Good evening.

It is Tuesday, February 3rd.

This is the Washoe County Planning Commission meeting.

Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Michael Flake.

Here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Dan Lazareski.

Here.

Jim Barnes.

Here.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Kennedy does have an excuse absence.

She will not be joining us tonight.

We do have a quorum.

Thank you.

Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Liberty and Justice for all.

Thank you very much.

Could we have the ethics law announcement?

Thank you.

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

You must furthermore abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear 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've had any contact outside this meeting with any person interested in a matter coming before the commission, you should disclose the nature of that contact at the meeting.

Thank you.

Could we have the appeals procedure?

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

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

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775 3286100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any public comment at this time?

I do not have public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

Um has everyone been able to review the draft minutes from the last meeting, January 6th.

Anyone have any notes or amendments to that?

Mrs.

Rob, I recommend to uh make a motion to approve is written.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

Uh all right.

This moves to the consent agenda.

Uh the consent item is a uh first extension that is granted under state law.

Does everyone does anyone have any issue with the consent agenda?

Otherwise, can I have a motion concerning the consent agenda?

I will move to approve the consent agenda.

Is written.

Do we have a second?

All right, I think Rob B to the button.

Uh motion a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

All right.

That moves to item 8A.

Mr.

Rider, do you announce?

Okay.

Item 8A is amendment of conditions, case number WAC 250018.

Rock Springs Solar for WSCP 21001 for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for special use permit case number WSUP 21001 to amend condition one C, which requires building permits to be issued within five years from the date of the Washoe County's approval of the special use permit.

The amended condition extends the deadline to obtain building permits for two years until May 4th, 2028.

Representing Washoe County in this manner is planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julie O'Lander, for the record.

Good evening Julie Olanda for the record so before you oops so this is an amendment to amend um several things in the in the original um application so it's to amend condition one case changing the um approval date to issue building permits from May 4th 2026 this year to uh may 4th 200 um 2028 two years um in the future and then also to remove one applicant um one parcel a 12.25 acre parcel from the proposed project and to add um a one five acre parcel to the proposed project so this project is as you can see um that's pyramid lake on the um on the right and then you can see way over on the left is um where this project's at and then there's a um a larger view of it on the um on the right so on may 4th 2021 the planning commission approved special use permit um 20 um zero zero nine nineteen and the approval was to establish 120 megawatt um megawatt solar photogenetic generant um generating facility with uh 84 megawatt battery storage system and for major grading to disturb 627 acres and um with four 426 000 cubic yards of cut and 4000 um 4026 cubic yards of fill and this is also also to allow substation height to exceed the 35 feet and to waive all landscaping and all parking requirements and the project is on about on nine parcels approximately 660 acres um the applicant is now requesting these changes to the two year um to obtain these building permits and states in the application the project has encountered significant delays beyond the applicant's control additional setback arose from the transmission right away um threatened in 2022 into 2023 when california rural electric cooperative threatened to condemn a right of way through the project site necessiting potential for reconfiguration and halting progression um until resolved and then they also recognize that one parcel was no longer needed to be in the um on the project site however there was another parcel as I stated earlier that they wanted to add parcels within 500 feet of the site were noticed but however and um and um no i did not re 46 emails went out or notices went out and i did not receive any emails or phone calls um concerning this application various applic um departments and agencies have reviewed the applications and um there were um there were some i don't believe any changes the conditions they except the ones that I'm proposing and staff is able to make all the findings and here's a possible motion the applicants is the applicant is here and available for any questions and I'm available available for any questions she doesn't have a presentation though thank you thank you very much um any board questions for staff of the applicant do we have any public comment on the signal we have no public comment in chambers I do have a hand raised on zoom I don't have a name but I will allow you to talk please state your first and last name for the record and please unmute this is for the Samsung phone there you go yes just state your first and last name please july wardly go ahead Julie you have three minutes okay during the first project that was um built out there um my major concern is the roads from because obviously they're gonna come in from 395 and then go to Fish Springs Road all those roads were torn up so severely that everybody got a flat tire now I don't live out there my son does but when I have to go out there to um see him even I've received a flat tire and the problem is the um tow truck companies won't even go out there and help you anymore from Doyle so my question to you all is what are you gonna do are you gonna pave the road or are you because it's high traffic it is eaten up by these um by by vehicles going back and forth even till today with with the uh vehicle

So my question to you all is what are you gonna do?

Are you gonna pave the road or are you because it's high traffic?

It is eaten up by these um by vehicles going back and forth, even till today with the uh vehicles um riding on that road.

Uh big old rocks, it's not smooth, it's a mud bath in the winter time, and when vehicles run through there, it makes it even worse, makes it rut.

I literally have videos.

I have videos of the road after um the first construction um and and the damage it had done.

So, what are they doing to solve this?

That's my question to you all.

Have any of you uh um been on that road and traveled it during the summer or winter?

Because winter when when those when the trucks come through there, they make these big um ruts in the road and create major problems for the residents that live out there.

Every one of them had a flat tire, everybody.

So I don't know if you can hear me.

If anybody can hear me now, we can hear you.

Oh, okay.

Um, so I'm wondering what they're doing about the the high traffic in that area.

What are they doing to address it?

Ma'am, this is public comment.

This is not a back and forth conversation.

Okay, well, the road the roads are extremely dangerous out there, and I'm just I can't believe that you guys it's already disrupted the peace and quiet and enjoyment with the first phase of the solar project.

Now you're gonna add another one.

Thank you.

So for your comment, that's that's all your time.

Uh we're gonna do we have any further public comment on the I have no more further public comment online or in chambers.

All right, well, um, do we have some discussion?

I I do have tearing in mind that uh question for staff on this.

So uh within the existing conditions of the permit that would be extended, uh condition two J.

Uh is providing the construction hall route plan and addressing construction traffic impact on the local streets, including the proposal functions to these impact.

Uh there was a young lady back there that raised her hand.

She wanted to speak, I think.

Oh I'm sorry, let's go back to public comment.

She's the she's the applicant.

Oh, she's the applicant if you have questions of the applicant.

She is here.

Okay, thanks very much.

Uh my questions for staff um concerning presumably this is not the first time we've conditioned the construction uh route plan and uh impact assessment, including mitigations.

Um can you describe what this generally looks like uh for a project like this?

Um Julia Lander for the record.

So at this point, all they're doing is amending the time frame.

So the hall route and all those, all that was discussed and when the the item was approved in um 2022.

Um so that makes it I I don't have all that.

The applicant might be able to give you some more information on that, but from my perspective, that was not one of the items I addressed because this is just an extension of time in a sense.

If you have further questions, I'd ask her.

The the only condition that really addresses that is uh condition two J that requires a construction uh construction traffic hall route and a make mitigation plan to be submitted uh before construction is to begin.

No, I understand that.

I was just asking if stack elaborate a little on what that generally looks like for a project.

It really is project to project.

It's it's case by case based on the current uh conditions and whether or not improvements are necessary.

So we don't it's we don't have a typical uh plan in place for that.

Okay.

Any further discussion or questions from the board?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Mrs.

Rob, I will I move that after giving recent consideration of information containing the staff report and information received during the public hearing.

The Washop County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions case number WAC25-0018 for CED Rock Spring Solar LLC with demanded conditions, including exhibit eight of this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.810.30.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed motion carries unanimously.

Chair, for the record, can you clarify that the findings pursuant to 110810.35, which relate to natural resources, has also been made.

It's on page eight of your staff report.

Um clarified.

Understood, yes.

And the additional finding has also been made.

Correct.

The five findings required by 810.30 and the additional three findings required by 810.35.

Okay.

Well I am in my motion then.

Yeah.

We need to revote.

Yes, please.

Okay.

I'm sorry, we have an amended motion motion.

Can do we have a second to the amended motion?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The amended motion carries amended.

Apologies.

Item A B, please.

This is development code amendment, case number WDCA 25005.

Um for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Waship County Code Chapter 110 within Article 302 allowed uses in Article 406 building placement standards and creating Article 403 residential uses in commercial regulatory zones to allow multifamily residential use types in commercial regulatory zones with the application of multifamily development standards to establish standards for mixed use, including uh a minimum percentage for commercial use type square footage, a maximum square foot percentage for civic use types, a ground floor height and facade transparency standards, uh site uh development standards for parking landscaping and other similar standards, a standard for multimodal and pedestrian safety, and a requirement for municipal water and wastewater services and all manners necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto.

If the proposed amendments are initiated, the planning commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or recommend denial.

If approval is recommended, the planning commission is asked to authorize the chair to sign a resolution to that to that effect.

And representing Washoe County in this manner is uh is senior planner, Eric.

Thank you, Trevor.

Good evening.

Chair, Commission, Eric Young, Senior Planner, Washville County Planning Program.

This is a development code amendment to propose allowing multifamily in our commercial zoning.

Um this is another one of the housing related development code amendments that you've seen coming forward uh for the last several months.

Uh these are part of the Washoe County um master plan and the Washoe County uh Board of County Commissioners strategic priority following through on the Washoe County Master Plan.

Um if you want to know or be caught up on this uh series of amendments that we've undertaken.

We do have a web page on our on the planning website dedicated to that uh following along with those amendments, and it's called master plan implementation on our website.

The one of the you can pull out several master plan amendment uh or master plan goals.

The one that is most appropriate to this proposed amendment is to allow for more flexibility in the zoning and land use regulations to enable more housing types to be built throughout the community where adequate infrastructure exists.

So we do have a master plan goal that specifically supports this amendment.

But in addition to our own master plan that suggested we look into this before the legislature ended their most recent session, they decided to mandate that we do it.

So before the end of the session, we were actually looking into this possibility.

And what they did was mandate that we allow by right development of multifamily uses in all of our commercial zoning districts.

And you're familiar with those neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and tourist commercial.

So we are allowed to also include mixed uses.

And so we are uh proposing an option that creates that option as well.

Uh to incorporate this new mandate into the Velmount Code, the draft establishes development standards and maximum densities for both projects that are only residential, like only a mix or a multifamily and commercial, or for also mixed use.

So these standards that we are proposing, we have two established densities for our commercial uh districts.

As you may know, neighborhood commercial currently has an opportunity for five units per acre with a special use permit.

Um, but general commercial and tourist commercial don't have any density associated with them.

So we are proposing to continue with the five for single family in neighborhood commercial.

Um, but to try and tie these densities to something rational in our development code instead of uh trying to make it up.

We have looked through the other residential districts and tried to establish what we feel are parallel intensities of use.

And we believe that the one that most closely matches neighborhood commercial is high density suburban, and so these are densities that match high density suburban for NC.

And for general commercial and tourist commercial, we're proposing 14 dwelling units per acre, and that matches our low density urban uh residential designation.

And so we're trying to have some consistency and some logic in how we came up with these numbers, and we're trying to tie them to similar residential zoning districts and similar in terms of intensity.

We have to have a minimum uh square foot if we want to do mixed use.

Uh the reason for this is to try and um ensure successful projects.

We do have some throughout the region, some mixed-use projects and that are of mixed success.

Um of the components of success we feel is to make sure that you include enough commercial um to make it a viable commercial space.

Uh too little commercial may uh lead to uh non-viable commercial space, which is not something we want in in that development.

We also intend to allow civic use types.

We think uh many civic use types would be appropriate, but we don't want it to allow it to only be civic.

So we are proposing civic at a maximum uh percentage.

Ground floor height and facade transparency standards are also something important to the ultimate success of a project, so that as you're walking by, you don't feel that you're walking by a um uh um uh an unwelcoming uh project, uh something that that asks for that form of commercial um uh um uh exchange with pedestrians um is important to the eventual success, and so a higher ground floor height and some facade transparency um uh aids in in creating that that open sense um and not a uh not a not a closed unwelcoming sense.

We need to have standards for parking and landscaping and be clear on those because we don't have those types of standards necessarily associated with commercial.

We need a standard for multimodal and pedestrian safety to make sure that as we mix residential and commercial uses on the same parcel, we have some ability to review that for basic safety purposes.

And we also want to make sure, although this is a would end up being a requirement of the health department, we don't want to just lay it all on them.

We want to make sure that it's clear that these projects would require municipal and wastewater service, water and wastewater services.

So the proposed changes.

Um, whenever we do this, we have to come up with some with a purpose and an applicability section.

Um we've done that uh to note in the applicability section, this will not apply to uh the Tahoe planning area.

The state statute does not mandate it in Tahoe.

It excludes the area that the uh um in the Tahoe Basin from this rule.

We exclude it by only using our commercial zoning districts that exist down here.

Neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and tourist commercial do not exist in the Tahoe Basin, and so none of this would apply in um uh by that method.

So if you just want to do a multifamily project in a commercial zone, how should we approach that?

Um we want to make clear that the standards for landscaping, lighting, parking, loading, noise are all of those that are associated with multifamily uses.

So it might seem like that doesn't need to be said, but it's unclear if you don't say it, because you are in a uh um a commercial zone that often will have its own um uh uh loading and lighting standards, landscaping standards for commercial.

So what are we applying?

Are we applying a commercial standard or a multifamily standard?

We need to be clear about that.

We're also sensitive to the idea that an existing commercial parcel would suddenly be subject to the adjacency standards of a residential area.

Um if you're in a commercial zoned area and you want to build a commercial project and you're next to a residential area, you have to meet adjacency standards because you're next to that residential use.

So if somebody comes in and builds this residential use in the middle of your commercial zoning area, we think it's unfair that the existing commercial uses would suddenly be subject to residential adjacency standards.

So we want to make it clear that that wouldn't happen.

Um and once again, we have the language about uh municipal water and sewer.

So if you do want to mix them, what kind of standards are we coming up with?

So since we already have five units per acre for neighborhood commercial, we're gonna leave that as it is and not create any particular um uh nonconformities in the future.

Um we have projects out there that were five units per acre in a neighborhood commercial zone.

So we want to want to let that lie, but for future projects that are over five units per acre, taking advantage of one of that seven or nine range that matches HDS.

You have to have a minimum of 25 percent.

Um in the commercial and tourist uh in the general and tourist commercial, all projects have to have a minimum of 25 percent.

A minimum of 80 percent of the ground floor has to be dedicated to commercial or uh the civic use types.

Um 80 percent of the ground floor street frontage must utilize a transparent facade or glass with transparent material.

We try and be a little bit um uh uh more specific here.

A minimum of 90 percent of the ground floor ceilings and all multi-floor floor uh buildings must be 10 feet in high.

These are all standards that are designed to help ensure the viability and the long-term success of the commercial component of these projects.

Um a really unfortunate consequence of of trying a mixed-use project is to have that commercial component fail down on the first floor of your building, the first floor of your concept.

Um that's something we want to try and avoid, and so we're doing that by requiring certain minimum standards that um uh have been established throughout jurisdictions across the country.

Some of these are uh uh match what we found not just out west, but a lot of uh cities in the east have really significant mixed use standards.

Um Milwaukee is where some of these came from.

Um and so these are very common standards used to try and ensure that commercial viability for that uh pedestrian multimodal safety.

Um we have identified the common standards used by our engineering team uh to review projects like this, and we're making it transparent what you're gonna be reviewed by.

So these are already the ones that are used by our engineering team when they're reviewing projects, uh commercial projects, multifamily projects, but we're being transparent and clear here about this is this is what we're gonna hold up to your project.

This is what we're these this is the lens through which we're gonna be your project, and you have to meet these standards.

So these are not um uh uh unfamiliar standards to the development community, these these are well known and existing standards that most developers are prepared to apply.

Um this is uh stated specifically as a form of transparency and to make make sure everyone knows that we have attempted to address the issue of pedestrian multimodal safety.

So, what does it look like when you get into the actual um use table?

We have to show that these are now allowed uses and not subject to any discretionary approval.

We also have to apply those densities, as I mentioned, these are the densities that we are proposing.

Um we have attempted to make these rational and logical by tying them to um similar intensities in the residential zoning districts.

Um we did have a neighborhood meeting.

Uh I think let's see here we had um 12 people show up, which I feel is pretty good for a Zoom meeting on this subject.

Um most of the questions um were about how the densities would work.

We had a handful of people who were interested in applying this and were actually concerned that the densities weren't high enough.

Um, but we explained that we had to uh uh had had we explained how we came up with those densities, um, and I haven't heard back from those um those commenters.

Um we also had some comments as is common about um uh infrastructure and how uh a project like this may impact infrastructure and whether it makes a difference to have it in a commercial zone versus a residential zone.

Um I also have in your staff report on page 10 of proposed motion, if you would like to um uh move this item forward.

Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

So thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Young.

I do have a couple questions.

Nobody wants commercial uses to be non-viable.

Do we have standards for minimum ground floor height and uh transparency of facade on existing commercial uses and commercial zoning?

Is this coming back on?

Yeah, right.

I can hear you.

No, Chair, we do not.

Okay.

Um this was I understand the question.

Um when we were developing this, there were specific missed mixed-use projects that were pointed out to staff that were not you know that were not just the standalone commercial projects, there's specific mixed-use projects that did not apply these types of aesthetic and other um architectural components, and they were pointed out to me and said, What are you gonna do about that?

How are you gonna make sure that doesn't happen?

And so this was specifically about the mixed-use project, and we did not reach out and try to expand it to all of our commercial.

I understand, but there's there's certainly commercial uses that I I might not build the way that they look now, but they are conforming with code.

Go ahead.

What happens normally in a in uh apartment complex?

There's more than one building.

And how do you um how do you apply the standards when when I mean they're all if if there's three apartment buildings facing a street, can all three of them get this mixed use, or you you select one and just it's just one for the whole project.

Uh thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Mr.

Chair of Commission.

That's an excellent question that we have considered for how to apply these in Washoe County.

Um there are a couple approaches to mixed use.

One of them is to apply and create mixed-use standards for more of a mixed-use district or mixed-use area that has multiple parcels, multiple buildings, multiple structures, and those standards are about creating that flow in between, establishing where the commercial will be and how that how that will all work together in a district.

The other approach is just mixed use on one parcel, or what they call you know, vertical mixed use instead of the horizontal mixed use.

So we are working in more of a vertical mixed-use environment here to propose standards for single parcels.

And when we look across the opportunities in commercial parcels in Washhow County, those parcels are not particularly large and accommodating to big multifamily projects.

There may be a few parcels that could do that that could propose more than one building.

And in that case, I believe we would use as was anticipated, the percentages that we have laid out here of how much you are required to have, and allow that to be split between buildings, but the building where you do have it would have to meet these standards.

So the overall percentages would be based on all three buildings.

You could do it in one building and it would have to meet these standards.

Okay, so if it's a one-building project, then the percentages hold.

If you have three buildings and they want mixed use in all three of them, then all three buildings have the prescribed percentages as well, or do you think the percentages would be on the project as a whole, not for each building?

They could distribute that percentage between the buildings in any way that they wanted.

That's that's the anticipated concept.

Okay, that believes my problem.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Young, just a quick question on um, I know the legislature didn't specifically say it had to go into the Tahoe Basin.

Um, was it in conflict with the Tahoe area plan, or was it uh merely anticipated pushback from the citizens, or why wouldn't this be extended up in the basin?

Um it's not uncommon for land use um legislation to exclude the Tahoe Basin because of the unique um approach of the um Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and their jurisdiction to establish those planning rules across the basin.

So um applying this on top or trying to fit this into their already extremely complex and some say complex, some say sophisticated, but to apply this to the um TRPA rules, and then only in Nevada, because then they're you know, after you decide how to do it in California, um it I think it was probably a pretty easy call to say that's that would be um just too much of a uh uh of a complexity to even figure out how to do that.

Um the California legislature often does not do that and will apply rules that says sorry, TRPA, you have to do it even in the basin, even though you have all this other stuff, and it's it's very difficult on them to turn and say to Nevada, well, do you want to do this?

Do you have to you know California?

We're gonna have to make the California side do this.

What do you want to do?

So they would have to do that in this case.

They would have to turn to the California jurisdictions and say, Well, we're thinking of making you do this.

What do you think?

And it would be it would be an extremely complex, difficult conversation.

And so this is just one of many Nevada legislative actions for land use where they have, in my opinion, wisely kept out the Tahoe Basin.

I was just thinking based on you know TRPA's recent push for workforce housing, and they have been changing some of their um planning up there.

It might be a good conversation to have a I've got an additional question.

Um you said that developers are familiar with these kind of uh pedestrian uh analysis reports, these different standards.

Um is this something this kind of pedestrian circulation plan or analysis per these different standards?

Is this required of developments in Washoe County for commercial or residential as it stands now?

It has been um pedestrian circulation plans for commercial areas.

Yes, that can that can and has been applied and asked for.

And it's not codified.

We're we're codifying it, right?

They have the they have the ability to ask for it, they have asked for it.

Um we're codifying it and making it clear that it's gonna be applied.

If it's not codified, under what conditions do staff ask a developer for the pedestrian circulation plan.

There so we have a of course, as you can imagine, both through our code and through um other standards, they are all geared towards proving that you meet a certain uh uh uh safety standard.

So whether it's um tripping a threshold to say you have to submit a transportation analysis, if during the review they say you're gonna have this much in and out, you're gonna also have this many people.

They can say, we need we need to see how you plan to do the pedestrian circulation and the multimodal circulation.

They can ask for that plan.

Okay, is that a standard we typically apply to say commercial development with residential adjacency?

I don't know.

I don't know when that I don't know the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis when and when that has not been applied, but I have seen it asked for all right.

Do we have other questions from the board for staff?

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, in chambers, I have Pat Davison.

Good evening, Chair Lazareshi, members of the commission.

My name is Pat Davison.

I'm a resident of District 5.

Just some really short comments.

First, I want to thank Eric for providing some background information.

He is a very patient person, so I appreciate his help.

Uh, a couple of other thoughts.

I'm not familiar with commercial standards, so I'm not gonna comment on specific changes being proposed to implement AB 241, but I am excited by by the idea of commercial owners and businesses providing housing for their employees.

This is a great incentive, and I hope businesses and commercial owners decide to use it.

And my second comment was about the neighborhood development meeting.

There was a public comment regarding concern for loss of commercial um neighborhood serving commercial, and to me that's an easy thing to solve.

You rely on staff to flag those problems or potential problems during the initial uh project review.

So uh just wanted to share those thoughts with you, and um good luck with your deliberation tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any further public comment?

There is no further public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Thanks so much.

Um to kick off the discussion here.

Um, I appreciate that we're mandated by the state of Nevada to create these um multi-use standards and to allow residential use and commercial.

And I appreciate that separate from that.

Staff is already pursuing a path toward this in accordance with the direction of the new county plan and with the desires of the county commission.

So while I like this standard, I I personally would be inclined to strike requirements D E and H from the new 403.15 standards.

Does anyone else on the board have feelings on that?

You said D is in dog, E and H.

Yeah, so this is the minimum 80% transparent glass facade on ground floor minimum 10 foot height on ground 90% of the ground floor ceilings, and then the specific pedestrian and multimodal circulation plans, these are basically specific development standards that we're not applying to commercial or residential development in these areas currently.

But going forward, they would be right.

Hey, Eric, why would this not apply in other situations?

It only applies in this.

So all commercial, I'm sure, Mr.

Chair, I'm sure that you can recognize that all commercial would not fit these standards.

There are many different commercial buildings and uses for which these standards would not be useful, active, or actually be harmful.

These standards are tailored specifically for when you have multifamily with commercial mixed together in the same building on the same parcel.

They're not for only multifamily, which has a very robust set of development standards that this board and the county board approved just last year.

New robust modern standards for multifamily only that will apply in these circumstances when it's only multifamily.

Washoe County does not have any standards at all in our development code for when you want to mix those uses together.

Exactly, but um we pulled back from that.

There's theirs are really extensive and really designing your project for you.

These standards come from jurisdictions like Palo Alto, Milwaukee, um Cupertino, um San Jose, I'm trying to think of some more of the eastern eastern U.S.

Um areas that have developed specific standards for vertical mixed use, not horizontal mixed use, but the vertical in one building on one site mixed use that suggest that these what basically amount to architectural almost aesthetic standards about how you how that building feels when you walk past it, how you how that building feels um uh presents itself to the neighborhood.

That that's what it's trying to achieve for that mixed use concept.

We have people who have to live there after all.

This is their home, it's not just a retail store or an office building, it's also their home.

So you want it to have a different aesthetic feel, um mixing with commercial.

Now, this is just how it's typically approached.

Right.

If you don't like it, um, and if you think that we should apply those similar standards or step back and think about how we would apply these to other commercial uses and so forth, we can absolutely do that.

And it will not necessarily um it it absolutely will meet the state standard, we'll meet the state mandate even without these.

If you want to take them out, we'll cover the state mandate and we'll be good.

Um, and we could have a have more of an ongoing conversation about the standards that you want, or we could see how a couple or a couple play out on the ground and and find out if they work or not and need new standards.

So um I don't want to suggest in any way that um it would somehow cause a breakdown in the way that this new ordinance and this new approach would work if you took those out, that it would cause some sort of a a disaster to cause the whole thing to be dysfunctional or something.

That's not I don't think that's how we would feel about it, but um it is a very common and typical approach to develop standards specifically for vertical mixed use.

So if you don't want to do it, it's easy to take it out and move forward, um and uh without feeling like we've ruined anything.

Um but these we didn't just make this up, I think is what I'm trying to say.

We didn't just make this up.

So um, Eric, if I'm picturing this correctly, um I was recently up in Washington and I saw something similar to this.

The ground floor, there was a big lake out in front, and they had um they had glass on the front, and they had a restaurant upstairs, and upstairs it was for the owner and for the some employees.

Am I picturing that correctly for something like this?

Uh 10 foot ceilings, glass front, residential upstairs where he can rent out rooms and stuff like that.

That's absolutely one concept in that description of the not necessarily glass, but transparent facade, the ability to look in and see as you walk past, um, see inside uh that first floor somewhat.

Yes, that is the concept.

Okay.

Um, and um you can find good and bad examples of this everywhere.

Um, I want to be really cautious about bashing anyone locally.

Right.

Um everybody in in this region is trying really hard.

Um, but we all have good and bad examples.

And as I mentioned, there were examples that were pointed out to me about are you gonna let that happen?

Is that what this is gonna look like?

And um, you know, those are examples are within walking distance of where we are tonight.

You can go take a walk in some of our downtown areas and see attempts at mixed use that are mostly brick along the sidewalk or other covered, not transparent eight-foot ceilings on the bottom, and um I was specifically asked not to allow that to happen.

Um I don't know that these standards would solve that, but this is staff's attempt to look at how different examples of this mixed use can unfold and try and make sure that that one example doesn't happen.

Is there anything maybe we can like add in there for like make it look nice, you know, rock I'm just saying, you know, for structural because if you if if commercials are residential, obviously they're gonna want it to look similar to the residential, right?

They're not gonna want it to look like a big tall warehouse with people living in it.

Um I understand what those people are saying it's always my hope that that new development learns from the old development and doesn't need to be told what to do.

That and that we can say, oh, the market is gonna take care of that, there they won't do that again, or the you know, now nowadays that doesn't fly.

Nowadays there's a different standard in development world, so we don't even need to tell people to do that anymore.

That's what I wish were the case.

Um, and maybe it is.

Maybe there just is a development standard out there now where some of these old old ways of developing mixed use just wouldn't happen now because you just couldn't get anybody to to rent the space commercially or rent the space residentially because they wouldn't want to be there.

Maybe that is the case.

So we don't have anything in code that we're gonna do.

But there, you know, this is just an attempt to have something in code to push that idea forward.

If you could give me a second, um so near my house, there's a mixed use development inside of City of Reno special planning district, and it's mostly commercial, and there's a couple apartments in there, and it would not meet these standards.

It doesn't have necessarily every building with the minimum 10 foot height on the ground, it doesn't have enough facade transparency, and they don't seem to have any trouble renting out either the commercial or the residential space.

I my thought on promoting the multi-use, is someone who's thinking of doing a commercial development and might because obviously they can under this in section um 403.10, they can just go do multifamily residential.

If they're for multi-use, they're thinking of developing uh a commercial property, and perhaps they have some height cap available, they have a couple parking spaces, they think let's add some residential use into the area, and I don't want to create a standard that would prevent the residential use by complicating the commercial use.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely, it makes sense, and that that's that's an extremely valid way of looking at it.

Um staff takes that approach to all the new development code amendments that we bring you that in in all of this attempt to incentivize things and to create opportunities.

Sometimes we create so much standards that we're actually create an incentive and then disincentivize it right inside the incentive.

And we don't want to do that.

I understand what you're saying.

We're gonna start coming up with a new idea that we really love and then create so many standards around it that it never happens, and and we have done that.

So it's a very valid concern.

Um you can absolutely find examples all across the landscape of different ways where it's worked that don't have these standards, right?

You can find that, sure.

Um these are proposals from staff for the reasons that I have explained.

If you want to do something different, I fully understand and respect that because there are so many different ways of looking at this.

Um so this is staff's recommendation to you tonight.

If you'd like to do something different, let me know and I'll write it up.

Thanks, Commissioner Flick.

Yes.

Oh, I spoke too soon when I said I understood it.

Are you talking about as it applies to these say you have multiple?

I'm a little hung up on the vertical concept because we really don't have the vertical concept.

I think the tallest apartment complex that I've seen new anyway is about four stories.

Yes.

So um and those are multi-indivalents as well.

And I'm just when you say, well, it'll it'll apply to the whole square footage of each building.

Um that would be the building's uh footprint is you know, a hundred square feet, a hundred yeah, say ten thousand square feet.

But each building and they have 10 of them is 10,000 square feet.

So you do you accumulate the whole thing and then take 80 percent of that?

So now you have it spread out over more than one building.

So, yes, and it might be spread out over more building, and what this it allows the developer complete flexibility to work that out how they may work it out, and you're right.

We have not seen multifamily go up high in Washoe County.

Our multifamily zoning, as you are familiar with, is in Sun Valley area.

That's where we have recently approved some multifamily structures.

We have height restrictions in Sun Valley of I think 35 feet.

So mostly what you see there, even with uh multifamily development is a three-story walk-up.

I don't want to alarm anybody, and I don't want to be um hyperbolic here, but we have spent time looking at where our general commercial and neighborhood commercial is, where our vacant neighborhood commercial and general commercial is, and let's remember what the height limitations there are.

80 feet, 60 feet.

We can go really high in our neighborhood in our commercial areas.

We have general commercial and neighborhood commercial up and down Mount Rose Highway.

We have it scattered around the county in various places.

We've got it in Verde.

If somebody comes in and wants to take advantage of the state mandated thing that we have to do to build a 60-foot mixed-use multifamily development on Mount Rose Highway, we feel that it should have some aesthetic development standards, and we feel that these are appropriate for that.

And when we look around at the places in Washoe County that this state mandate is making this opportunity available to we feel like it's something that the that people may not be prepared for, and that we have to move forward with some kind of a development standard that is more than just what exists in the code today.

Do you feel that 60 feet tall mixed use development is appropriate in those areas, or wouldn't you have put a height restriction on the multi mixed use?

Um I feel that the way that I don't know if it's a feeling or just some it I don't want to say a feeling.

Okay, this is a result of having looked at where looked at where this zoning exists.

We have little tiny general commercial parcels and big giant neighborhood commercial parcels.

We have general commercial and neighborhood commercial right up next to each other, which doesn't necessarily make sense.

But you look at it now and you wonder, right?

So what this is getting at is the answer to your question is it's a very case-by-case basis.

Sometimes it's probably appropriate to limit that size, but there are other times in Washoe County where that size might be appropriate for that zoning district in that spot.

So to put the blanket height limitation, um, is um not necessarily um appropriate.

And then I'll let you in on something else that I'll say we did, but it was really um our deputy district attorney, spent a lot of time to go back and actually watch the legislative session where they talked about this because this was difficult for us to swallow.

You know, the lack of a discretionary permit to make it just by right, and we were saying, well, what about administrative permit?

Why what couldn't we do this?

How what does by right mean, right?

And so it took the time to go back and watch the entire session, watch the entire discussion.

And at the end of that, it was extremely clear that they meant by right, that they meant no discretionary approval at all, and not too many restrictions that you make it impossible.

And in fact, there was some question about whether 14 units per acre would be um enough or would be viewed as kind of uh the county's backdoor way of making it impossible to do, right?

So we're even concerned uh uh about somebody looking at saying you're not meeting the state standard because you're secretly trying to get out of it, and then by making standards that limit the height, we're also that that's the same concern that we're putting standards on it that were very clearly not part of the state mandate.

So could you that that's that's that's how that happened.

Yeah, could you put a height restriction restriction on it with a you know caveat that you could get a special use permit for up to 60 feet or whatever is allowed in the county, wherever that's an interesting idea that we didn't consider, and I don't know what our attorney would say about that, but it would probably require some thought on on all of our Yeah, I think I think that would be uh definite consideration that needs to happen.

Um in regards to the concerns that chair has I'm I'm tempted to think that it would be a good idea to let the development community come back and say it's too burdensome to to meet these standards.

Um and leave them in, but that's just my thought.

All right, well, um I suppose one thing to say about concern about neighborhood response to 60 and 80 foot zoning along arterial corridor doors in Mount Rose and Verde is that they're already allowed for commercial uses, and I don't think the neighbors would like an 80-foot commercial use there necessarily any more or less than they would like an 80-foot mixed use with uh the same aesthetic standards as a commercial building.

So uh while I appreciate trying to improve our aesthetic standards, I'm concerned about uh creating a a new standard that's not one or the other.

I I wouldn't mind trying to apply residential aesthetic standards to uh a mixed use commercial one, but I creating a new standard that doesn't meet either of the other ones.

I don't love it.

But we talk about this a lot.

Um would anyone care to make a motion?

Yeah, it sounds like our kind of our hands are tied, and this is your attempt to make it as nice as possible.

Is that it it is, but it's it's um tonight is the night to propose changes.

Um and we have our deputy DA here residential neighborhood if they're gonna put app sums on there, but you're saying that it's by right, so that might be too intrusive for the developers.

I mean, think about it.

If if it's by right, they can do and I hate to say this pretty much anything they want to do.

Well, they still have to meet code.

But there's much of a code when it comes to decorative designing.

That's what I was asking earlier, right?

Right.

And so what are we to do?

I mean, I'd really like to see you come back if we approve this tonight, come back with maybe amendment where something like that would be introduced to us maybe at a next meeting or something to go with this so that they can at least look like a residential somewhat or look halfway decent, you know, instead of just the pop-up.

I don't know.

I don't know if that's too much to ask.

I I don't know, you know, but it sure would be nice.

I know the residents would appreciate it more.

But I'd be inclined to only send this up to the county commission once.

If we want amendments made yeah, I mean I'm just saying, I'm just saying it would be nice.

I mean, we're like I said, we're pretty much our hands are pretty much tied.

So, Eric, out in Spanish Springs in one of the commercial areas.

I recall that they had design standards where it was supposed to look Western in theme, right?

So that's specifically written into the plan.

Could something like more residential design standards be written into this?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Nelson, yes.

Um design standards.

Um it's a little bit of new territory for Washoe County.

We do have that in Spanish Springs.

Um when you read it, you wonder a little bit how it's supposed to work, and I can remember when we did that.

Um I was there for that, and we came at the end of the night, we came to an agreement that it would be Western design standards.

And so then we met again the next week, and it turns out that every single person in that room had a different picture in their head about what Western design standards meant.

And so you and and the lesson there, it's not just an anecdote.

The lesson there is that design standards are one thing in our head about what we want to look at and how we want to operate, but when you try and codify it, you have to have numbers and you have to have specifics about how is that gonna work.

How is that really gonna look like um and that's really hard to do, and it's not something that our code is really proficient at?

We don't have a lot of specific design standards um for buildings or neighborhoods like that um that are very common in more urban areas to have really intense design standards.

Um it's something that we could explore, but it is in our experience when we've tried it uh a rabbit hole, is that right?

It it's really difficult, and um we might even appreciate a little um a little outside help in helping us really develop what an appropriate really full comprehensive right approach to uh to any thing multifamily commercial industrial residential um well, in our in our design code, I mean we show what a you know a terraced development needs to look like.

There's an actual picture, right?

And maybe if you have you've got the numbers here, you obviously have base this off of real life.

What are those pictures look like?

And do they look enough like a residential area?

And maybe just having that included might help describe that we don't want it to look like a tilt up with living above it.

Okay, right?

Because you could have a tilt up that could meet these numbers, but that's not what we're really after.

So okay, that's very helpful.

So is that your major concern is that it looks appropriately residential?

Yes, I think that's a major concern, and then I think the height needs to be thought about a little bit, whether it's like 45 feet, and then if you want to go higher, then you have to get a special use permit.

Those would be my things to look at and bring back.

Yeah, good with those.

Uh so I see two pathways forward.

One we could amend this to remove the specific design standards that we don't necessarily want to stick, send this forward to the county commission to implement and request that staff work on a design standard.

I I think that we're required by state law to implement this before March.

Right.

Well, yeah, the clock sticking, but I don't yeah.

Well, we're working on it, so I'm sure that legal can make their arguments.

Uh or we could send it back to staff to try to bring uh the design standards together with this.

So the state approved it in July.

Excuse me.

The state approved this in July or passed it in July.

With a date that by which jurisdictions had to implement it.

That's not even a year after.

And they thought that that could happen.

Yes.

Okay.

And maybe sure Legal can make their arguments that we're diligently pursuing this effort if we don't want to um implement this in the limited form tonight and then come back with the standards later.

What do people feel?

I think it just it can come back in March.

Is that enough time?

No.

I I have a question of as this is written.

Is it workable within the department to make to make these uh judgments and uh and recommendations for us to approve under under the current draft?

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I I think the current draft is uh something that absolutely can be enforced, right?

I think the question when you have a vague term like Western theme, that's what Eric was pointing at.

That's where it becomes very subjective.

And so we we like clear standards, and even the pictures become obsolete after a while.

Uh but uh I understand trying to get a handle on what what is rural and what is you know this is probably a question for legal, but did the state like are they gonna take away our birthday, or what are they gonna do if we don't meet the March deadline?

It's unclear, but the deadline written into the statute is March 1st, 2026.

The ordinance shall be adopted.

Okay, all right.

I would make a motion to amend the proposed code amendments to remove D E and H from Section 110.403.15.

And as amended, move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing of Washoe County Planning Commission.

Recommend approval of WDCA 25.05.

Amend the Washoe County Chapter 10 development code with articles 302, 406, and establish the new Article 403 as amended.

Further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in the attack meeting A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to the Washa County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date.

This recommendation for approval is based on all of the following four all of the four findings in accordance with Washer County Code Section 110.818.15E.

So just to be clear, um you're recommending removing D E G and H?

No, just D E N H.

Just D and H?

D, E, and H.

That's the class windows minimum ceiling height and pedestrians.

Why would you not want the glass in the front?

Because it's not a development standard that we apply anywhere else.

Would I like it if it were built next to me?

It would be nice, but it we don't apply that standard to commercial.

We don't apply it to residential.

He's trying to make a new standard for these.

I understand.

I okay.

I have made my motion.

Would anybody like to second it?

Can I amend your motion with adding in the height requirement max and then with a special use permit allowing additional height?

Well, I don't know if we can we describe that in sufficient detail tonight.

As I read the description, the planning commission uh can approve with modifications.

Okay.

So your proposed amendments would be a special use permit for multi-use greater than 45 feet.

Mixed use, great.

Mixed use.

And excuse me, Mr.

Ch and multifamily on its own.

Because people can come so for any residential use in commercial.

Yeah, if if they're allowed to go 60, 80 feet, I think you need to have a special use permit.

And the number that they can go to without the permit would be well, we keep it the same at 35, right?

Because that's what it is now for multifamily.

No, that's the that's the um that is the modifier for Sun Valley.

Sun Valley is carved out and has a special rule that says 30 years.

We only have multifamily going up to 35 feet.

Currently actual developments being built.

Do we?

Is that what you asked?

Yes, ma'am, we do.

Okay, then that would be the cap of 35 feet, and then anything above that would require a special use permit.

And then anything above that would require a special use permit.

Okay.

And um, thank you.

I've got that, and we can describe that.

That's very simple language.

It just says specifically that is what we would write right in.

Um D E and H for your motion are the ones out.

And then the amended motion is to add that in.

Okay, thank you.

I think I have it.

That works for me.

We have a motion and second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Um, I apologize.

Was that five to one?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I'd like the uh the uh the pedestrian multi models safe thing.

I like that too, and I would look forward if staff comes to us with a standard to apply that in a more general way.

Uh all right.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Item eight C.

Okay, this is uh development code amendment case number WDCA 25012 for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Washoe County Code, chapter 110 in division three regulation of uses and division nine uh general provisions.

These amendments include adding various sections within Article 336 housing and incentives to establish an expedited review process for attainable housing projects and to establish an expedited process for projects which qualify as tier one through five affordable housing.

Uh these amendments also include amending section 110 90215 to add and delete various uh definitions and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining there to.

If the proposed amendments are initiated, the planning commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or recommend denial.

If approval is recommended, the planning commission is asked to authorize the chair to sign a resolution to that effect.

So representing Washoe County in this matter is senior planner Kat Oakley.

Hello, Cat Oakley, Washoe County planning for the record.

Uh as stated, this is an amendment to establish some expedited processes as required by one of the state laws passed in the last legislative session, which I'll get into in just a moment.

Technical difficulties, one moment.

It wasn't coming up on the other computer.

Well good.

Thank you, Brandon.

Could you maybe advance the slides?

Oh, permit.

Sorry, sorry.

Switch the uh here.

I apologize for all the delay.

We've been having a technical difficulties every single meeting.

What's going on?

And you should be good.

Yeah.

Okay, well, we'll quite bring it up.

Yes, thank you.

All right, next slide, please.

Okay, so um a little bit of background.

This is again another one of those housing related development code amendments that you've been seeing for the last year or two.

Uh to provide just that little bit of background, some updated statistics for you all.

Um, as you know, housing affordability is a regional challenge, and I've given you some numbers before about cost burden renters in the region, and now um that percentage of of renters spending 30 percent or more of their household income on housing costs is up to 50.5 percent, so over half of our population, and uh because of the this is a regional issue, it's also it's a state issue, it's a national issue, and so unsurprisingly, at the 2025 legislative session, we did see several bills related to housing, and one of them was assembly bill 540.

This was the big kind of omnibus housing bill, and one of the many things that it did is require the creation of some expedited processes for certain types of housing, and so this development code amendment is proposed to comply with the requirements of that bill.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So just to start um looking at the change to the definitions, because really one of the big things that this bill did was modified the definitions related to affordable housing on the state level.

So it used to be that there was affordable housing, and that that affordable housing included three different tiers that went up to 120% of the AMI or the area median income.

The change that the state made was to change affordable to attainable, so it's now attainable housing.

And there are five tiers that go up to 150% of the area median income.

And so you really see them kind of expanding into more of that workforce housing territory with this bill.

And the tiers are it's attainable housing as a whole category.

The tiers are still called affordable housing, so tier one affordable housing.

Those are, of course, projects where the um income requirements are limited to that tier one through five affordable housing, so affordable to those making 150% of the AMI or less.

But they also specify that these projects have received money from the Nevada Attainable Housing Account, which is a funding source that was created under AB 540 as well.

And so when they refer to attainable housing project and how we're also proposing to define it in our code, we're specifically talking about those projects that do receive funding from the state.

And there are a little bit different requirements based on whether or not they receive the funding or don't.

Next slide, please.

And so the bulk of the bill as it applies to us is about creating an expedited review process that meets certain standards for two things.

First, for attainable housing projects.

So these are those projects that are receiving the funding from the state, they're meeting those affordability limitations.

And what the bill requires is that those projects not go to a public hearing.

We are not able to require those projects to have a public hearing like a special use permit, for example.

And that would apply to authorizing the use as well as any associated approvals.

So for example, if they needed or if they would typically need a special use permit for grading, uh we would not be able to have them go through that public hearing process.

And so what we're proposing as the the response to that to expedite that review is to allow projects, attainable housing projects that would otherwise need a permit that requires a public hearing to instead have an administrative review permit.

This is a permit that we use for things like accessory dwelling units or some some large accessory structures where it is a process that involves a public notice.

It involves the ability for us to apply conditions of approval, but it does not have a public hearing.

Instead, it goes to the director of planning and building for a decision.

And so this is kind of a middle of the road type process where we still have that ability to conduct a more complex review and apply mitigating conditions as necessary, but as required, we're not requiring them to go through that public hearing process.

So that would be the proposal here.

And of course, if people, if applicants were requesting to use this alternate pathway to approval, we would require them to provide evidence that they qualify, which in this case would really be evidence of the funding received from that state account.

Next slide, please.

The second piece is there are some requirements regarding expediting the process for what the state calls attainable housing, and what we to try to keep things as clear as possible are referring to as tier one through five affordable housing.

So these are the projects that they are falling within those income ranges, but the uh the state has not necessarily given them funding.

And so what the what AB 540 requires is that those projects be prioritized to the extent practicable over all other projects.

And the way we're proposing to do that is to allow those projects to request a staff liaison to help facilitate and guide them through the process and then coordinate with with other agencies.

As you all know, when we review a building permit or any type of permit, we are reviewing agency, we're also working with our partner agencies and um other applicable agencies like the building division, fire, um, the health district, and so on to go through that process.

And so that's why having that dedicated staff person to help coordinate or who's assigned to that project to help coordinate will help facilitate the process.

And it's a it's a process that we have used before for very large development proposals and have seen it work well.

So that's what's proposed as the expedited process that these projects can request.

And again, if they do, we're requiring them to provide evidence that they're they're qualifying as tier one through five affordable housing.

And also since they may or may not have a funding source that provides a mechanism for keeping track of and restricting them to that those income levels, um, that they tell us what is the mechanism for ensuring that it is in fact attainable housing.

Next slide, please.

So that's all there is to it, those uh those definitions and then those two new sections of code in Article 336.

As you know, for a development code amendment, he must make at least one of the following findings to recommend approval.

Uh, we in staff report make the case that all four findings can be made.

Next slide, please.

And uh here's a recommended motion.

I've am here and happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks so much.

Um questions from the board for staff on this.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, in chambers, I have Pat Davidson.

Hello again, Commissioners.

My name is Pat Davison.

For the record, thanks for this opportunity to share some thoughts on this agenda item.

I'm not usually a fan of state mandates because of the lack of tailoring to a unique jurisdiction.

However, both of the bills that prompted these code changes tonight head us in the right direction and could actually help Washoe County achieve its housing goals.

What has been most important for me is that staff has shown awareness of potential unintended consequences.

Something that was remarkable to me with AB 540 is the attention given to the above median income levels, those that are higher than the area median income.

This has been a missing part of the federal program where the lower income levels receive preference and for good reason.

The need was critical to find better housing for those currently in substandard conditions, but also to keep others from becoming unhoused in the future.

Now the governor and state legislature have not only talked the talk but walk the walk with new dollars in hand through the Nevada attaining house attainable housing account.

And they were clear about a priority.

So I included a short excerpt in my written comments here.

The division in consultation with the council shall prioritize projects that demonstrate the highest potential impact, including without limitation, prioritizing the need for single family homes.

Very cool.

All right, just a couple of thoughts on some of the specific changes.

The expedited review and approval.

I always look for safeguards when new policy or code is being proposed.

For this change, any project seeking the less burdensome uh process must provide proof that is qualified as an attainable housing project.

Additionally, as Kat said, tentative map approvals mass master plan regulatory zone amendments are not eligible for this benefit.

The administrative review process includes some safeguards, includes including the noticing to the cab, HOA's military installations, as well as owners within 500 feet.

Owners can provide written comment.

The director can modify the conditions, and those decisions can be appealed.

Uh, my second thought prioritize the projects, prioritization.

Excellent action, clear the projects receiving state monies can take advantage of these.

Just want to make sure for the record that even if a project is not going through the process to get those state monies, that they can still request staff liaisons if they're catering to that buyer or renter below the 150 AMI.

And last, it's uh so painful for me after talking about affordable housing for decades that we're giving up that term, but um progress we march ahead here.

Anyway, that's it.

Uh, just wanted to support the proposed changes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment in chambers, and there are no hands raised via zoo.

Thank you.

Uh any discussion from the board.

Hearing none, I move that after giving reason consideration of the information contained staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 25-0012 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 development code within articles 336 and 902 as reflected within the proposed ordinance contained in exhibit A1.

I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date.

This recommendation for approval is based on the planning commission's ability to make all the following four findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.818.1 for ID.

This recommendation for approval is based on the planning commission's ability to make all the following four findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.818.15 Commissioner Owens for a second.

Aye.

Any opposed.

The motion carries unanimously.

I believe that brings us to the end of our public hearings.

All right.

Uh item 10A, Mr.

Lloyd.

Do we have any reports on previous planning commission items?

That's on.

Um I do.

Uh at the let's see, at the January 13th meeting, the uh Iveson SUP appeal was heard by the county commission and uh it uh it was uh upheld.

Uh also at that meeting, the uh uh the second reading of the code amendment for Ives and also uh was was heard and approved.

And there the master plan amendment uh and regulatory zone amendment um w MPA 25's S 0005 and R WRZA uh 25006, and that was for Sunset Ranch was also approved at that meeting.

And that's all I have to report.

Thanks very much.

Uh anything from legal?

All right, do we have any final public comment?

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

Thank you so much.

It's 7 37.

We're adjourned.

The recording has stopped.