You guys ready?

Tyler.

Great.

Okay.

I'm going to call to order the regional planning governing board for Thursday, April 9th, 2026.

And we'll start with a roll call, please.

All righty.

Diane Vanderwell.

Here.

Kathleen Taylor.

Brandy Anderson.

Here.

Clara Andreola.

Present.

Mike Clark.

Naomi Dewar.

Here.

Jeannie Herman.

Ed Lawson.

Devin Reese.

Joe Rodriguez.

Here.

And Beth Smith.

Present.

Great.

Thank you.

Now we'll do uh if Beth, if you don't mind doing the pledge for us.

I plan to make it.

Which is saying it's undervisible.

Great.

Thank you.

Next we'll move along to approval of the agenda.

So if there are no changes, I will entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay.

So first was Commissioner Andriola.

And second was Commissioner Anderson.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Next move on to approval of the minutes for February 12th, 2026.

If there are no changes or any other actions, can I please have a motion?

Move to approve.

Okay, so I have a first and a second.

Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, please vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

Next we'll move on to number five public comment.

Do we have any requests to speak?

We have none.

Okay, terrific.

Thank you.

Next we'll move on to number six, business of the day.

Uh public hearing, regional plan amendment, RPA 26-001.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Jeremy Smith for the record.

We have planner regional planner Shawnee Sousa for this presentation.

All right, Shani Sousa Team RPA for the record.

Today I'll be taking you through a regional plan amendment for the River Bend Power Line Relocation.

This is case number RPA 26-001.

So just a brief overview.

As I said, this is a regional plan amendment, also known as an RPA, and this is to establish a regional utility corridor to accommodate the relocation of a portion of an existing 120 kilovolt electric transmission line.

And I'll get into it on the further on more slides about what that means.

And on the right, we have our regional form map, and the subject site is shown in orange.

It is located south of Highway 40 West, directly south of its intersection with Edinburgh Drive.

And it's only about a 14-acre site, so it's a relatively small portion of the line that's going to be relocated.

And then for our determination, we do recommend that the proposed regional plan amendment conforms with the regional plan.

So I'm just gonna get you a little bit of background as well as explain the aerial map on the right to show you kind of what's going on in the ground and what's going on in our maps.

On the right, you can see as I said, that aerial map in the existing line goes straight across the site.

It's kind of shown in orange.

And we also provided the slides for you guys if you need a little better look.

But that's what we currently have in our maps.

And then that blue zigzag line is what is proposed today.

And then we just wanted to point out that the yellow line that goes over overhead of both of those lines, that was actually approved in 2021.

But now that they've actually gone through the tentative map and um CP process over the city of Reno, and they've gotten a better idea of what's going to be on the ground.

This is going to be a better alignment with an 82 sub-lot division.

Um that gets over, you know, what's explaining on the map.

That blue line is what we're going to be seeing in the final uh set.

And so that brings me to, as I said, the city of Reno Planning Commission approved the tentative map in the CUP, and that was in December.

And they also recommended the regional plan utility map amendment.

And then the city Reno Council sponsored that utility map amendment and formally submitted to TMRPA.

And then the RPC in February recommended that the RPGB adopt the proposed amendment, and they also determined that the associated PRS was in conformance.

So why is this a regional plan amendment and a project of regional significance?

On the right is map three, which is our regional utility corridors and sites map.

And this shows our regional utility sites above ground and underground lines.

And the reason this is a regional plan amendment is because new corridors must be shown and reflected on map three.

And that is per policy PF11, Regional Utility Corridor and Site Regional Plan Requirements.

And we're going to be updating those lines in our October time frame, those annual updates.

And so we, you know, we check in with what's actually happening, what's proposed, and we're always checking in around that time frame to see what's going on.

So that is what you're considering today, is that regional plan amendment portion.

The uh RPC determined conformance for the project of regional significance portion, which is not what you're looking at today, but it's just for some additional context.

And the relocation of a utility line carrying 60 kilovolts or more, in this case 120 kilovolts, qualified as a project of regional significance.

So as you know, there's those different thresholds.

It's housing, employment, sometimes sewer.

And this is just one of those thresholds that lines up with the NRS and appendix two of our project of regional significance guidelines.

So here's our review criteria.

Policy RC 10 identifies the seven criteria that the RPC and GB must consider when evaluating a regional plan amendment.

And I'm just going to hit some of our main points here.

So on the right is our neighborhood map with the subject site shown in orange.

And the blue color that's surrounding it shows that it's within tier two land.

And that's where there's generally less development occurring at suburban levels with some higher density nodes, and it's third in our priority hierarchy for development.

And it is within the single family neighborhood as well as the suburban mixed use land uses.

And in this area, public facilities and services are generally in place.

From a regional perspective, this regional utility corridor amendment does not indicate any regional compatibility issues.

Then for that next line there, some development constraints areas.

As you can see on the bottom of the site, that kind of that cream color, that indicates that there are slopes over 30%.

However, per policy and our three development constraints areas, utilities are actually exempt from the slopes over 30%.

And also, as you can see, the line is actually moving further away from that slope, anyways.

Then finally, for our interactions with NRCA, also known as the natural resource consideration areas.

The subject site did have various interactions, but they were either really minimal interaction or coverage.

And that was things like trails, uh, proposed or desired, as well as it being near the Truckee River.

Once again, it's moving away from the Truckee River, and the City of Reno materials really indicated that they had a lot of these little minimal interactions solved or worked out.

So natural resources are not to be expected to be impacted.

And then as I said, this is meant to optimize the site for future development.

And when we analyze this case with the vision goals and policies of the regional plan, we didn't find any conflicts with this proposed amendment.

The proposed motion is overhead, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Yes.

Yeah.

Can you thank you for the presentation?

Um, can you just go over the very specific location again?

In other words, does this property um I think it's right at the edge of my ward and ward five?

And I'm not sure for the city Reno, and I'm not sure if there if there are people living there or it's open land or just the nature.

Yeah, so to the north, I know that there um our our imagery is actually maybe a couple years behind.

It's the most recent we can get.

But I suppose yes, to the north directly, it is um those houses are actually mostly built.

Yeah, and um, you know, it's specifically on the map.

I'd have to look for the exact location, but I know that it's largely built out, and that's why the public facilities and services are available.

Yeah, does that help?

Yeah, the is it the meridian?

I mean, um, to the south, I know what's let me see if I can see on this.

I mean bird eyes to the west here.

So it is by Sage, let's see.

You know, Sagebrook Drive and south of State Route 425.

It's it's sorry, I don't have the exact location off the top of my head.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I may, I I actually am maybe not fully.

I I thought I understood exactly where it was.

But anyway, what I I just wondered had we heard from homes or worried about this level of line or no, okay.

And actually, what a lot of the comments that I saw was that it was gonna be, you know, they really were thinking about like the view sheds and having a better align with the new project as well.

Right.

And holds around.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Great.

Any further questions?

Yeah, I'll entertain a motion.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the adopt RPGB resolution 2602 regarding the amendment to the 2024 choice meetings regional plan based on the findings listing stuff.

Oh, one correction.

Oh one.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I have a first and a second.

Any further discussions?

Okay, seeing none, please vote.

I thank you.

Thank you.

This one.

Next, we'll move on to item B, public hearing regional plan amendment.

RPA 26-002.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman Smith for the record.

We have policy analyst Nick Kusha this item.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Nate Kucha, Team RPA for the record.

As mentioned, the case we'll be hearing right now is a regional plan amendment for the Sun Valley 48 LLC project.

So just an overview of what we're looking at.

So this is a proposed tier amendment or regional land designation amendment.

That is necessitated by a Washer County Master Plan amendment.

So this amendment is seeking to move from Tier 3 to Tier 2 on the subject site.

And the associated master plan amendment for Washer County that was approved by the Regional Planning Commission.

Um is changing from suburban residential land use to urban residential and open space.

So the Wash Board of County Commissioners approved and sponsored this amendment on January 13th.

And at our February 26th meeting, the Regional Planning Commission uh did recommend approval of this regional plan amendment and regional planning staff also recommends approval with the 2024 or conformance with the 2024 Trek Meadows Regional Plan.

Uh the parcels are located as you can see on the map here in Sun Valley between First and 2nd Avenue at their western terminus.

So a little more overview.

As mentioned, the site currently is located in tier three, and the amendment to the Washer County Master Plan necessitates this land uh regional land designation change because tier three lands are limited to the existing densities that are approved.

So moving to tier two does allow for a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

However, the associated Washer County Master Plan amendment did set the suburban residential land use on the site, which would only allow for a maximum of 196 units, which is a 68 dwelling unit increase over what is currently allowed or what was currently approved on site.

So here's kind of just our land use change map or our tier change rather.

So on the left, you can see it is in tier three.

It is adjacent to both tier two and tier one, and it is seeking to change the subject site to tier two to accommodate that land use change.

Here is our policy RC 10, which sets the review criteria for any regional plan amendment, and we'll kind of step through the primary portions of the analysis, which are contained in the staff report.

So for regional growth or capacities and growth projections and existing and plan development, the increase in potential residential density due to the proposed tier change is limited to the 18.4 acre site.

And as mentioned, the proposed land use allows for a maximum of 68 additional dwelling units.

So if you go just northwest of the site, that other portion of tier two, the lighter blue above the rural area there, that was the chocolate drive approval.

So that also necessitated a tier change and went to that tier two back in August of 2022.

And that was to support that affordable housing project up there.

So while this is not an affordable housing project, it could help facilitate that one, and there may be some affordable housing on this site as well.

For existing and planned public facilities and services, uh materials submitted by the county indicate that facilities and services are available and adequate for the increase in density requested.

Uh the site is located in the Sun Valley Hydrographic Basin, and the Sun Valley uh General Improvement District has adequate capacity and will provide water and sewer service to the subject site.

Um a traffic analysis was completed for a conceptual 168 unit development.

Again, no project is set at this time, but they did a conceptual one to get an idea of traffic impacts and that estimated uh about 1,132 average daily trips and reported that no roadway improvements were needed to accommodate that increase.

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

Um the site does contain some development constraints areas for slopes greater than 30% on the southern portion of the subject site there.

However, the open space land use has been um applied to that area of the subject site and development is prohibited there.

Um additionally, team RPA did note that presence of proposed and connector trails on the subject site.

And according to the submitted materials, um, when development occurs, several trails will be required to connect throughout the site and connect the Lewis Alan uh Lewis Allen Elementary School, which is on the east side of the subject site there, to the Red Hill open space and the future Sun Valley Rin Trail, which is just to the west of the subject site.

The intent is that the trails will align and support the development and implementation of the Sun Valley Rim Trail.

Finally, staff do not find any conflicts with and do believe that the proposed amendment generally supports the vision goals and policies of the regional plan, including policy RC or RF5, which we'll go through now.

And this is the specific review criteria for any regional land designation or tier amendment.

And I'll step through these very briefly because we hit most of the high points.

But the subject site is adjacent to both tier two and tier one lands, and the proposal does meet the density requirements for tier two.

Um the request allows for enhanced land use diversity and an increase in density, and we'll promote connectivity through the trail requirements mentioned.

And finally, the facilities and services are available and adequate, and proposal is not anticipated to negatively impact any planned land uses in higher priority tiers.

So with that, I have a motion overhead and myself as well as Washer County staff available for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna hold off on asking for questions for this because I messed up procedurally, and so I need to reopen A again and ask if there was any public comment.

We've been watching the mayor of sparks.

Hey, you know what?

Unless someone sits or tells me.

So was there any public comment on A?

There was none.

Okay, thank you.

So I'll close the public hearing.

So I'm gonna make sure I got that all done.

So thank you for being patient.

So now is there any questions uh on this agenda item?

Anyone?

Okay.

If there aren't any, I will entertain a motion.

Madam Chair.

Oh, hold on.

I'll open the public.

I don't do it twice.

I'll do it twice in our open comment.

I'm gonna open public comment.

Are there any requests to speak?

There are no okay, thank you.

So I'll close it and Commissioner Androll.

I move to um adopt RPGB resolution 26-02 regarding an amendment to the 2024 Trekkie Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in this the staff report.

Second, great.

I have a first and a second.

Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, please vote.

Aye.

Great.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Uh next we move on to number seven reports.

Uh Washa County Board of Trustees.

Member Smith, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, just uh a brief point on the previous item.

I just wanted the governing board and the public to know that that particular land is actually zoned for Allen Elementary, Desert Skies Middle and Hug High School, which has plenty of room.

So we absolutely do support that.

And then we're also going to be working on a modernization of Allen as well, too, hopefully for the families that are in that area.

So for my report, um, a couple things.

Hopefully, you have all received an invitation for the ribbon cutting of the ghetto transportation area.

So those are all things that we hope that you can come to.

And very importantly, we have a groundbreaking at Echo Loader Elementary School on May 14th.

And near the end of the summer, there'll also be some ribbon cuttings as we get ready to open the new Vaughn.

So we also have some buildings closing, and we do honor those buildings and the people that they're named for.

So something to think about is that we are contemplating a special events that might allow us to say goodbye to the old Stead Elementary School, the old Vaughn, and then also Pine Middle School, which will be discontinuing.

It's unique compared to the other two.

Stead, of course, it's moving to a new site.

Vaughn is, of course, being rebuilt on its land, but we will be saying goodbye to Pine.

So as those events come together, we will make sure to let you know so that you can share that with your community as well.

And we just continue moving on with all the great projects that we have going on in the Washoe County School District.

Thank you.

Thank you, Trustee Smith.

Next, we'll move on to member and director's reports.

Madam Chair, I have a short report I'd like to give.

This is Chair Director Smith, the record.

Uh well, first off, I want you guys to notice that at your station there is a printed physical copy of the regional plan.

Those are for you to take with you.

Uh, that's an up-to-date version.

And of course, if you don't want it, we'll take it back and we'll give it up to somebody else.

But that's for you.

Um, moving on from that, I wanted to just do a quick update on three efforts going on at the agency to bring up speed.

You've heard about all of these and just give you a quick update.

So, first off, research on high energy users and data centers.

Uh, next week we should be launching our effort.

We've engaged right brain, left brain communications, a woman named Natasha Majewski to uh help us with this effort.

And in addition to some independent research on what's going on in other areas in terms of ordinances or rules around data centers, we're going to be doing a big outreach and interview process with 25 or more stakeholder groups.

And these range from tribal governments, the Sierra Club, the PUC, Nevada Energy, DRI, local jurisdiction staff, economic development authorities.

So we've targeted a list and we're going to do a pre-survey and then a common set of questions.

We're going to bring that back, synthesize it along with our independent research, and then we're going to host a focus group for the stakeholders to come together where we talk about what we found.

And then ultimately take that to the public in a community conversation so we get the public engagement on that.

In service of creating a report that contains prioritized recommendations for local jurisdictions or other government entities from what we've found that we think could work in this region as uh rules for the approval of these high energy users like data centers.

So that's going on, and we anticipate that'll be going on through May uh with the interview process with a focus group sometime mid-summer, and then a public uh community conversation later in the summer, and then we'll report back to everyone.

So we'll we'll be forward-facing with that on the website, check in on our progress, see how we're doing and then what's going on.

Hey, um, if I may, um, Jeremy, could you um make sure that you include the board and the notices for the meetings so that we can pace when it's just awareness of what's happening?

And there might be one we want to drop in on.

There might not, but it's it's better than just getting the report at the end.

I totally so if you're gonna be able to do that.

Yep, we'll do a notice of pushing it out to us rather than having us go find it or figure it out once you're you got it.

Okay, that'd be helpful.

Thank you.

No, I got uh two more real quick.

Uh so the second one is the Trucky Meadows Trails uh regional coordinator position.

We've talked about that.

Thanks to uh help from Frankie's Delopapa and the Nelson Family Trust and the connection from Councilmember Dewar.

We were got that position funded, and we have hired a guy named Dylan Oslinger to fill the role.

Uh we're finalizing the contract in scope uh right now this week.

And pretty excited about that.

Uh his first order of business will be to reach out to the Trucky Meadows Trails Working Group and kind of bring the program back online to some degree.

Uh Dylan has a lot of experience uh doing trails planning and also grant making for trails, so that's really important because we're gonna need to get money to sustain this position, and he knows that uh in the Sierra Nevada, the Bay Area, and Southern California.

So we're really excited to have Dylan on board.

And uh at some point, hopefully we'll be able to bring him forward, and he can do a little presentation on what he's up to for you all.

Excuse me, if I may.

Is he moving here from somewhere else?

He lives in Truckee.

Truckee.

All right, perfect.

He lives in Truckee.

Uh, thank you.

So then the final thing is that you may remember our last meeting that we talked about a regional coordination subcommittee of the RPC.

So we took the guidance and feedback that you provided back to that subcommittee at their March meeting.

And ultimately, it led to a discussion and a set of recommendations uh that are really staff process-oriented recommendations for us to try to do some things that are within our purview.

That's not any policy changes or anything like that.

But uh the subcommittee spoke about it.

We brought it to the Monday nights at Regional Planning Commission meeting to propose those recommendations, which were approved by the Regional Planning Commission.

And they include topics like an emphasis on education and training, so that folks really know, you know, what we're up against.

We're doing a GIS TMRPA case dashboard.

So soon there'll be a map online where you can go and see all the cases that we've done, what the findings were, you know, the status, link to the staff report, as well as things that are in the hopper and going on.

So that's coming.

We have a mechanism called the Regional Plan Update Working Group, which we employ in advance of the five-year updates of the regional plan.

Well, we just took the word update out of that, and now we're gonna have a quarterly meetings of the regional plan working group.

And so I'm gonna enlist uh the local staff from our jurisdictions and our affected entities so that quarterly we come together and it's an opportunity to face to face and you know, bring up stuff that might not have, you know, might have fallen through the cracks and just generally stay coordinated.

Uh we're collaborating on GIS data with local entities, and then we think that the regional coordination subcommittee meeting is a really neat opportunity to learn about things going on in the region.

We had a really neat presentation from Candace Stoll from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony.

She saw that we were doing this and offered to do that.

And so we're considering periodic, maybe quarterly meetings as needed, as identified, right?

If someone wants to talk of this subcommittee as a mechanism to uh receive updates from community groups, organizations, or in our affected entity partners about what they're doing here in the region.

Uh so that's exciting.

So that went forward and uh that concludes the kind of items.

Our next meeting will be here in this room on June 11th at 2 p.m.

Thank you.

Thank you for that report.

And I also want to thank Dr.

Smith for coming out to Love Lock last week to the WNDD summit in which we did speak about energy data centers, transportation, and all sorts of things.

So thank you for coming out for that.

And thank you for following up for this.

This is great.

Does anybody have any questions or comments?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Legal counsel.

Jessica Pratty, for the record, I have nothing to report, but you will be receiving a writing from me soon on updating you on a couple of pending items and what's going to be coming down the pipeline in June for you.

Thank you.

Next we'll move on to board comments and requests for future agenda items.

Does anybody have anything?

I just have a follow-up question that I should have asked earlier.

But I mean, Jeremy, when you mentioned the data centers, I was a little unclear when you said you were gonna go out and do this whole process and gather information from these 25 groups and so on.

But then I thought you said something about regulations, like right at the very end, and I didn't really follow.

Yeah, that's correct.

Thank you.

This is Jeremy Smith for the record.

So the there'll be a common set of questions oriented towards gaining the perspective of these different groups on what kinds of regulations or rules need to be set.

Oh, what kind?

Yeah, what recommendations on the website.

Well, at the end, we'll bring we'll synthesize all of that and we'll have a discussion with all the stakeholders together and then with the public, and those are the meetings that'll keep you aware of.

And basically, we want to provide you at the end to this body a report of like a prioritized list of the recommendations of so that we can all align our efforts at the local jurisdictions to adopt uh rules that you know we can agree on that are a good idea.

Yeah, and I think there may be I don't know how many, but we'll put the the ones we think are the most important at the top.

And then did you participate in the legislative like all day conference?

I did, yes.

I went there and I spoke to the the uh both of those committees uh in collaboration with the Trucking Meadows Water Authority at the legislature, yes at the legislature.

Okay, and did they have any comments or feedback for us that they did not like took it all in?

Took it all in, yeah.

They kind of took it all in, but we'll be making them aware of this effort as well, so they have the information.

And we told them about our website, which we continue to grow information on, even just uh on Tuesday.

I was at DRI with a group uh focused on the Truckee River, and uh one of at the end of the day we worked with some of the DRI staff to talk about water abuse for data centers.

Uh the Tri-Gid, Sherry Whalen from uh TriGid was there to talk about what they're doing with treated effluent and potable water and just some of the forecasting of how much water we think is gonna be needed.

So water obviously is going to be a topic of these questions that we're talking the stakeholders about.

Okay, thanks.

Sure.

I was uh asking those things because I wasn't sure if there was like a need for any future agenda items why I asked.

Great.

Thank you.

We will be bringing it at the right time.

You'll bring it back.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else have anything?

Okay.

Next we'll move on to uh number nine public comment.

Do we have any requests to speak?

We do not.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any written correspondence.

Not at this time.

Great, thank you.

Then we will adjourn.

Thank you.

Okay.