This meeting is being recorded.

It is 6 p.m.

January 6th, 2026.

I call this meeting of the Washaw County Planning Commission to order.

Could we please have a determination of quorum?

Michael Vick.

Here.

Jim Barnes.

Here.

Dan Lazaruski here.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Kennedy will not be in attendance.

She has an excused absence.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you.

Could we please have the ethics law announcement?

Sure.

Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you have received a gift or a loan, you have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity, such as family employment, business, or similar relationship, or if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year, you must disclose that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered.

You must further abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear that the gift loan interest commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person.

Commissioners are also reminded that under the planning commission rules, if you have had any contact outside this meeting with any person interested in a matter coming before the commission today, you should disclose the nature of that contact at the meeting.

This meeting is being held in County Commission Chambers and via Zoom to attend via Zoom.

Uh anybody interested can log in to the webinar using the link found on the agenda.

It can also be joined by typing Zoom.us into the computer, clicking join a meeting on the Zoom website and entering meeting ID 842-7265-9406.

Alternatively, this meeting can be attended via telephone only.

The phone numbers 1669-900-9128 and the same meeting ID 8427265-9406 and pressing pound.

For those wishing to provide public comment via Zoom, you use the raise hand feature during any public comment period.

If you'd like to provide public comment via telephone, press star nine to raise hand and star six to mute unmute.

Thank you.

Uh could we have the appeals procedure, please?

Certainly.

Most decisions rendered by the planning commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the planning commission and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

For general public comment in chambers, I have Linda Harrison followed by Cliff Lowe.

I'm Linda Harrison.

Yes.

Please state your first and last name for the record.

Thank you.

I thought I was coming later, but it talked about traffic.

My complaint and my information is about the roundabouts that are proposed.

I live at the bottom of the Washoe Hill down by the marijuana store.

Every time there is a storm and on I-80 or any kind of a problem, the traffic all backs up, but sometimes it's bumper to bumper.

That road is extremely dangerous in the winter.

The weather is totally different in Washoe Valley than it is in Pleasant Valley.

That hill has always been horrible.

That's why there's a barricade going all the way down it.

There's one fire station out there.

It's on East Lake Boulevard, which would come right into the dumb roundabout that's going to be at the top of the hill.

The representatives at the public meeting said there would no be no backups at the roundabout.

That's a lie.

There's backups at every single roundabout.

And uh the endot engineers told me that they have no input because all they required to do is to go ahead and provide access to the road.

And uh which I don't understand how that you can possibly approve this development and put roundabouts at the bottom and the top of the Washoe Hill.

It's insane.

And if you do approve it, you will be condoning death.

There are school buses and bicycles and everything else that go up there.

That road is deadly, and a roundabout is insanity.

Thank you.

Lastly, in chambers, we have Cliff Lowe.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Cliff Lowe, and I ask that my comments be entered into the record.

Later on in this meeting under agenda item 8D, Sierra Reflections, you will be faced with making what I think all of Washoe County should consider to be a very, very important decision.

You will be faced with whether or not to go along with staff's recommendation to approve with conditions, or whether to listen to what the what the public have to say.

And how do you how are you going to decide?

So the attachment to the agenda item was over 600 pages.

My understanding is you only got that a few days ago.

This looks like about 1,500 pages, which is the entire application, some of which you would have had to have soft copies and hot link out to to take a look at.

So how do you make the decision?

You've had only a few days.

You're going to hear comments from a lot of people, I believe, and some of them will be rather general and some kind of complaint oriented.

But you are also going to hear from a group of over 25 speakers who have not been looking at this for days.

They've been looking at this for months, and they have expertise in the topics they're going to talk about and career experience.

So you should take their comments seriously.

People who know about geohazards, mercury contamination, hillside development, wildlife habitat, and hydrobasin.

You will hear specific references to the application.

And you will also hear specific references to envision Washo 2040, the master plan that this committee approved just a little more than a year ago, I believe.

And you will hear specific references to county code.

These references will show you why you cannot make many of the findings that you are required to make in order to approve the application, and the inability to make these findings will be why you will you should come to the conclusion that you must deny the application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes all public comment in chambers.

And there are no hands raised via Zoom.

Thank you very much.

Um I hope everyone on the board has had a chance to review the agenda.

We do not have any amendments to it.

Can I get a motion to approve?

This is Rob, I move to approve is written.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

And we have uh two sets of minutes.

Um everyone get a chance to review the November 20th.

Does anyone have you edits?

If not, can I get a motion to approve?

Mrs.

Rob, I move to approve the November 20th minutes as written.

I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

And the December 3rd meeting minutes.

Any uh edits or changes?

Mr.

Rob, I move to approve the December 3rd minutes is written.

I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

That brings us to the public hearings.

Uh Mr.

Secretary, would you announce 8A?

Yeah, sure to.

Item number 8A tonight is abandonment case number WAB 25007, uh, the Rocky Vista abandonment for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in three 33-foot access easements along the north, east, and south portions of assessors parcel number 017 2001.

Uh the easement along the West Property Line is to remain in place.

And representing Washoe County in this matter is planner Jolene Bertetto.

Hello everyone, Jolene Bertetto, Washoe County Planning.

This evening we are looking at WAB 25007, a Rocky Vista abandonment.

And jumping right in, this is the vicinity map for this application.

This is in the Southeast Truckee Meadows planning area.

The regulatory zone is medium density suburban, and the parcel is five acres in size.

The request is to abandon three 33 foot wide government patent easements along the northeast and south portions of the subject property.

You can see it over here on the image on the slide.

It's the areas that are shaded.

That's the area that the applicant is looking to abandon.

And then the west portion of the easement would remain in place.

Now when we're doing our evaluations, one of the main things that we look for is that all of the surrounding properties would continue to have access.

Oh, this one.

Whoop, there we go.

Um because this image was stretched out, this yellow is no longer hiding highlighting it, so I'll use the laser.

But the property via the north right here is accessible via this stretch of road, and then the properties to the east are accessible via secret pass road on this side.

And then the map uh was too big for just one slide.

So now our subject property is up in the right hand corner.

And I'm wanted to point out that the property to the south is accessible via the southern segment of Rocky Vista Road, which continues down here and then connects over here to Chance Lane.

That all those surrounding properties will continue to have access.

Staff are supportive of the applicant's request to abandon these easements, and we did not find that the abandonment would result in foreseeable damage to other properties in the vicinity.

For noticing, the uh uh budding property owners were noticed per requirements for abandonments, and we did not receive any emails or phone calls about the project.

For agency review, we did send this project to relevant agencies.

We have conditions provided by the Washoe County Engineering Department.

They are um our standard conditions, and you can find them in exhibit A of that staff report.

With those findings in mind, staff determined that the proposal is in compliance with the required findings, which is that it's consistent with the master plan.

There was no detriment to the public or other existing properties.

Um existing public utility easements in the area could be relocated, and it's no longer required for public purpose.

Uh we provide this uh recommended motion uh for the committee this evening.

Thank you very much.

And um, I am available for questions, and I believe we have a representative from the applicant here as well.

Uh thank you.

Did the applicant or the representative wish to make a separate presentation?

No, there was not going to be a separate presentation.

Okay.

Uh do we have any public comment on this item?

There is no public comment in chambers for this item or via Zoom.

All right, do we have any questions?

Deliberation motions from the board.

I moved that after giving recent consideration of the information containing the staff report and information received during the public hearing.

Washoe County Planning Commission approved abandonment case number WAB 25-0007 for Hurry Fry with the conditions included and exhibited in this matter having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20, and a fourth finding in accordance with Nevada Revived Statutes 278.480-3.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously.

Uh Mr.

Lloyd, would you announce the B.

Yeah, item 8B is uh amendment of conditions case number WAC 250019 at the Continuum of Care Cottages.

Yeah, item 8B is amendment of conditions, case number WAC 250019 at the Continuum of Care Cottages for special use permit case number WSUP 22001 and tentative subdivision map WTM 22001 for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for special use permit case number WSVP 22001 and tentative map case number WTM 22001 to change the use type to senior housing from continuum of care senior to reduce the total number of units allowed from 136 to 134 and to remove conditions referring to the use type of continuum of care or medical requirements equipment by removing conditions 1T, 1U, 1W, and 1Y.

And representing Washoe County in this manner is uh planner Julia O'Lander.

Good evening, Julia O'Lander for the record.

So as Mr.

Lloyd said, this is a request to change the use from continuum care to senior housing and to remove certain conditions that refer to that continuum care use type.

Just to get you oriented, this is a project that was approved by the planning commission.

It is out, I mean by you, the planning commission, and it's out off of neighborhood way and Pyramid Highway.

And the highlighted blue is the area.

So the special use permit that was originally approved was for a continuum of care for seniors, and that's in accordance to Table C three of the Spanish Springs area plan, and also for major grading of 55,000 cubic yards of imported material.

And then also for the tentative subdivision map, which was a common open space tentative subdivision map on 21.5 acres, and the proposal was for 36 lots, ranging in size from 2,04 feet to 2,400 square feet.

On December, this is to give you a little background.

I apologize for the word background not being corrected.

Um it's supposed to say background.

On December 16th of 2025, the um Board of County Commissioners approved a development code update, which added senior housing as a use type and established incentives for senior housing in Article 336.

And just to give you a little bit of background on that, the senior housing that was added now allows a type of residential construction that includes single family, middle housing, and multifamily, with the requirement that at least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by a resident at least 55 years or older.

Additionally, senior housing developments did will require a deed restriction to be recorded with Wacho County Recorder's Office, restricting the property to senior housing for a period of no less than 20 years.

The definition goes on to um allow for a density increase that's based on the regulatory zoning.

That um a 25% increase is allowed above the base density, and that's calculated on on the um the base density that's outlined in table 110-406-05.1.

So the applicant is changing from that continuum of care and to the senior housing, so they will have to fall under those requirements.

Additionally, they are asking to remove any of the conditions that were in the original approved conditions that refer to that continuum of care.

And 1T required that they have a medical station that would be running 24-7.

Again, that was a medical type requirement that's carried um that's required under continuum of care.

Now their senior housing that's no longer needed.

Also UT, which um condition UT, which um required that they have a fully equipped emergency station that was staffed 24-7, and there's some requirements that were listed under that, and then condition UW, which required that the homeowners associate, homework homeowners association required um and obtained a um and maintained a business license as a commercial entity because they were working as a continuum care.

And then the final condition that they're asking to remove was that the applicant must notify all homeowners that the site is a commercial, um, has a commercial use, and that they are dependent on the HOA to pay to maintain a business license.

So all four of those conditions really link are linked to that continuum of care use.

And now they're asking for that senior housing use type.

These conditions are no longer needed for the for the development.

Um the change of the use does change the allowed number of units from 36 136 units to 134.

As I explained earlier, that senior housing is based the um the amount of units is based on the dense uh on the the zoning on the property, and the 21 acres is has a regulatory zoning of neighborhood commercial, which allows a density of five units per acre, which would be approximately 107.8 units.

With that senior housing increase of 25%, that allows for another 26.995 units for a total of 34 units.

And the applicant does understand that they are getting a decrease of units that they're moving from that 136 to the 134, and they're agreeable to that.

Parcels within 500 feet of the site were noticed.

52 notices went out.

I did not receive any emails or phone calls concerning this amendment of conditions.

Various departments and agencies were have reviewed the application.

The agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval.

Staff is able to make all the findings, and I provided a possible motion in my staff report.

The applicant is available for any questions.

He doesn't have a presentation, but he's available for questions as is as am I.

So let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you so much.

Does anyone on the board have questions for staff of the applicant?

If not, do we have any public comment on this item?

There is no public comment in chambers for this item or via Zoom.

All right.

We have a couple motions here.

The first one is on the special use permit.

I'll go ahead and do it.

I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washa County Planning Commission approved with conditions.

Amendment of conditions, case number WAC25-0019 for special use permit case number WSUP 22-0001 for Silver Auto Homes Nevada Incorporated with the conditions included as exhibit A to this matter.

Having made all five findings in accordance with the Washaw County Code, section 110.810.30.

This is Rob, I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

Would anyone like to do the tentative subdivision motion?

Mr.

Rob, I'll make it.

I move that after giving reason considering consideration information continued to staff report information received during a public hearing.

The Washington County Planning Commission approved amendment of conditions case number WAC 25 0019 for the tentative subdivision map.

Case number WTM 22 001 for Silver Auto Homes Nevada Incorporated with the conditions included and exhibited as matter having made all 10 findings in accordance with Washington County Code Section 1 and 608.25 Commissioner Nelson second.

Aye aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously.

That brings us to item 8C.

Okay, this item 8C is tentative subdivision map case number WTM 2500 two and special use permit case number WSUP 250022 for silver crossings.

For hearing discussion of possible action to approve one, a common open space tentative subdivision map on 11.21 acres for 52 lots, including 2.07 acres of common open space and uh with lots ranging in size from 4,500 square feet to 9,254 square feet.

And secondly, a um a special use permit for a single family detached development in accordance with table 110302051 of the Washoe County Code for parcels with a regulatory zone of neighborhood commercial.

Once again, representing Washoe County in this matter is planner Julia O'Lander.

Good evening, Julia O'Lander for the record.

So as Mr.

Lloyd said, this is a request for a common open space subdivision map on 11.21 acres per 52 lots, and we'll include a 2.7 2.07 common open space.

And then also for a special use permit to allow for the single family detached development that is required for the table 110 302.5.1 in neighborhood commercial zone.

This parcel is again out in neighborhood ways basically across the street from the process property we're just discussing.

So it's just on the other side on the west side of neighborhood way at off of Pyramid Highway.

You can see it outlide and outline in blue on the left, sort of an overview, and then a closer view of it on the right.

It was going to be a rental property.

On November 6, November 6th of this year, or 2025, last year, a one-time five-year extension was provided that would allow the special use permit to be extended to November 6, 2030.

And that was so that was approved in November.

However, the applicant has come to the conclusion that the single, the the that the that they do not want to move forward with the continued care, that they want to move forward with the residential development, and that would be more viable for this location.

And the applicant says that with the three neighboring senior focused communities along neighborhood way, the applicant has determined that single family detached residential development will be more effectively served the broader housing needs of the area.

So they don't want to move forward with the senior type housing.

Concerning the tentative map, the sub Silver Crossing is proposing, like I said, a 52 lot, 52 lots on this 11.21 acre site.

It will be gated and it will be for single family housing only.

The applicant envisions a boutique style gated community, and that the community will be Tabine, Devont, Dubant defined by a close-knit layout with shared landscaping features and a design philosophy that focuses on neighborhood, neighborly interaction.

The development have smaller lots, reduced setbacks, narrow streets to encourage a close community with a sense of place.

Additionally, the application indicates that the proposed housing type will be more attainable and the prices and will be priced for that missing missing middle housing market.

The overall design of the project, because of the smaller, the smaller streets, the lower smaller houses will lower the cost of the cost of the development.

And the proposed housing designs are either two or three bedrooms, ranging from 100 1,600 square feet to 2,025 square feet with two car garages.

The site does require special use for single family because of the property being zone NC, neighborhood commercial.

Um allows for five units per acre, as I spoke earlier about.

So the maximum density on the 11.2 acres is 56 lots.

However, the applicant is proposing only 52 lots, and then they'll have a density of 4.64 units per acre.

Here are some elevations that the applicant provided in their application, along with some floor plans.

And you see that they have primarily three bedrooms on this one.

It's hard to see with the on the screen this way, but you sort of see the layout with the garage in the front.

The parcel has a master plan of commercial and as do the parcels to the south and the parcels across neighborhood way.

The parcels regulatory zoning is neighborhood commercial, as I said earlier, as is the parcel to the south and the parcel to the east across neighborhood way.

The parcels to the west have a regulatory zoning of parks and recreation where Eagle Canyon Park is located, and a regulatory zoning of public semi-public where Shaw Middle School is located.

Excuse me.

Cascades of the Sierra assist assisted living and memory care facility is located to the south, and there is a concrete drainage ditch between the proposed development and neighborhood way.

And here's just showing the master plan.

You can see the light blue, sort of outlining what the proposed that where the site is, and you can see across the street on the left is the master plan, and on the right is the zoning.

So you can see what the zoning is in the area and the master plan.

They are proposing a change on the setbacks and the lot minimums.

So you can see in the first column of it has the setbacks for NC, the front is 15, the rear is 20, and the side is 15.

They're proposing 10 in the front and rear and five on the sides.

And then it will all the houses will be 20 feet in the front from the garage area.

And then they're showing again some reductions in the minimum lot sizes.

So the lot sizes required in NC is 10,000 square feet.

They're proposing 4,000.

Their maximum lot size is 9254, and then the average lot size is 5950, and then the minimum with it's going to be 48.

So there's some variance in what the NC requires versus what they're proposing to do.

Sewer and service will be provided by Washoe County.

I'm sorry, sewer will be provided by Washoe County.

Water will be provided by Tamwa.

Other utilities are already in the area and they're available for the to the for the development.

The closest fire station is station 46, which is approximately one mile from the site at the intersection of Rockwell and La Posada Drive.

The schools that will be served by the development will be Alice Springs Element Taylor, Alice Taylor's Elementary and Shaw Middle School and Spanish Springs High School.

Excuse me, with a center medium and sidewalks on both sides.

The applicant included a traffic impact study and shows that the 52 lots are anticipated to generate approximately 48 weekday peak hour trips, and the overall traffic's not anticipated to have a significant impact to the area.

Here's a layout of the streets, and again, I just want to remind you that these are private streets, so they'll have parking on one side and sidewalks on the other side.

And then here is a layout of the of the development.

They're having a sports court area.

And then the area to the um sort of the southeast is um adjacent to Eagle Canyon Park is going to have a pedestrian trail that will go along the that border.

And then there also there will be a walkway all the way along to the on the right side of the screen up to neighborhood way that will be available for people to walk along up there that it's harder to see.

I didn't maybe I should have put a little flag there, but it's that little short little narrow little pathway up there.

Um the site is fairly flat, however, they are requesting to import 28,500 cubic yards of material, and this amount of material does meet the Washoe County code for exceeding major grading, and that can be sort of wrapped into this tentative map so it can be approved through the 10 tentative map process instead of requiring a special use permit.

Um the proposed grading plans conform with all other standards in Article 438.

And again, the final review ensuring conformance of 438 and all the conditions will occur during that final map and buildings permit stage.

And they go to they need to need to set forth regulations to permit variation of lot sizes, um, include density transfer subdivision in order to preserve or provide open space, protect natural and city resources, achieve a more effective use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community.

Staff has concluded that the applicant does meet the purpose of 408 by providing that open space and achieves a more efficient use of land with the smaller lots and narrow streets.

And I provided a little table there showing the acreage that they're providing and the percentage of the site.

Again, just want to remind you this is a small site, it's only 11 plus acres, so it's not a lot a huge huge site.

Oops.

I apologize.

That was 25, right?

Yeah, I I don't think I have the right date there.

I apologize there.

Ums were sent out to um property owners, and one person participated.

You might have this wrong.

There was a one person at the meeting.

Yeah, there were like five five.

I apologize.

I used the wrong information here.

Um I'm gonna have to have the applicant explain the neighborhood meeting better than I did.

Um so I'm gonna just sort of move past this.

I don't think I think that there was a question about the um projected timeline and the start of conduction, and and if the get um the community be gated, I apologize for that.

I'm a little thrown via that information.

I'm not sure if it's all correct.

I'll let the applicant maybe beef up my neighborhood meeting slide.

Um the property was noticed um 500 feet from the site, and 57 notices were sent out.

I did not receive any emails or phone calls received um concerning this application.

Um again, various agencies have reviewed the application, and the ones with conditions are included in the conditions of approval.

Staff is able to make all the findings as explained in the staff report.

Um I provide a possible motion.

I'm available questions, and the applicant's representative is here, and she has a presentation also.

Thank you.

I think the correct public uh meeting information is contained in the staff report.

I think that the correct information on the date and location information of the public meeting was in the staff report.

So thank you for that.

Can go ahead and make their presentation.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name's Melissa Smith.

I'm a planner with Wood Rogers, and I'm here representing our client Silver Otter Homes in this project.

Julie did such an amazing job with the presentation.

I'm honestly probably gonna gloss over a bunch of my presentation just to avoid being duplicative.

But like she said, the project before you for your consideration is a common open space, tentative subdivision and a special use permit for a single family residential neighborhood.

So yeah, like Julie said in Spanish Springs, 11.21 acres on the west side of neighborhood way.

It's close to Shaw Middle School, it's right next to Eagle Canyon Park, it's a short distance from the high school, and there's a previously approved 157 unit COC project on this site from 2020.

That master plan and zoning Julie went over again just to reiterate the the dwelling or the density allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone is five dwelling units per acre.

So we're seeking the tenant subdivision map and the special use permit.

So here's the tentative subdivision map that we are proposing this evening.

And again, just to reiterate these development statistics, 11.2 on acres and 52 dwelling units, so that's 4.64 dwelling units per acre.

Um, as the staff report says, the lots range in size.

I'm just gonna be general here from about 4,500 square feet to 9500 square feet.

We have an average lot size of 5,950 square feet.

So again, this is a common open space uh subdivision.

So the site as designed is dedicated over two acres of this 11-acre site to common open space.

So again, that equates to 18.5% of the total site area.

And then in terms of parking, the site is very well designed with parking.

The each unit has two enclosed garage spaces as well as two driveway spaces.

So that's four units per four parking spaces per dwelling unit, which is going to come out to 208 parking spaces off the street.

So I want to speak to kind of the the site design elements that are making this more of a boutique style community.

We have the 52 units, and the boutique style is going to be come through these landscape amenities, reduced lot sizes, reduce setbacks, slightly reduced roadways to create a more intimate feeling neighborhood with a gated community.

Again, it'll kind of foster a more um interactive neighborly feel.

So that's what we're going through going for with this boutique style.

So the way we're achieving that through some of these landscape or common open space amenities.

See in the red dots there, we have these landscape impasses at the roadway termini.

There's only one roadway termini where we don't have a landscape impasse.

That's gonna be in the southwest corner, and that's gonna be where that secondary gated emergency access is in orange.

There, you can see we have an amenity area with sport courts and totl.

And as Julie mentioned, there's this existing um utility uh uh area on the west side of the property.

The developers agreed to uh improve that with decomposed granite.

So, what we're essentially doing is creating a trailway on the west side of this property.

There's an existing trailway that terminates at the northern property boundary coming from the subdivision to the north, and so this will essentially create a trail connectivity from the north property line down through the south to the continuum of care or the memory care facility to the south.

So we have a trailway that's outside of the gated portion of this community that's actually accessible to the public.

So adding some public um public recreation activity or uh connectivity here.

Oh, wrong way.

One more there we go.

Additionally, on the south side, there's just like a little green circle there, but um extend that along the whole south uh southern boundary.

Um, there'll be a pedestrian walkway that's um part of this pro uh project that'll be uh all the way from the east to the west side of the property.

This is also gonna be outside of the gated portion of the community.

So this is an accessible pedestrian pathway for the general public that's gonna connect neighborhood way over to Eagle Canyon Drive.

So we have two different improvements here that actually give the public um additional recreation connectivity.

Then in blue on the map, there you can see that we'll have landscape parkway.

So along neighborhood way, there'll be a substantial landscape parkway, and then also portions of the internal roadways will have landscape parkways as well.

At the entrance, we'll have a wider gated entrance.

So a wider roadway, gated, we'll have landscape medians with a turnaround.

We'll have landscape parkways on both sides of the entranceways.

We'll also have sideways on the both sidewalks on the both sides of the entranceways.

The frequency of street trees is more intense on the on the entryway parkway.

So we're really creating a parkway with a maybe a canopy, a really nice entranceway into this community.

There'll be two pedestrian gates.

This is a little hard to see on the map.

They're brown circles, one's in the northwest corner and one's in the southwest corner.

These are gonna be um locked pedestrian gates to allow uh the residents to access the site, access the trail.

There's another one at the southwest corner where you see the cursor right now.

That one's also gonna be a gated pedestrian, so you'll have an um uh gated emergency vehicular access as well as a locked pedestrian pathway gate.

And last of a minimum of one street tree per linear feet.

Um, I think it's interesting.

There's no um a street tree requirement for single family residential, but there is a residential street tree requirement in code, which is one tree per 50 linear feet if I have that right.

So we're actually exceeding code substantially with our street tree um allotment.

Yeah, so just to summarize, see these all these together in concert with the reduced development standards, kind of again create this boutique style character for the neighborhood, if that makes sense.

To speak to traffic briefly, so we have um the threshold for a traffic study in Washoe County, I believe, is 80 peak hour trips, and as Julia mentioned, our traffic study indicates, or we did a traffic study, even though um it indicated we only have 48 p.m.

peak hour trips.

So this is gonna be a gated community, which means that all the roadways that are serving the site internally are gonna be private roadways, they're gonna be maintained by the HOA, they're not gonna be a responsibility of the county.

So those roadways are 30.5 feet designed from back of curb to back of curb with a four-foot, sorry, that's wrong, a foot 30.5 feet internal roadways, and that's going to include a four-foot sidewalk on one side, a minimum of 20 foot drive aisle, street parking on the other side.

The primary access is via neighborhood way, it's gonna be again gated.

The intersection that will provide primary access already exists there on neighborhood way, it kind of turns already into the site, and then as I mentioned on the previous slide, there will be the secondary access, it's gonna be an emergency only access, and it's along the southern boundary.

Okay, so the traffic impact study did not indicate that any improvements are recommended, and as Julie said, Um the level of service of the intersections is actually well, so disregard here.

All right, and to summarize and just kind of touch on the many reasons why the site is incredibly suitable for this uh this project.

Um, as we already mentioned, there's there's senior housing going across the street, continue uh memory care to the south, there's a school to the to the west, there or yeah, to the west, there's a park to the west, and there's single family to the north.

In the scheme of things, this site is incredibly compatible for a single family residential neighborhood.

It's in the in build in field development, the site has flat slopes, it's ideal for development.

There's existing utility infrastructure, there's an existing paved intersection.

Um, the improvements that are proposed with this design increase pedestrian connectivity to the park and the school for the public and the residents of this community.

This site now can act as a transition zone between the single family residential to the north and the higher density continuum of care senior senior housing to the south.

And additionally, the site's already approved for development at three times the density that we're currently proposing.

So, in general, I just say this is an amazingly suitable site for the project.

Um, my again, I'm my name's Melissa.

I'm a representative applicant.

I'm here if you have any questions.

We also have the applicant here if you have any questions and um representatives from our engineering staff.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh any questions from the board for staff or the applicant or their representatives.

If not, do we have any public comment on this item?

I have no public comment in chambers.

I have one hand raised on Zoom.

Felix, please state your last uh first and last name for the record.

And on mute, please cadetch.

Go ahead, Felix.

Yeah, um the roundabout there at uh Eagle Canyon and neighborhood way.

Um what I understand, there's gonna be no um, there were no recommendations uh for improvement there.

That intersection is already a raceway.

Um I understand that these parcels uh you know have been approved or they're going to be approved for whatever buildings going on.

Um but something needs to be done there.

There's already been this past year or 2025, but I don't know how many accidents there.

Uh so when I hear that there will be no significant traffic impact.

Uh you need to be there when school's in session and when school's letting out and regular commuter hours uh to see how bad it actually is.

So that is my concern right there.

Uh I have no problem with uh with the units uh going in.

Um actually those gated communities are actually quite nice.

So um uh that's that's my part right there.

Yeah, I'd like to hear what somebody has to say about that.

Thank you.

I have no further hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you.

Any uh discussion from the board.

All right, I'll start off with the tentative subdivision motion.

I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

Washoe County Planning Commission approved the tentative subdivision map, case number WTM 25-002 for ETL investments LLC with the conditions included as exhibited to this matter, having made all 10 findings in accordance with the Washhaw County Code section 110.608.25.

This is Rob will second it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Didn't well you voted we did.

You do you have a vote on the well we we had a motion and a second.

Uh I called for votes.

Did you are do you vote yay or nay?

Well uh basically I don't like the five-foot side yard setback.

Uh Commissioner Flick, could you please speak into the microphone?

Yeah, thank you.

I was concerned about the side yard setback.

That's basically roughly a width of a sidewalk.

And you got so you got 10 feet max in this, even though the density has been reduced from what was approved before.

I get that, and I like that.

But I don't know how much privacy one has with that type of side yard setback.

You know, I was also concerned about the the traffic.

Um particularly with the roundabout.

That's that's one issue dumping another almost 500 cars a day on the pyramid in its 50 50 peak hours.

I said five daily trips was 573.

Okay.

Uh anyway, um pyramid can't take any more traffic.

All right.

Um, do you vote yay or nay?

Do you vote in favor of the subdivision map motion or against it?

Well, the way our laws are set up, I guess I have to vote for it.

I don't like it.

Okay.

But uh I will vote for it.

All right.

The first motion carries unanimously.

Anyone like to make the a motion in regards to the special use permit application?

Mr.

Rob, I guess I'll do it.

I moved that after giving recent consideration and information continue staff report.

Special use permit case number WSUP 25.0022 for ETL investments LLC with the conditions included in exhibit A in this matter.

Having made all five findings in accordance with Washington County Code Section 110.810.30.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

Commissioner Lazaruski.

Uh all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed the motion carries unanimously.

Teacher, because we're going in going to a big project.

Can we take a five-minute break?

Is that possible or maybe 10 minutes?

Uh let's make it 10.

So we'll reconvene at seven o'clock on the back.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Let's go home.

Like to call this January 6, 2026, meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission back to order.

We are on to item 8D on the agenda.

Mr.

Lloyd.

Yeah, item 8D is tentative subdivision map.

Case number WTM 24001 and special use permit case number WSUP 250019 for Sierra Reflections.

For hearing discussion and possible action to approve a common open space tentative subdivision map for a 940-lot common open space development with lots ranging in size from uh 2,876 square feet to 68,000 square feet.

The project will include major grading of 3.6 million cubic yards of excavation and 625,000 cubic yards of fill.

This project meets the standard for the uh for a project of regional significance because it contains houses uh housing of more than 625 units, uh sewage uh use greater than 800, I'm sorry, 187,500 gallons per day, water usage greater than six hundred and twenty-five acre feet per year, and traffic counts greater than an average of sixty-two fifty trips daily.

As such, any approval of the planning commission is provisional, subject to the um Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission's finding that a uh the project is in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

The applicant also seeks to uh approval of special use permits for utility services that include water tanks and two lift stations and three bridge crossings over the sensitive stream zone and the critical stream zone buffers for Steamboat Creek and Browns Creek.

And represent uh representing Washoe County in this matter is senior planner Chris Bronzick.

And before I get started, I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge um all the hard work from staff and uh all of our partnering agencies uh in analyzing and evaluating this project.

It was, as you can uh can attest, it was uh a very complicated project.

Uh but the staff work diligently with the applicants to make sure that there was a complete and thorough application uh so that you have um a thorough staff report in order to make an informed decision tonight.

So with that, uh Chris Bronzik will be presenting for for Washoe County.

Thank you.

Um we're looking at WTM 24-001 and WSUP 25-0019.

This is for the Sierra Reflections tentative map and the infrastructure associated with the tentative map.

So I'm gonna start with the background first before I get into the actual request, because the background's a little um extensive and can be a little complicated.

So prior to 1984, these parcels in question related to this subdivision were zoned towards commercial and general rural.

And in 1984, the applicant received approval for a project also called Sierra Reflections, and this was for a 250-room hotel, a casino, and a 550-unit condominium.

At this time it was uh resort hotel and later tourist commercial.

So during the 2002 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan update, the City of Reno proposed to include this project within their sphere of influence.

And there was a agreement that was had between the county and the city of Reno to rezone it or downzone it to a less intense residential use.

That ultimately did happen.

Uh because the county did initiate a comprehensive plan amendment.

Um had the county not acted on this requirement, the city of Rena would have assumed jurisdictional control back over these parcels.

Um when this comprehensive plan went through review, it was uh unanimously approved by the Galena Steamboat Citizen Advisory Board in May of 2004.

And it was approved by the planning commission in July of 2004 with a vote of five to two uh the BCC did hold a public hearing in August of 2004 and a subsequent hearing in September of 2004, which ultimately resulted in the approval of the land designations that we see today.

This was then reviewed by regional, and regional found this to be in conformance with their comprehensive plan at the time.

And then in 2005, there was a request for a special use permit to construct sanitary sewer lines to serve this project.

And the previous approvals associated with the Sierra Reflections Subdivision.

So the Washoe County Planning Commission approved a very similar subdivision that's being heard today in May of 2006.

Regional found it in conformance in June of 2006.

And there were multiple extensions and amendment of conditions associated with this project that extended that deadline to June 14th, 2022.

Ultimately, this the old Sierra Reflections subdivision did expire, and the current submitted Sierra Reflections has had to come back, meet all current standards, which as of today were greater than what was originally heard.

So with the background out of the way, uh the request.

So the request is for uh 760 acres over 29 parcels to be created into a common open space subdivision.

There are 940 proposed lots, and the current regulatory zones exist as was approved by that comprehensive amendment plan.

And that is medium density suburban, which allows for a density of three dwellings per acre, low density suburban, which allows for one dwelling per acre, medium density rural, which allows for uh sorry, five dwellings per acre, and general rural, which allows for one dwelling per 40 acre, as well as public semi-public, which does not allow any residential density.

Uh the current proposal does have uh varied amounts of lots sizes from 2,867 square feet to 60,000 uh 68,08 square feet.

The average lot size is 9,402 square feet.

And then there are three special use permits associated with this.

The first is for two 375,000 water tanks, uh 375,000 gallon water tanks, two uh sewer lift stations, and three bridge crossings that cross over the critical stream buffer, which are um part of the significant hydrological resources.

So this is an outline of what the tentative map uh will look like once is fully built out.

The underlying density uh as just purely by the underlying zoning allows for 1,083 units, and it's located between Pleasant Valley and Washoe City, and it's adjacent to old US 395.

So before you is just the density chart associated with the underlying uh regulatory zones.

So this is a common open space development as outlined by Article 408.

Common open space developments do allow for minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, and lot setbacks all to be modified as long as the applicants meet certain required findings associated with a common open space.

So one of the more common uses of common open space is to cluster development in areas that are more appropriate for uh development as a whole.

And the required findings that they are uh they need to meet are preserving or providing open space, protect natural and scenic resources, achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community.

As mentioned, the applicants can modify uh lot sizes, lot dimensions, etc.

And so I'm not gonna go through each individual um setback variation, but this is the chart.

This is also found within the staff report of all the varied standards that they're varied setbacks and uh lot modifications they are requesting as part of this subdivision.

So this is a project of regional significance, and those project of regional significant triggers are 625 unit housing units or greater, a sewage use greater than 187,500 gallons per day, water usage greater than 625 acre feet per year, and traffic counts greater than an average of 6,250 trips per daily.

And if Washoe County's uh Planning Commission does approve this, it would have to go to regional for their conformance review.

So the applicant is proposing to phase this subdivision.

The phasing is in five parts, and the planned build out is over 15 to 20 years.

Now, this is the desired phasing path from the applicants, but there are no conditions or anything tying them to this exact phasing.

But within uh by phase three, the bulk of the subdivision would be developed.

So as part of a common open space development, part of that is encouraging the sense of community and preserving open space.

What the applicants have done as part of uh their request is they've provided substantial trails associated with the subdivision.

So we've got eight miles of paved and unpaved pedestrian pathways.

We've got 2.2 miles of equestrian trails, which also includes uh equestrian parking or trailer parking.

And these will be maintained by the HOA for any areas that don't ultimately get dedicated to the county.

Additionally, as part of that common open space development standard and requirements is um again encouraging that sense of community, which comes with amenities, and some of those amenities are in the forms of neighborhood parks and pocket parks.

So they are proposing a neighborhood park or community park that is just under 15 acres and two pocket parks just under five acres.

And these will include items such as turf areas, uh youth play areas, picnic areas, and social game areas, and these will also be maintained by the HOA, if not dedicated or accepted by Washoe County.

So, as part of this request, there's a substantial amount of grading associated with this project, and a lot of that grading comes from the remediation associated with this project.

The applicant is proposing to cut or excavate 3.6 million cubic yards of uh dirt.

They're proposing a fill of 4.225 million cubic yards and a net fill of 625,000 cubic yards.

The uh proposed excavation will be used to fill on site.

Uh they're also proposing a max cut of 66.8 feet and a max fill of 67.1 feet.

There were seven major grading thresholds triggered as part of this request.

This project does trigger hillside development within Washa County's code, and there are 429 acres associated with all the parcels in question that are considered most developable or in that zero to 15 slope range, 177 acres that are in moderately developable areas of 15 to 30 percent uh slopes, and then 153 acres uh on slopes exceeding 30 percent as part as required by Article 424 hillside development, the applicant did submit all their required documentation associated with this article.

So there are biological resources associated with this, and the applicant submitted a uh substantial biological resource assessment dated from April 23, 2025.

It included the project boundary plus a quarter mile buffer, and it identified um with the potential to occur in analysis area and mitigation measures associated with certain special species, such as golden eagles, bald eagles, and monarch butterflies.

Additionally, Endow did review and provide comments concerning a wildlife mitigation plan and wildlife friendly fencing.

So the Sierra Reflections properties are part of the Carson River Mercury Superfund site, which was identified by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

The mercury contaminated soils were due to historic mining areas and milling within this location.

And there were 449 samples that were collected from across the site and analyzed, and 81 exceeded the residential action level for mercury, while 16 exceeded the commercial action level.

The applicant did submit a draft remediation action plan, which was prepared by UES.

And this does include remedial action associated with all grading activities, as well as information on buried utility locations, depths, as well as capping the mercury impacted soils with an eight-foot clean soil cap.

And that eight-foot clean soil cap is also where the bulk of that grading quantities comes from.

So there was a cultural resources document that was submitted to the county.

There was a cultural resources document that was submitted when the original application came through as well back in 2006.

And there were total of 49 archaeological sites within the project boundary.

With the one of the statements that came from this cultural resources document is that all previously identified cultural resources that qualified for the historic register uh national register for historic places have been mitigated and require no further consideration.

We did receive a letter from Rena Sparks Indian Colony today regarding this project.

While they are not a regulatory agency, staff is going to be incorporating some of their conditions within the conditions of approval document, and we'll get to those conditions a little further in this presentation.

There was also a geotechnical report and soils report that was submitted as part of this.

It analyzed the faulting, the geology and the soils of the site, and it determined that the site was suitable for development and recommended the infrastructure not contact the faults.

Washoe County Engineering did review this hydrology and water quality report, and they did submit five conditions associated with these items.

This project did go through Washoo County School District to review any impacts associated with 940 unit subdivision.

This subdivision is zoned for Pleasant Valley Elementary School, Hears Middle School, and Galena High School.

Washa County School District does not intend to have any school or do not have planned for any schools to be built as part of the Sierra Reflections development.

Instead, they did state that the schools that exist would uh are projected to have available capacity to serve the students generated by this proposal.

If I could please have the folks not presenting, refrain from making comments until it is your turn to speak.

Thank you.

So the school district did provide a student generation of 63 students for the elementary school, 42 students for middle school, and 61 students for the high school for a total of 166 students.

The school district did submit a safe schools safe schools document to the county.

Related to that document, and the applicants did agree to incorporate some of these safe routes to schools conditions.

And those safe route to school conditions have been memorialized within our conditions of approval.

So emergency services for the project will initially be provided by the East Washoe Valley High School Fire Station located at 1240 East Lake Boulevard.

This fire service is expected to transition to the currently planned Washoe Valley Consolidated Fire Station.

And there's a little history behind that fire station.

So in 2023, a special use permit was approved for this facility.

And in 2025, earlier this year, there was an amendment of conditions to extend that approval due to delays in obtaining funding.

And so they have an approval through July 7th, 2029.

As part of this application, the fire district is requiring the applicant to explore and evaluate funding mechanisms to support the construction of a consolidated fire station.

And that is a condition of approval as well.

So there's a lot of questions related to sewer and water associated with this project.

Sewer will end up at uh Stonewharf, and Stonewharf does has have capacity to uh for this development.

The project is responsible to construct the force main through Pleasant Valley and tie into the existing Washoe County infrastructure, and water will connect through the existing St.

James Village.

The applicant did submit a traffic study, traffic report associated with this subdivision.

It's projected to generate approximate approximately 8,864 daily trips with a PM peak hour trip of 658 and a 884 AM.

I'm sorry, uh 658 AM peak trips and 884 peak PM trips.

As part of that traffic study, there were multi-lane roundabouts that were recommended at the St.

James Parkway US 395 intersection and the East Lake Boulevard and US 395 intersection.

At total build out without the roundabouts, the level of service associated with this road would be uh LOS of F.

However, with the roundabouts, it would bring it up into conformance with an LOS of D.

There were substantial public comment associated with this project.

Um there was a uh bullet in one of my earlier slides.

Umfortunately, it went on the wrong slide, but we received a petition earlier today, um, and through count, it looked like there was about six one thousand six hundred and one signatures associated with that petition.

Additionally, we received eight public comments via email uh between yesterday and today, and an additional 51 emails and one voicemail uh when this project first started.

We also received 37 comments that were submitted through the neighborhood meeting hub site.

Um all public comments so far that we have received was in is in opposition to this proposed project.

Folks, uh, I'm gonna ask again, can we please let the folks presenting uh do their bit, and then when it's your turn to speak, we will all respect your time and space as well.

Thank you.

So there were three neighborhood meetings held in 2024, one on June 20th, one on June uh July 22nd, and one on August 2nd.

There were additional neighborhood open house held in April of 2025.

All these meetings that took place were held at the South Valleys Library.

As part of these neighborhood meetings, uh some of the concerns that were provided were water resources, traffic and access, schools, infrastructure costs, environmental health, public safety, environmental impacts, community character, lot sizes, and recreation and trails.

So before we move on to the amended conditions, I just want to note that many of these concerns related to the neighborhood meeting that came out of the neighborhood meetings were spoken about within the staff report in various locations.

So currently we are proposing to amend one condition within plannings conditions of approval to add the tribal historic preservation office of the Reno Sparks Indian Colony shall be notified at the same time.

So that's the new language associated with any cairn or grave of a Native American be discovered during development.

This is a standard uh condition within all subdivisions.

And as mentioned earlier, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony did provide conditions of approval associated with this proposal.

Staff is proposing to add five of those conditions to the uh exhibit A, which is conditions of approval, and then will be under plannings approvals.

So some of these are related to if artifacts or burial sites are discovered, they would get uh will not be destroyed or removed until SHIPO, the State Historic Preservation Office comes, or Reno Sparks Indian Colony has been notified, as well as requiring the applicant uh and their representatives to consult with the Reno Sparks Indian Colony prior to the final map recordation, among others.

We're also proposing an amended condition within the CC and R'section of Planning's condition.

This is related to the excavation depth limitation.

So that with that eight foot soil cap, that clean soil cap, we're requiring CCNRs to prohibit uh digging or excavating greater than four feet.

And if there is any sort of utility or any other thing that would need to go deeper than four feet, they would have to go through approval, uh prior approval by the county engineer and would have to meet the uh remediation uh remedial action plan.

We're also prohibiting in ground pools or basements.

This project was noticed for 500 feet at 58 property owners.

And staff was able to make all tentative map findings.

Uh those findings are plan consistency, design or improvement, type of development, availability of services, fish or wildlife, public health, easements, access, dedication, and energy.

Again, there are uh required findings associated with the special use.

Staff was able to make all these required findings.

That is consistency, improvements, site suitability, issuance not detrimental, and effect on a military installation.

And lastly, there are required findings associated with common open space.

And again, staff was able to make all these required findings, preserve or provide open space, protect natural and scenic resources, achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community.

I've provided a possible motion for you on screen.

Uh staff is recommending approval with conditions.

I do have uh planner Tim Evans, who works considerably on this project alongside me, as well as representatives from Truckee Meadows Fire, engineering, and Northern Nevada Public Health who are with me to be able to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation of their own at this time?

Yes, we do.

And good evening for the record.

My name is Ken Crater with Crater Consulting Group.

I am representing the ownership group in this project, and I have been involved in Sierra Flection since the original tenant map was developed and put together back in 2005 and 2006.

First, I want to just state why we're here.

Our previously approved tenant of map for Sierra Reflections expired a few years ago as the project was approved in June 2006, as Chris had mentioned, heading into the Great Recession, with local development projects largely shutting down for well over 10 years.

The 2006 approval dealt with Reno's 2002 threat of annexation based on the county's 1984 approval that it was amended in 1992, which ultimately allowed for a 350 room hotel casino, 400 condominiums, and a golf course.

As ownership also wanted to remain in the county, we supported the county's efforts to approve a comprehensive plan amendment in 2004 to revert the land back to its original residential zoning.

Then in 2006, we applied for a tentative map for 938 residential units, which was approved, confirming the technical issues existing in 2006 could be addressed.

We are now before you with the new tenant of map to bring this project current after an 18 month intensive and detailed process working with county staff to ensure compliance with today's county code and regulations and consistent with current home building practices.

Those have certainly trained changed too in the uh last 20 or so years.

All the policy issues were decided decades ago.

Therefore, the task at hand is to analyze the technical issues associated with a tentative map and special use permit for utility infrastructure and three bridge crossings.

We put together a first class team to help us with technical challenges on this project.

We have the Bowman Group to help a civil engineering UES for mercury and environmental calendar for landscaping parks and trails design, terra phase for drainage and hydrology, confluence water resources for hydrogeology, and GCW for traffic and highway design.

A little bit of the project background, history, and some key project issues.

After the 2004 comprehensive plan amendment reverted the land back to its residential original residential zoning, the owner's consulting team went to work to develop a first class residential project.

The team worked to retain the charm, beauty, and bucolic nature of the site, with 448 acres of the 760 acre project to remain as common open space, truly a common open space development.

The project was designed to avoid the critical stream zones for Steamboat Creek and Browns Creek, minimize impacts to the sensitive stream zones, and avoid steam slopes, steep slopes, as Chris had mentioned.

A big concern on this project is flooding.

As an example of how we are addressing some of these technical issues, our team designed drainage improvements that include detention basins and containment of streamboat creek flows within the critical and sensitive stream zones to comply with county drainage requirements.

And essentially the improvements will allow for a 300-foot-wide minimum channel width along Steamboat Creek within the meadow area, which often exceed 400, close to 500 feet in width along portions of the creek.

Upon completion of these improvements, in accordance with county requirements and upon FEMA approval of a letter of map revision or LOMAR, the flood zone for the site will be altered such that no homes will be built in the regulatory flood zone.

The FEMA and county approval process, and this is important, requires verification that water surface elevations will not be increased for upstream or downstream properties.

Another key issue in 2006 and presently working with engineering staff on reach four three and reach for sanitary sewer interceptor lines.

This was an issue back in the original tenant of map in 2006.

And thanks to the leadership of Duane Smith, Washoe County engineer, REACH 3, which basically goes through the South Meadows area, is now designed and funded, and a contractor has been selected.

Reach four, the responsibility of this project, Sierra Flections, has been 30% designed, and those plans have been reviewed by Washoe County.

And this exhibit shows the route that basically now will follow the old highway US 395A from the site up to the Steamboat Creek area.

Other areas of key key areas of concern include traffic, potential for flooding, which we discussed, the public water system, environmental concerns, a public trail system that included access over the old VT railroad alignment that runs through the property, construction hours, lot size matching along Pawnee Lane, maintaining a high quality development, and minimizing fire danger.

The current application called for additional focus on the public water system, and we work closely with the Trucking Meadows Water Authority to obtain a water discovery to allow for development of a robust public water system that will meet Tumwa's 50-year sustainability plan.

And this is important.

That 50-year sustainability plan is really a key emphasis with Temwa to make sure that uh the water improvements that they do will be sustainable for a minimum of 50 years.

Both Tumwa and the state engineer approval will be required to ensure a new public water wells do not negatively impact existing domestic wells.

And I believe uh that Chris received an email today from David Kershaw at Tumwa, basically verifying that they do not believe that any domestic wells will be impacted.

Temwa is requiring water wells to include an Aqua for storage and recharge component to allow for recharge of the Okford during non-teak peak times to help meet that 50-year sustainability goal.

So basically, in the winter months and nighttime hours of the summer, you're able to take water in that public water system and recharge it back into the aquifer for additional storage to recharge at Aqua to make sure that again it always has water when you need it during the peak times of summer watering season.

Also, fire, big issue, and we met a couple times with the fire department and the fire chief.

Uh this project is in a higher hazard fire areas, and because of that, the project will be built in accordance with the International Wildland Interface Code using what's called a class one ignition resistance standards.

And basically, what this means is that all aspects of the exterior of the building are built to resist fire.

Uh, the the roofing, the siding, boxing in the eaves, everything within the home is designed such that there is a wildfire that a spark or ember lands on the roof or on the siding, that it doesn't ignite the home.

And uh, this has been proven across the country to be very effective in preventing homes to catch on fire during these wildfire events.

We'll also comply with the wildland urban interface area requirements for landscaping and vegetation, and not just within the lots, but within the buffer of the project to basically provide an additional fire break for those wildfires that do break out in this area.

We also agreed to pay our pro-ratishair for the proposed new Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District fire station in Washoe City that Chris discussed, and we'll continue to work closely with the department on this issue to make sure that that station is funded and built per the condition.

UES, our environmental consultant, was engaged to study the mercury issue and come up with significant mitigations to address Washoe County and Northern Nevada public health concerns by placing soil-containing mercury that exceeds EPA action levels in common open space areas away from the residential homes, also identified as beneficial reuse areas, and again to achieve an eight-foot separation, that soil cap, and that's double what other area projects have been approved at at four feet.

An eight cap, eight-foot cap is very significant.

As in 2006, we worked hard to develop a neighborhood where future residents will want to live with safe streets, beautiful and well-designed public parks, miles of public trails that include equestrian trails, and again, horse trailer parking, and preservation of over 60% of the site is open space.

This project required many complex decisions to be made by staff along with input from our tech technical experts that took considerable time and effort, including how to mitigate the mercury-laden soils, to ensure public health and minimize liability issues for Washoe County and the developer, minimizing fire risk, grading and roadway design issues, and protecting the environment.

And I too want to thank staff for their hard work and solid decision-making process that will make sea reflections an even better project by ensuring public health and safety and providing for sound and cost-effective and public improvements to benefit both future residents and existing Pleasant Valley residents with all of our public trails and parks.

And with that, I'd like to turn it over to uh Dave Snellgrove with the Bowman Group to provide additional uh comments on technical issues on the case.

Good evening for the record, Dave Stengrove with Bowman Consulting.

I would like to point out Chris put up a notification area that was sent out for this meeting when we did our neighborhood meetings.

We went considerably farther.

Uh we went out, I think it was a mile or a mile and a half, both north and south.

We had a lot of mailers that we sent out.

We knew there would be quite a bit of interest, so I did want to point that out.

In terms of the master plan and zoning, uh, Chris covered what our designations are.

We're allowed to have 10 uh 1,083 homes per the zoning and the density allowed.

Um we're at 940 total lots.

We are not asking for a master plan amount.

We are not asking for a zone change.

We are not asking for this land to be annexed anywhere.

That that was covered in a lot of the history that you heard earlier about how this project came to be in terms of its form and format.

Uh the Article 804, one of our application requests is or 408 is uh for common open space development.

This top one and the purpose, uh Chris covered it, but I think it's very important to look at.

Um the purpose of this is to permit variation lot size, including density transfer subdivisions in order to preserve provide open space, which we are doing, protect natural and scenic resources, which we are doing, uh achieve more efficient use of land, which we are doing.

Minimize the road building, we are doing that, and encourage a sense of community.

We've got most of the homes uh push or over towards the eastern side of the site.

That side tends to be a little bit more in what you consider to be a suburban, which these properties are zone medium density and low density suburban, and the regional plan identifies this area as being suburban, not rural.

So I want to point out that we're meeting all these purpose elements that are in Article 408.

Um, and this is allowed under any residential uh land use category, and we shall not exceed the total number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zoning.

Remember, 1,083 is the allowed uh number of units on the property per the existing legal right for development zoning, and we're at 940.

So it's been mentioned in both other presentations, the 60 percent open space.

That's over 450 acres of of the 760 acres of property.

The one thing I'd like to point out here, I understand there was some discussion going around and trying to look at having the state come in and buy the property.

Well, the state would have to invest a lot of money in order to do that.

With the development of this, you get 60 percent of this property that comes in basically in a park light setting with trails with parks that are all publicly accessible.

So nothing has to come out of the out of the community's coffers or the state's coffers, the county's coffers in order to have access to this.

One of the big elements that we have in in the plan is the VNT Railroad Trail.

Um, that will be a multi-use trail that'll connect from north part of our property down south.

It holds that potential to ultimately connect all the way down to Little Washoe Lake, it would have to get under the uh under the highway, but there is a property you can see down at the south end, there's a triangular piece of property that's not owned by this property.

If and when that does something or an easement can be gotten through there.

That can create a significant trail corridor because that would go all the way up through steamboat through this property and connecting to Browns Creek.

Um, so these do connect to other lands and ultimately to federal land.

The reason that the layout works really well, um the zero to 15% slopes, those green areas on the map are the most suitable areas for development.

This the layout of this site hasn't changed drastically from 2006 to 2000 2025, 2026 now, in large part because we're working with those most developable areas.

The yellow and orange areas, which are kind of harder to see on this map, uh, those are the 15 to 30 15 to 30 percent slopes, and the red areas are 30 percent or steeper.

What you can notice about this is where we have the lots and roads, trying to focus on those zero to 15 percent slope areas, which are considered by the county and by regional planning to be the most suitable areas for development.

There will be a little egg to it.

There will be uh three points of access.

One will the yellow one would be an access that goes up and down and be gated access into St.

James Village, similar to the way the other access points to St.

James Village are.

That could provide an emergency access.

There are wildfires out here, we're aware of that.

Ken mentioned the uh the what wildland urban interface standards that we have to meet, and uh that would provide uh potentially another way out in the case of an emergency.

Our two primary access points are in purple, and those are with the roundabouts on the site in three park areas.

Uh oh.

There it is.

Uh we've gone through the trails.

The safe route is a school program.

I don't think that that Chris or anyone went through this.

This goes up on the north side of our property.

You can see the one-acre lots there adjacent to Pond Pony Lane, and then it would access up, and there's appropriate signage that was discussed both with Worcester County School District and with the uh Washer County staff in terms of laying this out.

We do believe that all the all the conditions can be met for all the conditions and legal findings can be met.

We're accepting of the conditions as presented, and we are available for any questions.

We have a team of technical experts that can answer anything for you that you need to have answered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um do we have any questions from the board for staff or the applicant or their representatives?

All right.

Well, let's proceed with the public comment.

Mr.

Chair, before we go to public comment, um, just wanted to provide a little bit of history or background to this property that uh this board does uh may or may not uh be familiar with, but back in the early 2000s, uh the city of Reno was aggressively expanding uh and annexing much of the county uh at the time this property, as well as thousands of acres directly north, were located within the sphere of influence, and this property was subject to uh a settlement agreement, as uh the county was uh uh also aggressively trying to stop the expansion um, especially south into uh Washoe Valley.

And as part of that settlement agreement, uh there was a requirement for Washoe County to amend to the comprehensive plan at the time.

Uh they had three options.

One uh two of the options were to maintain the entitlement for the uh the hotel casino.

The third option was to uh to uh change the uh the land use and the zoning to uh essentially not to exceed three units per acre.

So that's why you're seeing uh the the intent the density that's currently on the property.

But as a result, had that uh had Washoe County not taken action, these properties as well as the thousands of acres north of this property would have remained uh within the city of Reno sphere of influence and ultimate ultimately been annexed into the city.

So I just wanted to share that uh bit of history with this property.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Uh for public comment, everybody gets three minutes.

Let's try to respect the speaker and let them speak.

If someone before you has made the comments that you want to make, you're entitled to your three minutes to repeat them, or you are welcome to just uh state your agreement with previous comments.

First up in chambers, I have Curtis Coulter, followed by Judy Coulter.

And please state your first and last name for the record.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Curtis Coulter.

I'm a resident of Washoe County.

Thank you.

My name is Curtis Coulter.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for giving us the time.

Uh I want to show that the Sierra Reflections building placement and designs are not compliance with Article 424 of the hillside development.

Article 425, Section 30A building location states that the following standards are intended to encourage compatibility between development and the existing hillside and vegetation character.

I want to show you exhibit one.

There you go.

Exhibit one shows the structure should be located on the natural slope of the land rather than man-made pads or terraces.

Matter of fact, right here, you can see exactly what the green line is up there.

That's right the way the county says we're supposed to do it.

It's not to be terraced.

As we move forward, uh section 30A5 states projects with multiple building site structures should be sighted in stay in staggered arrangements and height variation to minimize walled effect.

So it should be sloped, not staged.

And in this case, we know that they want to use uh rockery walls to in to include this sloped or terraced uh configuration.

Uh section 30b, the building design states that following standards are intended to encourage building designs that are compatible with the character of hillsides and ridgeline to minimize alteration of the natural landforms.

Section 30 B1 states split pad stepped foundation shall be encouraged so that the building step up or step down with a natural slope.

Again, there's a picture of it right there.

This section describes other methods to emphasize the natural hillside, including using decks and small uh patios to reduce the amount of grading, designing structures to blend into the natural character of the hillside, and using roof designs to reflect the visual diversity of the natural hillsides.

This exhibit shows how the county intends to have the pads cut, so they're they're scaggered.

They're going to follow this contour as opposed to being terraced, which is the proposed plan here.

Section 30F lot configuration states that the following standards are intended to ensure plating of new lots which reflect the natural character of the hillside properties.

Again, here they want to cut over three and a half million cubic yards of soil so that they can have so that they can have flat tops.

And that's only about 20 feet.

They want to go 67 feet.

That will alter the natural visual lines as we're driving through Washoe Valley.

Section 30 F2 requires building envelopes, disturbed areas and undisturbed areas for each created lot to be shown on the tentative map.

As you can see on this slope here, when they talk about the setback for uh green use or for open use, what it shows right there is that that's just sorry, sir.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Who's next?

Next, we have Judy Coulter followed by Beverly Silva.

My notes being part of the record, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no more.

Can you hear me now?

Okay.

My name is Judy Coulter, and I'd like to have my uh exhibits and comments entered into the record, please.

I will show that extensive and indiscriminate grading causes Sierra Reflections to be out of compliance with Article.

Let's see, is that not?

What's going on?

Oh, there we go.

With uh Article 424 Hillside Development.

The table displayed shows the major grading the applicant is proposing.

Note the massive grading amounts in all areas of this application.

If approved, these grading levels are also approved.

This shows the map you see is the Sierra Reflections proposed cut fill plan.

And actually, I think it's been updated because these numbers are lower than what's been stated in the approval in the permit.

Um the green and red are cut areas and the filled areas are blue and violet.

The darker the color, the greater the grading.

The applicant, through massive grading with no consideration for the existing topography, proposes to cut and fill the terrain to create terraces with two to three percent slopes in all areas where houses will be built.

The action is out of compliance with Article 424 Hillside Development.

Section 00 policy states this article establishes provisions for developing, preserving, and protecting hillsides and ridgelines.

The following methods are used.

Subsection B, minimizing the careless alteration of and just disruption to the natural topography and landscape.

E encouraging innovative grading techniques and building design which respond to hillside uh terrain and natural contours of the land.

H minimizing impacts on prominent ridgelines, significant view sheds, canyons, and visually prominent rock outcroppings which reflect the visual value and scenic character of hillside areas.

A phenomenal view.

Let's see, table 10110438.10.1 identifies this requirement.

One, grading shall relate to natural topography with the natural topography maintained to the greatest extent possible.

Two, where alteration to the natural topography.

Well, I've submitted my comments for your review, but this doesn't matter.

Maybe your time is up.

You have to thank you.

It doesn't meet the standards.

Next we have Beverly Silva followed by Larry Moulton.

Good evening.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

My name is Beverly Silva, and I'm a homeowner in St.

James Village.

I am here tonight because the same developer proposing the Sierra Reflections project is the developer responsible for St.

James's Village, and its history should be of great concern to you.

This developer began the St.

James Village Project in 1992.

For more than 30 years, residents were promised amenities such as an equestrian center, a hotel, and a golf course.

These amenities were used to market the community, yet they never materialized.

To this day, St.

James Village is still half built out.

The developer has repeatedly requested extensions on tentative maps, allowing him to avoid financial responsibilities for known infrastructure issues.

Most notably, Trucking Meadows Water Authority has determined the existing water tree system must be converted to the loop system.

Additionally, street sewer lines were installed more than 25 years ago, but never connected.

Further community development of over 50 percent in St.

James would require those aging, unused lines to be connected to a sewer system.

Again, a significant expense that developer has avoided.

Because of the lack of completion and oversight, homeowners have had to pay the price.

The HOA has faced serious financial and infrastructure problems, including having no insurance for wildfire risk, having private roads built with substandard materials, and severe underfunding of the HOA reserve, creating a deficit of over a million dollars.

These failures resulted in a special assessment and ongoing increases in monthly HOA dues for the residents, and we had no role in creating these problems.

Since 2020, Sierra St.

James Village and the proposed Sierra Reflections project have listed, have been listed together for sale as a package for about $50 million.

This shows that the developer's commitment is not building or sustaining communities, but to sell.

The Sierra Reflections Project is part of the equation, and the application is inappropriate and incomplete.

The goal of selling a tentative map with high density in current rural area is only to maximize the value of the property.

The developer's pattern is clear.

Maximize profit while shifting long-term cost and liability onto the homeowners.

When you consider Sierra Reflections project, I strongly urge you to look beyond the proposal on paper and examine the developer's track record, integrity, and long-term behavior.

The experience at St.

James Villages demonstrates what happens when promises are made and not fulfilled.

Next in chambers.

Next in Chambers, we have Larry Moulton, followed by Rick Cooper.

My name is Larry Moulton.

Please include my comments and exhibits in the official record.

I'm a resident of Washoe Valley, and like the other 5,000 plus residents of the South Valleys, we chose to live in a rural area for a reason.

Each has their own individual reason, but none of us wanted to live in a high-density urban area.

We were promised in envisioned Washoe 2040 that the South Valleys would remain rural.

Many of us invested our money here based on this promise.

That document states that future residential development should mirror the existing development pattern in density.

Sierra Reflections is a betrayal of that promise.

When word of this misplaced high-density development started to spread around the valley, the objection of the local residents was swift and decisive.

A petition of opposition was started.

On this petition, there are over 1,600 hand-signed signatures of your concerned citizens who strongly object to this high-density development proposed for our rural area.

For over 19 years, we've expressed our concerns about this project.

This project has failed eight times to meet the deadlines and/or comply with all the findings of the Planning Commission, yet continue to get extensions.

You must now deny the current application because it does not comply with the Washoe County Master Plan, which states future residential development should mirror the existing development pattern.

Thus, this proposed project fails to support the Washoe County Development Code section 11060825 Finding A, which states that the proposed map is consistent with the master plan.

This proposed map is absolutely not consistent with the master plan for our rural areas.

One can game the system using leak lease like clustering, but any independent observer must admit that this project in no way mirrors the existing development pattern and density of the area.

The small lot sizes and tracked homes do not mirror the existing pattern and density.

We just reached just recently, Washoe County publicly stated in their code of conduct that they would they were committed to listen to their citizens.

So please listen to the over 1,600 citizens who have signed this petition, objecting yet again to another revised Sierra Reflections application, which continues to fail to meet the findings.

Your rules and policies document mandates that you are to ethically serve the public interest and to strive strive to protect the integrity and heritage of the built environment.

Also, to pay special attention to the long range consequences of present actions.

So please be mindful of the damage to the environment and to our rural lifestyles.

This development will do if you don't deny this application.

When word of the Sierra Reflections had been resubmitted, a group of local residents got together and spent countless hours reviewing the application and doing the necessary research to show that this application does not meet numerous findings that must be met for you to approve this application.

Their presentations follow.

Next we have Rick Cooper, followed by Delia Greenhall.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Richard Cooper, and I'm a 25-year resident of beautiful Washoe Valley.

Please enter my comments into the record.

I am speaking on historical preservation in relation to the Sierra Reflections development.

I will show that the application cannot make the required findings for approval.

Specifically, I am referring to the goals and policies for cultural resources on sensitive landscapes contained in sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in Appendix 4 of the Envision 2040 Master Plan.

The unique geographic area of the proposed subdivision with its canyon, creeks, meadows, and other features useful to humans have drawn people for thousands of years and has many significant historic sites.

Native Americans and more recently Euro-Americans and Chinese workers have all left evidence of their activities.

States that the developer buffered designated areas of critical environmental concern and known significant cultural resources from development.

Historic values are an example of cultural resources.

The archaeological studies conducted by COSI consultants and those reviewed by COTS are found in tab H of the application.

They found 15 previous archaeological studies covering the entire project area.

These studies found 71 archaeological sites spread throughout the project, not just in the canyon.

These numbers illustrate the significance of the entire project area's human history.

There are historic sites not listed in the above studies.

Page 22 of the project narrative describes that besides developed areas, areas of open space disturbed by collateral construction damage may need to be remade, opening the entire project area to disturbance of irreplaceable historic sites.

The application does not address the overall significance of the project area as a historic site or the specific location, mitigation, and protection of each individual site.

Therefore, the policy of protecting and buffering the historic values demanded by the envisioned 2040 plan has not been met, and therefore finding B, design or improvement cannot be made since the application is not consistent with the master plan.

Thank you for protecting our valuable cultural resources and unique history here in Washville Valley.

Thank you.

Next in chambers, we have Delia Greenhall, followed by Cliff Lowe.

Good evening, County.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Delia Greenhall, and please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

I am a 50-year resident of Steamboat Pleasant Valley and have been on the Pleasant Steamboat Valley Landowners Board for 45 years.

I also have worked with our planning commission and commissioners on two master plans for the South Valleys, including the envisioned 2040, which was just approved.

The topography of this area lends itself to fires and floods, and I have personally witnessed three of the major events over the last 50 years.

This development is not consistent with our envisioned 2040 or our vision statement.

I am speaking on historical preservation in relation to Sierra Reflections development.

I will show that the application cannot make the required findings for approval.

The application references extensive historic sites on the property, but the developer has not actually identified all of the sites.

Five sites within the development boundary have previously been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

There are four Native American prehistoric sites and one historic site.

Also, there are Comstock era mills, mining, toll roads, farming history, the V2 Railroad, the town of Willow Glen, and a Chinese town on this property.

Although there have been up to 15 previously archaeological studies in the project at the project site over the years, and 49 sites located, they have not been properly identified, located or buffered according to the requirements found in envisioned 2040 plan as a state as stated in appendix 4 and goal one.

For example, Calts Environmental Consultants found one of these 49 sites significant in their previous studies.

Archaeologically significant means important and possible for preservation.

But the site is not mentioned in appendix tab H of the application that refers to cultural resources.

This is significant as the site appears to lie unidentified and unbuffered within a grid of home sites on the application maps.

NCR Principles 7.1, located in Chapter 2, page 47 of Envision 2040 states that the developer buffer designated areas of critical environment concern and known significant or sensitive cultural resources from development.

This glaring omission of a significant Native American and settler gathering site raises questions about the proper identification and buffering of the other 48 sites in the application.

Therefore, the policy of protecting and buffering the historic values demanded by envisioned 2040 plan has not been met, and therefore finding B, design or improvement cannot be made since the application is not consistent with the master plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next we have Cliff Lowe, followed by Bob Burke.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Cliff Lowe.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

My subject is preserving the rural character of the South Valleys.

I will show that the application cannot make the required findings for approval regarding rural character.

Envision page 106 states future residential development should mirror the existing development pattern and density, support agriculture related uses, and maintain opportunities for livestock and farm animal ownership.

Sierra Reflections will not mirror existing density as shown in this map.

The existing density in Pleasant Valley is one unit per acre plus, and the proposed density in Sierra Reflections is 3.2 units per acre.

Since the development will not mirror the existing density, tentative subdivision maps finding B design or improvement cannot be made.

Priority principle six from Envision is to maintain agricultural practices to support local food growth and distribution.

The small lot sizes of this development would preclude agriculture-related uses.

So finding B cannot be made.

An informal livestock inventory was conducted of 85 properties from Pawnee Lane to Concho Drive, and 35% had livestock.

In Washoe County, the minimum parcel size for two livestock is 35,000 square feet.

Sierra Reflections lot sizes will not support opportunities for livestock and farm animal ownership.

So again, finding B cannot be made.

NCR Principle 1.2 of Envision is to preserve the remaining integrity of our region's dark night skies.

Preserving dark night skies was identified in October as a new topic for prioritization by the Board of County Commissioners.

Despite county regulations, the lights from 940 homes and the lights from vehicles making 8,864 daily trips, as in the application, will significantly diminish the dark night skies.

Stair reflections will not preserve the area's dark night skies.

Another reason finding B cannot be made.

This is also not consistent with specific plan standards and procedures.

Article 442.50.

The specific plan benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring properties.

Since there are many reasons tentative subdivision maps, finding B cannot be made, the application must be denied.

Members of the public, if we could please hold all applause until the end because people are unable to hear when their name is being called.

So if we could please hold all the pause until the end of public comment, we'd really appreciate it.

Thank you all.

Next we have Bob Burke, followed by Lisa Dayton.

Good evening, Bob Burke, Washoe Valley.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

Sure reflections does not meet findings in the Washhoe County Development Code, Article 608 Section 110608.

Plan consistency and design established had a proposed subdivision map need be consistent with the master plan.

Pages 104 and 105.

South Valley's residential patterns express a rural heritage.

Livestock and agriculture are a significant contributor to the rural heritage of the area.

The valleys support 4-H farming and livestock ranching.

Photo number one provides an image directly across the street from the proposed development.

Sierra reflections will convert a valuable pasture into patio homes on 2876 square foot lots and hundreds of houses on 5 to 7,000 square foot lots.

Our local cattle ranchers have already faced increasing shortage shortages of grazing pastures.

VSP beef in Steamboat Valley has been forced to transport their cattle to pastures in Gardnerville, Fallon, and Errington because of insufficient pastures in South Valleys.

The National Cattleman's Beef Association states small rural communities are our backbone.

So losing another pasture would be devastating.

The Wall Street Journal and Klecher Washington editors both reported this year that U.S.

beef cattle herds are at their smallest level in 74 years.

Page 106.

Vision that South Valley's planning area is characterized by inactive agriculture and working land supporting lightstock.

There is no tracked housing in the South Valleys, the developer's density may be appropriate for Reno, but not here.

Active agricultural and working lands require large lots and is so specified in the County Code DCO4.

Further, sections 110-210 of the code states the steamboat valley establishes a transitional area between the urban character of Reno and the rural character of the steamboat and pleasant valleys.

Clearly, our development code makes distinction in land use between Reno's high density and illustrated in photo two.

And the uh South Valley's open rural character, illustrated in photo three.

The developer admits on page 40 of the project narrative that the lotting does not conform to traditional rural patterns, but is justified by setting aside some open space.

Notwithstanding Article 408 clustering tight density housing around a rugged canyon and hilltops might technically align with an open space development, but it's not in keeping with the area's character.

Photos two and three show the distinction.

Reno has lost its rural heritage.

We must preserve it in South Valleys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Lisa Dayton, followed by Kevin Kemp.

Good evening, Commissioners, and thank you for your work in our community.

My name is Lisa Dayton, and I would like my comments and exhibits entered into the record.

I would like to present to the Commission my concern regarding the density calculation used in the Sierra Reflections application.

The calculation used does not meet the requirements as specified in the Trucky Meadows Regional Plan.

The developer has provided a density calculation of 1.24 dwelling units per acre using the proposed 940 dwelling units divided by the site acreage of 759.69 acres.

Per Truckey Meadows Regional Plan, this is not the correct density calculation.

Per Trucky Meadows Regional Plan, page 131 calculation is as follows.

I have it posted.

I will abbreviate.

Density shall not include any of the following.

And for the definition of a development constraint area, that is in the plan on page 132.

And those are areas consisting of significant water bodies, designated FEMA floodway areas within the zone AE, and natural slopes over 30 percent.

Slopes greater than 30 percent.

The developer has provided a slope study which has determined that 151.57 acres of the total site has a slope of greater than 30 percent.

This acreage has not been deducted from the maximum density calculation and represents 20 percent of the site.

Bodies of water and public facility land.

There is a significant water body on the site, which has not been deducted from the density calculation, as well as 7.9 acres of PSP public facility land, which has also not been deducted.

AE floodways.

Currently, there are no zone AE floodways on the site.

However, the stormwater drainage plan provided with the application proposes that zone AE floodways are created to increase buildable land and manage runoff.

The area of these created AE floodways should also be removed from the density calculation.

Here are the locations of the AE floodways proposed in the stormwater drainage plan included in the Sierra Reflections application.

The application incorrectly states the maximum and proposed density.

Non-residential parcels, slopes greater than 30 percent, AE floodways, and bodies of water have not been deducted from the site area.

The planning commission should deny the application because the correct density calculation has not been provided.

For section 110608 to 5 findings, item B.

The design is not consistent with the Trekkie Meadows Regional Plan.

Thank you.

Next we have Kevin Kemp, followed by Charlie Hyatt.

Good evening.

Also, I'd like to present to the Commission my concerns regarding the proposed density in the Sierra Reflections tentative map and the omission of critical neighborhood design standards as outlined in the envisioned Washoe 2040 master plan, pages 57 and 8, and land use designations as stated in Table 4, page 57.

The application does not meet the master plan requirements for suburban neighborhood development.

The application misrepresents Sierra Reflections as primarily a suburban neighborhood by listening listing closest parcel zoning designations that are actually exceeded.

Closer review of the parcel sizes and setbacks reveals that much of the proposed tentative map is actually urban by design.

In fact, 257 of the 304 parcels in the face first major build-out fall within the urban design standards with densities as high as 12 dwelling units per acre.

The master plan provides specific neighborhood standards for suburban residential and urban residential projects.

Urban neighborhoods shall have an interconnected road and bicycle network and public transit incorporated in all new development.

This does not exist.

Highway 395 is the only vehicular access to Sierra Reflections, and there is no plan to extend public transit to Pleasant Valley.

Suburban residential projects shall reduce the need for automobile trips, encourage the utilization of public transit, and be walkable.

Walkable is defined as able to access essential services within a 30-minute walk.

Per walkscore.com, downtown Reno has a walk score of 98 out of 100.

Due to lack of public transportation options and the distance of essential services, the walk score from my home in the adjoining neighborhood is three out of a possible score of 100.

High density urban parcels are encouraged and desirable when close to essential services and public transportation, but not appropriate for rural present valley.

This planning commission should deny the Sierra Reflections application because a developer has not accurately stated the level of urban design proposed in the tentative map and has not followed the neighborhood design standards as outlined in the master plan per section 11060825.

Findings item B.

The design is not consistent with the master plan.

Thank you.

Next we have Charlie Hyatt, followed by Claire Holland.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Charlie Hyatt.

I've been a resident of Washoe Valley for 20 years, and I would like to address my concerns about parcel size and density.

The exhibit that is up there shows that the application does not correctly identify zoning classifications of the proposed parcels as per the county regulatory zone development standards.

The proposed neighborhoods are not suburban.

In fact, 257 of the proposed 304 parcels in the first major build-out of the development would only be allowed under urban design.

There are problems with placing an urban neighborhood in a rural area, and these problems have not been addressed in the tentative map.

The urban densities do not accommodate for parking needs of residents and the reliance on vehicles in a rural area.

Envision 2040 identifies the entire Pleasant Valley area as rural.

This overall rural designation is due to the absence of multimodal forms of transportation.

The plan acknowledges that all the residents of Pleasant Valley are entirely dependent upon automobiles.

You will find that the majority of households in Pleasant Valley have more vehicles on their property than the number of driving age members in their household.

The developer has adequately planned for uh has inadequately planned for increased reliance on vehicles where those vehicles would be parked in tightly packed urban design neighborhoods.

For example, in the patio homes, there are 11 homes per acre in the six packs, and there are 12 homes per acre in the eight packs.

These homes are connected by one common driveway.

Uh requirements.

They're only required to have one covered parking space, no matter how many bedrooms are in each of the homes that shares a common driveway.

Under these conditions, there's be no place to park more than one vehicle per household without either blocking your own vehicles or a neighbor's vehicle.

As a result, this planning commission should deny the Sierra Reflections application because the developer has not adequately stated the level of urban design proposed in the tentative map and has not allowed for the number of vehicles that will be parked in a rural area that is entirely dependent upon vehicular travel.

Per section 110-608-25 findings item C, the site is not physically suited for a high-density urban neighborhood.

Thank you.

Next we have Claire Holland, followed by Mike Goldie.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Claire Holland.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

Sarah Reflections application is incomplete regarding sensitive migration routes, so it cannot make the required findings for approval.

The application omitted a site analysis of two sensitive migration routes.

The project site is part of the Pacific Flyway, a major north-south migration route for over 350 million birds, and more than 50 percent of these birds are waterfowl.

Browns Creek Pond at the center of the development is an important stopover point for waterfowl during migration.

The disturbances caused by Sierra reflections will disrupt their stopovers and cause many birds to avoid the pond.

This is not consistent with envisioned biodiversity goal 1.2 limit development activities that impede natural migration patterns between habitats on which migratory species depend.

The project site also encompasses a major mule deer movement corridor.

Populations of mule deer have been steadily declining for the last 30 years, and because of this, they have been identified as a species of greatest conservation need in the Nevada State Wildlife Action Plan.

Carl Lackey of Endow states that urban sprawl and the activities associated with it are the biggest challenges facing the Carson Front Mule Deer population.

The application states that ample corridor widths of 300 feet are provided along the creeks.

Yet, according to Cody Schroeder of NDO, mule deer require a minimum corridor width of 1,300 feet for functional migration.

Smaller migration corridors and an increase in traffic create more chances for collision.

Envision states that increased collisions may push the mule deer population past the point of recovery.

This does not comply with envisioned sustainability goal 2.3.

The county will encourage the location of higher density development closer to urbanized areas and support limitations on development in rural areas with high biodiversity.

Since the application omitted a site analysis of migration routes, and the development will not provide adequate migration habitats, these three findings cannot be made.

Common open space development finding B, tentative subdivision maps finding B, and tentative subdivision maps finding E.

Since these findings cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Thank you.

Next we have Mike Goldie, followed by Karen Critter.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Mike Goldie.

Please enter my comments and exhibit into the record.

Sierra Reflections application is incomplete regarding endangered species, so it cannot make the required findings for approval.

The applicant did not answer question 12 regarding the subject property containing rare or endangered animals.

A butterfly called Carson Wandering Skipper, whose habitat encompasses the subject property.

This map from the Truckee Meadows Region Regional Planning Agency shows the subject properties located within the watersheds that impact the endangered Kui and the threatened cutthroat trout, Lahotton Cutthroat Trout.

The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Survey considers these watershed part of the range and distribution of these fish.

This is not consistent with the purpose of open space standards Article 432.

To preserve and protect environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Environmentally sensitive habitat in these two areas.

No new development shall be permitted within a recognized primary habitat area of an endangered species.

Since the applicant failed to include endangered and or threatened species or describe mitigation measures to reduce impacts, the application is incomplete, so these three findings cannot be made.

One, common open space development finding, B protect natural and scenic resources.

Two, tentative subdivision map finding, B, design or improvement.

Three, tentative subdivision map finding.

B design or improvement, and actually I just repeated that.

Since the above findings cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Thank you.

Next we have Karen Krider, followed by Sandy Sullivan.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Karen Kreider.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

I am speaking on the pollution issues Sierra Reflections will cause in Steamboat Creek.

Due to the issues, the application cannot make the required findings for approval.

Envision Washoe 2040 states that Steamboat Creek is classified as the largest non-point source of pollution to the Truckee River.

Non-point source pollution is carried to lakes, rivers, and creeks in runoff from untreated stormwater from construction sites and developed areas.

This table from the 2024 Nevada Water Quality Integrated Report shows the pollution load in Steamboat Creek measured in two locations from its source.

In this span of 7.1 miles, the number of pollutants increases from four to seven.

This increase can be attributed to the creek flowing through highly developed areas where it is exposed to increasing amounts of non-point source pollution.

The pollution will affect these species downstream from the project as shown in this map from the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency.

The endangered Kiwi, the and Carson Wandering Skipper and the threatened Lahottan cutthroat trout.

This increase in pollution is not consistent with significant hydrologic resources article 418.00.

Regulate development activity with an adjacent to perennial streams to ensure that these resources are protected and enhanced.

It does not comply with goal number two of the non-point source state management plan, reduce non-point source pollution in impaired waters through supportive activities that reduce pollution load.

It is also not consistent with envisioned biodiversity goal 2.1.4.

Acquire and restore critical areas with particular attention to Steambroke Creek starting at the headwaters in Little Washoe Lake.

The non-point source pollution caused by 15 to 20 years of Sierra Reflections construction and subsequent urbanization of 940 homes will damage Steamboat Creek.

Therefore, these three findings cannot be made.

Common Open Space Development Finding B, protect natural and scenic resources.

Tentative subdivision maps finding B, design or improvement.

Tentative subdivision maps finding E, fish or wildlife.

Since these findings cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Thank you, Nexton Chambers.

We have Sandy Sullivan followed by Gail Bowers.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sandra Log Marcino Sullivan.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

So it cannot make the required finding for approval.

The tree require the tree removal exhibit from the application shows 113 of the 208 trees on the site will be removed.

This equals to removing 54% of the existing trees.

Landscaping Article 412.25 states that a minimum of 50% of existing trees must be preserved in their existing location.

Since more than 50% of the existing trees will be removed, these two findings cannot be made.

Common open space development finding, protect natural and scenic resources and tentative subdivision map findings, design or improvement.

The tree removal plan does not comply with the Hillside Development Article 424.40.

Vegetation, preservation, and restoration standards to ensure maximum preservation and restoration of existing trees and vegetation.

Since the tree removal plan does not ensure maximum tree preservation, the application does not make the tentative subdivision maps finding.

Thank you.

Next we have Gail Bowers, followed by Will Kelman.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Please enter my comments into the record.

My name is Gail Bowers.

I am the past chairperson of the Washoe Story Conservation District back when we created the Steamboat Creek Restoration Plan, which is available on their website.

When this plan was created, it was unimaginable that anyone would consider destroying this critical ecological area in order to build an urban-style housing development.

No development should be allowed in this highly sensitive and constrained area.

This would allow the stream and floodplain to function in the natural manner.

If the already existing beaver population is allowed to do its natural job instead of us destroying them, which is what's been happening for the last few years, the mercury will continue to become stable and will then be able to settle out into restored wetlands.

Groundwater will recharge, water quality will improve exponentially, and fisheries will re-establish, potentially becoming a much needed worldwide showcase of stream restoration.

Continuing the creek as a ditch as proposed does not clean water.

If we let nature do the job, there is no cost to the taxpayer.

Cottonwood is not a trash tree.

They provide shade for fish, bank stability, and habitat for all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Will Cohen followed by Maureen Collins.

Greetings, planning commissioners.

My name is William Cowan.

I'm a resident of Pleasant Valley and a retired aquatic ecologist.

I would like this testimony to be on record.

I'm speaking on flooding issues related to the proposed Sierra Reflection Subdivision.

Steamboat Creek has a history of frequent flooding events.

Historic newspaper accounts and recent data from USGS Steamboat Creek Monitoring Station document a total of 34 floods.

Nine floods have been experienced since 1980.

These events are predicted to increase in severity and frequency.

The design of the proposed subdivision will destroy the Steamboat Creek floodplain by capping it with eight feet of fill and can find the stream within a 300-foot-wide corridor bounded by RIPRAP.

Destruction of the floodplain nullifies natural flood control functions.

It is inconsistent with development code Article 418, significant hydrologic resources, Section 110.418.00, which states the intent of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by a preserving, protecting and restoring the natural functions of existing perennial streams in Washoe County.

C ensuring the natural flood control functions of perennial streams are maintained.

E ensuring the natural water quality functions of perennial streams, including pollution filtering, nutrient recycling, and sediment filtering capabilities are not impacted by proposed developments.

And H ensuring no loss of significant hydrologic resources.

For these reasons, findings B, design or improvement, and F public health of Section 110.608.25 of the Washoe County Development Code cannot be made.

The proposed development is on a floodplain, and constriction of Steamboat Creek will increase water depth and velocity in the channel and increase erosive action during flood flows.

This violates envision Washoe 2040, AR Principle 1, Policy 1.2, restrict development in floodplains that would constrict or impact floodplain functions.

Findings B, design and C type of development of Section 110.608.25 of the development code cannot be made.

The flushing of pollutants and contaminated sediment caused by increased floodwater erosion will give a will have a negative impact on the habitat of endangered Kuiwee sucker fish and Lahantan Cutthroat trout, which are threatened.

This is inconsistent with envision 2040.

NCR Principle 3, Policy 3.1, protect key wildlife and fishery habitats.

Thank you.

Next we have Maureen Collins followed by Marilyn Naylor.

Good evening.

My name is Maureen Collins.

Please include my comments in this report in the record.

I'm speaking to you regarding the traffic issues related to the proposed Sierra Reflections project.

The proposed development will add approximately 6 to 8,000 vehicles per day with an average round trip of at least 20 miles.

This does not include service vehicles brought in by others.

Old U.S.

395 is already considered a dangerous highway with a reduced speed limit due to a history of traffic accidents and wildlife encounters.

The proposed roundabouts are of major concern.

These roundabouts have several common issues.

One, the roundabouts are inconsistent with the rural and scenic nature of the area as stated in the vision and character statements of the Washaw County Master Plan.

Two, the roundabouts are of inadequate size.

They are specified to have a 180-foot diameter.

A tractor towing a single 57-foot trailer would have to use the apron to navigate this size roundabout.

It is too small to safely handle larger rigs diverted off I-580 in emergency weather situations and others.

These would be low-speed roundabouts.

The grades approaching them could cause vehicles to lose traction during winter weather while slowing to approach them or stopping for conflicting traffic.

There are no bicycle lanes.

Recent fatalities have highlighted this meet.

There are no separate exit or merge lanes.

All vehicles must enter the roundabout.

This results in reduced capacity in emergency evacuation situation.

Both roundabouts are on old highway 395 east of the proposed subdivision and are only one-half mile apart.

Use of both would be lost in an extreme fire event, which happened in the 2012 Washoe fire and nearly happened in the Davis fire.

Concerning the Piney Lane roundabout, which is in a low area that floods and becomes impassable during heavy rains.

Concerning the East Lake Boulevard roundabout space constraints due to its location at the top of a hill and the surrounding terrain make the building of a roundabout with required line of sight distances impossible without destroying the entire area.

This would be in conflict with the Hillside Development Article 424 and the corridor management plan for the Washoe Valley Scenic Byway.

The line of sight issue is further complicated since both approaches and old highway 395 are uphill.

This further limits safe line of sight.

Per the above reasons, the findings B design or improvement, F public health and H access cannot be made.

Therefore, tentative subdivision map cannot be approved.

Thank you.

Next we have Marilyn Naylor, followed by Erica Brewer.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Marilyn Naylor.

Please include my comments and exhibits into the record.

I'm one of the community members enlisted by Washoe County to complete the application for the Washaw Valley Scenic Byway designated by the state of Nevada in 2010.

Since then, for the past 15 years, managing partners, including seven federal, state, and local government agencies, an average of 25 community organizations, and many very extraordinary volunteers have continuously worked to meet the mission to enhance Nevada's rural heritage, provide opportunities to experience scenic beauty, cultural history, natural resources, and recreation.

All have worked in good faith in envisioned Washoe 2040 committees, implemented the Washa Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan, come together to man educational booths at our annual celebrate Washoe Valley, and this year awarded an America 250 Travel Nevada grant for an active interactive map highlighting the history along our regional scenic byways, which does include Highway 395 South from Mount Rose Highway.

The Sierra Reflections application proposes a preference for a roundabout at the intersection of old Highway 395 and East Lake, the gateway to Washa Valley Scenic Byway.

A roundabout would require complete removal of the hillside, eliminating the ridgeline bordering Highway 395, the viewshed from Washoe Lake State Park, the scenic quality of this visual gateway would be lost forever.

You have been given copies of principles and polys policies that have been put in place to legally protect the byways ridgelines and scenic quality.

Briefly, the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan defines significant ridgelines as those that surround or visually dominate the valley landscape.

Visual dominance characterized by silhouetting appearance against the sky, an area of significant ecological, historical, or cultural importance.

NCR6 local government master plans shall include policies that address visual impact of development on ridgelines to maintain the scenic value of the region.

The Washoe County Development Code, significant Article 110, 424, significant natural features shall be protected and preserved where appropriate and feasible, including ridgelines, canyons, ravines, streams, and creeks, the corridor management plan, avoid mass grading and large rock cuts visible from the highway.

This air reflections application must be denied because Section 110-608 finding B cannot be made.

The proposed map is not consistent with the master plan or any specific plan.

And if I may extend a huge thank you to everyone.

Thank you.

Next we have Erica Brumer, followed by Linda Bell.

Hello, my name is Erica Brummer, and I am here today to speak about the school and traffic impacts associated with the Sierra Reflections development.

Please enter my comments into the record.

First, I want to address item number eight of the traffic impact report requirements, which states that a report is needed when a development may generate 80 or more weekday peak hour trips.

In the application's traffic volume section, the original traffic study collected turning movement counts near Pawnee Lane and Highway 395 between 7 and 9 o'clock a.m.

and 4 and 6 o'clock p.m.

on midweek days while schools were in session.

However, these time periods do not align with Pleasant Valley Elementary School's actual peak traffic times.

As a neighborhood school, traffic flows in a one-way loop beginning from Highway 395 onto Laramie Drive and ultimately exits at Pawnee Lane.

School begins at 9 30 a.m.

with peak traffic between 9 05 and 9 25 and dismissal at 3 30 p.m.

with peak traffic between 325 and 345.

During these times, cars routinely back up for up to 20 minutes at the Pawnee Lane exit.

Because the traffic study did not measure during these true peak windows, the data does not accurately represent school related traffic.

Second, the study was conducted in February of 2022 when schools were still impacted by COVID-related distance learning.

Pleasant Valley had an enrollment of 331 students, yet 23%, about 75 of those students, were attending remotely.

This significantly reduced traffic volumes at the time of the study, meaning the raw counts were artificially low.

Although projections were later applied to the raw data to estimate average weekday volumes, any projections based on inaccurate baseline counts need to be reconsidered.

Finally, I want to discuss the proposed traffic flow changes after phase one.

The application states that the existing Pawnee Lane intersection with U.S.

395 will be closed once the new St.

James Parkway roundabout is built, and that traffic will be rerouted through Blue River Lane.

However, the maps provided do not clearly show the location of this connector or how school traffic will flow.

Without a clear traffic flow plan for the school, it is impossible to assess safety or congestion impacts for families who rely on that access point daily.

Due to the inaccurate count of traffic volumes and the incomplete analysis of traffic flow in a critical school area, tentative subdivision map finding H access cannot be made.

Please deny this application.

Thank you for your time.

Next we have Linda Bell, followed by Tom Johnson.

Good evening, Washoe County Planning Commissioners.

My name is Linda Bell.

I have lived in Washoe Valley for the past 30 years, and I was a 911 dispatcher for the City of Sparks.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into your records.

The South Valleys area currently only accounts for about 22% of the allocated resources of law enforcement fire and emergency medical service calls.

With an anticipated influx of an additional 940 high-density urban-style homes, increasing the urban population by about 3,000 citizens in this rural area.

After speaking with representatives from Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District and Remsa, it is clear that the current focus of all of these services is now concentrated in North Washoe County.

This is very concerning because approval of Sierra Reflections development will put even more stress on these agencies' southern resources, which are already at maximum allocation.

Thus, the approval of this project would not meet the findings of Section 110.608.25 Section B design or improvement.

Please note that the Washoe County Sheriff's Department office did not respond as indicated in your reviewing agency's report.

Example one, the Washoe County Sheriff's Office emergency response when we experienced the serious Little Valley and Davis Creek fires, resulted in the evacuation of the residents of Washoe Valley taking over one and a half hours to accomplish.

Many of whom were transporting not only their families but also their large animals to safety.

This was unacceptable.

Adding another 3,000 urban citizens to any future evacuation effort in our area will only further complicate a timely evacuation.

Example two.

Help securing funding for this much needed new fire station is noted by the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District as a condition of approval for this project.

Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District Station 32 now serves a very large area of the South Valleys, which has increased response times, especially to the West Washoe Valley area.

This agency has only one ambulance to service our entire area.

Ramsa can respond.

However, they can only reposition their resources provided they have enough personnel.

I urge you to deny the approval of the Sierra Reflections development based on the unacceptable levels of availability and the projected increased response times of law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you.

Next, we have Tom Johnson, followed by Linda Harrison.

My name is Tom Johnson.

Please enter my comments in for the record.

The Planning Commission cannot approve this application because it's an inconsistent with the Washoe Counties envisioned Washoe 2040, specifically those provisions that pertain to the sustainability of water resources.

Page 13 of Vision Washoe 2040 for public service and facilities.

The Washoe County Board of County Commissioners shall not approve the land development activities dependent upon groundwater supplies, which will cause groundwater basins to fall below self-sustainable levels as a result of the project's water consumption.

This is PFS 1.10.2, page 12.

Continuing on page 14, water supply planning development must not adversely impact adjacent water users or other uses of the water.

The development code of Washa County Section 110.605.25 provides that any development must be consistent with the envisioned Washoe 2040 in any specific plan.

Page 5 on the same discovery goes on to report it is possible groundwater supply is sufficient to meet the project demands cannot be located on site.

I point out the SERPA well test report, the long-term extraction of groundwater is expected to influence domestic wells in Washoe Valley and Tumwa generated municipal wells, old Washoe State 3 and Old Washoe State 4.

References also made to the Nevada Division of Water Resources based basis status report for the Pleasant Valley Basin number 088 and Washoe Valley Basin 089 are already fully committed based on existing pumping rights versus estimated yield.

The 2023 Basin Status Assessment Report shows the Pleasant Valley Aquifer is already pumping more water than the aquifer could support on continuing basis.

Tumwa's work order 218275, dated February 14, 2025.

The two wells, St.

James Village have a nameplate capacity of 715, 715 gallons per minute.

However, the wells have a sustainable capacity that is far less.

It is not consistent with envisioned Washoe 2040.

The St.

James Village wells cannot support both St.

James Village and Sierra Reflections.

There are still 81 lots in St.

James Village that can still be developed.

The rejection from Tomas says 219 gallons acre feet per year.

940 homes, you're actually looking at about 4816, 416 acre feet per year for the 940 homes, assuming uh normal occupancy per household.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Linda Harrison, followed by William Neylar.

Oh, Chris.

Okay.

My name is Linda Harrison.

I'm also going to talk about water.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

My presentation is on the SERPA well pumping test report, which is part of the Sierra Reflections application.

The well tested is called the Falcon Capital Well, down there by where Cattleman's restaurant used to be, folks.

Although not stated, the inclusion of the report indicates that the well is being considered as a possible source of water for Sierra Reflections.

The location of the Falcon Capitol well is shown on the map by the large FCW letters.

Tumra production levels, wells which serve customers in the old Washoe City area are shown by nearby blue dots.

The well is located in the Washoe Valley Grandwater groundwater basin, not the Pleasant Valley Basin.

The state water engineer would have to approve the water transfer between basins for it to be used by Sierra Reflections.

The well test pumped 406 gallons a minute for 10 consecutive days.

The test showed a measurable drawdown of tumor production wells.

The recharge of these wells was slow, only being in the 70 percent range after 14 days.

The water temperature of the Falcon Capitol well was about 70 degrees as compared to a normal temperature of 50 to 55 degrees.

This indicates that the well is close to the steamboat springs fault line.

Seismic activity could affect the well's performance.

To meet the proposed pumping levels, the larger well, which pump 800 gallons a minute or 1,290 acre feet per year would be required, and this is 2.7 times the permitted amount for the current well.

A simulation estimated that a pumping rate of 800 gallons a minute for five years would lower the ground level, groundwater level by over 20 feet for up to a mile from the well.

This would severely degrade existing domestic wells, which are shallow due to high existing water tables in old Washoe City.

The simulation showed that the well could pump at a rate of 800 gallons an hour for about five years.

And then what then?

Where does the water come from then to meet established domestic needs?

The pumping proposed pumping rate is not sustainable.

If the Falcon well were used by the applicant, it would fail to meet policies of the Washoe County Master Plan.

PFS policy 1.1 prohibits unsustainable groundwater mining.

PFS policy 2.1 requires that develop a balanced new water supply commitments and existing commitments with sustainable courses, sources of water supply, based upon the above tentative subdivision map findings on design and improvement or public health.

This you should deny it.

Thank you.

Next we have William Neiler, followed by Jay Collins.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is William Naylor.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

My subject is the floodplain and the proposed Sierra Reflection Subdivision.

This floodplain has many interrelated constraints.

Any development is out of compliance with existing plans and codes.

Areas of the floodplain could indicate wetlands.

These are shown as hatched areas on the applicant's map.

The floodplain is contaminated with mercury.

The red and purple colors depictly high levels of contamination.

Extensive remediation to make it suitable for habitation would destroy the floodplain.

The floodplain is designated in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan as a natural resource consideration area and a critical source water protection area.

It is critical for aquifer recharge and natural water pollution filtering.

The floodplain, due to its wet nature and soil composition, is subject to liquefaction during seismic events.

The key shows moderate liquefaction just below the severe level.

The floodplain is habitat for two endangered species and one threatened species.

Despite these constraints, the applicant has chosen not to preserve and protect the floodplain as open space.

Instead, it will be destroyed by covering it with eight feet of dirt and using it to cluster 304 high-density houses.

In addition to the exhibit shown, numerous development code and master plan references show that the actions of the applicant in destroying the floodplain and its functions are not allowed.

Due to time constraints, these references are provided in absolute detail in the handout provided all of you.

Three development court articles have sections supporting preservation of the floodplain.

Three envision Washo 2040 elements have provisions also.

Based on information provided, the following findings cannot be made.

For Article 408, common open space development, A, preserve or provide open space, B protect natural and seismic scenic resources, C, achieve a more efficient use of land.

For Article 408, tentative subdivision maps, A, plan consistency, B designer improvement, C type of development, E, fish and wildlife, and F public health.

In summary, required findings cannot be made to approve a common open space development or a tentative subdivision map.

This application must be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Jay Collins, followed by Tom Calicrate.

My name is Jay Collins.

I'm speaking about seismic and liquefication risks to public health and welfare of this project, and will show that they weren't adequately evaluated, despite Nevada being the nation's third most technological technologically active state.

After reviewing the project's geotechnical reports, including the 20-year-old Pasanelli report and additional geological references, it's clear that the application does not make the findings for approval.

The application should be denied for these reasons.

The application fails to comply with COLT sections 424-15A2 and 424-20C3, requiring site analysis analysis to identify areas underlain with faults that have been active during the Holison epoch era.

That means in the last 11,000 years to today.

West Tech, the West Tech report is in violation of Section 608 of the code, requiring developers to identify all known potential habit hazards, including but not limited to earth slides and Holocene era geologic faults.

Specifically Section 60825, requiring the site be physically suited for the type of development proposed.

Earthquake and liquefaction risk render this suit unsuitable.

And section 608-25, the report fails to demonstrate the subdivision will not cause significant health and public problems due to earthquake and liquefication.

Reports acknowledge that this is a great area for severity of potential shake, but do not adequately address earthquake and liquefication liquefication risks.

In fact, the 2005 report never identified these issues.

As at least 27 relevant references were ignored, including updated detailed fault maps.

West Tech failed to consider the 2019 opinions of 40 geoscientists who studied the risks of large earthquake.

Thank you.

Next we have Tom Callacrate, followed by Shay Clark Smith.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Tom Calicrate.

I'm a resident of New Washa City and a certified professional geologist.

I'd like to request my comments and exhibits be entered into the records.

I'll be speaking about various geologic hazards and health risks of the Sierra Reflection Project related to mercury contamination, earthquakes, and associated liquefaction in zone one, suggesting that zone one should not be developed.

This presentation offers evidence that the finding C type of development and finding F public health cannot be made.

The map should not be approved and should be denied application for the subdivision map.

Figure one shows the location of Carson River Mercury Superfund sites.

The focus of this presentation is the mercury contamination in Washa Valley and Steamboat Creek.

Figure two shows the location of the gold silver mill sites in Washoe Valley and along Steamboat Creek, where the contamination of mercury was lost from mill sites.

It also shows where the superfund site traverses through the Sierra Reflections Plan Subdivision.

Figure three shows the location of the defined zones.

Zone one is the main focus with regards to mercury contamination and geologic hazards.

Figure four comes from the Washoe City Geologic Hazards map developed by the USGIS in 1978.

This map shows several geologic hazards presenting serious health and safety concerns within the planned subdivision.

It shows the mercury contaminations, wetlands, floodplain, where the S where reflection plans to develop 304 parcels.

It also shows numerous numerous earthquake fault zones that occur throughout the planned subdivision.

Future earthquakes present a very serious health and safety hazards in zone one.

Zone one has been identified by the USGS as a moderate risk area for severity of shaking of water saturated soils or homes built in this area would be subject to liquefaction.

Future homes and structures would be subject to tilting, sinking, and possible collapse, presenting serious health and safety liabilities.

Figure five shows the location of the property within the superfund site.

It also shows Zone 1 and the intensity and the extent of the contoured mercury concentrations in red and orange greater than the action level for the development of residential homes.

Figure seven shows zero reflections plan to excavate mercury contaminated soils located and relocate the soils to open spaces, parks, and slope sites, essentially contaminating uncontaminated sites.

These new contaminated sites would be considered a toxic waste responsory site.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Shay Clark Smith, followed by Kelly Dean.

First one up will you please enter my comments and exhibits uh into the record.

I'm Clark Smith, resident of New Washoe City for 42 years with graduate degrees in chemistry and geochemistry and 45 years of experience related to the use of mercury and mining and uh and mining exploration.

This presentation will show that the Superfund site is not contained just within the Steamboat Creek Channel, and that more than half of Zone 1 has toxic mercury to a depth of four feet, especially where phase two development is planned.

Also, the district the distribution of mercury indicates where Comstock ore recovery occurred well beyond that of the Tamelic mine, uh Tamelic Mill.

You will also see where mercury characterization is incomplete, especially within the and near parcel development.

And you'll see where cut-in-fill remediation will create mercury repositories near proposed Park 1 and Park 2, exposing everyone to toxic mercury.

This evidence opens a discussion about flood events on steamboat and Browns Creeks with related adverse effects for the proposed residential development and toxify toxified downstream water quality.

Finally, the evidence shows that finding F, public health will not be met.

The app and the application must be denied.

Map one.

Yeah, put it there.

Map one shows the US EPA mercury superfund site, but because of UES soil survey, map two, map two, there is evidence that mercury contamination above the action level of 7.1 milligrams is widespread in zone one.

Map 3.

The same data is represented in map 3, which also shows where toxic mercury must be remediated prior to development, ranging from 7.1, the action level, to highs of 169 and 181 milligrams in shallow soils.

The source of the mercury is presumed to derive from the location of historic quartz mill, uh quartz mill sites, map four.

The Tamelic mill is presumably located as indicated.

Yet other areas indicated by the survey data indicate other areas by the survey data.

More contamination may exist than revealed by the current UES data.

Further, UES sampling was incomplete.

About one fifth of zone one was not sampled to the full depth of eight feet.

Since the task is to completely characterize the mercury distribution and concentration, it is imperative to fully characterize the entire site.

No data does not mean no mercury.

Map six.

These unsampled areas belie the proposed parcel development.

Proposed roads and infrastructure across these areas with related future maintenance may cause redistribution of toxic soils.

The proposed remediation includes cut and fill methods, which remove thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Next we have Kelly Dean, followed by Curtis Coulter.

Got it all.

Hi, my name is Kelly Dean.

I'm a longtime resident of this area.

The Sierra Reflections project is a huge project and has major infrastructure construction and superfund remediation.

Let me concentrate on just one proposal in the plan that encapsulates the problems with this entire project.

The plan proposes a park, which the developer calls park number one.

It's on your map there.

This park is located adjacent to the confluence of Browns and Steamboat Creeks.

The developer proposes to enclose the park area by constructing a 12-foot high masonry retaining wall along Steamboat Creek, which will be about 1,500 feet long.

This wall will destroy nearly a third of the mile of the scenic quality of the steamboat Creek Canyon.

The building of this large retaining wall along the sensitive riparian environment will destroy the natural vegetation, wetlands, and the habitat of sensitive and endangered species.

The existing conditions plan shows that inside the retaining wall is an area documented as being culturally significant by Native Americans, European, and Chinese settlers.

The plan shows that there are existing rock walls, granite slabs, and foundations at the park site.

The village of Willow Glen and the cyanide processing mill were located in this area.

Page two of the project narrative quotes envision 2040 plans primary vision to maintain the area's natural and cultural heritage through scenic protections.

The developer's actions clearly violate this vision.

The developer then plans to partially fill the public park area with soil which is highly contaminated with mercury and then cover it with an eight-foot cap of soil.

This will destroy enclosed historic and cultural sites.

Page 28 estimates the build-out may take 20 years.

They state that it will not build the park until 500 homes are built.

This would be in phase four.

How long will the land in the park be barren?

In addition, a stormwater detention basin is located next to the park.

This will cause the water to leach through the contaminated soil and spread contamination through the park and into the steamboat creek.

Requirements of conservation of natural and cultural resources, NCR 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1 in the envisioned 2040 master plan cannot be met.

Therefore, common open space development findings, a preserve or provide open space, and B protect natural and scenic resources cannot be made.

Also, the findings for approval of a tentative subdivision map, design or improvement, fish and wildlife cannot be completed.

Thank you.

Correction.

Next we have Mike Sullivan, followed by Bob Rusk.

My name is Michael Sullivan.

Please enter my comments and exhibits in the record.

The applicant is proposing a common open space subdivision.

This type of development has its own unique set of findings as documented in Article 408, Section 110, 408 28.

This presentation summarizes the information previously provided in detail to show that the applicant cannot make all five of the required findings.

Finding A, preserve or provide open space requires that the development preserve developmentally constrained areas from development.

The application does not preserve developmentally constrained areas.

The meadow is a FEMA 100 year floodplain.

Areas of this floodplain also exhibit wetland characteristics.

The Truckee Meadows Regional Plan designates this meadow as a natural resource consideration area and as a critical source water protection area.

The meadow is critical for aquatic recharge and natural water pollution filtering.

Extensive mercury contamination in the floodplain has been verified by the applicant's testing.

The proposed remediation to allow habitation will destroy the beneficial functions of the floodplain and further spread contamination.

Finding B, protect natural and scenic resources states that the development identifies and protects natural and scenic resources, including but not limited to the ridge lines, waterways, large diameter trees, and habitat for special status species.

The development fails to comply with the hillside development article 424 and destroys natural and scenic resources, including the floodplain by excessive cut and fill grading.

The application fails to protect large trees as required.

The application applicant plans to destroy almost all trees outside the streamboat streambed buffer zone without regard to size.

The proposed development is habitat to two endangered species and one threatened species.

The applicant plans to destroy a large amount of habitat by cut and fill grading.

The development will release untreated pollution water into the habitat of these special status species.

Finding C achieve more efficient use of the land states that the development use density clustering to further protect and preserve open spaces.

The applicant fails to protect and preserve developmentally constrained open spaces by clustering development in these areas.

The proposed clustering destroys environmentally sensitive areas while leaving areas more suitable for development as open space.

As such, I suggest that you not approve this project.

Thank you.

Next, we have Bob Rusk, followed by Mark Ashworth.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Bob Rusk, 46-year resident of Washoe Valley.

I'm a former two-term Washoe County Commissioner.

I also served 12 years in public office, which makes me an expert on all things polluted.

Stop that.

I've examined this application, and it is deeply flawed from everything I have ever seen.

Presented earlier was a petition hand signed by 1,600 local residents.

They agree that the design of the Sierra Reflection Subdivision and the actions being proposed by the applicant are ill-conceived, inappropriate, and dangerous to the public.

Submission of the application caused residents to form 20 working groups in major areas of concern.

They carefully analyze the applicants, researched associated plans and codes, and documented their results.

They have heard from 28 speakers who have presented their findings in detail.

The proposed application does not comply with seven elements and at least 18 major principles of master plan envision.

WASHO 2040.

It does not comply with the 12 goals of attendance four of the master plan.

The application is out of compliance with at least six Washoe County Development Code articles.

The following is the prime summary of the number of speakers who could not make the necessary findings for approval.

Preserve or provide open space to speakers.

Protect natural scenic resources.

Six.

Achieve a more efficient use of land.

Two.

Thank you.

Next we have Mark Ashworth called by Aaron Sutherland.

Folks, I realize everyone's being real polite with the clapping.

And if we could just pause the clapping until after the next speakers have been announced so that there's time to clap all the comments.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening.

My name is Mark Ashworth.

I've been a resident of Washoe Valley since 1985.

I'm a realtor, but I represent myself tonight.

I do not represent uh Sierra Nevada Realtors, Nevada Association of Realtors, nor the National Association of Realtors.

I'm a firm believer in private property rights.

However, I have to agree with all of my previous speakers that this project is incorrect for this site.

I have major concerns relative driven by density.

Pleasant Valley Elementary.

However, without money to expand current classrooms, our students would suffer from uh increased class size.

Traffic.

There's only two in with one way in, one way out, ingress and egress, both with roundabouts.

Uh per forms uh average autos per household is 1.8.

This would be over 2200 additional cars in that area, plus service vehicles, et cetera.

So two uh ingress and egress points are inadequate.

Water in Nevada, whiskeys for drinking, waters for fighting.

I can tell you that uh there are 286 homes uh per Washoe County tax assessor right now in Pleasant Valley, and the Washoe County estimates 168 gallons per day per household, so that's 48,000 gallons daily, 7,350,000 gallons annually.

You add the 940 proposed, you're at 158,000 per day and 56 million annual.

You combine those, you got 64 million annual.

Now, I attended one of the meetings and they said they were going to drill two wells.

Now I understand we're going to pull water from St.

James Village.

We're going to drill two wells later on.

Uh two 900-foot commercial wells would have a at uh with a water standing at 20 feet would have 9,191 gallons available.

Those would need to refresh 11 times daily in order to supply adequate water for Pleasant Valley Current and the newly proposed 940.

It's only a matter of time before that water aquifer is depleted.

Then we talk about wastewater, a fluent removal.

Uh they're going to build uh uh a pipe to the new Pleasant Valley Interceptor, which is proposed at a cost of 38,860,000.

Uh where's this money going to come from?

Comes from Washoe County residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Aaron Sutherland, followed by Cameron McSweeney.

You don't need a clap for me.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Aaron Sutherland.

Please enter my comments for the record.

I have served as a chief pilot for the Nevada Army National Guard, the uh Department of Emergency Management for the State and Wildlife Firefighter.

I'm also a certified safety professional, and the character of the men and women behind me is the reason why 16 years ago my wife and five children moved to Pleasant Valley.

I'm currently the elected president of the Pleasant Valley Steamboat Landowners Association, and I'm tonight representing over 500 residential homes and 11 businesses requesting that you deny this application.

The plan is not commensurate as discussed with the 2040 master plan.

Um from Highway 341, start of the steamboat area back to um East Lake Boulevard.

Uh we were able to survey 51% of the residents raised agricultural type animals, those are sheep, poultry, swine, cattle, goats, horses, you name it.

Uh this development plan is not commensurate with that.

Uh the disturbance of the mercury along a known designated superfund site.

Um, as we all know, fecal matter and flood matter all goes downhill.

And uh the majority of the residents in our area are downstream of this proposed location from the uh Steamboat Creek.

Uh this is going to create hazards to not only the development crews, the residents of the area, uh, the students and faculty of Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

Um, and I'm thinking back 10 years ago, they closed Pine Middle School for over 10 days because of thermostat was broken in the mercury leak there.

Yet we're talking about disturbing uh whatever it was, 13 trillion tons of of landfill.

I know I'm exaggerating on this.

Uh, and we're less than a mile away from Pleasant Valley Elementary School for a build site that could take up to 20 years in one of the windiest parts of the northern Nevada.

That's definitely in violation of CFR 29, 1910 and 126.

The Murray Ranch just downstream of this also produces uh commercial beef and hay sales.

Uh, the potential disruption of this mercury can also wind up in in the uh food contamination as well as uh for hay.

It's in a FEMA flood zone as already discussed.

The traffic issues are significant, but I'm going to touch on a different piece.

Uh tactical technical large animal rescue.

We have not only a large animal vet hospital in our region, also all the people living in that area have so many horses and large animals to extrapolate those as well as uh commercial buses and excuse me, a high school or school buses, uh things like that is is just ridiculous with the amount of traffic flow.

I saw firsthand in 2018 fighting fighting the uh paradise fire that resulted in tw uh 85 fatalities because people couldn't evacuate out of that highway.

Let's let's learn lessons from what's happened between our neighbors and also the folks over in Miami, or excuse me, Maui.

Let's not let a design flaw create something that that injures our our people.

Uh in addition, the uh DRI showed that we're the fastest growing temperature uh city in the entire union.

Next, we have Cameron McSweeney, followed by Jason Erickson.

Good evening.

My name is Cameron McSweeney, and please enter my comments into the record.

I have been a Reno resident for 45 years, growing up in Lemon Valley, now residing in Pleasant Valley and currently the vice president of the Pleasant Steamboat Valley Landowners Association.

With 25 years in the insurance industry, I have a vast array of knowledge pertaining to homeowners' insurance and our current insurance climate.

To put it plainly, we have been still are and will continue to be in a home insurance crisis for quite some time.

Approving the Sierra Reflections while homework homeowners in the area are still being canceled and struggling to find insurance coverage would be recklessly negligent, as this development will be detrimental to those already struggling to find insurance and will further saturate our already limited options.

Currently, there are only a few carriers that will even insure in areas such as Washoe and Pleasant Valley with the surrounding areas covered by cheat crass and other dry brush.

Insurance carriers do not look at the vacant land that these developers remove to build these developments or how fire safe the homes are built.

But at the entire area that will still be surrounded by flammable vegetation.

Insurance carriers will see this as a bigger risk of loss within a smaller area, and we may lose the few carriers entirely that are even willing to insure these existing neighborhoods.

Furthering the crisis, assemblyman PK O'Neal with zero insurance industry knowledge or experience, and our interim insurance commissioner Ned Gaines, who is a farmer's claims adjuster in Washington, just passed Assembly Bill 36, which allows carriers to completely exclude wildfire from coverage, making it an optional secondary policy like earthquake or flood.

I usually agree with Mr.

Gaines, but there are some serious red flags that will cause further problems with our smaller rural and semi-rural communities.

I have written through many insurance carriers, and while I understand the effort to get carriers to start insuring again, this idea will be detrimental to those of us in these communities threatened by wildfires.

All mortgage companies require insurance for fire, including wildfire, and we do not have something that covers wildfire, such as the California Fair Plan.

These secondary policies may end up being impossible to find or so expensive that people unknowingly default on their mortgage loan requirements because they simply can't afford it or are sold by a misrep or are sold a misrepresented policy by an unethical or 800 number based insurance agent.

Insurance companies have routinely hired CEOs with zero knowledge or training and repeatedly ignored the warnings from longtime agents because they were only worried about quantity instead of quality and don't properly train their agents or employees.

It took decades for this mess to come to a head, and it may take decades to get to dig out of.

Allowing Sierra reflections will only compound this insurance crisis and make it worse before it can be properly addressed and corrected over time.

Next, we have Jason Erickson, followed by Jenny Erickson.

My name is Jason Erickson, living in Pleasant Valley.

I am against the Sierra Reflection development, and one of the issues I see is the consistency.

The South Valleys area is full of medium density suburban and larger lots.

This plan goes against that consistency by using open space as a catch-all to enable smaller lots.

One issue that is encountered with that is development code 11040825, where it says the complete common open space development must comply with minimum lot width, front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, and rear yard setbacks.

This development is asking for a waiver for those setbacks, but all those waivers combined turn this property from a rural environment to an urban environment.

The property is mostly zoned for MDS, which has minimum lot widths of 60 feet, front setbacks of 20 feet, rear setbacks of 20 feet.

If you look at the parcels in the proposed plan, for instance on sheet two uh C 2.2 of 54 on page 327 of the packet, you will see whole swaths of small lots with widths smaller than 60 feet.

Page 15 of the proposed plan even lists out lot dimensions and setbacks they are requesting, many of which violate common open space development code.

Common open space was not intended to be a way to avoid rezoning, which this project should require.

If this applicant really wants this plan, they should apply for HDS or LDU zoning to fit the desired plots.

This is one way the proposed plan is not consistent with the development code.

Another way, the current plan is not consistent with the South Valleys Area Plan is found on page 14 of the South Areas Plan, which states that curb and gutter will be discouraged.

This permit is emphasizing curb and gutter as the main method for storage storm drainage.

This development would not be consistent with South Meadows or would be consistent with South Meadows, but not South Valleys.

The character statement of South Valleys area plan says this rural atmosphere and community character are supported by an intimate integration of the natural environment, extensive historical resources, wide-spread agricultural activities, livestock and equestrian stewardship.

Rows of cookie cutter homes with lots smaller than one quarter acre is not consistent with the goal of having livestock and equestrian stewardship.

The majority of those homeowners won't even have an opportunity to own hoses or make use of the horse trails provided in that open space.

These are just a few areas where the proposed plan is not consistent with the South Valleys Plan nor the development code.

South Valleys would not be benefited with an island of high density within our rural environment.

Thank you.

Next we have Jenny Erickson, followed by Mark Toomey.

My name is Jenny Erickson.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

According to the Envision Washoe 2040 Master Plan, page 75, what does it mean to be rural?

Washoe County residents describe rural land use areas, which includes the South Valleys as large lots, plenty of wide open space for farming, livestock or wildlife, dark skies, and not connected to municipal services.

Instead, using well water and septic systems.

This development does not fit the characteristics of that rural area description, nor does it fit the established characteristics of the South Valleys area plan.

As such, it will open the way to completely changing the characteristics of our valleys moving forward.

911 of the 940 lots will be less than a third of an acre.

Cookie cutter homes with no uniqueness, sidewalks, and street lights, all of which should not exist in our rural environment.

I believe property must be a minimum of half an acre to own a horse, and the majority of these homeowners will not even be able to own a horse to use on the proposed equestrian trail.

Only the eight one acre lots could possibly own horses.

And what about smaller livestock?

Will the future homeowners of this development be allowed to have chickens or ducks?

Or is there HOA going to eliminate that possibility even if they have enough yard space?

I am also greatly concerned about traffic coming down the hill on Old 395 from East Lake in the winter.

I've almost been rear-ended turning right onto Rahide in snowy conditions.

How will people navigate the new roundabout at the bottom or top of a snowy hill when I-580 is closed and all traffic to and from Carson City is routed through there?

Please ask yourselves is if this development is really in the best interest of our area's master plan before you vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mark Toomey, followed by Kyle Boo.

Good evening.

My name's Mark Toomey.

I'm a Washoe Valley resident and a registered Washoe County voter.

I don't have any numbers like these folks have.

I think they've been pretty well prepared.

Tonight I've been looking up at that sign.

It says working together.

We're here to sustain a safe, a secure, and a healthy community.

That's us.

That's you as members of this commission and us as residents of this county.

The developers' representation tonight did a very eloquent job of describing some things.

They talked about drainage as if it was a waste material.

That drainage is water.

My grandchildren, my children, and I depend on that drainage.

It sustains our life.

They further described mitigation.

Mitigation to protect you.

I want to mitigate the risks to their safety and their security and their health.

As a member of the largest insurance agency in the state, I've been involved in communications with three major carriers, and they're looking at Washoe Valley under a microscope.

We have a fire station with three pieces of fire equipment servicing an area substantially larger than many urban areas.

And they've got us in a gun site.

Many of the residents that live next door to me have already gotten letters from their carriers indicating that their renewals are not going to happen.

So I'm here asking as a resident, not with numbers, not with statistics, but I'm asking on behalf of my grandchildren and my children and myself that when you make your determination, you ask yourself does this forward our safety?

Does this forward our security?

And does this forward the health of the people that are depending on us?

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Next we have Kyle Bu followed by Kim Wallin.

Good evening.

My name is uh Kyle Boo, BOU.

Um, I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I'd like my comments to be put into the record.

Um I come with a more heart fill, uh, just like Mark did, um, and a few questions to ponder for yourselves.

Uh so here I stand, a concerned county resident, and uh and uh an even more upset Washoe uh resident.

I consider myself a younger male.

Um I started work from very young age and uh with one goal in mind was to move out of the city.

And I wanted to go into live in the rural part of this state that I've grown to love.

Um as a young lad, I got to experience the rural life and always vowed to myself that I will give my children the same experience.

So with the Sierra Reflections plans put forth, you you jeopardize my vow that I've given myself when I was young to give my children that.

This will not only disturb the natural rural lifestyle that everyone here and that has that that's not here that has come here has grown to love, and the um but the future generations that will come after them.

To bolly reiterate the other speakers, um, how will uh future self and my children deal with the environmental effects and changes set forth?

This plan will contaminate our wells, create unbearable traffic, force taxpayers to pay for additional schools as current schools are overcrowded and lack teachers, stress our emergency services, uh fire, police, and medical, you will it will destroy local wildlife habitats and stress our state park.

The rural lifestyle will forever be diminished, and the floodgates open to allow further high-density housing uh developments.

Our children deserve the rural lifestyle environment we enjoy.

So with just a few questions to ponder here.

The net is 250K, but on grading the grading app, paragraph 20 says 650K.

They can't seem to meet the findings.

Also, how is it possible that for 940 homes only to only produce such a low amount of students impact on existing schools?

It's a severe miscalculation.

What other severe miscalculations are here that our future selves, my children, their children, will be burdened with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Kim Wallin followed by Jim Noriega.

Good evening, commissioners.

For the record, I'm Kim Wallen.

One of my concerns is the continued warming that is happening in Reno.

Reno is the fastest warming city in the country.

Its average annual temperature has increased by 7.8 degrees since 1970.

This is even warmer than what Las Vegas has of 5.9 degrees.

We need to keep open space to keep our area from becoming too hot to live in.

If this project, heaven forbid, is approved in this form, please consider requiring that the builder put on light colored roofs on all buildings and light colored exteriors, and to minimize the use of pavement and concrete.

Another concern I have is how is the fire station going to be funded.

Earlier this year, Chief Edwards said he was committed to building the station, but the county lacks the funds.

He said the cost to build the station has doubled since 2021 to 16 million dollars.

I'm also concerned about how are we going to fund the staffing of the fire station.

Furthermore, the department at this time already has 10 vacant positions because of the county's deficit.

Currently, the county's fiscal situation is not very good.

They have a budget deficit of 2.5 million for this fiscal year and 18 million projected for FY27.

And by 2030, it should be 38.5 million.

What I would propose, the developer, I really appreciate that they're going to pay their share of this fire station, but how much is it?

I didn't hear how much it was.

10%, 50%, 90%.

I would propose that we enter recommend that part of the approval is the development of agreement be entered, a development agreement be entered into under which the developer builds the station.

And then we can work on a cost sharing.

I'm concerned that one of the proposals is a special improvements district.

That means we as taxpayers will be paying for this development.

So please take these things into consideration.

What I like to say is development always brings in tax revenues, but it never seems to cover all of the additional costs that happen when we do the developments with the increased infrastructure and additional population.

So thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Thank you.

Next we have Jim Noriega followed by Marek Beckin.

Yeah, good evening, Commissioners, and thanks for the opportunity.

I had Jim Noriega, I live in Washoe Valley.

And I come here thinking I was going to pick on the water supply and the roundabouts and uh a couple other things, but uh everything's been covered so well and in much greater detail than I could offer by the previous presenters.

So I would just say that I support what they are saying in all respects, and to thank you again for your consideration.

I urge you, please, to uh not approve this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I have Marie Kebecon, followed by Nanette Olson.

Good evening.

I'm Mariah Beck, and I ask that my oral and written comments be entered into the record.

I assume you've received those written comments.

Lots are proposed in this proposal, ranging from less than 0.07 acres to 1.6 acres, averaging around 0.2 acres, which is not conform to medium density suburban without using the artifice of clustering.

Under clustering, the developer divines the unbuildable areas open space and overbuilds the rest, averaging the built and unbuilt acreage to meet minimums.

The chart on page 13, however, is disingenuous.

It seems based on the idea that MDS allows three dwellings per acre, and around 330 acres or so zoned, so 985 homes can be built on just that part.

But almost half of the total acres, and presumably many of the MDS zoned acres are unbuildable.

Also, the display of allowable dwelling units falsely implies that the smallest lots are a third of an acre rather than much less than a tenth of an acre.

Lots in these valleys are usually large, but these new homes could have tiny yards and have as little as 10 feet between the windows of one house and the windows of the neighbor.

This proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as required by the master plan.

The second major issue is traffic.

The almost 9,000 new daily trips expected is a significant increase.

Nevada DOT's Trina 2.0 shows 10,800 average daily trips along the highway.

Even assuming that half of the new trips went south, nearly 4,500 new trips is a traffic increase along this corridor, the only corridor that we have to get through this area between East Lake and the junction of over 40 percent, which is approaching the peak before the freeway, not the one half of the pre-freeway peak that one of the developers presented on a slide.

This will impact everyone significantly.

To mitigate these trips, the developers suggest roundabouts.

These slow traffic, further, two-lane roundabouts proposed here were found to increase accidents by 62 percent, causing more delays on this travel corridor.

There are many other issues with roundabouts to the proposed area that I won't get into.

The reports suggest offsets for the cost of this improvement.

But since the status quo is generally good traffic flow, there will be no improvement in flow, so no offset should be allowed.

They may claim a D on the roundabouts, but that is still terrible.

The third issue is water.

Under this proposal, the development will get water, but will the rest of us?

Page 91 says water rights holders utilizing water resources in adjacent to or in proximity to the development shall continue to have access to the full water rights.

How are these areas defined?

It doesn't say.

If my water rights are three miles down the highway, am I included?

Or do I lose my surface water rights?

Water flows.

If the community wells reduce the level of the creeks, all surface water rights downstream will be affected.

More water will be pumped out than recharged.

So groundwater rights will be impacted for all the homes in the valleys.

Further, the sewer, which removes water from the basin, is generally not allowed to move water from one basin to another basin, and a sewer will go into the uh the the basic waste treatment plants, they're all north, and they they won't return that water to our valleys.

Thus, I believe that the thing is not consistent, it doesn't mirror the pattern.

The homes are too small, the water is an issue, the traffic is an issue, the development transity is an issue, and you should not approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Nanette Olsen followed by Erin Lehmann.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'm Nanette Olsen, and uh what I would say about myself is that I'm a 66-year-old uh native Nevada resident, and I speak from a different tone.

I speak for somebody, and not just the 1600 people that signed the petition, but for the visionary casting for Nevada and what we want to represent.

And the 2040 uh document was all about a visionary framework.

When I first moved to Pleasant Valley, that was 36 years ago.

I discovered it, and I thought, oh my God, this is a piece of earth unlike any other.

This is where I want to live my whole life.

And I believe I will.

It's been 36 years, and I have who knows how many more to go.

But we're not just representing a rural area.

We're representing what we want to protect as our state.

We know that we have a lot of California people coming, and I am the first one to welcome them.

But we want our state to have a unique flavor and characteristic.

And if we get rid of and remove some of these rural properties that we have been known for, we devastate that.

When I cross the state line, I still think home means Nevada, home means the hills, home meets a sage in the pine.

I have to say that if this went through, I would no longer feel like I was a true Nevada.

And I think that there are many people who live in the cities who drive that way and enjoy that way and go for bike rides in that area, all of those things, they would have to question some of our identity, state, state identity.

So I drove through the valley for 30 years to Carson City working as a school counselor.

And the best part of my job, well, there were many good parts, but I will say the hard part about retiring, it's not driving through the valley anymore.

Somebody said it's been designated as a scenic byway.

I can't imagine driving and looking at two big or I'm a bike rider, I hike in those hills every day.

Some of the people in the in the audience I see on a daily basis hiking.

I can't imagine looking at two big water towers and all of these things and saying, I am proud to be a Nevada.

So I urge you to vote against this uh proposition and to um to support what we all have come to believe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Aaron Lehman and lastly in chamber, followed by Rick Blake.

Good evening.

Thank you for being here.

I know it's a really late night, so I appreciate your time.

I appreciate all of you guys being public servants and taking care of Wash County.

Um I would like my statements be entered on record.

So my name is Erin Lehman.

I found Wash Valley in 1984.

I love Wash Valley, it's beautiful.

I'm here listening to some very impressive testimony tonight, testimony that I probably couldn't put together myself.

Um, and in looking around this room, I noticed the mission, the Washoe County mission.

And I am also seeing a lot of people talk about community support, and here you go.

This room was full when I got here, and there's people standing on the back wall.

So there's a lot of community support, there's a lot of passion, and um, I think that this development needs some serious review.

Um when I hear I'm hearing a lot of fluff words tonight, and it was interesting earlier.

I heard um a sense of community and open space development.

I think that's strange because open space is open space.

And then I heard something called boutique style character.

Um, you know, Sierra Reflections is a beautiful name.

It's a beautiful name.

But I'm worried that our Sierra Reflections view is going to be compromised.

So I wanted to come here up here and speak to you about that.

So, you know, the list goes on.

I mean, from traffic congestion, and we talked about roundabouts, roundabouts, or have become raceways.

That one person that called in.

Look at Veterans Parkway.

It's scary.

It's really scary.

So, yeah, massive traffic congestion.

You're gonna have two roundabouts.

Before I-580 was put in, 395 was getting pretty rough, and you couldn't even pull out of Washa Valley with a horse trailer.

So school capacity, where's the money gonna come from?

They're gonna have to enlarge that school.

It cannot take care of all the students.

It can't.

Water, water resources, where, what, um, critical stream impact.

I heard that tonight, quality of life, open spaces.

Um, I'm a former 4-H leader and an FFA coach at Carson High School.

And what about our, you know, it's it's gonna change our community.

What about our equestrian lifestyle and our agriculture?

That's something that Nevada promotes, and that's very important to our community.

Um, you know, the reduction of farming and agriculture and resources, that's something that we really need to take a serious look at.

That's our that's our future.

Like agriculture and farming, that's our future.

That's where our food comes from.

So one thing that's not been touched on, and I noticed is noise pollution.

So I ride my horse at Washa Lake all the time, have been doing it since the 80s.

I was out riding the other day.

I heard more noise from the freeway than I've ever heard before.

And I invite any of you to come horseback ride with me so I can show you myself.

So in that, just please be careful with this consideration.

Um, maybe they can make some changes to development and make it work better.

Thank you.

Lastly in chambers, we have Rick Lake.

Thank you, commissioners.

Um, my name is Rick Blake.

I've lived at Steam Mode Valley for 33 years, um, representing my family and the neighbors.

Everybody here tonight has done just a mind-blowing job, I think, presenting how we all feel.

Um I agree with everything they said.

They work so hard, their facts, their research was awesome.

Um, I want to tell you about fires first of all, um, talking about not being able to get insurance.

Um I'm in that boat right now.

I'm taking down three 70-foot cottonwoods that are right next to my house that I thought would that I would outlive, but uh that's not going to happen.

And the insurance company will not insure us with those trees as close to the house.

And I see that with this proposed subdivision that fires will get worse.

I mean, they say they have houses that aren't going to burn.

I'm thinking, whoa, what kind of fire is that?

I've seen we all know it's like a fire freight terrain come coming through when those winds get blowing.

Um now there's going to be it used to just be sagebrush, it would blow across that, and the fires were kind of able to be contained.

But now they're gonna have houses, what's in the garages, fertilizer, gas, vegetation will be grown.

That'll just increase that fire moving down wind where we all live.

So that's kind of a scary thought.

Um, second of all, about the uh the dirt, the mercury is seems to be, and I didn't realize it was such a bad situation there, but holy smokes, it's everywhere.

I don't know how people could even consider building houses on this place.

Um kids are gonna want to go out and play.

And what I've heard tonight, too, is that the the dirt, they're gonna cap it at the houses, but not in these open spaces or on the trails.

Where do kids play?

They play on the trails, they're out in the dirt.

What are you gonna tell them?

Hey, I want to go ride my bike, stay in the driveway.

Um don't God help you if you make a mud pie and come back all muddy.

What's gonna be in that mud?

Who knows?

Um, so that that's just it just makes no sense.

Houses on a mercury super fun site.

I don't know.

Um flooding, I can say about that.

Um, I've lived through three floods and they're bad.

And we have figured out a way to kind of burn our property, make sure these floods aren't so bad.

Um, when they hit us, and now tonight I'm finding out just from listening to everybody's great research, we're gonna get hammered even more than we have, and um not acceptable.

Please don't approve this project.

It makes no sense.

I do have one hand raised on Zoom.

Ours Papard.

Please unmute and state your full name for the record.

Okay, can you hear me?

We can great.

I'm Iris Feely Papard, the executive director of One Trucky River OTR.

I would like to have my comments recorded.

Uh, OTR is a collaboration of public and private partners focused on the implementation of the One Truck E River Management Plan that was unanimously approved by three jurisdictions in 2016.

With a collaborative partnership of diverse perspective, comments provided are not of OTR as a whole, but our OTR is executive director with our mission in mind to assure a healthy, thriving, sustainable river connected to the hearts and minds of its community.

These are the critical times where the choices are made if the master and other plans developed and approved with a focus to preserve our natural resources are made or ignored.

We're talking about disturbing soil on a super fun site and the need to preserve our flood plains.

Please take more time and focus on this proposal.

Ensure space landscapes reflect native vegetation and have more buffer space to protect waterways.

Yeah, I was gonna say, um, let's reconvene at ten twenty.

Thank you.

Thirteen minutes.

This meeting is being recorded.

All right, it is 1020 on January 6th, 2026, the Washoe County Planning Commission meeting is back in order.

Um thank you all for that public comment.

Uh before we get to questions and debate, I just want to say that was the most organized, coordinated, and uh to the point of the findings that we have to make uh public comment that I I've ever seen from uh any individual or community in this county.

So uh thank you very much for all of that.

Uh do we have any questions from the board for applicants or um county staff?

I have questions for the applicant in regards to the water, um, it sounds like you're seeking approval from Tumwa to be uh served for this development, correct?

For the record, this is Ken Crater with Crater Consulting Group, and yes, uh Tumwa will be the service provider for this project, and so we will be working with them directly on uh the final water project for Sierra Flections.

And has the development provided any water rights associated with the project to Tumwa?

Uh yes, in fact, we have enough municipal water rights with Tumwa that they have bank to serve uh all of the homes within the project.

And those were from the development or purchased through Temwa.

They were purchased with the property when the property was bought uh decades ago.

They came with the property, and we have both groundwater rights and creek water rights.

Okay.

Um in regards to not affecting the existing wells within Pleasant Valley.

Um it didn't seem like Tumwell was very strong in their email today saying that they are positive that that won't happen.

Is there any guarantee from the developer that there would be money set aside for assistance in um deepening wells for those existing homeowners or providing additional services through Tumwa's um water system?

So in order to get a new well approved, we're gonna have to go to both the state engineer as well as Tumwa.

We're gonna have to do extensive testing on that well, perhaps long-term pumping test to basically proof up the viability of the well and also that pumping test.

We'll look at the other uh uh wells in the area for drawdown.

When we did the uh Falcon Capitol well test, we monitored all the other wells in the area for drawdown.

So pot that's part of the process you have to go through.

Uh and that's too why Tumwa now is switching over to the aquifer storage and recharge process for their wells is to make sure that those aquifers stay recharged so during those peak times that you're pumping, you don't impact the other wells.

So we have a long process to go through, but obviously in order to get this project going, we have to get that approval from Temua on the state engineer, and they're not going to approve it unless we can show you know demonstrate that we won't impact other area domestic wells.

And the impact to other wells is that also in the Callahan ranch area.

Yes.

Um Tumwa considers all this to be tied in with that Callahan ranch area and uh they're looking at the Callahan Ranch, the Pleasant Valley, uh as well as the Washa Valley.

So the tests are going to be extensive and cross aquifers as far as looking at impacts on other areas.

And we did that with the Falcon Capital well test.

We monitored the St.

James wells and we looked at wells in the Callahan Ranch area.

Um in regards to emergency services, where's the closest sheriff's substation to this new development?

Um I cannot answer that.

Uh the bird's eye, um, it's incline village by practicality.

It's 911 par.

There's no discussion of any type of land set aside for a substation or anything like that.

So that's a concern.

Um in regards to the fire station, it sounds like there's been an agreement that the developer will provide funding for the new fire station.

It's actually a condition of approval that we have to essentially provide our pro rata share.

And when we recently met with Chief Edwards, uh he basically ran the numbers based on how many existing homes they serve uh in that station area, as well as the new homes and seriflections.

Uh and uh uh basically we're responsible for about 25 percent roughly of the cost of that new station.

So when I read the um condition of approval, it says that you're gonna explore funding options.

It doesn't say that you're providing actual funding in any amount, and whether that's today's dollars or dollars when it actually goes to construction, that's what I would be concerned about.

As we know, nothing's getting cheaper, and every year it seems to greatly increase.

Um, so that's another concern.

And in fact, we we even you know worked with Chief Edwards on that and uh actually referred him over to uh uh construction consultant to really start value engineering that station because obviously we're paying our pro rata share, so it's in everybody's interest to figure out means and methods to provide the resources and the station they need, but try and keep the cost more reasonable.

But uh the condition is worded the way it is to give flexibility because what we talked to the chief about is uh potentially uh doing like a building permit fee of a couple thousand dollars per unit and then another finance mechanism, a tax increment financing or or tying into a special improvement district for another two thousand dollars to make it more palatable to the home builder because home builders have limitations on what they'll accept as far as a special improvement district because they don't want to overwhelm the home buyer with property taxes, right?

Because special improvement district costs go right to your property tax.

So there's a little bit of sensitivity in just having more than one mechanism to provide that pro-RATASHARE funding uh so this project can get developed and that station can get built.

So I understand that this development that we're considering right now.

Um the existing developed lots within Pleasant Valley, south of Andrew Lane, north of Pawnee Lane is about 380, and you're asking to put 940 more units in.

So that's a considerable amount.

You're two and a half times the density of this area.

So the developer should have to pay.

The though those lots should have to pay, in my opinion.

And yeah, we we don't disagree one bit, right, in terms of paying our pro rata share.

But again, to keep in mind, we're just using the existing density.

We're not asking for a zone change or master plan.

We're just working within the current approved zoning that's been in place for decades.

So when the tentative map was expired in 2022 or whenever, was there any consideration of decreasing the density of the subdivision?

Or was it just this has been in place for 20 years?

It's still a good idea.

Well, you want to make sure that a project is viable, right?

And so we looked at building a pro forma and a project work together to make sure that we could fund the expensive backbone infrastructure because we're gonna end up paying 25 million dollars for water infrastructure, 20 million dollars for sewer infrastructure.

We're bringing in a reclaimed water line from the South Trucking Meadows treatment plant, which will re help recycle that water at the South Trucking Meadows treatment plant.

We've got electrical infrastructure, gas infrastructure, roads, grading, right?

There's significant cost associated with the development, and too, that's why we have a common open space development, and we cluster because now we have less streets to pay for, and now the county has less streets to maintain.

We have less utility infrastructure for the utility companies to maintain.

So there's some valid reasons behind doing that common open space and looking at a number of units that will justify the cost of all that infrastructure.

So I'm just trying to make sure that I can come up with um you know the findings that we need to and based on the site's suitability and improvements needed.

I think you just made my argument that I cannot make those findings.

Thank you.

And if I can just add one more comment on the fire station that I think is important, it's not just a fire station, but the chief can talk to this better than I can.

But they're going to have other facilities in there that could potentially serve for a substation, a community room.

So it's more than just a fire station that he has planned to build.

Thank you.

So this project has been with this developer for 40 plus years originally as a higher density casino for the last 20 plus years as something approximating this kind of uh density of housing.

Um you would like us to uh approve a tenant map and these special use permits for you to move forward to be entitled again to build something like what you were entitled to build for the last 20 years.

Can you explain to me why it didn't get built in the last 20 years and why now it is gonna be built in the next four years or at least start to pull final maps?

Yes, again for the record, Ken Crater.

So with the 2006 approval going into the Great Recession, and I remember it when it hit very well, because I sold my house in late 2006, and uh it literally just shut down development with this when this area, and things didn't really pick up at all till 2015, and really nothing uh um substantial until 2018.

By then the project was outdated, and uh uh you know, development home builders have different products that they build over the years.

Um and then also uh there was an issue just in terms of the sewer.

I mean, the uh reach three sewer line per Dwayne Smith, the county engineer, he's told us that if we were to tie into the existing list station today, there's about three to four hundred dwelling units of capacity, but we couldn't build out the project without that new capacity brought down to that reach three and tying into reach four.

So there was a couple of different things that we had to work with, but now we have a project that's current in terms of home building requirements, it works in terms of the infrastructure cost, and more importantly, is this area is ripe now for this mix and quality of homes in that area.

And uh we we are absolutely confident that yes, it will get going and be built out.

I know everybody's like, well, why didn't you get it done the first time?

But there were circumstances that prevented that.

Right.

So the part of that explanation was that the plan that was previously approved was stale by the time the market was ready for it to be built.

What apologies for not having been around when that all got approved the first time, but what what's different now that makes it uh you know marketable or makes it uh achievable?

The lot sizes, the setbacks, uh there is a huge demand now for some of these smaller lots on the project that are in the 6,000 square foot range.

Um the uh um previous development had much larger lots, the smallest lots in the previous development was eight to nine nine thousand square feet, and this those just weren't deemed acceptable by the builders, and also the previous project we had approved for attached townhomes.

And uh attached townhomes are so expensive to build today that it's not a desirable product.

It's less expensive to build apartment projects than it is attached townhomes.

So there was no market for that product.

So there was a couple of different things that played in in terms of updating the overall product type.

All right, uh, thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah.

Um I don't know if it's uh uh question for for you, sir or uh staff, but I am a little concerned.

Well, more than a little uh about the super fund site being uh I've had in my other life I had some experience with that, and um it's a mess even when they're doing dealing with it.

So what's it what is the status of this uh of the site as far as being a superfunder?

Is the cleanup finished or or is it still a work in progress?

Or and I have the expert here tonight, Caitlin Jelly with UES to answer that, and also in the audience is Wes Rubio with Northern Nevada Public Health, who also has special expertise in that area.

Thank you.

Hi, Caitlin Jelly for the record with UES.

Um to answer your question about the superfund site.

So the Carson little background story, Carson River Mercury Superfund site is actually a very unique superfund site in the terms of superfund site.

You know, we all understand Superfund site for military and those love canal and the big things.

Um this is unique in that this was established in 1990, it was added to the national priorities list.

And what happened is they took Virginia City basically used mercury to amalgamate and get metals out of soil, and then they in theory recaptured it, but right, it's the 1800s, they didn't recapture it.

Um, and so they took when they built the Superfund site when they established it.

They took kind of the source areas, which included the mill sites that were discussed tonight, and the source area being Virginia City, and then just drew a map of downgradient sites.

So the they weren't necessarily sampled, not like you know in a normal superfund site, right?

Like a lot of this was built just based on a map, so it's all down gradient.

So you kind of saw in one of the pictures that it's Washoe Lake, it goes all the way to Lahontan, and then the Superfund boundaries technically end at City of Reno limits.

Um but the steamboat creek is gonna be contaminated now and basically forever.

Um it is becoming less and less of an impact because it just deposits naturally over time uh and is sinking into the sediment, so it's still there, and obviously, if people are going to disturb Steamboat Creek, it's gonna be more of a problem.

This site specifically, the reason why there's mercury contamination is from flood irrigation.

So there was the one historic mill site.

Uh they didn't actually handle mercury there.

They handled lead and arstic, which are also sampled as part of our plan.

But all of that mercury across zone one was actually deposited via flood irrigation, right?

Which makes sense because the mercury transports like sediment in all the water.

So if they are constantly depositing that sediment over time, that's when it builds up.

We've done a ton of testing with Northern Nevada Public Health in lots of other areas for Steamboat Creek.

It's part of their development requirements.

And we actually don't find elevated concentrations of mercury in just floodplains because it just doesn't go that far that often, right?

Like when it's just a flood event, it doesn't deposit as much as something like flood irrigation.

So the long story or the short story is that there's no cleanup action for this super fund site as a whole.

The NDEP, the state, regulates it in conjunction with the federal EPA.

Um, but they are just basically managing it, I think is the best term for it, not cleaning it up.

So there's still funding for it?

So that's the other fun part.

There's no funding for this one, even though it's super fund, they establish cleanup levels and they used funding to establish risk-based cleanup levels.

Um and I think Wes can comment on some of this, but part of the Superfund site, and that this site technically the only established part of the superfund site is in Steamboat Creek proper.

And I think that's an important designation.

So the site itself is not in the superfund site, which gets complicated.

Um just the creek is so the creek, and then most of Dayton is in the superfund site.

When they used funding, they established risk-based action levels, which was actually 80 parts per million.

Um we are cleaning up here at the development and per an NPH to 7.1 milligrams or parts per million milligrams per kilogram.

Whereas in Dayton, you can develop as long as it's under 80 parts per million.

So um in the superfund proper complicated.

West Rebo, Northern Nevada Public Health for the record, and to just expand a little bit on what Caitlin was speaking about um to the members of the commission.

We actually met with the developer and uh NDEP and EPA in the offices here at the county, and we had a long discussion about this site.

And uh ultimately what really happened is there's three levels of jurisdiction that kind of came out of this.

You have EPA, you have state NDEP, and we have Northern Nevada Public Health.

And the developer to their credit chose to go with the most restrictive boundaries, which is ours at Northern Nevada Public Health.

We are required to review to the strictest levels that the EPA sets during that time frame.

During that time frame, those levels actually changed before their product was actually submitted for our official review, which set the boundaries at the actual lowest levels that we have reviewed at this time, which is 7.1 milligrams per kilogram on a residential lot, residential lot extends to the boundaries of the lot, not just below the house.

So it is the full boundaries of the lot that you would own in that proper area.

And it also extends to commercial.

So the EPA has a standard which is basically residential or commercial, industrial, and that is going to be every other area.

So that includes the streets, anywhere where there's going to be utilities that our that are going to be designated to the county where we are going to have our own staff working or repairing or tum well working or repairing, they are going to be held to 30 milligrams per kilogram for this site from right away to right away to below the bedding of the of any of the piping or infrastructure to ensure that those the safest standards that we can apply to a development site meet the minimum requirements from the EPA.

Well, what's what's the what's the danger to the people?

A that are there now.

And B, if this thing goes through to the to the residents of the development.

I think I read somewhere where you can't bury it.

You mean in other words, fill on top of it and protect the people on the on the on the surface or can you?

I don't I mean, I don't know.

That's a great question, sir.

And actually you can, and it's the most accepted methodology for dealing with the most contaminated soils.

Mercury is basically colloided into soil.

It's a heavy metal.

It sinks in the stream, it hangs out in the dirt, it bioaccumulates in fish and things like that.

That's why you see it in the ocean.

But as far as dealing with it in a development scenario, it is what we call capped.

It is found at a specific layer and it's capped with clean or acceptable fill and to a specific depth.

It's done in every roadway.

Um we reviewed part of the veterans parkway, that was done by the Army Corps.

All of that mercury contaminated soil uh is all deposited in veterans parkway and all the bedding for the roadway.

Um so this is a common practice, it is absolutely standard.

The minimum actual depth that we review to per EPA is an eight-foot cap, which means that the site has to demonstrate through Caitlin's sampling and gridding that from final ground surface to eight feet below ground, that they meet no more than 7.1 milligrams per kilogram on a residential site, and in the roadways, the right of way.

So this is the entire roadway because we don't know for sure where anything is going to be installed, has to meet 30 milligrams per kilogram for the entire roadway.

That's the eight-hour time-weighted average for all the science folk for how you work in in the field.

So it what we have done is we've ensured that the ground is at 7.1 milligrams per kilogram for a depth of eight feet below and through that entire boundaries of each property.

And that is that is a standard practice.

It can be less.

Uh EPA superfund sites actually require a minimum cap of two feet.

So if you were to buy a home in Dayton, you would be a two-foot cap that is 80 milligrams per kilogram of mercury or less for two feet, and then it could be higher.

So this is far more stringent and a much more restrictive review of a development property that we have done in northern Nevada.

So you would import this fill.

And it would have to re meet certain standards.

Because you just can't use on-site soil that's that's contaminated to put a to make a cap.

You can use partially some parts from on-site.

It depends on how the development is going to be done.

Um, that is not my purview.

My purview is going to be ensuring that these metrics are met.

If they're going to choose to pull from some on-site soil, that's fine.

If they have clean fill from other sites that they can put on there, that is entirely fine.

This is all sampling and done.

That's why you'll also see in the packet that you received.

It is a draft wrap.

It's a draft remedial action plan.

It will not be finaled and cannot be finaled until they are actually ready to go forward and construct.

And that is why it is still labeled as a draft.

It is accepted as a draft, but the full engineering and design is not completed yet.

So therefore, we cannot actually have a fully final remediation remedial action plan, which will be completed at that time when we are actually ready to put a shovel in the dirt and start working.

And who who over who oversees that?

Northern Nevada Public Health does, and we will oversee the review of the RAP in conjunction with the our county counterparts.

Is to make sure we're not overstepping our boundaries and or inhibiting somebody else's ability to basically be able to provide the services that need to be done for each division each subdivision.

Okay, and I and I believe someone inquired or made a statement tonight that uh one of the parks is going to be right next to where a lot of this deposit is is found, and you're gonna and then they're gonna put a cap on that.

And then we're gonna have our kids play in the park.

Um, my kids.

It isn't it's an eight-foot cap.

Um it would be an eight-foot cap that has to be over that.

And in addition to that, one of the additional requirements that I we we implemented on this, which is very similar to what we have done in the city of Reno, where we have other developments that have done this, uh, we are requiring that there are uh some type of an irrevocable easement that is surrounding anywhere where we have any deposition of mercury that is um in the terms of what you'd read in there.

I think it's called beneficial reuse.

Um I call it stored mercury in the ground.

We require a plot with an irrevocable easement right over the top of that.

So if at some point 25 years down the line, someone goes, hey, that looks like a great spot to put a sport court or you know, do something different with it.

There's an easement sitting over that, which is clearly denoting that it's a mercury site, and they would and then have to come back in, follow through with whatever mercury requirements are 25 years from now, and they would have to clean that site up to be able to further develop it.

So hopefully that is that is in place for uh those of us who likely will not be here in 25 years to remember that we did this.

Well, thank you for enlightening me.

Uh I still have to take a little while to digest what you said.

Uh it's it's a lot, and it's been a lot of months of um working with the applicant with researching this and sitting with county um staff and working together trying to figure out the best path forward for a site to be able to develop in these conditions.

Yeah, I just the thought of it doesn't sit right.

But uh you know, you gotta Mr.

Flickr follow up on this.

Do you represent Northern Nevada public health overall?

Would would you say in your professional opinion that the public health of Northern Nevada is better served by um leaving aside all questions of like uh housing costs and traffic, just as far as the mercury deposit, are we better off with the mercury as it is in the stream and uh the meadow, or are we better off with it?

Dug up buried under eight feet and people living around that's a that's a very very good question, sir.

Um I will answer it this way.

I don't have a clear answer for you.

What I can tell you is if we are going to develop a site, what I can tell you is what we have put together as far as a proposal to be able to do this correctly, is a very good proposal.

It will demonstrate that any future housing would be safe in a manner that is effective and protective of the residents that would be there in the future and going forward.

Um I cannot tell you that it would make it different or better if it just stays there.

Um, in my opinion, if you are going to develop a site, this is the most restrictive numbers that we have done in northern Nevada.

Um this is not going to be the only one that we are going to see.

There are others.

There is another very large development that is currently under construction that has higher numbers, and they were approved prior to the lowering of these rates.

And it is also going to be extremely protective and safe for the public to be able to live there and say for the people who are going to work and have to repair the sewer and the water and the gas in all of the same manner.

And I will stand behind that based off of current science.

Thank you.

More questions from the board?

No, not from Ms.

Gentleman.

I appreciate again the information that you've given.

I also appreciate you for taking the most advanced way to do this and probably the most expensive way to cover up this.

That's that's very audible, laudable for you too.

But it takes a lot of guts to do this.

I don't know if I'd want a house there, you know.

Uh gotta be honest about that.

One other question, and and following what uh the commissioners were talking about uh as far as water is concerned.

Uh and it's just it to me it it deals with capacity and uh and I know technically it has nothing to do with you in in a way it does.

I get back onto these damn data centers that require water, and I want to I just don't want to run out of water.

And uh and I much rather have a go to um a housing development than uh than a data center, frankly.

But uh I I get worried about the capacity that we have today versus what's going to what we're gonna have tomorrow, and I don't know if anybody has a handle on that.

Um, I digress, but some more could probably speak to that.

Um I mean Tumla Tumwa is the agency that is in this case offering to serve the property and is uh very much focused on planning for the next 50 years of water usage in the basin.

Can I speak to that?

Sure, please.

Again for the record, Ken Crater.

But that's another issue that comes down to why smaller lots make more sense because smaller lots use a lot less water.

For example, a 6,000 square foot lot only uses about five.5, zero half an acre foot per year, but a one-acre lot uses about 0.86 acre feet per year, and Tumwa has huge amounts of data across this entire community on how much water these residential lots use.

Obviously, larger lots typically have more landscaping, right?

But uh that's again, you know, one more reason why these smaller lots, less infrastructure, less for the county to maintain, less water, um it all provides for more economic development.

I get that.

I I really do.

I I I'm a transplant too.

So I've been here 10 years, but I wanted a smaller house and a smaller yard.

I ended up getting double the square footage of the house and almost triple the square footage of the damn yard.

And uh anyway.

Your turn.

I've got one more question.

I don't know if this will be for staff or for the applicant, but um this with regards to the storm water runoff and um in fill in what's currently the floodplain.

Um I understand that there are um catchment basins to deal with uh site derived runoff flows and mitigate that, but obviously in steamboat creek at the joint with Browns Creek, most of the stormwater flows are gonna be derived from upstream.

So can you walk me through how we're not increasing uh runoff volume and speed on the downstream side of this project by filling so much of the floodplain?

Absolutely.

Uh Amy Mesnikowski for the record with terra phase.

Um so I'll speak to two parts.

Um one is on-site drainage.

We have, I believe, 14 detention basins in the proposed layout, which will help reduce um post-development peak flows back to at or below pre-existing conditions.

So if we have a large storm, your the peak flow getting into Browns Creek and Steamboat Creek is not exceeding what is currently getting to the creeks.

Typically zone AOs have a lower level of accuracy.

And so when you look at the figure of the effective flood zone, and it's you know covering that large area versus how we're reducing it really to follow Steamboat Creek.

And this is a requirement from Washoe County and by FEMA.

Um and when we do this process, it goes through a thorough review through both agencies.

Yes.

So the I'll walk you through the process a little bit more.

The first step is what we call a conditional letter of map revision.

It stands, it's uh we call it a Clomar.

And we this is required before anything can be built.

It goes first to Washoe County for approval for review and approval, um, and then it gets submitted to FEMA for another round of review and approval.

Um and we provide them with the proposed site layout, the proposed development, proposed grading, um, and after they approve it, we can then begin construction to be consistent with the um the design plans that were provided in that review.

After uh construction is complete, we then go through a low marcess, which is where we actually um get the letter of map revision.

Um it again goes through Washoe County review and approval before it gets sent to FEMA review and approval, and the biggest um you know part of this process is ensuring that we're not impacting any other properties.

Um the base flood elevations cannot increase upstream or downstream from the area that we're revising.

Um and we are proposing only to revise the floodplain within the project area, so there will be no impacts to um outside properties.

Thank you.

Yes.

Further questions or discussions.

This is Rob.

I just want to make a statement.

I uh you guys were amazing.

I I had the same comment that our chair has.

I have never been at a uh meeting like this where you guys were the public has been so um organized.

So I gotta give it to you for that.

I do have a whole list of questions, but my co-part Kate over here asked the most prominent question, and that was about police and fire.

And I am um number one when it comes to safety.

So I follow her.

I cannot find site um suitability concerns and uh because of the police and fire.

So um I can't support this project.

Uh any further discussion, anyone else want to make comments if not question?

I just wanted to mirror what um Rob had said.

I'm very concerned about the fire danger out there.

And I'm sure that when the Davis fire happened, those people were not expecting to have the fire on the other side of the freeway, and they scrambled to save the chocolate factory place, but everything south of that burnt to the ground.

So I have a really hard time supporting that based on the site suitability and the safety of it.

It's got a lot of issues that are not detrimental.

I mean, that are deprimental that uh will hold this up with the police and fire and all that.

So there's before everybody takes off and all I would like to say, whatever happens on this project or anything.

I think you guys have done a tremendous job bringing together your local community, and I hope that you guys can continue to work on stuff like uh for example the firewise communities.

I know that uh folks out in Somerset got a big grant to do vegetation mitigation around the outside of it because they were organized and they were looking for opportunities to pick up money and with this level of organization.

I think that uh your community could certainly be doing that same sort of thing and leveraging some outside money to reduce overall risk to the community.

Um I'm prepared to make a motion.

So I move after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washa County Planning Commission denies special use permit case number WSUP 25-0019 and tentative subdivision map case number WTM 24-001 for Sierra Reflections, not being able to find the following findings.

Article 810 special use permit, item A, consistency with master plan, item B, improvements, item C, sites to suitability, item D, issuance not detrimental under Article 408, comment open space, item G, protect natural and scenic resources, item I minimize road building.

Um item J, encourage a sense of community, article 608, tentative subdivision maps, item K, plan consistency, item L, design or improvement, M, type of development, N availability of services, P public health, S dedications, and T energy.

Would you like to give any further detail on the findings that you can't make?

So those are the ones I cannot make.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So is there any specifics about what you can't make on those findings?

So I think in my comments, I discussed the improvements in site suitability specifically under consistency with the master plan and plan consistency.

I cannot find that under the vision statement of future residential and development should mirror the existing development pattern and density with a focus on maintaining open space, supporting our agriculture related uses, maintaining opportunities for livestock and farm animal ownership, and providing trail connections.

Let's see.

So B and C are covered issuance, not detrimental.

Um I believe that there will be significant detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare.

Um basically, because I believe the water resources are not um adequate for this development in this area.

Under item G, protect natural and scenic resources.

I find that the development does not um adequately identify and protect the natural and scenic resources, uh, specifically to the ridgelines and waterways and large diameter trees.

Under the minimized road building, I cannot find that the manor reduces overall linear distance of roadways, um, cul-de-sacs, all of that is included in this development.

Encourages a sense of community, as evidenced tonight by the outpour of public community in this area.

They have automatically um created a divide within the community.

Um, K plan consistency already spoke to that.

Design or improvement.

The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with master plan type of development.

The site is not physically suited for the type of development proposed as evidenced by the over 100 conditions of approval put on this project.

Availability of services.

There's not adequate safety services such as fire and um police services, public health.

Um, I think I spoke to that already.

Dedications with this project, less than 20 acres has been developed or dedicated, will be dedicated to the county for parks in an over 700 acre um development and energy.

There's no discussion talking about future passive natural heating or cooling opportunities within the subdivision.

This area is near geothermal thermal resources, and they have not identified utilizing those at all.

All right, thank you.

All right.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

This is Rob, I'll second it.

Um could you for the benefit of the record also list which findings you cannot?

Yeah, I technically only need to find one.

Correct.

Um so I'm gonna go along with issue it's not deprimental because of the police and fire.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

It's to deny, so we'll do a roll call vote if we could.

And if you are voting in favor of the motion, it is a motion to deny.

So please list which findings you cannot make.

Um if you vote yay on the motion.

Michael Flick.

This is to deny.

Yay.

Mr.

Flick, can you please uh public health safety and welfare?

Okay, thank you.

Jim Barnes.

Yes, uh yay.

And uh could you move up towards the mic, Jim, please?

Thank you.

Is that better enough?

You're perfect.

Okay, uh I vote yay, and uh the uh ones that I cannot find would be uh A, B, C, F, G.

Let's see.

And uh K L and M.

Dan Lazariski.

I vote yay on the motion at this time.

I cannot find uh item and availability of services, specifically sewer services, as this was approved 20 years ago, contingent on uh a sewer showing up to serve it, and that sewer still does not exist.

Kate Nelson Yay with the previous discussion.

Amy Owens?

Um I vote yay.

Um I cannot find A, C, D, G, P, and K.

Rob Pierce.

Even though I second just officially okay.

I'll I'll I'll play.

I'll play.

Um, yeah, nay.

I voted against this.

No, it's your voting yay for denial based off fire police.

Right, based upon fire and police.

There is others, but that was the main ones.

Thank you.

Your motion passed unanimously.

The Mr.

Lloyd, would you?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Lloyd, would you be so kind as to read the appeals?

Uh we need everybody to quiet down, please.

We could we need to finish the meeting and the noise is causing the feedback.

Okay.

I'd like to read the appeal procedure, please.

Most decisions rendered by the planning commission are appealable to the board of county commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the planning commission, and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision be an appeal is reduced to writing, filed with the secretary of the planning commission and mail to the original applicant and the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you, sir.

Um, if you're gonna talk, could you please do it outside of the room?

We still have a meeting going on.

Outside, please.

Take your conversation out of the meeting.

Would you please take the conversation out of the meeting room?

We don't have much business left, but we do have to conclude it.

Thank you very much for your participation.

For the board, do we have any future agenda items or requests for information from staff?

Is there any appeals or anything that we should be aware of?

County commissioners may have overruled or uh that's that's next report on planning commission items.

It's okay.

Mr.

Lloyd, do we have any report on previous items?

I've got a lot.

Uh starting with uh yeah, December 16th, the county commission heard the first reading for the Ibison DCA.

That was the employee housing.

Uh the second reading for that item is scheduled for January 13th.

That's next week.

Uh also on the December 16th meeting.

Uh, the second reading and adoption of the housing incentives was uh uh took place uh on the December 16th meeting also.

The first reading of the small housing and infill development DCA took place.

The second reading is scheduled for next week on January 13th, and uh we have some upcoming other items.

Uh January 13th, the BCC Iveson appeal will be heard, and also the uh master plan and rigs regulatory zone amendment for the Sun Valley 48 LLC will also be taking place.

Uh big news happened uh December 17th.

Uh the TRPA governing board adopted the amendments to the Tahoeria plan.

That was a big win for Washoe County.

Um the last thing I wanted to uh invite everybody to our uh annual training that takes place next Thursday at 10 a.m.

It'll be upstairs in uh at the community services uh conference room, Mount Rose Conference Room.

That's all I have.

For the training, is there a remote possibility or there will be a yes, yeah.

For those of you up and inclined, yeah.

And this is really uh geared toward the new members.

However, everybody is welcome to join us.

And we'll have sandwiches.

And we will.

Thanks for that reminder.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thanks, Rob.

It is yes.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any legal updates?

All right.

Uh do we have any further public comments?

I have no further public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.