Yes.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Marilyn Kramer.

Michael Flick.

Here.

David Jockman.

Here, virtual.

Um, Tina Gonfiantini.

Here.

Dan Lazareski.

Here.

Carl Nieberline.

Here.

Shelley Reed.

Jacob Williams.

Here.

All right.

We're all set.

All right.

Thank you.

Will you all please join us in Sludden the Flag?

See the republic.

Under God.

Liberty and Justice for all.

All right.

Um the approval of the agenda that we're not having any changes in it.

Um, Mr.

Chair and move to approve the agenda is written.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion to say it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any approach, say nay.

All right.

Public comment.

Do we have any general public comment?

Yes, we have four.

The first one will be Thomas Daly, followed by Cameron McSweeney.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh, for the record, I'm Thomas Daly, a resident of Warshow County.

And as a matter of full disclosure, a former Washer County Planning Commissioner.

I would ask that my comments be entered into the record tonight for this meeting.

As you consider whether the application for the World Property Sierra Reflections Housing Development conforms to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, there would seem to be three possible outcomes.

First, based on the applicant's experts and the county's commission's approval of their appeal, despite the Worshow County Planning Commission's unanimous conclusion to the contrary.

You might conclude that on substance, it does conform to the regional plan.

Second, you could find that based on the exhaustive substantive and objective public comment you are about to hear from citizen engineers, scientists, and former regulators, that the application on substance does not conform to the regional plan.

And I believe there is a third option for you to consider.

You can find the application does not conform to the regional plan on procedural grounds, and that the application and record before you are both incomplete and in part factually incorrect.

The record is incomplete as confirmed by the county planning department.

Admission that they failed to include all of the citizens' public comments from the Washer County Planning Commission meeting of January 6th before the BCC's meeting of March 10th.

An error not corrected by your regional staff in the record before you tonight.

The application is incorrect, and that the motion to accept a $1 million contribution from the applicant in exchange for Commissioner Garcia's vote to approve their appeal was not legally noticed or agendized for the meeting of March 10th and is now the subject of an open meeting law complaint before the attorney general, alleging a violation of the law's clear and present clear and complete standard.

This is an important issue in your deliberations of the one million dollars is both substantive and was a seminal issue upon which the appeal was approved after being added to the motion and after public comment was closed, thus denying the public the opportunity to be heard.

Further, the applicant's one million dollar contribution is invalid as county commissioners cannot obligate the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District to do anything.

Their March 10 meeting was not convened as a joint meeting of the BCC and the Board of Fire Commissioners.

You deserve a complete accurate and unbiased record before you to consider this evening.

Your staff has not provided it to you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Cameron McSweeney, followed by Linda Belly.

Good evening.

Please enter my comments into the record.

My name is Cameron McSweeney, and I am an insurance agent of 25 years, so I am very knowledgeable about our current volatile home insurance industry and how oversaturation and wildfire risk affects our current home insurance client climate.

Improving approving the Sierra Reflections Housing Development is a direct violation of NRS 278-160 and will further contribute to oversaturation of risk in rural areas, leaving more homeowners without and struggling to find or afford homeowners' insurance coverage.

NRS 278-160, elements of a master plan.

An analysis of the characteristics of the land that is suitable for residential development.

The analysis must include without limitation.

One, a determination of whether the existing infrastructure is sufficient to sustain the current needs and projected growth of the community.

There is no sufficient infrastructure pertaining to the additional police and fire resources that would be required and needed.

The county commissioners at the March 10th meeting promised a $1 million escrow deposit towards a new fire station.

However, they also admitted on the record that the existing fire station 32 on East Lake Boulevard would end up being closed when the new station is built with plans to turn it into a seasonal wildfire station, still leaving us with only one fully manned and operational fire station, as there are no funds or staff to provide equipment for an additional wildland fire station.

So this station could remain vacant and unoccupied for a very long time.

Isn't ultimately leaving us with just one fire station and 940 new homes being built a direct contradiction of the county commissioners' reasoning for securing these funds and trying to make the developers finding issuance not being detrimental?

This puts all of the residents of Pleasant and Washoe Valley into major threat of further hardships with homeowners insurance affordability and inability to even be able to find insurance, as most carriers have completely stopped riding business in our area, and the few that are currently insuring our homes are on the verge of doing widespread cancellations all over again due to oversaturation of risk in a small area.

On May 5th, 2026, Chief Edwards told the Board of Fire Commissioners during their budget meeting during item number 13 budget update that they cannot afford to bond another fire station and that they are going to have to find another way to even build the consolidated Washoe Valley Fire Station.

There were still no funds allocated for the new proposed consolidated Washoe Valley Fire Station found at their May 26th budget meeting.

This means that not only is there no existing infrastructure, but there is also no funds to be able to build the needed infrastructure in order to adhere to the requirements of NRS 278160.

Thank you.

Next we have Linda Bell, followed by Larry Moulton, my name is Linda Bell.

For 30 years, I've been a resident of Washoe Valley, and I was a 911 dispatcher for the City of Sparks.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into your records.

With regards to the proposed Sierra Reflections Development, a project of regional significance, the NRS 278.0157 clearly defines public facilities to specifically include fire and police services.

Thus, public safety needs to be your priority consideration.

According to the goals of the Envision 2040 master plan in the NRS 278-1601, public safety infrastructure must be in place before approving a project like this.

You are tasked with the responsibility to make responsible growth decisions to protect lives and property.

The Washoe County Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposed Sierra Reflections development because they realized that the necessary public safety infrastructure is not in place.

Having a new $18 million fire station in the South Valleys is critical infrastructure that must be in place prior to approval of SIRA Reflections.

The South Valleys needs the new fire station to be built now.

Per Chief Fire Fire Chief Edwards, the funding to build provide equipment and fully staff this new stir station.

It's not currently available, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

World properties promise to donate 1 million dollars to help build a new fire station is a ploy.

They just want this development approved, so they has to be able to sell the property as evidenced by the current listing of Sierra Reflections on the Internet Exhibit A.

There is no guarantee that any future buyer would keep this promise.

A normal developer's prorata share for this development would be about 4.5 million, much more than the promised donation.

So why would we believe that they would keep this promise?

The citizens of the South Valleys need increased public safety now.

NRS 278.0274 also requires that a comprehensive regional plan must provide and include goals and policies to meet the population expansion needs, including public safety.

Adding 940 plus urban homes with 3,000 plus residents in the South Valley's rural area without increasing public safety infrastructure is not in the best interests of the current residents.

This proposed development does not meet NRS 278160, NRS 2780274 item four, nor is it in keeping with the envisioned 2040 master plan.

Based on the above findings and the current needs for the adequate public safety infrastructure, I respectfully request you deny approval for this proposed development.

Next we have Larry Moulton, and that's the last commenter for this item My name is Larry Moulton.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record concerning agenda item 7D.

The master plan in Vision Washa 2040 promised that the South Valleys would remain rural.

When word that Sierra Reflections application had been resubmitted, a petition of opposition was started.

On this petition, there are 1,922 hand signed signatures of concerned citizens who strongly object to this high density development proposed for our rural area.

In addition, a group of local citizens who are highly qualified by education and work experience in their subject matters, form 20 working groups to review the application.

Their exhaustive research documented areas of noncompliance and determined that this application does not meet numerous code findings that must be met for it to be approved.

We trust that you have received the 31-page executive summary that was emailed to you that documents over 60 items of noncompliance, and that you see how flawed this application is.

Any opposed say nay.

All right.

Um motion passes.

Moving on to item number six, a consent item.

Um this is this is um determination to reopen a public hearing previously held by us on April 26 on regional plan amendment RPA 26003 to allow for additional public comment.

Mr.

Chair after noticing in two newspapers general circulation within the region and produced with the continued hearing agenda item 7a.

Mr.

Chair.

This is Jessica Prenti for the record.

Um traditionally on the consent agenda um is just approval of the agenda as a whole unless a member of this body wishes to pull an item into the business of the day.

To everybody, so this is just a consent item.

Um, do we have any public comment that somebody would like to submit on on that?

We have not received any.

We have not received any.

Okay.

Then with that, then we need to go to B.

Um does anybody does anybody want to change their vote?

Does anybody want to read the consent agenda?

Right.

So Mr.

Chair, we would be looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

We get a motion to approve the consent Mr.

Chair.

I move to approve the consent agenda as published.

I would second that or clear.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

I'll say business in the day.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

We're moving on to item number seven now.

This is going to be for the regional planning commission for the regional land designation of uh tier one to tier or tier two to tier one land.

Sorry.

You want to read this?

I'm happy to do that.

Mr.

Chair, this is Jeremy Smith, uh Director of Regional Planning for the record.

Uh this is a public hearing continued from the April 23rd, 2026 RPC meeting for regional plan amendment that's RPA 26-003.

Possible adoption of regional planning commission resolution 2603 providing recommendation to the regional planning governing board regarding an amendment to the regional land designation for a 12.5 acre portion of the subject parcel from tier two to tier one land.

The 12.5 acre site is within the northern portion of an overall 84.61 acre parcel located south of South McCarron Boulevard at the terminus of golf club drive.

Yes, okay.

So what is happened here, and I just would like to kind of make a statement about this is that we learned uh following the hearing that our notice to the Sparks Tribune was not posted.

And so just as we welcome all of your faces here today, and this concept of making sure that the public has their due notice and ample opportunity to participate in these meetings.

You know, we uncovered this issue that occurred.

We're legally obligated to publish our notice in two newspapers of general circulation in the region.

It was published in the RGJ, but not in the Sparks Tribune, even though we did send that notice for publication.

And so what we're trying to do today is make sure that we have a valid record, correct that, reopen the public hearing so that anyone that was not afforded the opportunity to see that notice in the Sparks Tribune now has been afforded that.

And they have the opportunity today to provide public comment on the case.

I'm gonna run through the very general overview of what we did on April 23rd.

Uh and this is all part of the record on our website.

So it's a proposed uh regional land designation change.

That constitutes a regional plan amendment because the regional land designation map is map two of the regional plan.

So to change it, we have to amend the plan.

That actually requires a vote by the regional planning governing board, the the body of elected officials that serve for this entity.

This vote today would be potentially to affirm or reconsider uh the past action on April 23rd to recommend to the governing board uh that they make this vote.

So the final decision would be coming at a subsequent meeting.

But again, we want to make sure that the record is sound and that we've followed our noticing requirements.

Uh the regional planning commission approved the associated Reno Master Plan amendment that goes along with this tier change.

That is contingent upon the final action of the regional planning governing board to amend the regional plan.

The city council had approved uh and sponsored this amendment back on January 28th of this year.

We recommend that uh the RPC go ahead and adopt resolution 26-03 and find the proposed master.

Well, that part we don't need, just adopt a resolution 2603 recommending the tier change to the regional plan.

Here's a map showing uh the change and and what it would do.

It's there just south of McCarran by the Lake Ridge Golf Course.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

With that, we have two motions available to you.

One is to affirm your previous vote from April 23rd.

Another would be to uh reconsider and um we're happy to answer any questions legal counsel may want to add.

Thank you, Jessica Prenti for the record.

I just want to make sure that everyone was clear.

This is not an open meeting law issue.

Um the agenda was probably noticed.

Um this is a noticing issue specific in our regional planning statutes when a regional plan amendment is going to be a proposed regional plan amendment is gonna be considered by this body and by the governing board that that publication of the notice of that proposed action must be made in two newspapers of general circulation.

So this is not an open meeting law issue whatsoever.

So the process here, we already received presentations on April 23rd.

Public comment would be to reopen the public hearing, receive any additional public comment, if any, close the public hearing and bring it back to the body for their action.

Okay.

It's already open, so you could open the public hearing, yes.

Yeah.

So let's open the public hearing on this.

Um do we have any public comment?

We do not.

Does anybody um are you guys good with reaffirming your vote?

Or do you want to make a motion?

Go ahead.

The decision made on April 23rd, 2026 adopted RPC resolution 26-03 recommending.

You gotta use the microphone.

It's on.

Okay, I'll just speak louder.

There you go.

I move to affirm the decision made on April 23rd, 2026, adopting the RPC resolution 26-03 recommending to the RPG B that it adopt an amendment to the 2024 Trekking Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Gonfiantini, I second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay.

That motion passes.

Now we're moving on to 7B to reopen this one.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This is Jeremy Smith again.

So same problem, different item.

This one was for a recommendation of a regional plan amendment to establish a regional utility corridor and site for uh the area of lazy five in the city of Sparks.

Um this also happened on April 23rd, and you know, associated with that same Sparks Tribune noticing issues.

So we've renotis everything.

This is for a uh again, this is on map uh three of the regional plan is our regional utility uh corridor and site map in order to establish a new corridor and new sites.

It requires a regional plan amendment.

So again, this is a recommendation by this body to ask the regional planning governing board to vote on making that change to the regional plan.

Over this 56-acre site where this is going to occur, there are you can kind of see on the map up there at the top, a couple of new utility lines being added and one no utility site.

We recommend that uh you go ahead and recommend to the regional planning governing board to adopt this change to the map and allow the establishment of this regional utility corridor.

Here's the history.

Uh Sparks PC approved it back in January, March 9th.

The city council sponsored the regional plan amendment.

This is part of the Lemon Valley Transmission Line Project.

It is in order to provide continued grid stability to our energy grid.

And it does include a removal of a portion of an existing line.

We don't remove those regional utility corridors from the plan until the infrastructure is actually moved.

So for a while we have double, then we assess uh has the regional utility transmission line actually been moved to the new corridor, then we go through and we do an amendment, an annual housekeeping amendment to identify okay, this new or this uh now defunct regional utility corridor can be removed.

So just that's the process there.

But what we're doing now is establishing the new corridor, and really any transmission line of 60 KV or greater needs to be uh in a regional utility corridor.

So similar to the last one, we have two motions.

There's a move a motion to affirm the previous April 23rd decision or a reconsideration motion.

Happy to answer any questions.

We'll need to open the public hearing again for any potential public comment.

Do we have any public comment on this matter?

We do not.

Okay, close public comment.

Chair Pierce, I have to recuse on this as I did on the previous hearing as I am employed by NV Energy.

Okay.

All right.

Somebody want to make a motion.

Oh, Mr.

Chair, I move I'll make a motion.

I move to affirm the decision made on April 23rd, 2026, adopting RPC resolution 26-04, recommending to the RPGB that it adopt an amendment to the 2024 Trucky Meadows Regional Plan based on the findings listed in the staff report.

And I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay.

Motion passes.

All right, moving on to item number C legal training, right?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jessica Prenti for the record.

I'll wait for staff to get my presentation up.

This is a training item for the Regional Planning Commission.

As you know, there's a course of training required for the Regional Planning Commission.

And it was suggested that maybe a legal overview of regional planning would be appropriate as a training segment, particularly because we have some new members on the commission.

So this is regional planning from a legal perspective.

May I have a clicker, please?

There you go.

Thank you.

Okay.

Let's start at the very beginning.

I think it would be helpful to say why are we even here?

Why does regional planning exist in Washoe County?

Prior to 1989, there was regional planning on a more informal level, not governed by any particular state statute and an actual regional planning commission.

However, there was local jurisdictional conflict amongst the cities and the county, and the regional planning commission was disbanded.

That caught the attention of some of our leaders in the Nevada legislature, primarily the esteemed Senator Bill Raggio, Senator Townsend, and Senator Wagner, spearheaded an effort to create regional planning statutes applicable in Washoe County.

And so that's exactly what they did.

I provided a memorandum to everybody on the body earlier today that is the full-fledged analysis, a white paper, so to speak.

And within that, there's a floor speech from Senator Raggio that I quoted verbatim, and I would encourage you to read because I think it's quite profound and still applicable to modern day.

The legislature is very concerned with the disbanding of the Regional Planning Commission, and then the jurisdictions just went off in different directions directions in their planning efforts.

Senator Raggio called out the absolute truth, which is that the Trekkie Meadows is a geographic bowl, and growth and infrastructure and development issues cross the artificial jurisdictional boundaries of the cities and the counties.

So the legislature deemed in its infinite wisdom to coordinate and mandate long-range regional planning and to avoid in order to avoid fragmented local planning and promote regional coordination.

They did this in 1989.

Sorry.

So in 1989, our comprehensive comprehensive regional planning statutes were adopted.

Those statutes were remain largely unchanged today.

There was some amendments over time.

So that the impact of development on those public facilities and the availability of that public facility would be a consideration in regional review.

And then in 2011, the legislative findings were retained and affirmed and codified.

The statutory framework that was enacted as an NRS 278-026 through 278-029.

And in those statutes, the Regional Planning Commission was established, the Regional Planning Agency was established, the governing board was established.

There was a mandate that the governing board and the planning commission develop and adopt a comprehensive regional plan and what the contents of that plan needed to be needed to be.

They also created the concept of a project of regional significance, and what type of triggers are utilized to determine at the local jurisdictional level if a project is a project of regional significance.

And embedded conformance review criteria for this body when and whenever a local jurisdiction or an affected entity makes a change to their master plan or facilities plan.

Those have to come forward to regional planning for conformance review to make sure they conform with the regional plan.

And then additional items of joint planning, spheres of influence, and annexation were addressed in the statutes.

I think what's really critical, and you've heard this from me time and time again is that this body and the governing board and TMRPA are entities of limited and specific statutory jurisdiction.

This is very different than the cities and the county.

And you cannot draw outside of your statutory boundaries.

Excuse me, is empowered to adopt regulations to implement the regional planning statutes.

And so when I say that we are limited statutory jurisdiction, this body and the governing board are not here to hear appeals of local jurisdictional planning decisions.

We're here to determine if local jurisdiction planning proposals and affected entity plans conform with the regional plan.

And so that's an important distinction.

And then in the statutes and through the regulations, there's a real clear distinction between the roles of the Regional Planning Commission and the Regional Planning Governing Board.

The Regional Planning Commission is the technical and advisory planning body.

It conducts the heart, the bread and butter of your work is conformance reviews.

And this is ensuring regulatory compliance with the local jurisdictions and the affected entities that conforms with the regional plan.

You also make recommendations to the regional planning governing body on whether to adopt a regional plan amendment and the contents and development of the regional plan and updates.

And you also serve as the annexation committee, which you probably haven't heard of that, and who knows the next time you will.

They're also the final appellate review body of all actions of the Regional Planning Commission.

And they're the only entity under our statutes that can be sued or can sue.

And they also are authorized to adopt programs of training for the Regional Planning Commission.

The statutes, as to the regional plan, mandate that it has to be developed by the Region Planning Commission with a 20-year development horizon and growth framework.

The plan has to be consist of written text, maps, goals, and policies, and the contents must address these following subject areas: population growth, regional form, public facilities and services, natural resources, and regional coordination.

In essence, the regional plan is the governing board and this body's implementation of their statutory mandate.

And it the regional plan policies function as the conformance review criteria when you conduct your conformance reviews, which I'm going to talk a little bit more about here soon.

So after the 1989 adoption of the regional planning statutes, the first plan that was adopted in 1991, then there was another plan in 1996.

Then with the 2002 plan, litigation ensued amongst the local jurisdictions and other affected entities and regional planning.

And there were settlement agreements brokered in 2002 and 2005 that really ended up shaping the plans thereafter.

One of the central concepts that came out of the plans is the Trekkie Meadow Service area, which you will know on your regional form map in the regional plan is the big black boundary that was determined via litigation, negotiation, and consensus eventually to be where everyone thought growth would occur within a 20-year horizon.

Now, and then the 2007 and 2012 plans were virtually identical.

They were loaded with a lot of policies, there was some redundancies, they emphasized jurisdictional boundaries and service areas and intergovernmental growth management.

In 2019, there was a huge shift away from that.

We basically erased the jurisdictional boundaries and move to a regional tiering system within the TMSA to guide density and growth patterns.

The 2019 plan also simplified and reorganized the policies by reducing redundancy and consolidated the review standards.

The 2024 plan through that update, not a lot of changes to the 2019 plan, a couple policy additions, and then prominently the adoption of the NR plan and the public infrastructure plan, which are tools and data warehousing centers that can help inform decision making and guide local jurisdictions, affected entities, and regional planning in their consideration of items that come before them.

So the regional plan, when I think of when I look at the regional plan, I see it they divided into basically four types of policies.

We have implementation directives to local governments and affected entities.

What this means is these there's many policies in the plan where the plan says local governments, affected entities, you must address this subject area in your local plan or in your facilities plan.

Regional planning doesn't really care how it goes about addressing those, and where we it's not our job to see how those are implemented, just to make sure that you they have to address them, and then they bring that master plan or affected entity plan back up for regional conformance review.

Then we have your conformance review standards, and there's certain policies in the white paper I provided in earlier communications kind of detail some actual specific plan policies that are utilized by this commission in conducting your actual conformance review of a master plan amendment or an effect an affected entity facilities plan or a project of regional significance.

And then there's like you know, policies around the regional plan framework itself and how you go about amending certain types, certain areas of the plan.

And then there's additional policies that are utilized by the agency and our process tools.

And as I mentioned earlier, the bread and butter of this body's work is conformance reviews.

So specifically as to master plan and facilities plan conformance reviews under the statutes and regulations, local governments and affected entities must submit their amendments to the RPC for conformance review before final adoption.

The RPC determines whether the proposal conforms with the regional plan.

The statute's very specific that the review standard is to determine whether or not it's in conflict with the regional plan and whether it promotes the goals and policies of the regional plan.

And this statute specifically requires that if any part, if the RPC determines that any part of a proposed master plan amendment or facility plan amendment is not in conformance, it must specify the parts that don't conform and why.

Nothing in the regulations authorizes this body to essentially act as a reviewing body of whether or not the local jurisdiction, their affected entity is right in the first place to even adopt this amendment under their rules and their master plan or affected entity plan.

And that's the same for project or regional significance conformance review.

PRSs are defined by statute and in the regional planning commission's guidelines.

The regional planning commission is empowered by the Nevada legislature to adopt guidelines to determine what types of projects are or are not projects of regional significance.

These guidelines are what are utilized by the local jurisdictions when they are reviewing proposals that come to them to say, oh, this is going to be a project of regional significance.

Most of them are triggers based on you know housing units, uh, employment, you know, students, things of that nature.

Um then once a local jurisdiction sends that up to regional planning, then regional planning has to determine whether it conforms with the plan.

What I find interesting about the project of regional significance statute is it's a bit different than the master plan and an affected entity statute.

It specifically states that your review is limited to the substance and content of the redopted regional plan, and that you cannot consider the merits of the project or the deficiencies except as necessary to determine whether or not it conforms with the regional plan.

And that's an express statutory directive, which is somewhat unique in your regional planning statutes.

Um so again, this is you're not reviewing whether or not the city of Reno got it right when they approved Stone Gate.

You're not you're not reviewing whether they did it right.

You are making sure that that project conforms with the regional plan.

And if it doesn't, you need to say why.

Um and then, of course, your determination of whether or not a PRS conforms or not is appealable to the regional planning governing board.

And then lastly, I'm just gonna skip over this.

I already mentioned that there's statutory statutes that talk about joint planning.

We don't have any joint planning areas currently.

Joint planning is a creature statute where you designate a joint planning area in the regional plan, and that is incumbent upon the two local jurisdictions to then have joint meetings of their planning commissions and develop a plan over that area that then, of course, has to conform with the regional plan.

There's also spheres of amb saloons in our regional plan and in the statutes, which is where cities anticipate growing into.

And in fact, the TMSA boundaries and the city spheres of influence, how far they were going to expand was really the subject of the litigation in 2002 and 2005.

And agreements were brokered to allow Washoe County to have more development than the cities initially wanted.

The cities wanted to expand.

City of Breno in particular wanted to expand a sphere of influence, you know, way south to the very end of the TMSA boundary.

Um but there was an agreement that was broker to leave that within unincorporated Washoe County.

And that brings me to this, the key takeaways.

Your role is statutory technical and advisory RPGB is the policymaking and appellate body.

The regional plan is your operative document, and your conformance reviews are guided by the statute regulations and the plan.

And you must remain within your statutory review standards.

I'm available for any questions, but I know we have a lengthy item ahead.

So I'm also always available outside of this meeting for any questions.

Thanks.

Does anybody have any questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Jessica.

If I may, this is Jeremy Smith, the record.

I just want to add that this item, Jessica's presentation, plus reading the memorandum that she's provided for new members that require the 12 hours of uh training.

If you do those two things, you should satisfy one hour.

And of course, we're happy to answer any questions that might come up during that.

So thank you.

You can expect in subsequent meetings more training items.

Wonderful.

Great.

Thank you.

Might mic on.

Yeah, I guess it is.

Okay.

All right.

We're gonna close the training.

We're gonna move on to item number D for possible action.

Would you like to introduce that for us?

Yes, sir.

I will.

Jeremy Smith for the record again.

This is item 7D.

It's public hearing.

Regional plan conformance review, Wash County Project of Regional Significance Sierra Reflections, the CR25-026.

A proposal for a common open space tentative subdivision map for a 940-lot common open space development with lots ranging in size from 2,876 square feet to 68,008 square feet.

This project meets the standard for a project of regional significance because it contains housing of more than 625 units, sewage use greater than 187,500 gallons per day, water usage greater than 625 acre feet per year, and traffic counts greater than an average of 6,250 trips daily.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Uh the case planner that we worked together on this was Nate Kucha.

He is available online for questions, but I'm gonna take us, he's actually on vacation in Idaho.

So I'm gonna take us through this presentation.

Uh before we start the presentation, I just want to add that uh we're gonna give a TMRP staff presentation.

Then there's going to be a brief presentation by Washoe County staff, followed by a brief presentation by the applicant's interested party.

That's how we refer to it.

In this case, Washoe County, who approved this ultimately uh through their process is our applicant to regional planning, but we also want to hear technical details from their applicant, which is uh we refer to as the applicant's interested party.

Following that, we'd answer any questions or throughout that process.

And then open the public hearing for all of you folks that are here tonight to be able to speak your mind.

Uh, we're gonna start with a 10-minute presentation for your representative of a group of folks here.

I think I don't know if they have a presentation, but they're gonna be first, and then we'll start going through the received public comment uh three minutes each.

We have in discussions with the chair.

We've just uh sort of discussed that 10 p.m.

is probably a good stopping point if we can't get through all of this tonight.

And so what we may do if we get to that point is offer the notion of a continuance uh to you know, not finally decide the item tonight if we get that far into it.

But if that happens, we would plan to within about a two-week time frame uh schedule with these folks uh a special meeting to bring this item back and continue hearing the public comment.

We want to make sure everybody has a chance to speak and we're able to consider all of your comments in this.

So that is potentially on the table, and I defer to the chair to to make that call.

We may also want to take uh periodic or at least one break during this, depending on how how long this goes.

So with that, I will start in on the presentation.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I have a disclosure.

I just wanted to say that um Jeremy and I met with Ken Crater, um, Dave Shogrove and Doug Thornley about this project.

We met together, and um, I do not think that it's gonna affect my voting ability.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I have the record any other disclosures.

Uh, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission, uh, this is Commissioner Jockman.

I am employed by a civil engineering firm that is currently in discussions regarding the possible provision of professional services related to the proposed development associated with this application based upon that relationship and out of an abundance of caution, I will abstain from discussion and voting on this matter.

Uh thank you, Madam Clerk.

Please accept this disclosure on the record.

I will now uh refrain and turn my camera off since I'm virtual.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Go ahead, go right.

Thank you very much.

Uh Jeremy Smith again for the record.

So taking us through our presentation.

Again, this is Project CR25-026 PRS or project of regional significance uh conformance review.

Click.

Was that it?

Yeah, there we go.

Okay, thank you very much.

So, first I'd like to orient everyone to the map.

Uh, the map on the right is our map two, the regional form map from the regional plan.

And the black outline that Jessica mentioned during her training is the TMSA boundary.

Um, we're gonna zoom in on that in a second.

But what you can see, I hope from this one and in future maps that I'm showing, is that this orange subject site, the Sierra Reflection site, is actually included inside the TMSA boundary.

Uh, the proposal is for a 940 unit tentative subdivision map.

As I mentioned in the item title, that's triggering the PRS uh thresholds for housing.

It's greater than 625 units.

The sewage is greater than 187,500 gallons per day.

The water is required is greater than 625 acre feet per year, and traffic is greater generated is greater than 6,250 uh average daily trips.

After looking through the regional plan uh policies governing this review, our staff, including myself, recommends that this project of regional significance does conform with the 2024 Truck Humadows Regional Plan.

It is 759.7 acres.

They're located in the southern part of the TMSA, in between the interstate and highway 385, uh south of Pagney Lane between Pleasant Valley and Old Washoe City.

As part of this proposal, 460.1 acres of that 759 acres are proposed to be uh designated as public open space.

This is in the third tier, tier three, and a small portion, which is pointing down there on the far western margin of that orange boundary, uh, exists in the rural area.

Most of this is in tier three, so the tier three regional land designation, which I'll talk about as we go forward.

Uh Trevor Lloyd, staff from the county is gonna go into I think a little more detail on the history, but uh just briefly the background as we understand it.

This back in 1984 had been approved for kind of a commercial use, 250 room hotel, uh casino, and some 550 condominiums.

During the 2002 regional plan update, as was referenced during the the training item, uh there was uh sort of a movement by the city of Reno to include this area in their sphere of influence.

And as we mentioned, the sphere of influence indicates the 20-year uh forward-looking boundary that a city would look to annex into their city.

It doesn't constitute an annexation, but it is sort of a signal that that would be happening.

There were negotiations that occurred during that plan update, and it was ultimately decided that if Washoe County it, you know, to sort of limit that expansion of the city of Reno to the south, that Washoe County would you know maintain the site within their unincorporated jurisdiction and zone it for residential use.

So in 2004, the Washa County Master Plan Amendment set the land use designations of suburban residential, rural, and rural residential.

Uh, through the negotiation, I think that the math pencils out to just over a thousand potential units, somewhere on the way of in 1100, but through the negotiation that was further limited, I think by the regional plan and governing board down to uh 995 maximum units on this 700 plus acre site.

As we are seeing today, 20 years later, back in 2006, because this triggered the thresholds of 625 units or more, plus some of the others, it was reviewed against then the existing regional plan as a PRS, and it was approved at that time as a PRS.

I think you need to save it for the public comment.

Absolutely not.

The review criteria for a project of regional significance is these five items, which are in chapter three of the regional plan.

Uh we're gonna go through each one of them as it relates to this project of regional significance that we have received submitted to us.

So there you can see again the subject site zoomed in a bit with an aerial.

You can see the portion below the black line is the portion in the rural area.

Everything above is in tier three.

We're going to talk about population growth.

So the master plan, as I mentioned, for Washoe County, which has been found in conformance with the 2024 regional plan, has had these rural and uh suburban residential uses in it since 2004.

Previously, a tentative map did exist on the site until I think 2023, when it expired.

And we have through our process of modeling and looking at future forecasts of population growth, included this area for housing units into the models that say get presented to the Regional Transportation Commission for their facilities plans and also to the school district and other entities, the local jurisdictions, so they can understand where we think growth may happen in a 20-year horizon.

So this this area has been considered through that.

We also acknowledge per um of our population growth policies that the common open space development preserves open space and allows for clustering some smaller lots and units, which promotes housing choice in the region, which is an important step towards uh achieving more attainable housing for residents.

So that's the population growth side in terms of regional form.

Regional form is really about the trucking metal service area, the tiers that were described, the regional land designations.

Uh what we can see there is that the max we we said this in 2019.

We wanted to provide guidance in the regional plan so that for areas especially that currently are sagebrush that haven't had active master planning, that there is a robust process that's criteria based, so that if folks want to change, say from like a very rural or general rural master plan land use designation to something uh more dense, like this had happened back in 2004, that there would be a stronger process to do that, and you would have to go all the way to the regional planning governing board to do a regional plan amendment.

The difference here is that this are this happened 20 years ago, as I just explained, and it is already in the master plan for Washoe County.

And so, even though for tier three areas, the really the density allowance is the existing allowance.

And so the fact that these master plan land use designations exist inside the Washhoe County master plan already and has been found in conformance.

There is no request to change that.

So no tier change is required for this.

We're just looking at the project of regional significance aspect because it triggers those thresholds in state law.

This tentative map proposes 940 units on that about 291.6 acres of the 700 plus acre site.

468 acres will be remaining as common publicly accessible open space.

Uh again, the proposal is not seek to change the master plan.

And so the the allowance that's currently in the Washoe County Master Plan, which has been found in conformance with the regional plan, the allowance for this number of units is is already in there.

In terms of public facilities and services, we made some what we think are improvements uh in the 2019 regional plan regarding the public facilities and services standards region wide as identified in our statutes 278-0274.

It's called the contents of the regional plan.

And it really talks about five facility and service domains that the regional plan statutes are enabled for us to opine on.

And prior to that, we had less rigorous rules in terms of what it, you know, what are we evaluating at the time at this decision point when it comes to facilities and services?

So we added this regionwide standards table so that at the time of the decision, we would be able to assess how is the infrastructure and services going to be provided.

Those five areas are potable water, wastewater, storm and flood control, schools, and transportation.

So those are the areas that the regional plan statute enables us to weigh in on, and we have tried to strengthen that through this standards table.

So we've looked at the standards table, that's policy PF1 of the regional plan and addressed those five areas.

In terms of the potable water service, it will be provided by Tumla through a series of municipal wells and storage tanks and water rights obtained through the Rule 7 Tumble Water Rights Bank purchased.

Terms of sewer service, there is going to be a couple lift stations that are going to be provided through by the developer.

Uh and the standard for both of these are these uh the the standard in this case for potable water is either available and adequate, provided by the developer or planned for within the official plan in a 10-year time frame, and that goes for sewer as well.

So with sewer service, the developer's being required to, I believe, add two lift stations and an extension of 3.5 miles of sewer line down to connect to a Pleasant Valley Interceptor Reach 4, which is under construction, which I believe also will serve properties in St.

James Village.

So the sewer thing is uh sewer aspect meets the standard per PF 1.

In terms of traffic, uh the traffic study indicates around 8,900 trips daily.

That's above the 6250 that is required for the PRS threshold.

Uh this every lot that's built in here will have to pay a regional road impact fee, which helps to fund the transportation improvements necessary to meet the impacts of this increased traffic.

Uh there's going to be two roundabouts constructed uh for access onto highway 395 as we understand it.

And given the installation or construction of the interstate uh above the site on the hill there, the old 395 has the capacity to accept the 8,000 plus trips daily.

Come on, please, please thank you.

Come on.

What about all the merchants?

The Washoe County, the Washoe County School District has indicated that for schools they can accommodate the student generation from the 940 units at Pleasant Valley Elementary, Hurles Middle School, and Galena High School.

That's directly from the school district.

And and finally, Washoe County is in charge of the stormwater improvements.

Uh and that has been through the process.

They're you know, gonna maintain existing drainage patterns, and the downstream discharge will not exceed predevelopment conditions.

If we want to get further into that, we have Washoe County staff.

What about super fund?

Come on, guys.

Will you guys please let him do his presentation?

Please I I understand, but let's do it at public comment.

Let's do it a public comment at the right time, please.

For natural resources, got a few things to say about that.

Slow any slope greater than 30% is prohibited for development, and those those areas on the site are going to be preserved as open space.

About 460 acres of the site will be open space, publicly accessible.

So everyone, you know, currently it is open land.

And while you may folks may access it, realistically, it is not designated open space.

This change will actually create 468 acres of publicly designated or designated open space for public access that includes about eight miles of trails, supports regional trails connectivity, and equestrian uses, including a link for the historic Virginia and Truckee Railroad Trail.

My understanding is that protection of the critical stream zone areas along Steamboat will be fenced.

So those areas aren't going to have trails, and they're not going to have public access.

They're going to be left fenced to, you know, excluded, basically.

There's going to be biological resource assessments prepared, one for migratory birds, a study for Monarch Butterfly and any milkweed, a snag and tree roost survey is required.

And finally, there's a requirement that the Nevada Department of Wildlife approves a submitted wildlife mitigation plan.

So that those are conditions of the approval from Washoe County.

Finally, oh, go back one.

We want to talk about regional coordination.

We're always coordinating to the degree possible with all entities and uh and jurisdictions, interested parties such as yourselves that have contacted me through the process to make sure that we are getting as much information as we can.

I'm happy to see everybody here to give you our or give us your opinion about the site.

We weren't gonna listen.

And that is your right, and it's a hallmark of our democracy that I very much appreciate.

So thank you for being here and participating.

Uh in terms of regional coordination, we also provided an initial review memo back at the beginning of this case to ensure that our thoughts at the very beginning of the Washoe County development review process and links to the regional plan were considered.

So there's a motion, but we're not gonna hear that yet because next, uh, absent any questions that folks want to ask me right now.

We're gonna hear from Washoe County staff uh with more detail from the Washoe County perspective.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Jeremy, members of this commission.

I'm Trevor Lloyd.

I'm the planning manager with uh Washoe County planning and building.

Um, yeah, also with uh with me tonight.

Uh thank you are our um representatives from Washoe County, uh particularly uh Dwayne uh Smith.

Uh also Wes Rubio from Northern Nevada Public Health is here as well.

And hopefully, if I can't answer the questions, one of uh one of our team will.

Um Jeremy did a great job and uh probably covered a good deal of what I was going to cover also, so I'll keep this relatively short.

Um and I just was uh hoping to go through some history of of the site.

Um let's see.

Again, on March 10th, the county commission reviewed and approved the appeal of the planning commission's denial of the Sarah Reflections tentative map uh is indicated.

It uh it is a common open space, 940 lot uh subdivision, uh 760 acres uh for the entire site, over 29 parcels within the South Valleys planning area.

The parcel sizes will range in uh from two 2,876 uh square feet to just over 68,000 square feet.

The project involves substantial grading, uh including approximately 3.6 million cubic yards of excavation.

Also associated with uh tentative map request uh was the uh the request um to construct two water storage tanks, two sewer lift stations, and three bridge crossings.

The subject property has a lengthy history uh as uh of project entitlements.

I know that Jeremy did a good job of uh of identifying those.

Let me go into a little bit more detail.

Uh prior to 1984, the parcels were zoned both uh tourist commercial and general rural.

In 1984, um there was a large project that was approved by Washoe County.

This included a 550 unit condominium complex as well as a 250 uh room hotel, casino, and resort.

Um during the 2002 uh regional plan update, uh the city of Reno was uh was to take these properties as well as several thousand properties to the north as part of the the Reno sphere of influence.

Uh following the adoption of that uh 2002 regional plan update, Washoe County filed a lawsuit against uh the regional planning governing board, uh which resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties involved.

Uh as part of the settlement agreement, Washoe County was to down zone this property uh into a uh a lower intensity residential uh zoning.

That uh zoning is in place to this day.

Um in 2004, Washoe County amended the comprehensive plan uh changing the changing the uh the land use uh to its current density, which is uh just over a thousand dwelling units.

The original uh Sierra Reflections tentative subdivision map was approved in 2006 for 938 lots.

Uh and over the years uh they received uh series of extensions through several development agreements with Washoe County.

However, that map uh did expire uh recently within the last few years, and the applicants have reapplied.

They reapplied back in uh 2024.

The tentative map before you tonight uh for Sierra Reflections was denied again by the planning commission on January 6th, and uh that appeal went to the county commission on March 10th, uh, where the county commission overturned the decision of the planning commission.

Why was it denied again?

The tentative map was approved for 940 residential lots, uh, which is under the maximum uh current density.

Uh this development is located within the TMSA at the south end of Pleasant Valley.

Again, this uh this tentative map exceeds four of the thresholds that trigger the project of regional significance.

Those are uh on the overhead above.

Uh also uh again, as as I indicated with me tonight is Dwayne Smith and Wes Rubio.

Uh that concludes my presentation, and uh I'm available for any questions uh that you may have yeah, I do have questions for county staff.

Um when this came before the county planning commission.

I wasn't able to make the finding about there being infrastructure to serve it because the previous tentative map expired per the applicant statement due to uh the unavailability of sewer service.

Do you have any update on the progress in development of sewer service or when that might exist such that it would allow the actual construction?

Yeah.

We we do know that a force main is uh is in the works and it will be uh constructed prior to the adoption of this map.

But let me um I'm sorry for the prior to final uh map adoption, but Dwayne Smith is here to answer those questions, good evening for the record.

Uh Dwayne Smith, uh Washoe County engineer.

The sewer service for this project, like all is a responsibility of the developer.

So they will be responsible to build that infrastructure that will then connect to Washoe County infrastructure.

That infrastructure that they will connect to is in construction right now.

It's important to understand though that with the timing of that project, that there may be a point at which the infrastructure is not yet available.

But I want to give you the assurance that there is actually a alternative alignment that is in existence today that will allow for the development to move forward with up to 400 units of of new residential, even if Washoe County wasn't able to complete that portion of the pleasant valley interceptor reach three.

So let me restate that again.

The developer is responsible for building all on-site and off-site infrastructure to convey sanitary sewer flows to an agreement point where Washoe County is extending the Pleasant Valley Interceptor Reach 3.

That will allow for all future development from Sierra Reflections, St.

James's Village, as well as other development in the area for municipal sewer service as conditioned as part of this project.

In the event that they're that they are in advance of Washoe County completing the project, there is existing sewer service on the east side up to 400 units.

I have full confidence that Washoe County will complete the reach three portion before the Sierra Reflections Development extends their off-site sewer to that point of connection.

They have not submitted final plans, which is a requirement.

That will be uh a relatively lengthy process.

Those plans will go through review and make sure that they conform with Washoe County's standards.

They must conform with Washoe County standards, or the infrastructure won't be accepted by Washoe County.

That process is, I will tell you, a relatively lengthy process.

Again, I'm fully confident in the existence of the conveyance infrastructure connection for this development as well as other developments in the South Turkey Meadows.

I want to make a second point.

Washoe County completed a hundred plus a hundred and twenty million plus expansion of the South Tricky Meadows water reclamation facility last year, last December.

That facility now has the capacity to handle anticipated sewer flows through 2040, possibly as far as 2045, depending upon the rate of growth.

So I want to give you full confidence that both the existing wastewater treatment facility, which will provide wastewater service for this project, has sufficient capacity for this project and all other planned projects or unplanned projects up through 2040.

No issue.

The conveyance capacity in the interceptors, um, even though the interceptors are not constructed yet, they are under construction, and I'm very confident that we will beat our construction project will beat the permitting and the process for the applicant's off-site sewer.

I have no concerns with sanitary sewer capacity for this project or other projects in the South Turkey Meadows in this area.

I'm available for any questions.

While we do not actually go through the conditioning and approval processes for the water, that is part of our process in bringing the project to you.

Uh, and when we brought it to the Board of County Commissioners, so the same assurances can be made for that water.

Okay, thank you.

I do, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Dwayne, you talked about the capacity of the South Turkey Meadows water reclamation facility up to 2040.

We are now in 2026, so it's less than 20 years.

And you said possibly 2045.

So we're looking at still less than 20 years, that capacity will be maxed.

In your capital improvements plan for Washoe County, is that South Chucky Meadows water reclamation facility scheduled for an upgrade, an expansion within that period of time, or do you plan to build another one down in the South Chucky Meadows?

Uh, through the chair to the commissioner, that's an excellent question.

Because there's a lot of concern in the community when projects come forward and there may not be existing capacity at that moment in time.

But let me give you a couple of quick points.

First of all, we're governed by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection for our operating and discharge permits.

One of the requirements of our permits is that when we reach the 85% of our approved treatment flow.

So if we have uh a facility that's flowing uh less than 85% of the approved flow, we're not doing anything except our job.

When the flows hit 85% of our permitted flow, we are obligated under the permit to initiate the planning and design and ultimately the construction process to expand the facility.

We don't do that in advance.

We plan for through facility planning efforts to understand working with developers, working with land planning folks, such as as our um Jeremy Smith here, to understand the timing so that we are never found in a position where we do not have capacity in the South Trucking Meadows.

That's a great question.

I want to also reaffirm that that's exactly why we initiated the expansion of the South Trucking Meadows Plan about seven years ago.

So it takes a while to build this capacity, right?

It takes a while to identify the need, then the design for that to permit for that to construct that and receive the permits to do that operation.

So it is a complicated process.

But when we're initiating those processes, we're governed again under that permit.

So let's say then in 15 years, things have changed, and we're now at 85% of our capacity.

We will initiate that process so that we stay in conformance with what the state of Nevada requirements are.

We don't, I would let me just say one quick thing.

We don't build sewer capacity and treatment facilities before it's needed because it costs an awful lot of money to operate and maintain something when there is no fees coming in the door.

We're very diligent about what we do for our sewer treatment plans, making sure that there's available capacity when that capacity is needed.

Thank you.

I appreciate the answer.

Oh next.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This is Jeremy for the record.

Jeremy Smith.

Next, we have the applicant's interested party.

We're gonna hear a presentation from uh the landowner and developer.

Well, I'll get started while the slide deck gets pulled up.

Good evening, Chair Pierce, members of the commission.

I'm Doug Thornley with Holland and Hart on behalf of the property owner.

Um with me tonight is a team of incredible professionals, including the inemitable Dave Snellgrove, who you're gonna hear from in a minute.

Um we appreciate your attention tonight uh at the culmination of a journey that started more than 40 years ago with the Jubilee Casino, which actually existed there on the site and was enjoyed by many down there in the valley.

Um but that has been anticipated in this community and through the regional planning process for at least the last 20 years, as you've heard.

I won't belabor the point um of the history and the circumstances that brought us all here together tonight, but we do appreciate your staff's thorough review.

Dr.

Smith's guidance through the process uh and the recognition that the project as proposed conforms with the regional plan.

Um like I said, I won't belabor the history um or how we got here.

I think you heard that from Ms.

Prunty.

I think you heard that from Dr.

Smith.

I know you heard that from Mr.

Lloyd.

Uh, what I would do is urge you to reflect on the training that you received this evening uh and stay within the guideposts of the statute.

Um you're gonna hear an awful lot of public comment.

Um it's not your job to relitigate the objections or the findings of Washoe County.

Make sure you stay focused on the five areas of review that are included in the regional plan.

Again, obviously we support the recommendation of your staff.

We support the findings of Washa County, and Dave's going to tell you why.

Oh, we're on the slide.

As noted in the staff report and has been identified by Jeremy Smith.

The analysis by your technical staff is identified.

This does conform with the project of regional significant requirements that you have to look at.

Excuse me.

This is in tier three, which is identified to be an area of priority of the urban core.

You have tier one, two, and three, and those are areas that are prioritized for for development in the region.

This is not in a rural area as defined by Washoe County or by the regional planning.

The identification, the map up here, kind of colored like a like a stop sign.

The green is the zero to 15% slopes, your best areas for development.

The reds are your 30% steeper.

There's some yellows and oranges in there, they're a little hard to see on this slide.

But those are your 15 to 30s.

And those you can develop in, but uh the 30% steeper ones.

If you take a look at map four in the regional plan, you'll see that this corresponds to the development constraints map that's identified in map four.

Those red areas are what form the primary development constraints on the site.

So we're preserving those slopes.

You can see our patterning there, and the development areas are within the areas of zero to 15% slope.

They're not within the development constraint areas.

It's been identified.

Uh provisions in sewer and water primarily that were the discussion.

These are areas that are supposed to be getting sewer and water and have been that way for quite some time in the regional plan.

This is a map from your TMSA area neighborhood types.

He put a put a block over our area, but you can see the blue area down there at the bottom.

That's approved plan communities that exist currently within your 2024 regional plan.

Um we are going to be uh clustering housing, saving open space.

I'll get on to some more of the open space in just a minute.

And a little more detail covered some of it.

We are not asking for annexation by the city of Reno.

It's been identified, and I will reiterate that we are not asking for a master plan.

We are not asking for a zone change.

These the master plan and the zoning designations have existed for over 20 years on the property.

We're looking at this just purely bringing a project that was previously approved for 938 lots, and now proposed for 940 back, and it has been reviewed under the current standards, and that was one of the reasons why the development agreement wasn't continued.

There are a lot has changed over 20 years, and they asked that we review it under the current standards.

One of the big things that was reviewed was uh Mercury.

Um we have an eight-foot cap that we're doing.

Regional planning reviewed the daybreak subdivision, which I think is now called Talus Valley.

That had mercury on the site too.

That has a four-foot cap.

If you go to Dayton, Dayton typically is developing with a two-foot cap.

We have the deepest cap in this area on any type of site.

The Dayton area is also within the Carson River or Carson Mercury Superfund site, just so you know.

Um natural resources, the 61.6 plus or minus acres of open space.

This basically creates a regional park that'll be built by the developer, maintained by the homeowners association, and publicly accessible, inclusive of three parks.

site the Dayton area is also within the Carson River or Carson Mercury Superfund site just so you know um natural resources the 61.6 plus or minus acres of open space this basically creates a regional park that'll be built by the developer maintained by the homeowners association and publicly accessible inclusive of three parks um a multi-use path on the VNT trail which has historic significance to the area and will provide for connectivity and this is one of the things out of the regional plan connecting to uh other trails in the area and this is going up Browns Creek we don't have a connection all the way down to the highway at the south end crossing that property would get you in connection to the state park area um the infrastructure uh facilities and services we're talking about a little bit earlier the developer will be funding the water the sewer road improvements parks trails they have also the storm drainage they've got to deal with the storm drainage issue they can have no no net increase of runoff on the site one that's not necessarily funded particularly by uh the developer because we can't do impact fees or things like that in washer county or in Clark County schools and it has been identified and it's been identified multiple times uh through this process and tonight that the Wush County School District has identified that they do have capacity to serve turn it back over to Doug so in closing um I'll take the opportunity one more time to remind the commission of its statutorily prescribed scope of review um every professional staff for every reviewing agency that's touched this project has concluded that the project meets the requisite standards in that particular forum you are about to hear several hours of public comment and while it is thoughtful and it is earnest it's not evidence what you need to do what you should do is you should give them the same attention that you've given the presenters before them you should use those comments to inform your questions of your professional staff of the professional staff of Washoe County and of the design team that put the project together you may also hear that pending lat excuse me pending litigation is an appropriate rationale to delay your decision this evening it's not the petitioners in those cases are not entitled to do to a de facto injunction at the at the expense of the applicant's due process rights if they want to pursue that form they can do it in the court where they are litigating their case again give the commenters your attention it will be a long evening use those comments to inform and direct your questions to the professional staffs that have reviewed this project we'll look forward to your support at the end of the evening thank you what they have just keep last presenter you you stated that there was an eight foot cap on excavation I had thought it was taken down to a uh taken up to a four foot cap so I'm a little bit confused no the the capping in the meadows area which is the lowest part of the site uh the northern end we're not disturbing that ground we're building eight feet of clean soil over that was requested that was a lot of the discussion and time we probably spent nine or ten months working with the health department engineering and planning um we had started at four feet of cap and that got moved up to eight feet so we're not we're not digging out any any of that dirt unless there's some that needs to be removed in certain spots but there will be a an eight foot cap in that area okay thank you anybody else have any other questions no all right we're gonna close that at 725 we're gonna take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back and hear public comments

You ready?

I believe so.

Ready.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and get started again.

All right, it's 7:37.

We're gonna bring the meeting back to order.

All right, we're gonna open up public comment.

We just got a couple rules here.

All right, well, I want to hear everything you guys have to say.

But we need to be respectful, okay.

If somebody in front of you has said something and you want to repeat that, just say I I feel just like they do.

If you don't need to say it, don't say it.

But we want to hear what you have to say.

We're gonna give you as much time as we can tonight, um, because we respect each and every one of you.

And uh, so anyways, with that, we're gonna open up public comment, but let's keep this place in order, okay?

Please, thank you.

All right, first public comment.

All right, our first commentary is Bill Peterson.

If I may, Mr.

Chair, uh Bill Peterson's representing the Pleasant Steamboat Valley's landowner association.

Thank you.

As you can tell, uh Commissioners uh from my costume, I'm an attorney.

Um I'm an attorney with uh my partner here, mchayla Jones.

We're from the law firm of uh Snell and Wilmer, and we represent uh uh the people, I should say, but uh some of the organizations involved in this as well.

Uh I appreciate very much the 10 minutes that you've given me.

Uh I I may or may not take all of it, but in case that I do, uh I want to start out with something that I was going to put later in my presentation, but I want to put it up front to make sure that it gets said, because it has a lot to do with what I heard here tonight.

And the first thing was this, and that is with all due respect to my young colleague, and I think I'm old enough to call him my young colleague.

He's just dead wrong uh when he says that the public comment is not evidence in this case.

Uh what would be the point of public comment if it was not evidence that the commissioners could consider in every public meeting.

In fact, I have been the victim of a ruling by our Nevada Supreme Court on that very point.

On that very point, is when I was trying to build a 80-foot tower on behalf of the power company in the city of Henderson, we were confronted with a mass of people just like you here tonight, uh, much against it.

Uh and I argued to the court that that was not evidence and should not be considered in a justice hardest thing in the rest of the Supreme Study.

I'm dead wrong.

Public comment is evidence.

I think what my colleague is was uh referring to basically as public comment, layman comment is not enough to supplant scientific evidence, but otherwise it is every bit evidence that you are required uh to consider.

The second thing I want to make sure that I get communicated to you all in case I don't have time to repeat it uh later in the context of my presentation is this, and that is uh I heard uh from uh attorney uh prenti, who by the way I know to be a very excellent tax lawyer, uh in the presentation, which I very much appreciated, but she along with one of the commentators, and I think counsel indicated to you that uh you do not sit here as an appellate body and cannot consider the merits or demerits of a project.

Um that that is for the county, and basically you're you're confined to only determining whether or not the uh project conforms with the regional planning.

And it's based on the statute that governs that manual, which is that, yeah, well, it is true that you do not consider the merits or demerits of a project on the same basis as the as the constituents of the county, being the Spark City and uh count and and uh City Reno rather, City of Sparks and uh and Washoe County, uh, to the extent to the extent that the information of the facts and the material uh that are relevant to your determination of whether this project conforms or does not conform, also implicates or involves matters that the county itself considered does not preclude you uh from uh considering that.

You are not a rubber stamp.

Uh you are not required to accept uh findings to the extent something that is relevant to your determination here uh was also considered by the county when they passed it, is of uh is of uh it doesn't it doesn't bind you.

You are you are enabled to consider that uh independently and should consider it uh independently.

I wanted to make sure that I got that out.

Although the last thing I wanted to make sure I got out was this uh actually two more things.

One is I listened uh intently to the pro to the questions from Ms.

Kramer about the sewer.

I couldn't quite hear what some of the answers were, but what occurred to me when I heard that presentation was it didn't sound to me like uh they have the sewer commitment capacity lined up uh that they have enough maybe for 400 units or something of that nature, but they don't have it for the full for the full 900.

I may have misunderstood that.

I'm not sure I'm correct, but that that is what I heard.

And I'm also a general counsel for a sewer district, and one of the questions that would be asked is how much of that capacity that is left is going to be consumed by this project.

In other words, if you have to get up to the 85%, and that's the trigger, and then you've got to have huge capital outlay in order to expand that plant, which everyone knows here is uh considerable.

That is something that I think should needs further inquiry and information.

The next thing I wanted to mention before I actually start is the fire.

Uh and that is when I saw uh Mr.

Smith's presentation, and he put his uh uh PowerPoint up there on the facilities.

Uh one thing that was not on that list was fire.

Uh, and it should be.

I know it is not in your uh plan document uh about fire in the facilities, but it is in the law uh that the fire is a facility, and it is in your own glossary, that fires are a facility.

There's been no mention of fire whatsoever.

I do know a lot of people are gonna talk about fire.

Uh and uh the point to be remembered here is that all we have is the commitment from this developer, I believe, is maybe a million dollars in order to contribute to a fire station.

Nobody has committed to build it, nobody has said they're gonna build it.

There's no assurance that it's ever going to be built.

Uh so I wanted to get those things on the table in case I don't have an opportunity later to do it.

Um you will hear from all of my clients or the next hour or two or more.

So it makes no, there's no point for me and Michaela to uh give you a preview, a summary of what it is that they're going to say.

Uh it's much better for you to get that information directly from the witnesses, as we lawyers say, or in this case in the participants, uh, so you can access uh uh assess uh the credit their credibility and the veracity of what they're saying.

There's no need for me or us, uh McKay and I to uh repeat what it is they're gonna say.

My contribution here, if there is one, is process.

Um and the process to lawyers is extremely important.

And that and the reason for that is uh obviously when you take the evidence that you're gonna hear out from the witnesses here, and also obviously what's in the record, uh, and you sift it through uh the prism of uh a proper process, then what normally comes out of that is the truth.

What normally comes out is the is the right result.

I have a little bit of a stumping going on.

I need to drink a lot, a lot of a lot of water.

Um, um normally when that when that happens, uh when you hear the evidence and you and you pass it through the prism of the proper process, you will get uh the right result.

Now I mentioned this now for for two reasons.

I read the staff report, I've read most of the material.

We're not able to read all of the material.

I'm sure most of you haven't had an opportunity to do that either.

But what I found uh in the material, and what I heard again today was a very, very emphasis, heavy emphasis on history.

And what I mean by that is there were there were statements made uh going back all the way to 2003 uh in terms of what uh what has transpired with respect to this project, giving one the impression that this is just a project that has just been continued uh from them, and that your role here basically is somehow diminished uh or reduced uh because this was a project that has been previously reviewed and committed.

Uh and then the other other aspect of that that I wanted to mention was that uh someone in the staff report has also said look, uh uh major project review threshold is 650.

This is only in 900, it's only a few hundred more, and maybe your analysis should be confined and uh limited to basically the marginal incremental impact based upon that 300.

This is not the proper framework in order to evaluate this project.

Uh it is a platitude of I know, but uh uh what happened back in 2003 is not relevant today.

What that was then, this is now.

Uh, and what the citizens of this community have and the people out here, as your own independent uh separate uh valuation of the evidence that you're gonna hear, and it's in the record, and your own independent judgment as to whether that evidence uh is enough to satisfy the requirements that this project uh have uh complied with the uh regional plan.

This is your decision to make.

The citizens of this community have have a right.

Uh you have a duty in order to give us your honest, fair, independent decision as to whether this project meets the requirements of the plan uh based upon the evidence, including the evidence you're gonna hear tonight.

Uh and uh it doesn't matter what happened uh in in the past.

Um process, um I've already mentioned it slightly.

Uh, we are mindful of the fact that you do not sit as an appellate body reviewing what happened in the county, but as I've already mentioned, and it's in your uh plan document itself.

Um RC6, it's one of your principles.

Uh the RPC, that would be you, must limit its review to the substance and content of the regional plan and shall not consider the merits or deficiencies of a project other than as necessary to make its determination, which means you can consider it in order to make your determination, and you should consider it to make your determination.

Um that's also set forth in the governing statute itself.

Um I'm out of time.

The last thing I just, if I could say just one last thing, and that would be I know you're gonna hear so much.

Yeah, you hear so much.

It's important that you listen to all of them.

They will deal with the substance.

Thank you.

Next, we have Brigida Rosenbaum, followed by Linda Harrison.

I am Brigitte Rosenbaum.

Please enter my comments into the record.

As a lifelong Pleasant Valley resident, I am strongly opposed to this proposed hillside development, which does not conform in many ways to envision Washo 2040.

This large-scale project would permanently and substantially alter the character of Pleasant and Washoe valleys.

While there are many areas of nonconformance, I would like to focus on several significant issues, which are fire risk, evacuation safety, wildlife impacts, and traffic concerns.

First, fire risk in this highly wind-prone area is already severe.

Residents face difficulty obtaining reasonably affordable fire insurance, and in some cases, obtaining coverage at all.

Insurance providers often limit the number of policies written in high-risk areas to reduce their financial exposure.

Expanding development into an area already facing insurance limitations raises serious concerns about long-term insurance insurability for both current and future residents.

Following the Davis Creek fire, my parents' annual fire insurance premium increased from approximately 794 to over $2,000 per year.

For many residents, these rising costs are unsustainable, and additional development in high-risk areas may further increase insurance costs and reduce availability.

A one-time contribution of a million dollars towards a consolidated fire station does not meaningfully address the long-term fire safety and emergency response concerns this development would create.

Expanding development in a high-risk area with limited evacuation capacity does not appear consistent with the master plan's goals of reasonable growth and public safety.

This area also serves as part of the range and movement corridor for local wildlife, including Nevada's iconic wild horses.

Continued hillside development reduces available habitat and pushes animals closer to roadways and neighborhoods, increasing vehicle collisions and creating avoidable conflicts for both residents and wildlife.

This impact appears inconsistent with the master plan's emphasis on preserving natural resources and balancing growth with environmental stewardship.

Further, the traffic impacts would be substantial, especially given the lack of alternate routes.

This proposal does not conform to the traffic and safety goals of the master plan.

The proposed roundabouts raise serious safety concerns.

Drivers would be required to slow significantly at the base of a steep hill that can and does become icy during winter conditions along a 50 mile per hour roadway, assuming no one speeds, of course.

This creates an obvious risk for collisions due to reduced reaction time, visibility challenges, and changing road conditions.

The proposed roundabout locations are especially concerning because this stretch of roadway already presents known safety risks.

I personally witnessed the aftermath of a fatal crash involving 62-year-old local cyclist Susan May Good and now, an incident that completely shut down the roadway for hours.

That tragic event underscores the fact that this corridor is already dangerous without the addition of dramatically increased traffic volumes.

Adding roundabouts while nearly doubling traffic would introduce yet another high-risk conflict point, which is contrary to the goals of the master plan.

I respectfully urge you to urge all to reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Next, we have Linda Harrison, followed by Kelly Freeman.

Yes.

Okay.

My name is Linda Harrison.

I live in old Washoe City, right on Highway 395, not old Highway 395.

Okay.

Good evening, commissioners.

Please enter my comments and my exhibit into the record.

Per your policy RC9 number three, public facilities and services, including transportation.

In the Sierra Reflections Pleasant Valley Development, the proposed roundabouts at the top and bottom of Washoe Hill do not comply.

I have lived in old Washoe City at the south bottom of Washoe Hill for 52 years.

We get a lot more snow than the east side and way more than Pleasant Valley.

As said before, when I-580 is closed for accidents or anything else, all traffic is sent through Washoe Valley and over that hill.

And the traffic travels at 60 to 70 miles per hour, not 50.

And we are not a priority for snow plows since I-580 opened.

The road going up and down is extremely dangerous.

This that's why there's a barricade all along that road because there were so many accidents.

And now people going down the hill towards Veno will have to break again to go to the roundabout at the bottom of the hill.

The representative at the public meeting said that there will not be backups.

That's a lie.

There are backups and accidents at Veterans Parkway, and that isn't even on a hill.

There's one fire station.

It's on East Lake Boulevard at the top of the Washoe Hill.

There's the cattle guard just before it goes out to 395.

You let the traffic go ahead and back up, and that traffic hot fire truck can just sit there.

And the new one isn't going to be built for years, so don't hand us that stuff either.

And it's Pony Lane is one of two small roads that lead in and out of Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

Already, right now, traffic backs up before and after school.

If there's an emergency, and Sierra Reflections need to use Pony Lane, right there, that little teamy thing that goes right out to the stupid roundabout.

How are you going to evacuate that school if there's an emergency?

That will be completely backed up.

There will be no way for people to get out of that school.

And I met with in NDOT, and they said they have no input.

It either has to be a signal or a roundabout.

And they might have to shave or off or to modify the top of the hill in order to allow 18 wheelers.

And remember, there's school buses that go six times a day over that hill.

And if you allow that development to cause a roundabout to be caused installed at the top of that hill, you absolutely will be condoning accidents and death.

The findings of these roundabouts show it will not be in conformity with the regional plan policy RC9 transportation.

And so I think you better deny it.

Next, we have Kelly Freeman, followed by Beverly Harry.

Good evening, Chairperson and Commissioners.

My name is Lorraine Hearn, and I am presenting for Kelly Freeman for a long-term long-term resident of uh Pleasant Valley for 36 years.

Please include these comments in the public record.

The Sierra Reflections proposal of 940 foam homes includes massive earth moving, three bridge crossings over Steamboat and Browns Creek, and more than 8800 vehicle trips per day does not meet the standards of the envisioned Washoe 2040 or the South Valleys area plan.

It violates grading and hillside development standards by proposing cuts and fills exceeding 20 feet, which would scar the landscape and destroy natural landforms.

It also disregards rural character policies for forcing urban scale density into a sensitive rural suburban area.

The project also puts our water and public health at risk because it lies within the Carson River Mercury Superfund site.

Disturbing contaminated soils causes and creates conditions for toxic methyl mercury to form in retention basins and regraded floodplains.

Relying on an eight-foot soil cap that may not withstand earthquakes or future flooding creates serious hazards.

Proper remediation requires specific mitigation.

The vapor intrusion, elementary mercury can continuously emit toxic vapors, and simply placing dirt on top does not stop those fumes from escaping or moving beneath nearby structures.

Leaching and runoff, rain and groundwater can eventually move through contaminated soil beneath the fill and carry mercury into the water table and nearby waterways.

Disturbance risk, future digging, landscaping, or setting, settling can easily re-expose buried contamination.

Pleasant Valley Elementary School relies on a well that could face contamination or reduce supply.

Children and residents throughout Pleasant Valley could be exposed to contaminated air particles and water.

For this reason, of all I've stated, we wish you to reject this proposal.

Next we have Beverly Harry, followed by Jay Howard.

Good evening, uh Chairman Smith and the regional planning agency members.

And I just want to go over some really really important history.

History is really important to this area, especially with the discovery of uh gold back in 1863 in uh in Dayton, Nevada.

And here comes the um Comstock era with a lot of um violence on the land, violence on water, with approximately um 30 um million gallons of um mercury that was um utilized for for those projects, and both of them are on each side of uh the Virginia uh mountains.

The whole entire Virginia Mountains fall within Wacho, Washoe County uh jurisdiction.

But those lands um also belong to the Northern Paiutes and the Washoe people.

Um, I want to also bring attention to the amount of uh stem stamp mills or the number of stamp mills that were um being utilized in Washoe Valley and the amalgamation uh plants that were used to bring cinnabar into uh the area to um extract the the mercury.

And then this horrific history of the flood that hit back in 1997 was catastrophic for indigenous people downstream, where the investigations showed that mercury and methylmercury were uh be bioaccumulating in implants and within wildlife and within the fish.

The initial investigation of uh May Gustin and uh Daryl Slatten showed that there was an increase of concentrated uh mercury into uh uh the muscle tissue of Lahan Cuthrout and the um other top predators of the food food chain down at Parrament Lake.

So the this um remobilization of uh mercury um can really really harm indigenous communities.

So I ask you to have that land reclaimed um instead of just developing a remedial um plan.

I wish I had more time to provide you um more important um information.

Um, but thank you very much for your time.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Next, we have Jay Howard, followed by Troy Rafas.

Yes.

Good evening to the commissioners, and thank you for the time tonight to give you my comments.

Uh my name is Jay Howard, and I've lived in Washa Valley for 27 years.

While my comments this evening may be more of a general nature and based more on emotion than science, they nonetheless they nonetheless deserve equal consideration.

We're all aware here what happened at the county commission meeting uh several months ago where this proposed development was on the agenda.

Commissioners failed to represent the will of the of its constituents.

We all saw what it looked like when a political body supports development over the will of the region's residents.

There were reasons for the earlier Washoe County Planning Commission denial at the subsequent meeting at for the Washa County Board of Commissioners, political deal making was at hand, which left constituents feeling that the decision that had already been made, regardless of the concerns of the local citizens with extremely well researched and valid objections.

I am here to suggest tonight that the proposed Sierra Reflection's high density development is incompatible with the South Valley's development as it currently exists and has been planned and in place for well over 50 years.

In my opinion, the currently proposed development is incompatible with the style of living that residents have come to expect, is incompatible with the region's physical and natural resources.

But if you'll allow me, I'd like to end my comments with this with these questions for you.

When are we ever going to say no to unmitigated and unrestrained development of this nature?

How can we justify allowing this type of development in what is more and more becoming our region's rare and endangered rural areas?

I would suggest at this time that this development pro that this development proposal is not in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

And I would ask that this body make the necessary findings to deny this development application.

And if this is not possible, I would ask that this agenda item be continued until such time that an amendment to the regional plan that better addresses proper development in rural areas can be considered.

Thank you.

Next we have Trey Reyes, followed by Marge Franson.

Troy Regis, thank you.

Sorry.

And uh I'm running for County Commissioner Three against Mary Louis Garcia.

Um and what I'd like to talk about is follow the money.

Like if you look at these things and you follow the money, you'll see that uh commissioners get paid and they vote, and you'll see that people get paid and they vote.

Let's make sure that everyone's registered to vote.

Everyone has friends in this room, lots of friends.

We're in northern Nevada.

There's probably, if you know 10 people, they know 10 people, talk to everyone.

And let's make sure we vote these people out of office.

Let's make sure we vote anyone who proves this and make sure they don't get into an office.

You know, when something like this comes up, I don't know if you guys remember what happened in Fallon when all the kids started dying, and they started dying one at a time.

This is something that could spark something like that.

Don't you think that these people should also put up their money where their mouth is, maybe put a hundred million dollars into some kind of an account so when kids start to die, they could pay for it because it's gonna happen, right?

I mean, this is Mercury we're talking about.

Kids are going to play in the water, they're gonna play with the fish, they're gonna do everything that you don't want them to do in a place like this.

They're gonna go exploring.

I've lived here my whole life.

There's probably not a lot of places I haven't explored in northern Nevada as a kid, walking around, uh, backpacking, catching frogs, lizards, whatever.

You don't think things are contaminated, and these kids in the future aren't going to have a problem.

We'll make these developers put a hundred million into account.

And so when kids start dying in 20 years, let all that money start to pay for it and make sure we all vote them out.

Probably probably.

Next, we have Marge Franson, followed by Larry Moulton.

Good evening, Commissioners and Director Smith.

My name is Marge Franson.

Please enter my comments into the record.

I'm a former two-term Washoe County and Regional Planning Commissioner.

Having served as such, I understand the seriousness of your position as arbiter between the vision of the developer and that of the citizens.

I know you are familiar with the package presented to you, and you came prepared to listen to all arguments, pro and con.

On January 6, 2000 or 2026, the Washoe County Planning Commission acted on the Sierra Reflections application.

They heard testimony from concerned South Valley citizens who had formed working groups to research and document issues related to this application.

You will hear testimony from many of these same citizens.

Many of the citizens from whom you will hear are highly qualified by education or work experience in many aspects of science.

Working groups research the potential effect of Sierra Reflections Development on specific areas of concern using the Washoe County Development Code, Master Plan and Vision Washo 2040, the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan, Nevada revised statutes, and other relevant documents as their guide.

From the results of their studies, they determined that the application is non-compliant with the development code and master plan, citing seven articles of the Washoe County Development Code, seven elements of the Washoe County Master Plan and Vision Washo 2040, including the conservation plan in appendix four.

References from the Trucky Meadows Regional Plan and the Nevada revised statutes are showed non-compliance.

Citing of noncompliance included biodiversity support, cultural resources, destruction of environmentally sensitive lands, natural hazards, recreational resources, visual and scenic character, water resources, sustainability, and ecosystem services.

The Washoe County Planning Commission found all five required findings for a common open space development and all ten findings for a tentative subdivision map cannot be made.

The commission vote commission voted unanimously to deny the application.

In conclusion, I believe you will find that the findings required to approve this project of regional significance cannot be made.

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

My name is Larry Moulton.

Please include my comments in the record.

Regional Coordination Policy RC6 covers projects of regional significance.

This policy limits the review to substance and content of the regional plan and states that it shall not consider the merits or deficiencies of a project.

Now here's the pertinent clause, other than is necessary to make its determination.

We will show that it is absolutely necessary to consider the merits and deficiencies of this project in order to make a proper determination.

The Washoe Board of County Commissioners failed the people of Washoe County by not considering numerous important issues when voting to approve this application.

Consideration and enforcement of all of the findings in the master plan and development code by the BCC is required.

Regional plan policies have directed many of these same issues to be included included in local government plans, such as one, hillside development, including excessive grading, destruction of scenic resources, and building placement.

Two, significant hydrological features, including flooding and the consequences of floodplain destruction.

Three, endangered and threatened species, several endangered species were not identified, and habitats of others were ignored, ignored.

Four, historic preservation, several historic sites were not identified, and others would be destroyed by the development.

Five, transportation issues, road suitability, the fact there is only one road to service over 300, 3,000 homes, and existing public transportation, of which there is none.

The BCC approved the project with numerous unresolved issues, including incomplete identification of earthquake faults, inadequate mercury contamination testing and remediation, a flawed traffic study showing lower than normal traffic flows because the tests were conducted during COVID and at non-peak hours.

The BCC primarily based their decision on two issues.

One, the threat of a lawsuit.

References were made to the Badlands lawsuit in Las Vegas.

This lawsuit has no relevance to Sierra Reflections, but it was used by the applicant to threaten and manipulate the commissioners.

Two, an agreement for the applicant to make a conditional partial payment on construction of a proposed Washoe Valley Fire Station.

These negotiations were carried out behind the backs of the public and some of the commissioners.

The public had no opportunity to review or comment on the agreement.

The timing was inappropriate and should have taken place at a fire commission meeting.

The staff report that was provided by TMRPA replicated the previously mentioned shortcomings.

It did not provide complete and adequate information.

Please pay close attention to the merits and deficiencies of this project of regional significance in order to make a proper determination.

Thank you.

Next, we have Rick Cooper, followed by Delia Green.

Greenon.

Yep.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Richard Cooper, and I'm a 25-year resident of the South Valleys.

I want to add to my comments by expressing my appreciation for the explanation of the RPC role.

And I believe my comments tonight conform with that role.

These requirements have been specified in the envisioned 2040 plan.

I will show how this requirement has been ignored, and that therefore the regional plan natural resources finding cannot be made.

Specifically, I am referring to the goals and policies for cultural resources and sensitive landscapes contained in appendix 4 of the envisioned 2040 master plan goal one that specifies culturally sensitive lands be adequately buffered from development.

Historic sites are an example of cultural resources.

The project is so culturally significant that the developers consultant has identified 71 archaeological sites from 15 previous studies.

They state five of these sites qualify for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

Found a discrepancy.

Both the developer and staff state that the sites have been mitigated, implying they can be disregarded.

But mitigated comes from mitigation, meaning measures taken to lessen harm in the form of identifying and protecting.

Logically, if historic sites can be mitigated out of existence, why would we make rules protecting them?

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

The application does not address the specific locations, significance, mitigation, and protection of each of the 71 individual sites.

Therefore, the requirements of Envision 2040 and NR18 on page 109 of the regional plan findings have not been met.

For this reason, I urge you to deny the application.

Thank you for protecting our cultural resources and history.

Next we have Delia followed by Salah Sherwood.

Yeah.

Good evening, Commissioners.

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

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

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

The topography of this area lends itself to fires and floods, and I have witnessed all major events.

The Trucking Meadows Regional Plan in NR18 Cultural Resources, page 109 states that local governments shall adopt programs or regulations to ensure that significant cultural resources are identified and protected prior to development activities.

These requirements have been specified in the envision 2040 plan.

I will show you how this requirement has been ignored and that the regional plan natural resources finding cannot be made.

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

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

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

Although they have been up to 15 previous archaeological studies in the project site over the years, and 49 sites located, they have not been properly identified, located, or buffered according to the requirements found in the envisioned 2040 plan as stated in appendix 4 goal 1.

For example, Cal's environmental consultants found one of these 49 sites significant in their previous studies.

Archaeologically significant means important and possible for preservation.

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

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

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

Policy of protecting and buffering historic values demanded by envisioned 2040 plan as required by NR18 of the regional plan has not been met.

Therefore, finding for natural resources cannot be made.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sala Sherwood, followed by Kevin Kemp.

Good evening and hello, Commissioners.

My name is Sala Sherwood.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

I will show that Sierra Reflections application is not in conformance with the regional form section of the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

Regional Forum Policy 11 compatibility factor states one local government master plans must address land use compatibility.

And two, the regional planning agency will consider the compatibility of proposals with regards to existing densities and surrounding land uses.

Envision Washoe 2040 supports this policy by stating that future residential development in the South Valleys should mirror the existing development pattern and density, support agricultural related uses, and maintain opportunities for livestock and farm animal ownership.

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

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

3.2 units per acre.

In addition, the development will not be compatible with surrounding land uses.

Home agriculture is a common feature of the surrounding communities as shown in these photographs.

However, the small lot sizes of the development would preclude agricultural related uses.

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

Sierra Reflection's small lot sizes will not support opportunities for livestock and farm animal use.

Animal ownership.

Three objectives of the regional form section of the regional plan are one classify future land uses by density or intensity based on compatibility.

Two, limit premature expansion of development into undeveloped areas.

And three, direct new housing to established areas and older urban areas.

Sierra Reflections meets none of these objectives.

Therefore, the application is not consistent or compatible with the regional forum goals and policies of the regional plan.

As a result, it does not meet the as a result, it does not meet regional coordination conformance review finding number two, regional form.

Since this finding cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Next up is Kevin Kemp, followed by Charlie Hyatt.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Kevin Kemp, and I'd like my comments and exhibits entered into the record.

NRS 278 0274 mandates that this body limit premature expansion into undeveloped areas.

Here is an aerial view of the closest urban neighborhood to the proposed Sierra Reflections Urban Density request.

To understand how out of place this urban neighborhood would be in Pleasant Valley, please note that you would need to travel five miles north on US 395 towards Reno, plus an additional one mile west on Mount Rose Highway before you reach a single family neighborhood designed to medium urban standards.

This map provides an aerial view of that five-mile drive.

Existing fire and EMS services do not meet the standards required to serve this population.

This leapfrog of placing an urban neighborhood so far removed from essential services goes against all urban planning guidelines as well as your own state mandate.

The application is not consistent with a regional form objective and TMRP goal number three, and should be denied.

Next we have Charlie Hyatt, followed by Lisa Dayton.

Good evening.

The application proposes 90 patio homes with densities reaching 12 units per acre.

Here are the proposed patio home compact layouts.

The developer proposes placing these urban densities in a rural area with no public transportation, one access road, no freeway on or off ramps, a 20-minute rural emergency response standard, and no essential services within five miles.

A good gauge of how where to place urban densities is the official walk score from walkscore.com.

The risk less reliant your area is on personal auto, the higher the walk score.

This indicates you are close to public transportation and essential services.

The official walk score for the proposed Sierra Reflections location is one out of a possible 100.

Per the Washoe County master plant zoning map, the nearest existing patio home development of similar design, averaging 11 units per acre, is located 9.5 miles north and well into incorporated Renos Urban Zone on the corner of South Meadows Parkway and Evergreen.

This is an appropriate location for an urban neighborhood as it does offer all the urban required infrastructure.

For Reno Fire Data Dashboard emergency vehicle response times are less than seven minutes.

The neighborhood is located less than one mile from a freeway on or off ramp, is serviced by four bus stops within the first quarter mile radius, and is less than one mile from shopping, banking, a major medical campus, and employment centers.

All these public services are accessible via safe designated pedestrian routes designated to accommodate various levels of mobility.

This patio home location has a walk score of 56 out of 10.

The proposed Sierra Reflections development is not consistent with the regional form objective and goal number three to permit premature expansion to undeveloped areas and is not in compliance with public facilities objective and goal number five to establish a timeline when public facilities will be made available to support the development.

This application should be denied.

Next we have Lisa Dayton, followed by Beth Schuler.

Sierra Reflections proposes an urban development in a rural area that does not have the public facilities necessary to support a high density development.

And the $1 million secured to put a fire station on paper did not alleviate my concerns.

Back on September 2nd, 2025, Chief Kettering presented to the Board of Fire Commissioners the status of the fire service in Washoe Valley.

Here are the standards of cover and response time slides from his presentation.

Washoe Valley is considered rural.

The required response standard is first response within 20 minutes, 85% of the time.

So let's now look at what happens when you add the proposed development.

Sierra Reflections adds 940 homes.

Washoe Valley Demographics say that each home in Washoe Valley averages three residents per home.

This equals a total estimated new population of 2,820 residents.

The total Sierra Reflection site is 760 acres or 1.19 square miles.

A square mile is 640 acres.

Due to development constraints, 468 acres are left as open space, and the homes are clustered together on the buildable land, which is stated in the application as 292 acres or 0.46 square miles.

This adds a population density well over 2,000 residents in one square mile.

Let's go back to the basic standards of cover.

Once you introduce a population density over 2,000 residents in a square mile, the standards of cover rise to the urban level, and the required response time is now eight minutes, 85% of the time.

Let's also look back at that one hour and 11 minute discussion at the March 7 meeting related to fire response times and the need for a new consolidated fighter station.

Astonishingly, not once did a commissioner require Chief Edwards to answer as to whether he can meet the standards of cover with the proposed increased population.

Well, according to Chief Kettering's presentation back in September 2025, the answer to that question would be no.

With that said, the application as submitted proposes urban density homes in a rural area that lacks sufficient public services and is not compliant with objectives and goals number five, public facilities and should be denied.

Next up is Beth Schuler, followed by Claire Holland.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Beth Schuler.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

Sierra Reflections application failed to acknowledge the project site encompasses the primary habitat of the endangered species.

Due to this oversight, the application does not comply with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Question number 12 of the application asks the subject property is an area potentially containing rare or endangered species.

The applicant answered the site is shown to contain mule deer and bear habitat.

However, the application contains a letter from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service stating there is an endangered species, a butterfly called the Carson Wandering Skipper, whose primary habitat intersects the subject property.

This map provided by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency also shows the subject property is located within the skipper's primary habitat, as well as the habitats of the endangered QE and the threatened Lahutan cutthroat trout.

NRS 501.100 states that wildlife in this state is part of the natural resources belonging to the people of Nevada.

This law is supported by the regional plan's regional goal statement number two.

Identify and protect essential natural resources and the environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources.

The application does not identify or protect endangered species, so it is not in compliance with the regional plan.

NRS 503.584 states that the people of Nevada have an obligation to conserve and protect the various species of native fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction.

This law is reinforced by two objectives of the regional plan's natural resources policy.

One, conserve, preserve, and protect the region's natural resources.

Two, limit the impact that development and growth have on the region.

The applicant's failure to include endangered species does not conserve, preserve, or protect these natural resources.

So it does not conform with the regional plan.

The application is not consistent or compatible with the natural resources goals and policies of the regional plan.

As a result, it does not meet regional coordination conformance review finding number four, natural resources.

Since this finding cannot be made, I request that you deny this application.

Thank you.

Next we have Claire Holland, followed by Karen Kreider.

Sorry.

I'm looking for my sky.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Claire Holland.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

Sarah Reflections application failed to acknowledge a migration route on the property, so it does not comply with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Question 12 of the application asks that the subject property is in an area potentially containing migration routes range.

The applicant did not answer this question.

This map from Endow shows the project site encompasses a Mule Dave Movement Corridor and Mule Deer Winter Range.

In addition, the RPA's initial review memo from October of 2025 states that 100% of the property has interaction with Mule Dave movement corridors.

This memo also advised the Washi Washoe County planners to reach out to Endow for more information on migration routes on the site and to consider these routes in their review.

The planners did not follow this advice because their January 2026 staff report contains no references to mule deer migration routes.

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

The development will add to this decline by one, further constricting the area's last undisturbed section of their migration route, and two, increasing traffic, which will lead to more vehicle deer collisions.

NRS 501.100 states that wildlife in Nevada is part of the natural resources belonging to the people of the state.

So the application does not comply with the following.

Master plans must include management strategies for habitat, such as the discouragement of breaking up of large connected areas of open areas that may be important for the continuity of wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors, and species mobility.

Protect and re-establish migration corridors.

The application overlooked this well-documented migration route, so it does not meet regional coordination conformance review finding number four, natural resources.

Since this finding cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Next, we have Karen Kreider, followed by Michelle Moreno.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Karen Kreider.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

CR reflections will increase pollution in Steamboat Creek, and due to this, the application does not comply with the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

Steamboat Creek flows north through the center of the project site into the primary source of drinking water for the Reno Sparks area, the Truckee River.

Steamboat Creek is also classified as the largest non point source of pollution to the Truckee River.

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

This table is from the 2024 Nevada Water Quality Integrated Report list of impaired waters.

It shows the pollution load in Steamboat Creek measured at two gauging stations from its source at Little Washoe Lake to 12.5 miles downstream.

Between these two stations, the number of pollutants increases from four to seven.

This can be attributed to the creek flowing through more highly developed areas where it's exposed to increasing amounts of nonpoint source pollution.

The additional pollution caused by years of construction and subsequent urbanization of 940 homes will further damage Steamboat Creek.

This does not comply with NRS 445.305, known as the Nevada Water Pollution Control Law in these three areas.

One, maintain the quality of the waters of the state consistent with public health and enjoyment and the propagation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life.

Two, mitigate the degradation of the waters of the state, and three, encourage and support pollution control for all significant sources of water pollution.

This law is supported by the regional plan's natural resources objectives of one, conserve, preserve, and protect the region's natural resources, including air, land, and water, and two, limit the impact that development and growth have on the region.

Sierra Reflections will not conserve, preserve, or protect Steamboat Creek from pollution or from the impacts of development.

Therefore, the application is not consistent or compatible with the natural resources goals and policies of the regional plan.

As such, it does not meet regional coordination conformance review finding number four, natural resources.

Since this finding cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Next up, we have Michelle Marino, followed by Bob Burke.

Question 11 of the application asks describe the aspects of the tentative subdivision that contribute to energy conservation.

The applicant answered, quote, the compact design provides lesser vehicle miles to travel for each lot, end quote.

The applicant failed to consider that residents of the development will have to travel a significant distance to commute to work and to shop.

Due to the South Valley's distance from major employment and shopping centers, its residents face longer commutes, and a 20-mile drive to work is a common daily experience.

The application estimates that development will generate 8,864 daily trips.

Therefore, total vehicle miles traveled in one day could be.

Based on an average vehicle in Reno getting 24 miles per gallon, this amount of mileage would produce 145,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each day.

Reno is already the fastest warming city in the U.S.

And this warming trend is tied to a steady rise in heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

Nevada's Senate Bill 254 passed by the state legislature in 2019 established greenhouse gas reduction targets.

However, projections indicate emissions are not decreasing fast enough to meet the 2050 net zero goal.

The application's superficial approach to conserving energy is not consistent or compatible with the natural resources policy of the regional plan in these two ways.

One, all natural resources policies aim to increase the sustainability of the environment by directing growth to the core of the region.

This will decrease dependency on automobile trips and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

And two, natural resources policy 13, air quality.

The regional plan supports reducing impacts from transportation, which is a source of ozone gas and other types of air pollution.

Because of these deficiencies, this application does not meet regional coordination conformance review finding number four, natural resources.

As finding number four cannot be made, I respectfully request that you deny this application.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Bob Burke, followed by Gail Bowers.

Everyone's uh cell phone off.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Bob Burke.

Please enter my comments into the record.

I am also speaking about the lack of energy conservation measures and Sierra Reflections application.

And because of this issue, the application does not comply with the Trekkie Meadows Regional Plan.

Question 11 of the application asks Describe aspects of the tentative subdivision that contribute to energy conservation.

The applicant answered that the compact design saves over 60% of the site as open space, which does not have the same warming capacity as developed areas.

The applicant failed to consider that once developed, the remaining 40% of the site will have tremendous heat generating capacities.

Heat will be released into the environment from HVAC systems of the 940 homes and from the impervious surfaces of roofs, siding, and roadways.

Replacing 40% of the project site with heat generating infrastructure will create an urban heat island effect.

This urban heat island effect will increase the temperature of the development and the prevailing winds will transfer this heat to nearby neighborhoods and open space areas.

These issues put the application in conflict with two policies of the regional plan.

One natural resources policy 12 states, local government master plans must include strategies that reduce the urban heat island impacts, such as cool roof practices and minimizing the use of heat absorbing impervious services.

Promote building techniques which reduce the use of heat absorbing surfaces and the urban heat island effect.

Two, natural resources policy 17 states, master plans must promote, encourage or provide incentives for development practices that promote energy efficiency, building technology in terms of site location, building materials, and building technology.

Envision WASHU 2040 reinforces this policy with adaptation and resiliency principles 3.1, which is support efforts to reduce energy consumption, including incentives for use of green building and design techniques.

Since this finding cannot be made, I request that you deny the application.

Next up we have Gail Bowers, followed by Will Cohen.

And you can read a better question.

My name is Gail Bowers.

I am a degree in environmental horticulturist with a background in watershed vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, of which a number of local natural resource professionals and scientists received training in courtesy of the government back in the late 90s, myself included.

The state of Nevada will be compromised by the precious lost opportunity of groundwater recharge and the lost opportunity to clean up this toxic superfund site.

This doesn't seem fair to do to the driest state in the Union.

Upon development, the two to 50 year precipitation events would be unnaturally forced into engineered drainage and onto steamboat creek, having nowhere else to go but into a channelized hydraulic cannon ditch called a creek, endangering everything north because the giant meadow sponge currently existing would be eliminated by this development.

But that's only half of it.

Please consider how that boulder field arrived at the top of the meadow in the first place.

It's important to examine the similarities between the Opher Creek rock slide of Memorial Day weekend 1983 and the similar depositional boulder field originating from up Brown's Creek, photo number two.

Both Ofer and Browns are steep, straight, narrow, and loose, made up of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders.

The reason the Ophar watershed came down, killing people, is because this particular stream type naturally forms rock dams because stability is fragile due to the soil type.

When naturally occurring rock dams give way, all hell breaks loose.

Photos three and four.

Meadows are natural firebreaks.

Browns Creek will require more than decades to recover from the Davis fire.

Reno and Sparks need this meadow for safety from fire and flood.

The endangered fish and the people of Nevada need Steamboat Creek restored, which the beavers will do for us if we will let them.

Please review NR 14 and RC9 number four of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan as this will help guide to help guide your decision to protect our state water resources.

Thank you, and please enter this comment for the record.

Next up, we have Will Cohen, followed by Joe Stradell.

Greetings, regional planning commissioners.

My name is William Cowan.

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

I would like this testimony to be on record.

Steamboat Creek is the largest tributary in Nevada to the Truckee River system and is a regional natural resource.

It has a history of frequent flooding events and altering floodplains pose a hazard to the health and welfare of the community.

Nine floods have been experienced since 1980.

These events are predicted to increase in severity and frequency.

It is inconsistent with the regional plan, specifically policies NR3 development constraints area, NR4, natural resource consideration areas, and NR16 significant waterways, as well as Washoe County.

Development Code Article 418 significant hydrologic resources.

The proposed development is on a floodplain and constriction of Steamboat Creek will destroy the functionality and diversity of hydraulic and terrestrial habitats and will increase water depth and velocity in the channel during flood flows, ultimately increasing erosive action.

This ignores regional plan policies NR14, Regional Water Management Plan, NR15, source protection and watershed management, and violates envisioned Washoe 2040 AR Principle 1, Policy 1.2, restrict development and floodplains that would constrict or impact floodplain functions.

The flushing of plutons and contaminated sediment caused by increased floodwater erosion will have a negative impact on the habitat of the endangered Kui and the threatened Lahant and Cuthro trout.

This is inconsistent with protections endorsed by the regional policy NR8 wildlife habitat and envisioned 2040 NCR Principle 3 Policy 3.1 protect key habitats of threatened endangered or rare species.

Because CR reflections violate six natural resource policies of the regional plan by altering hydraulic functions of Steamboat Creek, a natural resource of regional significance, is my humble recommendation that the Regional Planning Commission deny the proposed subdivision.

Next up is Jos Rydell, followed by Cliff Lowe.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Yost Rydell.

I'm a resident in Pleasant Valley and have lived in Pleasant Valley for 30 years, and I'm a hydrogeologist, professional practicing over 30 years as well.

I would like to point out some items related to the removal of wetlands and stream habitat, specifically relating to the Clean Water Act, Section 404, and the permit requirements.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is implemented by the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers.

The EPA and NDEP provide jurisdiction over the adherence to the Clean Water Act locally.

Because the project is located partially on public land, it does need to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

And it is evident that the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers has not been involved.

There are waters of the U.S.

involved because the wetland streams have been designated as being in connection with water of the U.S.

Therefore, because the application is failing those comments.

Furthermore, to NRS Code, the removal of wetlands does not comply with NRS Code 445A 625, which relates to the permitting and discharge of radioactive and hazardous waste, in this case, Mercury.

The stage engineer has not provided approval related to these statutes specific to the SRS project.

And on that basis, the findings under Washoe County Development Code 608 cannot be made.

Further to uh the impacts of flooding.

This violates Washoe County Article Code 418, significant hydrogeologic resources, and therefore the findings cannot be made.

Thank you.

Next up is Cliff Lowe, followed by Jay Collins.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Cliff Lowe.

Please enter my comments into the record.

Policy PF 1, Table 3.2 requires that regional road facilities are, quote, available and adequate, unquote, or plan for within the first 10 years in facility plans.

This project will generate 6 to 8,000 new vehicle trips daily and depends primarily on old U.S.

Highway 395, a roadway that already has significant operational and safety limitations, including numerous private driveways and at grade intersections, increase turning conflicts and reduce roadway safety.

Left turn crossing distances are long and hazardous, and traffic moving at highway speeds.

Adverse weather conditions create hazardous driving conditions.

Very high traffic volumes already exist when used as a backup to I-580.

Bicycles have no barriers or buffers.

Bicycle lanes can merely be road shoulders and are inconsistent in width, contained debris, and can suddenly end at left at turn lanes or bridges.

And last but not least, the recent Davis fire evacuation clearly demonstrated the existing nearly fatal inadequacies of this highway, which is why the audience tonight lost control, and you had heard the biggest outcry when it was suggested that this is an adequate roadway.

Picture, if you will, the horrific images from the Palisades fire.

People incinerated in their vehicles.

Policy PF 1, Table 3.2 requires that multimodal connectivity should be provided to existing or planned public transit.

This project is at the end of the TMSA at the far southern end of Pleasant Valley in an area the regional planning agency designates as Tier 3 and is rural in character.

No public transit service exists there.

Both the RTC TOPS five-year plan and the RTC Washoe 2050 Regional Transportation Plan were reviewed.

Neither identified infrastructure or public transit improvements necessary to support this project, either now or within the next 10 years.

Connectivity to public transit is not and will not be available.

Thus, the required transportation service levels cannot be met by either existing conditions or planned improvements.

As a result, policy RC9, conformance review findings, finding three, public facilities services cannot be made.

Therefore, this project of regional significance must be denied.

Next up is Jay Collins, followed by Marilyn Naylor.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

These roundabouts have several common issues.

One, the roundabouts are inconsistent with rural and scenic natural area.

Two, the roundabouts are of inadequate size.

They are specified to have 180-foot diameter.

A tractor trailer pulling a 57-foot trailer would have to use the apron to navigate that size roundabout.

Three, these are low speed roundabouts.

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

Recent fatalities have highlighted the need for these.

The loss of both exits actually happened in the Washoe fire in 2012 and would have happened in the Davis fire had not the wind changed direction.

Specifically, the Pagney Lane roundabout is in a low area, frequently floods, and becomes impassable during heavy rain, specific to the East Lake Roundabout, space constraints due to the location at the top of a hill and the surrounding terrain make the building of a roundabout with a required site line distance impossible without destroying the entire area.

This would conflict with the objectives of the natural resource section of the regional plan and the corridor management plan for the Washoe Valley Scenic Byway.

The line of sight issue is a further is further complicated since old Highway 395 is uphill both ways and it has a curve.

Based on the issues in policy RC9 finding three and finding four, this project should not be approved.

Next up.

Next up, we have Marilyn Naylor, followed by Erica Bremer.

My name is Marilyn Naylor.

Please include my comments and exhibits in the records.

I'm one of the community members enlisted by Washoe County to complete the application for the Washoe Valley Scenic Byway, designated by the state of Nevada in 2010.

The quarter management plan was approved in 2013.

The plan is officially adopted into Envision Washoe 2040.

This year, the goal of the creation of an online interactive educational maps has been funded through a grant from Travel Nevada as part of the America 250 initiative.

All have the mission to enhance Nevada's rural heritage, provide opportunities to experience scenic beauty, cultural history, natural resources, and recreation.

The Sierra Reflections application does not acknowledge a scenic by way quarter management plan, even though it proposes a roundabout at the intersection of Highway 395 and East Lake Boulevard, the gateway to the Washa Valley Scenic Byway.

A roundabout would require complete removal of the prominent ridge line bordering Highway 395 to the west, destroying scenic character and viewshed.

Trucking Meadows Regional Plan NR7 states local government master plans shall include policies that address visual impact of development on ridge lines to maintain the scenic value of the region.

Washoe County Development Code, Article 110, 424.

Significant natural features shall be protected and preserved where appropriate and feasible, including ridgelines.

The corridor management planage development and grading to preserve the mountain views, avoid mass grading and large rock cuts visible from the highway.

The corridor management plan names eight managing partners who represent Washoe County, the state of Nevada, BLM, the U.S.

Forest Service, and community organizations.

Five of the eight managing partners of the Scenic Byway, including our federal and state agencies, were not even put on the list of reviewing agencies that were sent a Sierra Reflections application to review.

The Trucking Meadows Regional Plan Directive.

The project will need to comply with all federal and state approvals before any approval at the county level can take place.

Therefore, it is a requirement that all managing partners be notified.

The application is not consistent with the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan Directive to maintain the scenic value of the region, nor is it in compliance with the federal and state approval requirements.

Please deny the application.

RC9 conformance review finding for natural resources cannot be made.

Hello, my name is Erica Brummer, and I'm here to speak about traffic concerns for the proposed Sierra Reflections development and its impact on Pleasant Valley Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood.

I ask that my comments be entered into the record.

The 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan is clear.

Land use decisions must align with infrastructure capacity, public safety, and the needs of existing community facilities such as schools.

Under the regional form policies, policy three requires that development only occur where infrastructure can adequately support it.

Policy five requires consideration of the adequacy of public facilities, and policy 11 requires compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Vehicles enter from Highway 395 on Alaramie Drive and exit at Pawnee Lane, where backups can last up to 20 minutes during pickup.

This shows the system is already at or beyond capacity.

Second, pedestrian safety is a serious concern.

Kitts Way, the main walking route to the school, has no sidewalks or shoulders.

Students are often forced to walk in the roadway due to parked cars or snow berms.

Adding more traffic and more children walking will only increase that risk.

While some improvements are proposed and approved by the school district's safe routes to school plan, including crosswalks and flashing signs, they do not provide a continuous and safe path along Kids' way.

Without that connection, these measures are not sufficient to protect students.

Additionally, the project is expected to generate about 62 more elementary students, further increasing congestion and placing additional strain on school access systems, contrary to regional plan requirements for coordination and capacity.

For these reasons, the Sierra Reflections development is inconsistent with the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan, and I respectfully urge you to deny approval of the project as proposed.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Cameron McSweeney, followed by Linda Bell.

Good evening.

Please enter my comments into the record.

My name is Cameron McSweeney, a Reno resident of 45 years and the president of the Pleasant Valley Pleasant Steamboat Valley Landowners Association.

The TMRPA 2024 Trucky Meadows Regional Plan references requirements, which include NRS 278-0274, Section 3, states the plan should control the footprint of new development with policies encouraging development in older and developed areas before going prematurely into undeveloped areas.

And section two states it should conserve natural areas and natural resources and direct growth into other areas.

NRS 278-0284, conformity of local ordinances and regulations to master plan.

Any action of a local government relating to development zoning, the subdivision of land or capital improvements must conform to the master plan of the local government.

Section three of the Washu Envision 2040 master plan states that interconnected connectedness between the county's residents and natural amenities coupled with growth and development within the county emphasizes the need for principles and policies conserving these resources.

The principles and policies found within this element serve to ensure that this green infrastructure is preserved throughout the county for the benefit of current and future generations.

NRS 278-160, elements of a master plan, analysis of the characteristics of the land that is suitable for residential development, which must include without limitation, available parcels that are suitable for residential development and any zoning, environmental, and other land use planning restrictions that affect such parcel.

The Washoe Envision 2040 plan refers to the South Valleys as rural areas and defines them as areas not connected to municipal services with few amenities using well and septic systems where everyone looks out for each other and residents commute long distances to get basic necessities.

Many of us also own livestock, further contributing to the rural lifestyle that the 2040 Master Plan approves and promotes.

In addition, NRS 278-0177 defines rural preservation neighborhood as a subdivided or developed area, which consists of 10 or more residential dwelling units, which has no more than two residential dwelling units per acre, and which allows residents to raise or keep animals non-commercially.

This NRS NRS statute exactly describes Pleasant and Washoe Valley.

So we are therefore a rural preservation neighborhood.

Approval of Sierra Reflections violates NRS 278-0274-0284-160-0177, and all six of the TMRPA goals listed in the 2024 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

I also respectfully asked the ask that we continue this past 10 PM and not continue this meeting at a later date.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Linda Bell, followed by Kurt Carlson.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Linda Bell.

For the past 30 years, I've been a resident of Washoe Valley.

And I was a 911 dispatcher for the City of Sparks.

Please enter my comments into your records.

Public safety infrastructure for the proposed Sierra Reflections Development, a project of regional significance, does not meet the goals of the envisioned 2040 master plan, nor NRS 278-1601.

The Washoe County Planning staff may be willing to accept Truckee Meadows fire response times as adequate, but we, the people of South Valleys, have a different experience.

Remsey is the dispatching agency for both itself and Truckee Meadows Fire, a privately owned company.

Dispatching fire, they have to identify which Trucky Meadows fire units are available and activate Carson City Automatic Aid.

The NFPA 1221 standards recommend that the dispatch time should not exceed 60 seconds.

NFPA 1710 standards require a 60-second turnout time with a four-minute travel time to be achieved 90% of the time with the total incident arrival within five to six minutes of critical calls.

Trucking Metal Fire needs more infrastructure to make the six-minute 50-second national standard response time for structure fires, NFPA.

Yet Washoe County has hasn't even come up with help to fund the new Washoe Valley Consolidated Fire Station.

One family on the west side of Washoe Valley purchased their home expecting paramedic services from the Bowers Mansion Fire Station only to be five minutes away after Trucky Meadows Fire left the Bowers station.

Imagine their shock and stress when it took 25 long minutes for paramedics to arrive while their loved one was experiencing a life-threatening emergency.

On April 6, 2026, a home on the east side of Washoe Valley, close to the fire station 32 burned down, displacing the family.

There were no injuries or deaths.

Records show that it took one minute 48 seconds to dispatch Trucky Meadows and Carson Fire, 48 seconds over standards.

The closest engine, Trucky Meadows 32 turnout and travel time was seven minutes 40 seconds over standards by 1 minute 40 seconds.

Total response time was 9 minutes 28 seconds, well over the six minutes 50 seconds standard.

Trucky Meadows Engine 32, Water Tender, Medic 32 were all in quarters and all responded with five personnel.

How do you explain that delayed response to a devastated family who just lost everything?

Approval of Sierra Reflections Project would not meet NRS 278-0157.

Defined infrastructure and public facilities.

So you I respectfully request that you deny this project.

Next we have Kurt Carlson, followed by Elaine Martin.

My name is Kurt Carlson.

I live in Washoe Valley.

Please enter my comments into your records.

Sierra Reflections is a project of regional significance and public safety is a very important concern.

According to the goals of the Invision 2040 Master Plan and NRS 278-160, public safety infrastructure must be in place before approval of this project.

Public safety was the most important reason for the Washer County Planning Commission's unanimous denial of this proposed project.

The South Valley's 41.6 square mile area currently only account for about 22% of the allocated resources for fire, EMS, and law enforcement calls, with an anticipated influx of 940 high-density urban style homes, increasing the population by about 3,000 people in the South Rural Area.

There are serious concerns regarding the timely availability of these important emergency resources.

With input with input from Truggy Meadows, Fire Protection District, Remsa, and the Washer County Sheriff's Office.

It is clear that the current focus of expanding these services is concentrated North Arena.

Approval of this proposed project will put even more stress on these agencies' resources.

The approval of this project does not meet findings in section NRS 278-0274 section three contents of the regional plan.

The Sheriff's Office emergency response was inadequate during the 2024 Davis Creek fire, in which it took Walsha Valley residents over two hours to evacuate.

Half an hour longer than the 2016 Little Valley Fire.

Many residents, especially those with larger animals, chose not to evacuate for fear.

Their families in large animals could have been trapped in traffic jams if the wind had shifted in either the of the two previous fires.

People and animals would have been trapped in a fire storm with catastrophic results.

Adding 3,000 more evacuees would add chaos to an already problematic situation.

Based on the need, needed infrastructure and projected availability of these emergency resources, plus anticipating increased response times.

These findings, along with the common sense, tells us that projecting lives and property cannot support approval of this project of regional significance.

Thank you very much for your time.

Next up is Elaine Martin, followed by William Naylor.

My name is Elaine Martin.

Please enter my comments and exhibit into the record.

The Pleasant Valley Hydrographic Basin is severely over-allocated.

The approval of future large development projects is in violation of the regional plan goal statement to natural environment, which states identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impact of development upon these resources.

Shows the Pleasant Valley Hydrobasin and the current users.

Studies by the Devada Division of Water Resources show the basin has perennial yield of 3,000 acre feet per year.

2,777 acre feet were already being drawn as of 2022.

The basin is legally committed to for 6,036 acre feet.

The total commitment is between 250% and 350% of perennial yield when domestic wells are included.

The groundwater level has been declining between 0.1 to 0.3 feet a year between 1984 and 2021.

Groundwater withdrawal near streams with water rights could cause those streams to lose water due to capture as groundwater.

This threat is severe in Pleasant Valley.

The Pleasant Valley Hydrobasin has very high long-term vulnerability to groundwater shortage.

Approved development puts additional pressure on the basin.

St.

James Village and Asente have about 500 undeveloped parcels, which equates to about 232 acre feet.

This will equal the perennial yield without adding in domestic wells.

Sierra reflections would add another 452 acre feet.

This far exceeds the perennial yield.

Aquifer depletion is already observed.

Tumwell reports the groundwater levels in the South Trucking Meadows has declined 70 feet since the 1960s due to the unsustainable pumping.

Regarding St.

James Village, which is in the Pleasant Valley Hydrobasin, Tummel Work Orders state the following.

The static water levels in the two St.

James Village wells have been declining since the wells were first installed in 1993.

Groundwater levels in this area are declining, and evidence indicates additional withdrawals of groundwater will exceed the sustainable yield of the basin.

Withdrawing groundwater above the sustainable yield is in violation of the first and second natural resources objectives, which state conserve, preserve, and protect the region's natural resources, including air, land, and water.

Limit the impact that development and growth have on the region.

For the given reasons, RC9, finding four, natural resources cannot be made.

Please deny this project.

Next up is William Naylor, followed by Joyce Newman.

Okay, let me start jumping in.

My name is William Naylor.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

The destruction of the floodplain in the proposed CR reflections project is in violation of regional plan goal two, natural environmental in table 2.1.

The goal statement is identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources.

The floodplain is a natural resource consideration area as documented in regional plan maps, map five, and policy NR4.

Four natural resource layers in table 3.3 overlay it.

Areas of the floodplain could indicate wetlands.

These are shown as hatched areas on the applicant's map.

The floodplain is designated a critical source water protection area.

It is critical for critical for aquaculture recharge and natural water pollution filtering.

The floodplain is habitat for two endangered species and one threatened species.

The project lies entirely within their primary habitats.

This map was provided by regional planning.

The interaction of the floodplain with natural resource consideration layers was pointed out in the initial review memo provided by regional planning, but was ignored by Washoe County planning and the development.

The key shows moderate liquefaction just below the severe level.

Despite noted constraints, the applicant has chosen not to preserve and protect the floodplain as an essential natural resource is required by goal two.

Instead of mitigating the impacts of development, the applicant will destroy it by covering it with eight feet of dirt and using it to cluster 304 houses.

As well as being in violation of regional plan goal two, the project is out of compliance with all three natural resource objectives as followed.

Identify geographically where the natural resource exists.

Regional planning did it.

Limit the impact that development and growth have on that region and conserve, conserve, preserve, and protect the region's natural resources, including air, land, and water.

Based on information provided, finding for natural resources and policy RC9 conformance review findings cannot be made.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Joyce Newman, followed by Tom Callicrete.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Joyce Newman.

I'm a graduate of Mackey School of Mines and a former exploration geologist.

I request these comments in my bio be made part of the record.

NRS 278-349-3H requires the physical characteristics of the land be considered by this body.

I'm speaking about the project's physical characteristics, the seismic and liquefaction risk to public health and welfare, and will show they were not adequately evaluated by the applicant.

They stated that they conducted near surface technical investigations only to assist in excavation activities.

After reviewing their geotechnical reports, including the 20-year-old Pasanella report, it's clear the application does not adequately evaluate seismic risk to the public due to the physical characteristics of the project area.

I would ask the commission to deny this appeal because NRS 278-349-3 requires the governing body or planning commission to consider physical characteristics of the land.

TMRPRC 9 finding four cannot be made.

Impacts of the project on natural resources have not adequately been addressed.

The application see the discussion below regarding relevant references that were not cited by the applicant, and there were many.

Earthquake and liquefaction risks render this site unsuitable.

And 60825F, the report fails to show the project will not cause significant public health problems due to these risks.

Applicants' reports acknowledge the site is in an area of greatest severity for potential shaking, but do not adequately address site-pecific earthquake and liquefaction risks.

The geotechnical report cites only eight geologic maps and reports, some of which were 50 years old and were obsolete in 2005.

The report ignores at least 27 relevant references, including update fault maps, updated fault maps.

WestX failed to consider the opinions of 40 geoscientists who in 2019 studied the risks of large earthquakes in Nevada and concluded that significant sources proximal to the region exists.

These references are clear indications that more focused investigations are essential.

WestX admits that on-site soil conditions were not explored beyond the surface.

Another admission they did not adequately address risks.

They suggest at least 13 times they be consulted during site prep and construction to evaluate these risks.

They should have been already considered.

Next up is Tom Callacrete, followed by Clark Smith.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Tom Callacrate.

I'm a resident of New Washington City and a certified professional geologist.

Please enter my comments and figures into the record.

I'll show that SIR Reflections Project is out of compliance with regional goal.

Number two, natural resources, and conformance review finding number four, natural resources cannot be made.

Figure one shows the location of serial reflections defined zones.

At this time, zone one is the focus with regards to mercury contamination.

However, more testing may reveal additional toxic areas.

Figure two shows zone one is a water saturated wetlands where zero reflex and plans to develop 304 parcels.

Wetlands are a natural sink for mercury containment.

Disturbing the wetlands may unleash a cascade of ecological and health hazard issues all the way to this to the Truckee River.

Figure three displays the same zone one area where mercury contamination occurs throughout the wetlands.

It also shows the sampling density is too widespread, so that every parcel is tested.

Further infill sampling should be done on 50 by 50 foot grid.

Figure four shows areas where zero reflexions failed to complete complete the sampling for mercury.

Approximately one quarter of zone one has not been adequately sampled.

Not sampling in 17 locations along Steamboat Creek deprived us of critical information regarding current and future health hazard issues that may affect locals here reflections residents and those downstream.

Not sampling 40 of the 225 sample locations from four to eight feet leaves approximately 58 parcels without critical health information that may result in future legal actions.

Figure seven shows SIER Reflections plan to excavate stockpile and then later bury mercury contamination soil.

In this phase development, there is no stated plan for stockpiling, ensuring that there will be no release of mercury into the air or the groundwater.

Figure seven also shows zero reflections plan to re relocate contaminated soils to open spaces, parks, and slope sites, essentially contaminating uncontaminated sites.

These new contaminated sites will be considered a national mercury waste repository site, with the owner and the developer liable for mercury contamination and requiring costly long-term testing, response plans, and possible future liabilities and lawsuits.

In conclusion, Sarah Reflexion needs to either remove all the mercury contaminated soil to a hazard waste disposal site or Sarah Reflexion should just not develop 304 parcels in zone one.

Development Zone 1 presents numerous series, health and safety liabilities is not suitable for residential development.

Thank you for letting me present the information.

Next up is Clark Smith, followed by Kelly Dean.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

I'm Clark Smith, resident of Washoe Valley for 42 years and graduate with graduate degrees in chemistry and geochemistry.

None of the plans for Washoe County development include discussions about historical mercury, specifically the Carson River Superfund site.

Map 21.

We have just seen that toxic mercury exists in the wetlands, sequestered by chemical and physical filtering, protected from erosion.

Effectively, wetlands have to be sufficiently large to give enough time for these natural processes to work.

Disruption and construction on the wetlands will increase water runoff from hard surfaces, channelized steamboat creek, increasing flood intensity, scouring, and downstream flushing of toxic soils and sediments, and allow upstream contamination from washaw lakes where historical mills are located to pollute downstream areas.

There are no plans for flood control on Steamboat Creek and Browns Creek.

A significant health hazard will be created and continue for at least a decade as development progresses through five phases and thereafter.

Map 22.

Let's look closely at the wetlands and mercury distribution.

Only where housing is to be constructed, is there a plan to remediate?

There is no plan for areas surrounding Steamboat Creek.

This unremediated unremediated area will be a time bomb of toxic mercury.

The developer is eliminating the wetlands, making no plans for flood control, exacerbating flood events with local runoff, and accelerating all that mercury downstream for years to come.

Map 23.

Studies in 2002 were done of mercury speciation and transport in Steamboat Creek, from the headwaters all the way to the Truckee River.

Total mercury and methyl mercury were found at elevated levels.

Methyl mercury is extremely toxic and biologically amplified in aquatic flora and fauna and could affect Lahontan cutthroat and Qui and Kui, excuse me.

For these reasons, tribal interests 20 kilometers downstream will be affected by the SR development.

Note that recent studies in 2025 in the Dayton Lahontan Superfund area identify methyl mercury and in the Carson River sediments and water.

Continuing health issues that now plagues Lyon Counties and Churchill Counties.

Does Washoe County want these problems?

In conclusion, disruption of the wetlands will adversely affect many communities along Steamboat Creek, all the way to the Truckee River.

This should be a major county issue, not to be ignored.

Map 24.

There is more mercury than has yet been discovered because no uh that because to date, no sampling and widespread sampling have left large areas untested.

Map 25.

The wetlands are effectively keeping downstream mercury and methylmercury below toxic levels.

Destruction of the wetlands will create a cascade of ecological health and legal issues.

Do not allow construction on the wetlands.

Thank you.

Next up is Kelly Dean, followed by Judy Coulter.

My name is Kelly Dean.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

The Sierra Reflections Project proposes a park, which the applicant calls community park number one.

This park is located near the confluence of Browns and Steamboat Creeks.

Get that out there.

There's the exhibit that's referenced there.

The applicant proposes to include close the park by constructing a 12-foot high masonry retaining wall along Steamboat Creek.

This wall will destroy a third of a mile of the scenic quality of Steamboat Creek Canyon.

Building this large retaining wall along sensitive riparian environment will destroy natural vegetation, the habitat of sensitive and endangered species.

This is in violation of regional goal number two, natural resources in table 2.1.

The wall extends into an area designated by the applicant applicant's hydraulic study as wetlands, which are waters of the United States.

This violates policy NR3 of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan by building in a development constraints area.

The applications or the applicant's existing conditions plan shows that inside the retaining wall is an area documented as being culturally significant by Native American and European and Chinese settlers.

The plan shows that there are existing rock walls, granite slabs, and foundations at the park site.

The village of Willow Glen and a cyanide processing mill were in this area.

The applicant plans to partially fill the public park area with soil which is highly contaminated with mercury and then cover it with an eight-foot cap of soil.

This will destroy enclosed historic and cultural sites and is in violation of the requirements specified in NR 18 cultural resources.

This action also will destroy a develop a development constraints area with slopes of over 30% grade.

This action is allowed within the park, but the destruction of these areas slopes extends back into an area being leveled for a proposed housing area.

This is not allowed.

Based on all of the above, policy RC9 performance review findings, finding four, natural resources cannot be made.

Next up, we have Judy Coulter, followed by Mark Toomey.

Hello.

I'm Judy Coulter, a 46-year resident of this area.

And I am please enter my comments in the record.

I'll show that Sierra Reflections applicant is out of compliance with goal two in Table 2.1 Regional Plan Goal Statements.

The goal statement is as follows quote identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources, close quote.

The applicant proposes to grade almost 4.5 million cubic yards of soil with no consideration for the existing topography that at cut and fill depths approaching nearly 70 feet in each direction.

The map you see is the Sierra Reflections proposed cut-fill plan.

Cut areas are red and green, fill areas are blue and violet.

The darker the red, the greater the cut, the darker the violet, the greater the fill.

The applicant proposes to grade the terrain to create terraces of about 3% slope in areas where houses will be built.

This action is out of compliance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, Chapter 3, implementing the Regional Vision Natural Resources Section, Objectives, and Washoe County Development Code, Article 424 Hillside Development.

Section 35 grading and drainage standards set standards for grading hillside properties.

Subsection A1, grading shall relate to natural topography with the natural topography maintained to the greatest extent possible.

Subsection 2A, where alteration to the natural topography is necessary, graded slopes shall be contoured to provide a smooth and gradual transition of grading and natural slopes while maintaining the basic character of the terrain.

And here are some examples, and you have a really great one right up here in Washoe County's mission statement.

Subsection A3, standard pad grading or terracing, which results in grading outside the building footprint and access area shall be discouraged.

Subsection A5 grading shall create varying gradients in order to avoid a quote manufactured close quote appearance.

As part of the grading, the applicant proposes to destroy the 100 year floodplain by covering it with eight feet of dirt.

This floodplain is also a TMRPA natural resource consideration area, critical water source protection area and habitat for endangered and threatened species.

And please deny this application.

Thank you.

Next up we have Mark Temey, followed by Bob Rusk.

Good evening.

My name is Mark Tomey.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

As stated before, goal two in Table 2.1 of the Regional Plan Goal statements says to identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources.

The applicant proposes to grade hillside areas to flat areas where houses will be built.

This is out of compliance with Washoe County plans and codes related to hillside development as directed by the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan Policy NR6, dealing with slopes of 15 to 30 degrees.

Article 424, Section 30 building location states the following standards are intended to encourage compatibility between development and existing hillside and vegetation character.

Number one.

Section 30 continues.

For projects with multiple buildings, structure should be sited in staggered arrangements and height variation to minimize a walled effect.

Section 30 continues.

The following standards are intended to encourage building design that is compatible with the character of hillsides and ridgelines and minimize alteration of the natural landforms.

Finally, Section 30 states split pad and stepped foundation shall be encouraged so that buildings step down or step up with a natural slope to avoid padding and terracing.

Number two.

Section 30 lot configuration states the following standards are intended to ensure plating of new lots which reflect the natural character of hillside properties as shown in the figure.

Section 30 requires stable and sufficiently usable land be provided for each lot.

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

Section 30 requires safe and adequate access to public streets without requiring massive grading or vegetation removal.

Number three.

The Sierra Reflections application meets none of the hillside development planning location standards.

As shown in the preliminary landscape plan, they propose to cut and fill the natural terrain to create level terraces and build high density homes, all in stacked rows.

Due to incompatibility with Trucking Meadows Regional Planning Goals, finding number four natural resources.

It can't be made for this project.

In its current condition, this application should be denied.

Thank you for your time.

Next up is Bob Rusk, followed by Aaron Sutherland.

Good evening.

I'm Bob Rusk.

I'm a former Washoe County Commissioner for two terms.

In my experience, this project is one of the most deeply flawed I have seen.

Now consider that I'm the oldest person in this room, and perhaps the smartest.

But only if this board agrees with me, and all these 30 people that just spoke to you.

The goals and policies of the 24 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

You have heard from 30 plus speakers who have presented their information, findings in D to in detail.

This testimony has been provided because it is necessary to consider the merits, if any, and the many deficiencies of the project in order for the Regional Planning Commission to make its determination.

Finding two, regional form.

The proposed project is incompatible with existing densities, incompatible with surrounding land uses, fails to maintain existing neighborhoods or provide urban infill.

Finding three public facilities and services.

Depends on an unstable regional highway for access.

Fails to comply with the regional water management plan, fails to have adequate fire services in place for the court construction and occupation of a project this size.

Finding four natural resources, the proposed project does not provide the following.

It fails to provide adequate testing and remedial for mercury contamination, to identify endangered, threatened species and protect their habitat from damage caused by development, to identify and protect areas of cultural and historic significance, to protect the topography and scenic qualities of this area.

In conclusion, this project is in conflict with and fails to conform to the goals and policies of the 24 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

It must be found out of conformance with the plan.

And may I in closing remind you that the Washa County Planning Commission unanimously denied this project.

Please do the same.

Next up, we have Aaron Sutherland, followed by Richard Stone.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Aaron Sutherland.

Please enter my comments into the record.

Your subject matter experts regarding this application.

I'm a retired chief pilot from the Nevada Army National Guard and State Emergency Management and Wildland Firefighting Pilot.

I'm a certified safety professional, an accident investigator for the Department of Dep of Transportation and the NTSB, though I do not represent those agencies today.

I'm a 16-year resident Pleasant Valley and recently changed to the vice president for the Pleasant Valley Steamboat Landowner Association representing 320 homes and 11 businesses who all request your denial of this application.

51% of the homes between Highway 341 or 431 and East Lake Boulevard have large animal growth on them, whether it's poultry, swine, cattle, horses, goats, you name it.

The disturbance of this mercury site is these uh farms are downwind and downstream of the disturbance of these mercury sites.

The Murray Ranch and other agriculture producers are uh producing beef and hay, which is exposing the potential of putting that mercury into the uh contaminating human and animal food supply.

The traffic issues with these two roundabouts that are proposed.

Uh the north facing uh highway 395 uh hill uh does not get direct snow or excuse me, direct sunlight on it to melt off the ice.

So it results in on average 1.3 accidents per snow event.

Uh that will drastically increase when you put two choke points in.

In the last 24 months, we've experienced six fatalities between East Lake Boulevard and 341 or 431, excuse me.

The unique situation for evacuation in this pleasant valley area falls under TLR, which is technical large animal rescue.

These aren't families that jump into a Toyota Corolla and they take off.

This is a one-ton truck loaded up with a five uh fifth-wheel trailer with sometimes up to eight animals loaded into them to try and get out of this place.

We have a large animal vet hospital, averaging 20 to 30 animals on station at all times.

Those are sick injured animals to try and load in an emergency.

I've done it four times my life that I've lived there.

The evacuation of the residents, and that doesn't include when schools are going on.

The collin fire that took place in 2012 moved across that area at 40 miles an hour.

In 2018, I was flying on the Paradise Fire.

I watched 85 people die in their vehicles because they could not get out, and I couldn't do anything to get to them.

Don't let this happen here.

Next up is Richard Stone, followed by Russ James.

Uh my name's Richard Stone.

I'm a resident of Washoe Valley, been there for 12 years, and thank you for listening.

Please add my comments to the record.

Three concerns, some of which have been expressed already, but my primary one is water.

Big surprise.

We live out in the west.

Water's a uh a problem, right?

Fights over that.

People get shot over water.

It's terrible.

But we're told that uh kind of hand waving that trucking meadows is going to take care of the water.

The detail is where are they going to get the water?

And we already have heard some of the problems in uh Pleasant Valley of their own wells and their concerns about additional draw in their basin.

Well, Washoe Valley is the next over basin, and my understanding is that they're going to try to get a waiver and suck water out of the Washoe Bay Valley Basin to help them with their uh water demands for you know the increasing growth all over.

Uh that is uh pretty frightening to us because we're all dependent on wells over there.

I don't expect Trucky Meadows to show over there with uh city water anytime soon.

And one of the concerns too is uh so so Trucking Meadows does provide water for people in Pleasant Valley, even Washoe Valley.

The water needs of rural areas but livestock are considerably different than the water needs for people in urban areas.

It's pretty easy in the urban area to have a rock front yard instead of a grass lawn.

Uh you have a small area to take care of.

Uh that's fairly simple.

When you get into the rural areas, you have animals and you have feed and you have other things going on, plus the concern of being responsible for your own fire protection because the response times and the number of uh people available are small in our area.

You gotta you've got to have plenty of water on hand to take care of yourself.

And uh my concern is that uh there's the the quick dismissal talkie waters uh water authority will take care of it is not addressing the concerns of the people whose water tables are being taxed or uh burdened by additional loads.

My other concern is on these roundabouts.

Uh the design for the roundabout shouldn't be just to handle the traffic plus a little more.

Because that's a evacuation route that need to be designed to handle evacuation, probably a little different design with protected turns so that there's not uh holdup.

Also, uh the fact that it's an alternate route for 580 when there's high winds, which happens very often in Washoe Valley.

We're very often having uh large semis, double trailer rigs going through that area.

The roundabout needs to be designed for that kind of traffic as well, and not just the normal traffic that would go in there.

And I also suspect that what will happen as soon as they start putting all this traffic on there, they'll lower the speed limit, which will then increase the time it takes us to get to the store and other essential services.

I thank you for your time.

The other concern is dark skies.

I have an observatory down there, and I don't see this as helping my dark sky situation.

Thank you.

Next up is Ross James.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Regional Planning Commission.

For the record, my name is Russ James, and I live at 300 Rhodes Road in Steamboat Valley.

I've been involved with the Northern Nevada building and construction trades for over 30 years.

In my time, I've been involved in many planning, zoning, and permitting issues in Northern Nevada.

And I will tell you, I've seen my share of NIMBY's.

It's not what I believe this is about.

This is a group of people who care deeply about Washoe Valley and the rural lifestyle that it brings.

And this project threatens that lifestyle.

The zoning in the surrounding area is one unit per acre.

That's one third the lot size of the average surrounding homes in the valley.

Does that sound like it maintains the rural character of the valley to you?

From the regional plan, page 24.

The plan should control the footprint of the development of new development with policies to encourage development to occur in older and developed areas before going prematurely into undeveloped areas.

It should conserve natural areas, natural resources, and direct growth to other areas.

This is how growth should happen by forcing redevelopment of blighted areas within the city.

There are maybe major problems of non-compliance, and the proposal does not maintain the rural character of the valley.

It does not meet the findings to be compliant with the South Valley's master plan.

The allowance of open space development sounds nice, but that's not what it really is.

Open space development allows for the transfer of density within the project as long as the overall project is within the parameters.

What happens is this they're allowed to transfer deficity in areas that are less desirable to other areas which are more desirable.

What you end up with is more density on the good parcels, little no development on more difficult spots to develop.

What also does is cover the better portion of the partial with more density, which equals more houses, more concrete driveways, and more roads.

Replenishing the aquifer is quite difficult through concrete concrete driveways and roads.

This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.

From a recent article on Nevada Current, uh, throughout several parts of Nevada, significantly more groundwater is extracted than returned to aquifers each year, leading to declining water levels.

The plan is the submittal is not cannot find the approve uh the following findings cannot be made to approve a tentative subdivision map.

Plants consistency and design development based upon the above, asking for denial.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we still have quite a bit of public comment, and then we've got to then we would have to go to online, so we could be here for quite a while.

So it is my discretion that we are gonna we are going to adjourn the meeting for tonight, and we are gonna continue on in a couple weeks with the next available appointment.

That would be great.

I'm with you on that during the daytime.

If we can, if possible, can we please have it in the daytime?

Yes.

That way we can stay.

But with that said, ladies and gentlemen, it's 10.05 meetings adjourned.