2026-11-05 - Planning Commission

04:41All right. This is the uh Reno City

04:43Planning Commission meeting. Today's

04:45date is Thursday, November 5th, 2026.

04:48The time is 6 p.m. We will start with

04:51the Pledge of Allegiance. Uh welcome

04:53back, Miss Mcadin. Please lead us away

04:57to the flag of America and to the

05:01republic for it stands. One nation under

05:09>> um item A2 roll call. Madame clerk

05:13>> David Jockman

05:14>> here.

05:15>> Jacob Williams

05:16>> here.

05:16>> Alex Belto here.

05:17>> Manny Bera

05:19>> here. Christina Delvier,

05:25we can't hear you, Christina. We see

05:27you're online.

05:2968% of Americans.

05:32>> We cannot hear you now.

05:40We cannot hear you now. Um Sean McCoy

05:44>> here.

05:44>> Jan McKenzie

05:45>> here. Okay. We do have Commissioner

05:47Delvr online. We will

05:51try to work through this.

05:53Are you hearing us, Christina?

05:55Okay, great. We're not hearing you,

05:57unfortunately.

06:08>> Christina, I'm going to connect you with

06:10our IT person. Go ahead.

06:12>> Can you hear me now?

06:13>> Yes. Perfect. Thank you.

06:15>> Okay, great. We a quorum of the Reno

06:18City Planning Commission.

06:20>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. And right back

06:22to you. Item A3, public comment.

06:24>> It should be noted for those in the

06:25audience that comments are to be

06:27addressed to the planning commission as

06:28a whole. Comments heard under this item

06:30will be limited to three minutes per

06:31person and may pertain to matters both

06:33on and off the planning commission

06:34agenda. Please note that the planning

06:36commission may not take action upon any

06:37matter not agendaized for possible

06:39action on today's agenda. When you are

06:41called on for public comment, please

06:42state your name for the record and begin

06:44speaking. The timer will begin when you

06:46say your name and you will be afforded

06:47three minutes. If you're an attendee in

06:49the Zoom meeting and would like to make

06:50public comment at this time, please

06:52raise your hand. Lastly, while in this

06:54room, please be respectful. Warnings

06:55will be issued by the presiding officer

06:57if there is disruptive behavior, and

06:58you'll be asked to leave chambers if the

07:00behavior continues. We did receive

07:02written correspondence that were general

07:03in nature and not specific to any items

07:05on this agenda. These were forwarded to

07:06the planning commission, have been

07:07entered into the record. We also have at

07:10least one in person and a couple online.

07:12So we're going to start in person with

07:13Donna Keats.

07:21>> Good evening commissioners and planning

07:23commission. I'm here today for you know

07:26why to stump against putting any

07:29discretionary review items for the

07:31planning commission where they make the

07:32final decision on a consent agenda. So,

07:35I sent you a letter and an email with

07:38lots of comments, which hopefully you

07:40guys read so I don't have to repeat

07:41them, but you never know. Um,

07:45so what I want to ask you in this

07:46general public comment period is when

07:49this item comes up and you're discussing

07:51it, I want to ask you to have Mikey

07:54describe in some detail what each of

07:57these um regulatory things are uh that

08:00are up for being put on a consent agenda

08:03since there are no um objective

08:05criterion for how to decide whether they

08:07go on there. Like just for a brief

08:09example, um the major site plan review,

08:11which is up for being on a consent

08:13agenda, is actually in the code. It says

08:17to quote, "Ensure the potential impacts

08:19for development are considered before

08:21submittal of an application for

08:23construction plan or approval of a

08:26building permit." And we're always

08:28hearing from staff that, oh, this will

08:29be taken care of during the building

08:31permit phase. the title 18 says that the

08:34whole point of the major site plan

08:36review is to take care of that on the

08:38front end. So if that's something that

08:40goes on a consent agenda, you don't get

08:42the proper discussion about the the

08:44complexities of it. So on that line,

08:46let's just look at what comes up under

08:48my site plan review. Building heights,

08:51maximum building areas in commercial if

08:53they want to exceed a certain amount. Um

08:55parking lot, landscaping, development

08:57adjacent um

09:00to something I can't Oh, hydraologic res

09:03s res s res s res s res s res s res s

09:03res s res s res s resources. We might

09:04want to take a harder look at that.

09:05We've got grading. We've got hillside

09:07development. We've got grading in parks,

09:10greenways, and open space areas. We've

09:12got landscaping, ways to increase

09:14density through cluster housing. These

09:16are all major site cluster development,

09:19lighting, signs. These are all major

09:21site plan review items. You have no

09:23objective criteria about how to decide

09:25whether or not those should be on a

09:27consent agenda because they're not very

09:28complex according to whom. I wouldn't

09:31know because you don't say. So, I think

09:34you should have Mike explain what

09:36exactly is an alternative equivalent

09:37compliance. Do they have this many

09:39things that go along with that? If you

09:41have this many things, is a site plan,

09:42major site plan review really

09:44appropriate for consent agenda? Not to

09:47mention that the administrative approval

09:50of minor site plan reviews goes up to

09:5310%. This is for things that go up to

09:5550%. So what's the objective criteria?

09:57Well, is it 15%, it's not very complex.

10:00Is it if it wants 45% deviation, is that

10:03complex enough to have a public hearing?

10:05I mean, you got to f future proof this

10:08bylaw change that you're making because

10:09whatever you're thinking right now does

10:12not have institutional duration. If it's

10:13not in writing without it spelled out

10:15what you're trying to do with these

10:16things, you don't know what your next

10:19what your placement's going to think or

10:20how they're, you know, you got to have

10:22it on paper. And I'm not sure that it's

10:24very clear what variances are all about

10:27for everything. So, thank you.

10:29>> Thank you, Donna. Next, we are going to

10:31move online to Lisa Hill, then Kamal

10:34Abuhan. Lisa, just unmute your mic and

10:36state your name for the record. You'll

10:37have three minutes.

10:39>> Can you hear me?

10:40>> We can go ahead.

10:41>> Okay. Lisa Hill for the record. I live

10:44in W five and I'm submitting comments.

10:47I've submitted written comments and I'm

10:49following up with oral comments today on

10:51item D2. I live downhill from the

10:54Keystone campus. I've lived there for

10:56many years. And I wanted to say that the

11:00excess lighting on this campus is a real

11:02nuisance for the people that live

11:03downhill, especially since the apartment

11:06and the condos have gone in. We have

11:08light shining in our yards 24/7.

11:11I recently took part as a citizen

11:13scientist for the Wo County night sky

11:16survey. One of my measurements was in a

11:18vacant lot across the street on McCarron

11:21from this development area and it came

11:25back with the highest level of light

11:27pollution on the scale that we were

11:29given. Similar to readings I took

11:31downtown and near the UNR football

11:34stadium. There was really no need for

11:36that. This amendment would add up to 105

11:39homes and allow housing in the village

11:41commercial area. More homes and more

11:44parking mean more outdoor lighting right

11:46next to public land on three different

11:48sides and a trail network. Staff says

11:51the design standards won't change. So

11:53now is the time to add lighting

11:55standards. I'm asking for a condition of

11:58approval that the PUD handbook require

12:01full shielded fully shielded downward

12:04directed fixtures, warmer color

12:07temperatures, motion sensors or timers

12:09were appropriate and limits on the

12:11overall brightness suggesting uh 3,00

12:15Kelvin or lower. This is in line with uh

12:18dark sky standards. Why does this um why

12:22am I asking for this? Nevada is making a

12:25transition to becoming a dark sky state

12:28and many communities in our region are

12:30already making the transition to dark

12:32skies. This does not mean a dark

12:35neighborhood. Safety comes from putting

12:37light where people need it, not from

12:39wasting it. It saves money and it helps

12:42tourism. Global astroourism

12:45uh is projected to roughly double and

12:47Nevada is poised to make this transition

12:50so we can become a dark sky community.

12:53your destination. It also protects

12:56public health. Um, light at night

12:58disrupts our circadian rhythms and our

13:00and affects our mental health. It meets

13:03the criteria for your decision.

13:05Specifically, the state findings call

13:07for protecting scenic resources,

13:10recreation, health, and general welfare

13:12and existing neighborhoods. Guo County

13:15is already updating their own dark sky

13:17code, and this PUD is a practical place

13:20for the city to ask. I urge you to

13:23recommend approval only with the

13:24condition of adding dark sky lighting

13:26standards to the handbook. And I

13:28appreciate your time and I know Karen DS

13:30for many years and our families have

13:32camped and the reason that we love this

13:34area is it is dark sky and we want to

13:37continue to see it that way. Thank you.

13:40>> Thank you, Lisa. Next up is Kamal

13:43Abuhan. Kamal, just unmute your mic and

13:45state your name for the record. You'll

13:46have three minutes.

13:48>> Thank you. Uh, first name Kamal, last

13:50name Abu Han, Ward 5. I'm on Mayan

13:53Avenue.

13:55Um,

13:56oh, so I've been riding my bicycle

13:58through the uh through my route that

14:00takes me through Leadership Parkway.

14:01This is in regards to Delta 2, the

14:03supplemental supporting material for the

14:05Keystone

14:08Canyon. And uh, you know, while I was

14:10rolling through leadership and I was

14:12looking up the hill, so that's very

14:13interesting. this former speaker was

14:16saying light pollution it's a perch and

14:19what happens is they green at river

14:22drive is below uh it's below the uh this

14:26whole apartment complex. So I was riding

14:29on leadership. Thank you for cleaning

14:30the car off of leadership at that

14:32circle. It's gone now. There's a little

14:34uh trail head. I'm also seeing more

14:35hikers which is interesting which means

14:37people are seeming to feel like they're

14:39it's more secure. It's very rare that I

14:40see hikers in this area. I mostly see

14:43see derelic things going on. Um mostly

14:45that car and other things, but I just

14:48want to let you know I've seen more

14:49hikers. Um you know, when I was going

14:53when I was riding my bike, I was says,

14:54"Yeah, they could probably build up a

14:56little. It's a hill. It's a gradient.

14:57It's a pretty good one, too. It's about

14:5810 10 degrees and there could be some

15:01kind of building in there, but uh you

15:04know, it's it would be nice if it was a

15:06park." Regarding Keystone Trail, it's

15:09very specific that the property there

15:11spec is is marketing themselves as a as

15:13with Keystone Keystone Trail access. So,

15:17I would just ask that the the people

15:18that are going to be building in this

15:20area, if they do, to uh to please

15:23preserve that area. Don't destroy it.

15:26I took some pictures of the uh the

15:28drainage that that's to the uh um east

15:30side of the um uh of the of Keystone

15:33Trail, the trail head, and there are

15:36some areas where it bunches up. Uh the

15:38the the holes that are under the the uh

15:40the constructed bridge uh they're like

15:43holes. They seem smaller. They could get

15:45clogged up pretty easily. But the one

15:47thing I hate to see up here is is heavy

15:49machinery, you know, because it would

15:50just destroy would spoil the natural

15:54contour that is, you know, our

15:56community. In closing, uh please, if we

16:00can, let's be responsible with this with

16:02this property, uh with this expansion,

16:05and uh if it was up to me, I just make

16:08it a park. Make it a park or make it a

16:10landmark and just keep people out of

16:11there. And then also, please, if you

16:13could on the keystone, open that gate.

16:15The gate's still shut, which means

16:17everyone's funneling east. Thank you.

16:21>> Thank you, Kamal. With that, we do not

16:23have any additional public comment

16:24registered for this opening general

16:26public comment um in person or online.

16:31>> Thank you, Madame Clerk. We will now

16:33move on to item A4. This is approval of

16:35the agenda for tonight's meeting dated

16:38November 5th, 2026.

16:40>> Move to approve.

16:44We have a motion and a second.

16:48>> Chair and uh Mikey, do we need to add in

16:52the pulled item? Not sure if that's a

16:54question for legal.

16:57>> No,

16:57>> I was going to address that under

16:59announcements.

16:59>> Okay.

17:01>> Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner

17:04Velto, a second from uh Commissioner

17:07McKenzie.

17:08Any discussion? We do have a hand

17:11raised. Commissioner Visera.

17:13>> Yes. Thank you. Uh I wanted to

17:17and and and Mike, I'm not sure

17:18procedurally maybe just guide me here or

17:20the group here, but I was wanting to

17:22request that we pull item E1 from the

17:25agenda.

17:28>> Uh procedurally that would you would

17:30make a motion to amend the agenda and

17:32then there would be a vote taken.

17:35it procedurally. Could I do that now,

17:38Mike, or would I wait until the item is

17:40open at

17:41>> You You could You could essentially do

17:43it either way is my understanding. You

17:45could make a motion to amend the agenda

17:47now, or you could make a motion to table

17:50the item when it's when it is open.

17:54>> Well, I I'd like to just uh amend the

17:56motion if I may.

17:59>> Uh we have a motion and a second before

18:01us. I'm going to look to legal as to

18:05that request.

18:07>> So, the motion and the second have to be

18:09voted on before you can move to amend

18:11the motion and then you could have

18:15further discussion to amend the motion

18:18or you can have discussion now what you

18:20guys want to do.

18:23Uh perhaps uh Commissioner Bera can

18:26explain this rationale for wanting to

18:29oppose this motion and we can decide

18:32whether to vote yes or no on the motion

18:35and allow Miss and allow Commissioner

18:36Bisera's motion uh to remove agenda item

18:39E1.

18:42>> Okay. So, Commissioner Bisera. Yes.

18:46>> Yeah. Well, I'll keep it brief, but

18:48essentially I would respectfully request

18:51uh tableabling E1 until the first

18:54quarter of 27 uh specifically

18:58around the proposed revisions to the

19:01city council or the the Reno City

19:03Planning Commission bylaws to allow the

19:06newly constituted city council that has

19:09just taken shape a couple days ago an

19:11opportunity to review initial public and

19:14commission feedback around this item. uh

19:16over the last 6 months or so and to

19:18provide broader policy direction to

19:20staff including consideration of

19:23consistent governance standards across

19:24the city boards and commissions and

19:27advisory bodies that some of the items

19:28that I think are being proposed touch on

19:31not just within this body but that way

19:33we're approaching this more

19:34holistically.

19:37>> I I have a couple questions if you

19:40wouldn't mind to try to get to the

19:41bottom of Commissioner Bera's concerns

19:43and my questions are more for staff. Uh

19:46or maybe um yeah, Mike, I have a

19:49question for you. Uh when is the next

19:51council seated?

19:53>> So the the vote will be certified by the

19:57current council on the 13th and then the

20:01new council will be sworn in. So there

20:03first kind of official meeting would be

20:05the 18th. And if we were to vote to

20:07approve the bylaws tonight, uh, would

20:10the new council hear the approved bylaws

20:13or recommended approved bylaws or the

20:15existing council?

20:15>> The new council would.

20:16>> So either way, if we approve the bylaws

20:19tonight, the new council will hear them.

20:22>> That's correct.

20:23>> And would the new council have the

20:24ability to vote them down consistent

20:26with wanting to have an holistic

20:28approach to the bylaws in the city?

20:30>> They would.

20:31>> Okay. With that, I think we should deny

20:33I think we should approve the agenda as

20:34written and uh not continue this to a

20:38future time.

20:40Any further discussion?

20:42Commissioner Visera? Sure.

20:44>> I guess I would just add too that uh

20:46there's a nuance to this as well. I

20:49guess if this body does decide to move

20:52forward with it, I will at that time

20:54recuse myself and I will state perhaps

20:58why. And I believe Mike has additional

21:01context as to what

21:03that

21:08>> understood. Any further discuss?

21:09>> We couldn't hear the rest of

21:10Commissioner Bisera's comment. I don't

21:12know. Did it I I couldn't understand it.

21:14I couldn't hear the end of it. Did you

21:16want to try to repeat that?

21:18>> Sure, Commissioner Williams. And I would

21:20also perhaps implore you to uh invoke

21:23the word I.

21:26Seems like uh you were speaking for the

21:28rest of

21:28>> Sorry, Commissioner Bera. I still can't

21:30I still can't hear you.

21:32>> I I join in Commissioner Williams

21:33sentiment that I couldn't hear you

21:35either.

21:36>> Sure. How about now?

21:39>> We can hear you. Go ahead.

21:42>> Fantastic. Thank you so much. If this

21:45body decides to move forward with this

21:47item at that time, I will respectfully

21:50have to recuse myself.

21:53Mike Mikey has context as to why and I'm

21:56happy to provide that context

21:58as well.

22:01>> Would you like to provide the context,

22:03Commissioner Bisera?

22:05>> So I think we should

22:08>> I think we should refrain from that's a

22:11question about his basis for recusal. Uh

22:14that's a question that we should not ask

22:17of Commissioner Visera until we are on

22:18that item.

22:20>> So we have a motion and a second. All in

22:22favor say I.

22:23>> I I

22:24>> I.

22:25>> Any opposed?

22:27>> Hearing none.

22:28>> No. No.

22:31>> Reasons.

22:32>> Understood. So we have a motion to

22:34approve the agenda. This is item A4 that

22:36we're still on. That is uh past 61. We

22:40will now move to item A5. This is

22:41approval of the minutes from our October

22:4314th, 2026 meeting at 6 p.m.

22:47>> Move to approve.

22:49>> Second.

22:50>> Motion and second. And all in favor say

22:52I.

22:53>> I

22:54>> I.

22:55>> Any opposed or abstensions?

22:58Hearing none. Motion carries

22:59unanimously. Item B, staff

23:01announcements. Mr.

23:02>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple

23:04quick announcements. As you'll see, item

23:05D1 shows as a pulled item. There was a

23:08clerical area, excuse me, clerical error

23:11with the case number in the staff report

23:13and on the agenda. Um, that item has

23:16been moved to your next meeting.

23:17However, because notices were sent out,

23:19we would ask that you take any public

23:20comment tonight, but no action will be

23:22taken on item D1. Um, couple quick

23:26council updates. Uh, the Fourquare

23:28Church master plan amendment and zoning

23:30map amendment were approved by council

23:33um since your last meeting and the

23:35Boulevard conditional use permit was

23:37appealed. Um, that appeal will be heard

23:39by council at the second meeting in

23:42December. Um because the conditional use

23:45permit was appealed, the applicant has

23:47agreed to move the master plan amendment

23:50and zoning map amendment which would

23:51have expanded the gaming overlay to that

23:54meeting so it can be uh heard at the

23:55same meeting as the conditional use

23:57permit appeal.

23:59>> Thank you Mr. Now moving on to that item

24:02D1. We have uh just heard the uh request

24:07for continuance that this is a public

24:10hearing. So we will state still take

24:12public comment on this item before we

24:15entertain a motion. Um so item D1, this

24:18is a staff report for possible action

24:20case number LDC26-000068.

24:25This is 931 Gordon Avenue fence height

24:28deviation.

24:30Uh we will go straight to public

24:31comment. Madame Clerk.

24:33>> Thank you, Chair. We did receive written

24:35correspondence for this item that were

24:36forwarded to the commission and entered

24:38into the record. I do not have any

24:40requests to speak forms in person, and

24:42we do not have anyone online with their

24:44hand raised.

24:46>> Thank you, Madame Clerk. I will do this

24:48uh in one uh question. Do we have any

24:52disclosures from the commission to make

24:54before a motion is made on this item?

24:56D1.

24:58>> You do not have to make a motion. Oh,

25:00>> no motion needs to be made on this item.

25:02It's been pulled.

25:03>> I thought we had to move to continue.

25:06>> Okay. So, that will am I able to close

25:09the item out now then without a motion?

25:11>> You may.

25:12>> Thank you very much. That concludes item

25:14D1. We will now move to item D2. This is

25:17a staff report for possible action and

25:20uh this is a recommendation to city

25:22council. This is case number

25:24LDC27-000031

25:28Keystone Canyon PUD amendment. For this

25:32item, we will begin with a presentation

25:34from staff. Miss Mcadin.

25:38>> Good evening, commissioners. Grace

25:40McAdan, senior management analyst for

25:41the record, and I'm here to discuss the

25:44Keystone Canyon PUD amendment.

25:47So, this is an existing PUD. It's about

25:49101 acres in size, but this particular

25:52amendment only affects the

25:53northwesternmost parcel and then the

25:55southern parcel that's highlighted up

25:57there on your screen. The applicant is

25:59requesting to increase the number of

26:01allowed units from 745 units to 850. And

26:04they're also asking to allow for

26:06residential uses in the village

26:08commercial parcel.

26:12Some key issues staff analyze with this

26:14request include compatibility, hillside

26:17development, and traffic.

26:20So, as stated before, this uh PUD is

26:22existing. It's about 101 acres in size.

26:25This map just kind of gives you a better

26:26idea of the boundary of that PUD and

26:29then the parcels that are in question

26:30tonight.

26:32Master plan designation for this site is

26:34special planning area and this amendment

26:37is supported by a number of our master

26:39plan policies primarily surrounding um

26:42and promoting housing.

26:46All right, so let's dive into each

26:48parcel that's affected and how the

26:49proposed changes will kind of impact

26:51those individual parcels. So first we

26:54have the northwestern most partial

26:55parcel. This is currently vacant. The

26:58increase in unit count would allow them

27:00to build approximately 70 units on this

27:02parcel. Um there was previously a site

27:05plan approved for this parcel for 70

27:07attached units. That's where they got

27:09that number. um that site plan is uh

27:12since expired and those units were

27:14absorbed in kind of some of the

27:15surrounding developments.

27:19So now to kind of just touch on that

27:21village commercial site, the only change

27:23they're looking for here is to allow

27:26them to build residential as well as

27:29some commercial. So it doesn't eliminate

27:30the possibility for commercial um but it

27:33allows them to build residential. uh it

27:36was intended for commercial development,

27:37but the the market just hasn't provided

27:39for any commercial tenants to occupy

27:41that site. And that kind of is what

27:43triggered the applicant to come in at

27:45this point. So, they're just requesting

27:47some flexibility to develop either

27:49residential or commercial or a little

27:51bit of both.

27:54So, when staff analyzed the

27:55compatibility component, we looked at

27:57the surrounding development and as well

27:59as the development within the PUD, all

28:01of which is is primarily residential in

28:03nature. I understand from some of the

28:06public comments that there's a desire to

28:08kind of maintain some of the commercial

28:10components of this beauty which is still

28:12possible. Um but generally this is

28:14designated a foot foothill neighborhoods

28:17um from our master plan and generally we

28:19actually prefer to see residential in

28:21these neighborhoods because you can see

28:22some hillside adaptive architecture. Um

28:25there's also some um it's a little bit

28:28safer as far as fire access is is

28:30considered as well. So, as far as the

28:33foothill neighborhoods and our master

28:34plan, residential really is more what we

28:37want to see here. Um, you don't

28:39typically see

28:41commercial um in these foothill

28:43neighborhoods because you have to

28:44traverse out to these uh outskirts of

28:46our neighborhoods typically. This one's

28:48a little unique because it's right off

28:50of McCarron, but but that's kind of one

28:51of the reasons you don't see it very

28:53often.

28:55As for safety, so this came up during

28:57our NAB and of course with the recent

28:58fires, it was a concern of staff. Um and

29:01so we are requiring a secondary access

29:03um emergency access easement easement

29:06excuse me recorded prior to any future

29:08development. Um the easements already

29:10appears to be in place but through our

29:12review we just couldn't find any formal

29:14easement documentation. So this will

29:16kind of clean some of that up make sure

29:18we have that emergency access for any

29:20for the fire department um in case of

29:22emergency. And then with any future

29:24development, because this is a foothill

29:26neighborhood, um the developer will have

29:28to comply with uh what we call WOOI

29:31standards or enhanced fire requirements.

29:36So, another issue we looked at was

29:37traffic. Um with the recent installation

29:40of the light at McCarron, that's kind of

29:42what triggered the applicant to come in

29:43at this point. Uh they realized there

29:45was some capacity for some additional

29:48units. Um, and so they're they're

29:50they're kind of able to do that with

29:52some of the mitigation measure measures

29:53that have put into place. Uh, the

29:56traffic study was also based on some of

29:59and I I can let engineering speak more

30:00to this if necessary, but it was based

30:02on some of the retail and commercial

30:03standards which typically generate more

30:05traffic. Um, and so it was a little bit

30:07of an overshot. So, uh, it's anticipated

30:11to operate within those levels of

30:12service.

30:14So, something I I wanted to touch on

30:16briefly is trails. This has come up a

30:18couple times from the public. The trail

30:21system around this development is really

30:24well used by the community, which is

30:26great. Um, but this is a existing PUD.

30:30There's some robust conversation of

30:32trails within the PUD, and so it was it

30:34was really um prioritized by the

30:38developer and staff at the time that the

30:39PUD was developed. So there's

30:41connectivity within the PUD, there's

30:43trail heads, there's access. um it was

30:46really kind of seen as this or

30:48envisioned as a a development where the

30:51residents who live here can access the

30:53trails um and the networks there. So it

30:55is prioritized the the land is owned by

30:58BLM so there's there's

31:00um not really a risk of it being

31:02developed and and the trail heads are

31:05established and the the trail network is

31:08established.

31:12All right. So, as for public comment, we

31:15received a handful of public comments

31:17regarding lighting, safety, water usage,

31:20trails, sewer, fire access, um,

31:23drainage, public transportation, etc. A

31:27lot of these concerns are addressed in

31:28the existing PUD document, as I've kind

31:30of talked about, um, which will remain

31:32unchanged. There's only those two minor

31:34modifications. Uh, and then this

31:36amendment won't impact those existing

31:38regulations. Um, other concerns were

31:41addressed in the staff report. Um, and

31:43then with future development, we'll kind

31:45of look more closely at things like

31:46sewer and traffic. Um, once we know the

31:49specific numbers.

31:52So, we have two findings for zoning map

31:54amendment. Staff was able to make both

31:56of these findings. Because this is

31:58relation to a PUD, we have a number of

32:00PUD specific findings and staff is also

32:03able to make all of these.

32:05The recommended motion is on your screen

32:07and I'm available for questions. The

32:09applicant is also here and has a

32:11presentation.

32:27All right. Good evening. Uh my name is

32:30Karen DS. I'm with RBI Planning. Um, and

32:34I have a presentation. It's I'm not sure

32:37if

32:38uh this works. It's similar to Grace,

32:40but I will try not to go over uh the

32:42same points. I'll just point out a

32:44couple other items. Um, obviously with

32:47the location,

32:49excuse me, location of the project uh

32:51for Keystone Canyon PUD. Um, highlighted

32:54in blue are the two areas that remain

32:56undeveloped of the total uh PUB area.

33:02We talked about the existing um master

33:04plan special planning area master plan

33:07and zoning for the planned unit

33:10development that has the existing uh PUD

33:13development standards handbook.

33:16Um, one thing I wanted to point out

33:18about the background and project

33:20approvals for you is that when this

33:23um, most recent land use plan that we'll

33:26look at was uh, approved in 2001 as an

33:29amendment, it was based on the sewer

33:31capacity at the time and that there was

33:34no signal, the traffic capacity at the

33:35time that there was no signal at

33:37McCarron Boulevard um, which is how they

33:41established the 745 units uh, at the

33:45time And that land use plan again it's

33:47largely built out. Uh there are those

33:49two undeveloped sites. I wanted to point

33:52out that there are

33:54uh the existing approvals uh that Grace

33:57mentioned. One on the northwest

33:58residential land use area. There was a

34:01tenative map approved in 2018 for 70 uh

34:05residential townhouse house units. And

34:09there is a current approval

34:11on the village commercial site for

34:1318,000 square foot of commercial as well

34:16as a building permit. Um for about the

34:20past two years or so they've been

34:21looking for tenants for that site and it

34:24has not come to fruition. So they are

34:26looking for additional flexibility that

34:27we'll talk about.

34:31Here is the approved land use plan that

34:35we mentioned um in the existing handbook

34:37that northwest residential land use area

34:39is designated as residential and village

34:43commercial is commercial.

34:47So our request tonight is one to

34:50increase the maximum number of

34:51residential units from 745 to 850

34:56and second to allow for residential uses

35:00on the village commercial site. Uh this

35:03will allow for continued residential

35:06development in the infill areas on the

35:08site where originally intended for

35:10development. It will allow some

35:12flexibility to respond to that evolving

35:15market. um for housing allow for

35:19residential and commercial development.

35:23And again, this request came before as a

35:27result um result of some of the

35:29infrastructure improvements in the area.

35:32One uh primarily with this development.

35:35Uh one is the traffic signal at McCarron

35:38and Leadership U and Keystone Avenue

35:42that was in June of 2020. 2025 that

35:46allows the project to operate um within

35:49level of service and two some uh

35:52significant sewer upsizing downstream

35:54allows for adequate sewer capacity at

35:57the site. Um we did a sewer analysis

36:01that shows that this level with the uh

36:04additional up to 850 units will function

36:06on site so it's feasible to develop.

36:11So those two requests um

36:15look like this. One is for the increase

36:17in units for the 850 in the northwest

36:19residential site and village commercial.

36:22And then there's a second a change in

36:25the land use designations

36:28uh land use table to allow for

36:31residential development in that village

36:34commercial similar to what you see in

36:36mixed use. So it allow for both

36:38residential and commercial.

36:41Uh we're not proposing to take away the

36:43commercial use on the commercial site in

36:46case that is feasible um but just to

36:49allow for them allow for the possibility

36:51of com of residential uses.

36:56Um, again, based on some questions on

36:58the site that came up through public

37:00comment and at the NAB meeting, I did

37:02want to point out the enhanced fire um

37:07requirements that the project would need

37:09to meet

37:11um based on WOOI fire code. Again, the

37:15uh residential development would have to

37:17meet the defensible fire space, water

37:20conformity and fire hydrant distance,

37:22certain ignition resistant construction

37:25requirements.

37:26Um and then I I guess one thing to point

37:30out as you we haven't talked about any

37:32specific development projects because

37:34there's not development proposed with

37:36this. Um, however, future development

37:39would include uh slope treatment as a

37:42fire break as well as ignition resistant

37:44fencing for yards.

37:50Um, Grace mentioned the emergency access

37:53that is there. So, this fire access road

37:56does exist. Uh, the project is required

37:59to make sure there's um an easement on

38:02the property for it. It does go through,

38:04as you can see, uh the emergency access

38:07goes through a a parcel that's down to

38:11Regal Drive.

38:15Uh our final questions were regarding

38:18trails. And so I wanted to point out the

38:20existing trail heads and access points

38:23that are on site

38:26um through this project. It was when the

38:29project was approved, it was envisioned

38:31to promote trails and access to the BLM

38:35property. So that is existing through

38:38the project um at these locations.

38:45I know there's a lot of lines on site,

38:47but so the the red areas are what

38:49highlight the access points.

38:54Um, finally,

38:56just our our reasons for coming forward

38:58are that this provides housing

39:01opportunities in this infill area that

39:03was already designed for housing. Uh,

39:06follows a nationwide

39:08trend and laws that support housing in

39:11these infill and commercial areas. It's

39:15promoting the existing infrastructure

39:17use in this infill area.

39:20It's still meeting the goals of the

39:21Keystone Canyon PUB and the Foothill

39:24neighborhood design principles which

39:26include uh housing variety of housing

39:28opportunities and a gateway to open

39:30space uh with this project. So with

39:33that, we request

39:35um

39:36approval of this amendment which allows

39:38for additional housing units um

39:40throughout the project and residential

39:43use in the village commercial area. Of

39:45course, available for any questions that

39:47you have. Thank you. Thank you very

39:49much. We will now move to disclosures

39:51from the commission. We'll start on my

39:53right. Commissionerto.

39:55>> Uh Commissioner Belto spoke to the

39:56applicants representative as well as

39:58received and reviewed uh public comments

40:01by email.

40:04>> Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

40:06>> Commissioner McKenzie, I spoke to

40:08representative of the development and I

40:10read and reviewed the public comments.

40:13>> Uh Commissioner Jockman, I received a

40:15text message from the applicant

40:16representative. I did not reply. And my

40:20uh wife used to live in these apartments

40:22up until

40:24200

40:25uh I think it was 15. It's been at least

40:2810 years. I have nor has she ever had

40:31any ownership or pecuniary commitment uh

40:34beyond that since that time.

40:38>> Commissioner Williams, uh I also

40:39received a text message from the

40:41applicant which I did not re um respond

40:43to. um read and view material uh

40:45familiar with the area and read and

40:47viewed u submitted concerns.

40:52>> Commissioner Delvr, I read and receive

40:55received and read all of the material.

40:57I'm familiar with the site. That's it.

41:00>> Commissioner Visera, same as

41:02Commissioner Delvr and I have an

41:03exchange with the uh applicants

41:06representative and I'm familiar with the

41:07site and I do a lot of uh jogging up

41:10there.

41:12That concludes our disclosures. We will

41:14now move to public comment. Madame

41:16clerk.

41:16>> Thank you, chair. We did receive written

41:18correspondence for this item that were

41:20forwarded to the commission and entered

41:21into the record. I have one public

41:23comment in person. If you are attending

41:26online and would like to provide public

41:27comment, please raise your hand at this

41:29time. We will start in person with Donna

41:31Keats.

41:35Sorry, these folks wanted to speak to

41:38this item. I was just wondering why they

41:40weren't.

41:42Anyway, Donna Keats, for the record, I

41:45don't have too much to say about this. I

41:46have more general comment about plan

41:48unit developments and about how across

41:51the board um what we've seen

41:55in what is now W six, but when it was W

41:57two repeatedly, here's the PUD gets

42:01approved. Two years later, they're back.

42:04They say, "Oh, by the way, we want to

42:05increase density and hey, we can do

42:07hillside adaptive architecture, which

42:08basically means cluster housing moving

42:10up the hill." Happens over and over and

42:13over again. And you as the planning

42:14commission, I think you're I think I

42:16don't know what you think, but I think

42:17your job is to also kind of pay

42:18attention to the overall growth of the

42:20city, what's really happening, the

42:22specific project. I have no personal

42:23investment in this at all, but the way

42:25the whole PUD process works, the

42:27continual modification. So then they get

42:29this. They get to do multif family in

42:31the village commercial area. Then they

42:33get to do residential 70 units there.

42:35But hey, you know, there's so much land

42:37up there. They'll be back. Let's see if

42:38we can't add a few more. All right.

42:40Well, that's not really so horrible. But

42:42the idea of this when it first passed

42:44through was in accordance with the

42:46master plan where we're supposed to be

42:47having all these cute little

42:49neighborhood centers and places for

42:51large population areas that aren't

42:53downtown or, you know, have a place to

42:55go shop. That's the master plan. So

42:59although this is like the tricky stuff

43:01that happens all the time. We're not

43:03removing this original proposal. We just

43:05want the option to have a second

43:06proposal. Well, that's not actually

43:07true. They are going to have this. This

43:09is what you approved now. So they have

43:11multif family, they have single family,

43:13they have many things for village

43:14commercial.

43:16Fine. But if you want to give them an

43:18opportunity to help make their village

43:20commercial affordable, let them have

43:22residential as an over on top of the

43:24commercial. Because what we wanted there

43:26in the beginning in the whole concept

43:27was neighborhood commercial in all of

43:30these newly built centers. So if they

43:33need to increase the economic viability

43:35of the village commercial development,

43:36wouldn't it just be great if they had

43:38shops and houses on top or residences on

43:41top? Give them that piece, right? You

43:43have to give the multif family because

43:45you know that's what's going to go in.

43:47And there's enough of it right there

43:49already. And the difference between the

43:51amount of traffic generated by

43:53commercial versus people who live there

43:55is the 24-hour a day syndrome. So during

43:57the day until 6:00 or whatever, it might

44:00be busy because it's commercial, but in

44:02the evenings it's back to peaceful

44:03nighttime skies.

44:06If it's multifamily on that lot where

44:08you get to go, plus if they do that, you

44:10don't have a height limit. So if you're

44:12going to go 40 ft up there or whatever

44:13the height limit is more than two

44:15stories right there off of McCarron, you

44:18are going to have a lighting problem. So

44:19I think there's ways you can manage this

44:21approval to allow them to get better

44:23economic viability be more in accordance

44:25with the goals and the premises of the

44:27master plan and the vision of the city

44:29about how new neighborhoods were

44:30supposed to be built out. Let them have

44:32what they need and also give the city

44:34back what they need instead of just

44:35saying okay and then you get apartments.

44:38That's just what you're going to get.

44:39So, it won't be creative to anything.

44:41It's going to be clustered, moving up

44:43the hill. The parts of the open parks

44:45and screenway are inaccessible, steep,

44:47rocky areas. It doesn't do anybody any

44:49good. So, let's think about what you

44:51really want to give them a little bit.

44:53>> Thank you.

44:54>> Thank you, Donna. We are going to move

44:55online to Lisa Hill. Lisa, just unmute

44:58your mic. State your name for the

44:59record.

45:01>> Lisa Hill, for the record, I listened to

45:03the presentation. I already made my oral

45:06comments and send you them in writing.

45:08So my question to Mr. and the

45:11commission, if you wouldn't mind please

45:13addressing in your discussion,

45:16what, when, where, and how do we as a

45:19community um put in lighting standards

45:23so they don't become a nuisance for the

45:25surrounding neighborhoods and the

45:26surrounding open space? Thank you.

45:31>> Thank you, Lisa. Next is Kamal Abuhan

45:34online.

45:37Thank you again, Kamal Van Ward five for

45:40the record. Uh just please maintain the

45:42area and make sure that uh the public's

45:46happy. You know, I got a shot of of fear

45:48in my heart when I heard that for people

45:50who live there, they get access to the

45:51trails. The trails are for the entire

45:54community, all of us. So, please respect

45:56that. Don't be Florida. Don't be St.

45:58Petersburg where they blocked off all

46:00the beaches for private property where

46:02nobody could get access except for two

46:03points within 10 miles. Please don't do

46:06that. Thank you.

46:08>> Thank you. Um Abigail Watson, did you

46:11want to speak under this item?

46:13>> Okay.

46:19>> Just state your name for the record.

46:20You'll have three minutes.

46:22>> Um yeah, for the record, my name is

46:23Abigail Watson. Um so I just wanted to

46:26comment. I know that uh somebody

46:27mentioned that there was trail

46:28adjustments and how that that was going

46:30to be able to be fixed, but I did want

46:32to talk about how um residential

46:34expansion isn't the best look sometimes

46:36for people that are coming towards Reno.

46:38I'm actually not from Reno. I'm from

46:39Henderson um Las Vegas area obviously

46:42and uh I go to school at UNR. So

46:44obviously when I come here and I think a

46:45lot of students as well, they're looking

46:47towards these mountains. They're looking

46:48towards these areas, these trails, um

46:50these different places that I know that

46:51some of the public comments have been

46:53made about. Um so I think that it's

46:55something that we have to keep in mind

46:56as we progress and move forward because

46:57it is important for well one uh

46:59popularity of the state and also the

47:01school. It's something to keep in mind.

47:03Um and then I also wanted to comment on

47:05the agriculture. Um I know somebody was

47:07mentioning something like that but we

47:08have to keep in mind like the animals

47:09rushing down. Something similar has been

47:11happening um in Las Vegas areas and

47:12Henderson alike. Um it's been causing a

47:14lot of issues with animals like uh

47:16dangerous animals, coyotes,

47:18rattlesnakes. Um, and honestly, moving

47:21down like that, they uh cause issues

47:24with, you know, dogs being eaten in

47:26neighborhoods like that. So, I know that

47:27it may not be something that you

47:29consider up here, but it's something

47:30that we as residents consider, and I

47:32just it would be a shame to see the same

47:33thing happen up here. Um, but yeah,

47:35that's the end of my comment.

47:38>> Thank you. Uh, with that, I do not have

47:40any additional public comment cards in

47:42person

47:43or online.

47:47Do we have any request to speak in

47:49chambers at this time? If so, please

47:51raise your hand. Seeing none, that will

47:53now conclude public comment on this item

47:55and we will move to questions from the

47:58commission.

48:02Uh, Commissionerto.

48:05>> Uh, yes. Um, had a question for you. Uh,

48:09there was a comment about, uh, access

48:11lighting.

48:13uh is there going to be an increase in

48:14access lighting as a result of this

48:16proposal and can you kind of talk me

48:18through what's required by the city or

48:19how the project has addressed it?

48:21>> Yeah, so just lighting in general. Um

48:23thank you for bringing that up. I meant

48:24to bring that up in my um presentation

48:27because I did see that public comment

48:28beforehand. The existing PUD document

48:31has lighting standards. Um they are

48:35required to be directed downward and

48:36shielded. So, it sounds like um

48:40there might be a you know, I'm not going

48:43to say that they're not in conformance,

48:44but it sounds like there was a complaint

48:46or an issue um observed by a resident.

48:49Uh I wasn't a I we looked at some code

48:51enforcement complaints. I'm not aware of

48:53any out there right now. The only other

48:55thing I can think of is that um the

48:58previous developer didn't have to meet

48:59the the robust standards we have today

49:01in code. So we have the PUD requirements

49:04and then we also have Calvin's and foot

49:06candle requirements in our code. So

49:08there will be additional lighting

49:09because you have parking lot lighting

49:10and the building lighting. Um but we do

49:13have standards to address those to

49:14hopefully make it minimal directed

49:16downwards um and mostly for safety um

49:20requirements.

49:21>> Thank you.

49:27Uh, one quick question, Commissioner.

49:30Commissioner McQu.

49:32>> Thank you, Chair.

49:33>> Yeah, go ahead.

49:34>> I I have I I have some questions, but I

49:37don't want to I was kind of hoping maybe

49:39others would have some questions and it

49:41might help uh educate me so I don't have

49:43to show just how kind of um new I am to

49:46this. Uh I'm I'm starting from the

49:50process. you know, I I want to I want to

49:52kind of recognize that we were talking

49:53about this this kind of 7035 split um

49:57that was in the presentation. Um and

49:59it's my understanding that that is not

50:00binding at all. That's just a kind of

50:03theoretical this is what we're looking

50:05at. This is what might be.

50:07>> But nothing in what we're going to be

50:08approving if we approve this tonight

50:11would lock that in.

50:12>> The total unit count is binding.

50:14>> Right.

50:15>> Um but the split is not binding.

50:17Correct.

50:17>> Okay. Um, so that's kind of going to be

50:22the driver for a lot of my questions

50:23tonight is recognizing it's 105, but

50:25we're not saying that it has to be 7030.

50:28It could be 105 here theoretically. I

50:30understand there might be some other

50:31limitations um or 105 here. Mhm.

50:34>> Um and and um so for me when I look at

50:39that and I see and I and I heard you say

50:42uh commercial is still an option,

50:45>> but if we build out that entire area,

50:49where's the commercial going to go?

50:50That's that's kind of what I'm

50:51wondering. And the handbook talks about

50:53commercial opportunities and creating a

50:55residential and commercial gateway to

50:57the trails. Uh but if the remaining

51:00undeveloped parcels that we're looking

51:01at tonight become residential, how do

51:04you see

51:06us meeting that goal in the handbook of

51:08having this kind of um commercial um

51:12residentially, you know, kind of um

51:14supported, you know, commercial

51:17>> projects? How do you see that working

51:18out?

51:19>> Definitely a trade-off. Um and so as as

51:21Donna had mentioned, today they could do

51:24residential over commercial. um that

51:26hasn't seemed to be viable at this

51:29point. Um I I think that

51:34primarily I'm going to address your

51:35question about the goal of the handbook

51:37and then if I'm missing anything we can

51:39go backwards. Um

51:41I think that that's a general goal of

51:43the handbook. We're not seeing that

51:45commercial being met so it's not that

51:46goal isn't really being being met today.

51:48If we wanted to get really technical we

51:50could modify that goal of the handbook.

51:52Um but ultimately we're looking at

51:54master plan policies. Um we we're

51:58looking at the foothill neighborhoods

51:59and we're looking at code compliance for

52:01those those parcels. They're they're

52:03maxed out at a 45 foot height. So

52:06they're they're limited with the amount

52:07of parcels they can do in each area. So

52:10conceptually they probably will be

52:12limited to 70 units at that northwest

52:14parcel just because of the the height

52:17requirements. Um, so it it most likely

52:20will be dispersed in some way. Might

52:23maybe not 7035, but I don't foresee them

52:26being able to put 105 units on one

52:28parcel just because of that height

52:29limit. Um, and you know, there's

52:33commercial opportunities maybe nearby,

52:34but as far as within this handbook,

52:36we're not seeing that be built out at

52:37this time. And so staff kind of has to

52:39weigh the the trade-offs of housing

52:42opportunities and um diversity of

52:44housing needs, which this handbook does

52:46offer. um with kind of that commercial

52:49viability.

52:51>> Okay. And I I think that that makes

52:53sense. It's just if we created this PUD

52:56with this idea that there's going to be

52:57mixed commercial and we have these

52:59different zones for that and now it

53:01looks like we're completely doing away

53:03with in reality the commercial. I mean

53:05I'm looking up the purple is mixed use.

53:07I'm I'm guessing but you can you can

53:09tell me is that all residential? So the

53:11mixed use that we have is even all

53:12residential. So the only thing that

53:14we're really going to be having left is

53:17if they don't build if they decide to

53:19save some space in village. Um otherwise

53:22there's going to be no commercial in

53:23this PUB at all.

53:24>> Definitely.

53:24>> And if that's if that's a goal is to

53:26have a proper ratio, I don't know how

53:29how we get there without some kind of a

53:31limitation, some kind of a binding uh

53:34condition or something along the lines

53:35that would kind of carve some of that

53:37out. whether it's the the uh residential

53:39over um you were talking about. Um

53:42that's that's kind of my kind of

53:44handbook goal question. Um I've got

53:46stuff for for engineering and and sewer

53:48and and things, but I can I can wait on

53:49that chair and and and see um what

53:52anyone else has to say. Thank you.

53:55>> Okay, we have a hand raised to

53:57Commissioner Delvr.

53:59>> Uh thank you, Commissioner Delvr. Um I

54:02think my questions have been answered.

54:05Um,

54:07yeah, just some of the questions I had

54:09originally had was about the fire

54:10standards, which you guys covered, sewer

54:12capacity, traffic, um, and then the dark

54:16sky. Um,

54:18I think so I think I'm okay. I think I'm

54:21okay now. Um, I I'm I'm sure um,

54:25Commissioner McCoy has a few more

54:26questions, too, that might help.

54:28>> Uh, Commissioner.

54:30>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Bizera.

54:33>> Great. Uh, thank you. Uh, Commissioner

54:36Ber for the record. Commissioner McCoy,

54:38excellent questions. Definitely help

54:40answer some of the things that were top

54:41of mind for me. Um, Grace, I I wasn't

54:44sure if if this was answered clearly, so

54:47I just wanted to get an answer because

54:49we've seen it surface both tonight

54:51through public comment and before, but

54:54are the STP lighting standards in parody

54:57with international nights standards? the

55:01PUB lighting standards

55:03>> or I guess the city of Reno lighting

55:04standards that you mentioned that you

55:06know they're they're all facing

55:07downwards and so forth.

55:09>> Yeah.

55:09>> Um well, let me um let me uh I guess

55:13address some of that. So I think dark

55:15skylanders according to what Lisa was

55:17saying is 3,000 Kelvin. Our code

55:19requirement is 4,000 Kelvin. Um for

55:22anyone who doesn't know that's like the

55:23the the warmth of the lighting and so it

55:25it does prohibit super cool bright

55:27lighting. not maybe as um stringent as

55:30those dark sky standards that we see,

55:31but everything has to be directed

55:33downwards, covered, concealed. Um the

55:35ballard height is limited, and so it's

55:38um somewhat uh similar to dark sky land

55:42lighting standards, but I'm definitely

55:43not an expert in those, so I I can't

55:45speak to all of those.

55:48>> No problem. Uh would would the

55:49applicant's representative be able to uh

55:51Garrett, would you be able to speak to

55:53those or

55:56>> Good evening. Thank you, uh,

55:57Commissioner Bisera. So, let me put this

56:00on the overhead for lighting.

56:03So, this is what's currently in the

56:06handbook and you can see that there is a

56:10reference to dark sky lighting

56:12techniques. The project lighting package

56:15includes both common element and

56:16specific village lighting. Dark sky

56:19lighting techniques shall be utilized

56:21with the project and verified during

56:23review of their respective building

56:25permit or final map. As I continue to go

56:28down through each of these bullet

56:29points, uh, given the public comment,

56:32uh, let me focus on, uh, exterior lights

56:35shall not blink, flash, or change. Um,

56:37all off- streetet light source shall be

56:39confined illumination to the site and

56:41protect adjacent properties from glare.

56:43So, again, protect adjacent properties

56:45from glare. There should not be any

56:47glare. Um, as I continue to read this,

56:51uh, lighting shall be placed along

56:52pedestrian pathways, the pedestrian

56:54bridge crossings, parks, etc. Um, the

56:58point I wanted to mention here in the

57:00third bullet point, the light source

57:01shall be kept as low to the ground as

57:03possible while ensuring safe and

57:05functional levels of lighting. All

57:08sources of light shall be concealed and

57:10directed downward. So, these are all

57:12dark dark skylighting techniques. Um the

57:15existing project should comply with

57:17these new projects shall comply with

57:20these and certainly if we're not as

57:22Grace said there's a code enforcement

57:23mechanism uh that the neighbors could

57:27file uh where planning staff and code

57:29enforcement would verify that we're in

57:30compliance. But I would submit to you

57:32that these dark sky lighting techniques

57:34uh should address the public comment

57:36concern.

57:38>> Thank you uh Garrett. Thank you Grace. I

57:40appreciate that. And I did have a

57:42follow-up question. It's a different

57:44topic around traffic, but I can hold

57:46until later. Thank you.

57:48>> Mr. Chairman, may I address Mr. McCory's

57:50question regarding um

57:53regarding the commercial that's

57:55acceptable just on behalf of the

57:56applicant? So,

57:59>> Commissioner, I appreciate the question.

58:00You know, these handbooks, there's a lot

58:02of them around town and they all come

58:04back and are amended from time to time

58:05based on market conditions. I can submit

58:08to you that this developer spent over a

58:11quarter of a million dollars on

58:13architecture plans and design plans to

58:16get to a building permit. Right? It

58:17takes a lot of time and effort to get to

58:19a building permit. Building permit was

58:21sitting there for two years while the

58:23building was designed, the tenants

58:25spaces were designed. Again, a half

58:27million dollars spent, but there was no

58:29market. There was there was no tenants.

58:31Like they took it all the way up to the

58:33goal line and no tenants came in. So, at

58:36that point, um, I think it's fair to say

58:39we should be able to revisit this,

58:40giving all the housing policies, the

58:42housing housing shortage we have, and

58:44rather than just let the land sit

58:45vacant, let's go ahead and develop it,

58:48which brings property taxes to Reno, but

58:51also housing options, uh, diversifying

58:54the housing options, uh, to Reno in this

58:56handbook as well. So, just want to put

58:58that on the record. There was a good

58:59faith effort and the intention was

59:01commercial, but for whatever reason,

59:03this area just didn't have the market

59:04for it. And I know a little a little um

59:06down the street a little bit um you know

59:09there is some commercial that certainly

59:11um seems to be popular but just nothing

59:13up the hill. So hopefully answers your

59:15question.

59:16>> Thank you Mr. Chairman.

59:20>> Uh Commissioner Jockman I'll ask one

59:23question of staff missed.

59:26So the the case maps identify this as

59:28the commercial area and uh which is

59:31adjacent to McCarron and then the

59:33triangle to the back corner. So just in

59:36terms of understanding the request

59:38that's before us um they have the

59:41request for the increase in units which

59:43is

59:44>> pertinent to those two areas. Correct.

59:47And if they were to develop those in the

59:51area that's initially stated as

59:53commercial, that um obviously would be a

59:57reduction in the amount of commercial

59:59development for the property,

1:00:01>> right?

1:00:02>> So the site plan shows the

1:00:06uh development occurring in the

1:00:07triangle. Um am I missing anything

1:00:11there?

1:00:11>> No, that that's a good point. Um there's

1:00:13no conceptual site plan for the village

1:00:15commercial site yet. Um, as Garrett

1:00:18mentioned, there's approved building

1:00:19permit for a commercial development, but

1:00:22um, we don't have any conceptual site

1:00:24plan for residential

1:00:26uh, for that village commercial site.

1:00:29They have one for that northwest parcel

1:00:31because it was approved for a tenative

1:00:32map at one point for 70 units. And so

1:00:35that's where that conceptual site plan

1:00:37came from. But we have not seen a

1:00:38tenative map or a site plan review come

1:00:40in for that uh, village commercial site.

1:00:43>> Okay. And then I guess the final

1:00:44question is we're not actually approving

1:00:47the site plan that we're looking at.

1:00:48That's conceptual, right? Just the the

1:00:50cap in uh units and then the ability to

1:00:55have those units in those two areas.

1:00:57>> Correct. It was conceptually to kind of

1:00:59show you how those 70 units might fit on

1:01:01this parcel. Um, additionally, just to

1:01:03kind of clarify, the surrounding

1:01:05property is BLM land. So it's not

1:01:07private property. there's kind of no way

1:01:09to um continue to build past this

1:01:13parcel.

1:01:15>> Okay. Thank you. I'll yield my time for

1:01:17now. Uh Commissioner Visera.

1:01:21>> All right. Thank you. Um, first off, I I

1:01:23I did want to just make a comment to the

1:01:26city clerk or staff that there's a a

1:01:29public comment or someone raising their

1:01:31hand, and I know that we don't do that

1:01:32at this point, but just wanted to flag

1:01:34it in case you can engage with them on

1:01:36the side and direct them accordingly

1:01:38with what they might need. Um, so my my

1:01:42question first is around traffic. Uh,

1:01:44perhaps probably Grace, you could

1:01:47probably take this one, I think. Um

1:01:50I think that the traffic impact study

1:01:52evaluated like the standard peak PM peak

1:01:55hour convenor flow at about 36 peak

1:01:58trips and it um

1:02:01and I guess during an emergency

1:02:03evacuation event where like the proposed

1:02:06850 units and I imagine potentially

1:02:08about 1500 vehicles ex must exit on

1:02:11Leadership Parkway and North McCarron

1:02:14simultaneously

1:02:16while fire

1:02:18respond once vehicles are entering. Did

1:02:20did Reno Fire or Public Works evaluate

1:02:22evacuation clearance timing under a

1:02:24single primary access scenario?

1:02:27>> So, uh I'll talk about the Reno Fire

1:02:30review. They did review the project. Um

1:02:33that was kind of part of the reason we

1:02:35we

1:02:37were, you know, bringing attention to

1:02:39that emergency access or secondary

1:02:41emergency access. Um, as far as the

1:02:45specifics of what they're reviewing with

1:02:46timing of evacuation, I I can't speak to

1:02:48that. I'm not I'm not exactly sure. Um,

1:02:51and then I we have our engineering

1:02:52manager that can address kind of the

1:02:54specifics of traffic if you'd like. I'm

1:02:56not going to pretend to be an expert

1:02:57there.

1:02:58>> Uh, Commissioner Bera, may I layer in

1:03:00with a question there?

1:03:02>> Yeah, absolutely. That's tech team.

1:03:04>> Sure. So, um, the traffic study that was

1:03:07prepared as a part of this, uh, was

1:03:08obviously done roughly 20 years ago. um

1:03:11as a part of that POD that PUD was

1:03:13approved by city council at the time. Is

1:03:16that correct?

1:03:17>> Correct. The the the traffic was

1:03:20approved 20 years ago.

1:03:21>> Correct.

1:03:21>> The original traffic study. Yes.

1:03:23>> Okay. Thank you. So so so legally the

1:03:26body the city council body has made that

1:03:29finding 20 years prior. Right.

1:03:33I I I have some pause about us asking

1:03:36questions about that because the higher

1:03:38body here has already made the finding

1:03:40as it pertains to that traffic study

1:03:42that was prepared 20 years ago. So, um I

1:03:45just want to say that obviously we have

1:03:47an incremental request before us, but I

1:03:49have some concerns about uh questioning

1:03:52the finding as it pertains to that one

1:03:54because it has already been made by city

1:03:56council 20 years prior.

1:03:59And and I think I I'll just comment I'll

1:04:02keep this comment brief because then I

1:04:04think we can probably unpack it as a

1:04:05body during deliberation. But I think

1:04:07I'm raising it probably in the same good

1:04:10spirit that we we must evaluate things

1:04:14as time changes and for the same reason

1:04:16that I think the applicant's

1:04:17representative mentioned that they his

1:04:20his client needed to pivot to to provide

1:04:24a different scenario or change because

1:04:26the market warrants it, right? it didn't

1:04:27warrant for the original request. So

1:04:29therefore to be in parody we should in

1:04:32good faith evaluate life changing as

1:04:35well on behalf of the community and the

1:04:37applicant as well. But we can unpack

1:04:39that more as a body during deliberation

1:04:41if you want to. But I'll move on to just

1:04:43uh one question and maybe uh Garrett you

1:04:46can take this one because it re kind of

1:04:48ties into fire and there were some

1:04:51concerns around fire. Um, so during that

1:04:54the hogf fire I if I recall nearly

1:04:5760,000 and the energy customers in ward

1:05:015 northwest Reno were deenerg energized.

1:05:05Um, so as you're kind of designing these

1:05:07final units uh whatever may be approved

1:05:10or so um especially if any of the gates

1:05:13or water pumps or community alerting

1:05:15systems rely on grid power. Are you guys

1:05:17incorporating any kind of backup power

1:05:19or failsafe manual overrides or

1:05:21emergency gates during these type of

1:05:24events?

1:05:27Uh, Commissioner Ber, thank you for the

1:05:28question. Um, we're just complying with

1:05:31existing Reno code and working with uh,

1:05:34NV Energy according to their existing

1:05:37regulations. So, um, this will be

1:05:39treated like any other project based on

1:05:42NV energy requirements. But I can say

1:05:45that this emergency access situation is

1:05:48getting better because of this request.

1:05:51There's currently uh a roadway uh that

1:05:55comes off of Leadership Parkway. It's a

1:05:57roundabout there that connects down the

1:05:59Green River Drive. That access point, a

1:06:03parcel there has changed hands the last

1:06:05couple years. And it was determined by

1:06:07city staff that even though it looks

1:06:09like emergency access, smells like

1:06:11emergency access, there's a gate there

1:06:13for emergency access, there's no actual

1:06:15easement. And so they put it on us to go

1:06:18negotiate with that property owner and

1:06:21finalize a recorded easement document

1:06:23that puts to bed the question of is

1:06:25there legal access there for emergency

1:06:27access. So that's a condition prior to

1:06:29our first building permit. I can say the

1:06:31applicant has um uh engaged with that

1:06:35property, that private property owner.

1:06:36We're finalizing that easement document.

1:06:38It'll be recorded. It'll be fenced.

1:06:40It'll it'll be gated. There'll be access

1:06:42to the fire department. But I think as

1:06:45far as this amendment and making

1:06:46emergency access better than it is

1:06:48today, that this applicant is required

1:06:50to do so.

1:06:51>> Okay. Great. Thanks, Gary.

1:06:53>> Thank you,

1:06:58Commissioner McCoy.

1:06:59>> Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy for

1:07:00the record. Um, so I've got some

1:07:02questions regarding uh traffic, sewer,

1:07:05um, uh, really as it pertains to the

1:07:09analysis done. And again, this goes back

1:07:12to my discussion about the 7030 split.

1:07:15Was the traffic study um that was done

1:07:19most recently, the sewer analysis, uh

1:07:22were those done based off of the 7030

1:07:25split or did you look at it as what

1:07:27could, you know, ultimately be done if

1:07:30we decided to build all residential, all

1:07:33100 here or all 100 there? My

1:07:35understanding is the sewer connections

1:07:37are even different based on the

1:07:39commercial, the village commercial has a

1:07:40different sewer connection as opposed to

1:07:41the residential. So, how does the

1:07:43analysis work? um

1:07:47the findings that we're supposed to make

1:07:48tonight, you know, are we spo are you

1:07:50expecting us to make them based off the

1:07:517030 split or does the analysis apply to

1:07:54what could actually end up happening if

1:07:56we make this change?

1:07:59>> Hi Karen DS, RVI Planning again for the

1:08:01record on behalf of the applicant.

1:08:04Um I'm going to try to I'll answer a

1:08:06couple of your questions with it. Um,

1:08:08the answer for the traffic analysis and

1:08:11the sewer analysis both was that it was

1:08:13based on the 7035 split. I don't know

1:08:16that the answer would be different if it

1:08:18was all in one area, but it was based on

1:08:22um 70 units in the northwest residential

1:08:25site and 35 units in the village

1:08:27commercial site. Um, I did want to if

1:08:31there's a a way to set that or a better

1:08:34way to set that in PUB. I don't believe

1:08:37there's a concern with doing that so

1:08:39that you know it's all going in two

1:08:41areas. Um

1:08:43uh one thing I want to answer your

1:08:44question on is for the on the village

1:08:47commercial site um that I have here. Uh

1:08:51Grace is correct. We do not have an

1:08:53actual site plan for residential. What

1:08:55we tried to do was there is a

1:08:59building area that can be used on that

1:09:01village commercial site. And so we tried

1:09:03to lay out the number of units that

1:09:05could fit there. Um

1:09:09with uh this right here is the

1:09:11commercial site plan that's approved in

1:09:14the site plan uh review and building

1:09:17permit. And then we just took that same

1:09:21uh developable area and and did a

1:09:24a layout of the 35 units. I hesitate uh

1:09:28this is not an actual site plan that uh

1:09:30is coming before you. It's just to show

1:09:33you how we came up with that 35 units on

1:09:35the site

1:09:37um compared to the commercial layout

1:09:40that's there. It could be um a project

1:09:44that's

1:09:46one or the other, but it wouldn't be

1:09:48commercial and 35 units. It's it was on

1:09:51that same developable area that we did

1:09:53the analysis. Um

1:09:58>> of course,

1:10:00>> so just

1:10:02we're not talking about site plans

1:10:04tonight. We're not talking about

1:10:05layouts. We're trying to give you as

1:10:06much information as possible, but what's

1:10:08before you is just increasing the unit

1:10:10count. And I Mr. McCor, I think you're

1:10:13getting to the point of well, if there's

1:10:14no requirement to split at 70 and 30,

1:10:17why' you analyze at 70 and 30? It's the

1:10:20same pipe. If it's 70 and 30 or 50 and

1:10:2350 or 10 and zero. The point is that

1:10:25there's now additional sewer

1:10:27improvements that have been made

1:10:28downstream that provide capacity for 105

1:10:31more units. No matter how you split it

1:10:34up, 104 units in one or 50 54 and 50,

1:10:38it's it there is absolutely capacity for

1:10:41that additional unit count. Uh also from

1:10:44a traffic standpoint, doesn't matter if

1:10:46it's 7030 or 50/50, there's absolutely

1:10:49capacity at this roadway network for

1:10:51levels of service for this additional

1:10:53count. And specifically because that

1:10:56light was put in in the last 20 years,

1:10:59uh which helps with um levels of

1:11:00service. So I just want to confirm the

1:11:037030 is fun to talk fun to talk about

1:11:05but what's before you is just an

1:11:07increase of the unit count and all the

1:11:09studies support all infrastructure in

1:11:11this area can support 105 more units

1:11:15>> followup.

1:11:17>> Thank you. Uh so I'm just looking at the

1:11:19findings we have to make. I I have no

1:11:21doubt your client has operated in good

1:11:23faith. You know I I appreciate the

1:11:25background on how much money's been

1:11:26spent. That's that's not my concern

1:11:29tonight. My concern is the findings such

1:11:31as having to find that um we mitigate

1:11:34traffic impacts. And so that's why my

1:11:36questions are about what does this

1:11:37traffic study analyze? And I haven't

1:11:38heard from staff yet. I would have heard

1:11:40us from from the applicant's

1:11:41representative and I've heard from uh uh

1:11:44you know the representations that this

1:11:46is all there. But if I'm if I'm being

1:11:49asked to make a finding that it

1:11:50complies, we have sewer connections, all

1:11:52these things, that it applies for 105

1:11:55period. I I'm I'm I'm looking for that.

1:11:57I'm not I'm not saying it's not there.

1:11:59What I'm saying is I haven't heard staff

1:12:00come back and tell us

1:12:02>> definitely

1:12:02>> we think that it mitigates we do all

1:12:04these things all these findings

1:12:06regardless of how we split this up

1:12:08because the reality is you're saying

1:12:097030 tonight

1:12:11>> but it it is theoretical

1:12:13>> that we could move to something else.

1:12:15>> And so I I need to hear that

1:12:17>> from staff

1:12:18>> and I I wanted to back up a little bit.

1:12:20Um so when we're reviewing it we look at

1:12:23the findings too, right? To say how are

1:12:24we going to recommend either approval or

1:12:26denial. Um, as part of that, um, we're

1:12:29looking at either recommendations maybe

1:12:31in a traffic study that are mitigating,

1:12:34um, but also the applicant pays what we

1:12:36call as regional road impact fees. And

1:12:37so that's part of the way that they're

1:12:39mitigating their traffic, um, impacts.

1:12:42This one is also a little unique because

1:12:44they installed this traffic like traffic

1:12:46light in between the development of this

1:12:49um, I guess PUD, which was also

1:12:52mitigating the traffic impacts for the

1:12:53PUD as a whole. So, there's a couple

1:12:55ways that they're mitigating the traffic

1:12:57impacts for this future development. It

1:12:59will be paying those rift fees. Um,

1:13:01that's the way that they're mitigating

1:13:02their traffic impact and that's what we

1:13:04see with kind of a lot of projects

1:13:07around Reno. Um, for sewer

1:13:11um when we and I can let our engineering

1:13:14manager talk about that, but we're we

1:13:16will be analyzing this when the specific

1:13:19development comes forward. So, I don't

1:13:20want you guys to think, well, they said

1:13:22it's okay. That doesn't feel right. I

1:13:24would love that there to be like a a

1:13:26sewer report telling me that they've

1:13:27analyzed this. That will be analyzed. It

1:13:30will have to meet code. Um our

1:13:31engineering team, our public works team

1:13:33will have to look at it at that time.

1:13:34Once we get the actual um unit count,

1:13:37once we get the actual development,

1:13:39there'll be a sewer report uh to analyze

1:13:42at that time. And so that's why it feels

1:13:43really maybe broad right now, but the

1:13:45applicant is mitigating those impacts.

1:13:51>> Okay. And so you think regardless of how

1:13:52the division as staff you're saying that

1:13:55you believe mitigations are being met

1:13:57and that all the findings can be made

1:13:59even if we were to build 105 in village.

1:14:02>> Yes.

1:14:03>> Okay. Thank you

1:14:05>> Commissioner Delvara.

1:14:11>> Thank you. Um I'm wondering can somebody

1:14:13pull up um the uh staff report the

1:14:17motion? I'm not ready to make a motion.

1:14:19Check it.

1:14:21Uh because in my packet it says

1:14:25it's a zone map amendment but it's a PUB

1:14:29amendment. I just want to make sure the

1:14:31verbiage that I'm understanding what we

1:14:34would be looking at is correct.

1:14:36>> If you could scroll down just a tiny

1:14:38bit. It's the next right there. Proposed

1:14:39motion.

1:14:42>> Uh so that one says but then it's on the

1:14:45one. It's on the was on your slide was

1:14:48the last.

1:14:48>> That might be wrong. This one's right.

1:14:51>> Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure.

1:14:52Oh, okay. That's okay. I just wanted to

1:14:54I just wanted to make sure. Um and then

1:14:58uh kind of go feeding off of some of the

1:15:00things that um Commissioner McCoy was

1:15:03talking about. Um,

1:15:06again, I just want to make sure cuz some

1:15:09of the things that when we approve

1:15:13things like some of the PUDs and and

1:15:15some of the other um permits and things

1:15:17that come before us, it sort of by

1:15:20approving it, it um I don't want to say

1:15:23it negates, but it um

1:15:27sort of uh

1:15:30uh what's I'm not sure what the right

1:15:31word is, but then some of the conditions

1:15:33not ne not necessarily that they they go

1:15:35away. Um but I just want to make sure

1:15:38again that some of these things seem to

1:15:40come after

1:15:42>> um and and so I just struggle I struggle

1:15:45with with some of this right like the

1:15:46the fire um standards they won't get the

1:15:50permit if they can't get the easement or

1:15:53you know sewer findings need to be made

1:15:55um sort of after. So, from I know this

1:15:57might be more of a legal question. Um,

1:16:00like if we approve this PUD amendment,

1:16:05>> um, does it sort of negate some of these

1:16:07other conditions or the things that

1:16:11we're we're trying to put in place? Does

1:16:12that I'm not sure if that question makes

1:16:13sense?

1:16:14>> Nope, that makes sense. Um,

1:16:15>> thank you. Sorry.

1:16:16>> That's okay. And we see this with a lot

1:16:20of development where they they still

1:16:21have to meet code and if they can't meet

1:16:23code, we can't let them move forward. Um

1:16:27and so if they can't, you know, make

1:16:29this the sewer analysis work, um then we

1:16:33kind of work with them to see what we

1:16:34can do. But if there's no capacity,

1:16:36there's no capacity. Uh and so that's

1:16:39kind of why that's analyzed at that

1:16:40point. We see we don't really see that

1:16:43because we we have capacity here. But um

1:16:46we wouldn't let them move forward and

1:16:48that's why we kind of have these bare

1:16:49minimum code standards. Uh there's also

1:16:52a a I think a pretty decent chance this

1:16:55will be before you again just because of

1:16:57the cuts and fills and hillside

1:16:58development on that northwest parcel. So

1:17:01you'll you'll most likely get to see the

1:17:03kind of final product there.

1:17:06>> Okay. Thank you and welcome back by the

1:17:07way.

1:17:08>> Thank you.

1:17:09>> I have a question. So, I I have a

1:17:12question that might be kind of an

1:17:13analogy because I'm trying to understand

1:17:16this. Um, if if someone had a a a parcel

1:17:22that was like an acre and it was zoned

1:17:24single family and they wanted to change

1:17:27the zoning to like multifamily,

1:17:31we would still have to make all the

1:17:32findings which includes traffic

1:17:35mitigation, etc.

1:17:37How would we analyze traffic mitigation

1:17:39in those findings under that scenario?

1:17:42>> Yeah, it's a it's a great question. Um,

1:17:45we would look at the potential and so

1:17:48oftentimes you're looking at, you know,

1:17:49worst case scenario, what are we going

1:17:51to see here? Um, and broadly, is it

1:17:54appropriate here? We probably won't have

1:17:57a a traffic study that analyzes the

1:17:59specifics. Um, but we're going to look

1:18:01at kind of worst case scenarios. But for

1:18:03for that scenario, right, the finding is

1:18:05mitigates traffic and we've done it

1:18:07>> tons of these and

1:18:10>> like how how would we assess that

1:18:11finding? Would we look to the code and

1:18:13say, well, the code says this is what's

1:18:15required. That's the back stop.

1:18:17>> And that then allows us to make the

1:18:19finding.

1:18:20>> I'll let maybe Doug speak to

1:18:23>> I'll chime in on that a little bit too.

1:18:24So that your analogy is very similar.

1:18:27for example, the uh Clearer Commons

1:18:30project and the Foursquare Church master

1:18:32plan amendment and zone changes that

1:18:34were recently approved by this board

1:18:36where they did not have a specific

1:18:38project in mind. And he said, "Well, how

1:18:40do we do that?" So, there's a

1:18:43essentially a check valve built into the

1:18:45code that if if they were to come in

1:18:47with a project that that went above and

1:18:50beyond what would trigger a traffic

1:18:52study, they would have to do that. and

1:18:54the code has mitigation requirements

1:18:56built in. So, this is a little similar.

1:18:58This one actually is giving you much

1:18:59more detail because we know that it's

1:19:02the unit count is capped. So, we can

1:19:04look at that um and understand here's

1:19:07like Grace said, here's the worst case

1:19:08scenario and we're comfortable that that

1:19:11those mitigation measures can be met. I

1:19:13I guess what I'm and Mike, I guess I

1:19:15have a followup for that is um

1:19:18it seems difficult to me to have such a

1:19:22like a granular perspective on this

1:19:24traffic finding and still think that we

1:19:27as a city could ever make these type of

1:19:30just general changes in like land use

1:19:33designation. Like I just help me

1:19:36understand this. Well, there I mean

1:19:38there's a there's a variety of of

1:19:40factors that go into that land use

1:19:42decision, master plan policies

1:19:44surrounding the surrounding conditions,

1:19:46how it would relate to shrine

1:19:48development. Traffic's one consideration

1:19:50in that kind of big pot of

1:19:52considerations that we look at when we

1:19:53analyze the project.

1:19:56>> Thank you,

1:19:59>> uh, Commissioner Jogman. So, I'll ask a

1:20:01question about the process there. I'll

1:20:03go back to what I said previously. I'll

1:20:05try to phrase this in the form of a

1:20:06question. And this is directed at staff,

1:20:08Miss McAdam, Mr.

1:20:12prior approval that city council

1:20:14rendered included a PUD that entitled

1:20:17the land and in that approval they

1:20:20obviously made that finding for traffic

1:20:23uh at that time. Is that correct?

1:20:24>> Correct.

1:20:25>> Based on the traffic study that was

1:20:26before them at the time.

1:20:28>> So we now have before us an amendment to

1:20:31the PUD that I notice seeks an increase

1:20:34in the residential units. uh what is the

1:20:37requirement that's adopted in our title

1:20:4018 that would actually require them to

1:20:43perform a new traffic study if they were

1:20:45to go beyond that threshold because I

1:20:47notice in this that there's 36 peak hour

1:20:49trips.

1:20:51>> Yeah. And I think the requirement is 100

1:20:53peak hour trips. Um, so above and beyond

1:20:56here where they did provide kind of that

1:20:57traffic study and I think primarily to

1:21:00demonstrate how much how effective this

1:21:02light has been and and justify the the

1:21:05increase in unit in unit count.

1:21:07>> Okay. I I haven't been doing studies in

1:21:11Reno for some time now, but I believe

1:21:13the code stipulates 200 peak hour trips

1:21:16and this is below that threshold. I'm

1:21:18seeing a nod from

1:21:23>> would you would you like to elaborate on

1:21:24that

1:21:25>> Doug Beck development review manager

1:21:27you're correct 200 Pour trips for a full

1:21:29traffic study 100 hour trips is a a

1:21:32lower thresh threshold for a driveway

1:21:35access study.

1:21:36>> Okay. Thank you. So if we were to as it

1:21:39pertains to how we make that finding, we

1:21:41have in our code stating that we don't

1:21:43require a traffic study and our city

1:21:45council has already blessed the traffic

1:21:47study that was a part of the initial

1:21:50PUD. So for me, I have a lot of pause

1:21:53about failing to make that finding given

1:21:55the information before us. I will add

1:21:58further that um I believe and and so

1:22:01I'll direct this question at Miss Mack

1:22:03and perhaps uh Doug you would like to

1:22:06weigh in on this but the

1:22:09uh the staffer board states that there

1:22:11are 36 trips during the peak hour as a

1:22:14result of those roughly 100 uh

1:22:17additional residential units. Does that

1:22:20did that trip generation letter provided

1:22:21to staff account for the actual

1:22:23reduction resulting from the loss of the

1:22:26commercial land?

1:22:27>> No. And that was another reason um made

1:22:30us comfortable with those

1:22:33that traffic study. It was an overshot.

1:22:35>> Right. So that's highly conservative

1:22:37because it's not accounting for the

1:22:38reduction in uh commercial traffic that

1:22:42would result from the um

1:22:46development of that

1:22:47>> correct an acreage. Right. And if if I

1:22:48could just take a step back, um, fair

1:22:51enough. It's a finding. And so let's

1:22:52kind of address how staff made that

1:22:54finding. Um, to really put on a really

1:22:57basic level, similar to what

1:22:58Commissioner Belveltto was was saying,

1:23:00if you had a single family home and they

1:23:03had to apply for a conditional use

1:23:05permit for something, and one of the

1:23:07findings was, how are they mitigating

1:23:08their traffic impacts? If they have no

1:23:11traffic impacts, that kind of allows us

1:23:13to make that finding because there's

1:23:14nothing to mitigate. Um, and so it might

1:23:16not be be applicable. Um, and it it's

1:23:19kind of what we saw in this situation.

1:23:21Um, yeah, there's impacts, but not

1:23:23enough to to warrant a new traffic

1:23:25study. These impacts have been mitigated

1:23:28kind of previously. They're operating

1:23:29well within our levels of service. And

1:23:31so, it's not something where we see in

1:23:34other locations where there are impacts

1:23:37um, and they're having to kind of make

1:23:38those improvements in order for us to

1:23:39make that finding. Does that kind of

1:23:41help how I went about it?

1:23:43>> Sure. If I may, Commissioner McCoy for

1:23:45the record. Yeah, I I I get that

1:23:47completely and I understand chair's

1:23:48position. Um, you know, we're talking

1:23:50about 36 peak hour trips. My underlining

1:23:53concern with all of this is that 36 peak

1:23:56hours based off of traffic analysis

1:23:58looking at a 7030 split. And so if we're

1:24:01starting from a 7030 split, at least

1:24:03that that was my understanding. All

1:24:05these analysis we're looking at are off

1:24:06of a theoretical what it could what it

1:24:08what but they're saying it could be but

1:24:10not what it ultimately could end up

1:24:12being. And so that was why my my

1:24:14questions were there is, you know, are

1:24:16we looking at this from all potential

1:24:19scenarios because you're if we amend

1:24:20this, you're opening it up to to not

1:24:22just a 7030 split. Theoretically, it

1:24:25could be something else. And so I just

1:24:26want to make sure that when we're making

1:24:27these findings, it's not based off of

1:24:29the 70 35 split. Um that that isn't

1:24:33binding. I I don't want to make any

1:24:34findings off of some kind of unbinding

1:24:36like, hey, we think we're gonna do this,

1:24:38but that's not what ends up happening

1:24:40because then then we're dealing with

1:24:41like a bait and switch situation where

1:24:43we kind of said, hey, maybe it looks

1:24:44like this, but it's not going to be. I

1:24:46just want to know staff and I believe

1:24:47you clarified this.

1:24:48>> Staff makes the finding or believes the

1:24:51evidence is there that the project 105

1:24:53units regardless of where they're

1:24:54placed, mitigates traffic, and deals

1:24:57deals with the sewer issues. And I'm I'm

1:24:58not a traffic engineer, but um the total

1:25:01unit count, the 850 is what um we are

1:25:06concerned about when we're looking at

1:25:07these impacts. And so the total unit

1:25:09count is binding. The total unit count

1:25:11is um was conservatively looked at in

1:25:13this traffic study, which wouldn't

1:25:15change no matter kind of how how it's

1:25:16split up. Um it might be negligible, but

1:25:20not enough to make an impact.

1:25:21>> Okay. And do we have our traffic staff

1:25:23here?

1:25:24>> Yeah. Just let's just let's make the

1:25:26record real clear for me, please. And

1:25:27thank you,

1:25:28>> Doug Buck, development review uh

1:25:30manager. Um

1:25:33regardless of where these units end up

1:25:35being positioned within the development

1:25:37at the study intersections, the the

1:25:40traffic isn't going to change whether

1:25:42it's 7030 or 1050. We're going to see

1:25:45the same impact uh at the McCarron

1:25:48intersections. Uh the same with the the

1:25:50sewer. It's all getting sewered um

1:25:53basically to to the same locations. it's

1:25:56all going to go through the same pipes.

1:25:58So regardless of how these uh units are

1:26:01moved around within these um bubbles, uh

1:26:05the overall impact is going to be the

1:26:07same and and there's no mitigation that

1:26:10is necessary based on the total use of

1:26:13those at the at the critical points.

1:26:15>> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate

1:26:17>> quick followup, Doug, before you step

1:26:19down. uh an acre of commercial or an

1:26:22acre of residential, which is likely to

1:26:24have more traffic? Like

1:26:28highly dependent on density, but uh an

1:26:30acre of

1:26:33commercial would potentially have more

1:26:36likely have more traffic.

1:26:38>> Thank you,

1:26:44>> Commissioner Williams.

1:26:46>> Uh I got a question about the easement.

1:26:50Hi, Grace. Welcome back.

1:26:52>> Thank you.

1:26:52>> Um,

1:26:54it looks like the um handbook addresses

1:26:57the requirement for the easement, but it

1:26:59exempts grading. Is there a way to add

1:27:03grading to that handbook?

1:27:05>> Um, so that requires them before we move

1:27:08dirt to have that easement. I mean, I

1:27:10sounds like it's successful, but

1:27:13>> you know, I think the handbook had a

1:27:15grading or had the easement um

1:27:18requirement

1:27:19at the beginning of these 745 units and

1:27:22it's still not here. So, what just

1:27:25wondering how we can maybe mitigate

1:27:27getting a move on that?

1:27:29>> Thank you, Commissioner, for the for the

1:27:31question. Um, it's currently in process.

1:27:33We feel very comfortable. if you want to

1:27:35move that trigger up or back, however

1:27:37you want to rephrase it. Uh, we're fine

1:27:39with that.

1:27:39>> Just to add prior to grading, you're

1:27:41okay with that?

1:27:41>> No problem, Commissioner.

1:27:42>> Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.

1:27:43>> Thank you.

1:27:47>> Uh, Commissioner McCoy.

1:27:49>> Thank you, Chair. I just have one final

1:27:50question. Uh, this will be for Grace.

1:27:53Um,

1:27:55the final kind of u there's a lot of

1:27:59findings listed in your staff report

1:28:00that that we have to look at, we have to

1:28:02make. Um the the final one I'm kind of

1:28:05I'm kind of looking for some clarity on

1:28:07tonight. It's page seven. It is number

1:28:10one. I think this is actually

1:28:13818505. It's not specific in the in the

1:28:17the findings here, but it's that the

1:28:19tenative plan is consistent with the

1:28:22statement of objectives of a PUD. Um, so

1:28:25I guess what I'm what I'm still kind of

1:28:27looking for is is your understanding or

1:28:30how you're getting to this finding

1:28:34when you recognize that commercial could

1:28:36be completely gone from this. And as we

1:28:39discussed earlier tonight, um, a mix of

1:28:41commercial and residential is one of the

1:28:44stated goals in this plan. So, how does

1:28:47this still get us to that stated goal

1:28:49from your perspective?

1:28:51>> Thank you.

1:28:51>> Um,

1:28:53thank you for the question. And again,

1:28:54it's a trade-off. Um, I think with this

1:28:57planned unit development, we're seeing

1:28:59diversity of housing types. We're seeing

1:29:01a housing need. I think if they would

1:29:03have come in with this plan originally,

1:29:07uh, it it might not have felt like this

1:29:09trade-off, it would have felt like a

1:29:10diverse housing opportunity in a

1:29:12foothill neighborhoods um, with trail

1:29:14access. And so I I think that that's how

1:29:17staff's able to get there. It's still a

1:29:19planned development. I think if you go

1:29:21up there, you can see why maybe

1:29:23commercial is not super viable because

1:29:25it is a foothill neighborhood and you

1:29:26have to kind of traverse a fairly steep

1:29:28hill to get up there. And so really

1:29:31we're looking at it's it's not working,

1:29:33but it's not super compatible with the

1:29:35land that's there today. Um, and we

1:29:38still have this diversity of housing

1:29:39types that creates um um this planned

1:29:43development and neighborhood kind of

1:29:45feel within this development. So that

1:29:47that's how staff got to that finding.

1:29:49Okay. Uh Sean McCoy for the record. So

1:29:53there is is there any commercial on this

1:29:56property at all? Is there any mix? It's

1:29:58just all residential at this point.

1:30:00>> Correct.

1:30:00>> And so the the statement of the goal is

1:30:03to have mixed use.

1:30:05>> The reality is we're not going to have

1:30:06mixed use. And and what I'm hearing from

1:30:08you is that you got to the finding that

1:30:10it is consistent

1:30:12>> because commercial isn't working there,

1:30:14>> which I have I have no doubt. But what

1:30:16what I'm what I'm wondering is

1:30:19you know, how aside from saying it

1:30:22commercial isn't working and hasn't been

1:30:24successful, um, how does that get us to

1:30:28the finding where

1:30:31we are consistent with the PUD with a

1:30:34mix of commercial, residential,

1:30:35recognizing there may be no mix,

1:30:37>> can I just point out I I think so that

1:30:39finding is consistent with the statement

1:30:42of the object objectives of a PUD, not

1:30:45necessarily this PUD. So typically we'll

1:30:47see um you know a planned unit

1:30:49development has phasing. It has um

1:30:51specific plans or specific requirements

1:30:54for lighting or uh details for that

1:30:57particular area whether it be the land

1:30:59or the uh trails or the parking or

1:31:02things like that. And so not this PUD

1:31:05but a PUD which we feel it does meet

1:31:07those.

1:31:08>> Yeah. And and I'm just going to

1:31:09piggyback onto that that the intent of a

1:31:12peed is that you have kind of a mix of

1:31:16you so as Grace mentioned you have a mix

1:31:18of housing types. You have multifamily.

1:31:20You might have town homes. You might

1:31:22have that along with preservation of

1:31:24open space and amenities such as trails

1:31:26and that sort of thing. That's really

1:31:27the purpose of a PUD and to address

1:31:29unique unique site conditions. This is

1:31:32in a foothill neighborhood. So you're

1:31:33going to have, you know, topographical

1:31:35challenges that wouldn't necessarily

1:31:37apply to something right here in the

1:31:39middle of town, so to speak.

1:31:41>> Commissioner McCoy for the record. Yeah,

1:31:42I I I get that. And I think we've seen

1:31:44we might have seen one of these um

1:31:46before where we had kind of this mixed

1:31:47commercial idea, coffee shop, and and so

1:31:49for me that that's what we laid out in

1:31:52this PUD when this was approved,

1:31:54whenever it was approved.

1:31:56>> So I'm just I appreciate the education

1:31:57because you're educating on how how the

1:31:59stuff works tonight. So, I I apologize

1:32:01for working you working you over,

1:32:02walking you through this. Um, but is

1:32:05there a process? If the reality is it

1:32:08started with the original PUB mixed

1:32:10commercial, we realize mixed commercial

1:32:11doesn't work.

1:32:13>> Why aren't we here talking about

1:32:14eliminating the mixed commercial

1:32:16component from the PUD? Is that not a

1:32:18possibility? Is that something you don't

1:32:19do or why why aren't we doing that? And

1:32:21then none of this matters.

1:32:23>> Yeah. My first meeting back and you guys

1:32:24are really putting me through the ringer

1:32:26here. Um so this is this is the process

1:32:30th this is why staff can't

1:32:32administratively make these minor

1:32:34changes and remove commercial and we

1:32:36have to come back to this body. We have

1:32:38to go back to city council um to make

1:32:41these modifications and it's at the

1:32:42discretion of this well of city council

1:32:45to say whether that's appropriate um

1:32:47similar to what they did when they first

1:32:48established this PUD. So they have to go

1:32:50through the exact same process that they

1:32:52went to through when they established

1:32:53that PUD and we have to make the exact

1:32:55same findings. And so every kind of

1:32:58modification over I think 10% they have

1:33:00to come back before these bodies. Um and

1:33:04so that's kind of the process. We could

1:33:06eliminate commercial

1:33:09if if if it was at the will of this

1:33:11body, but um

1:33:14that's kind of

1:33:18>> Commissioner. I'm going to get you

1:33:19there. So, let's let's do this. So,

1:33:22first of all, goals aren't requirements,

1:33:25right? They're just goals. You don't

1:33:27have to comply with all but it's a goal

1:33:29of the PUD. But I would submit to you,

1:33:32we would be if we can use the overhead

1:33:34and pard pardon my chicken scratch, but

1:33:37to make you comfortable with this

1:33:38finding and to memorialize this

1:33:40appropriately, goal two would set is

1:33:43provide a residential and I think you're

1:33:44focused on that word commercial

1:33:46environment. I would suggest a

1:33:48parenthetical be after commercial that

1:33:50says subject to market conditions

1:33:53because number one we don't want to

1:33:54eliminate commercial because we still

1:33:55want to try. I mean that's important to

1:33:58us but I I think it's important to you

1:34:00to have consistency with the finding and

1:34:02with the handbook. So I think a

1:34:04parenthetical subject to market

1:34:06conditions given what we put on the

1:34:07record tonight. Market conditions aren't

1:34:10there. we're going to potentially pivot

1:34:11to more residential, but we want to

1:34:13preserve the right to do commercial if

1:34:15market conditions change. So, if a

1:34:17motion was made to include this language

1:34:20and that got you comfortable with that

1:34:21finding, we're happy to accommodate your

1:34:23concern.

1:34:24>> Uh, thank you, Commissioner McCoy. For

1:34:26the record, I would just ask legal what

1:34:27their interpretation of adding that in

1:34:30at this point.

1:34:35>> Well, certainly it's allowed if if

1:34:37that's what you were asking for. Thank

1:34:40you. No, no further deliberation on

1:34:42that.

1:34:45>> Grace Mackadin again for the record, we

1:34:47would also be adding the modification to

1:34:49the easement language. And so there's

1:34:51already modifications that this body

1:34:53would be making that council adopt those

1:34:56that language. Does that make sense?

1:35:04>> Uh do we have any do we have any other

1:35:07questions from the commission? I cannot

1:35:09tell if there are hands raised online.

1:35:11Okay, seeing none. Uh, well, now Oh,

1:35:14Commissioner McKenzie, my apologies.

1:35:16>> That's okay. Very quick question. Um,

1:35:18Commissioner McKenzie, I didn't hear

1:35:20anybody tell us what kinds of

1:35:22residential was going to be proposed

1:35:24here in this section. I'm curious about

1:35:26that.

1:35:27>> And so, this allows for I can go to the

1:35:29table of uses. It allows for both

1:35:31detached um residential and attached

1:35:34residential think and multif family. So

1:35:37it

1:35:38>> we don't have a plan yet. Like I said,

1:35:40it most likely will come back to this

1:35:41body due to the the nature of the

1:35:44hillside development and cuts and fills.

1:35:50>> We have no further questions from the

1:35:52commission. We can now move to

1:35:53deliberations. Commissioner Valto. Uh,

1:35:56I'm actually I'm actually super glad

1:35:57with Commissioner McCoy's last question

1:35:59there because I was thinking the same

1:36:01thing and then Garrett came up and gave

1:36:03a proposal to uh amend the objective and

1:36:05I think that satisfies the objective

1:36:07concern uh in in that first finding. Um,

1:36:10generally I I feel comfortable with the

1:36:12project. I like the amendment proposed

1:36:13by Commissioner Williams which is to the

1:36:16to have prior to grading there be the

1:36:17easement. Um, I I feel comfortable with

1:36:20the project. I think these are are weird

1:36:22because a lot of times we have these

1:36:24like master plan amendments or zoning

1:36:26changes and it's tough to think about

1:36:27these findings in that context when you

1:36:29don't actually see what's happening. Um

1:36:31but I really appreciated hearing from

1:36:33Grace how we work through those and from

1:36:36Mike on that point. So I I feel

1:36:38comfortable and um I can support the

1:36:39project.

1:36:41>> Uh Commissioner Jockman, I'll I'll add

1:36:43something here and this is just for

1:36:45deliberations. the um the process there

1:36:49is a little bit confusing. I I'll say

1:36:51what I've said it before. I have concern

1:36:53about critiquing uh the traffic study

1:36:56that was prepared 20 years ago given

1:36:58that it's already been a part of a city

1:37:00council approval that has entitled the

1:37:03land. We cannot necessarily pivot from

1:37:05that even if we disagree with the study

1:37:08that was prepared 20 years ago. Uh what

1:37:11I would recommend before this goes

1:37:14before city council, the traffic uh the

1:37:17the the

1:37:19staff report identifies uh the

1:37:21conservative scenario of what would

1:37:23occur with the additional

1:37:27105 residential units. it does not

1:37:31document the reduction from the

1:37:32commercial uh uses which if you follow

1:37:36what the site plan is that's presented

1:37:38before this body it would be doing that.

1:37:40So I think it would be wise to have that

1:37:44documented in both ways to better uh

1:37:47explain that to city council as it goes

1:37:49before because if that is your plan uh

1:37:51there's a reduction in traffic not an

1:37:53increase per the staff report.

1:37:56I will yield my time.

1:38:00Commissioner Bisera, go ahead.

1:38:02>> Great. Thank you. I'll just kind of add

1:38:04to that, too. I think I'll um I I won't

1:38:07say I I dis disagree necessarily with

1:38:10those those sentiments, but I will maybe

1:38:12just since we're recommending tonight, I

1:38:15would recommend that and strongly

1:38:17implore that city council definitely

1:38:21evaluate the the public safety component

1:38:24to to this change. I by and large in

1:38:28support of it and I uh think as Grace

1:38:32mentioned that we're still early on and

1:38:33at some point when more specifics are

1:38:35identified with this this plan by the

1:38:38applicant it will come back before this

1:38:40body and go through the process. But I I

1:38:43think that if life if if we're extending

1:38:45grace, no pun intended grace, but if we

1:38:47are extending grace to the applicant to

1:38:50allow them to pivot the plans, we should

1:38:52again account for that change on behalf

1:38:55of the community to account for changes

1:38:58in traffic and public safety. Again, we

1:39:00just had that hawkfire, right? And so we

1:39:02need to understand that these projects

1:39:04don't work in isolation. There are

1:39:05neighbors down the street, both new

1:39:07development, older development. We all

1:39:09we just need to account for fire

1:39:11response, emergency response, and all

1:39:14those things. But by and large, uh I I

1:39:17would be in favor of supporting this

1:39:20this project as it is tonight.

1:39:24>> Do we have any further deliberation from

1:39:26the commission?

1:39:28>> Uh Commissioner,

1:39:29>> uh my only set is, you know, I live in a

1:39:32community that has uh commercial um a

1:39:35commercial aspect to it. Um and it's

1:39:37fantastic. It's it's a it's a it's a

1:39:40wonderful place to to gather, to

1:39:43socialize, to really bond within the

1:39:46community. So, I I I do hope that this

1:39:50pans out and I and there is a ex there

1:39:52is a big benefit for having commercial

1:39:55um in these communities. Um, I also know

1:39:57that um because I know the commercial

1:39:59property owners that um they struggle at

1:40:01times and we often see a a constant

1:40:04turnover especially in in restaurants

1:40:06and food um because of the cost

1:40:09associated with commercial properties.

1:40:11And so um you know that's also

1:40:13concerning too. So, I I do see the the

1:40:15thing and I'm I'm kind of glad that

1:40:17maybe it sounds like we're in a position

1:40:18to um understand that commercial and

1:40:22retail is is a difficult um uh place to

1:40:25be. It seems like right now. Um but I do

1:40:28hope for the best. I do hope that that

1:40:30commercial pans out. It is a um it is a

1:40:33a great amen um addition to these types

1:40:36of communities. Um I I can support the

1:40:38the project. I I just w wanted to ask

1:40:42one quick question. If somebody could

1:40:43tell me where that uh Mr. Gordon, where

1:40:46you wrote that in. What page was that? I

1:40:48was trying to help us work on a motion.

1:40:50>> I haven't written down the

1:40:53>> Oh, do you?

1:40:54>> Yeah.

1:40:54>> Okay. I was going to try to add that one

1:40:56from that, but if you have it all,

1:40:57that's great. Thank you.

1:41:08>> Uh chair, ready to make a motion?

1:41:10>> Please proceed. Uh base fun. Uh in the

1:41:12matter of case number

1:41:15this case uh based upon compliance the

1:41:17applicable findings I move to recommend

1:41:19that city council approve the amendments

1:41:21to the Keystone Canyon planned unit

1:41:23development design standards handbook

1:41:25subject to the conditions listed in the

1:41:27staff report with two additional

1:41:28conditions. Uh first that prior to

1:41:31grading uh the easement shall be

1:41:33obtained by the applicant and second uh

1:41:36goal two of the PUD shall be amended to

1:41:39say provide a residential and commercial

1:41:41environment, subject to market

1:41:44conditions, comma, and then the

1:41:46remainder of the sentence shall

1:41:47continue.

1:41:48>> Commissioner McCoy, I second a motion. I

1:41:50>> can can I just make one clarification

1:41:52that the easement not be obtained but

1:41:54recorded.

1:41:55>> My apologies. I will incorporate uh

1:41:58Mr.'s release amendment.

1:42:00>> So, we have a motion and a second before

1:42:02the body and then a request to change

1:42:04the verbiage of the motion. I'm looking

1:42:06to legal. How should we proceed with

1:42:09that?

1:42:13It sounds like we would I I don't want

1:42:15to speak for everybody, but I think we

1:42:16would prefer to uh proceed with the

1:42:21request from staff regarding the

1:42:22verbiage. Would Commissioner Velto be

1:42:24willing to amend his motion and and

1:42:27Commissioner McCoy be willing to second

1:42:30the amended motion?

1:42:31>> Yes. Yes.

1:42:34>> Anything further needed from legal?

1:42:37Thank you very much. We have a motion

1:42:38and a second. All in favor say I.

1:42:41>> I.

1:42:41>> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh motion

1:42:47carries unanimously. That item is a

1:42:50recommendation to city council. So that

1:42:52is not appealable.

1:42:54>> That concludes item D2.

1:42:57We will now move on to item E1. This is

1:43:00a staff report for possible action and

1:43:02recommendation to city council. Uh this

1:43:06is regarding the uh proposed amendments

1:43:09to the Reno City Planning Commission

1:43:11bylaws. For this item, uh we have a

1:43:15request for to start with disclosures.

1:43:17Uh just so everyone's aware, we will

1:43:19start with disclosures. move to a staff

1:43:22uh presentation.

1:43:23Uh we've covered disclosures, so we will

1:43:25then go to public comment. Then we will

1:43:28go to questions and deliberation from

1:43:30the commission. Uh so with disclosures,

1:43:33Commissioner Bera, you have your hand

1:43:35raised.

1:43:36>> Sure. Thank you, Chair. Uh before the I

1:43:39guess the commission proceeds with this

1:43:41one, I just wanted to make a brief

1:43:42statement regarding my participation.

1:43:45So, out of an abundance of caution and

1:43:47given circumstances I've previously

1:43:48raised through appropriate legal and

1:43:51management channels, I will not be

1:43:52participating in this discussion or

1:43:54voting on agenda item E1 and the

1:43:57decision is limited solely to this item.

1:43:59I remain as as always committed to my

1:44:01responsibilities as a commissioner and

1:44:03to ensuring these policy matters receive

1:44:05thoughtful consideration, including the

1:44:08public feedback received and the

1:44:09opportunity for broader city council

1:44:11direction. So, I respectfully ask that

1:44:14these remarks along with my earlier

1:44:15remarks at the start of this meeting be

1:44:17reflected in the record for this item.

1:44:19And I'll be stepping away until this

1:44:20item is concluded and I'll resurface.

1:44:23>> Thank you.

1:44:24>> This is Jasmine Ma for the record. Could

1:44:27Commissioner Bera please state on the

1:44:30record the reason for recusal?

1:44:33I think

1:44:34>> yes, I I've I've raised these concerns

1:44:37through the appropriate channels with

1:44:39city management and I don't believe it

1:44:40would be appropriate to discuss the

1:44:42specifics of those matters in this

1:44:44forum.

1:44:48>> Um

1:44:50technically open meeting law would

1:44:52require you to uh provide the basis for

1:44:55your recusal if there is a conflict of

1:44:58interest.

1:45:00>> I I don't know. Um, I will say that

1:45:03there is a a a a

1:45:08complaint on file against a another

1:45:13fellow commissioner. And I don't believe

1:45:15that the matter before us, some some

1:45:18portions of them will be will be heard

1:45:22or evaluated

1:45:25impartially.

1:45:27and I've just been advised

1:45:29this is the best course of action at

1:45:31this time.

1:45:36>> Do we have any other uh disclosures from

1:45:40the commission at this time?

1:45:43Seeing none, we will now move to staff

1:45:44presentation. Miss Shai.

1:45:49>> Thank you, Chair Kelly Shai, agenda

1:45:51coordinator for the city of Reno and

1:45:53staff lean to the planning commission

1:45:54for the record. Good evening,

1:45:56commissioners. Um, tonight I'm bringing

1:45:57you the second item in the process to

1:45:59amend the

1:46:04>> Okay.

1:46:06Uh, tonight I'm bringing you the second

1:46:07item in the process to amend the Reno

1:46:09City Planning Commission bylaws. Uh,

1:46:11tonight you'll have an opportunity to

1:46:12review the proposed amendments, consider

1:46:14changes, and potentially recommend

1:46:16approval to the Reno City Council.

1:46:20As you may remember, Nevada revised

1:46:22statutes chapter 278050 requires the

1:46:25planning commission to adopt rules for

1:46:27transaction of business. The current

1:46:29planning commission bylaws were last

1:46:31modified by the planning commission in

1:46:32April 2023 and approved by council in

1:46:35May of 2023. In August, commissioners

1:46:38requested an item to amend the bylaws.

1:46:40And in September, this body reviews

1:46:42reviewed proposed changes and directed

1:46:44staff to return with revised bylaws

1:46:46incorporating commissioner feedback.

1:46:50At the September 2nd meeting, this

1:46:51commission proposed three substantial

1:46:53amendments to the bylaws regarding

1:46:55attendance, the consent agenda, and

1:46:57annual scheduling processes. I'll expand

1:46:59on each of these amendments in the

1:47:01following slides.

1:47:07The existing bylaws do not contain any

1:47:09provisions regarding attendance. At the

1:47:11September 2nd meeting, this body agreed

1:47:13that commissioners should attend at

1:47:14least three4s of all regularly scheduled

1:47:17meetings in a calendar year. In a

1:47:19typical year with no cancellations, this

1:47:21amounts to 18 out of 24 meetings. This

1:47:24commission also addressed rules

1:47:25regarding virtual attendance and

1:47:27concluded that commissioners should

1:47:28attend no more than six regular meetings

1:47:30each year by video conference. The video

1:47:33conferencing section also includes the

1:47:35requirement that those attending

1:47:37virtually must keep their camera on

1:47:38throughout the meeting except for when

1:47:40the commission is in recess.

1:47:43Moving on to the consent agenda. This

1:47:45body asks that staff move forward with

1:47:47drafting a consent agenda section. The

1:47:49revised bylaws include the feedback as

1:47:51directed by the commission. In terms of

1:47:54criteria, the amended bylaws state that

1:47:56the consent agenda will be used for

1:47:57expedited review of routine items which

1:48:01are recommended for approval by staff.

1:48:03Items that require final decision by

1:48:05city council will not be considered on

1:48:07the consent agenda as directed by this

1:48:10body. The rules of the consent agenda

1:48:12include providing the administrator with

1:48:14discretion to consider project

1:48:15complexity and the volume of agenda

1:48:17items for a given meeting when

1:48:18determining item placement.

1:48:20Additionally, any one commissioner can

1:48:22pull an item for any reason.

1:48:24Procedurally, pulled items will be heard

1:48:26in the same format as public hearing

1:48:28items with public comment and

1:48:29presentations if requested.

1:48:35At the September meeting, this

1:48:36commission distinguished between the

1:48:37project types that could and could not

1:48:39be placed on the consent agenda. On this

1:48:41slide, you'll see that potential

1:48:42projects for the consent agenda include

1:48:44major site plan reviews, alternative

1:48:46equivalent compliance, time extensions,

1:48:49amendments to conditions of approval,

1:48:51and certain reports. As directed by this

1:48:53body, conditional use permits, major

1:48:55deviations, variances, and tenative maps

1:48:57would not be placed on the consent

1:48:59agenda. As I stated earlier, no items

1:49:02for which council is is the deciding

1:49:04body will be placed on the consent

1:49:05agenda.

1:49:08The last of the substantial changes is

1:49:10the inclusion of the commission's review

1:49:11and approval of the meeting schedule.

1:49:13The current bylaws state that regular

1:49:15planning commission meetings will be

1:49:16held on the first and third Wednesdays

1:49:18of each month. The proposed bylaws amend

1:49:20the regular meeting schedule to twice

1:49:22monthly on Wednesdays or Thursdays. Uh

1:49:25we need this flexibility uh for this

1:49:27that this change provides because

1:49:28council and regional dates regularly

1:49:30change. Having this set in the bylaws

1:49:32does not allow us to meet NRS

1:49:34requirements while accommodating other

1:49:35local and regional boards. To ensure

1:49:38commissioners are aware of the proposed

1:49:39meeting dates, the revised bylaws

1:49:41include a process that mirrors the Reno

1:49:42City Council. Each year, staff will

1:49:44bring forward the proposed meeting

1:49:46schedule for the following year for

1:49:47review and approval by the commission.

1:49:53Staff proposed changes are primarily

1:49:54administrative with a few additions

1:49:56since the last time we discussed bylaw

1:49:58amendments. These changes include the

1:50:01changing the name of the commission from

1:50:03the city of Reno Planning Commission to

1:50:05the Reno City Planning Commission,

1:50:07correcting outdated references to Nevada

1:50:09Revised Statutes and City Resolutions,

1:50:11and replacing references to the city

1:50:13clerk's office with development services

1:50:14and the city manager's office.

1:50:18The revised bylaws clarify appointment

1:50:20and resignation protocols by adding the

1:50:22rules for these processes established in

1:50:24Reno Municipal Code and Nevada Revised

1:50:26Statutes.

1:50:28This commission supported requiring

1:50:30commissioners to notify staff of any

1:50:31changes in their attendance at least 10

1:50:33days prior to the meeting. So this

1:50:35provision has been added with exceptions

1:50:38in the case of illness or emergency. The

1:50:41bylaws also encourage commissioners to

1:50:43communicate with the administrator and

1:50:44the staff leazison regarding attendance

1:50:45and other meeting specific matters to

1:50:47ensure clear communication.

1:50:53To continue, all correspondence or

1:50:55public comment received by an individual

1:50:56commissioner should be forwarded to the

1:50:58staff leaison for inclusion in the

1:50:59record. This ensures all commissioners

1:51:01have the same information when

1:51:02deliberating on an item. The revised

1:51:05bylaws make some minor changes to

1:51:06address clerical error clerical errors,

1:51:09clarify public comment practices, use

1:51:11inclusive language, and ensure

1:51:13commissioners have access to city

1:51:14policies. As you may remember during the

1:51:17last meeting, we discussed aligning the

1:51:18noticing requirement for the amendment

1:51:20of these bylaws, which is currently 10

1:51:22days, with the Nevada open meeting law

1:51:24posting deadline, which is 3 days. This

1:51:26body directed staff to make this change

1:51:28with the implementation of a two meeting

1:51:30process.

1:51:32This two meeting process will provide

1:51:33more opportunity for the public to

1:51:35provide input compared to the existing

1:51:37process as written in the current

1:51:38bylaws.

1:51:40Since the September meeting, staff added

1:51:42an amendment to ensure appropriate

1:51:43communication channels with city staff.

1:51:45This amendment encourages commissioners

1:51:47to direct requests to speak with city

1:51:49staff to the administrator. Finally, the

1:51:51commission sought a better understanding

1:51:53of the appropriate mechanisms to enforce

1:51:54these bylaws.

1:51:59Nevada revised statutes provide city

1:52:00council with the authority to remove

1:52:02commissioners for just cause by a

1:52:03majority vote of council after a public

1:52:05hearing. Given this, the revised bylaws

1:52:08add a provision that failure to comply

1:52:10with these bylaws may constitute just

1:52:11cause for removal. To clarify, even in

1:52:14the case that a commissioner violates

1:52:15these bylaws, council has the ultimate

1:52:17authority to remove a commissioner.

1:52:19Non-compliance with these bylaws does

1:52:21not constitute an automatic removal.

1:52:23This provision has been specifically

1:52:25added to the attendance and video

1:52:26conferencing rules. If a commissioner

1:52:28fails to comply with these rules, the

1:52:30administrator is tasked with setting the

1:52:32matter before public hearing before the

1:52:34city council. Uh this concludes the

1:52:37proposed amendments to the Reno City

1:52:38Planning Commission bylaws.

1:52:40If the commission has changes to the

1:52:42proposed to the proposed bylaws,

1:52:43amendments can be made in the motion,

1:52:45but separate motions are not necessary.

1:52:47Uh with that, the recommended motion is

1:52:48on the board, and I'm happy to answer

1:52:50any questions.

1:52:53>> Thank you, Miss Shai. We will now move

1:52:55to public comment. Uh, Mr. Clerk,

1:52:59>> we have, excuse me, I'm getting over a

1:53:01cold. We have one in person comment from

1:53:03Donna Keats.

1:53:11Donna Keats, for the record, I so enjoy

1:53:13spending my evenings with you.

1:53:16Once I'm here, I'm just here all night

1:53:17with you. So, I want to know I just nod

1:53:20at me. Did you guys read my letter and

1:53:22my email or do I have to repeat all that

1:53:23information? So, have we? Yeah. Okay.

1:53:27Then I don't need to repeat all that

1:53:28because I don't want to because you've

1:53:30already heard it. But um I will go ahead

1:53:32and and uh slam this one up so you have

1:53:35something to look at besides me. Um

1:53:39I don't know. That's kind of an excerpt

1:53:41because I really have a problem with

1:53:43this lack of standards that that could

1:53:46be happening here because you know my

1:53:47main pitch is keep the you're all right.

1:53:50See, I can't think of a polite way to

1:53:51say this, but I kind of want to talk

1:53:53about the elephant in the room here,

1:53:55which is the planning commission's job

1:53:57is to actually have public hearings and

1:53:59have public hearings for everything that

1:54:01they have a discretionary disc decision

1:54:03for. So, I'm really struggling with

1:54:06trying to figure out why you need to cut

1:54:07them short by putting them on an on a

1:54:09consent agenda. I I already gave you the

1:54:1115 things you could possibly lose if you

1:54:14keep site major site ramp plan review on

1:54:17there. administrator has authority to

1:54:19just dump 10% changes everywhere. It

1:54:22comes to you because it's more important

1:54:24after it hits 10%. So, if you want to

1:54:26keep this stuff on there, you need to,

1:54:28you know, not have Mike just say the

1:54:32meeting is too busy tonight. That's just

1:54:34a really creepy standard to use for why

1:54:36it's going to go on a consent agenda.

1:54:38That's got to go. I mean, that's just so

1:54:41arbitrary and oh my gosh, you know,

1:54:43you're just going to open yourself up to

1:54:45why him and not me all the time. So, I I

1:54:48would really suggest you think about

1:54:49that a little bit. So, this elephant in

1:54:51the room I'm struggling with because

1:54:53nobody's had a good explanation for me.

1:54:54You're not saving any staff time by

1:54:57putting these things on a consent agenda

1:54:59because staff still has to prepare a

1:55:01presentation in case it gets pulled at

1:55:02the meeting. The applicant still has to

1:55:04show up. They ought to have a right to

1:55:06know also what the terms are that make

1:55:08them go with place A or place B. But if

1:55:11their item gets pulled at the last

1:55:12minute, they have to be here to hear it

1:55:14on the on the public hearing part of the

1:55:15agenda. There's no no time saved there.

1:55:18And there's some things in Title 18 that

1:55:21I didn't spit back at you that will say

1:55:23that you get one public comment at a

1:55:25meeting, it has to come off and you have

1:55:27to hear it. So, the net time savings, I

1:55:29don't know, maybe you guys have stuff

1:55:32going on at night that I don't have, but

1:55:33it seems to me that this is actually

1:55:35your job to be here to do this job. And

1:55:37so, I just I'm struggling with the whole

1:55:39thing. So, I'm going to offer a

1:55:39suggestion. City council commonly just

1:55:43says just waves the hearing of the

1:55:45presentation. If they all already know

1:55:47they want to pass it, they'll just wave

1:55:49the hearing of it, go straight to

1:55:50discussion, then they say, "We don't

1:55:52want to discuss it." And then they make

1:55:53a motion. That's actually faster and

1:55:55more efficient than going through all

1:55:56this other stuff. That's a tool they

1:55:58use. I've seen them do it tons of times.

1:56:00So, it doesn't have to be on a consent

1:56:01agenda. If you want to get rid of these

1:56:03projects that you think are minor or not

1:56:05worth it, you can do it that way. That's

1:56:07that's a currently inused tool, you

1:56:09know. So, and I don't know. Anyway, you

1:56:12have some stuff in here like demanding

1:56:13replacement in 30 days of a new member.

1:56:16You don't have the authority to do that.

1:56:17Council appoints that shouldn't be in

1:56:19your in your bylaws. There's no you

1:56:21can't control that. It's not your job.

1:56:23So anyway, thank you. Was that my final

1:56:25buzzer? Oh, 13 seconds. I should have

1:56:28said something. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

1:56:29Ever so important.

1:56:31Appreciate it. All right. Well, thank

1:56:33you. Um, you know, you know how I think.

1:56:39>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, Mr. Clerk,

1:56:43do we have any other, uh, requests to

1:56:45speak online?

1:56:47>> No.

1:56:49We will now close public comment on this

1:56:51item and move to uh this can be question

1:56:54and deliberation at the same time.

1:56:56>> Can I get Can I get a start here? Uh I

1:56:59feel like the most contention we're

1:57:00going to have is over this consent

1:57:01agenda. Is it possible uh Jasmine's

1:57:04questions to you uh for us to make like

1:57:06a submotion as to whether we want to

1:57:09contemplate the consent agenda or the

1:57:11consent agenda as a in general? And if

1:57:14the answer is no, we move on from that

1:57:17topic and discuss the rest of these

1:57:18items.

1:57:21>> Jasmine made for the record. I think you

1:57:23could um not really do a submotion, but

1:57:28maybe in the course of discussion

1:57:31determine whether that's something

1:57:34uh that you don't want to discuss or

1:57:37>> would it be appropriate for each of us

1:57:39to go around the room and say yes or no

1:57:42as to something we want to discuss?

1:57:45>> Um I I think you can do that. Yes.

1:57:48>> Okay. I would recommend we do that

1:57:50because it'll allow us to condense the

1:57:52issues. I feel like the rest of this is

1:57:54probably not that contentious, but maybe

1:57:56we start there

1:57:58before we get to the nitty-gritty of

1:58:00consent agenda.

1:58:03>> Uh, Commissioner Velto, I I would be

1:58:05okay to that. Can you phrase the

1:58:08question so that it's clear what's being

1:58:10asked? I guess

1:58:10>> only if I don't have to answer it first,

1:58:12but yes, I will. So the the the question

1:58:15is as a concept uh do you as a

1:58:18commissioner want to uh entertain a

1:58:22consent agenda?

1:58:27>> Yes.

1:58:30>> No.

1:58:32>> Please please state your names for the

1:58:34record as

1:58:34>> Commissioner Williams. Yes.

1:58:36>> Sorry. Jan McKenzie.

1:58:39>> Since this is not a roll call, we don't

1:58:41have the clerk. uh

1:58:44exercising who speaks at what time. I'm

1:58:47going to say some comments. I think I'm

1:58:49going to answer your question in black

1:58:51and white. Uh I felt as though I wasn't

1:58:55fully prepared for our last meeting on

1:58:58this item and since then I've taken time

1:59:00to review a number of other

1:59:03jurisdictions and what they have and how

1:59:05this is governed in the process. So, um,

1:59:10that review included Carson City, Story

1:59:12County, Lion County, Douglas County,

1:59:14City of Las Vegas, Henderson, Wo County

1:59:18as well. Um,

1:59:21as well as some news articles that are

1:59:23not recent. It would appear as though

1:59:26many of these bodies employing a consent

1:59:28agenda that are under the same legal

1:59:30jurisdiction as we are in the state of

1:59:32Nevada do not have rules for consent

1:59:34agendas. And so I perhaps thought that

1:59:37we needed to go down the route of

1:59:39developing these rules in order to have

1:59:41one. Um I would be amendable to a

1:59:44discussion about that. Yes. However, I

1:59:47feel as though I was illprepared for the

1:59:49last meeting and should have called that

1:59:53out at the time. So

1:59:56um my apologies for that. My answer is

1:59:58yes.

2:00:10And we are not under an obligation to

2:00:13answer that question too. We are in

2:00:15question and deliberation, but we're not

2:00:16required to answer oath commission

2:00:18questions from other commissioners.

2:00:20>> Um, look, I I think it's our job to come

2:00:23up here and talk about what's on the

2:00:24agenda. Um, and so I am not opposed to

2:00:28having that conversation, but I I get

2:00:31the point. If it looks like there's a

2:00:33majority that would be in favor of not

2:00:35having a consent agenda, uh, then we

2:00:37wouldn't use our time tonight discussing

2:00:39that. Um, and I would definitely, um, be

2:00:43okay with not having a consent agenda.

2:00:46So, I am I am happily sitting on the

2:00:50fence for this one.

2:00:53>> Uh, I'm happy to go next. I would love a

2:00:55consent agenda, but it's not going to

2:00:57work unless we all agree. So, for that

2:00:59reason, I'm a no. And I don't want to

2:01:01spend an hour of us trying to iron out

2:01:03rules just to not vote on it, just

2:01:04respectfully. Uh, that's kind of how I

2:01:06view it.

2:01:10>> Commissioner Delvier.

2:01:12>> Yeah. Sorry. Can I get some

2:01:15I'm trying to like follow along and

2:01:17understand and maybe it's hard because

2:01:18I'm I'm online. Um, can I get

2:01:21clarification on what?

2:01:24And and Alex, sorry, maybe you can

2:01:27rephrase that. Are we talking about

2:01:29removing the consent agenda?

2:01:32>> Sorry. Go.

2:01:33>> Yeah. My my apologies. I'm sorry. So,

2:01:35we, you know, staff spent a lot of time

2:01:38working through these rules for consent

2:01:40agenda. We spent

2:01:41>> I don't know how much time talking about

2:01:43it last time. We've heard public comment

2:01:44about issues with it and additional

2:01:46ideas as to how to refine it. Um, I

2:01:49just, you know, I've seen how these

2:01:51meetings go. We might spend an hour

2:01:53arguing about it to not get to a

2:01:55conclusion or to get to something that

2:01:57still results in it never being used

2:01:59because one person can remove things

2:02:00from the consent agenda. And we've just

2:02:04spent an hour and tons of staff time

2:02:06talking about it. So I guess my my

2:02:08question at the outset is are are you

2:02:10interested in a consent agenda as a

2:02:12concept or do is it your opinion uh we

2:02:15should just move past the consent agenda

2:02:18and focus on the remaining the remainder

2:02:20of the bylaw issues.

2:02:22>> And when you say move past the consent

2:02:23agenda, do you mean just remove it from

2:02:25those the bylaws? Is that

2:02:27>> Yeah. Is that is that your opinion?

2:02:30Well, again, I think that the consent

2:02:32agenda, to your point, first off, I I

2:02:34have a lot of issues with the consent

2:02:36agenda, so I would probably carry on a

2:02:38long discussion about this. Um, and so I

2:02:42would be in favor of removing it from

2:02:47the bylaws, especially because at any

2:02:50point,

2:02:51uh, commissioners can say, "Yes, we want

2:02:54we want to hear this or we want to hear

2:02:56that." I feel it uh sort of impedes

2:02:58public comment. Um and there I just have

2:03:02some confusion just from a legal

2:03:04standpoint if we're agreeing to the

2:03:06whole consent agenda if there's multiple

2:03:08items things like that. So for me it's

2:03:09it's a very confusing um discussion

2:03:12anyway and I don't feel we should um

2:03:18I don't I don't see where it where it

2:03:19adds value at this point if that makes

2:03:21sense.

2:03:22>> Sure. And my apologies, chair,

2:03:25>> uh, Commissioner Jockman. So, I'll I'll

2:03:26I'll share a thought in followup to

2:03:28that. I said yes. Um, obviously the way

2:03:32that they are proposed in terms of

2:03:34employing a consent agenda, if any

2:03:37member of this body would like to

2:03:38request that we pull it, we would pull

2:03:41it. And yeah, uh, we've, uh, pulled

2:03:44every single item that has come before

2:03:46us on consent agenda. So, I I'm seeing a

2:03:50no. Maybe maybe there was one. I

2:03:52apologize. I misspoke. The majority of

2:03:54items. Um so

2:03:58maybe I missed that meeting. I don't

2:04:00know.

2:04:00>> We we did have one, but it was Yeah.

2:04:03>> Okay. In any case, it it doesn't having

2:04:07a vote on a consent agenda that would be

2:04:09a split vote, seeing obviously from the

2:04:12prior deliberations,

2:04:14uh it it defeats the purpose. So, so I

2:04:18would be amendable to a motion made that

2:04:21that removes the items in the red lines

2:04:24that pertain to the consent agenda.

2:04:27Hopefully that was clear.

2:04:28>> I get it now. Thank you.

2:04:30>> So, so with that, as we went around, I

2:04:33heard roughly a 3-3 split.

2:04:36Uh,

2:04:42>> oh, so 33, which means

2:04:44>> it's not an actual motion. We're just

2:04:45talking.

2:04:46>> Yeah. So, I but I just heard like 33

2:04:48probably not going to happen. It'd be my

2:04:49recommendation we again I would love a

2:04:51consent agenda, but it's my

2:04:53recommendation we just proceed under the

2:04:56assumption that we're probably going to

2:04:58vote against it and focus on everything

2:05:00else and then get to motion time and

2:05:02then make a decision.

2:05:03>> I think that works for me.

2:05:07>> Well, we're in questions and

2:05:09deliberations. So, I'm I'm seeing a

2:05:11general appetite or perhaps a split

2:05:13appetite as to whether or not we discuss

2:05:15the consent agenda. there's no control I

2:05:18have to exercise over where the

2:05:19conversation goes from there.

2:05:20>> Would it be easy, Chair, Commissioner

2:05:22McCoy, for the record, if we just went

2:05:23through article by article? Um, and just

2:05:26if people have issues with that article,

2:05:27we can discuss it and then move on. Um,

2:05:30you know, I don't know what the best

2:05:31course of action and legal can tell us

2:05:33when we get there. Um, you know, we move

2:05:35to adopt if we move to adopt proposed uh

2:05:39bylaws how we want to go about doing

2:05:41that. I could I could foresee if we kept

2:05:43um for example, if we kept consent

2:05:45agenda in our discussion um where maybe

2:05:50six of us vote in favor of every change

2:05:53unanimously but not the consent. So I

2:05:56don't know if we want to kind of break

2:05:57those up. Um but but I you know working

2:05:59through article by article for me I

2:06:01think is the the cleanest. And if we uh

2:06:05>> my my only caveat to that respectfully

2:06:07is uh because a lot of this is uh

2:06:10ministerial, it might make more sense

2:06:13for us to flag things we actually have

2:06:15concerns about as opposed to going point

2:06:18by point just for efficiency sake.

2:06:21I'm I'm happy to start the process and

2:06:23go through every single one. Um whatever

2:06:25we want to do. Um

2:06:28the chair, have you got you know an idea

2:06:31of how this would go tonight? Let's

2:06:32let's just start asking questions if we

2:06:35have them, I think. And and we can try

2:06:37to do that in a generally chronological

2:06:39order.

2:06:42So,

2:06:44uh, Commissioner McCoy graph.

2:06:48Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy,

2:06:50for the record, uh, I'll just throw out,

2:06:52um, this first one in article three. Uh,

2:06:54we're looking to move towards just kind

2:06:56of a general citation in NRS 278. I

2:06:59agree with that. Um, but I think we have

2:07:01some places in here where we identify

2:07:02specifics um where we kind of

2:07:05specifically get into um uh specific

2:07:09subsections of NRS and and those can

2:07:12change easily from from year to year

2:07:13statutoily speaking. Um, and since we're

2:07:16talking about our bylaws, that wouldn't

2:07:17automatically get flagged and changed

2:07:19when that happens at the legislature.

2:07:20I'm just thinking maybe we just kind of

2:07:22drop the subsections and just refer to

2:07:25um chapter 278 as amended. Um and that I

2:07:29think is just cleaner throughout. That's

2:07:30just that suggestion. Um moving on to

2:07:34article five. This may be the the other

2:07:36big kind of contention we had tonight.

2:07:39Uh flexibility um to reschedule either

2:07:43regular meeting. Um I I completely

2:07:46support the goal of more flexibility. Uh

2:07:48and I think that what we we get there um

2:07:51through these these amendments. My only

2:07:53concern is um uh I think

2:08:00there's section three article five.

2:08:05We still keep a limitation

2:08:10as necessary to meet the one regular

2:08:12meeting per month requirement. And using

2:08:15this month as an example, we've already

2:08:18met one month or one meeting tonight. So

2:08:21having a meeting on another Thursday

2:08:24would not be justified

2:08:27because we've already met our one-month

2:08:29minimum requirement. So I don't know if

2:08:31anybody would be um opposed to the idea

2:08:34of removing that specific sentence. I

2:08:36don't know if there's a reason why we

2:08:37would have to keep that in there. Um but

2:08:40we have an obligation to meet once a

2:08:41month. That's it. And our limitation

2:08:44here is saying, "Yeah, you guys can

2:08:45remove it, move it all around all you

2:08:46want, but it has to be in order to meet

2:08:49the one meeting minimum." And we've

2:08:51already done that tonight. So having our

2:08:53second meeting on a night that is

2:08:54different from what we already adopted

2:08:56wouldn't be supported by the bylaw as

2:08:58written.

2:09:01My my only concern with that is

2:09:05we serve the public and sometimes we

2:09:08just have to have a meeting to comply

2:09:09with some sort of time frame or schedule

2:09:11that is outside of our control.

2:09:16That would be my only concern. Like

2:09:17people have deadlines, obligations, they

2:09:19have to get things before us. And I get

2:09:22the inconvenience, but that that's my

2:09:24concern with a a super limited

2:09:28uh time frame or a limited amount of

2:09:30meetings or when we have to have them.

2:09:32Given that comment, would staff like to

2:09:34weigh in on this matter since some of

2:09:36those are not tied to our direct meeting

2:09:39agenda? We do, in speaking to

2:09:43Commissioner Velto's point, we do have

2:09:45statutory requirements in terms of

2:09:47getting a project to a public hearing.

2:09:50Um, so I I would want to make sure that

2:09:53we did not create something where we

2:09:55potentially like like you say could get

2:09:57ourselves in a pickle, so to speak,

2:09:58legally where somebody files a

2:10:00conditional use permit and we can't get

2:10:02that to a hearing within 65 days. Um,

2:10:05you know, we that happens regularly, but

2:10:07we get time waiverss and in theory, if

2:10:10somebody did not agree to a time waiver,

2:10:11we would bring a project forward with a

2:10:13recommendation now, but we cannot deny

2:10:15them due process of that application.

2:10:19>> Um, commissioner, real quick, can I ask

2:10:20for clarification? Are you saying that

2:10:23the

2:10:25I'm just trying to understand if you're

2:10:27getting at that commission should with

2:10:30that as necessary to meet one regular

2:10:32meeting per month. Are you saying that

2:10:33the bylaws state that this commission

2:10:35should be meeting once per month only?

2:10:37>> Commissioner McCoy, for the record, um

2:10:39thank you for the question. Uh the

2:10:41existing bylaws say that we are allowed

2:10:43to move

2:10:45>> again through a vote of this body.

2:10:47>> U in order to meet one regular meeting

2:10:50per month requirement.

2:10:51>> Okay.

2:10:51>> What I'm saying is that right now that's

2:10:53what the law says. That's what our

2:10:55bylaws are telling us. We're allowed to

2:10:57meet off of our regular scheduled time

2:10:59in order to meet a one month.

2:11:01>> Okay. We are at times moving it for both

2:11:05meetings each month.

2:11:06>> My suggestion isn't in conflict with

2:11:09anybody that's spoken tonight. It's can

2:11:11we just get rid of that section that

2:11:12section?

2:11:13>> Can we delete that limitation?

2:11:15>> Yeah.

2:11:15>> So that staff does have the flexibility

2:11:17to move both off of a Wednesday or a

2:11:19Thursday or whatever it might be in

2:11:21order to meet

2:11:23>> both meetings if we want to do both

2:11:24meetings. Not have that limitation.

2:11:26>> Yeah. And I just want to clarify I think

2:11:28I misunderstood originally and so yeah

2:11:30with staff wouldn't have any planning

2:11:32staff wouldn't have any objection.

2:11:33>> Um attorney made that there's no issue

2:11:35with removing that.

2:11:37>> I don't see an issue with removing that

2:11:38language

2:11:39>> and and I I understood that what you're

2:11:41saying but my concern if there's no

2:11:42problem no problem. So I'm actually

2:11:43going to withhold my comment.

2:11:46>> Yeah.

2:11:50>> Okay. So I guess we're hearing that

2:11:51staff is generally amendable to the

2:11:53proposed change.

2:11:55>> Okay. Okay. Uh, Commissioner McCquait,

2:11:57did you have

2:11:58>> I do have section more. Um, in fact,

2:12:00that one was not the contention um one I

2:12:02I was thinking of. I think it's going to

2:12:04be the attendance requirement.

2:12:05>> Um, this is article 5 section 7. Um, I

2:12:09do support the 75% attendance uh

2:12:12standard and um mandatory reporting when

2:12:16those fall off. Um, the problem I have

2:12:19is when I think about how this language

2:12:21is actually written,

2:12:23um, myself as well as Commissioner

2:12:25McKenzie would be in violation of those

2:12:26rules sitting here tonight because we

2:12:29cannot meet 75% for this calendar year.

2:12:31We were appointed midyear. Can't do it.

2:12:33We're automatically be subject to a

2:12:35removal hearing just by passing these

2:12:37bylaws. Okay.

2:12:38>> So, my my thought is yes, 75% great. Um,

2:12:45but I think we should um, uh, have a

2:12:48fair measurement. So, you know, I would

2:12:50like to see it basically say something

2:12:52to the effect of each commissioner shall

2:12:55attend at least 75% of regular meetings

2:12:58actually held during each 12 month

2:13:00period of service,

2:13:01>> right?

2:13:02>> Um, compliance probably should be

2:13:04evaluated at our 12-month annual term of

2:13:07service. Um, and um, I think it should

2:13:12be completed meetings. I don't think

2:13:13should be scheduled meetings. Um I think

2:13:16participation through remote method

2:13:19should if we if we're allowing remote

2:13:21participation, I think that should count

2:13:22as attendance. Um and and this might be

2:13:25kind of the sticking point is that I

2:13:27think if attendance falls below 75%.

2:13:30I think the administrator shall report

2:13:32the deficiency to city council, but I

2:13:34still think we should leave it up to

2:13:35city council to determine whether to

2:13:36initiate removal proceedings. Um that's

2:13:40just that's just my thought on that, but

2:13:41I I would I'd be open to discussion and

2:13:43thoughts from others, but at a minimum I

2:13:45think it should be 75% based off the

2:13:48last your your actual 12 months of

2:13:49service.

2:13:50>> Can can I is there

2:13:51>> I was gonna say uh Commissioner Williams

2:13:54I actually had that flagged also because

2:13:56it it did pull out that somebody that

2:13:59came on mid thing wouldn't be able to do

2:14:01that.

2:14:01>> So I Good point.

2:14:02>> I get the concern. I think there's a

2:14:03better way to do it that will not create

2:14:06staff inefficiency if it's every 12

2:14:09months based on your time of

2:14:10appointment. everybody's varied and then

2:14:13that creates seven different dates that

2:14:15staff has to keep track of and do audits

2:14:17annually. Uh so I like the calendar year

2:14:20as the metric because it's one fell

2:14:22swoop and probably easier for staff to

2:14:25to navigate. Uh I think there's a way to

2:14:27to

2:14:29more craft the the change around uh

2:14:34like commissioners must attend three4s

2:14:36of all

2:14:38um their scheduled regular meetings. If

2:14:43you add the word there in even just that

2:14:45I think it would uh like you're not the

2:14:49commissioner before you were the

2:14:50commissioner so those meetings wouldn't

2:14:52be your regularly scheduled meetings.

2:14:55But I'm just trying to find a way to do

2:14:56it without making it 12 different

2:14:58audits.

2:14:58>> Right. No, seven different I'd like to

2:15:00hear from staff. This is Commissioner

2:15:01McCoy again and see what their thoughts

2:15:03are about the um

2:15:05>> the seven audit, if you will. Um because

2:15:07I did think about that. I was I was

2:15:09racking my brain about how do we fix

2:15:10this and and let's say uh we have a

2:15:13commissioner who decides to resign this

2:15:16month and we get an appointment in

2:15:18December and maybe there's one meeting

2:15:20and they miss that meeting.

2:15:22Now they're up for subject for removal

2:15:25because they missed

2:15:27100% of all their meetings in the

2:15:29calendar year. And so it's a it's a

2:15:32limitation issue. And I think if the

2:15:33idea is we really want to start tracking

2:15:35performance or attendance, let's have a

2:15:3912-year look.

2:15:40>> If we want to have that trigger on

2:15:42their, you know,

2:15:43>> what do we say? This rule shall not

2:15:44apply to commit members that have been

2:15:47instated within the last three months of

2:15:49the year. I I have I have some verbiage

2:15:51I had kind of wrote out but go ahead. My

2:15:53>> bad. Commissioner Jockman, I'll say this

2:15:56is why I had I had some pause about how

2:15:58this is implemented too. The um

2:16:02following the following section. So

2:16:04section 8. What I do like is that the

2:16:07commissioner shall attend no more than

2:16:08six meetings per calendar year by video

2:16:10conference. That's a ceiling. Um you

2:16:12come on, you're brand new there and and

2:16:14and I see where your head's at now.

2:16:17There's no way to weaponize that by city

2:16:19council towards any planning

2:16:20commissioner if that's what's being

2:16:22used. What you're saying is okay, this

2:16:25could be weaponized against two uh you

2:16:27know the the two of you. So,

2:16:29Commissioner McCoy, Commissioner

2:16:30McKenzie, the way that it's written. So,

2:16:32I'm amendable to a change because of

2:16:34that. I didn't pick up on that.

2:16:37Um perhaps it's it's a removal of some

2:16:40of that section if if we're still

2:16:43accomplishing the same goal with another

2:16:44clause in the proposed changes.

2:16:47>> I mean I think the adding there I think

2:16:50addresses the concern of you weren't

2:16:53here for the full year. uh adding

2:16:55language saying it's not applicable to

2:16:58commissioners who join within the

2:17:01who just joined or something like that

2:17:03would address the concern of someone who

2:17:05joins and can't make the last meeting of

2:17:06the year. Um or just saying this isn't

2:17:09applicable in the first year of service

2:17:12or the first three months of service.

2:17:13Something like that I think would

2:17:14address the concern. Yeah, I think

2:17:16Commissioner McCoy, I think the three

2:17:17months is still too short if we're

2:17:19looking at 75%. Um, theoretically,

2:17:22depending on if we don't have a meeting,

2:17:24if it gets cancelled, if things like

2:17:26that. Um,

2:17:27>> six months.

2:17:28>> I I'm open to the idea, you know, of of

2:17:31whatever makes it fair. Uh, I just don't

2:17:34want to see 75% impact a commissioner

2:17:37differently simply because of when they

2:17:39were appointed. And you know, if you

2:17:42have one commissioner who starts in

2:17:43January and can miss um let's just let's

2:17:46just throw out a number and let's just

2:17:47say there's a 100 meetings a year and

2:17:49they can miss 25 and they're still good.

2:17:51Uh if you're appointed in June or July,

2:17:54missing 25 could mean you're out. Um and

2:17:57you know, I don't I don't know if that's

2:17:58where we should be looking at our our

2:18:00attendance policy or not, but you know,

2:18:02the chair mentioned like let's just you

2:18:03know, if we got rid of this, I'd be okay

2:18:05with that, too. I just want to make sure

2:18:06if we have a 75% for a year that it

2:18:10really needs to be over a year period.

2:18:12We need to have that safeguard in place.

2:18:16>> Commissioner Williams, the way the way I

2:18:18had it like drafted for me, it's it

2:18:20basically said for commissioners

2:18:21appointed during a calendar year, the

2:18:23requirement shall apply to regular

2:18:24meetings held after appointment.

2:18:27>> But that doesn't address the concern of

2:18:29well, what if there's only one meeting

2:18:30left in the year? And I I get that

2:18:32concern and I I just think there's a way

2:18:35to like like you basically get a grace

2:18:37period and we figure out what that grace

2:18:40period is.

2:18:41>> So then we add a I'm sorry I'm

2:18:42interrupting you.

2:18:43>> I've been doing it all night, Chair. So

2:18:45>> Commissioner Zachman. So perhaps we just

2:18:47add to make it simpler. We add a clause

2:18:50that this section shall not apply during

2:18:52the first six months of any the tenure

2:18:54of any commissioner.

2:18:57>> Yeah.

2:18:58>> Or we change the number of months. about

2:18:59that. That's

2:19:00>> Does that give you permission to not do

2:19:02anything in your first six months?

2:19:05>> Well, you can't have your cake and eat

2:19:07it too. I get what you're saying, but

2:19:08it's uh Yeah, it's um

2:19:13>> chair, can I interject?

2:19:14>> Um I think we set we set it as 3/4s or

2:19:1870 or 75% so that we could look at

2:19:22a given year which is 24 meetings. I

2:19:24understand if this year we had two

2:19:27meetings canceled, right? So now someone

2:19:29if someone were to miss six out of 22

2:19:31meetings that's different than 75%.

2:19:34If we're looking at 75%

2:19:39total um I mean we we don't see that

2:19:42many canceled meetings. I think the two

2:19:43meetings canceled in a row um is not

2:19:46normal.

2:19:48We have six for video conference. Does

2:19:51this commission feel comfortable with

2:19:52six for attendance? Generally, we could

2:19:55do six um absences within a 12 month

2:19:59period of service. Um I I wonder if

2:20:03evaluating this after 12 months,

2:20:08if if someone misses six meetings within

2:20:12the first four months, is that

2:20:16>> problematic? No problem.

2:20:18>> Was I incorrect in in thinking it was

2:20:20too much of a burden to do audits seven

2:20:23different times?

2:20:24>> Um, not necessarily. I mean, there are

2:20:27seven members on this commission. I am

2:20:28evaluating attendance on a quarterly

2:20:31basis. You all receive quarterly quorum

2:20:33emails. Um, so it at this current

2:20:36moment, it doesn't feel burdensome to

2:20:38me. It's pretty easy to track with seven

2:20:40members on the commission. Um, so if

2:20:43that's a concern, I I as the person who

2:20:46will be doing it am not concerned about

2:20:47the workload in that case.

2:20:49>> I more meant like if you had to do it

2:20:50based on our date of service,

2:20:52>> your date of service. Um,

2:20:55>> it it could be. I think we're at an

2:20:58interesting point with Commissioner

2:20:59McCoy and Commissioner McKenzie just now

2:21:01joining. Um, everyone's in a different

2:21:04space. Um, so I guess it could be, but

2:21:08it's not a concern that stands out to me

2:21:10at this moment. Fair.

2:21:12>> And Commissioner McCoy, I'll say you you

2:21:13threw out the idea of just identifying

2:21:15six absences because I think you're

2:21:16right. If if you're there four months

2:21:18and you miss six meetings, to me that's

2:21:19a problem,

2:21:20>> right?

2:21:20>> So I'm just trying to work back from the

2:21:2375% for a calendar year problem. But if

2:21:25we just said, look, you can't if you

2:21:27miss more than six.

2:21:29>> Yeah. you know, from from your start

2:21:31point, if you start and then six

2:21:33meetings go by and you're not there, I

2:21:34think that should

2:21:35>> I think if we get I in that case, we'll

2:21:38get to a point where someone has served

2:21:39maybe three years and they've missed six

2:21:42meetings in I think that could be um a

2:21:46little

2:21:47uh what's the word I'm looking for? Uh

2:21:49six out of three years feels like maybe

2:21:52that's reasonable, I would say. Okay.

2:21:54So, I I do think a 12-month period is is

2:21:57reasonable. And ultimately, it's an

2:21:59evaluation for council to make. Like I

2:22:01said, council's council will make the

2:22:03decision. So, if they see if this were

2:22:06to move forward the way we just talked

2:22:08about and they see six absences in three

2:22:10years, they'll say, "Okay, I don't know

2:22:11that that's really a reason to remove

2:22:13someone." Kelly, I would what we were

2:22:16just talking is I think maybe really to

2:22:19address this we would say and you know

2:22:22I'm saying that no one member shall miss

2:22:27more than 25% of the regularly scheduled

2:22:29meetings over the course of a 12-month

2:22:31period. Something along those lines.

2:22:33Okay.

2:22:36would. So, in that case, over the course

2:22:38of a 12-month period, potentially we

2:22:40would start tracking that first um

2:22:44absence maybe because the 12-month

2:22:47period would start with that first

2:22:48absence.

2:22:51>> And I guess you could you could still do

2:22:52annual audits and just looking back at

2:22:54it, you would

2:22:55>> could be tracking all.

2:22:57>> Yeah. Even if you did them at the same

2:22:58time. Yeah. Fair.

2:22:59>> I think you could also just say like

2:23:01that the three force test requires at

2:23:03least three absences in a year. So it

2:23:06creates a a baseline.

2:23:10>> I see what you're saying.

2:23:11>> You see what I'm

2:23:11>> Yeah. We're creating all kinds of levels

2:23:14of mathematical analysis here that are

2:23:16kind of blowing my mind. I I like I

2:23:17really like the clean idea of just a six

2:23:20and a 12-month period. If we're looking

2:23:21at six is effectively the and and if you

2:23:23want to go seven, go seven. If you're

2:23:26trying to get to that 25% of 24

2:23:28meetings,

2:23:28>> maybe I can't. The way it's written is

2:23:30upon the 7th, that's when we take it to

2:23:33council. Um, so B6 and then upon that

2:23:35seventh. I could be wrong. Maybe it's at

2:23:38the sixth.

2:23:39>> That just seems like a lot of meetings

2:23:40to miss. I can't think of.

2:23:43>> Uh,

2:23:44>> that's 25%.

2:23:45>> Yeah, that's that's you you've made your

2:23:48three fours, which you're allowed to do,

2:23:49right?

2:23:50>> Yeah.

2:23:50>> So, that's the number that we talked

2:23:52about last time. It's the number we've

2:23:54been proposed tonight. I'm not saying

2:23:55that six isn't isn't too much. I'm just

2:23:57saying that's that's where that number

2:23:59comes from.

2:23:59>> Yeah. Fair.

2:24:00>> Um, I I like simplicity. I like knowing

2:24:03what our expectations are when we read

2:24:05the bylaws. Um, you know, so I'm I'm

2:24:10open to however anybody wants to finesse

2:24:12this, but I I like I like the idea of

2:24:16you're accountable the moment you're

2:24:18appointed to Commissioner Mackenzie's

2:24:20point as opposed to building in, you

2:24:23know, her and I could have a six-month

2:24:24grace period,

2:24:25>> you know, under under certain

2:24:26circumstances where we could just, you

2:24:28know, oh, it doesn't kick in until our

2:24:29first year. But either it's got to be a

2:24:32look back and and again that that would

2:24:34be on staff or I think it needs to be a

2:24:37um from the time you're you're appointed

2:24:41you know when when you hit that sixth

2:24:43meeting you know in a in a I don't again

2:24:45I don't know if it's going to be I don't

2:24:47think it like you said three years I

2:24:48don't think that's that warrants it but

2:24:50if it's within a

2:24:51>> calendar well even calendar year I mean

2:24:54should it be 12 months from the moment

2:24:55you're appointed

2:24:57>> I don't know but again we're still back

2:24:58to you having to track from when they're

2:25:00appointed to the missed absences. So,

2:25:03>> uh, Commissioner Jockman, I I guess I'll

2:25:05say let's encourage the staff. Let's,

2:25:07uh, the the commission, let's try to

2:25:10keep moving and maybe stew on that for a

2:25:12little bit, come back to it. Do we have

2:25:15any other items within the proposed

2:25:18bylaws changes that we would like to

2:25:20discuss? We can revisit that at the end.

2:25:25>> Commissioner Williams,

2:25:28>> the

2:25:30But as far as keeping the camera on and

2:25:31the video uh conferencing, that's a city

2:25:35policy, right, for city employees

2:25:36already.

2:25:37>> Um, not that I'm aware of. No,

2:25:39>> to keep your cameras on.

2:25:41>> Pretty sure it is.

2:25:44>> I I do believe it's

2:25:46>> it is it is city policy that if you're

2:25:48attending a video a video conference,

2:25:50your camera is to be on.

2:25:51>> Always learn learning something.

2:25:52>> Always learning something. Pretty sure I

2:25:54read that somewhere. So, we're just

2:25:55coming in line with the city policy with

2:25:57that. I I guess what I my question would

2:26:00be is that

2:26:03what is

2:26:05if if somebody just decides not to

2:26:07follow that rule, is that considered an

2:26:10absence?

2:26:13>> In my experience, you just ask them to

2:26:15turn their camera back on. If there's no

2:26:16response, then they're absent. If

2:26:19they're there, they turn their camera

2:26:20back on and they're there. That's what

2:26:21the camera's for, is to verify that

2:26:23they're there.

2:26:24>> If they leave the room for 5 minutes,

2:26:25that's no big deal. but they should be

2:26:28able to immediately

2:26:31acknowledge that they're there and

2:26:32that's what the camera's for. So, they

2:26:34should have their camera on during a

2:26:36meeting just as much as we're sitting in

2:26:38this these chairs.

2:26:43>> Um,

2:26:43>> okay.

2:26:44>> Should there be like a

2:26:47like a reasonleness component? Because I

2:26:49know I've been like we've been in these

2:26:50long six hour meetings, right? had a

2:26:52meeting where if it goes six hours, I'm

2:26:54in a hotel room on Zoom. I want to grab

2:26:57a glass of water. I like turn the camera

2:27:00off, run, grab a glass of water, come

2:27:02back. Like, are you run to the restroom?

2:27:04Something like that. Now, I understand

2:27:05that like you're all up here if I'm on

2:27:07Zoom and you can't do that. So, that's

2:27:08not really fair. Um, like is there do we

2:27:14thoughts, Mike? I think that, you know,

2:27:17that's largely could probably be

2:27:18regulated through common sense. And if

2:27:20you're on camp, for example, if

2:27:21Commissioner Delvr said, I'm I'm gonna

2:27:25run and get a quick glass of water. I'll

2:27:27be back. You know, just make the

2:27:28announcement that you're leaving shortly

2:27:31and that you'll be back. I think that's

2:27:32that's reasonable.

2:27:33>> Drop it in the chat.

2:27:33>> Yeah.

2:27:34>> Also, Commissioner Dov, I didn't say

2:27:35this earlier, but your hair looks

2:27:36wonderful. It looks like you recently

2:27:38Oh,

2:27:39>> did your hair. It's I'm in this I'm in a

2:27:41hotel room

2:27:43and I can a drink. No.

2:27:45>> Um, so but one thing to that point is

2:27:50and it is easier obviously if we're

2:27:52ironically if we're on Zoom like if I

2:27:54have to cough I'm going to turn my

2:27:55camera off, right? So I don't

2:27:57necessarily want to announce I'm going

2:27:58to cough or sneeze or whatever. Um, but

2:28:01if I am going to leave, if I'm going to

2:28:03leave and not be present for a short

2:28:05period of time, like to use a restroom

2:28:07or to grab water or to whatever it is,

2:28:09then I think the process would be to

2:28:11just simply let people know that you're

2:28:13you'll be right back and then let us

2:28:15know when you're back.

2:28:17>> You can also just leave the camera on

2:28:19and stand up and go do what you're going

2:28:21to do and come back. We can see that

2:28:23you're not sitting in your chair. It's

2:28:24the same thing as one of us standing up

2:28:26and walking around the corner to cough.

2:28:28Just don't turn your camera off.

2:28:30>> What if somebody did that? You just keep

2:28:33your camera on, but your camera faces

2:28:34the wall. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I

2:28:37think we're overregulating this. I know.

2:28:39>> I think I like there's a degree of

2:28:42reasonableness that should be allowed

2:28:43>> in anything that applies to that. If

2:28:46you're in a hotel room, you're in a

2:28:47bedroom and there's a bathroom right

2:28:49there. So, it's perfectly reasonable to

2:28:51briefly turn off a camera.

2:28:53Commissioner McCoy, uh, for the record,

2:28:56I I I do think we're overregulating

2:28:58this, which is why I don't think we

2:28:59should be regulating this. Um, because

2:29:01to Commissioner Velto's point, if if the

2:29:04just says you got to keep your camera

2:29:05on, yeah, staring at the wall, it's on.

2:29:07I've met you can't report it. And what's

2:29:09the point of having this? Um, I also

2:29:11can't tell from the proposed language if

2:29:12the intent is to eliminate commissioner

2:29:14participation by telephone because

2:29:16you're not going to have a video for

2:29:17that. And so all you're going to do is,

2:29:18oh, cool. I'm just going to call in now.

2:29:20won't use Zoom and I've met my

2:29:22requirement. Um, I've also been to, you

2:29:25know, I'm glad to see

2:29:27>> Hold on. Yeah, I don't know if telephone

2:29:28is a thing.

2:29:29>> I don't know if people can call in if

2:29:30that's ever been

2:29:31>> Well, I would say let's figure that out

2:29:32first before we throw it.

2:29:34>> Well,

2:29:35>> it's exclusionary.

2:29:36>> I I I do I mean I do feel like I did a

2:29:38meeting by phone at some point, but it

2:29:40was year like four or five years ago. It

2:29:42was long. Well, I was I was stuck in

2:29:44traffic one time and I I

2:29:47>> to meet quorum I dialed I phoned in but

2:29:49I was not on Zoom.

2:29:50>> But but going back to this idea like

2:29:52these are these are these are rules the

2:29:54council has ultimate discretion if you

2:29:56can explain they really take issue with

2:29:58that. I mean

2:29:59>> I I take issue with the idea of

2:30:01regulating it if we have these opens

2:30:03like yeah you can use your phone and

2:30:04then now it just doesn't even matter. So

2:30:06then why are we doing it? Um, I also

2:30:08know that I've stayed and had to do many

2:30:10of meetings in hotels with really bad

2:30:12Wi-Fi, and the only way I was able to

2:30:14participate in those and still hear and

2:30:16communicate was by shutting off video.

2:30:18So, I've I've got I've got issues with

2:30:21the idea of the video conferencing

2:30:22limits. Um, but, you know, it I'm I'm

2:30:27not going to I'm not going to, you know,

2:30:28hold up the discussion tonight. I just

2:30:30think there's there's a lot of if the

2:30:31I'm wondering what the intent is here

2:30:33>> and if the intent is is to prohibit

2:30:36behavior, but we have these outs, what

2:30:38are we accomplishing?

2:30:39>> The intent is to encourage

2:30:40participation.

2:30:41>> It's a participation thing. Yeah. If I

2:30:43ask Commissioner Delar a question and

2:30:46she doesn't respond and we're looking at

2:30:48the ceiling and 5 minutes later and 10

2:30:50minutes later she hasn't Yes, that she

2:30:53hasn't responded. Then she's not

2:30:54participating,

2:30:55>> right? But her camera's on and so

2:30:57>> But she's not participating. But we have

2:30:59no recourse. So does

2:31:00>> Well, I understand what you're trying to

2:31:02get to, but if the idea is not whether

2:31:05you have your camera on and you're

2:31:06driving or you're on the phone because

2:31:08you have bad Wi-Fi, if you're

2:31:10participating, you're asking questions,

2:31:12you're raising your hand, you're

2:31:14whatever you're doing in order to

2:31:16participate, that's the key. Not whether

2:31:19you're sitting in a hotel room or have

2:31:21your camera on or off. I think the

2:31:22camera needs to be on if you're on Zoom.

2:31:24That's just me. And I and I think as as

2:31:26lawyers, it's easy for us to make

2:31:28perfect the enemy the good because we

2:31:30can try to contingency plan for all

2:31:31scenarios, but you know, as long as we

2:31:34move the needle forward on some of these

2:31:35things, I think that's that's good.

2:31:39>> I think it's also wildly obvious if

2:31:41somebody's taking advantage of the

2:31:44system or not. We're all very sensible,

2:31:47reasonable people and I think this is

2:31:50just to prohibit the obvious abuse of

2:31:55attendance or participation

2:31:57um and give give the the body a couple

2:32:00outs. I don't I don't think we need to

2:32:02over manage it either, but I also don't

2:32:05think we just don't need to do anything

2:32:06because there's outs.

2:32:09No.

2:32:09>> So, Commissioner Jockman, in in an

2:32:11effort to hopefully approach consensus

2:32:15with this body, I I would suggest uh I

2:32:18would be amendable to removing I guess

2:32:21perhaps it's being proposed the first

2:32:23paragraph of section 9

2:32:26article five as proposed since that

2:32:29would still preserve the no more than

2:32:31six meetings per year calendar by video

2:32:33conference. Um I I just feel like that

2:32:37covers the maj the concern.

2:32:40>> I I think there should be a limit on

2:32:42video conference

2:32:43>> that would be preserving that clause

2:32:45that says commissioners shall attend no

2:32:47more than six meetings per calendar year

2:32:49by video conference.

2:32:51>> Oh, I misunderstood. Okay.

2:32:52>> The first paragraph uh is generally the

2:32:55one that is encouraging

2:32:58in-person attendance if that's fair to

2:33:00say.

2:33:04And so then basically the section would

2:33:07just be reading such that the

2:33:08administrator so Mr. would be required

2:33:12to notify city council if a commissioner

2:33:15goes past six meetings via video

2:33:17conference

2:33:20>> in a calendar year.

2:33:23I'll throw a loop out there. I'm I

2:33:26actually would be okay with getting rid

2:33:28of the video conferencing either, right?

2:33:30Because the goal is participation. And

2:33:33if if we're falling in line with city

2:33:34pro like policy that you have to have

2:33:37your camera on, not at a wall, that

2:33:39that's not the idea. You have to be

2:33:41physically present to represent your

2:33:44area what the job you're supposed to do.

2:33:46If somebody wants to sit behind the

2:33:48video camera and still be present and

2:33:50and be engaged and do with the job that

2:33:53they raised their hand to do, then so be

2:33:55it also. So, I think if there's this big

2:33:57contention, I think my goal or my hope

2:34:00is that we encourage participation. If

2:34:03somebody has to do it on Zoom, uh I

2:34:05don't agree with it. I don't think

2:34:07that's what we all signed up to be uh to

2:34:09do, but I'm also not willing to die on

2:34:12this that it has to be some sort of

2:34:13limit either. I just I think sitting

2:34:16back there with your camera off is not

2:34:18acceptable. I'll just put it out there.

2:34:21I respectfully I mean I I think we

2:34:23should encourage in person as much as

2:34:25possible and then that's

2:34:26>> nobody comes here to I mean could you

2:34:29imagine if we all just decided to go on

2:34:30Zoom and we had Miss Keats out here

2:34:33staring at a at a wall with all of us on

2:34:35Zoom and she came down here to

2:34:37>> Miss Keats Miss Keats would have her

2:34:38computer

2:34:39>> on chambers let her on it.

2:34:42>> Yeah. I know I don't like to go like

2:34:44World War II scenario but I mean that's

2:34:45the reality. If we all just said you

2:34:47know what I don't want to leave my house

2:34:48tonight. What does that do for the

2:34:50public? It it's completely uh is is an

2:34:53opposite of I think what we all intended

2:34:55to do.

2:34:55>> Literally phoning it in. That's not what

2:34:57we're supposed to do.

2:34:58>> Yeah, I agree.

2:34:59>> It's zooming in. We're not sure about

2:35:01teleoning.

2:35:02>> Um yeah, I'm I'm I'm not going to die on

2:35:04this one either, guys. I just I think

2:35:06when there's a lot of outs, then it kind

2:35:09of questions, well, what's our intent?

2:35:10And if our intent is something, but the

2:35:11outs are going to kind of carve that

2:35:13out, then then it's it's foolish. If the

2:35:15intent is participation, to your point,

2:35:17um, uh, Commissioner Williams, do we

2:35:20look at doing something that's going to

2:35:22do that instead? I don't know how this

2:35:24gets us to participation. No, I don't

2:35:27think anybody here is going to go on

2:35:29Zoom and not participate. That's not an

2:35:31issue. But a year from now, somebody

2:35:35else can look at these and go, "Oh, I

2:35:36just got to have it on. Cool. I don't

2:35:37have to participate." I just

2:35:41>> I'm good with

2:35:41>> At least they're having to do something,

2:35:43right? being present in front of a

2:35:45camera is way different than just

2:35:46turning it off and going about your

2:35:48business and then yelling uh a or n, you

2:35:52know,

2:35:52>> right?

2:35:53>> And so I I'm just saying like you have

2:35:55to put force some effort,

2:35:56>> right? And I think we we discussed about

2:35:58some people show up to the dis and never

2:36:00say anything either

2:36:01>> and that's not really participation, but

2:36:03at least they're here. At least they're

2:36:04here. I I'll give them I'll give them

2:36:06that. But yeah, I don't know, Chair, if

2:36:07you want to

2:36:09>> move us along or you want to try to find

2:36:11>> I do. Okay. I I had a few Um, I'll jump

2:36:14in and just, um, since we skipped over

2:36:17the 10-day absence notice, um, this is

2:36:20article 5, section 8, 10 days notice, I

2:36:23think, is a sensible goal, um, because

2:36:25staff needs time to, uh, protect, um,

2:36:28the quorum. Um, but I I do think there's

2:36:31a potential for uh, kind of what I would

2:36:33call a a perverse incentive. Um,

2:36:37if if I've already missed the 9-day

2:36:39deadline or the 10-day deadline, let's

2:36:42say day nine, I realize that there's

2:36:43there's a conflict, there's there's a

2:36:45reason I'm not going to be able to make

2:36:45it,

2:36:46>> I'm left with either telling you about

2:36:48this and violating this rule or waiting

2:36:52until a day of and trying to make it an

2:36:54emergency. Oh, this thing just came up

2:36:55and now I have an excuse. Um, so for me,

2:36:58I I I love the intent, but I think it

2:37:00should be more of a a commissioner who

2:37:01will be unable to attend a meeting shall

2:37:04notify the administrator as soon as

2:37:05practicable after becoming aware of the

2:37:07conflict and when reasonably possible at

2:37:09least 10 days before the meeting. If

2:37:11we're trying to identify that's the

2:37:12intent. But if we just say, hey, it's

2:37:15got to be 10 days black and white unless

2:37:17it's an emergency, then people who are

2:37:19abusing this are always going to have an

2:37:22emergency. Mhm.

2:37:23>> But and I and I'd rather incentivize

2:37:25people who find out on day nine that

2:37:27they're going to have a conflict because

2:37:27I think staff can still work within that

2:37:29that that period um rather than day of

2:37:32oh we don't have a quorum day of because

2:37:34we had emergencies. That's just my

2:37:36thought. I'm not going to die on this

2:37:37one either.

2:37:38>> I I would agree with that.

2:37:41>> Yeah. Fair.

2:37:43>> Yeah.

2:37:47>> Okay. Um chair, if I may, please. Okay.

2:37:51Uh thank you. Uh, moving past consent

2:37:53agenda. Um,

2:37:56there's a lot here and let's just keep

2:37:58keep on trucking. Um, uh, let's get to

2:38:01article 9, section three, contact with

2:38:03city employees. Uh, I get and respect,

2:38:06uh, the need for centralized requests.

2:38:08Uh, I think my day one, Mike was like,

2:38:10everything comes through me. Was like,

2:38:11that's great. That's easy. I know where

2:38:12I need to go. But hypothetically

2:38:14speaking, let's imagine that I have some

2:38:17detailed project questions that I have

2:38:19on a Monday morning for a Wednesday

2:38:21meeting and I send those to Mike and

2:38:23he's out of country.

2:38:26I mean, hypothetically speaking, I don't

2:38:27I don't know what one would do um in

2:38:29that scenario um other than reach out to

2:38:31the the planning developers themselves

2:38:34in violation of this provision, which is

2:38:36what I did um hypothetically. So to me,

2:38:39I think we can do this, but I would like

2:38:41there to be some type of design. So, um,

2:38:44the last sentence of section three,

2:38:45replace the administrator with the

2:38:47administrator or designate. So, if

2:38:49Mike's out of town, Mike's whatever it

2:38:50is, he can throw somebody else under the

2:38:53bus as our contact point.

2:38:55>> And and I'll chime in there. That's

2:38:57actually our our city policy is that if

2:39:00if you go out of town, you're required

2:39:02to put out of office on your phone and

2:39:05email, which will have a designate of

2:39:08who to contact in my absence. So that

2:39:10that I think that's perfectly fine to

2:39:11have that in there.

2:39:20>> Do we have any other questions from the

2:39:22commission?

2:39:24I've got one more chair, Commissioner

2:39:26McCoy, for the record. Go ahead.

2:39:28>> Uh, this is the final one, article 13.

2:39:31Uh, this is the blanket removal

2:39:32language. Uh, the final sentence says

2:39:35that any failure to follow these bylaws

2:39:36may constitute just cause for removal

2:39:39read literally that includes minor

2:39:41procedural missteps such as a

2:39:43commissioner sending a late absent

2:39:45notice or failing to copy one staff

2:39:47contact about a remote attendance. Um uh

2:39:50I I do think that that those missteps

2:39:53might need correction, but they

2:39:54shouldn't be elevated by the bylaws into

2:39:56possible removal grounds. Um state law

2:39:58already controls uh what what that looks

2:40:01like. So I think for me I would delete

2:40:04failure to comply with these provisions

2:40:06or or these bylaws um and and kind of

2:40:09retain the rest. I I I don't think we

2:40:11should be looking at failure to comply

2:40:12with bylaws, especially when we've

2:40:14already identified bylaws that we are

2:40:16all here currently maybe not following

2:40:19and we're looking to change that we are.

2:40:21Um I think I think we're going to have

2:40:24those failures and I just don't think it

2:40:25should be our our uh our bylaw language

2:40:27to say that, you know, not following

2:40:30these is is is basis for removal. Um

2:40:33except for where we've talked about

2:40:34attendance and I think that should be a

2:40:36referral to the uh um to the council.

2:40:40So, Commissioner Jockman, I guess I'll

2:40:42ask this question. This is a legal one.

2:40:45The the phrasing includes the word may

2:40:47instead of shall. So, I don't Is that

2:40:51interpretation correct that that it will

2:40:53be employed that way when the word is

2:40:56may?

2:40:57>> Well, I think the question is also like

2:40:59can we instill a requirement on city

2:41:03council when they're the ones that make

2:41:05a removal decision? That would be kind

2:41:07of my rationale for removing this unless

2:41:09we want to put planning commissioners on

2:41:10notice when they review these bylaws

2:41:13that it's important to follow them

2:41:15>> or give them the bylaws when they take

2:41:17their oath.

2:41:19>> Commissioner Jo, if I may, I think let's

2:41:22play out the the treat it like a

2:41:23waterboard. Worst case scenario, you

2:41:25have a majority on council. Any minor

2:41:27infraction by any member of the planning

2:41:30commission could be removed if if you're

2:41:34putting water through the waterboard. So

2:41:36maybe that's where the the thought

2:41:38process and concern is coming from.

2:41:41And so you know I I guess in that line I

2:41:44do uh prefer that the

2:41:49within our bylaws the interpretations of

2:41:51what is a just cause for removal be

2:41:53specific rather than a a catch-all

2:41:56clause.

2:41:57>> Yeah.

2:41:58>> Like that.

2:41:59>> So I' I'd support removing it.

2:42:01>> Okay.

2:42:02>> Are there um Cali Shy for the record?

2:42:04Are there other because that um

2:42:09removal clause is has been added

2:42:11specifically to attendance and video

2:42:13conferencing. Are there any other

2:42:16provisions in the bylaws that you would

2:42:18want that applied to specifically

2:42:20wherein um the administrator might uh

2:42:22set the matter before public hearing or

2:42:25are we okay with it? Commissioner McCoy,

2:42:26for myself, I think attendance is the

2:42:29one issue that we should be we should be

2:42:31dealing with. And and for me, to

2:42:33Commissioner Belto's point, I don't

2:42:34think we should be mandating a hearing

2:42:36in front of council. I think it should

2:42:37be not a discretionary report because

2:42:39then it gets to the you know, well, when

2:42:41does the administrator decide to do it?

2:42:43Is it fair to make them have the

2:42:44discretion to do it? It's a mandatory

2:42:46report. If you miss if you have the

2:42:48attendance violation,

2:42:49>> mandatory report to council, then they

2:42:51get to decide if they're going to if

2:42:52they're going to set that and call that.

2:42:54That that's just my thought. Um, I don't

2:42:56want to mandate removal hearings. There

2:42:58could be a situation where somebody's

2:42:59out on on medical FMLA, some type of

2:43:02thing that's going to happen and there

2:43:04should be some discretion on that and

2:43:05they shouldn't have to go before a

2:43:06removal hearing to explain the need for

2:43:09the discretion.

2:43:18So procedurally, we have discussed a

2:43:21number of changes that would constitute

2:43:24additional red lines to

2:43:27the bylaws.

2:43:29Uh I guess I'll pose this question at

2:43:31legal. Would we be able to

2:43:35make a proposed motion incorporating

2:43:39those provided we're being specific

2:43:40about it and and and

2:43:44motion, make that motion to advance it

2:43:46to city council or do we need to revisit

2:43:49this?

2:43:50>> You could make a motion to incorporate

2:43:52the the changes as discussed

2:43:55here

2:43:57to move that to city council.

2:43:59>> So, I'm looking to the two attorneys on

2:44:02this body.

2:44:02>> I would make I would make that motion.

2:44:07>> So, the motion would be motion to

2:44:08advance this to city council with the

2:44:10changes as discussed.

2:44:15Do we have

2:44:16>> we've eliminated consent agenda and

2:44:17that's why I I want to make sure that

2:44:19our motion is clear that we're we're

2:44:20doing that. And the only kind of hangup

2:44:22that we said we'd come back to was the

2:44:24um

2:44:25>> attendance

2:44:26>> was the

2:44:28video.

2:44:28>> That's right. That was section article 5

2:44:31section

2:44:34seven uh eight.

2:44:36>> Well, you guess attendance requirement.

2:44:38Did we did we resolve that? We just left

2:44:40that because it was there. Yeah, I think

2:44:41the attendance was also left.

2:44:43>> So, we have attendance and we have to

2:44:44determine um the video conference. And

2:44:46so, if the idea is we're going to

2:44:47eliminate article 5 section 9 with about

2:44:50you got to be there, it's got to this or

2:44:52that. I I don't know. Um but at least

2:44:53maintaining that

2:44:56I think that that that's where we are. I

2:44:57think we have to decide I think those

2:44:59two issues the 75% attendance

2:45:01requirement and then what if anything we

2:45:03want to do about video conference camera

2:45:07equipment.

2:45:09So, so if I may, for the 75% attendance

2:45:12requirement, I propose just adding the

2:45:13clause that this shall not be evaluated

2:45:15for the first six months of any uh for

2:45:19any member of the commission.

2:45:21>> And I I get I get the resistance to

2:45:23that, but no one's going to get

2:45:24appointed to this commission and just

2:45:25bail on the first six months. Like,

2:45:27you're going to have your council member

2:45:30on you if you do that. So, I just think

2:45:32there's like a reasonable check on that.

2:45:34And if you like

2:45:37>> Yeah. I mean, I think they would be on

2:45:39you, but they'd have no recourse unless

2:45:43>> Well, I think that the council can find

2:45:44its own just cause. The council doesn't

2:45:46need our

2:45:46>> In that case, the council is going to

2:45:47have to like if we do the waterboard,

2:45:49worst case scenario again, the council's

2:45:51going to have to justify why they just

2:45:53appointed someone that they're now

2:45:54removing,

2:45:54>> but the council can also

2:45:57>> but they can say it's just cause. You

2:45:58haven't showed up for 6 months. They

2:46:00don't need us to tell them that's a

2:46:01problem.

2:46:02>> Okay. So,

2:46:04>> so in in that case though when we also

2:46:06have the charter that says you cannot

2:46:08miss more than three consecutive

2:46:09meetings. So on a high level I have a

2:46:12some pause about infringing on what the

2:46:14charter says because that's the higher

2:46:16body dictating down to us attendance. So

2:46:19we're coming up here with how often can

2:46:21you be virtual.

2:46:24That's not infringing on what the

2:46:25charter says. But currently the charter

2:46:29if we're in violation of the charter

2:46:30that does go before city council.

2:46:32>> Yes. Yeah, if something as long as it's

2:46:35not in conflict with the charter, I

2:46:36think we can put it into the bylaws

2:46:39>> and it's three consecutive,

2:46:41>> right? And so what we're looking at is

2:46:42it might not we're trying to address the

2:46:43issue where you could show up to one,

2:46:45miss two, show up to one, miss two,

2:46:47>> but we in my head I don't think we can

2:46:49address that issue.

2:46:50>> That's the charter that's city council

2:46:52is telling us this is how it'll be.

2:46:54>> What we are can address is

2:46:57v virtual attendance.

2:46:58>> Yeah.

2:46:58>> Okay. So you're you're suggesting we

2:46:59eliminate this the attendance

2:47:00requirement entirely. the 75%.

2:47:03>> No, no, no, no.

2:47:05>> Because you just said we can't address

2:47:06it.

2:47:07>> No, we can't change what the charter

2:47:08say.

2:47:08>> I'm not going to change the charter.

2:47:09What I'm saying is what we're proposing

2:47:11then is to address what the charter

2:47:13comes up short.

2:47:14>> It's charter plus,

2:47:15>> right? Because the charter says it's

2:47:17three consecutive and if you make if you

2:47:19miss one and then make two, miss one,

2:47:21make then we can't touch you through the

2:47:23charter, right?

2:47:23>> So, we're trying to come up with

2:47:24something to help deal with the issue

2:47:26beyond the charter express terms. So

2:47:29when I stated that, what I was thinking

2:47:30through in my head was you join in

2:47:32November and you miss two meetings, one

2:47:36meeting. You pointed out previously that

2:47:38you'd be in violation per the

2:47:40interpretation for the calendar year.

2:47:43That would I don't think that would be

2:47:45deemed legally applicable because the

2:47:47charter would in that case states that

2:47:49you have to miss three in a row. Um but

2:47:56I guess I'll leave it at that. I just

2:47:58>> I don't

2:47:59>> not sure what would prevail.

2:48:00>> So I think we we we modify the

2:48:02attendance policy to say 75% in a given

2:48:0612-month period for a member. Um the

2:48:10protection against someone showing up

2:48:11missing six months is the charter. So we

2:48:13don't need to add a caveat to that. We

2:48:16can say there's a grace period of 6

2:48:18months

2:48:22and that resolves it.

2:48:25I'm amendable to that, Commissioner

2:48:27Jockman.

2:48:29And I'm

2:48:30>> staff will track the six months from

2:48:31their appointment. So, we're getting

2:48:33back to stack stack tracking the their

2:48:36appointment six-month period again.

2:48:37>> Yeah, I'm totally fine with that at this

2:48:38point.

2:48:39>> Okay. Okay.

2:48:41Which I mean, then why not just do the

2:48:43the 12 months from they start? 75% from

2:48:46when they start.

2:48:47>> So, the reporting would happen on a

2:48:4912-month basis, kind of on the

2:48:51anniversary of appointment every year.

2:48:54Um, can I ask um

2:48:58is there an appetite for up to a

2:49:0012-month period? I'm wondering if we hit

2:49:02eight months and someone has missed six

2:49:03meetings or are we just evaluating this?

2:49:06I'm I'm at eight months. Okay, this

2:49:07person has missed six meetings, but I'm

2:49:10only evaluating this every 12 months. Do

2:49:12we is it

2:49:15an up to 12 month peri that's

2:49:17>> I'm open to six six meetings. You miss

2:49:19six meetings in a year and it's it's

2:49:22>> in a 12-month period

2:49:23>> from when you start. Yeah. Yeah.

2:49:25>> Okay.

2:49:27>> But and I Yeah. Yeah. From when you

2:49:30start. It's got to be from when you were

2:49:33commissioner.

2:49:34>> You're trying to eliminate waiting for a

2:49:36year. If you miss six meetings in your

2:49:39first six months, you don't have to wait

2:49:41for the end of the calendar year to

2:49:43bring it up. Is that what you're

2:49:45>> Yes.

2:49:45>> addressing? Okay. I don't think there

2:49:47needs to be any language as to when the

2:49:48staff evaluates it. The rule is no more

2:49:51than six months. You can evaluate it

2:49:53whenever you please.

2:49:55>> After that, you know, okay,

2:49:57>> we just got to be clear on the starting

2:49:58point is when they're actually

2:49:59commissioner.

2:49:59>> Okay.

2:50:00>> If because the way we had it written

2:50:01with the calendar

2:50:02>> from the beginning of their term.

2:50:03>> Yeah.

2:50:04>> Okay.

2:50:05>> On a on a rolling 12-month basis

2:50:08>> or is it six? You missed six meetings

2:50:10and now it's referral.

2:50:11>> I don't like rolling 12-month because

2:50:12that requires a perpetual evaluation of

2:50:15all seven.

2:50:16That's a lot of staff work.

2:50:18>> Yeah,

2:50:18>> I don't want to do that.

2:50:20>> So, what are we looking at?

2:50:21>> Okay, so you can't miss more than six

2:50:24period

2:50:24>> in a 12-month calendar year.

2:50:28>> Uh,

2:50:31you have a grace period of

2:50:33>> I don't I don't even need a grace

2:50:34period.

2:50:35>> No grace period.

2:50:35>> If we're just limiting it to six,

2:50:37>> I don't need a grace period.

2:50:39>> Perfect.

2:50:41>> Okay. from the time you start. I think

2:50:43if you miss six meeting, we have some

2:50:44explanation

2:50:45>> in a 12-month period

2:50:47>> beginning with the beginning of the

2:50:51commissioner's term.

2:50:53>> So,

2:50:54>> well, if it's if it's while you're

2:50:55commissioner, do we need the actual date

2:50:58of service start or is it just, hey,

2:51:00we've got a 12-month period here

2:51:02>> where you've missed six,

2:51:03>> right? Because that trigger

2:51:05>> if we're doing consecutive 12-month

2:51:07periods and within the last three months

2:51:10you missed three started over and so

2:51:13within a given 12 month period I think

2:51:16captures that

2:51:17>> and it doesn't necessarily depend on

2:51:19when they started or

2:51:21>> Okay,

2:51:22>> six absences within a given 12-month

2:51:25period.

2:51:26>> Yep.

2:51:28>> Then um if I can continue

2:51:34the So the red lines as written have

2:51:37that the administrator shall set the

2:51:38matter before public hearing. Is there a

2:51:40consensus that the commission would like

2:51:42a sort of reporting step to precede the

2:51:46matter being set before public hearing?

2:51:48>> I don't I don't think we should be

2:51:50setting it or asking or demanding that

2:51:52it be set. I think we should demand that

2:51:54it be referred

2:51:55>> to the council to council

2:51:56>> and then they get to decide what what

2:51:58happens next. That's just my thought.

2:51:59>> Well, I agree with that.

2:52:01>> Doesn't the process have to be the

2:52:02administrator request an agenda item?

2:52:06>> Okay.

2:52:08>> Yeah. So, are are you suggesting we

2:52:10don't have the authority to do that? It

2:52:12has to be done the other way.

2:52:14>> No, I think the way it's written is the

2:52:15way that it has to be done because

2:52:17>> the way it's written in um the red lines

2:52:20is that upon that sixth absence,

2:52:24staff will add an agenda item to for the

2:52:28council to consider

2:52:31review potential removal of a

2:52:33commissioner due to violation of this

2:52:35provision in the bylaws. So staff can't

2:52:38ask to do it. They just have to do it.

2:52:41>> Or you can't like you can't have a

2:52:42public you can't notify the body in any

2:52:45other way,

2:52:46>> right? We couldn't we couldn't notify

2:52:48the entirety of council. I mean it would

2:52:50have it would still have to be public in

2:52:52some capacity. Um it it I think it could

2:52:56be a reporting step if it's with the

2:52:59particular council member who appointed

2:53:01them and then that council member can

2:53:04potentially provide direction for it to

2:53:05be on an agenda. But I don't know that

2:53:08we can bring it to the entirety of a

2:53:10quorum of council um and then have them

2:53:12direct us to put that. It

2:53:14>> is my preference that we do it the way

2:53:15it is written in your current version of

2:53:17the bylaws.

2:53:18>> Okay,

2:53:19>> Commissioner Jock. I agree with that.

2:53:21Okay.

2:53:24I don't want to get in the way of

2:53:25meeting law. So if there's no other way

2:53:28to kind of make that referral, then I

2:53:31will I will defer.

2:53:34>> Do we have any other deliberations?

2:53:38>> Are we revisiting video conferencing or

2:53:40do we feel confident with

2:53:43>> So the question from staff is about

2:53:45article

2:53:47>> five.

2:53:48>> Five. I am comfortable with the language

2:53:51in the redlinined version

2:53:56>> and I'm comfortable with eliminating it.

2:54:00>> Uh can you uh Miss Shai, could you

2:54:03please remind me which section I'm

2:54:06>> Yes. Article five, section eight. It

2:54:10looks like to me the numbering got a

2:54:12little

2:54:12>> Well, if we eliminate it, then you can't

2:54:14appear by

2:54:16>> I believe in the proposed amendments at

2:54:18section 9 or

2:54:20>> Sure. Yes, I think you're correct. Yes.

2:54:22>> Section 8's about at least 10 days.

2:54:24Section 9

2:54:25>> is does it start with video conferencing

2:54:27including electronic communication?

2:54:29>> Yeah.

2:54:29>> Article 5, section 9.

2:54:31>> So, this section's important in my mind.

2:54:33It says it's permitted. It says if

2:54:36you're going to do it, you got to notify

2:54:37the administrator. says you got to keep

2:54:39your camera on. Says you can't do it

2:54:41more than six times per year. I I like

2:54:44that. All of those concepts.

2:54:46>> So, if I play devil's advocate,

2:54:48Commissioner McCoy, your thought here is

2:54:50that if I turn my camera off once, I

2:54:53could be in violation of the bylaws and

2:54:55go before city council. Is that the if

2:54:58I'm thinking through a waterboard of how

2:54:59that could be interpreted?

2:55:01>> Absolutely. So,

2:55:03>> so how do we how do we address that? We

2:55:04add we add a language uh where it says

2:55:07commissioners attending video conference

2:55:08must keep their camera and remain

2:55:10visible. At the end of that say this

2:55:12rule should be reasonably interpreted.

2:55:15>> That solves the problem. How

2:55:17>> reasonable participation with the camera

2:55:19on

2:55:20>> you're talking about removal and

2:55:21automatic removal based on

2:55:23reasonableness. Who's who's coming up

2:55:24with a reasonleness?

2:55:25>> Well, it's a council.

2:55:26>> It's not an automatic. It's not

2:55:28automatic removal.

2:55:29>> It's automatically being set for a

2:55:30hearing.

2:55:31>> That that's no discretion there, right?

2:55:33this this last sentence upon the seventh

2:55:35attendance.

2:55:36>> I'll agree with it, Commissioner McCoy

2:55:37to an extent on this. I don't think we

2:55:39should remove the entire section, but if

2:55:41we remove the first paragraph, there's

2:55:44still a clause that like it's it's very

2:55:46clear for interpretation. You have to

2:55:48request video conference seven times and

2:55:51then you go before city council. There's

2:55:53no other interpretation that could be

2:55:55rendered

2:55:57obviously. And and then this is the

2:55:59problem in politics is that you have a

2:56:01ton of

2:56:02language that has an intent, but then

2:56:04it's interpreted another way at other

2:56:06times. If you just remove the first

2:56:08paragraph and you keep the second one,

2:56:10there's there I don't see any other way

2:56:12you can interpret that.

2:56:13>> I'd be good with that chair.

2:56:18>> I recognize that is not what everyone on

2:56:20this body wants.

2:56:23>> Yeah, I don't like that.

2:56:23>> You're talking about removing the sixth

2:56:25meeting. No, remove

2:56:27>> the first paragraph of se article

2:56:30>> article 5 section nine.

2:56:33>> Can you can you read the first words of

2:56:34that sentence?

2:56:37>> Uh the se section 9

2:56:39>> the paragraph you Yeah.

2:56:41>> So this would be removed under this

2:56:43proposal. Video conferencing attendance

2:56:46at video conferencing including

2:56:48electronic communication and

2:56:49audiovisisual attendance at meetings by

2:56:52commissioners is permitted.

2:56:54Commissioners attending by video

2:56:55conferencing must notify the

2:56:57administrator and staff leaison prior to

2:56:59the meeting that they will be attending

2:57:00via video conference.

2:57:03So if you didn't notify prior uh you

2:57:06could be in violation of the bylaws is I

2:57:09think I'm I'm just trying to play

2:57:10devil's advocate with that

2:57:11interpretation. Commissioners attending

2:57:14now I'm continuing with the text.

2:57:16Commissioners attending via video

2:57:17conference must keep their camera on and

2:57:19remain visible throughout the duration

2:57:20of the meeting except when the

2:57:22commission is in recess. even despite

2:57:24these deliberations, if you turned it

2:57:25off briefly, you could be uh considered

2:57:28to be in violation of the bylaws. So, I

2:57:31get that all the intents are there.

2:57:33However,

2:57:34the the second paragraph, there's

2:57:36there's no hiding in that paragraph um

2:57:39or how it could be interpreted.

2:57:40>> What if instead of saying reasonable

2:57:41except for privacy breaks, something

2:57:44like that? I just we need to have

2:57:45something that says you got to keep your

2:57:46camera on. I then if you tied it to when

2:57:49speaking that's far less um restrictive

2:57:53but it's also specific.

2:57:55>> How about uh

2:57:57>> how about when during discussion and

2:58:00deliberation during questions and

2:58:02deliberation.

2:58:07>> That's that's that's much more specific.

2:58:10>> Yeah,

2:58:11>> I think there's some adjusted language

2:58:13um on your screen if

2:58:15>> whatever reason. I love that.

2:58:19Can I see that? Sorry, I can't see it.

2:58:20>> Uh, Commissioner Delvr, it says, uh,

2:58:23>> thank you.

2:58:24>> Oh, sorry. Can you see it? My bad.

2:58:25>> Yes, I can see it now. Thank you.

2:58:31>> Yeah, I mean, I think that that like

2:58:34from my standpoint as I'm sitting here,

2:58:36I think that makes sense.

2:58:44I if this helps the commission

2:58:48um become an agreement. I I can say from

2:58:51my perspective that based on um their

2:58:55direction from this commission at the

2:58:56September 2nd meeting that failure to

2:58:58comply with this provision may

2:58:59constitute just cause for removal was

2:59:01intended to be specific towards the

2:59:03attendance the sixth meeting. So, if

2:59:05it's helpful to clarify the language

2:59:07that failure to comply with attending

2:59:10more than six meetings shall be cause

2:59:12for removal. Um, I I would agree that

2:59:16having to keep your camera on is such a

2:59:19probably at one moment should not be

2:59:21reason for removal. Um, so if it helps

2:59:24to make that kind of removal clause more

2:59:27specific to no more than six meetings,

2:59:31maybe that's helpful. I think I think

2:59:34part of the problem is because it says

2:59:37visible throughout the duration of the

2:59:39meeting except when in recess it implies

2:59:42that there's no other option. So,

2:59:44>> right.

2:59:45>> And and I think that's separate from the

2:59:49actual

2:59:50>> um so I think saying

2:59:55within reason

2:59:58>> Commissioner McCoy for me I'm I'm good

3:00:00with adding in whenever reasonly

3:00:01possible. I would like to eliminate

3:00:03failure to comply with this provision

3:00:05may constitute just cause for removal

3:00:07pursuant. Okay.

3:00:08>> And then keep upon the seventh

3:00:09attendance administrator shall set the

3:00:11matter dealing with the attendance

3:00:12issue. Um but also laying out clearly

3:00:14our intent is that we want the camera

3:00:16on.

3:00:17>> Okay. And then it's ultimately up to

3:00:19council to make a decision about just

3:00:21cause and I'm good with that change

3:00:23>> based on that non-compliance with that

3:00:24section of

3:00:25>> Makes sense.

3:00:26>> Yep.

3:00:27>> Okay. I'm hearing consensus.

3:00:31Do we have any other questions from the

3:00:33commission?

3:00:36>> And uh Miss Shai, is that is that clear

3:00:39for you?

3:00:39>> Yeah, if you don't mind, I'd just like

3:00:41to move through and make sure I have a

3:00:42good understanding when it comes to

3:00:44amending these

3:00:45>> sector.

3:00:46>> So, the first change that Commissioner

3:00:48McCoy noted was in article 3, section 5,

3:00:51commissioners may be removed in

3:00:52accordance with NRS section 2780405

3:00:55as amended.

3:00:56It would be changing all references to

3:00:58section to to

3:01:00>> chapter 278 as amended as may be

3:01:02amended.

3:01:02>> Okay.

3:01:03>> However, legal likes to have that

3:01:04>> perfect

3:01:05>> language.

3:01:06>> Great.

3:01:08Okay.

3:01:14Okay. Then we jump to article five. I

3:01:18think section six or seven.

3:01:21>> Section three.

3:01:21>> Let me move to the other version.

3:01:25Article 5, Section 3.

3:01:26>> Yeah, we're going to delete. Oh, you're

3:01:27right. You're going in the order we

3:01:28talked.

3:01:29>> No, you're No, you're right. Okay. Um,

3:01:31so we're going to remove as necessary to

3:01:32meet the one regular meeting per month

3:01:34requirement.

3:01:35>> Correct.

3:01:35>> Great.

3:01:37In article 5, section 7, we are going to

3:01:41change that to six something along the

3:01:45lines of six absences in a 12-month

3:01:47period.

3:01:50>> Good. Okay.

3:01:54Okay, for video conferencing, we are

3:01:57going to add that commissioners

3:01:59attending via video conference must keep

3:02:00their camera on and remain visible

3:02:01throughout the duration of the meeting

3:02:03whenever reasonably possible except when

3:02:05the commission is in recess. And from

3:02:07that second paragraph, we are going to

3:02:08remove failure to comply with this

3:02:10provision may constitute just cause for

3:02:12removal.

3:02:14>> Great.

3:02:17>> Did you see article 5 section 8? Did you

3:02:21>> not section eight?

3:02:23>> Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you,

3:02:25Commissioner McCoy.

3:02:29>> So, so just and I'm not proposing a

3:02:32change. Just for an understanding, we're

3:02:33removing that clause, but the the the

3:02:36next clause remains that upon the

3:02:39seventh dot dot dot administrator shall

3:02:41notify. Okay.

3:02:42>> Yes.

3:02:42>> Okay. Thank you.

3:02:45>> Okay. Commissioner McCoy, can you

3:02:47restate the language you used in section

3:02:498?

3:02:49>> Absolutely. Commissioner McCoy, for the

3:02:51record, a commissioner who will be

3:02:52unable to attend a meeting shall notify

3:02:54the administrator as soon as predictable

3:02:56after becoming aware of the conflict and

3:02:59when reasonably possible at least 10

3:03:01days before the meeting.

3:03:02>> Okay. Like

3:03:04>> great.

3:03:04>> I'm seeing consensus. Yep.

3:03:06>> Okay. Perfect. We're going to remove um

3:03:09article six consent agenda

3:03:12and we are going to remove section two

3:03:16of article 7 which is the consideration

3:03:18of agenda items during the consent

3:03:20agenda.

3:03:21>> Right.

3:03:23>> Correct. Yep.

3:03:24>> Great.

3:03:25>> We have consensus on that.

3:03:29>> Do we have consent?

3:03:32>> No. And then on let's see

3:03:37this is article 9 use of staff section

3:03:40three we are going to add all requests

3:03:42to speak with city of Reno employees

3:03:43shall be directed to the administrator

3:03:44or their designate.

3:03:46>> Yep.

3:03:46>> Great.

3:03:48And then in article 9 legal authority we

3:03:51are going to remove failure to comply

3:03:53with the provisions of these bylaws may

3:03:54constitute just cause for removal.

3:03:56>> Yep.

3:03:58Okay.

3:04:02Um, motion to recommend the bylaws as

3:04:06discussed to the city council.

3:04:09>> Second, Commissioner,

3:04:11>> go ahead.

3:04:12>> We have a motion and a second. Any final

3:04:14discussion?

3:04:17I do not see uh if your hand is raised,

3:04:21Commissioner. No, we're good. Okay. So,

3:04:22we do not have any further discussion.

3:04:25>> Uh, we have a motion and a second. And

3:04:26all in favor say I.

3:04:27>> I.

3:04:28>> I.

3:04:29>> Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion

3:04:31carries 6 with one recusal. That

3:04:33concludes item

3:04:35D1.

3:04:39And somebody let Commissioner Misera.

3:04:44No.

3:04:47>> Um

3:04:48>> chat.

3:04:50>> We'll send him a message on the chat.

3:04:53Thank you.

3:04:53>> Perfect. Uh, next item is uh, item F,

3:04:57Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning

3:04:59Liaison Report. Earlier I motioned to

3:05:00you, Commissioner McCoy. Would you be

3:05:02willing to give this leazison report?

3:05:05Uh, happy to do so, Chair Commissioner

3:05:07McCoy, for the record.

3:05:09>> Uh, so we met um, uh, Monday. Um, this

3:05:15is the reserve day. Uh, so sometimes

3:05:17they have conflicts as well. Um, and

3:05:19this is this is why we we were heard on

3:05:21a Monday instead of our usual Thursday.

3:05:23Um coming up for um the business of the

3:05:27day was the um Codeexa residence that

3:05:31came through here if you guys recall. Um

3:05:34so that was fairly simple. I think there

3:05:37was uh a little bit of a analysis kind

3:05:40of distinction that they they wanted to

3:05:42make. Um, as that as that came through,

3:05:45they updated the uh agenda and the staff

3:05:48report to account for that and it ended

3:05:50up passing uh unanimously. Uh, they also

3:05:54uh gave us a presentation that night um

3:05:56of the Truckucky Meadows annual report

3:05:59um very detailed, very userfriendly

3:06:03um kind of graph um uh in in and

3:06:07statistics and and it was like drinking

3:06:09from a water fire hose actually. there's

3:06:12so much information and data that you

3:06:13could just really nail down on a city

3:06:15level um Sparks County just the granular

3:06:18detail um was was amazing and I would

3:06:21encourage everybody kind of look for

3:06:22that uh that tool um because it it's

3:06:26really a lot of the data they're

3:06:27collecting themselves. It's not data

3:06:29that's even necessarily being reported

3:06:30to them. They're they're having to do a

3:06:31lot of the leg work for that. Um and

3:06:33then our next meeting is going to be

3:06:35November 16th. Um and that's kind of

3:06:38that's kind of it.

3:06:40>> Thank you, Commissioner McCoy. Item G,

3:06:42future agenda items. Mr.

3:06:44>> Nothing this evening. Thank you, Mr.

3:06:45Chair.

3:06:47>> Item H, public comment. Madame Clerk.

3:06:52>> Donna, you can fill it out when you're

3:06:53done. Donna Keats,

3:06:56if you are online and would like to

3:06:57provide public comment, please raise

3:06:58your hand.

3:06:59>> Hi, this is Donna Keats. I'm just want

3:07:01to say thank you. That's about it. Um,

3:07:04I'm pleased that you recognize there

3:07:06would be so much conflict about trying

3:07:08to pass the consent agenda that you

3:07:11chose not to spend another three or four

3:07:13or two meetings more on it to try to get

3:07:15everybody to agree as to what goes on

3:07:17there. So, thank you for the recognition

3:07:19that you're actually come to consensus

3:07:21on what belongs on it and skipping that

3:07:24discussion. I know there are I know I'm

3:07:26the one that keeps showing up and Tony

3:07:28showed up, but there are a lot of people

3:07:30who are really um aware of this thing

3:07:34that happened and dissatisfied with it.

3:07:37So I just and as I mentioned previously,

3:07:39you have close to 200 views of your

3:07:42planning commission meeting even though

3:07:43I'm the only one sitting here. So people

3:07:46are watching on YouTube. A lot of people

3:07:48know about it. there's chat on social

3:07:50media and so I just wanted to thank you

3:07:52for knocking it through a little bit

3:07:53because everybody's like what's the

3:07:55elephant in the room here? What are they

3:07:56doing? You know, and and it is your job

3:07:59to be present just like you want

3:08:01everybody to attend.

3:08:03We want everybody to have the same

3:08:05opportunity to go and review a public

3:08:08hearing on YouTube and find out what

3:08:09happened. We want it there. Want to be

3:08:11able to see it. You know, what did you

3:08:13guys decide? What did you do? How did

3:08:14that happen? Oh, they skipped the

3:08:16presentation. I mean, in other words,

3:08:17there a lot of other ways you can do it

3:08:19except checking it off with these. Oh,

3:08:21the meeting was Come on, Mike. I think

3:08:24I'll decide because the meeting agenda

3:08:26is too busy tonight. I think I'll just

3:08:28throw that one on a consent agenda. It

3:08:30just really wasn't working. So, thank

3:08:31you for what you did to knock that out.

3:08:34Um, language is still a little

3:08:36confusing. I'll be interested to see the

3:08:38actual hard copy with all these changes

3:08:39because just it was a little confusing

3:08:42to me anyway. So, thank you. That's all.

3:08:45>> Appreciate it.

3:08:47Uh, madam clerk, do we

3:08:49>> Thank you for reading my letters.

3:08:52>> Thank you for writing them.

3:08:53>> Usually I just feel like I'm talking to

3:08:55air and so I appreciate that you

3:08:57>> Well, you still are, but some of us

3:09:00anyway.

3:09:01>> Speak for myself.

3:09:04>> Uh, madame clerk, do you have any

3:09:05requests to speak online?

3:09:06>> We do not have anyone online with their

3:09:08hand raised.

3:09:09>> This concludes item H. Can item I,

3:09:12adjournment. Can I get a motion to

3:09:13adjurnn?

3:09:14>> Second. All in favor say I.

3:09:17>> I.

3:09:18>> Meeting adjourned.

```*