were able to to request of them to go through and spatialize their their data.

And this wasn't for this time frame, but for the previous one.

But what we recognize is that that was a heavy lift, and that not all the jurisdictions and entities are in the same in the same realm of of having implemented the locational component or able to implement the locational component.

So I think you know this is something that that we endeavor to do.

But really truly, I think when you get to the decision making ability of the regional planning commission or the regional planning governing board, it is tying the the proposed improvements to um a spatial component.

I don't know if Jeremy, if you want to.

Yeah, I just this is Jeremy's with the right.

I just want to add to that.

I think it's a great answer, Chris.

And uh I think we're moving in that direction.

I think we're still pretty 30,000 foot view and and trying to develop the process, the relationships, make sure we can accurately reflect what we're talking about, spatializing it's gonna be important.

But the end goal really is I think to speaking to what Commissioner Flick had had brought up.

We want to try to, you know, hopefully one day have the data in hand.

We're making the decision.

I don't think it'll ever explain everything.

And there is obviously a local process, and as we learned tonight, not everything is known at the point of our decision making time, but we are working to try to put these things together.

Um we're making some progress.

So yeah, yeah, that's it's excellent progress.

I I personally can't wait to not just use it, but maybe see a supplement staff reports as well, and and aid us in these conversations, whether it was those like tonight or future ones, um, which will be really helpful.

And so I'm happy to make a motion when other folks chime in and share any thoughts or questions as well.

Okay, does anybody else have any comments or anything?

I just wanted to say great job.

Probably not as good as the previous one, but I just she didn't even hear me.

I'm just like I'm just kidding.

I'll say the chair.

If I could add one additional point, I think really for the public infrastructure plan, the natural resources plan, and the Trucker Committee's hand report.

This is regional coordination in action.

Yeah, this is great.

I'll leave it there.

Go ahead, man.

I don't think you can okay.

Uh Commissioner Basera, for the record, I move to accept the presentation regarding the public infrastructure plan PIP and provide the following feedback, which is what I mentioned in my earlier uh remarks, along with those of Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Jockman, I'll second that.

There we go.

Um we have a motion and a second.

Um wait, I didn't ask.

Do we have any public comment on this?

We don't.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Okay.

Sure.

I almost got um wow, good thing I caught myself.

Um, request for future agenda items.

Can we do reports item?

Oh, sorry, reports.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just have a few things I'd like to go over quickly.

I know it's coming on the the end of the second hour here, so I'll try to make it quick.

Just want to let you know that uh I participated at the Nevada APA conference and gave two presentations.

I was down there two days.

One was on housing, the other was on data centers, and I was joined by uh Commissioners Bacera and Rohrmeier, uh former Commissioner Peter Gower and uh City Council person named we do her.

And we had a really awesome presentation, I think, about data centers, and I think it was very well received.

There were there were good questions, some questions, certainly out of my depth, but luckily Manny was there to take it on.

Um speaking of data centers, we continue our work that you charged us with back earlier this year.

Uh we have been making updates to our webpage around surrounding data centers.

We've closed the survey that we put out with about 50 responses, give or take, not as much interest as we had hoped, but uh we're we're contemplating whether or not there could be an appetite for sort of a different survey that might hopefully reach a wider audience, get a little better traction.

You know, we we had included a lot in there regarding regional planning and our energy policies, and I still believe and I'm pushing very hard that that is a major element of what we should be trying to do is get our policies correct, especially in the face of this growing demand for energy.

But nonetheless, we have compiled a ton of information with a lot of help from a lot of partners, the ones I mentioned and several others.

And my understanding is that there's a regional effort.

Um obviously we're part of it, but that the local jurisdiction staff, the the three jurisdictions are also seeking to get together and standardize their their ordinance potentially in some fashion uh to address data centers.

And so we're part of that conversation.

We're gonna be bringing information.

Um, at this time, no one is necessarily seeking uh a regional uh policy solution.

And I think we're gonna see how we can get there with uh local jurisdiction standards, but we're there and providing info and working together with our partners to make sure that the work we've been doing is represented in that conversation.

Uh regarding schools, we've had a lot of discussions over the past several years regarding schools and their approval process and what is the role of regional planning, you know, similar to the data centers.

What is the role of regional planning for schools?

We've we've gone round and round and we are making some progress there, though, as I've informed you previously.

We anticipate bringing a memorandum of understanding between TMRPA and the state public charter school authority that MOU, we anticipate bringing it for review and approval by the RPGB at their December meeting.

And what that does is it formally memorializes our information sharing relationship so that next year when we bring you the PIP update, we can also talk about charter schools and everything we know about plans for charter schools and fold them into the mix uh beyond what we have been able to do now by developing that relationship.

But we're not stopping there because that's just one element.

Uh the other element is that there is a role for regional planning to play in the school approval discussion, and that is through a regional plan policy.

And we currently have uh plan policy for school siting in the public facilities section, and we are working to uh amend and enhance that to recognize all of the sort of deliberation and discussion we've had with this body, the RPGB, this the school district, the charter schools, interested stakeholders, everyone we've been talking to.

There are some key elements of that, including safety, traffic, uh co-locational proximity to other school facilities that already exist, and a public hearing process to ensure that public can weigh in on the school approval process.

And what the policy would seek to do is is really kind of similar to what legal counsel mentioned earlier.

We will be creating a policy that it adds guidance that must be uh included in the local jurisdictions master plans.

Exactly how things roll out.

You know, that's left to some degree to the jurisdictions, but we are going to uh provide that overarching guidance for those pieces.

And again, it's still a draft, but hopefully early next year we can be bringing it through the process that includes this body to take a look at it, and then ultimately to the RPGB to get it adopted into the regional plan.

And we think that'll help uh even the playing field and also inform new schools, whether they're charter schools, private schools, the district, whoever, exactly what they can expect in terms of the requirements to locate or expand uh an existing school.

Okay, good.

So that's happening.

We'll keep you posted.

We mentioned in the TMR update, GIS architecture upgrades in process thanks to our new, not so new anymore, GIS analyst Tyler Smith, who is clerking tonight with Carla.

Uh we are making great progress.

We have a new server, we have a new system, it's all updated.

We're beginning to build our production database.

We're migrating our online map viewers so that they are all on that new system.

And I think that uh our goal is to develop automation so that we can more frequently report on things like the TMAR statistics that you saw today.

We know we get monthly cuts from the assessor talking about dwelling units.

There's no reason we have to wait till the end of the year to compile those.

In fact, it's kind of like the dishes in the sink.

If you let them pile up, it's a lot harder.

So we're gonna try and just take this stuff in, right?

And and keep it moving through the process and maybe have some starting with some quarterly checkpoints that we try to update some of our stuff online.

So that's all going as planned.

And as I've mentioned as well, we've got the PIP.

We just went through that.

Previously, we talked about the natural resource plan.

There's a third pillar that we want to make sure we have created and made transparent in terms of documentation about how we address housing, how we address modeling the future, some of the things that came up today.

Employment square footage per employment.

How do we get there?

What are the metrics?

And put it on paper so that everyone can see it and touch it.

And if it's wrong, tell us, and then we'll try to fix it.

But uh, that is something that we're working toward in collaboration with the jurisdictions, other partners, and today had a great conversation with the Reno Housing Authority.

Uh, to some degree, we're going to try to resurrect the best and applicable parts of that regional housing strategy for affordability that we created in 2019 with a lot of help from others.

So that's happening.

Trails.

We are also helping to we're doing a lot of things.

I don't know how it's going through, but we're also helping with trails.

Obviously, I think I mentioned it the Trucky Mills Parks Foundation had become the home of the trails court regional trails coordinator coordinator and trails data.

That went dark.

And so we've absorbed the data role already, and we're actively working on data updates to the trails data in December.

We plan to bring a request for qualifications forward to the governing board to hire a regional trails coordinator.

We've been lining up funding.

We have something on approaching $75,000 now through some uh gifts via the biggest little trail stewardship nonprofit and also uh councilwoman doer and her relationship to the Nelson Foundation.

In fact, I think both both are coming from the Nelson Foundation.

So I haven't got that in my hands yet, but we're working to get that, and that would fuel at least one year of this position, and then that of course the position will be tasked with getting more money to keep themselves alive.

But we are definitely keeping the we're keeping the data going and we're not gonna let that go.

Okay, um, I wanted to let you know that we recognize that we would we can provide better training and education opportunities for this body.

And we are going to in the calendar year 2026 and increase our efforts to provide that mechanism here.

And so that will probably look like short training sessions here, maybe a workshop or two, better materials, easier access in the whole nine to make sure that you guys are armed with uh everything you can possibly have because it does get confusing and uh you know very specific as as we saw tonight.

So that that is happening.

And then I just wanted to bring this up.

Uh generally, it's it's very helpful and I think worth uh talking to each and every one of you about, and that is that attendance at the meetings uh is really obviously very important.

We always want to have a full board seated, and I think everyone really does a pretty good job of of being here, so thank you for that.

But sometimes we will find out kind of last minute that someone can't make it.

And so we don't really poll for your attendance, we kind of assume that you're gonna show up unless you tell us.

And that's the language I've been using in the uh when I post the agenda or we post the agenda and I send you that email like hey, the agenda's ready.

You know, let me know.

If possible, that is the time to let me know if you're not gonna be able to make it, or if you're joining online, which is you know, it's been working pretty good.

Um we we want to know as soon as we can.

Uh obviously, if you're not gonna make it, we want to try to line up an alternate.

Thanks again, Manny, for sitting in tonight.

And uh just wanted to reiterate that uh that is how how we're approaching it, and we could use your help and just ask does that work for everybody?

Do you want a different system?

Would you rather have polling or if that's not sufficient, we can we can change it.

But that's kind of our approach, and just wanted to bring it up so that we all had it front of mind.

Uh Commissioner Jockman, City of Reno.

I will say that I think it's been a bit more of a problem than Reno and Sparks or Washo, and I know we're missing one tonight.

So I will um do my best to instill that uh request of yours.

Thank you.

But I I don't see any problem with how you're going about identifying attendance.

I think that's fine.

Thank you.

I didn't realize we had a problem.

Well, I don't know that it's a problem, it's just something I want we're getting ahead of before it becomes one.

We're just getting ahead of it.

Uh thanks for for listening to that.

I appreciate you guys all all of you for all of your efforts.

Um I want to say I won't see you, so happy Thanksgiving coming up here soon.

And our next meeting is going to be December 15th.

Uh that is gonna that's a Monday again because we're gonna otherwise the fourth Thursday would have been on Christmas, and I doubt you want to talk to me on Christmas.

But uh we will probably be back at the RTC building.

We'll keep it posted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Jessica Pranny for the record.

Just want to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving and ha thank you for all your hard work tonight.

I know it wasn't an easy one.

All right, request for future agenda items.

Okay.

Public comment?

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Do we have any written correspondence?

All right, it's eight ten.

Uh meetings adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.

So