Hey Nate, you ready?

All right, everybody.

Welcome to the uh to the June 15th RPC meeting.

Um this is a continued.

Well, it's continuation of the May 28th meeting.

So let's go ahead and uh do a roll call, please.

All right, Rob Pierce.

Present.

Marilyn Kramer here.

Michael Flick.

Here, David Jackerman.

Here.

Tina Gonfiantini.

Here.

Dan Lazareski.

Here.

Carl Nieberline.

Shelley Reed.

Here.

Jacob Williams.

All right.

We're all set.

All right.

Will you all please join us in saluting the flag?

The United States of there.

And see the remote nation under liberty.

All right.

We have a we have an agenda.

It's not going to be changed.

Can we get a motion to approve the agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the agenda is written.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

At this time, do we have any general public comment?

Yes, we do.

First, we'll start with Linda Bell, then Larry Moulton, and then Kara.

Karen Hunsitter.

No.

She didn't say one more.

My family has been in Washoe Valley since 1959.

I am also a former 911 dispatcher.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into your records.

Public safety for the South Valleys needs to be a primary concern.

The residents of Steamboat Pleasant and Washoe Valleys need increased public safety now.

Since 2016, we have survived two major wildfires which threatened lives, destroyed homes and property.

Longer than expected public safety service response times need to be improved.

We need the new consolidated Washoe Valley Fire Station to be built now.

It is not realistic to consider Sierra Reflections development, a project of regional significance until public safety is improved to conform to the envisioned 2040 master plan and NRS 278-1601.

Public safety infrastructure, including the new fire station for which there are no foreseeable funding, must be in place before approving a new project of this size.

Increasing the South Valley's population by 42% will require a substantial increase in public safety resources.

Based on the lack of public safety infrastructure being in place, the approval of this project does not meet the findings in the envision to 2040 master plan.

NRS two seven eight one six oh one, nor NRS two seven eight zero two seven four three contents of the regional plan.

Thank you.

Next we have Larry Moulton, then Karenzender, followed by Robert Mansfield.

Let's see.

I'm addressing agenda item 5A, Sierra Reflections.

The master plan envisioned Wash of 2040 promised that the South Valleys would remain rural.

When word that the SEER 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 formed 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 that you have reviewed 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.

Even with planning staff helping the developer for over two and a half years, they could not get this application to a point where it would stand up to even the most cursory, honest scrutiny.

Tradition is that regional planning assumes that the Washa Border County Commissioners decision is correct.

However, in this case, the decision is objectively wrong.

The requirements for approving this application are pretty clear.

There are 20 findings that all must be met.

The subject matter experts have proven to any impartial observer that many of the findings cannot be made, and the application should have been denied.

But the commissioners turned a blind eye to the facts.

This project is too large and too destructive to be approved without a much higher level of scrutiny.

Sierra reflections must be denied.

Next we have Karen Hunseter, followed by Robert Mansfield, and then Kaylee Peter.

In fact, I have the distinct privilege of being a member of the very first class to attend Grace Warner Elementary School from kindergarten all the way through sixth grade.

Our principal was Mr.

Frank Edward Marfisi.

Mr.

Marfisi's dedication to his students did not end when he when we crossed the graduation stage less than three years ago.

My former classmates and I from Grace Warner had the profound honor of down with lunch with him, even at 91 years old, his mind was remarkably sharp and could still speak to our individual stories, childhood quirks, and families.

I'm here tonight with a deep sense of pride and gratitude to formally request that Frank Marfisi that the school naming committee honor Frank Marfisi for his foundational role as a district leader and name the next grade school in his behalf.

Mr.

Marfisi dedicated over 31 years to public education serving the Washoe County School District, and prior to his formation, Reno School District number 10.

He was a contemporary, a close personal friend, and a direct colleague of the very luminaries who built the foundation of our district, like leaders like Proctor Hugs Sr.

Earl Wooster, Daryl Swope, Bill Bowden, and Bud Garfinkel.

His journey of service began right here after graduating from Reno High School in 46.

Frank answered the call of military service.

He enlisted in the Marine Corps, serving honorably from 1946 to 48.

Later recalled to active duty during the Korean War, serving from 50 to 51 as a staff sergeant in control tower operations.

Upon his honorable separation, he returned home to attend the University of Nevada Reno, earning his undergraduate degree in English and physical education in 1953, followed by a master's degree in education.

Most notably, Mr.

Marfisi was a historic first principal of Grace Warner Elementary School, a leadership role he held for with distinction for over 20 years.

Prior to that, he served as the principal of McKinley Park Elementary School for five years and spent six years as a physical education teacher at and coach at Northside Junior High, teaching eighth grade math and health in his own words, everything in the seventh grade curriculum.

Frank's commitment to mentorship extended far beyond the classroom.

He coached school basketball baseball and was a powerful example of health and discipline for thousands of students and athletes.

He spent over a quarter century as a principal shaping the minds and character of generations of Reno citizens.

At 94, Frank recently endured the profound loss of his wife Jane of nearly 75 years.

While he is still here with us, I can think of no more fitting, well-deserved or powerful tribute to his legacy as an educator, a principal, and a veteran than to name our next elementary school after Frank Marfisi.

Thank you for your time and consideration to address you.

Next, we have Robert Mansfield, followed by Kaylee Peter It.

And then Mary Kay Beckin.

Good evening, members of the committee.

My uh my little part here is sounds a lot like Karen's.

My name is Robert Mansfield.

I'm 92 years old.

I stand before you tonight, not just as a long-term renal resident, but as a parent who entrusted his four children to the care of Grace Warner Elementary.

In fact, my third child was part of a very first graduating class to complete the entire journey from kindergarten through sixth grade under the leadership of the man we are here to nominate tonight, Frank Marfisi.

There are many reasons to name a school after someone, but Frank possesses a distinction that truly sets him apart from any of the other nominees.

Frank and I share a bond that was forged long before we ever stepped foot in Reno in a Reno schoolyard.

We are both veterans of the Korean War.

We both answered the call of duty, put our lives on hold and stayed in the service of our country until the conflict was over.

When I finally moved to Reno in 1958, I brought I brought with me the values of discipline, duty, and service.

When I met Frank in early 1960, I instant instantly recognize those exact same values in him.

Serving your country during the time of war changes a person.

It instills a deep sense of responsibility for the lives of others.

For Frank, that foundational sense of duty transitioned seamlessly from defending our nation to protecting and guiding our community's youth.

For decades, Frank and I would get together to discuss our families.

If I stood up here and talked to you for the next five hours, I still couldn't fully articulate what a truly great person, dear friend, loyal community member, and dedicated educator he is.

He didn't just run a school.

He loved his students.

They were in every sense of the word his children.

Frank felt a fierce personal responsibility to ensure that every single child who walked through the doors of Grace Warner received not just a top-tier education, but the critical life lessons of discipline, respect, and integrity.

Frank is now 94 years old, and this beautiful man is still making a difference in our community.

His candy candidacy in uniquely distinguished by a lifetime of service, first in uniform on a global stage, and then in a classroom shaping the future of Reno and Sparks.

He does not need to build a legacy.

He already earned it.

I urge this committee to give Frank Marfisi the recognition and consideration he so richly deserves.

And Nick's school of honor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Kayleigh Peterett, followed by Jenna Sari.

Then we have Carol Betts.

Location, location, location is a real estate mantra emphasizing that a property's geographical position is its single most important attribute.

The phase is repeated three times for a second.

Kaylee Peterite.

Thank you.

The property that is partially a super fund site is hardly a location for 900 plus homes.

A property that requires eight feet of dirt to separate mercury contamination from where folks will be living is hardly a location for 900 plus homes.

A property that does not have adequate fire station nearby, nor the funds required to put one close alone is hardly a location for 900 plus homes.

Strangely, Sierra Reflections met county requirements for approval.

Here's two others.

In 1983, Ophir Creek and Washoe Valley flooded with property destruction, plus resulted in a death.

Property now parceled by the county.

Land in Washa Valley, the federal government rejected for acquisition for possible mercury contamination, now are also parceled by the county.

Irresponsible decision for research Sierra Reflection goes beyond meeting county requirements.

This is hardly a location for 900 plus homes.

The application in its current form must be denied.

Thank you.

Next we have Jenna Escari, followed by Carol Betts.

Then Cameron Rick Sweeney.

I come from the great state of New Jersey.

I'm only recently here in Nevada.

I chose this place for a very good reason.

I'll tell you, I'm channeling my mother tonight because my mother fought to keep the Great Swamp.

Not a great name, but a beautiful place that had wildlife and birds and all sorts of creatures.

Can you please state your name for the record?

Jennifer Ascari.

Thank you.

They wanted to build Newark Airport on a wetlands, an area that would greatly impact the area.

It would greatly impact the creatures that called that home.

That was fought by people like myself and those who have shown up tonight that will speak.

Lori didn't write this with any bias.

She was just stating the facts.

So I'm going to share just a couple of things in here with you.

In it here, she speaks about this area, Damonte Ranch, which is just very close to this Sierra Reflective, just above it.

It is lies in what's called this Pacific Flyway, a major 4,000-mile north-south migratory route that's used by millions of birds traveling between Alaska and Patagonia.

If this area is disturbed, we know we're living in one of the driest states in the United States.

Where are those birds going to go?

Where are the creatures going to go?

Where are they going to nest?

You cannot say that the Sierra Project, Sierra Reflections Project, is going to put in places for the birds to nest.

They're not going to figure that out.

They're not going to know where to go.

They have in their brains, people say bird brains, they're very smart.

They know where to go year after year after year, and no one's told them.

And now you're going to affect the dark skies.

We're going to affect the noise and the air quality.

Where are they going to go?

I ask you to please reconsider what this project means for this area.

There are plenty of other places for you to consider this project, but this area is not that place.

Thank you.

Next we have Carol Betts, followed by Cameron McSweeney, and the last one is Cliff Lowe.

Okay.

I just want to make a comment.

When you guys come up, if you would please state your name for the record, then I won't have to introduce or interrupt you.

It's policy.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Carol Betts, and I have lived in Washoe Valley since 1990.

And while I have been there, we have had multiple fires.

The most recent lodge fire was the Davis Creek fire two years ago.

And I know a lot of people have spoken to you about fire, but if you have ever sat on East Lake Boulevard with a trailer load of horses for three hours watching a fire come across your valley, and you have nowhere to go, I would ask you to seriously consider that.

If we add about 3,000 vehicles to the roads, and we couldn't get out without them, and there is no plan to build an evacuation route for us.

What do you think will happen?

If we sat for three hours for no reason with a fire coming towards us, you had a gentleman last meeting telling you about putting retardant on the paradise fire and watching people burn.

That is what will happen in Washoe Valley.

I have been evacuated, not being able to get home multiple times during the years I have lived in Washoe Valley.

The Davis Creek, the Washoe Drive Fire almost burnt Pleasant Valley School.

It actually burned right over the area where Sierra Reflections is planned to be built.

Had it been there, it would literally have gone up in flames.

There are not enough fire fighters, there are not enough fire stations.

The Davis Creek fire, I saw when it was a tiny plume of smoke and called it in.

It should have been able to be put out.

Instead, it destroyed multiple homes.

I now look out from my house and see burnt trees across the valley.

And I'm just appealing to you from my heart to tell you I don't want to see people die.

I don't want to see people lose their homes before an infrastructure is in place.

If you put one house on every buildable acre, these people would not be complaining.

If you built a fire station to take care of those homes so that we could expect a reasonable response time, then we would not be complaining.

People will lose their lives if this goes ahead.

Thank you.

Next is Cameron McSweeney, and last is Cliff Lowe.

Good evening.

Please enter my comments into the record.

My name is Cameron McSweeney, and as a 25-year insurance agent, I understand how oversaturation and wildfire risk impact today's volatile homeowners insurance market.

Approving Sierra Reflections violates NRS 278160 and exacerbates rural risk concentration, further limiting access to affordable and available homeowners' insurance.

This places residents of Pleasant and Washoe Valley at significant risk of increased hardship due to rising homeowners insurance costs and limited coverage options.

Most insurers have stopped riding policies in the area, and the few that remain may soon implement widespread cancellations because of the high concentration of risk.

NRS 278160, 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 a determination of whether the existing infrastructure is sufficient to sustain the current needs and projected growth of the community.

Why is the Sierra Reflections housing development even being proposed when existing infrastructure is not present as required in NRS 278160?

Commissioner Garcia and Fire Chief Edwards confirmed that the East Lake Boulevard Fire Station 32 will close if and when the new Washoe Valley Consolidated Fire Station is built.

With 940 new homes proposed, why are we even entertaining building these homes while reducing fire coverage to just one fully staffed station?

This is a direct contradiction of the county commissioner's claim and finding that the development would not be detrimental.

As of the May 26th budget meeting, no funds or additional funding sources have been allocated or identified.

Furthermore, county officials acknowledged that even with the developers' proposed total 4.5 million contribution towards the fire station, funds are still insufficient to build staff and equip the station.

This means that not only is there no existing infrastructure, but there is also no funds available now or in the near future to be able to build the needed infrastructure in order to adhere to the requirements of NRS 278-160.

For this reason, SER reflection needs to be denied.

Next we have Nanette Olsen, then it will be Cliff Lowe.

Good evening.

I am Nanette Olson, and I am one of the few probably in here who was born and raised in Nevada.

For a short time, I thought I could leave this beautiful state, and I realized that there is something very unique, especially about Reno and where I have lived.

And when I returned after a year in Virginia, I said I could live my whole life in Nevada.

And I've been in Pleasant Valley now for 38 years.

I want to address not just all of the infrastructure questions which do need to be looked at, but I feel like this is a landmark decision that the area being proposed for development is one of the few left with the rural uh the rural beauty that defined Reno and our area.

And to remove that puts us more like a Las Vegas without a personality to call our own, without the beauty of the pastures, without the view of Mount Rose that would be obstructed.

This truly is a landmark decision that could lead to lots more leapfrogging into the one preserved rural area that has also been uh designated at the scenic byway.

Of course, we know it meets does not meet the objective of the vision of 2040.

And why did we bring that vision forward?

Because we felt like we wanted to preserve certain aspects that could not be corrupted, could not be changed, that there were certain things that were innate andalienable, if you want to say that.

And I would say that this small little area is one of those areas, and I would ask for you to reject the proposal and to make a decision to keep the rural area and the beauty of this area preserved because it truly does represent an area of Nevada that is rapidly uh rapidly changing, and we can never get it back again if this decision is made.

Thank you.

Finally, we have Cliff Lowe.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Cliff Lowe.

Please enter my comments into the record.

You have already heard some public comment on Sierra Reflections, and of course there's more to come.

I would like to make two unrelated points with you.

First, as was the as was the case on May 28th, there are two general types of public comment on SEAR reflections.

One is from the group I like to call the organized opposition.

Our public comment is most distinguishable from most others by the specific references to noncompliance with regional policies and goals, and in some cases, the county code and master plan.

Dr.

Smith informed us that you received instructions to review the video from May 28.

Now I can't predict whether the representatives from the county or Sierra Reflections will take as much of your time as they did on May 28.

But most of the public comment you hear this evening from the organized opposition will have been abbreviated and summarized from May 28th in order to respect your time.

Second, why is it relevant when we point out nonconformance with regional goals or subgoals, or with Washoe County's master plan or county code?

The answers are actually covered in the regional plan itself.

As for goals, policy RC9 on page 120 states, the RPC shall consider the following factors when considering whether a PRS is consistent, compatible with the goals and policies of the regional plan.

The relevance of sub goals objectives is addressed on page 36.

As for noncompliance at the county level, policy RC6, also on page 120 states, the RPC must limit its review to the substance and contact content of the regional plan and shall not consider the merits or deficiencies of a project other than as necessary to make its determination.

Our position, both here and in court, is that the three county commissioners who voted to reverse the unanimous decision of the county planning commission fail to consider compliance with the findings required by county code.

Therefore, it is necessary for us to present these county level deficiencies for you to make your determination.

We trust that you will give all areas of nonconformance appropriate weight in your decision.

Thank you.

We have no more for this item.

All right.

With that, we're gonna close the public general public comment and open up item number five, business of the day.

Um Jeremy, would you read that for us?

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jeremy Smith for the record, I'll read this into the record.

So for possible action, item 5A is a public hearing continuing from the May 28th, 2026 RPC meeting.

It's a regional plan conformance review, Washoe County Project of Regional Significance or PRS for CR reflections, that's case number 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.

Okay, with that, do we have any disclosures?

Yes, Chair.

Can't tell.

Can you hear me?

No.

On June 12th, I did a site visit along with uh TMRPA staff, representation for Sierra Reflections, and Mr.

Ken Crater of the Crater Consulting Group, Commissioner Gompiantini.

Thank you.

Okay, we have any other Commissioner Jockmanos.

Commissioner Jockman, I'll state the same disclosure as our prior meeting.

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, I will abstain from discussion and voting on this matter.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Any others?

Okay.

Um I want to let everybody know that all presentations and public comment made on the on May 28th are incorporated into this record.

Um, I request that all members of the audience please be respectful and do not interrupt others when they are speaking.

And when would you uh open up public please please be respectful to everybody?

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

We do want to hear from everybody.

We do want to hear what you have to say.

Um, but we do need to keep order in this place also.

So with that, let's go ahead and um open it up.

Jeremy, I think you're up first.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jeremy Smith for the record.

I'm gonna take us through a presentation uh to re-ground us in the project and the findings in RC9.

Okay, so as we know, as has been mentioned in the in the title, it's proposed uh 940 unit tentative subdivision map.

And so the reason that we're seeing this is really our projects of regional significance.

Uh resolution 23-02, it's an appendix in the regional plan.

It's a resolution passed by this body, the RPC, indicates in section one B that the project, any project that will require a change in zoning, a special use permit, an amendment to a master plan, a tentative map or other approval for the use of land is subject to these thresholds and triggers that exist in this resolution.

Most of it comes directly out of state law.

Uh some of it has been added over the years by the RPC and deemed regionally significant.

So the triggers specifically here, as we mentioned, are it's greater than 625 housing units, the balance of 315 units beyond that.

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

Water, uh, greater than 625 acre feet per year, and traffic uh 6,250 average daily trips.

Based on our analysis and our previous uh point from May 28th, uh regional planning staff is recommending that the proposed project does conform with the 2024 regional plan.

It's generally it's about 760 acres located to the west of old 395, and in between that and I 580, south of Pawnee Lane, thank you for that correction from last time.

Between Pleasant Valley and Old Washoe City, roughly 468 acres will be designated as common open space on the project.

Currently, it's within the TMSA, except for the small portion you can see in the southwest corner is outside the Trucking Meadow Service area.

That's what TMSA stands for.

And that part's in the rural area and is designated to in this plan uh to become open space.

So no development there.

Just quick background.

The tentative map uh was approved by Washoe County Commission, as we've heard on appeal from the decision of the Washoe Plenty County Washoe County Planning Commission, but at their March 10th meeting, as we know, we're continuing this from our May 28th meeting that we held in this room a few weeks back.

A little bit of history is that during the 2002 regional plan update, every five years, per state law, the regional plan needs to be updated substantively.

And in 2002, there was a large update, and at that time, as was explained by Trevor Lloyd and his presentation during the previous meeting, uh, there was a bid by the city of Reno to exert their sphere of influence.

And the sphere of influence is a layer that we maintain at regional planning, but it is really a coordinated effort between the jurisdictions and regional to indicate by the jurisdiction where they expect to move their jurisdiction and annex in the next 20 years.

And the point is that gives us some forward looking understanding of infrastructure planning.

So annexation is a seven year outlook, sphere of influence is a 20-year outlook.

And at that time, uh Reno had annexed some areas, especially to the north, but also was looking to exert sphere to the south.

As part of legal action and a settlement agreement, there was uh sort of a compromise reach reached that this area would remain in the unincorporated Washoe County.

However, and with with the notion that it would be residential and not some sort of commercial use, which it previously had been zoned for.

So in 2004, Washoe County passed uh or approved the master plan amendment that said what you see on the map to the right, and I pulled this up from the Washoe Regional Mapping System today, the master plan amendment to establish suburban residential, rural residential, and rural master plan land uses on the site, and further agreed to limit even though the densities that are allowed in these areas, considering the constraints, can allow for more units than this.

They agreed to 995 units as a cap.

Later on, from that process, a another pro previous project of regional significance uh proposal that came along with a lot block plan that was pretty similar to what we see today, passed through the county and regional planning in 2006.

That expired in 2023.

And so now the landowner has brought back a similar tentative map proposal uh to be examined and you know looked at and potentially approved or not uh through this process.

So later, we're gonna be I'm gonna be followed by Trevor Lloyd, who's gonna talk about what a tentative map means and kind of what is required at that time.

So I'll I'll leave that to him.

But that is the mechanism in the unincorporated county as I understand it.

City of Reno and uh City of Sparks often use the planned unit development mechanism or specific plan handbook, but in in Washoe County, what we see typically is this tentative map process.

And so we'll hear more about that.

Okay, so once again, to ground into ground us in the findings that we use for our conformance reviews for master plan amendments and projects of regional significance.

We have these five sections of the regional plan, their objectives and policies, population growth, regional form, public facilities and services, natural resources, and regional coordination.

In terms of population growth, uh, as I mentioned, the master plan land use designations for residential uses have been included in the Washoe County Master Plan for over 20 years, and that plan has been found in conformance with the regional plan, even this last 2024 version.

Also, we do a lot of GIS modeling to help the RTC, the school district, the local jurisdictions with thinking about that forward planning.

This area, because of the previous tentative map, had been included in those model runs and therefore became part of what drove infrastructure planning for the region.

It's a common open space development, preserves open space quite a bit, and allows for uh smaller units that and some larger units, but it does promote housing choice, which is something that helps with workforce housing availability in the region.

In terms of regional form, so it is in tier three.

That's a new concept that came in 2019, the regional land designations.

Tier three is in the TMSA, sort of the lowest priority for development.

And I think if those master plan land uses hadn't been established back in the day, we'd be having a very different conversation right now because the goal of tier three, you know, is that preservation goal.

However, we do know that that did occur, and those suburban residential, rural residential, and rural land uses do exist.

So according to regional plan policy regional form four, it's an allowance of existing land uses, entitlements, and zoning.

Basically, what that's saying is that we can't, we don't have the authority to take it away.

It's grandfathered in.

Okay, so now we're gonna move on to public facilities.

These are the five we call infrastructure domains that the state law 278, specifically 0274, which is the contents of the regional plan, indicates that regional planning should be involved in in some form or fashion.

And we have tried to elevate the discussion at regional planning about these five domains potable water, schools, stormwater and flood control, transportation, and wastewater.

I want to point out again that even though it is incredibly important, and we also want to hear about it and provides really good context for understanding the project and sort of what we're up against.

The idea of public safety, such as fire, police, and emergency service services is not part of our findings for conformance with the regional plan.

That rests at the Washoe County Commission level.

We per state law have these five.

And so I'm gonna go through these five right now and tell you what we've seen, and we also have just for the commissioners, uh, we have staff from Washoe County School District, Tumwa, and Washoe County to answer questions you might have.

So I'm gonna go through these these five points, and then we're gonna allow you to ask some questions of those folks because they're not available for the whole evening, they're available now online.

And so, first off, sewer service.

I think we got a really good explanation from Join Smith, the engineer director from Washoe County at the last meeting on May 28th.

But the the crux of it is that the developer is going to need to build the lift stations and dedicate them to the county, build 3.5 miles of sewer main to link in with the Pleasant Valley Interceptor 3, which is the county portion of that planning that goes on based on that forward-looking modeling we do and and collaboratively, right?

That is under construction, and so that is how the sewer is going to be connected for these homes.

There's the link.

If we do want to pull Duane back up, we can.

We have him ready and primed to go.

Uh, in terms of stormwater improvements, the idea here is that this stuff is required by Washoe County to maintain the existing drainage patterns in this particular project and identified flood zone.

The AE floodway, which is our constrained development area in the regional plan, I checked again today, is not present on the site.

The AE floodway is a FEMA designation that describes in a floodplain where the main flow of water is moving through the floodplain.

That is a constrained area that we at regional planning prohibit development on, but that is not present on this site.

In terms of downstream discharge, it will not exceed pre-development conditions.

Any increase in stormwater runoff must be detained on the site per the Washoe County requirements.

And further, there are a couple of processes that are going on with FEMA.

One is a conditional letter of map revision.

That's the first step when you go to ask FEMA or tell them information about modifying the DFARM maps, the insurance rate maps, and the flood maps that FEMA maintains.

So you first have to go through the conditional process.

That's an approval process.

Before any fill is added, that Clomar needs to be approved by FEMA.

So that the site can't be modified until the conditional map is approved.

Further, before any certificate of occupancy for housing can occur, the final letter of map revision, which builds on the conditional map letter, must also be approved.

So there's a step process to go through with FEMA in terms of the flooding aspects, and that is to my understanding in process and required by Washoe County.

In terms of traffic study, we're gonna hear later about the traffic study that's been performed.

What we know is that NDOT has accepted the traffic study.

That letter is included in the packet and is part of what was submitted to Washoe County.

There are two points as I understand it that this development will interact with the highway system.

They're planning to build two roundabouts that will interact with U.S.

Highway 395 there in Pleasant Valley.

I have looked at the, you know, kind of independently, there's a website called Trina.

N dot maintains this website, and it's a long history of traffic counts on the roadways all around town, all around the state, actually, that they collect and put onto a database, and you can go to a map and you can check it out.

So I looked at it again.

And there's a point on the highway there in Pleasant Valley in the area, right, that we're talking about.

As of right now, in the 2024 was the most recent entry, there was 7,200 trips were indicated on average for the year 2024.

This is planning to add for the traffic study an additional 8,800, right?

Bringing it up to 16,000 total trips on that highway.

In 2007, the the point shows 37,000 trips.

So we're saying this project will add 8,800, let's call it 9,000 to a grand total of 16,000.

Previously at 37,000.

So just for that context.

But we'll hear more about uh the traffic I assume coming up.

Finally, the traffic study has been accepted by NDOT.

And in order for those roundabouts to occur, and for any accounting of drainage in the end dot right of way, there's a permitting process with NDOT that must be achieved.

In terms of water service, uh the water rights, as I understand, are being provided by the landowner.

Those are the paperwater rights, but Tumwa has a very sophisticated management program that considers aquifer storage and recharge.

They and they are looking to require specific well types that allow for not just taking the water out, but putting water back in in the wintertime to make sure that those aquifers remain healthy.

They're managing the system and they're doing this all over town.

I mean, this is this is their approach to making sure that the wells don't go dry.

Aqui for storage recharge wells need to be added for this project, paid for by the developer, along with the distribution mains that are required, the pressure regulating stations, and the storage tanks.

And we again we have Danny Roder from Tumwa on Zoom.

If you have questions about that.

Finally, the Washa County School District indicates the student generation can be accommodated at the three school zones, the three schools that serve this area.

That's Pleasant Valley Elementary, that is Hers Middle School, and Galena High School.

They've indicated that capacity is there.

And further, uh Washoe County has required conditions based on the school district's comments with regard to safe routes to school.

They're going to add three crosswalks, extended school zone area to slow down the traffic, and some school flashers.

So Adam Searcy, the COO of the school district, is also on the line to answer questions from the commission that you may have regarding those school improvements.

So at this time I want to stop my presentation because those folks are online, and I'd like to ask if you have any questions for them.

And Carl or Mr.

Neilie Bahn or Miss Reed on Like questions for either for anyone with that regard.

They're not going to stick around.

So now's the time to talk to Tumwa.

And these questions are for the commissioners.

Did you say N Dot was?

N DOT is not on the line.

No, we have Tumwa, we have Washoe County staff, and we have staff from the school district.

Okay.

Oh N DOS.

Okay.

And I don't have a question.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question regarding this the school zones.

Who's so?

Can you hear me now?

Turn around.

Okay.

Am I on?

Am I on?

Thank you.

So I guess this is directed to Adam.

Adam, you state that um you're gonna have three new crosswalks, an extended school zone, and two school zone flashers.

Can you give me an idea of where in that vicinity those will be?

And who will I guess the other part of the question is who will enforce that particular school zone?

Is it the school police or is it the sheriff's office?

Hi, good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, hi.

Thank you for the question.

Uh, just for the record, my name's Adam Searcy.

I'm the chief operating officer for the Wash County School District.

So the preliminary graphic that I was provided, or rather our safe process to school staff provided the county staff was to include crosswalks right up near the school.

Um at Surrey and Kitts.

An additional crosswalk about halfway in between Surrey and Pawnee at uh it looks like Galena Pines, and then also at Kitts and Pani.

Now, of course, those you know may change as the development plans get finalized.

Those are the three crosswalks that I'm showing were required uh as a condition of approval.

Um there's flashers as well up nearer, you know, closer to the school, and then sidewalk is being required to be added along Pawnee.

Um let's see here.

It looks like an extended school zone also further away from the school on Surrey was required.

So, anyway, all of those become public infrastructure um within Washoe County right of way.

They are maintained by the county.

Um they are enforceable by either Washoe County School District School Police or you know, other um uh police agencies, primarily Washop County Sheriff's Office.

I mentioned the group uh we refer to as safe routes to school.

Um, some of you may be familiar with them.

They're uh uh division within our police department.

It's actually a federal program that service all of our schools.

We work regularly with um developments to it and uh you know approving agencies to ensure that you know considerations for walking and bicycling and and just even parent pickup and drop off at all of our schools are functioning as safely as possible.

Um, and so they they reviewed this application, provided specific technical review comments, and all of those were incorporated into the final approval.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Do we have this is Rob for the record?

Do we have anybody that can answer a traffic question online or can you answer that?

We do not have someone that can answer traffic question online.

We have Lauren Chilson who created the traffic study, but I believe he's coming up later to speak to it, so maybe we could save that until then later.

I I would like to ask though uh Danny Roder from the Trucking Nose Water Authority is online, and I just would like to ask Mr.

Roder, did I accurately describe uh the water delivery?

Is there anything that you'd like to add to that since you're here and you've been kind enough to join us?

Thanks, Jeremy.

My camera is not working here, but hopefully you can hear me.

Um you did a really good job of uh that summary, and I don't have anything to add unless there's specific questions.

Uh Commissioner Lazaruski, I do have a question for Temwa.

Um, can you describe to me your um the basis and extent of your confidence and your ability to operate the expanded water system in this area without negatively impacting existing well rights?

So the summary that Jeremy provided is really the basis for it, our conjunctive use management approach and requirements down here at this area of the aquifer and our system in using surface water in the winter time periods to recharge the aquifer, and then using that in the summer.

Um so that's that's really the basis of the operations that we run across the system, and specifically we've in this area the the Mount Rose fan down through St.

James down to there is what we call area 15, and that area is looked at as a whole.

Um, and we have actually since the merger of Washoe County, which relied primarily on groundwater, and since we've taken over and implemented conjunctive use, we've actually seen groundwater levels rise in area 15.

And so that's just uh one piece of information to share with you for others to look into our management approach, and this uh we don't feel would be any different.

It is a tall task for the applicant to find the groundwater, so it's gonna you know take a lot of exploration and drilling and um a lot of science to get there, but um that's our requirement, and um, I guess I would just kind of wrap up and say that we've we've done it elsewhere in area 15.

Thank you very much.

Um, and the Mount Rose portion of Area 15 is not the only separated or sub-basin that Tumla has expanded operations into and stabilized or improved groundwater levels.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Thank you.

This is Rob for the record.

I'm gonna piggyback on that.

Um could you explain the recharge system that was mentioned earlier?

Can you tell us what uh that's gonna exist of and everything you know about that?

Yeah, so it's it's much more technical on the actual um infrastructure side.

But the the gist is is that in the winter when you have more surface water, you're treating it to drinking water standards off uh generally White's Creek.

Um and then you're meeting your demands with that water, and then any excess water from the creek is actually just put through a valve back down the hole and back into the aquifer.

And then as you approach summertime and the creek flows drop off and irrigation demands jump up, you turn that part off and then turn the well on and come back out the other way.

So it's really kind of a flow reversal.

Um, that's probably the easiest way to explain it.

So you don't anticipate too much water going into the lake stab below, right?

Washoe Lake.

No.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

I I think really appreciate the staff you guys online.

Are you guys ready to move on to the natural resources topic?

Because commissioners here.

Commissioners, we're ready to move on.

Okay, so if we could please get the presentation back up.

Thank you, Adam, and thank you very much, Danny, for for being here.

If you could okay, so what I'd like to talk about now is our our fourth finding section, the natural resources, which obviously, you know, we just did a giant natural resource planning effort.

We tried to bring a bunch of information about the region to bear.

We really care about natural resources, and but we have a very limited authority in this vein as well.

In terms of regional plan policy in our three, we have our development constraints area.

This is an area where development is prohibited.

That includes FEMA AE floodway, as I described, any publicly owned open space, which is all of the federal lands and public lands that surround uh our region, but also uh deed restricted lands uh cannot be developed.

Significant water bodies and playas cannot be developed on.

And finally, Section 404 wetlands cannot be developed on.

So those are our strict constraints that exist in the regional plan, and we would map, we have those mapped, and if there's any interaction, no development can occur.

And that is the case with with this CREFlections case, those areas are avoided.

Now, we have added as part of our natural resources work on our natural resources plan a policy called natural resource consideration areas because we know that just because it's not a strictly prohibited uh limitation or constraint that there are still things to consider.

And so we have added informational pieces through our natural resource consideration areas policy to provide at our initial review.

As soon as we hear about the case, we provide the information about source water protection, trails, wildlife habitat, what we can muster and put together on endangered species, which is really poorly mapped, as well as uh slopes and fire risk, all of this stuff.

It's not our authority to in the regional plan to use it as a finding to say no, but it is our responsibility to provide the information and describe it as context for for everyone in this room, including the commissioners, and it helps make a decision.

But we're trying to stay within our limited jurisdiction and the conformance review with the regional plan.

Many policies in the natural resource section of our plan are scoped not so much for an individual review of regional planning, but to ask the local jurisdictions and affected entity facilities plans to acknowledge and put into their plans specific things like a wildlife mitigation policy.

We say your plan must contain a wildlife mitigation policy, and then our conformance review is have they done that?

And then it all filters down to the ordinance so that the the requirements are met through the development review process.

That is our role is to ask them to have these certain things, and they do, and we've found their plans in conformance.

A couple examples are the NR8 wildlife habitat and our six natural slopes greater than 15 to 30 percent.

You'll hear that as referred to as hillside development.

We don't control how the city of Reno or the City of Sparks or Washoe County manages their hillside development program and policies, but we say your master plan must contain policies to address it.

That is our role there.

And so I want to point out also that we don't have authority over fire risk.

Again, the public safety aspect resides at the local jurisdiction.

And we have asked our regional planning governing board in the past for the authority to see if they want us to pursue it, and they have said no.

So it's not from a lack of wanting, it's our limitation because of our jurisdiction.

But we still want to provide the information.

And I believe we have uh Wash County Health Officer West Ruby here to talk about answer some questions if you have them.

Uh the Chief Edwards is no longer available, so he is not here, but uh we have Washoe County staff that can help to address if you have questions about natural resources.

I want to tell you that what we've found in our analysis that slopes greater than 30%, which are development constrained, are preserved as open space.

They're not going to be developed.

There's four there's 468 acres designated with open space zoning.

That's gonna be publicly accessible today.

It's open land, it's vacant land, but if you go on there, it's actually trespassing without permission from the landowner.

These 468 acres in the future, if if this is be approved, it's big if, right?

Will be open with trails and accessible by all members of the region.

We know that critical stream zones are being protected, and also that several conditions of the approval at Washoe County are gonna require specific mitigation surveys for wildlife and a wildlife study that must be approved by Endow, the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

So that is all part of the conditioning of the approval at Washoe County.

And in terms of Washoe County's plan meeting our natural resource requirements and the avoidance of our development constraints areas, that is why we can recommend through this natural resource section conformance.

And finally, regional coordination.

I really appreciate everyone's everyone being here, especially for the second time.

And we do value your voice.

And we value the voice of Tumwa of the school district.

We work across all spectrums.

Unfortunately, the the model is I cannot interact.

I have to keep speaking only to the commissioners.

That is that is the way, but you will have your public comment time, and we will respect it and we value it.

I want you to know that.

It's just this is the system.

We cannot we cannot have the back and forth in this setting.

So with regional coordination, we always try, we're trying to up the game.

We have added a lot in 2019 and 2024, and we're gonna continue.

And there are avenues to try to improve how we do things, but the avenues are potentially different, right?

Through the state law, through the legislature, through our regional plan update process, we can address deficiencies you might see in what we're doing.

But on a specific case, we have to go with what is approved and adopted.

That is how it works.

So with that, I'm gonna stop talking.

And the motion is there, but we want to turn it over actually at this point.

If you don't have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer questions from the commission.

If not, I will pass it to Trevor Lloyd from Washa County to talk about uh tentative maps.

Didn't you have something?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Jessica Prenti for the record.

I have a few comments from a legal perspective.

First of all, and Dr.

Smith covered a lot of this already, so I'm gonna try not to be repetitive.

And of course, I'll be available for questions after the public hearing period of Jessica Prenti for the record.

Can you hear that?

Okay, thank you.

Jessica Prenti for the record, a couple comments.

Dr.

Smith covered most of the legal parameters that I was going to talk about initially.

But again, as you've heard me say, this is a body of specific and limit limited statutory jurisdiction.

The matter before you is a project of regional significance.

It is before you because it hit the triggers for housing units, traffic, sewage, and potable water as set forth in Nevada statute and your PRS adopted guidelines.

As Dr.

Smith alluded to, or actually it came out and just said it.

This area has been master planned with the densities that would be with the densities that are being requested by this project for a very long time.

They were master plan, those land use designations were existing at the time of the adoption of the 2019 regional plan.

Why that is important for this body is with the regional plan, there was the adoption of the tiers within the TMSA.

All existing master plan land use designations are baked in.

In other words, if this if the master plan land use designations were not in existence at the time of the 2019 plan, as Dr.

Smith stated in his presentation, Washoe County would have had to come in with a requested regional plan amendment for a tier change to a different tier that would allow this increased density.

It would also have had to have a master plan amendment that would have been brought to this body for conformance review, in addition to the project of regional significance.

But because those master plan land use designations with that allow this type of density were baked in as a matter of due process when that the adoption of the 2019 plan, that's there.

So that's what you that is the state of the law before you today.

The only review you have is whether or not this project conforms with the regional plan.

I'm trying to make a distinction of the legal parameters so that this commission can be well informed in its decision making.

The master plan use designations did not expire.

They've been in existence, they continue to be in existence.

The tentative map expired.

Please come on.

Mr.

Chair, would you like me to continue with my comments for this body's consideration?

Thank you.

It would be nice to do it without interruption.

All right, that would be nice.

Dr.

Smith walked to you through the conformance review criteria existing in the regional plan, which is an RC9.

Specifically, I want to mention the governing statute for your consideration of a project of regional significance.

NRS 278-0278 sub-2 requires the commission to limit review to quote the substance and content of the regional plan, and you shall not consider the merits or deficiencies of a project in a manner other than necessary to enable you to make that determination.

Nowhere in that statute is this body authorized to review whether or not you agree with Washoe County's decision to approve the tentative map and the decision that they have deemed that tentative map to conform with their own master plan.

This body already did its work and discharged its statutory obligation of determining that Washoe County's master plan, along with the master plans of the City of Reno and City of Sparks, conformed with the regional plan following the 2019 update and the 2024 update.

This is not to say that you cannot consider the information that is contained in the record of the Washoe County proceedings as it is relevant to your PRS determination.

Lastly, I just want to address some of the comments made at the first hearing regarding the weight you can assign to public comment.

The Nevada Supreme Court has made it very clear that substantial and specific public comment relating to the criteria you evaluate for conformance can be considered by this body.

It can be evidentiary.

But on the other hand, generalized or unsupported public comment cannot be.

So I'm available after the public hearing as you brings it back to this body for discussion, and I'm available right now for any questions.

From the board, does anybody have any questions for legal?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Um Jess, are you good?

Okay.

I'm good, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Lloyd.

I think you're up.

I want to make sure this is on.

Is this on?

Can you hear me?

Okay.

All right.

Um I won't rehash what I uh my presentation was about last uh month.

I uh discussed uh entitlements and the history of the project.

Um I did want to cover uh just I just wanted to make a statement on behalf of the Washoe County staff uh for the benefit of the regional uh planning commission.

Uh now you're making a determination for conformance of the uh Sierra reflections, uh but Washoe County has approved the tentative map.

But I wanted to provide uh some assurances uh that the uh the developers will still need to go through a uh very substantial permitting process before any dirt is moved from the site.

Uh the in reality, the uh the tentative map that has been approved is is really just the first step.

Uh the tentative map approval, as uh was mentioned, has gone through a lengthy uh nearly two-year uh review process uh in which there were many meetings, discussions, emails, uh, and uh substantial uh amendments uh uh to the plans that were submitted to Washoe County.

Um the developers for the developers now the real work begins.

Uh the tenative map was the conceptual design, uh, but what is in front of the the developers now is the final design.

Uh in addition to that, there are a number of code compliance requirements, uh substantial number of conditions that were approved as part of that tentative map.

Um the developers also need to obtain a number of permits from the various local, state, and federal uh agencies.

So there is a good reason why uh NRS through state statute provides for four years for the developers uh to get approval and and recordation of a final map.

Because that uh really is uh a substantial process that uh that really needs is in this case is gonna need all four years in order to uh to complete that process.

So I thank you.

Thank you, uh Director Smith for uh granting me the opportunity to speak on behalf of staff.

We're here to answer any of your questions.

We do have representatives as mentioned uh from the health district uh from uh well, I believe Trucky Meadows Fire was here.

I don't know if they're still available, uh, but uh other members of uh of community services are also available uh for to answer your questions.

Um if you have any questions of staff, um also Chris Bronzik, our our senior planner and uh project case expert is also here.

He can uh can assist with those questions as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Next.

Mr.

Chair, thank you, Jeremy for the record.

Next up, we have I believe it's gonna be Ken Crater, or is it it's gonna be Doug to start us out representing uh Wash County's app the applicants, interested party, which are the landowners and representing C Reflections.

Well, good evening.

It's lovely to see you all again.

Um, I'm Doug Thornley, Holland and Hart on behalf of the landowner, the real property, the real party interest here this evening.

Um, I will be brief.

You don't need to hear from me, other than to remind you, as Ms.

Prunty uh just explained.

This isn't a policy decision tonight.

The policy with respect to what the density is on the property, whether or not the property is appropriate for residential development, that stood for more than 20 years.

Um the zoning has to comply with the master plan, the master plan has to comply with the regional plan.

All of those plans, save for the zoning, have been updated several times over the last 24 years.

Um, and in each instance, this project survived and was planned for.

Um within sort of the statutorily defined scope of your review this evening.

Uh Dave is going to come up in a minute and he's going to introduce you to the team of experts that actually did the work on this project.

And I think that's an important distinction when you look at it through the lens of the public comments you're about to hear.

These experts are professionally responsible for this work.

They were on the site, they've looked at the actual site conditions rather than regional studies rather than conjecture rather than extrapolation.

They are intimately familiar with the actual conditions on the site and how the design that is proposed in front of you conforms to the standards of Washoe County and the regional plan.

With that, again, the inemitable Dave Snellgrove.

Good evening for the record, Dave Snellgroup.

I'm the planning manager at Bowman Consulting Group.

This map that you have before you when Dr.

Smith was talking, is talking about development constraint areas in the map to the right, really helps illustrate that.

The red areas are your areas of 30% or steeper, which were identified as being the only areas that were noted to be development constraint.

That equates to approximately 20%.

I think it's just a bit over 20% of the overall site.

What we ended up providing in terms of open space is just over 60% of the entire property.

I'll go on on to that a little bit later as well.

But only 20% of the site has the development constraints, but we're providing much much more open space on the site.

The overall density during the last meeting, there were lots of questions brought up about the calculation density.

We calculated the density initially.

Trucking Meadows regional planning staff calculated the density.

Washa County staff calculated the density.

All came up over a thousand units.

As has been mentioned previously, there was a settlement agreement that capped the number of residential units at 995.

We're at 940.

We're well within the density on the site.

So that you know what this density equates to on the property, because there have been different ways that people are trying to calculate it.

It's 1.24 dwelling in spare acre, is what that equates to on the 760 acres.

As noted by Dr.

Smith when he was going through his presentation, this is in tier three of the regional plan.

This tier three is the area that's in the CM.

This is in the TMSA by being in one of the tiers.

Otherwise, we would be in rural area.

But you can slightly see the uh the striped area.

Uh that is rural area.

You can see where the star is.

We are not in the rural area.

So there have been a lot of people who have gotten gotten up and spoken about this being rural.

This property is not rural.

I'm glad they like that.

And the regional plan I has identified at this site.

The regional plan has identified this site within their uh plans, and that as mentioned again during the presentation by Dr.

Smith.

This has been planned for.

The infrastructure and facilities have been in the modeling that the school district has done, that RTC has done, that all the other agencies have done for future growth.

So this is not an unknown thing.

It's been out there.

It was it was on the books for many years.

This is the zoning and master plan map from Washel County.

The master plan designations on those kind of Tanner Beige areas is all in suburban level designations, not in rural.

Where you do have rural is in general rural.

That covers the steep slope areas that covers the uh Browns Creek and Steamboat Creek corridors and areas such as that.

But the most developable areas, if you go back and think about that slope analysis map, those green areas are zero to 15, those are all in suburban designations.

That's carried over to the master plan, having much of the land, most of that land in uh low density suburban and medium density suburban designations.

Um, we're over 60 percent of the site as common open space.

That's three times what the development constraint area equates to on the property.

Um there's eight and a half miles of trails we have.

We're respecting the culturally significant BNT railroad.

There will be a uh a multi-purpose path and trail along that route, following, I believe, in most instances the whole the whole length of that through the property or virtually the whole length of that.

These areas will be open not only to the residents that are in uh Sierra Reflections, but will also be open to the whole community.

So, in essence, you end up getting a very large regional park that the county doesn't have to pay for.

This will be maintained, owned and maintained by the homeowners association.

We have a team team of experts here.

They didn't get a chance to talk at the last meeting.

Um, but on the go to the first slide here.

We'll have uh various team members get up and introduce who they are, what they've done and their familiarity with the project.

Good evening.

For the record, my name is Ken Crater.

I have basically put together this team that's going to speak to here shortly, this professional team of experts that has their credentials, the experience, and the know-how to do the technical engineering reports, the civil engineering plans that were put together to be able to submit this project to the county, get it approved, and now bring it forward for conformance review.

Uh, this team has folks that I have worked with for decades that I am absolutely confident have the again experience and know-how, and uh you'll be hearing from them in just a minute.

The only person that could not make the meeting tonight is Blake Carter, who's our geotechnical engineer.

So he put something together, and I just want to read this into the record.

Blake D.

Carter is a licensed professional engineer in Nevada, California, and five other states with over 15 years of specialized experience in geotechnical engineering, a 2008 graduate of University of Nevada, civil and environmental engineering program, and recipient of a Master of Science degree in 2012.

Blake has been a licensed professional engineer since 2012.

Through West Tech's Consulting Engineers, which is Blake's firm, he has personally completed or overseen more than a thousand geotechnical investigations supporting land development projects, airports, hospitals, and industrial facilities across northern Nevada.

His expertise includes fault investigations, earthquake faults, and comprehensive site characterization for complex developments.

A key is Chapter 18 of the International Building Code and the Northern Nevada Code Amendments, which establish the foundation for geotechnical investigations.

These codes state that the scope and extent of required investigation shall be determined by the registered design professional and responsible charge, and that site specific subsurface information shall serve as the primary basis for design and construction recommendations.

These provisions ensure that engineering decisions are grounded in actual site conditions rather than generalized assumptions.

Code compliance is a cornerstone of Blake Carter's and West Tech Consulting Engineers' professional approach.

All workers performed in accordance with the International Building Code, American Society of Civil Engineers, seven minimum design loads, and any HRP seismic provisions.

West Tech employs state of the art technology, including the refraction, microtremor, seismic graph with two dimensional modeling to non-invasively detect earthquake faults, identify subsurface layering, and characterize ground conditions to a depth of 100 feet across project sites.

Significant amount of field work was completed in order to properly character this characterize this site and ensure code compliance.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Lauren Chilson for traffic engineering.

Thank you.

Good evening, Lauren Chilson, principal traffic engineer with GCW.

My my experience spans nearly 30 years now as a licensed professional traffic engineer working in Oregon, California, and Northern Nevada for both uh almost every local public agency on their behalf and then also for uh major projects throughout the community.

Just by way of a very quick overview of the traffic study it was mentioned, but it has been uh reviewed and approved by NDOT, including all of its recommendations and findings.

That being uh that NDOT did require that roundabouts be installed at the intersections in accordance with the traffic study.

There's been much conversation about those, um, and understandably, but I will state that an intersection comparison evaluation, a very large study found roundabouts to be the most appropriate solution.

Uh, they're situated on the flattest portions of the highway.

They are adequately sized for trucks, bicycles will be served on the outside uh of the road of the roundabout, and they are the safest intersection type available to us, and that's uh the reasons that NDOT approved that study.

Just for a little additional information, roundabouts are very common on NDOT highways now.

There are over 10 in just in northern Nevada.

There are over 40 roundabouts in the Reno Sparks area, and there are hundreds and hundreds in snow country throughout the northern part of this country.

Uh, over 300 in Minnesota, for example.

We have studied the highest traffic volumes that can occur.

That does not happen during school hours.

You've heard uh you've heard statements about that.

I assure you that we have hired we have studied the highest hour, and it is not during school period, it is during the normal commute periods after the project is built.

Even with that uh being the case, the highway will be ultimately at about half of the volume it was before the freeway was constructed.

I have much more data on that, she's be interested in it.

All of the criteria, all of the policies required by NDOT and Washoe County have been met, and the study uh demonstrates that it's all impacts are mitigated.

Happy to answer questions when you have them.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Amy Meisenikowski, and I work as a project hydrologist with Terry Phase Engineering.

I worked on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this project, and I'm here to discuss our findings.

Terra Phase has extensive experience completing drainage and floodplain studies throughout northern Nevada.

Our role on this project is to evaluate potential impacts to stormwater runoff and flood hazards.

I want to emphasize that our work is not based on opinion or preference.

It is governed by established engineering standards, Washoe County requirements, the Trekkie Meadows Regional Drainage Manual, and FEMA regulations.

All final engineering work must be prepared under the responsible charge of a licensed engineer who is legally responsible for the accuracy and conclusions of the work.

Any proposed floodplain revisions must be reviewed and approved by both Washoe County and FEMA through the Clomar and Lomer processes.

From a technical standpoint, our primary objective was to ensure that the project does not increase flood risk to surrounding properties.

To accomplish that, we performed detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling using current engineering software and updated topographic information.

The project includes on site detention basins designed to reduce peak runoff so that post-development discharge rates remain at or below pre-development conditions.

Our analysis shows peak flows are not increased by the proposed development.

We also evaluated flood elevation and floodplain conditions along Steamboat Creek and Browns Creek.

Our analysis to use newer and more detailed topographic information to refine the understanding of existing flood hazards and develop a more accurate representation of existing conditions.

The creek channels themselves are not being modified, and our modeling indicates that the project can be developed while maintaining pre-development runoff conditions and without increasing flood hazards to adjacent or downstream properties.

Any floodplain revisions remain subject to review and approval by both Washoe County and FEMA.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

Our firm was brought on to review the cultural resource background data for the project to investigate both what has you know been done and what we can find out about the project area through the records that we have on file and both that are on file at the state of Nevada, state of historic preservation office.

Our review indicated that the project area had been surveyed, except for one small portion that won't be developed over the past many years, and that these investigations resulted in the identification of culture resources that were significant.

However, those resources were also subsequently mitigated in coordination with the state historic preservation office.

So in review of that data, builds resources, any significant resources in the area that had been identified through prior like inventories that had been conducted across the entire property were also subject to mitigation.

All that work was done in coordination with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office.

Furthermore, um that review identified that there were no known tribal concerns, but that does not mean that future concerns may arise through additional consultation.

But our review through the desktop review, that was the conclusion.

So thank you.

So there's a lot of more lot more work to be done besides the pictures that you guys are seeing now.

Um, but we are really excited that um this project is going to be preserving the open space, and there's so many opportunities to for the community to connect to that that space um and the nature natural environment.

Ben Clink.

Um I completed the aquatic resource delineation and the biological resource assessment on behalf of UES with help from my team.

Um I've been in Nevada for over 16 years working in natural resources, held positions with the Nevada Division of Forestry, BLM.

I'm a certified wetland delineator by um one of my staff members, uh Dr.

Tessa Banke is a wildlife biologist um that completed the biological resource assessment.

Um for the biological resource assessment.

We evaluated all the resources present on site with um modeled data uh from a desktop review um and compared them against the regulations that apply to the state of Nevada and the United States.

So the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Baldwin Golden Eagle Protection Act, NAC527 and AC530 and other similar regulations.

Um and then we conducted a field study to verify and ground truth findings of those modeled habitats and uh detect presence of any protected species.

Um the findings of that report uh were reported in in uh the the biological resource assessment.

No critical habitat was identified, no state listed species were identified in the area.

Um we did provide a list of mitigation measures to um avoid any conflict of the migratory bird treaty act or protected bats.

Um I think you list you had them listed up on the screen earlier in the presentation.

Um and the aquatic resource delineation uh identified uh I believe 17 potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources.

Uh the aquatic resource delineation is focused on Clean Water Act 404, so waters of the U.S.

Um, and we identified only that the steamboat, the the main stem of the steamboat creek was the a jurisdictional feature.

Um, all other features on the site.

So there's a lot of ditches and artificially irrigated areas would fall out of jurisdiction um under the EPA V sacket uh 2023 conforming rule, which is adopted by the Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District presiding over the state of Nevada.

Do you have any questions for me?

No.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

For the record, my name is Joe McGinley.

I am uh currently a principal engineer with engineering uh universal engineering sciences, UES.

In terms of certifications, I am a Nevada PE.

I'm also a professional geologist and uh Nevada Certified Environmental Manager.

Uh my undergrad degree is geological engineering at a UNR, not the date myself, but 1980.

Uh MS degree in civil engineering University of Colorado Boulder, 1983.

And currently I have well over 40 years of experience dealing with um due diligence site assessments and remedial design here in the state of Nevada.

Um for 20 years, I operated McGinley and Associates, and about five years ago I sold it to uh UES.

So I got involved in this project a number of years ago at the Preston Ken Ken, and we did a phase one environmental site assessment.

And one of the things we noticed is that the EPA designate that potentially some of the site was located within the Carson River Mercury Superfund site.

So we worked very closely with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, the Northern Nevada Public Health, came up with a sampling analysis plan, basically broke the site down into three different zones.

Um zone one was where they would take water from Steamboat Creek and basically flood irrigate it for uh um grown pasture land.

Uh zone two was right along the creek bed, and then zone three was topographically the little bit higher areas of the site.

So we put together an extremely robust sampling plan.

It sampled over 490 some samples, I think, at the site, um, present all that information again to the regulatory agencies, and came up with uh what I feel is a very robust remediation plan.

And so basically what we're gonna do the the in again dealing with NDEP and Northern Nevada Public Health, we came up with what we call standards.

So the standard we use for a residential uh property direct, you know, directly associated with the residential was 7.1 milligrams per kilogram.

And for commercial property, it was 30 milligrams per kilogram.

To put that in perspective, up in Virginia City, right at the source area of the superfund site, their standards are 80 uh parts per million milligrams per kilogram for residential and 300 for commercial.

So the standards at this site are literally 10 times more stringent than what's being held up at Virginia City down into the Carson River and into Dayton.

In terms of the remedial action, we are going to cap all the dig out some of the uh contaminant soils, cap it with clean fill material up to eight feet.

And once that's capped, we're gonna go back, take confirmation soil samples to confirm that we do have that significant amount of capping of the material, and it is in fact clean.

To put that in perspective, we're working on a number of other other projects where we're employing the same remedy, and the cap that we're employing on on those other projects are significantly less.

Up at Comstock, they require two feet of cover.

Some of the other projects we're working on here in the Trucking Meadows region area is four feet of cover.

So again, it's a very robust uh remediation plan.

So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to take them.

Chair and members of the commission, for the record, my name is Kathleen Meyer, and I'm the engineering man manager at Bellman Consulting.

I've been working as an engineer for 26 years, with 23 of those years being licensed.

I'm licensed in the state of California, Nevada, Texas, and a few other states as well.

My engineering degree comes from Calpali San Luis Obispo and graduated in 99.

Um, I've worked on a lot of large residential subdivisions throughout the years, both in California as well as Nevada.

Grading is the key focus of the project, and the majority of the cut and fills are consistent with typical residential development and reflect a deliberate effort to work with the existing landform.

Where deeper grading occurs, it is largely driven by the environmental remediation rather than development intense intensity and portions of the site, particularly the meadow areas, which elevated mercury concentrations exceeding the EPA residential thresholds, approximately eight feet of clean fill is being required to create a protective cap.

As a result, some of the larger fill areas are safety measures designed to meet stringent environmental standards and ensure long-term long-term protection for residents.

The grading approach has been designed to respect the natural train by following existing slopes, contours, and drainage patterns, allowing the overall topographic character, hillside valleys, and drainage flows to remain largely intact.

Concerns about structural features have also been addressed.

And I know that there has been some talk about a retaining wall adjacent to park one.

There is no retaining wall adjacent to park one.

The grading has been developed in coordination with county staff, geotechnical engineers, landscape architects, and the environmental experts.

And this grading strategy emphasizes environmental responsibilities, visual compatibility, and long-term site stability while meeting all regulatory and safety requirements.

I also have a few reports here that discuss both the zoning, I'm sorry, the uh floodplain the hydrology and the sewer.

Thank you.

So the gang's all here.

Um if you if you have questions, I urge you to use them as a resource.

They're the people who've been on the site, they've studied the site, they're legally responsible for the information they provided to Washoe County in their design, and they're legally responsible for the information they provide to you tonight.

Use public comment to guide those questions, but ask the experts who have been on the site.

Don't rely on information that is derived from regional studies, it's derived from information that is not spike site-specific.

Rely on the specific substantial work of these people.

We appreciate your consideration.

Doug, this is Rob.

Are they all gonna be here for after the public comment?

They are here at your disposal.

So when we have questions after public comment, we can ask them, right?

That's right.

Okay, does anybody have any questions right now before we move on?

26 minutes.

Okay.

Um was there any more presentations?

Okay, there's no more presentations.

We're gonna take a 15-minute break before we get into public comment.

So it's 7.39, come back in 15 minutes,

Everyone get started here in just a little bit.

Please find your seats.

Recording in progress.

Recording.

Unmuting right now.

Ready?

Yes.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, it's 755.

We're gonna bring the meeting back to order.

There is one thing that I would like to say is if you guys get out of control one more time, I'm gonna give you one warning, and then I'm gonna have you escorted out.

We're not going to put up with these comments and stuff when people are talking.

This is a public hearing, okay?

We need to respect everybody here.

Please.

Thank you.

Jeremy.

Mr.

Chair, thank you, Jeremy.

So for the record, just logistically before we open the public hearing or the chair does.

We are going to start with uh the two online submissions we have through public comment through Zoom.

One was from the last meeting, and I think there's one new one.

And then what are you know, folks that didn't get to speak at the last meeting, but submitted cards?

We have them ready to go first.

Uh, but given this is the new hearing, everyone gets one one shot at it today.

So if you also submitted to speak today, but you had been waiting to speak the last time, you can choose the timing you want to go.

You don't have to go uh in this first tranche, but what we're trying to do is prioritize the folks that didn't get a chance to speak at the last one.

And there could be a case where someone put a card in uh last time, but maybe they're not here tonight.

And so if we call their name and they don't show up, that that's what's going on there.

But we want to give everyone a chance to speak.

And so if you haven't already and you want to say something, please fill out the card, hand it over to the clerk team, and we will make sure that you get your chance to speak.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, go ahead.

All right, so we're starting with our virtual public comment.

First, we have Iris Gillet Pepard, and then we're gonna be having Beverly Silva.

Okay, we're reopening the public hearing.

So public comment is a go.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Iris Jalie Papard, executive director of One Truckee River OTR, a collaboration of public and private partners focused on the implementation of the One Truckie River Management Plan Phase One, unanimously approved, adopted by the three local jurisdictions in 2016 with a collaboration uh of partnerships of diverse perspective.

Comments provided are not of OTR as a whole, but our OTR is executive director with OTR's mission in mind to share a healthy thriving sustainable river connected to the hearts and minds of its community.

I hear concerns from many educated residents about water quality, wildfires, traffic, and more.

Go be it going beyond the standards are good, but our standards currently are limited.

The best way to protect our local water tape watershed is protect and preserve our natural resources.

Thank you.

Next we have Beverly Silva, then we'll be doing the in-person comment.

Hi, my name is Beverly Silva, and I request that my comments be included in the public record.

Before casting what may be one of the most important votes before you, I respectfully ask that you consider the following questions.

Why has there been such significant public opposition to this development?

And why did the planning commission unanimously recommend against it?

Why does a developer appear to assume that this project is entitled to approve approval based on prior development request?

During the public discussion on May 28th, references were made to legal action in similar cases.

Such statements may be perceived as an attempt to pressure decision makers rather than address the merits of the proposal.

Do public hearings and community inputs carry meaningful weight in this process.

Residents and subject matter experts have invested considerable time researching this proposal, reviewing applicable standards, and presenting testimony about areas where they believe the project does not comply.

Their efforts deserve careful consideration.

Is the developer fully committed to Nevada and to fulfilling the promises associated with this project?

Past experiences raised legitimate concerns.

A prior approved development was never built.

Portions of St.

James Village remain undeveloped more than two decades later.

Additionally, Sierra Reflections and Sierra St.

James Village properties are being offered for sale, which raises questions about long-term commitment, investment, and accountability for this development.

And lastly, would you feel comfortable voting to approve this project given the known mercury contaminant issues?

The EPA has established a Super Sun super fund cleanup process for contaminated sites.

However, the applicants' materials indicate only that they work with outside consultant and northern Nevada Public Health.

As far as I can determine, the EPA was not involved.

You must decide whether that if that level of review is sufficient given the potential long-term health risk associated with mercury exposure, including neurological damage and other serious health consequences that may not become apparent for years after this decision is made.

Thank you for your consideration.

Okay, next we have Brianne Young, followed by Lawrence Kaplan.

Then Justine Petaturovich.

If she calls your name, if you guys could just line up over here, so would one stone, the next one could come up and come up.

It would make us get out of here a little bit earlier.

So we don't hear till two in the morning.

And these next few cards are from the last meeting.

So if people aren't here, we'll just move on to the next name.

Yes, you're perfect.

And if you guys have questions you want us to ask these experts, please bring them up during public comment.

We'll ask the questions.

Regional Planning Commission members, good evening.

My name is Justin Ann Padakovich, and I'm a resident of Pleasant Valley.

I ask that my comments be entered into the record.

As you decide whether to approve or deny the Sarah Reflections project, I urge you to consider the families who will live with the consequences of your vote.

Consider the children who attend Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

Consider their families who will face increased traffic, threats to water supply, heightened fire danger, and recreational areas proposed on or near soil known to contain mercury contamination.

So I ask you plainly, would you personally choose to buy a home built on a federally designated Mercury Superfund site?

Elected and appointed positions are temporary.

The consequences of your decisions are not.

One day you will leave these roles.

If you approve the Sierra Reflections project, the people who will live with the impact will not be the applicants, the consultants, the staff, or this commission.

It will be the families of Pleasant Valley.

This project and the risk it introduces will remain in Pleasant Valley long after this meeting ends.

That responsibility will rest with you.

That is why this decision deserves more than procedural consideration.

It requires requires sound judgment, prudence, and the four to two to say no to a development of this scope and scale when the long-term risks to the community are simply too great.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Is there a Brianne Young or Lawrence Kaplan?

Okay, we'll be moving on.

Um Lee Mueller, Jordan Bowles, Marie Mary Kay Beckin.

We'll see.

Yeah, you're set.

You're good to go now.

You're good to go.

Remember just to state your name from the record, please.

I'm Marica Beck, and I'm an environmental engineer.

Please enter these comments into the record and reference the more detailed comments submitted in the initial portion of the hearing on this topic last May.

This project was previously approved, but that does not make it conform.

Having current and past county staff and commission members avert that it complies, does not in fact make it so.

It was said that this has come up and been approved multiple times over the last 20 plus years.

Residents have complaining, have been complaining about nonconformance over all of this time.

There are several areas of nonconformance that I'm going to talk about.

First, tier three is not part of the urban core, contrary to the developers' May presentation.

Rather, it is one step above straight rural.

Table three of Envisioned Washoe notes tier three maximum density is the existing density.

Proposed homes under this proposal are not there now, so they do not really exist.

Most homes in Pleasant Valley are on lots one acre or more, allowing agriculture, livestock, and horses.

Some project parcels are zoned medium density suburban, one third acre, but the developer uses clustering to make lots only 0.07 acres.

Clustering is to preserve open land, not to bypass zoning and neighborhood character.

Not only does their clustering math include land to be excluded per development code 110.408.45D, clustering has space requirements under section 110.408.25.

The requested variances mimic high density urban clustering instead of medium density suburban clustering.

The proposal is not in keeping with the rural character and land use of the area and does not comply with the master plan.

Second, the master plan aims to reduce vehicle trips and automobile use.

Under elements four and five, the plan promotes land use that reduces sprawl, supporting development within the developed areas at the region's core, especially calling for infilling, which optimizes infrastructure and provides efficient transportation.

This is not infilling.

This is, if not rural, at least pretty close to rural.

I don't know what location you use for your trainee numbers, because the closest location I found when I ran trainee was uh 10,800 trips.

But either way, there will be a significant increase in traffic.

Approaching the level that caused the 580 to be built in the first place.

This is not consistent with transportation element 6, principle 5, which states that you are to use your planning authority to minimize the growth of vehicle miles traveled.

Ice and high wind trucks are a safety concern.

Also, the roundabout will delay traffic on regular days and will make emergency evacuations even slower, a safety issue.

Two-lane roundabouts can increase accidents by 62%, according to University of Arizona study.

Actions with likely adverse safety outcomes are not allowed under the transportation element of the plan.

Third, current water use is above the perennial aquifer yield and is not sustainable, which is a requirement of element 7.

Many area wells ran dry in the last drought, adding 940 homes won't help that regarding the city.

It's generally not allowed to transport water from one hydrologic basin to another, which the city would do as since how more water.

Also note that when the developers spoke to residents in the early 2000s about sewer easements, they specifically said the sewer was for St.

James Village, not for this new project.

That was clearly not true, yet we are to trust what they say now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Jordan Jordan Bowles.

Jordan Bowles.

Okay.

Scott Summer.

Drew Ribar.

Okay, we're moving on to the comment that was submitted tonight now.

Starting with Marge Franson.

Next will be Larry Moulton, followed by Delia Green Greenhawk.

Good evening, Commissioners and Director Smith.

Please enter my comments into the record.

I'm Marge Franson, a former Washoe County and Regional Planning Commissioner.

Thank you for the opportunity to stand before you once again.

You may have my comments from the previous meeting, so I will not be repetitive.

In anticipation of your review of all documents submitted when we first met, presenters will come to you with refined and combined presentations.

We would ask that you please be mindful of the unanimous decision of the Washoe County Planning Commission.

Unfortunately, their reason decision was ignored by the Board of County Commissioners.

Lastly, I ask that the audience be respectful of presenters and the subsequent discussions and decisions of the Regional Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Oh no, it's not yet.

Next is Larry Moulton.

Followed by Delia Greenhung.

Then Salah Sherwood.

Sorry.

I just want to say you have a great staff.

My name is Larry Moulton.

Please include my comments and exhibits in the record.

Regional Coordination Policy RC six covers projects of regional significance.

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

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

This means you can consider the merits and deficiencies.

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, 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 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, threatened species, several endangered species were not identified, and habitats of others were 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 that there is only one road to service over 3,000 homes, and existing public transportation, of which there is none.

Hydrobasin status, overallocation of water resources, and projected pumping at unsustainable levels.

The BCC approved the project with numerous unresolved issues.

One, 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 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 efficiencies of this project of regional significance in order to make a proper determination.

Next is Delia Greenhold, followed by Sala Sherwood and Lisa Dayton.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Delia Greenhall.

Please enter my comments into the record.

At the May 28, 2026 Regional Planning Commission meeting, two presentations on historic preservation were given and entered into the record.

Commissioners present were given individual copies of these presentations.

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

Both references require that culturally sensitive lands and resources be adequately buffered from development.

The applicant has ignored all of these requirements.

The property is so culturally significant that the developer's 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.

However, the applicant's preliminary landscape plan fails to identify and protect any of them.

In fact, it documents their destruction.

The applicant's project narrative describes that besides developed areas, area of open space deserved by collateral construction damage may need to be remade.

This opens the entire project area to disturbance of irreplaceable historic sites.

The application fails to identify and protect significant cultural resources as required.

Finding for natural resources cannot be made.

This application and its current form must be denied.

Next is Salah Sherwood, followed by Lisa Dayton.

Then Claire Holland.

Didn't everybody hear me okay?

Okay.

My name is Salah Sherwood.

Please enter my comments into the record.

At the May 28, 2026 Regional Planning Commission meeting, I gave a presentation about the lack of land use compatibility between Sierra Reflections and the surrounding areas.

You received a copy of this presentation with supporting exhibits, and these are placed into the record.

Here is a summary of this presentation.

Sierra Reflections is not compatible with the existing densities and surrounding land uses as stated in RF policy number 11.

Existing density in Pleasant Valley is one unit per acre plus, and the proposed density of the development of Sierra Reflections is 3.2 units per acre.

3.2 units per acre.

Home agricultural, livestock, and farm animal ownership are common in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Sierra reflections will not be compatible with the surrounding land uses since the small lot sizes of the development preclude agricultural related uses and livestock ownership.

Sierra Reflections does not meet RC9 finding number two regional form.

At this time, the application is not acceptable as presented, so I ask you to deny the application.

Thank you.

Next we have Lisa Dayton.

Then we have Claire Holland and Karen Critter.

Good evening.

My name is Lisa Dayton.

I am an affordable housing developer and a resident of Pleasant Valley for roughly 18 years.

I represent a group of South Valley residents who presented their concerns at the May 28th Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission meeting related to the urban densities proposed in the Sierra Reflections tentative map.

I would like my comments entered into the record.

And I am going to go slightly off my topic here for the benefit of Commissioner Smith, because you did point out that there are currently are no AE floodplains on the property, and that's correct.

I checked the FUMA maps.

But I wanted you to be aware that the stormwater and drainage report proposes creating AE flood zones all along the streambed.

And I wasn't prepared to talk about it, but I do have those maps with me.

So they're all outlined in purple, and I don't have extra copies, but I'm happy to give these to you if you like.

So these are all the areas.

And then if you look at the overview, it basically is the entire Browns Creek and Steamboat stream beds as they exit the lake all the way out to the highway.

So those all become AE flood zones, if that's important to you.

These services are definitely not available in South Valley, South Valley, and are not proposed on anyone's timeline.

We also pointed out that fire and emergency response response times only meet the rural standard of coverage, which is 20 minutes response, while just serving the current population.

This standard is not acceptable once you add a population density of over 2,000 residents in one square mile.

And we provided the statistics from the developer's application to demonstrate that this density level would be met and exceeded.

The proposed urban densities require a standard response time of eight minutes, and this response nine has not been achieved with the current fire and EMS infrastructure.

Thanks.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you like.

Next we have Claire Holland, followed by Karen Critter, then Michelle Moreno.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Claire Holland.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

At the May 28th, 2026 RPC meeting, you listened to presentations about endangered species and migration routes.

You received copies of both presentations with related exhibits, and they were placed into the record.

Here is a summary of these presentations.

The applicant claims no endangered species or their habitats exist on the subject property.

Yet the application includes a letter from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service stating the property encompasses the primary habitat of the endangered Carson wandering skipper.

An RPA map also shows the site to be within the skipper's primary habitat as well as the habitats of the endangered Kui and threatened Lahantan cutthroat trout.

The applicant's failure to acknowledge endangered species violates NRS 503.584, which states the people of Nevada have an obligation to conserve and protect native fish and wildlife threatened with extinction.

The applicant claims no migration routes exist on the property.

However, the RPA's initial review memo states, quote, 100% of the property has interaction with mule deer movement corridors, end quote.

This migration route is also well documented by MDO.

Populations of mule deer have been steadily declining for the last 30 years, and the state wildlife action plan identifies them as a species of greatest conservation need.

The development will add to this decline by constricting their migration route, causing an increase in vehicle deer collisions.

Due to these careless oversights, the application does not meet RC9 finding number four natural resources.

I find Sierra Reflections application is not acceptable in its present form, so I ask you to deny the application.

Next is Karen Krider, followed by Michelle Moreno, then Gail Bowers.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Karen Kreider.

Please enter my comments into the record.

I gave a presentation at the May 28, 2026 RPC meeting showing how Sierra Reflections will increase pollution in Steamboat Creek.

You were given a copy of this presentation and related exhibits, and they were placed into the record.

Steamboat Creek is already the largest non-point source of pollution to the Truckee River and is on the 2024 water quality integrated report list of impaired waters.

This report shows pollution downstream increases 75% as Steamboat Creek flows through more highly developed areas.

The additional pollution caused by construction and subsequent urbanization of 940 homes will further damage the creek.

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

Maintain the quality of the state's waters, mitigate degradation of the state's waters, encourage and support pollution control for all significant sources of water pollution.

The application does not meet RC9 following number finding number four natural resources.

Due to the above issues, the application is not acceptable as presented, and I ask you to deny the application.

Thank you.

Next we have Michelle Moreno, followed by Gail Bowers, then Jeremy Wilkes.

At the May 28th, 2026 RPC meeting, two presentations were given on the inaccuracies and shortcomings of the energy conservation measures in Sierra Reflections application.

You were given a copy of these presentations and they were placed into the record.

The applicant implied that the open space areas would negate the tremendous heat generating capacity of the development.

940 homes continuously running their air conditioners will release 3.87 million BTUs per hour into the environment, increasing air temperature by three degrees.

The heat radiating from the impervious surfaces of roofs, siding, and roads will create an additional 2.5 degree increase.

This will create an urban heat island effect, and the development's heat will easily transfer to adjacent neighborhoods and open space areas.

The applicant stated that the development's compact design would decrease vehicle miles traveled.

This misconception failed to consider the 170,000 plus vehicle miles traveled per day to and from the development.

This would produce 145,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each day.

The application's inadequate conservation measures do not comply with NR policies 12, 13, and 17, and do not meet RC9 finding number four natural resources.

Due to these issues, the application is not acceptable as presented, and I ask that you deny the application.

Next we have Gail Bowers, followed by Jeremy Wilkes.

Then Juice Dreidel.

My name is Gail Bowers.

Please enter my comment for the record.

I am a degreed environmental horticulturist with a background in fluvial geomorphology, recognized as the founder of the restoration of Steamboat Creek in 2001, and the chairperson of the Washoe Story Conservation District back when we hired Jeff Cadega and West Tech to write the Steamboat Creek Restoration Plan.

If the developer would have checked the yes box on question number 28, page nine of the application, and then reached out to the conservation district for assistance regarding the high priority restoration needs of Steamboat Creek for our community.

The boulder field existing in the upper meadow stabilizes the upper watershed by maintaining a grade check, much like a dam would do.

The banks of the upper watersheds are scoured by sloughing off loose rock and soil.

This is nature working at becoming stable.

The only option with a loose and fragile watershed is to give it space down below.

The original proposal for development called St.

James Resort and Conference Center with golf course, hotel, hotel villas, tennis courts, and even a year-round tram up to the ski resort for locals and visitors to share the beauty, joy, and diversity of southern Washoe County together, would much better comply with regional form.

In February 1986, Washoe Valley received 11 and three-quarter inches of rain in 48 hours, and in 97, we made international news.

Eight feet of fill from up on the hill next to a 300-foot wide off-limits stream zone leaves me highly skeptical.

The proposed development does not meet the findings for sustainability and resiliency, specifically policies NR2 and NR4, source water protection areas, and frankly, all NR findings have not been fully considered.

Thank you for your careful discernment and deliberation.

Next is Jeremy Wilkes.

Followed by Juice Dreidel.

Then Cliff Lowe's Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Jeremy Wilkes.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record at the May 28th, 2026 Regional Planning Commission meeting.

A presentation on flooding issues along with a 21-page packet of supporting information was entered into the record.

Committee members who were present were given an individual copy.

The regional water management plan then locates it to the local government.

Table 6-2 drainage code reference for Reno Sparks in Washoe County.

Table 6-2 for unincorporated Washoe County refers to Chapter 110 of the Developmental Code, Article 418, significant hydrological resources as the administrative authority.

Article 418 states that the intent of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and ensure perennial streams are protected and enhanced.

Specifically looking at subsection C, ensuring natural flood control functions of perennial streams, including stormwater retention and slow release detention capabilities are maintained.

Subsection E, ensuring the natural water quality functions are not impacted by existing and proposed developments, as well as subsection H, ensuring no net loss of value, acreage, and function of each different hydrological resource is adhered to.

If the commission is truly intent on abiding by the standards set in the regional plan, the commission must deny this project as this project defies Article 418.

Perennial streams would be destroyed, not protected and enhanced, as stated in the regional plan.

Thank you.

Next we have uh said how to say it.

Juice Ridel, Cliff Lowe, followed by Jay Howard.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time.

I would like to make the following statement for the record.

My name is Joost Rydell, and I have been a resident of Pleasant Valley for 23 years.

I'm a professional hydrogeologist with over 30 years experience working in water resources in Nevada and the Southwest.

In my professional experience with permitting an analysis of impacts on water resources throughout the state, the proposed action by CRF Reflections is not compliant with key federal and state regulations as set out in the Clean Water Act and the NRS statutes.

There is inadequate and incomplete study work that is normally directed and approved by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the EP and EWR, particularly with respect to projects that have the potential to impact waters of the U.S., connected wetlands, and legacy mine impacted land.

Although the project is currently on private land, the proposed action, in fact, promotes public land use of 468 acres in areas of known contamination without completing the prescribed agency processes to obtain permits for public land use, not just the development itself.

Specific natural resource impact studies that have not been completed and exhibited on Exhibit 10.1 are compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

This section covers the removal and placement of fill in streams and wetlands connected with waters of the U.S.

Steamboat Creek, as studies have shown, its old channels and portions of the wetlands are all established as waters of the U.S.

And a majority of these will be removed as the project progresses.

Therefore, the project is not in compliance with the Clean Water Act without an approved Section 404 permit.

There, there is inconsistency with Washoe County Code, Article 418, significant hydrologic resources.

Item H, ensuring no net loss value of significant hydrologic resources.

Studies by the proponent do not account for loss of old stream channels and wetlands, specifically with respect to their ability to absorb flood water.

The loss of wetlands is therefore expected to increase impacts of flooding, contrary to the results of approved Washoe County studies.

For these reasons, TRMPARC9 conformance review findings three and four cannot be made, and I recommend direct application is denied.

Thank you.

Next, we have Cliff Lowe, followed by Jay Howard, then Linda Harrison, I'm going to be going quickly because I have more than the printouts in front of you.

My name is Cliff Lowe.

Please enter my comments into the record.

Here is a summary of the comment that I provided at the May 28th meeting.

Regional Plan Policy PF 1 requires transportation facilities to be available and adequate or planned within the next 10 years.

This project would add six to 8,000 new daily trips to old U.S.

Highway 395.

A corridor that anyone can see is already already has significant safety and capacity problems.

The Davis fire evacuation, voluntary, by the way, demonstrated how vulnerable this roadway is during emergencies.

Policy PF 1 also requires connectivity to existing or planned public transit.

Yet this project is located in rural tier 3 area of Pleasant Valley.

No transit service exists.

A review of RTC plans found no roadway or transit improvements planned within the next 10 years to support this development.

Because required transportation service levels cannot be met through existing conditions or planned improvements, finding three public facilities and services under policy RC9 cannot be made, and this project of regional significance should be denied.

Now I have three questions I think you need to ask yourselves.

What is commissioner asked earlier tonight of the COO from the school district?

Who is going to and who will enforce the traffic restrictions in the school zone?

Why do you think the COO did not directly answer that?

Only said who may, who's permitted to enforce it.

What does it tell you about the safety that's actually going to happen?

If that's an important, a relevant question, the failure to answer it should dictate how you rule.

Density.

A lot of there's been a lot of talking all around density.

The highest density zoning in the whole 970 acres is suburban residential.

Three dwellings per acre.

If this project were being taken on a parcel by parcel basis, and there was no more than three dwellings per acre, I don't think you think you'd see nearly the opposition or the number of people who are actually here tonight.

Now they might not be able to get build 940 homes, but three, they're actually, because of common open space subdivisions, they are proposing as many as 12 dwellings per acre.

That is not in keeping with the existing density.

And last, at the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, one of the commissioners asked Washoe County planning.

Do you have on staff experts to evaluate independently what the experts in the various subject areas presented?

The answer was no.

So you have to ask yourselves, part of your decision, which experts will you believe?

And I have to ask how objective, how objective can the experts be who are paid by the landowner versus the experts, experts that you have on from the organized opposition.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jay Howard, followed by Linda Harrison, then Kathy Murders.

Good evening to the commission and thank you for the time to speak before you tonight.

My name is Jay Howard.

Please enter my comments into the record.

On May 28, 2026, a presentation on traffic concerns was provided and entered into the record.

I will summarize that presentation.

Proposed roundabouts have several common issues.

The roundabouts are inconsistent with rural and scene and the scenic nature of this area.

The roundabouts are of inadequate size for larger vehicles.

These would be low-speed roundabouts.

The grades approaching them could cause vehicles to lose traction during winter weather events.

There are no bicycle lanes.

Recent fatalities have highlighted this need.

This one hits home.

I'm a cyclist out there on the road.

The accident right after it happened on Pawnee Lane.

One life is too many.

There are no separate exit or merge lanes, resulting in reduced capacity in emergency evacuation situations.

Both roundabouts are one half mile apart on old highway 395.

Use of both these areas have been lost in extreme fire events.

Specifically to the Pawnee Lane roundabout, this area floods and becomes impassable during heavy rain events.

Specifically for the East Lake Boulevard roundabout, space constraints due to its location at the top of the hill and the surrounding terrain make the building of a roundabout with required sight lines of distance impossible without flattening and 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 Washa Valley Scenic Byway.

Based upon the issues presented, uh policy RC9, finding three public facilities slash services, and finding number four natural resources.

These findings cannot be made.

This project should be denied until needed revisions can be made, which will greatly improve public safety.

And I would just end with an appeal to not vote to support the motion that's going to be before you soon.

There's just too many unresolved issues here.

Thank you.

Next we have Linda Harrison, followed by Kathy Murders, then Erica Brumer.

Oops.

Hi, my name is Linda Harrison.

I've lived in old Washoe City for 52 years.

First of all, thank you for stopping to say that this plan has been in progress for 40 years.

I knew Roy Ponye and Roy Ponye's plan had nothing to do with Sierra reflections.

So that was a falsehood.

And at a prior meeting, Doug Thornley said that although our comments might be thoughtful, they were not evidence.

These speakers quoted Nevada statutes, master plan rules, traffic and safety goals, and other legal rules and regulations.

They're not, they are so evidence.

And another joke is that the statement that though there are only going to be 62 students at Pleasant Valley Elementary from 940 homes.

At the prior meeting, the fire department spokesman said they're working on an alternative evacuation plan.

Well, folks, there's only one road, so I don't know how you're gonna have a different and to get to I-580 from Washoe Valley would be impossible because that's where the fires come from.

We've had two major fires, and evacuation was a disaster.

You don't seem no one seems to care about the elementary school being isolated, nor does anybody care about the hours it took for us to evacuate, many of whom people who had animals.

And the roundabouts addition of two roundabouts will be catastrophic and deadly.

And you can put a whole bunch of murky dirt on top of Mercury, Mercury.

What the hell?

Sorry.

And the water goes down to Steamboat Creek and into Reno.

And it was stated that Tumwa would provide the water.

Well, it doesn't come from the air, it comes from the ground.

Our wells.

And there is now and will only be one fire station.

And Fire Chief Edwards stated that there were no funds allocated to update the old one or build the new one.

There's no police or ambulance present out here.

The people who seem to support this don't live here or drive here and do not care.

And lastly, you forgot to stop the slideshow last time, and that motion that was on there again this time was there.

You have already decided to approve this.

And the 1922 people that were signatures on the petition that you received, and the 20 working groups, and I'm not one of them.

I am a pain in the butt.

I don't belong to any group.

Who scrutinized everything and all the citizens who have spoken at these meetings do not matter.

A thousand more people could have spoken against it, and you don't care about any of us.

It's all about money, money from permits, inspections, hookups, taxes, etc.

And if you pass this, you should all be ashamed.

And legally, it has been clearly shown that findings two and three of policy RC9, number three, public facilities and services, including transportation and public services, could not be made.

In the Sierra Reflections, Pleasant Valley Development, the proposed roundabouts at the top and bottom of the hill, and the total disregard for public services.

Do not comply.

Next is Kathy Murders, followed by Erica Brumer, then Cameron McSweeney.

Hello, Commissioner.

So if you think we have, you're wrong.

Go ahead.

It would be illegal for us to do that.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Catherine Murders.

Please enter my comments into the record.

A presentation given on the May 28th, 2026 RPC meeting described how Sarah Sierra Reflecti proposes a roundabout at the gateway to the Washoe Valley Scenic Byway that will destroy the gateway ridgeline and the view shed.

At that meeting, you were given a copy of the presentation and related exhibits, and they were placed in the record.

I'm sure you will reserve will be reviewing them.

The following are reminders of the legal protections for this Nevada State Scenic Byway.

Trucking Meadows Regional Plan NR7, local government master plans shall include policies that address visual impact of development on ridgelines to maintain scenic value.

Washoe County Development Code.

Significant natural resources and features shall be protected and preserved, including ridgelines.

Only three of the eight scenic byway managing partners are on the list of reviewing agencies sent to refuse Sierra Reflections application for review.

Next we have Erica Brumer, followed by Cameron McSweeney, then Linda Bell.

Hi, my name is Erica Brummer.

Please enter my comments into the record.

On May 28th, 2026, my presentation was given summarizing concerns regarding the proposed Sierra Flections development and its impact on Pleasant Valley Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood.

And you're clearly not that.

So I apologize if it's not very polished, but I just wanted to say that Mr.

Chilson's, I hope I got his name right, comments about the traffic counts that were uh recorded is true.

They were not recorded during peak school hours.

And I think that that is um kind of a major point in the neighborhood as well as uh regarding safety.

Um pedestrian safety was also identified as another major issue uh by a lot of our uh public comments, um, particularly along Kitts Way, which lacks sidewalks and safe walking space.

Um, although some improvements are planned, uh as uh Adam Cersei from the school district mentioned.

Um they do not provide a continuous safe route for students.

Um, and on that, I just want to add um there's already crosswalks there.

There's already um teachers on duty directing traffic every every morning, uh every afternoon.

Um we we really care about the kids in that neighborhood.

Um, I've lived there for 20 years, and both my sons went to the elementary school.

Um, and not only that, but I work at the school.

And um at one time, there were about 16 students that I personally walked to school in one given year.

Um, and and that's not even including the students that wait at the bus stops, you know, and things like that.

So I just want to say that I was kind of unclear about some of the uh I guess um comments about um the legal part of this where um you're not basing maybe your vote off of the public facilities portion of these findings, and I feel that those are not in compliance, and they should be considered.

Um, they should not be just left to with the local jurisdiction because I think you guys need to take into consideration um children walking and being safe.

Thank you very much.

Next is Cameron McSweeney, followed by Linda Bell, then Kurt Carlson.

Good evening.

Please enter my comments into the record.

My name is Cameron McSweeney, and I am the current president of the Pleasant Steamboat Valley Landowners Association.

I'm actually going to change up my speech, and I'm going to start on the back side.

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 water and septic systems where everyone looks out for each other and residents commute long distances to get basic necessities.

Many residents own livestock, further contributing to the rural lifestyle, the 2040 master plan promotes.

Mr.

Snellgrove just tried to say that the development is not considered a rural area.

That development is specifically in the South Valleys, right between Pleasant Valley and right between Washoe Valley.

So the fact that he is getting up here and blatantly lying to you, that type of behavior is abhorrent and it really concerned me, concerns me with what other lies they have been telling you all night and not disclosing proper information to you about what's really going on.

In addition, NRS 2780177 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.

Now, that NRS statute specifically and exactly describes pleasant and Washoe Valley.

So we are there for a rural preservation neighborhood, as well as the development that the Sierra Reflecti is looking at going into rural preservation neighborhood, not 940 new homes.

Approval of Sierra Reflections by a lace NRS 278-0274-2780284-278-1602780177 and all six of the TMRPA goals listed in the 2024 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan.

Now here's where I really go off the rails.

So have you guys actually considered not taking into account the fire safety and fire lack of fire infrastructure?

All the massive lawsuits that will open the county up to when people start dying if this is approved and another wildfire goes through the area.

When the Davis fire happened, evacuees had to sleep in the Walmart parking lot because cell phone towers were cut.

Residents couldn't call out to figure out what was going on.

Residents didn't know where the fire was.

They thought it was in Tahoe.

By the time we evacuated and got all of our animals out, it was 10 o'clock at night.

I could not find any hotels.

I called every hotel in the area, couldn't find a room.

Got to the point I was driving all over to all the hotels in South Reno.

Nobody had rooms.

Do you want to know why?

Because all over the place they were advertising about low and discounted rooms for fire evacues.

All the residents of Damani Ranch and South Meadows Parkway took those discounted hotel rooms away from the true fire evacuees.

We had nowhere to stay.

We were sleeping in the Walmart parking lot.

We cannot accommodate 940 new homes when fires happen.

Thank you.

Next is Linda Bell, followed by Kurt Carlson, then Elaine Martin McClane.

My name is Linda Bell.

I live in Washoe Valley.

Please enter my comments into your records.

Being that Sierra Reflections Development is a project of regional significance.

Public safety is a very important concern.

According to the goals of the envisioned 2040 master plan at NRS 278-1601, public safety infrastructure, including the new Washoe Valley Consolidated Fire Station, must be in place before approval of this project.

Public safety was one of the most important reasons for the Washoe County Planning Commission's unanimous denial of the proposed Sierra Reflections project.

Fire danger will increase if the lake doesn't receive groundwater.

Washo Lake will go dry.

Input from Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District, Ramsa, and Washoe County Sheriff's Office clearly shows that the focus of expanding these resources is now concentrated north of Reno.

This is very concerning because approval of this proposed project will put even more stress on these agencies' resources, which are already spread thin.

Thus, approval of this project does not meet the findings in section NRS 278.0274 section three contents of the regional plan.

Being the sheriff's office, emergency traffic response was inadequate during the Davis Creek and Little Valley fires.

It took Washoe Valley residents over two and a half hours to evacuate.

Many families, some with large animals, chose not to evacuate for fear their families or large animals could be trapped in traffic jams.

If the winds had shifted in either of the two previous wildfires, people and animals would have been trapped in a fire storm with catastrophic results.

Adding 3,000 more evacuees would only add much unnecessary chaos to an already problematic situation.

Based on the lack of infrastructure, the projected availability of these vital emergency resources and anticipating increased response time, this project does not conform to the envisioned 2040 master plan, nor meet NRS 2781601 requirements for public safety infrastructure being in place.

Thank you.

Next is Kurt Carlson, followed by Elaine Martin, then Mike Sullivan.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Kurt Cowlson.

Will you please put this presentation in your records?

Thank you.

And it just nukes the landscape, right?

We had people trapped, we had civilians cut off.

Like all of the effort was going into life safety and the extra stuff that we had was focused on structure protection.

We weren't going to try and put the fire.

It was just minimizing law.

Had the modeling played out.

I think there were close to 900 homes in the footprint that would have been impacted.

I preached this to the communities.

It's not a matter of if it is a matter of when and how it works.

Period.

The ecosystem has evolved to do this.

Like it's not this piece of ground that we're standing on will burn again.

Here we are.

We're standing on the northern edge of the Davis Fire.

The fire came up on the other side of Mount Rose Highway.

It blew over and spotted Mount Rose Highway in the middle of the night, which is really unusual because usually the winds die down in the nighttime.

And we were really worried that if we weren't going to catch it here at this power line, then this fire would have gone so big and so destructive.

And so if we didn't hold it here, this fire would have gone huge.

It would have burned into uncent forests.

The firefighters wouldn't have been able to stop it.

So this was kind of the last stand.

And we were all so grateful that they were able to stop this fire here.

Because our fires don't always just happen during the summer season.

Some of our most destructive fires around here happen in winter time when we get those dry cold fronts that blow in.

And if there's a fire start on a windy day, it's off to the races.

Next we have Elaine Martin, followed by Mike Sullivan, then Joyce Newman.

My name is Elaine Martin.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

At May 28th, 2026 meeting, I gave a presentation on the Pleasant Valley Hydrographic Basin.

A nine package, a nine-page package of maps and references was placed into the record supporting this presentation.

I hope you reviewed it.

The Pleasant Valley Hydrographic Basin is severely overallocated.

The approval of the future large development projects in it is in violation of regional plan goals statement number two, Natural Environment, which states identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impact of development upon these resources.

Studies by the Nevada Division of Water Resources show the basin is legally committed to 6,036 acre feet.

The total commitment is between 250 and 350 percent of perennial yield when domestic wells are included.

The Pleasant Valley Hydro Basin has a very high long-term vulnerability to groundwater shortage.

St.

James Village and Asante have about 500 undeveloped parcels, which equate to about 232 acre feet.

CR reflections would add another 452 acre feet.

This far exceeds a perennial yield.

Aquifer depletion is already observed.

The Tumwell workwater 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 indicated additional withdrawals of groundwater will exceed the sustainable yield of the basin.

Withdrawing groundwater above the sustainable yields isn't 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 funding for natural resources cannot be made.

Please deny this project.

Also, I want to add nobody asks some of who's responsible if the wells go dry.

Who do we go for?

Who do we go to?

Who do we turn to?

Um you didn't ask, nobody here asked, because you're probably not on wells.

And then the school.

Have any of you drive out there and take a look?

There's just no place for more kids or cars or anything else.

And we're all here because we live out there.

We're concerned.

That's why we're here.

We're not here because of them.

They don't live out there.

They're being paid.

This is their job.

This is our life.

Next is Mike Sullivan, followed by Joyce Newman, then Jim Fellon.

Good evening.

My name is Mike Sullivan.

Please enter my comments into the record.

At the RPC meeting on May 28, 2026, a speech on floodplain preservation was given.

A 15-page package of supporting materials was entered into the record.

Commissioners present were provided the individual copy of the material.

The proposed Sierra Reflections Project violates Regional Plan Goal 2, which states identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources.

The floodplain proposed for development is designated as a natural resource consideration area identified in regional plan map five and policy NR 4.

Four separate natural resource layers overlap the site.

First, the area lies within the FEMA 100 year floodplain.

Second, the floodplain is a critical source of water protection area.

Third, the site lies within a primary habitat of two endangered species and one threatened species.

And fourth, the area is an important wildlife habitat and mule deer mitigation migration care corridor.

The floodplain also presents two additional serious constraints.

There's a significant mercury contamination and is subject to moderate to severe liquefaction hazards.

Rather than preserving the essential natural resource and mitigating development impacts, the applicant proposes to bury the floodplain under eight feet of fill and construct 304 high density homes.

This approach directly conflicts with all three natural resource objectives of the regional plan, protecting natural resources, limiting development impacts, and identifying and conservative, conserving environmental sensitive areas.

For these reasons, finding four natural resources under policy RC9 cannot be made.

The current application is not in conformance with the regional plan and should be denied.

Thank you.

Next we have Joyce Newman, followed by Jim Felon.

Then Beth Schuler, good evening, commissioners and Dr.

Smith.

My name is Joyce Newman.

I'm a graduate of Mackey School of Mines and worked as an exploration geologist in Nevada and throughout the West for two international mining companies.

I also was the first administrator of the Nevada Division of Mineral Resources.

I testified at the May 28th hearing and submitted a 50-page report showing the inadequacies of the geological reports that were filed by the applicant who failed to address adequately the seismic and liquefaction risks at the project.

But I'd like to digress just for a moment with respect to the visual that was put up early in the presentation regarding the definitions of public facilities.

It glaringly a limit did not include fire and other public safety facilities.

And I'd like to refer you to NRS 278157.

And I'd actually like to quote some of that for you.

Says infrastructure and public facilities means facilities and the structure or network used for the delivery of goods, services, and other public safeties.

The term includes without limitation, fire police and flood protection.

So the fact that the there's been no and other people have commented on this.

Fire is a major consideration out there, and it hasn't been uh addressed by the applicant.

With respect to the seismic and liquefaction risks, um the applicant stated that they conducted near surface and technical investigations only to assist in excavation activities, not to evaluate seismic and liquefaction risks.

And you know, geology is an evolving science.

It changes, you know, as you all know.

Um they ignored more recent significant data that addresses those seismic and liquefaction risks.

I believe the commission should deny this appeal for these reasons.

NRS 278-349-3 requires the governing body or planning commission shall consider physical characteristics of the land.

TMRP RC9 finding four cannot be made.

Applicant did not adequately address impacts of the project on natural resources.

The application fails to comply with code sections 1104, 1582, and 42420 C3 requiring a site analysis ongoing over.

Anyway, the application violates Section 608 of the code.

Um it not the applicant acknowledged the areas in the in the an area of greatest severity for potential shaking, but they don't act, they don't adequately address the seismic and liquefaction risk.

The great risk to the public, I should mention.

They suggest 13 times they should be consulted during construction about those things.

But that's a little bit.

Anyway, I thank you for your next is Jim Fellon, followed by Beth Schuler.

Thank Kelly Dean.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Jim Phelan.

Please enter my comments into the record.

At the May 28, 2026 Regional Planning Commission meeting, two extensive technical presentations on mercury contamination and remediation were entered into the record.

Commissioners who were present received individual copies of this material.

Hopefully, you've had a chance to review them.

The testing performed, or I'd like to summarize these highlights without going through them point by point as was presented before.

The testing performed by the applicant to determine the level of mercury contamination was incomplete due to inadequate testing methods.

40 of the 225 test locations were not tested to the full eight-foot depth.

58 parcels lack proper test data to ensure public health and safety.

No testing was performed on trails, which would be heavily used by the public.

The safety level to the public has not been determined.

The trail plan, therefore may be flawed.

No testing was provided for the streambed.

13 sites seems to have been excluded from testing.

Prior studies have shown high levels of mercury and methyl mercury in both streebed and stream bank sediment.

The applicant intends to channelize Steamboat Creek.

The contamination pushed downstream due to the increased water depth and velocity with associated stream bed scouring will cause significant problems with health and the habitat of threatened and endangered species.

Destruction of the floodplain will eliminate this natural function, which will cause all contamination to be pushed further downstream towards residential areas in the Chucky River.

The applicant's proposals in the current plan create serious health and safety issues in the region.

It does not comply with the regional goal two, which protects essential natural resources and mitigates the impact of development.

RC9, binding four, natural resources cannot be made.

Thank you.

Next we have Beth Schuler, followed by Kelly Dean, then Judy Coulter.

Do I have it in the wrong spot?

Good evening.

My name is Beth Schuler.

I'm a business owner and a mother of three and live in Steamboat Valley with my husband.

Please enter my comments and exhibits into the record.

This presentation continues the subject of mercury contamination and remediation, which was presented into the record by a certified geologist at the May 28th meeting.

The applicant proposes to excavate the most highly contaminated soil from the floodplain and redistribute it into non-contaminated areas.

This map shows areas to be excavated in red.

Areas where contaminated soil is to be dumped are in green.

Contaminated soil will be placed under two community parks.

These are outlined in yellow.

Contaminated soil will be placed immediately adjacent to parcels for homes.

And two areas at the bottom of the steep slopes, heavy rainfall could cause contamination to wash back into residential arrows.

Shown by the blue arrows.

The project is phased over many years.

The contaminated soil excavated from floodplain in phase two will have to be stored in some cases for years before capping, as it's going to be used in later phases.

The ability to stop the spread of this stored contamination seems problematic.

Grading plans do not support timely capping of contaminated soil.

According to public health, clean areas which are intentionally contaminated will have to be marked by signage and deed restricted to prevent future use.

Proper remediation would have this soil shipped to a proper mercury waste side repository.

Only clean fills should be used in non-contaminated areas on the site.

The applicant is supposed to be remediating mercury contamination.

Instead, they are spreading toxic materials into clean areas.

This is out of compliance with regional plan goal two, natural environmental, which requires mitigation of the impacts of development on land resources.

The applicant's action is irresponsible and dangerous to our public health.

It is out of compliance with objectives one and two of the natural resources section of chapter three, policy RC9 finding four.

Natural resources cannot be made.

Commissioners, thank you for your service, and thank you in advance for denying this application.

Next is Kelly Dean, followed by Judy Coulter.

Then we have Mark Toomey.

Good evening.

My name is Kelly Dean.

Please enter my comments into the record.

A little rehash of what I did last time, just talking about the park and that it covers over with the mercury and some of the things on there.

So obviously that hit a note on something.

Fortunately, she's not, and I don't know.

Let me get some rules here.

Am I able to ask the applicants questions?

No.

So you guys need to ask them that.

Okay, good.

Okay, so for the lady in blue, what do you call that then?

Because in your plan, it shows that uh right there in it, it says 12-foot retaining wall, as defined in that by the contours that run right along the creek there.

So if we can do that, then um we had another thing on there.

That wall extends out into the meadow there some, which uh one of their folks said, well, that's not waters of the U.S.

And uh according to their own study there, it says that those are the waters of the U.S.

that do not allow it to be developed.

So they need to answer that question if we can do that.

And then um, I don't am I able to ask questions to the to the commissioners themselves.

We're not supposed to answer.

Have you guys been out there driven by there?

Um the thing on the fire is hilarious.

Uh they talked about the Davis fire, but the 2015 winter wildfire that started on, I believe January 12th, burned from Washoe City right across this right here.

In it's ironic because if you look up at it, you'll see where there were four houses and there was an antique fire truck there.

The antique fire truck is still there.

The wh the houses were burned up.

And if you look at this area right here that she has on her map, that's the density that fire burned right down that hill across that field and burned.

I think it was 14 other houses in Pleasant Valley.

Um, so that fire danger is very real, very much so in the wintertime there.

So uh on that.

And then uh the only other thing I have is um can I ask Jessica a question?

No, I can ask it.

Okay, well, I'm just gonna assume that I'm right on this.

I was a sergeant with Reno PD for 30 years.

I my expertise is in common sense, and uh in criminal law, you found this is civil law.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Time's uh sorry civil law is the preponderance of evidence.

And take me thank you.

Next we have Judy Coulter, followed by Mark Toomey, then Bob Rusk.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Judy Coulter.

And please enter my comments into the record.

I'm a long-term resident of the Steamboat Valley, which is a little north of Pleasant Valley.

Um, and at the regional planning commission meeting on the 20 May 28th, I made a presentation on hillside development and grading that was placed into the record.

I hope you had a chance to look at it.

Um states that essential natural resources and environmental quality must be protected, and the impacts of development on these resources must be mitigated.

The applicant proposes to move nearly 4.5 million cubic yards of soil with cut and fill depths approaching 70 feet.

Large portions of the site would be regraded to broad terraces with approximately 3% slopes to accommodate a cookie cutter manufactured residential development, not a hillside development.

The action conflicts with hillside development grading standards, which require that grading shall relate to natural topography, maintain the existing terrain to the greatest extent possible, avoid standard pad grading and terracing, and preserve the natural character of the landscapes.

In addition, the project proposes to bury portions of a 100-year floodplain beneath eight feet of fill.

Policy NR4 identifies this area as a TMRPA natural resource consideration area, a critical water source protection area, and habitat for endangered and threatened species.

County standards in compliance with policy NR8 wildlife habitat specify that grading within environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall occur only when necessary to protect, maintain, enhance or restore the habitat.

Because the application does not comply with these mandatory requirements, finding number four, natural resources cannot be made under RC9 conformance review standards.

And just out of curiosity, why do every housing, why does every housing development in this trucky meadows have to look the same?

You know, the hillside can be developed as a hillside.

And it doesn't have to be this high density manufactured look, which is going to be detrimental to that scenic byway.

Thank you.

Next is Mark Toomey, followed by Bob Rusk, then Aaron Sutherland.

I'd like to start by acknowledging Director Smith's comments regarding the matters over which this body has purview.

Thank you for that.

At the Regional Planning Commission meeting back on May 28th, a presentation on hillside development placement was entered into the record, and each commissioner was given a copy of that.

Regional Plan Goal 2, as previously stated, is to identify and protect essential natural resources and environmental quality and mitigate the impacts of development on these resources.

The applicant's preliminary landscape plan shows extensive grading to create nearly flat building pads, which destroy the natural sloping terrain.

Building location standards state that the development should be compatible with existing hillside and vegetation character structures should be located on the natural slope of the land rather than on man-made pads and terraces.

Multiple structures should be arranged in staggered patterns with height variations to avoid a walled appearance.

Building design standards state that building design should minimize alteration of natural landforms and encourage split pad and step foundations that follow the natural slope rather than extensive padding and terracing.

Lastly, the developers' representatives have characterized the majority of this project as non-rural.

However, public service standards in the proposed area are being measured under rural standards.

And this seeming conflict hasn't been addressed by any of the bodies in which we've spoken.

And fails to conform with the policies and goals of the Mills Regional Plan.

You've been through that a hundred times already.

All well paid by the developer, and they're doing a great job in behalf of the developer.

And by the time they got done making all their presentations, I thought, well, heck, if I was you guys, I'd say this project's approved.

But wait a minute.

There's a whole group of folks right by here behind me, just the peons in the area.

That's one knee.

And where what do we do?

We we are the public.

We are the public that has to live with the development.

Nobody on your seat has to live with the development.

And so there's some consideration for the people that have spoken to you here tonight, should be taken as seriously as the by the experts, the engineers who made their presentation.

In conclusion, this project in its current form is at conflict and failed to confirm, conform to the goals and policies of the 24 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

It seems you could rely on the Washoe County Planning Commission, who are the experts on the county after all, who unanimously denied this project.

Please follow their suit.

If somebody said something, you don't necessarily have next we have Aaron Sutherland, followed by William Naylor, then Jessica Hoffman.

For the record, please uh load my comments and slides provided.

Please uphold uphold the unanimous decision by the planning commission to deny this application for zero reflections.

Now vice president of the pleasant steamboat landowner association, representing three hundred and twenty homes and eleven businesses that all seek your denial of this application.

Fifty-one percent of the homes between Highway Four Thirty One and East Lake Boulevard all have large animals on them.

But we're talking about disturbing a super fund site, which is upwind and upstream of Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

So I can't believe we're even talking about this right now.

When it gets to the traffic, the north facing slopes, so the northbound two lanes on 395 will result in multiple accidents.

Right now we're at 1.3 per snow event.

And you got a 7% grade right there for the northbound lanes.

We've had six fatalities in the last 24 months between East Lake Boulevard and 431.

And that's with your six to 8,000 vehicle count.

None of these vehicle counts take account for when I-580 is closed for emergencies or high wind events or fires.

I don't know if this is going to show.

That's at the bottom of Pawnee Lane where you're talking about putting the northbound um roundabout.

These are the last two wildland fires, the one previously discussed in January 2012.

The head of that fire moved across the valley at over 40 miles an hour.

Your development is right there and there.

I have personal experience of witnessing over 85 people die at the fire in in pleasant, uh excuse me, uh uh at Paradise Valley.

Uh unable to do whatever you guys approve that you're going to create something.

Next, we have William Naylor, followed by Jessica Hoffman, then Shannon Taylor.

The presentation this presentation addresses the conditions of approval document for the Sierra Reflections application.

This document is 25 pages long and contains around 200 conditions.

Conditions of approval are referred to as COA, are requirements that are added to the project in order to make it acceptable.

Although extensive, the COA put on the Sierra Reflections project is incomplete and fails to address the many shortcomings of the application.

Wildlife and Habitat.

Habitat mitigation reports were required to be submitted for the entire project with a tentative map application.

They were not.

COA now require an endow mitigation survey, as Jeremy said, prior to recording the final map.

The final map can be as small as five parcels.

The needed regional perspective and proposed solution is not implemented.

COA addresses a survey for the monarch butterfly habitat.

This was never in the original application.

The application and COA fail to acknowledge the existence and habitat of true endangered and threatened species, which you have been briefed on.

Grading.

The grading issue is contradictory.

Northern Nevada Public Health can allow mass grading within a with a permit approval on the tentative map.

Other areas allow grading only after approval of a final map.

In all cases, the application and COA totally fail to address restrictions on grading mandated by the development code Article 424 Hillside in all cases.

Significant hydrologic resources.

The application and COA do not adequately address flood preservation and preservation of hydrologic resources.

As you were briefed, this is required by the regional water management plan.

Through development code Article 418, significant hydrological resources.

You've been briefed on this.

Next we have Jessica Hoffman, followed by Shannon Taylor, then Richard Stone.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Jessica Hoffman.

I'm a resident of Washoe Valley and a very concerned citizen.

And my children attend Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

I found an article on the internet and I wanted to share it with everyone today.

Reno and Washoe County aren't being felled by growth.

They're being felled by how growth is managed.

Families are paying more, traffic is getting worse, and too many decisions are made without fully considering the people who already live here.

That has to change.

I'm not against development.

I'm against bad development.

For too long, we've approved projects that outpace our roads, strain our water, and ignore neighborhood compatibility.

That's not planning.

That's reacting.

Growth must follow infrastructure, not the other way around.

If a project can't meet clear standards for traffic, water availability and public safety, it should not move forward, period.

Water is our most limited resource, and yet we continue making decisions as if it's unlimited.

In Northern Nevada, that's reckless.

Every major project, especially high demand uses like industrial facilities and data centers, must prove it won't burden existing residents.

That includes real accountability for water use, power demand, and long-term impacts.

Residents should not subsidize growth through higher utility bills or declining quality of life.

Public safety is another area where we must draw a firm line.

Supporting law enforcement, fire services, and emergency response is not optional.

It's the foundation of a functioning community.

But safety also means addressing homelessness with clear expectations, coordinations, and accountability.

Compassion without structure isn't a solution, it's avoidance.

What frustrates residents most isn't just outcomes, it's the process.

To many people, uh to many people, decisions are made before they ever have a chance to speak.

That erodes trust.

I believe in transparency that is real, not performative, clear communication, accessible meetings, and decisions that are explained and justified, not buried in reports.

We also need to rethink what economic development really means.

It should mean opportunity for local businesses, good jobs, residents, and projects that contribute to the community, not just consume resources.

If a project drives up costs, strains infrastructure and gives little back, it's not economic development, it's a bad deal.

No, I don't want to get cut off.

So I'm going to say that this was written by Commissioner Pierce.

Um, and I don't mean to single you out, but I thought this piece was very pertinent to the situation.

Um, and that's why I'm bringing it to this committee.

Um, I want um all the other members of this body to really take it to heart and ask yourselves can you legitimately answer the following questions in a favorable way?

Will this development make traffic even worse?

Are you considering the residents who live in the surrounding areas?

Is this a bad development?

Will it strain the water supply?

Does it ignore neighborhood compatibility?

Does the growth follow infrastructure?

Is public safety adequately protected?

Will this project burden existing residents?

Will this project increase power demands?

Will there be long-term impacts to the residents because of this project?

Will there be declining quality of life for the residents?

Is there enough law enforcement EMS fire services for new and existing residents?

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Shannon Taylor, followed by Richard Stone, then Linda Fisher.

All right, good evening.

My name is Shannon Taylor.

Uh, please enter my comments into the record.

I was born in Nevada, raised in Washoe Valley, and my family and I currently live there.

I have brought my daughters here tonight to teach them a valuable life lesson.

The lesson is that sometimes it doesn't matter how many good-hearted common sense and logical people come together for a cause.

What matters in some situations is who has the power to influence people's decisions.

This project has come this far because of people who have no attachment to or knowledge of our South Reno community, wildlife habitat, or community resources.

Whether that being recent or many years ago, when this was first approved, Planning Commission, you are here because you can change this and change that expired decision.

This development allows public access to sensitive wildlife areas.

Wildlife does not survive in congested areas with excessive disturbances.

Wildlife does not live in a park.

Washoe County School says that Pleasant Valley Elementary has the room for these students.

We have seen what Washoe County has to say.

Washoe County has put modulars in all in school playgrounds.

These are not classrooms.

They are holding tanks for children in a school district that is already ranked one of the worst in the nation.

Please don't think that's okay.

It is said that traffic will be okay.

Is that what the North Valleys and Spanish Springs residents were told as they sit and stand still traffic every day?

That is not okay.

The argument that is okay to continue with the project because it was approved years ago is very invalid.

Please remember that many years ago it was good or okay to smoke cigarettes.

Many years ago, numbing babies' gums with cocaine for teething was okay.

The FDA approved Fenfin and Redux as use as a weight loss drug until they discovered at length that it killed people.

That was not okay.

This project is determined to be okay.

Now in the light of growth in the areas, fires that continue to devastate the area, the knowledge of historical sites, the knowledge of mercury in the ground that could be stirred up and reach the waterways and further poison our lakes and fish, the lack of water resources, the potential for emergency situations involving the school that will leave many school students trapped in a small fishbowl, along with the residents that may lose their lives or watch all their hard work burn to the ground because of lack of exit routes in this community.

The list goes on and on.

It needs to be noted in the light of new findings.

This project is in violation of multiple revised statutes.

Please, I beg you to do what's right to my girls in the next generation.

Be painfully aware of who you vote for.

Rally, speak up, and try to stop the corruption before you vote them in.

Next is Richard Stone, followed by Linda Fisher, then Kristen Field.

Good evening.

My name is Richard Stone, and uh tonight you've heard uh two uh very different claims uh about this a lot of presentations.

One side claims Sierra Reflections is a development fully compatible with the master plan and the surrounding terrain and the surrounding uh homes, and the other says provides a lot of evidence, says it's not.

Well, your job here is to figure out what is true.

They both can't be true.

One is reality, one is not.

It's your job to figure it out.

What is the truth?

Consider the evidence carefully, and also listen to your gut.

Most people are initially are uncomfortable with the idea of building urban development and urban lots in a rural area and averaging them with the surrounding area to artificially make it look like they meet the requirement for the lower density.

But wait, there's a loophole that allows that.

Oh, but I ask you does reality need a loophole?

Think about what reality is here.

They say the county commissioners already approved this.

Well, actually, it was contested three to two vote.

And the staff was asked how they could say that it was in compliance, and they said, Well, we added well over a hundred additional conditions and constraints to try to make it appear to comply.

Remember, their job is to get it across the finish line.

But I ask you if this development were in compatible with the plan, where there we need to be over a hundred additional conditions for it.

So, and I'll have to say here, thanks to the developers, they've actually uh given me an idea.

I wasted my time at university studying physics.

I should have taken business.

I can come up with a bad business plan that I will present to you now, based on the same logic.

I own 1.6 acres of land in Washoe Valley.

I did some quick math and I discovered that it's almost 70,000 square feet.

And another little math will tell you that I could put 23 3,000 square foot lots on that my 1.6 acres.

But you say, wait a minute, there's a five-acre minimum lot size limit in Washoe Valley.

No, no, no.

Looky, behind my house, I live right up against my property backs up against scripts management and uh the state park.

There's over 8,000 acres of open space and public lands back there.

I don't even have to do the math to say that I could average my 23 lots over that uh 8,000 acres and be in compliance.

But that's preposterous, you'd say, and I would agree with you.

It's a very poor business plan if I think I'm gonna get rich doing that.

But if you'll let me do it, I could make a lot of money.

I've already figured that I could probably increase my investment tenfold by doing something like that.

It's not, it's a we should not as we should not have to pay.

Next is Linda Fisher, followed by Kristen Field, then Rob McArthur.

Okay, we're gonna give this a try.

This is a little different trail.

My name is Linda Fisher, and I am a resident of this community.

Tonight I would like everyone in this room to remember that this discussion is not simply about a housing development.

It is not about zoning and it is not about density.

It is about risk.

And most importantly, it is about who bears that risk.

Mercury is one of the most dangerous neurotoxin known to science.

When we talk about disturbing the land in and around a historical mercury mining site, such as the one in Pleasant Valley, we are not discussing an ordinary construction project.

We are discussing the possibilities of mobilizing contaminants that can move through soil, air, water, fish, wildlife, and eventually into people.

Once mercury enters the environment and food chain, the damage cannot simply be undone.

Mercury does not stay where it starts.

It moves, it accumulates, it becomes more concentrated as it moves up the food chain.

Tiny aqua organisms absorb it.

Small fish eat those organisms.

Larger fish eat the smaller fish.

Birds eat the fish.

Wildlife consume contaminated prey.

And eventually people become exposed.

Scientists call it biomagnification.

Parents call it fear.

Because when mercury reaches children, it can affect brain development, learning disabilities, memory, attention, and nervous system functions.

The question before us tonight is not whether mercury is dangerous.

The science has already shown that it is.

The question is whether we are willing to take that chance with our watershed, our wildlife, our children, and our grandchildren.

The Turkey River is not just a river, it is a part of it.

The life flood of northern Nevada.

What happens upstream eventually affects communities downstream.

What happens today can affect future generations.

If there is any uncertainty about this, please error on the side of caution and put this project on hold.

Because once the contamination is released, there is no unwinding button.

We cannot put mercury back into the ground.

We cannot unexpose ourselves and our children.

And with that knowledge comes responsibility.

Next we have Kristen Field, followed by Rob McCarter, then Cindy Stevens.

And I'm not going to cover everything that I was going to talk about in the interest of time and duplicity.

So we've we've owned our home on Cedar Lane in Steamboat Valley since September 2011.

We know what a rare treasure this is, so close to a bigger town with conveniences.

We felt confident this precious way of life was secure, given the master plan that would secure it.

Having moved to Reno from Southern California, I have seen the sprawl of development creep up and overtake hills and wildlife, turning small two-lane roads into superhighways, turning people into stressed out speed freaks, getting from here to there in hours of traffic.

In summary, I am one of hundreds and hundreds of citizens who find the Sierra Reflections proposal out of line in countless ways.

So, council, I implore you to act on our behalf on behalf of the rural wildlife to protect this precious valley and rare jewel that Steamboat and Pleasant Valley are, and uphold the spirit and law of the master plan.

Thank you.

Next we have Rob McArthur, followed by Cindy Stevens, then Paul Sonard.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Rob McCarter.

I live in Pleasant Valley.

And I would like to first of all thank Dr.

Smith for your presentation.

This is my first appearance at uh this kind of a meeting.

And I would also like to thank Mr.

Pierce for your candor in saying that you have not yet made up your minds.

I appreciate that very much.

Uh what I have in on paper is far too long for my three minutes.

Um I hope everyone can see this.

This is a traffic circle at Naval Weapons Center China Lake, California.

Uh, it is 300 feet in diameter.

I lived at China Lake for the first 41 years of my life, or most of it.

And even with thousands of civilians, scientists, military personnel, and this being a single lane roundabout.

I have never seen more than three or four cars stacked up behind it at any one given time.

In contrast, this is a Google Earth shot of the toll road and 341 traffic circle.

I didn't plan this.

There are 13 vehicles stacked up waiting on a double lane traffic circle that is only 195 feet in diameter, and has an obstructive mound of dirt and rocks, supposedly artistic, blocking the view.

The proposed traffic circle at Pani Lane does not have, to my way of thinking, that much room, even for a hundred and ninety-five-foot diameter circle.

This homeowner would probably seriously object.

You have a similar situation at East Lake, where this homeowner is probably far enough away, but there is a high spot here and it slopes steeply down to the lake level.

Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

This outlet from Carriage Drive will be so close to that traffic circle that it will be essentially unusable.

And I would like to thank Mr.

Chilson for pointing out that my numbers that I used in estimating this were woefully inadequate.

The numbers of traffic count that he's proposed far exceeds what I've done.

Thank you.

Please enter my records and my comments into the record.

Have a good evening.

Next we have Cindy Stevens, followed by Paul Shawnard, then Andrea Nichols.

Good evening.

My name is Cindy Stevens.

Uh, please enter my comments into the record.

I have lived in Warshow Valley my entire life.

I was the first class in Pleasant Valley.

They opened that up my second half of my second grade.

So Warshow Valley is near and dear to my heart.

You guys will make a decision and you'll go on your way, but we have to live with your decision.

So I implore you to please listen, not just to the paid experts and um listen to our experts as well, because they have done a lot of work.

I'm so very proud of our community, that hard work that they have put into this.

The roundabout that he was just talking about, I don't know about you, but I've been on Warshow Hill in the middle of a snowstorm, and a roundabout at the top of the hill is going to be very dangerous.

It will also be very dangerous at the bottom of the hill.

My parents fought very hard to get that barrier up because there were so many deaths on that Warshow Hill.

So I please implore you to deny this.

The mercury mitigation has not been adequately addressed, as been has been mentioned before.

The dark skies that we love so much, the stars.

We're not going to see stars anymore.

We're going to see city lights.

That is not what Warshow Valley is about, or Pleasant Valley for that matter.

My well water is highly at risk.

Right now, you guys have mentioned that Tumwa has a plan to recharge the system.

What happens in the years of drought?

Where's that recharge going to come from?

And we live in a desert.

We have so much water, and bringing more people into this situation is not going to be acceptable.

Somebody had mentioned that they're making it look beautiful.

Well, making it look beautiful does not fix the mercury issue.

It doesn't fix the dark sky issue, the traffic issue, the water issue, the fire, the insurance, the bird migration.

All those issues have not yet been addressed.

I'm going to close with this.

I came here, and again, Mr.

Pierce, I want to thank you because my thought was that you are not going to listen to what I have to say, and this is a sham.

So I appreciate that you said that you have not made up your mind yet, because I am going to pray that my statements and the statements of all these awesome people do not fall on deaf ears.

Thank you.

Next we have Paul Shonard, followed by Andrea Nichols, then Judy Price.

Council, thanks very much for the time to be here.

This is not something I've ever done.

I'm a local resident, born and raised here and grew up in this area, and it's uh shocking to me to see this evolution of our both of our South Valleys, but also North Valleys and the entirety of Northern Nevada.

Um as a local and as somebody who's been around a long time, there have been really, really big impacts on our community, and this I think is one of them.

Um I would ask that my comments be a part of the record.

Uh, I'm not part of any organization.

I'm a local business owner.

Um, I feel silly for being up here with a whole lot of people with really significant amounts of expertise, not just on the development side, but on the presentation side.

You've heard some incredible information.

Uh I have a lot of respect for their opinions.

Again, thank you for my time to speak ours.

I appreciate the energy that you're going to put to this and the attention that you put to this because I think it's incredibly important on the impact on our local community.

I'm not an expert.

I'm not a specialist, however, I am a local homeowner in that area, and I've been in this valley uh essentially for the entirety of my life, other than traveling around the country to do medical uh education.

I've been involved in three evacuations in that area.

It's a real serious issue when all of a sudden a lightning strike comes down or something happens and it's 300 yards from your house.

Um I have the best the uh blessing of being here for over 60 years and have really seen the development in Truckie Meadows massively evolve when you think of Moana Lane as the end of Reno as a kid.

It's not the end of Reno anymore.

When you go through DMoney Ranch being 1,100 acres of wetlands, Army Corps engineer comes back in a few years later, and now all of a sudden it's 11.

That's a big development that's now happening in our valley, and that's our concern.

Um I would ask you to consider the local people who live there.

This is this environment, as you've heard for this other young lady come up and say, this is about a choice, and then she chose from Southern California, but that is a choice that people have made in living there, and that's the biggest thing I'm asking you to consider in terms of this decision.

It quantitatively changes that region, and it's continuing to happen throughout here in Reno.

The high density conversion, we've already got high density housing off of 431.

Um, it's now converting out into our area.

Um I ask you the question who really benefits from this, because I'm gonna offer to you that it isn't us that live there, it's others from elsewhere, and if this is an appropriate place to put 941 homes, then do it.

I respectfully request that you deny this uh proposition.

Thank you for your time.

Next is Andrea Nichols, followed by Judy Price, then Kevin Burroughs.

Good evening.

For the record, I'm Andrea Nichols.

Please enter these comments into the record.

Uh many of us are here today to point out the myriad ways that this Sierra Reflection Subdivision proposal does not conform to the master plan.

We're pointing this out to you whose job it is to perform the conformance review for projects of regional significance, which this clearly is, especially to those of us who live here.

There are many ways this development fails to meet the master plan.

The Mercury assessment is limited and the mitigation approach is flawed.

Floodplain issues are disregarded as our earthquake fault lines.

There's no area infrastructure to support a development of this size.

The amount of mountain arrangement rearrangements will likely have a significant impact on the visual as well as the water flows.

It ignores the vast amounts of water that will need to be pumped from wells, since as yet there is no Tamwa water for dust mitigation for a proposal of this scale.

Say that the plan is to just uh hook up to sewers that are 3.5 miles away.

Um, I think you really need to ask a little bit more about how that's actually going to come about.

And then also, St.

James Village, which is right behind where this development would be, um, was supposed to hook up to that sewer system or to hook up to sewers when it was developed.

It never did.

So it really needs, it's really something that needs to be addressed.

Um, along along with the potential impact um on those of us who live there who rely on our wells.

Um, the purpose of the master plan is to ensure that development is in keeping with the character of the various parts of the county.

That includes the rural and semi-rural character of the area proposed for this project.

We are not in the city.

Hopefully, we will never be in the city.

We do not want the density of the city.

Designated many of these parcels, medium density suburban was a prior compromise with the city, but they were not designated high density suburban, much less any version of urban, which is what the net effect of the clustering proposed will be.

Teeny tiny lots with large houses and no yards, significantly increasing heat islanding and water runoff, which will further decrease aquifer recharge in an area where residents depend on the aquifer for their water needs.

A city neighborhood in the middle of our semi-rural and rural area is not in keeping with the master plan.

Thank you.

Next, we have Judy Price, followed by Kevin Burls, then Dan Bryant.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for your time today, and I just want to thank the people behind me because they're not getting paid to be here.

Um, my name is Judy Price.

I'd like to enter my comments in for the record.

I heard uh Miss Mayer behind me from the consultants group make a comment regarding the fact that when they're done with their plan, their hope is for long-term protection for the people downstream.

That happens to be me.

I've lived in this valley since 1958.

I look pretty good for that old.

And I still live on the same street that my parents raised me on off of Washow Valley, Washoe Drive, right behind it on Orloma.

And it's extremely important when I look out my kitchen window and already see the scarfing going on on the private property.

It's happening at night when no one's looking.

Right lights, it's happening.

Um, so just to correct her, we already have a safe mitigation for our flood situation and our mercury situation and our well situation.

It's called nature, and we need to leave it like it is.

I also sold real estate for 20 years of prudential.

I'm very much aware that building sustainably is important to a community, and I'm in favor of it as a third-generation Renoite, born here, graduated from Rooster High.

I worked with the Department of Transportation and Buried Utilities.

This project is not suitable, and you should take some time to listen to the experts like the Bob Rusks and the folks behind me, not consultants who used to work for departments like I did, and then get paid three times to go work for the benefit of this applicant.

The dark skies has only been mentioned once by my beautiful sister Cindy, who gave that eloquent comment.

We have dark skies out there.

It's not just about seeing stars, it's about the bats.

It's about the migration from the Canadian geese that need to get into that washo, little Washoe Lake to rest.

It's been a migration path for them for hundreds of years.

Please don't interrupt it, two-legged creatures, please.

And finally, I'd just like to end with just reminding you both.

You and you and you and you both, all of you, I meant.

There's a real fiduciary responsibility that you have to face today.

And because you're elected officials, I'm just gonna trust you to make the right decision and vote against this project.

Thank you.

Next is Kevin Burls, followed by Dan Bryant, then Brian Wadsworth.

Good evening, commissioners.

Kevin Burroughs for the record.

Thank you for considering our many and varied concerns, and for also the chance to propose topics that you might ask the uh applicant and their proponents uh here tonight or in the future.

That's actually the topic of my comment.

My specific concern involves your agency's role in managing things like hazard mitigation in the regional plans, specifically helping communities withstand hazards and environmental responsibility.

I live in old Washoe City, and like many people here tonight.

My family and I fled our home in the early hours of the Davis fire.

And in that instance, the roads to the south of us were closed off and were inaccessible because of the quickly growing fire.

In the reality that we in the community face is that the highest traffic is not actually during commute hours or during school hours, it's during an emergency.

And this is a matter of certainty, as many have expressed this region is going to burn again.

We know that.

Uh, and so I would ask that you ask the proponents uh what analyses have been completed and what data are available regarding transportation bottlenecks in particular during emergency operations, and in particular when part of the access routes, for example, East Lake or 395 South or 580 are closed.

I'm particularly interested to know if transportation is effective in those instances.

I am also interested if the proponents have any data or analyses on the increase in wildfire ignition risk that comes from the additional uh travel and residence in this area.

I appreciate that wildfire is not an agency concern here tonight, which is an issue that we citizens need to address in the state legislature if we want changed, apparently.

Wildfire risk mitigation does seem to be well within your purview.

Uh so to personalize this, I think the idea here is that we're not planning for extreme events in this planning process, and we're living in a time of extreme events.

Large fires, strong winds, long, hot, dry summers are facts of life, and we should be preparing for them.

Uh the number of trips that are made every day is one thing to consider, but in these emergency events, all those trips happen at once.

Uh last but not least, I do also want to bring up a separate issue of housing choice, which was brought up as one of the reasons for this development.

I would push back on that idea and ask the proponents if they have any house price estimates in mind for these parcels once they are built on and sold.

Uh, and if they have any plan to manage the uh cost of these houses relative to the average housing price in the region, which has increased drastically in the last decades.

So please, I urge the commission to take your time considering how to mitigate these increasing risks as we use this decision to look long into the future of the region.

Thank you.

Next is Dan Bryant, followed by Brian Wadsworth.

Then Manny Gisman.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Dan Bryant, and my wife and I moved to Steamboat Valley about 10 years ago.

I consider myself a Nevada, although perhaps a young Nevada compared to some of the people you've listened to.

I've only been here for about 35, 36 years.

In any case, uh, we moved to the steamboat valley because uh we loved the environment that was down there, and we wanted to live in a rural area.

My concern uh with this project, although I have I share the same concerns as most people do here, is one even more immediate.

My wife and I both have civil engineering background, and as part of a firm, one of my tasks was to go out and look at projects, uh construction projects around the Truckee Meadows, some of them federal projects, some of them uh development projects.

And my job was to document what was done on those sites as opposed to what was presented to the commissions.

And I was I I learned a lot by doing that.

I shot videotape.

Uh there are many shortcuts that have been taken into Truckee Meadows by developers, and it's a matter of record for decades now.

I've seen mold like uh light up like a Christmas tree when I'm under some of these houses that were supposed to be sealed from the water.

I've worked at uh the airport and saw them take shortcuts on taxiways in the installation.

And so uh what I'm concerned about as a person being directly downwind from this site is that they're not gonna be able to stop the dust, the mercury dust from blowing.

It's gonna blow first across the school through Pleasant Valley and then through the cut that divides Pleasant Valley from uh Steamboat Valley and directly to my house because I'm just on the other side of that cut, and so I don't want to breathe that mercury dust, and I know having the experience that I've had.

Construction companies aren't there 24 hours a day.

We get windstorms in the middle of the night.

The soil solidification or or uh maintenance is not gonna last through the night if it's just water.

So that water dries up, then that that dust starts blowing, and we get 40 mile an hour winds all the time through there, and so that during the construction process, we're gonna suffer a lot of mercury in the air, and that dust is gonna blow downwind uh to everybody who's breathing.

So I'm concerned that I know that having been in a firm, you can't be on site all the time.

You can't watch everybody do their job and make sure they do it exactly exactly the way it was presented to the commission.

So I'm concerned that there'll be shortcuts taken, and for that reason, I urge you to deny the application.

Next we have Brian Wadsworth, followed by Manny Guzman, and our last one is Michaela Jones.

All right, good evening, commissioners.

For the record, my name is Brian Wadsworth, and I'm a member of the Pyramid Lake Pi tribe, as well as a candidate for Washa County Commissioner for District 5.

So I was born and raised here in northern Nevada, grew up in Wadsworth, currently live in Nixon, and I've seen how much Washoe County has grown and developed.

So you've heard from um educators, you've heard from hydrologists, you've heard from community leaders, you've heard from um other subject matter experts, you've heard from concerned citizens, and if these aren't subject subject matter experts, I don't know who is so who is this?

So so why am I here?

Um and why am I concerned?

Why is this person from the Premier Lake Piet tribe who lives over an hour away from Reno and even further from Pleasant Valley?

Well, our environment, our wild, our our wildlife, our waters, they don't care about boundaries, they don't care about jurisdictions, and what happens up here upstream ultimately affects us down at Pyramid Lake because we are the terminus part of of the Truckee River.

So all the development, all the pollution, everything that happens upstream ultimately affects us downstream.

And I was I served as the water quality manager for my tribe when the Veterans Parkway was being built, and we were opposed to that, be opposed to the construction because we had concerns over the mercury as well.

And well, here we are again, concerned about mercury with this project.

So I I do want to thank the people that commented on their concerns for the LCT as well as the endangered Kuyui, which is endemic to Pyramid Lake.

And when making decisions, we are taught as indigenous people to think about seven generations out, and not what the effects are gonna be today or tomorrow, but our for our future generations.

So I implore the commission to listen and hear and take into consideration the testimony from the subject subject matter experts here tonight, and I don't mean the paid ones, thank you.

Next, we have Manny Guzman, followed by Michaela Jones.

Hi commissioners, my name is Manny Guzman.

I'll make this quick.

You guys heard a lot already this evening.

Um live in Washa Valley.

I got kids that went to Pleasant Valley that commute to UNR now.

I got kids in Pleasant Valley still.

We drive that road a lot.

Um you've heard there's it's gonna double our traffic through that region, but that and then 34,000 was the previous uh amount of traffic that came through there prior to 580, but that number on 580 is up to 50,000 a day of vehicle travels, and just earlier this year, we had a wind event shut down 580.

That's not an uncommon occurrence, and you guys are gonna cause a legacy of bottleneck coming through there when there's a wind event.

There's gonna be 50,000 people in Reno, not just the 2,000 residents of Washa Valley that are gonna be outraged that they're not gonna get home till nine o'clock at night if they get home because of the bottleneck going through that.

That's the only way to get to Reno, unless you're gonna go all the way around to Virginia City or up through Tahoe.

So just something to consider because transportation is one of the five tenants that you guys are able to make a decision out of.

So thank you.

Please don't approve this.

Next up, we have Michaela Jones.

Yes.

Good evening, Commissioners, Dr.

Smith and Ms.

Prentie.

My name is Michaela Jones, and I am here tonight with my partner Bill Peterson, and we are attorneys with Stellen Wilmer.

Um, first, thank you for allowing me to address you tonight on behalf of the Pleasant Steamboat Valleys Landers Association, in addition to a dozen residents and property owners immediately adjacent to the proper to immediately adjacent to the project site.

We asked the commission to find the Sierra Reflections project not in conformance with the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Whether Sierra Reflections conforms with the regional plan is your determination alone.

It is not a rubber stamp.

The fact that the Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to approve or that a prior version was found in conformance in 2006 under a different regional plan does not relieve this commission of its independent statutory obligation.

Much has been said tonight about what you cannot consider.

But what is the point of being powered by statute and a reasonable plan to consider elements of a project if you cannot make a decision based on them.

Let me be clear on what we've seen tonight.

Repackaged presentations attempting to address defects and deficiencies pointed out by public opposition at the May 28th meeting, trotting out engineers, archaeologists, hydrologists, and a school district head desperate for students.

But the whole presentation is best summed up by the property owner's agent's own statement that this is not rural.

The response and laughter from the audience was not rude, but a genuine reaction to such an absurd comment.

It cannot reasonably be disputed that the project will have a major negative impact on the area designated in the plan as last for development.

Regional planning staff has provided you with a proposed motion to approve the project.

That motion is a single sentence incorporating by reference the findings contained in the staff report.

The staff report also advises that if you determine the project is not in conformance with the regional plan, you should identify the portions of the plan with which it does not conform and explain why.

Respectfully, that approach is inconsistent with Washoe County's burden.

Approval requires each commissioner to affirmatively determine that the project promotes and does not conflict with the regional plan.

Approval requires you, not staff, not the property owner, not Washoe County, to make each of the findings necessary under RC9.

Critically, denial does not require a finding that every aspect of the project conflicts with the regional plan.

If you cannot make even one of the findings necessary for approval, then the project is not in conformance and it must be denied.

With that in mind, I have just handed out to you a proposed motion for your consideration.

It is offered respectively as a practical tool, grounded in the testimony, evidence, and presentations you have heard tonight, identifying several independent reasons why the required findings cannot be made.

Any one of those findings can and respectively should be fatal to the conformance analysis.

Dr.

Smith has represented that this body cannot consider fire services because it is not separately listed in table 3.2 of the regional plan.

But table 3.2 of the two does not define the full scope of public facilities services for purposes of RC9 factor 3.

Three independent sources do.

First, the statute.0157 defines infrastructure and public facilities to mean quote, facilities and the structure or network used for delivery of goods, services, and public safeties and safety, end quote, and states that the term includes without limitation, quote, fire police and flood dis and flood protection.

That definition applies throughout chapter 278, including NRS 278.0278 and including NRS 278.0274, which mandates the contents of the regional plan's public facilities section.

Second, the regional plan itself.

The plan's own glossary term defines public facilities as quote, a use conducted by or a facility or structure owned or managed by a publicly funded entity that provides a governmental function, activity, or service for public benefit.

End quote.

Next, the master plan and the internal review memo.

Envision Washo 2040 identifies limited fire protection as a development constraint in the in the South Valleys, and TMRPA's own IRM prepared for this project shows that over 60 680 acres of this site, nearly 90% falls within the high fire risk area.

So when the regional plan requires you to consider whether public facilities and services are adequate to support this development, fire protection must be part of that analysis.

It is a defined term.

That testimony on this front speaks for itself.

And for this reason and all other points you heard tonight, the project is not in conformance with the regional plan.

There is a final point I would like to make tonight.

Um that is that government process is not meant to be efficient.

It's supposed to be thoughtful and it's supposed to be deliberative, and only then can it be effective.

The best any of us can hope for is that those entrusted with making decisions that profoundly affect our lives, our livelihoods, and our communities will give those decisions the time, fairness, and consideration they deserve.

Not simply to hear the public, but to listen, and not simply to pay lip service to the process, but to honor it.

And I want to assure you that when you carefully consider the testimony you have heard tonight and allow it to inform your decision, you are doing exactly what Nevada courts have repeatedly upheld.

The Nevada Supreme Court has long held that public agencies may properly rely on public testimony and citizen observations when making land decisions, and case after case, the court has upheld agency decisions based on testimony regarding fire risk impacts to wells and water resources, wildlife and livestock, visual impacts and traffic.

To point you to a few of them.

There, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the 34 members of the public testifying about increased fire risk, impacts to existing wells, impacts to wildlife and livestock, visual impacts, noise pollution, and air quality issues constituted substantial evidence to support the Washoe County's denial of the application.

This is what the record before you, this is what is in the record before you and what you have heard tonight.

Substantial, specific, organized testimony and evidence from people who know this community because it is their home and because they live there.

As tired as everyone may be, and as much as you have been urged rubber stamp what has come before you, I respectfully urge you not to do that.

If this regional conformance process is to mean anything, it must have teeth, or else why are we here?

It is both your privilege and your obligation to consider what has been presented to you.

The testimony, the evidence, and the specific reasons why the required findings cannot be made.

And as the last person speaking to you after a long public comment um session, I would simply like to make this point that the long night is the point.

The time, the testimony, and the public participation are not inconveniences to the process, they are the process.

The fact that the record is lengthy does not make it less important, it makes it more important.

And the fact that the public showed up informed, engaged, and prepared does not make this process inefficient, it makes it legitimate.

And this process is what produces for the most part sound decision, sound decisions is what gives meaning to the regional plan and to your vote vote tonight, and is what ensures the decisions affecting our communities are made with the care and deliberation they deserve.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to make the right decision tonight.

Finance here reflections not in conformance with the 2024 Truck Eye Meadows Regional Plan.

Thank you.

All right.

Does anybody have any questions for anybody?

Go ahead.

Yeah, use your microphone.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Um you could ask.

Talk about a couple things.

Number one, um, as was my concern at the county planning commission.

Um the Mercury is a is a major deal.

Um being a super fund project, I've in my other life uh I've tried to work with some of that.

And um it's it's not all that easy.

That being said, I think it's uh I find it hard to believe that some of the methods that have been approved by the by the superfund um as far as mitigation is concerned is hard for me to logically feel comfortable with.

Um you don't know what that stuff is gonna do, and putting more stuff on top of uh an already a contaminated area uh to me over time it's gonna leach to the the groundwater system.

Um we're in a desert.

Waters are most sacred and and scarce uh asset, and we need to protect it.

So that was one of the reasons why I was not in favor of the of the project.

The second um the fire hazard uh is real, it's not cooked up by anybody.

I mean it's it's a very real concern, and uh again in my other life I've been sort of trapped in in a place where uh there was a major fire down at uh Laguna Beach uh California, and um there was a mass evacuation, and the multimillion dollar homes were destroyed real quick, and it took forever, of course, to get them rebuilt.

And then the traffic, I've Rob knows I always complain about the traffic because it's just I don't like the way the county law, and maybe if you get elected to a commissioner, you can bring this up, but um we're in a process where we don't have control over the money, and it all boils down to the money.

Um other agencies have control of the money, yet we have control over uh approving developments, and the two are not meshing.

And there's got to be a way to devise it.

I don't know what it is, but I mean it it we're we're choking on ourselves right now with cars everywhere, and I I don't have the solution yet, but I that there has to be one out there.

Um I certainly sympathize with uh with the traffic situation.

Um particularly with the school.

Uh you just uh there are the schools as bad as they are.

Um the kids that are going to the schools are second precious asset uh that we have, and that's got to be dealt with in a in a responsible manner.

And the last thing I just want to comment.

Um I appreciate the the spirited and professional presentations on both sides of this issue.

Um I don't appreciate having my integrity impugned.

And um, quite frankly, when somebody tries to do that, I sort of look at them and say, well, maybe you're not so have that much integrity either.

And I tend to sort of discount them all the way, but having respectful debate is what this country is about.

And so, you know, sometimes it gets tiring, but it it's why we are what we are today.

And uh I just uh would hope that in the future um that we just be more respectful of one another, and I think we can get a lot more done.

And I'll shut up.

Thank you.

All right, we'll close on the public comments, period.

Bring it back to the board for questions.

Do we have questions?

Um sure.

I have some questions for the interested parties professional staff.

Uh let's start off with traffic.

Um I think it was Mr.

Chilson.

Yes, sir.

Uh we've heard a lot about um disaster evacuation.

Is disaster evacuation um a standard of service or uh um a scenario that's studied in public road capacities?

It is not, it's not part of county code, it's not part of NDOTS requirements or any other practice that we that we um engage in.

It's certainly of interest, it's of concern, and we and we think about it, and in this case of this project, it's creating another connection up through St.

James Village to Mount Rose Highway.

So it could be could be viewed as overall improving emergency access uh as a whole.

This is add traffic, of course it does.

Does it add another route?

Yes, it does.

That connection through St.

James Village is always open or just an emergency route?

Uh emergency.

And that um is that the extent of the evacuation and emergency transportation planning that has been done to date on the project?

I would say yes.

I mean, the the improvements we're making with um with highway access, with you know, there'd be another connection through the development as well that would bypass Washoe Hill.

I mean, overall circulation and connectivity is improved with the project.

I think I think that's all my questions on uh transportation uh all right concerning the floodplain and hydraulic study.

Um so we saw in some of the public comments submitted uh pictures, including uh surface flow going across Ponyi Lane during a high flow event in the last 20 or so years.

Uh do the models that you have for the current configuration of the floodplain show flow across Ponyi Lane.

Uh for the record, Amy Meisenikowski.

Um in our modeling, we're looking at a few things.

We're looking at specific design um storm events.

Um, so the five-year and the hundred-year design storm events.

Um, and we need to prove that we are not increasing flows from pre-development conditions, and that's the requirement that we are basing our analysis off of that we need to show that we're complying with.

Um I do not believe um our modeling goes to that extent, it's limited to the project area um tying into the upstream and downstream ends, showing that there's no increase in peak runoff or water surface elevation or an increase in inundation boundary from flooding that would occur downstream from the project area.

So anything outside of the project area um is not impacted from pre-development conditions, and I believe that um peak flows are slightly decreased from pre-development conditions with our detention configuration on site.

Um slight improvement to peak flows that would be flowing downstream.

Does the hundred-year peak flow elevation at your bottom cross section of the property uh show a water elevation that reaches high enough that there would be surface flow across Pony Lane?

I could not say uh understandable.

That's um hard to memorize that kind of detail.

I I guess my point is that if the models that we're looking at can strain uh flow to the existing stream channel, and we have visual records of a sub-100-year flood event causing surface flow that's exterior to that channel.

Um channelizing the stream more would almost by definition put more water flow through the bottom end of the property.

Do you does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah, let Amy direct uh add to that too.

But uh, I think one thing important to understand is that the roundabout, and again, my name is Ken Crater.

The roundabout is not going on Pawnee Lane.

We are building a new intersection south of Pawnee Lane.

And one of the reasons is we wanted to make sure a concern was bought up that the next adjoining street to the north on the east side, right, would be impacted.

We're moving that roundabout south, and then that section of Pawnee Lane will be abandoned.

I I think my issue with the assumption that you're not going to increase stormwater flow through the exit point onto the adjoining properties, is that an eight-foot-high neighborhood in between the stream and Pony Lane is going to prevent any surface flow that has historically exited via Pony Lane and reduced channel flooding.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but the uh the fact that we're leaving that 300 foot sensitive stream zone alone, and in a lot of places we have four and five hundred feet, right?

And that's why Amy did the modeling and found out that at the actual floodplain per the model is actually less than it shows on the FEMA maps, I believe.

And so again, we can't affect downstream flows, right?

And even though we're gonna have eight feet of clean fill, it doesn't mean that it's gonna be eight feet above the channel.

We're actually going to excavate material out of there and move it close by because one of the things with mercury is you don't want a transporter, right?

The less you transport it, the better.

So that's why the civil engineer worked with Joe's folks to come up with areas where we could move that mercury safe, put clean fill over it.

So the the actual area where those residential lots is going to be out of the floodplain, but it's not going to be eight feet above where it exists right now.

And again, we can't impact downstream flows.

So when Amy did her design for the detention basins and uh to deal with the flood zone, we're not impacting those downstream areas any more than pre-development conditions.

You're not projecting to impact that based on the hydraulic models to the hydraulic models are correct.

We can't per county.

They're pretty accurate.

Uh and Amy had to get additional topographic mapping, right, to make sure she was modeling those existing conditions correctly as well as the future conditions.

She had to look at both to understand what those pre and post-development conditions were.

Jump into Amy Meisenkowski for the record.

Um so uh I want to try to clarify um maybe uh an idea or misconception that we are confining the floodplain or we're destroying the floodplain.

Um in our modeling process, what we need to submit to FEMA for review and approval um to remap this floodplain um is an effective model.

So that's what currently exists.

If you pull up pull up a FEMA map and you see um, you know, this big zone AO floodplain in the property, that's the effective modeling.

Um now effective has a different meaning um from existing in this scenario.

So we're also modeling existing conditions as Ken mentioned with um detailed site-specific topography.

Um, and then we're looking at proposed conditions as well.

So um that more confined looking floodplain that you're seeing in the design is actually based on existing conditions.

It's not based on grading or fill or constraints that the project would impose on the floodplain, if that helps um answer your question.

Does the proposed as is condition remapping of the floodplain show flow across Pony Lane and high flood events?

Again, our model so far that we've worked on is confined to the project area.

It doesn't extend.

So it does not show flow northward across that property boundary to where it would go across Pony Lane.

Correct.

The model does not extend that far.

But the model does show that at that downstream location, there is no increase between existing and proposed conditions, which is the requirement that we need to follow.

Okay.

There was discussion of uh zone AE for the floodplain.

Um that's a development constrained area.

We're not allowed to approve development.

The um is it this remapping of the existing conditions that creates the zone AE?

Correct.

So the current mapping designation for the portion that's of concern is zone AO.

This is representative of shallow sheet flow flooding across the site.

Um with the remapping, we would designate the zone as zone AE for a defined channel.

Um I do want to mention um the I believe the constraint is the regulatory floodway AE, not flood zone AE.

And those are different things, and we're not proposing um a map revision for regulatory floodway.

Um, even if we were, there's no impact to the zone AE floodplain that we're um proposing the the map revision for.

Um, no developments going to encroach on it, no developments going to disturb it.

Um there is that 300 foot buffer for perennial streams that's been mentioned a few times.

Um thank you.

Um moving on to environmental um Mr.

Clegg, probably or yeah, great for for the record, uh Joe McGinley with UES.

Mr.

McGinley, um a number of folks uh gave evidence about uh a variety of potentially sensitive and impacted species in the area, um mule deer winter range habitat and I think you got the wrong guy.

Sorry.

And uh Ben Clink on behalf of you, yes.

Yeah, and uh the Carson Valley wandering skipper, can you uh shed some light on why those weren't the focus of the environmental certainly so the first thing that we look at um we conducted an IPAC, which a lot of people are familiar with.

It's the US Wildlife Service tool to delineate a project boundary and look at what species have potential to occur within that project area.

It also responds with the boundaries of a designated critical habitat, which does have regulatory implications.

Um there were no critical habitats found, um, but you are correct that yeah, the Carson Valley wandering skipper was identified as a species with potential to occur.

Um both Monarch Butterfly and the Carson Valley Wandering Skipper uh rely on very specific um plants and like habitat types to exist.

Um and so the Carson Valley Wandering Skipper relies on salt grass flats.

Um the type of area that we see in that um that broad what is now a field, a grazing field, um, is more consistent with what would be a wetland.

Um if if for the fact that it was not an irrigated wetland crossing over into the aquatic resources issue here, but it if for the fact that it was not an artificially irrigated wetland, um, we would need to do further investigation to look at the soils there, but it is artificially in irrigated, so that is is therefore not a water of the US.

Um so we're not seeing what we would see consistent with the salt grass flat, which is more like what you would see on the edges of a playa surface um where you have uh you know inundation for short periods of time and then long periods of dry uh dry lake conditions um with monotypic salt grass growing there.

Okay, and uh the mule deer migration and winter habitat.

Yeah, we disclosed uh mule deer scot was found on the on site.

Um it's entirely within an occupied known area for mule deer.

Um the extent of our biological resource assessment was to look at regulatory triggers and on private land in the state of Nevada.

Um, there is no regulatory trigger trigger for developing mule tier habitat.

Um, whether or not that is in line with the regional plan is a uh discussion for the port to have.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Um section 404.

Is that is that you too?

Sorry.

Apologies.

Um it was someone mentioned that they thought uh section 404 permit might be appropriate in this case.

Uh is it not?

So the findings of our delineation were that um you know the main channels of the perennial streams within the project area are jurisdictional.

Um however, there's a you know, I think 17 aquatic resources, including both ponds that were delineated, and a large portion of those are all irrigated channels that uh exit the main stream and then return to the mainstream.

Um they were not found to be relatively permanent and they were artificially irrigated.

So the way that the project uh design that that we have seen is included in the report as it exists um with the setbacks, does not interact with the ordinary high water mark, which is really the um distinction that the core makes about where the end of jurisdictional waters begins.

Um so if you are proposing to discharge fill below the ordinary high water mark, then you are in uh Clean Water Act 404 um permitting territory.

Um a 300 foot setback is well beyond the boundary of a ordinary high water mark, which is essentially the very specific criteria used to define it, but is essentially like an average year of flow, not does not include flood conditions at all, just normal snow melt.

And we can identify that with visual indicators of like deposition and things like that along the stream bed.

Thanks.

All right, I think this might be well, I'll leave it to the applicant's interested party who would like to answer this.

Um how is the landscape um outside of the belt structures in this proposal um designed to mitigate or reduce wildland fire risk to the proposed properties or the proposed new residences and uh adjacent residences.

Hi, Melissa Ruth.

Um so we're the landscape architect on the project, and um that is definitely something that we are gonna be looking at as we go into final design.

Um we know there's definitely setback requirements and uh fuel loads that we need to think about, especially on upland slopes that we're not creating fire ladders, that we're not um planting things next to flammable fences that are just gonna exacerbate it.

So we will be looking at all the various zones required for um for fire.

Yeah, right.

And again, for the record, Ken Crater, and to add to that, we also will have to comply with conditions of approval and the requirement that we have to comply with a wildland urban interface design standards.

So when Melissa does landscaping, uh the fire department will look at it and make sure it does comply with what they call those wooy standards.

All right, I appreciate that.

And I understand that a lot of landscape design is about what you're adding to the landscape and making sure that's appropriate.

I think we've heard we have a lot of direct knowledge in this room that uh the existing level of vegetation uh relatively minimal as it is, is still uh very flammable and subject to wildland fire.

Is there any uh landscape plan to mitigate the existing level wildland fire danger?

I think I think a lot of it is um related to to maintenance and like he's saying on the um requirements, there's gonna be requirements to um maintain um whether it's fire breaks or you know um the plants that get hydroceded are uh native species and not gonna be invasive as well that are gonna cause more fuel load.

Is there a fire break plan or a landscape plan for the open space that's not going to be the roads and houses?

That that would all be in the details of this plan moving forward that's in the conditions.

And again, Ken Crater for the record.

One of the other things too that we discussed with the fire department is there's one loop trail that goes up into the common area below the freeway.

Is that we would design that to allow for uh four-wheel drive fire truck to get up in that area.

So we're also looking at things like that that would accommodate and provide better access right now to some of those areas than they have.

Uh and then uh two, just the fact that we're going to have a residential development with streets and fire hydrants.

That's one of the the things I know the fire department likes the most is access to all those fire hydrants, uh, which helps them when they need to fight a fire.

Uh, but uh we will be looking at obviously all the common areas, all the residential lots, all of those will comply with the WUE standards, but areas that just remain an open space, those will be left as is, with the exception that now you've got an HOA homeowners association, as Melissa said, that can help manage those and maybe clear some of the fuel to reduce the fire hazard, which we all know needs to be done.

Um obviously it may be a little early to say what the HOA would or wouldn't do, but I know in the existing neighborhoods that are in the wooy on the perimeter of Reno, um, a number of them are pursuing uh grazing as a mitigation to fuel buildup and stuff like that.

Is that on the table?

Goats, right?

They're very popular now uh for mitigation.

And uh obviously there's gonna be a huge investment in this development in terms of people buying homes.

And I've served on an HOA as president for 15 years, and uh you're always cognizant of spending your money wisely, right?

And it doesn't take that much money to do maintenance on fuel and fire breaks compared to homes burning down.

Uh so uh I would think that any you know uh good HOA uh is gonna have knowledge of the fact that this is a high hazard fire area, and that's part of their job is dealing with the common area and keeping it maintained.

Okay, thanks.

Uh let's see, is Brian Wadsworth still here?

If you would I have a question for you since you gave public comment concerning um tribal monitoring of the veterans parkway uh work.

Um do you know you guys were opposed to that on the basis that uh mercury might be liberated and and move into the stream channel?

Um do you guys get any monitoring results that indicated that mercury was uh moving through the system more than prior to the veterans parkway construction?

Uh for the record, Brian Wadsworth.

Um I worked for the water quality program back in 2013 to 2015.

And so at the time when we did submit our public comment, our concerns about the construction of veterans parkway.

We were concerned about the methods of um how the developers were gonna encapsulate the mercury.

Um, and so we we did do our monthly water quality monitoring, but we didn't monitor for mercury at that time.

I'm not sure what how the water quality program has evolved since then, but we were concerned about you know, it in the if in the event there was a flood, or if that mercury became unencapsulated, you know, what would be the effects of that mercury flowing down to um the Tricky River and to Pyramid Lake and ultimately affecting the wildlife for us.

All right, thank you very much.

Appreciate uh is Dr.

Kevin Burl still here.

Um you guys have amongst your neighbors a very uh well-respected uh uh member of the Xerxes Society whose job it is to help preserve um and protect butterflies.

Uh Dr.

Burles um is this mapped as Carson Valley Wandering Skipper uh potential habitat.

Is there an existing population in the area or adjacent to this property?

Uh Kevin Burls for the record.

Uh no, to my knowledge, there's no butterfly in that location.

Uh there are populations to the north and to the south, varying miles away.

They're not, I wouldn't call them right next door, although there are some I there are some in the Carson City area.

And the other thing that I just I guess I would point out because it feels relevant is that habitat designations are helpful in the idea of eventually having an animal recolonize an area or having a species that is in recovery, the idea of being in recovery is that the population is expanding in size and distribution.

So I would encourage you to not only worry about the fact that the Carson Wandering skipper is or is not there, but could it potentially be habitat for that butterfly to assist in that species recovery?

I think that'd be a relevant question.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Okay, I think it's someone else's turn now.

Oh, I think you took all my questions.

Am I live?

No, not live.

Yes.

No.

Okay, I got it.

Um Trevor, sorry, I didn't get you before, but these things came up as other people were speaking.

So I have a couple of questions for you.

So what we're looking at here is just a tentative map.

So this is just a preliminary map.

It's it's a it's it's a sketch, basically, correct?

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

So there are how many conditions of approval?

Because I do not sit on the Washa County um planning commission.

I do not know how many conditions of approval there are for this.

Wait, putting me on the spot.

I'm looking at your plan at Chris Bronzik.

I believe he told me that there were over 200 last day.

Okay.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So all of those conditions of approval must be met before a final map comes back, correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

That answers the I I kind of figured that.

The next one is um somebody in in the in public comment made a statement that St.

James Village is not hooked in to the South South Trucking Meadows Water Reclamation Facility.

Is that correct?

For sewage.

Oh.

Or Ken.

I don't know.

Somebody.

Yeah, we'd defer to our engineer who is not with us tonight.

I know Duane's off doing something else.

For the record, Ken Crater.

Okay.

St.

James Village has an existing agreement with Washoe County.

And per that agreement, all the existing homes that have been built in St.

James Village have dry sewer lines.

There's sewer in the streets, there's laterals to the houses, but they are on septic.

All those homes have also paid their sewer connection fees to Washoe County with the understanding that eventually that reach three sewer line that the county now has funded and is under construction will be complete.

And then when reach four is built by the developer, then St.

James will have finally access to public sewer, and the C C and Rs for St.

James Village require that within 30 days of hooking up the public sewer to that dry sewer that those homeowners then need to flip the switch and start diverting their flows down to the South Reclamation facility and then hence abandon their septic systems.

Okay.

So it is the developers with Sarah Reflections.

It is the developer's responsibility to hook in that to make that 3.5 mile connection.

Correct.

To wherever that connection point is.

So that Sierra Reflections is not on septic.

Correct.

And they have sewer at the time of the map or during the process.

Yes, prior to issuance of a building permit.

A permit.

Okay.

Yes.

And it's important to note too that per the agreement, the developer will also have to, in addition to the sewer connection fees, they are also required to contribute their pro rata share towards the cost of reach three, which the county is doing because reach three is being built not just for Sarah Reflections, but all the planned growth in that area.

And so they'll also contribute their ProRadishare towards the cost of that reach three sewer line.

Right.

Okay.

Um back to you, Trevor.

You made mention that it was going to take approximately two years to go through the permitting process, and they have up to four years to go through all to get all the state, local, federal, any permits that are needed to make this project go.

So the timeline for this is not today, tomorrow, next year.

It's most likely four years down the road.

Or three two to four years down the road or whatever.

Is that correct?

Well, that's uh that's the timeline offered uh through state law.

Uh four years from the approval by Washoe County is four years, correct.

Okay.

All right.

I think that's um all I have right now.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Go ahead.

Uh I have a a couple of questions.

I'll start with Dr.

Smith for some clarification, then I'll switch over to the applicant's representative and regarding the mercury issue.

Um Dr.

Smith, how does the TMRPA designate rural land?

Uh Jeremy Smith the record, great question.

So we have five regional land designations.

We in basically there's a distinction between the Truckey Meadows service area, and that's defined as the area within which you either have now or can expect municipal type services in a 20-year time frame.

So that's the TMSA.

And then outside of that is the balance of Washoe County, which we designate as the rural area.

So about 99 or 98.5% of Wash County's population is inside the TMSA boundary, and the remainder is is the rural area, which is much larger geographically.

But that then is our definition in terms of regional land designations.

And so is it accurate to say that the land inside the TMSA boundary is designated for growth?

It's certainly designated for municipal type services that would support growth.

That would support growth.

Correct.

Okay.

And so would it be accurate according to the TMRPA that the Sierra Reflection site is not considered rural?

Well, I think that uh the Sierra Reflection site is not within the rural area.

I think it has rural characteristics, no doubt.

Agreed.

Uh, but we would consider it as part of the TMSA.

And you know, even though it's in the tier three area, it is part of where we're expecting to have growth.

Thank you, Dr.

Smith.

Um, I'm sorry, sorry, I don't remember your name that spoke on the mercury issue.

Uh for the record, Joe McInley with UES.

Thank you for your time and thank you for being here tonight.

I appreciate it.

It's quite late.

Um, so from your perspective, would the EPA put any more intensive standards on the developer than the what the Nevada Division of Environment Environmental Protection Agency already has done?

So clarify that, yes, sir.

I think I mentioned in my earlier presentation that up at the Comstock mining area, yes, sir.

Okay, and that's where the whole problem started.

Uh that's where the elemental mercury got away from the miners.

I mean, we heard earlier today about elemental mercury at Pine Middle School.

We're we're not dealing with elemental mercury on the site.

We're dealing with mercury impacted soils, a big difference.

So to answer your question specifically, the remedy up at Comstock was a residential standard of 80 milligrams per kilogram as sorbed onto soil, not an elemental mercury, and two feet of cover.

And that same standard as created by the EPA, uh as carried through all the way down um easterly, you know, towards the Carson River, the whole Dayton area, and that's the standard you're using.

So hard for me to imagine the EPA would come in and say, okay, you guys, you're an order of magnitude less in terms of the cleanup standard.

You've got four times the amount of dirt, we want more.

That's no, to answer your question, the EPA will not be more stringent.

Okay, so just to be clear from my understanding of what you just said, do the safety measures required for the development already match or exceed those federal guidelines?

They exceeded.

Thank you, sir.

And is it an accurate statement that the developer is bound to execute every single mitigation precaution exactly as mandated mandated by Washoe County?

To my understanding, yes.

Okay.

So if we're speaking about public safety, which is the highest concern of all people in this room, and the testimony and the videos were very impactful.

Um so if we're speaking about public city safety and the exposure to mercury, will every legally adopted local and safe state standard and precaution be taken to ensure public health?

To my understanding, yes.

And again, it's not only the remedy, but it's also the environmental covenant and the bond that's being put on to make sure the work is done appropriately.

And if I also might point out, as we said here today, you have mercury impacted soil that came from the water, it was in Steamboat Creek and was artificially used as irrigation water.

It's exposed on the surface right now.

If you walk across it, you ride your horse across it, your kids plant it, you can get on your shoes and whatnot.

The whole remedy is is to be more protective of human health and the environment by taking that surficial mercury impacted soil and burying it so that those exposure routes have been eliminated.

Thank you, sir.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Chair.

Sir, I have a Mr.

Rob, I have got a question or follow up on that.

Um forgive me, I'm not a mercury expert.

I don't even pretend to be.

Um, but is there mercury anywhere near the waterway near the creek?

It's it is.

That's how I got there.

So, how are you going to put eight feet of dirt next to the water to protect the dogs and stuff that are going to be playing in the park?

Well, again, I think can speak with that with the uh mitigation distance um 300 foot, I believe, 300 foot of mitigation area uh off the creek.

So yeah, for the record, Ken Crater.

Um we had a lot of conversations with West Rubio and County Engineering, county planning, and ultimately it was side decided that the best thing to do for this project is to leave that sensitive stream zone area as is 150 feet either side of center line, so 300 feet, and not put any pedestrian access to that area.

So where the pedestrian trails are are in the upland areas, and we will not have any pedestrian access.

We'll be putting up some uh split rail fencing and signs uh to basically prohibit pedestrian access in that area.

But you know, it doesn't mean that kids aren't playing along Steamboat Creek right now, but we thought it would be safer just to keep them out of there by just leaving that as open space that's fenced and signed accordingly.

Okay.

Wesh, can you help me out here, please?

Help me understand how this is going to be safe for my dog.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh West Rubio, Northern Nevada Public Health for the record.

Um it's a misnomer to say that we're just putting eight feet of soil on top.

Um, what the plan is actually stating is through the sampling plan, you figure out what the depth of contamination is, and that portion is either removed or sequestered uh locally on the site, and then you ensure that there is clean fill to a complete depth of eight feet.

So we're not building castle walls, we're not building retaining walls.

We are ensuring that we have a protective barrier of land that is going to exist.

So anywhere where they have showed on their grading plan, that is what we have looked at, and that is how the process will work going forward.

Any of those other areas that are not being touched are absolutely going to be signed.

We don't have any uh jurisdiction in the waterway, but um in areas of parks, uh, any of those areas that are going to be developed that is being fully uh remediated uh per their grading plan that they submitted and through the sampling and remediation plans that reviewed with UES with Mr.

Beginley and the associates.

Okay, so by the time that they're done doing their thing, allowing the public to go play uh with their dogs in the water and all that.

If it was your dog, would you feel comfortable allowing your dog to play and your kids to play in that after they're done?

In the water or on the in the water and all that don't have any jurisdiction in the water.

I thought you said that there was mercury at the water, that's why I asked mercury in the water.

Um, that's actually the transport mechanism for how mercury's been deposited deposited across every inch of Steamboat Creek.

So anywhere where Steamboat Creek's been, you have mercury deposition.

My my concern is, you know, when they get these houses built, whenever that may be and all that, they're gonna open up certain areas for as a park.

Is it gonna be safe for the kids and the dogs and all that to play in those areas if there's mercury in the water, if there's mercury on the ground next to the water, I mean would you would you let your kids play there?

Based off the science, yes, sir.

You would okay.

I'm just asking based off the science, yes, sir.

The the science literally says that we will hold them to 7.1 milligrams per kilogram on a residential site and 30 milligrams per kilogram of soil in any commercial designation.

So that also means that not only are we looking at the residential uses, but we are looking at the commercial uses, the industrial type uses.

So for our own county employees with those roads that are going to be designated and those utilities are gonna be designated to the county, we have to take into consideration those county workers, Nevada Energy, Tumwa.

And so from right-of-way to right away down to eight feet or to the depth of wherever sewer or the deepest utility is going to be, the developer is required to demonstrate that they do not have any exceedance greater than 30 milligrams per kilogram throughout the entire channel, right of way to right of way.

So if that includes back a sidewalk and you have a 24-foot road, there you go.

That's a massive channel that has to be sampled and ensure that any future workers are going to meet the federal requirement of no greater than 30 milligrams per kilogram.

So we are looking at both residential and commercial in the exact same manner that we have reviewed these projects.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um I got a follow-up on that.

Yes, ma'am.

How often is it tested?

It from what during sampling or sampling, how often does it is it tested?

So it will be the sampling's been done.

There is no approved grading plan at this point in time.

So at this point in time, to your point earlier with uh Mr.

Trevor Lloyd, it is a sketch.

We still have to get the final drawings.

So there may be some additional sampling and confirmatory at that point in time.

Once we go past that, then the sampling plan would be approved.

And we would see final testing at the end of the project once they got to final grading when they were trying to certify their lots to be able to build and build out or put in utilities, and that's when we would see final sampling.