Thursday, June 6th, 2024, and we are at the City of Reno Council Chamber. We'll begin with agenda item one, the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Velto, will you please lead us? To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisibley and justice for all. Thank you commissioner. Closing agenda item one and moving to agenda item two. Michelle, can we get a roll call, please? Harris Armstrong here. Manny Bera here. Arthur Munoz here. Carrie Romire here. Alex Felto here, Sylvia Villaina is absent, and JD Draculich is absent. We have a quorum. Thank you, Michelle. Closing item two and moving to item three, public comment. This item is for public comment on any action item or any general public comment. Members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment using the Zoom link provided on the agenda, specifically https colon slashlinks.renino.gov3 capital QVQJ. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded to three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. With that, we did not receive any request um I'm sorry, any request to speak forms for this item. No um no one registered to speak on this item via Zoom. We did receive a voicemail, but we are not playing that tonight due to the vulgarity, but the comments were related to the traffic issues in the north valleys. Thank you, Michelle. Do we have anyone in the chambers wishing to speak under general public comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll close item three and move on to item four, approval of minutes. Uh, agenda item four for possible action approval of minutes from the regular city of Reno planning commission meeting on May 1st and May 15 2024. Can we do one at a time, please? Sure. So, backtracking, we'll start with uh the approval of minutes for the May 1st, 2024 meeting. Are there any questions, abstensions, or discussion items from the commissioners on this? Yeah. Commissioner Munoz, uh, wish to make a motion to approve. Okay. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Rome second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. I. Okay. So, uh, eyes have it. We're approved. Is unanimous. We'll move to, uh, approval of minutes from the regular city of Reno planning commission meeting on May 15, 2024. Are there any questions, abstensions, or discussion items from the commissioners? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Bera. Motion to approve. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Monos a second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. Uh unanimously approved. Uh approval of minutes is closed out and we can move on to agenda item five, public hearings. Uh any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary. Alternatively, you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of the meeting. We'll open agenda item 5.1 uh case number LDC24-000052 Chisel Chisum Mobile Home Park MPA and ZMA. Mr. Chairman, uh for the record, Mikey, planning manager. The applicant has requested a continuence of this item. It will be held at the June 20th planning commission hearing. We will need to open public comment in case we have anybody that wishes to speak tonight. Okay. So, public comment on this item is open for anyone wishing to speak. Do we have anyone wishing to speak in the chambers? Any request to speak forms? I did not receive any request to speak forms, no voicemails, and no correspondence received for this item. Okay. Uh, no one on Zoom. Uh no. Okay. Uh seeing none, we'll close agenda item 5.1 and move to uh item 5.2, LDC240015, Envy Energy Utility Corridor. And we'll begin with a presentation from staff. All right. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, I'm Nathan Gilbert, principal planner with the city of Reno. Uh, this is the wrong PowerPoint. There we go. All right, let's get back at it. This is a request for a conditional use permit to construct 120 kilovolt overhead electrical transmission line which is considered a major utility and to allow for associated hillside development. The overall site length is 12 miles. Uh would connect two existing uh power substations located just west of the uh state line uh with a 10.9 mile portion running through Nevada going through Verdi all the way up to Cold Springs and connecting to the border town substation. Uh this conditional use permit request is only subject to th those portions of the lines that are in the city of Reno. Uh so in this map that's that cross-hatched area. So this is this is a conditional use permit for Reno's portion. Washup County has already approved a special use permit for uh portions within their jurisdiction. Uh the request is considered a project of regional significance and will require regional plan amendment um before taking effect. The purpose of the line is to increase reliability of the power service in West Reno and to avoid overall systemwide failures. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation is the federally authorized standard agency which is requiring an additional line for regional grid resiliency. An environmental impact statement was prepared. Uh it was started in 2011. Uh it was a rigorous process with a final environmental impact statement completed in 2018 with the US Forest Service as the lead agency. Uh the EIS evaluated five potential alternatives for the line including no line, no action and they selected the PEIine POV alignment uh with some significant mitigations and this corridor generally follows that um EIS pivl alignment as the preferred alternative was chosen after analysis of cultural resource impacts, wildlife habitat, private property issues, visual resources, public comments on the initial draft public safety and prioritizing use of existing regional utility corridors. The Forest Service issued a final record of decision in 2019. Um, just want to make clear that the the EIS and the mitigations are only applicable to uh federal properties. However, the EIS uh evaluated the region as a whole. So, it looked at private properties in Wo County, Sierra County, California um and the city of Reno. The project scope again it's 120 kilo kilovolt above ground transmission line. There are 111 poles and 60 of them are within the city of Reno's jurisdiction. The pole's height heights would range from 70 to 105 ft tall in various location. The span distance between poles averages 800 ft but can range from 200 to 2,000 ft depending on the terrain or obstructions. Under Reno zoning code, uh major utilities are allowed in all zoning districts with the approved conditional use permit. Uh as we mentioned, the request does trigger hillside development standards based on the topography of the line route. Uh however, the standards are really not applicable uh given the minimal grading required for pole structures. Uh just following the line uh in Vera, it comes out from the California substation, crosses the state line. You can see in the map, it's kind of a hodgepodge of county and city jurisdiction. We're going to look at the area as a whole. Um the line would utilize the existing regional utility corridor in that area. It would actually result in a net pole reduction. Um there would be 18 poles remaining. 21 poles existing poles would be removed and 10 added. So within this existing corridor, uh there'd actually be a net loss of 11 poles. That line runs all the way to the West Meadows subdivision within that corridor. So from the West Meadows subdivision, uh the line would run north through a parcel under the county's jurisdiction back into the city of Reno jurisdiction on the western most side of the Stan Lucas uh parcel through open space portion of that area and then running through unincorporated Wo County until reaching Cold Springs. in Cold Springs. It runs through undeveloped land in the Stonegate Planned Unit development and lifestyle home parcels, ultimately connecting to uh the Aluras Regional Utility Corridor uh to the north. Uh the applicant is proposing a variation from the alignment, the Peine POV alignment outlined in the environmental impact statement. Uh this map was included in the application's original material uh for this cup request and it it illustrates uh the original contemplation following that alignment uh in the final environmental impact statement. This alignment's about point4 miles east of parcels outside of the southern portion of the Stonegate PED. Uh the Stonegate PED was adopted after the EAS was approved. However, the the zoning that was there when this was analyzed was large lot residential 1acre and remains large lot one residential 1acre within the stonegate PD in this portion. So this is the proposed deviation. Um it straddles four existing private parcels, one of which is developed. It's about 60 ft higher in elevation than the alternative and it runs through a a heavily forested area. So staff is recommending condition of approval number nine to maintain uh the alignment in the environmental impact statement. Want to make clear that the planning commission has the authority uh to deviate that from that again that the EIS and the final record of decisions non-binding on private properties but it did analyze this area and take in uh public feedback visual resources and environmental uh issues in this area and um selecting that alignment. Uh as far as master plan, city master plan and regional plan policy guidance uh gives both documents give uh a hierarchy of of six choices on where new transmission lines should go. And I highlighted the first two because the uh uh original alignment in the IS uh fits nicely in in in the hierarchy. They're located in an existing corridor that already contains above ground transmission infrastructure without expanding the corridor width. That's a good portion almost the entirety out in Berdai and a significant portion in Cold Springs. The alignment would uh match with those existing utility corridors. The second priority would be to have it located either in a federally designated corridor or an easement that has an approved preliminary or final environmental impact statement, which would be that original alignment. A deviation from that as proposed would um fall within the the least preferred option of alignment. So key recommendation uh for conditions of approval will be condition five approval is contingent upon all required regional approvals. Condition number seven uh that the construction and maintenance activities be subject to the construction operation and maintenance plan. The applicant has agreed to that. That's sort of a companion implementation document to the EIS. It means that um the mitigation measures uh identified in the AIS, it's it's an operations plan for construction and ongoing maintenance of the corridor as detailed plans to mitigate wildlife impacts, vegetation, sensitive plants, general practices, fire safety, ongoing maintenance responsibilities and the like. And condition number nine uh would be to have the the corridor match the general alignment as presented in the final environmental impact statement. The next steps, as I said, WashU County Planning Commission already approved their portion of the special use permit uh for the unincorporated areas, which would include those Federal Forest Service and BLM parcels. They approved that in May 7th of 2024. Uh Reno's the final step for the conditional use permit. And then uh both requests would go to the regional planning commission. and they be reviewed concurrently um for a project of regional significance for construction of a transmission line greater than 60 kilovolts. And because uh this is a both Wo County and the city of Reno have corresponding entitlements, uh the regional planning commission would sponsor uh the regional plan amendment which is required to establish a new utility corridor to the regional planning governing board. So uh as conditioned staff can make all the findings relying heavily on the robust environmental impact statement and staff recommends approval uh with conditions. I'm available for any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. Do we have a presentation from the applicant? [Music] Good evening. For the record, Dave Snellgrove. I'm planning manager with CFA Bowman, working here with NB Energy. Um, where's the clicker? There it is. So, Nathan did a great job in going through and covering a lot of this that we have to go through this on a major utility. Uh, this 120 KV uh KV transmission power line. Um it will be a project of regional significance and the federal government did already review and approve this through a fairly lengthy uh federal EIS process. Uh that was about an 8-year long process started in 2011 and ended in 2009 19. So this will increase the uh reliability of power in the West Reno area. Um Nathan had it in his presentation. And I'll reiterate uh that NERK, the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, it has mandatory transmission standards that Envy Energy is required to meet. And this is part of that. So the current route for electricity basically goes in that Vshape down the 395 corridor and then connects in more in town and then goes back out. And it it's a two-way two-way flow, but that's where the power does run. So with this line uh being added, it would run in between and basically give you an alternate route. So if there was something that was happening over on the 395 route that shut that down, it this provides an alternative route where power that won't go down to West Reno. It's lesser likely and greater reliability. 12 total miles of line with 10.9 in uh Nevada uh running through the city of Reno and Washo County with 4.1 miles of it being in the city of Reno that we're looking at at tonight. Um in terms of access road, uh Nathan mentioned the federal EIS process, there's about 100 stipulations and the stipulations are equivalent to what you'd call conditions of approval. And part of the stipulations in terms of the access roads is they're required to go back in whatever they may have to widen out for access or create for access. They've got to bring those back to what they were before either in the width of the road so you don't create a super freeway up there or if there was uh nothing there before that they have to go back in and repair that land afterwards. So Nathan had a had a cross-hatch map. This is a purple and purple and green map. The green land is the forest service land that's actually in the county. Um and then the unshaded area that's just an aerial topo that's unincorporated county happens to be private and then the purple areas are city of Reno land. So we're looking at the far north and then down towards the far south in in this application request this evening. Nathan mentioned I'll cover the Verdai area where where the line runs east to west. That is an existing regional utility corridor. And then as you get up towards the north, you can see the red line that that this runs into in parallels. That's the Alurus uh corridor up at the north. So the new section of regional utility corridor on the map on the left in the blue circled area it's the north south run in between the alurus power line corridor and the verdi area. So where it takes that strong kick to the to the west in Verdi that's where the existing regional utility corridor is. So looking at the general topography in the area up north, this is this is just where you come onto the city of Reno. And then you have up in the upper right hand corner kind of an aerial perspective of the alignment. Um the Alurus power lines run close to the railroad track. That's a squiggly line going there. That's where we'd marry back in with that line. But the topography as you get into the city of Reno land is not as steep as some of the areas that go over through the Forest Service land that's in unincorporated Welo County. it starts to flatten out a bit more as you get up towards Cold Springs. Nathan covered and I appreciate him for covering it, but we'll have a net net pole loss in this area. There are two river crossings in association with Verdi across the Truckucky River two times um in this area. There's where the first 14 poles will be. There will be a net loss of 11 poles. There was already a line running there. And this pole line will be joint circuited up to where it takes that little V uh there in verti kind of in the middle of the image. Uh one of the lines will break off and that one continues on in its separate alignment. Uh but it will be joint circuited for for a good portion of it running through verdi. All the pole structures will be constructed of metal um rather than wood. So fire danger goes down with those. You don't have pole structures that are going to burn. uh when we went out to the neighborhood neighborhood groups and we went to many different neighborhood meetings uh the NAB both NABS neighborhood meeting we also visited the Verdi uh community council and uh fire came up quite a bit and then questions about undergrounding I'll cover cover each of those later in the presentation so this is just a copy of the front cover of the federal approvals I won't won't go over that too much but one of the quotes out of this is provides the needed benefit of reliable electric transmission capacity to the west side of West Reno, consistent with the reliability standards that Envy Energy is mandated to achieve. Um the general summary of what the EIS looked at uh land use, private property, public health and safety, visual resources, visual, uh vegetation resources, special status plants, wildlife habitat, and cultural point out on the wildlife habitat that came up at some neighborhood meetings as well. terms of mu deer up in the area, there are requirements that NV Energy can't construct during certain times and the federal government set stipulations on that and part of their stipulations also known as conditions of approval. So this it was a very rigorous process they went through and a very lengthy process and looked at a lot of different things inclusive of this area having burned previously it was less prone to fire danger. Um, so the different routes that were that were reviewed, you had the Mitchell alternative that went up more into the forest area, uh, over in California. You had the Peine alternative, the Povville alternative, which actually went over Peine Mountain. And then you had the combined one, the Peine Povville alternative. And that the last alternative was the do nothing alternative to see you know what the outcome would be if could they meet their standards by doing nothing. No they couldn't. So the preferred route was that pivville. Now I mentioned this is a very lengthy process they went through about eight years in the federal process. Envy energy can't go out and start getting easements and it doesn't make sense for them to start getting easements on private property until they know what route they're going to have. if they were over in the Mitchell alternative, it's different easements than if they were on the POV alternative. And and each one has some significant differences. So, it's only after you get your approval in terms of what the preferred route is that you can in earnest then move out and start dealing with private property owners. So, that occurred in 2019. In 2020, the area that we have the adjustment to the alignment, that's when the easements were obtained through through that area about a year after the federal approval. So, there's the chosen route highlighted in yellow. Forgot I had that in there. In the uh in the Verdai area where it takes the kick down the bottom end of this photo or this image, there is uh that is the existing regional utility corridor. We left those red poles with the orange lines uh in there. There is an existing transmission line that this has to go over. So some of our taller structures are right here. These two that I have shown. These are in that 105 100 ft type range. And they get over the uh the line to the north. Now it the line works its way uphill. And I know this is just a an image built in SketchUp, but you can see some of the poles going up. There's one right next to the the the water. uh to the pond there and there's another one a little bit up the hill but where you actually have them are all the way up up the hill. I'm not going to stand here and tell you you're not going to see poles. You're going to see poles. It is what it is. It's a power line. We we all like the reliability of our electricity and they are required part of the stipulations to color these poles so that they start to blend in. And it I worked at NV Energy for about four and a half years and I really was in tune with poles and I saw a lot more than I do now, but working on this project again. I'm driving in different areas and I realized, oh, there are poles there. I never it never dawned on me. I'm not going to say you're not going to see them, but they will start to blend in and you that won't be your paramount view. So going up the hill, you can see in this we highlight we had the line or one of the lines in blue so you could see where all the poles are. So it it works up the terrain as Nathan mentioned goes across the uh part of the Lucas property on the far western side but you can see the elevational difference that you have to maintain. You have to keep a separation to the lines. So crossing over that uh other uh transmission line, they have to make sure that they're meeting the safety standards for separation for those lines. This is a view. This isn't the the pole line wouldn't be here. It would actually be on the right hand side. That's the existing transmission line that'll remain that this will have to go over. This pole line will take off to the north, which will be the right hand side of the picture. Um, and this is at the end of Waterville Lane, uh, looking down towards where the line would make its hard right turn and start heading due north. Another view just kind of where it moves moves through um, Verdi. Uh, down here on the bottom right hand corner is the is Verdai Elementary School. This, as I said before, is an existing utility corridor. And you can see where the orange line branches off with the red pole. That's where we stop being joint circuited and then one pole pole line takes off and the this new line will keep going across the river. So in these pictures, these are on east the eastern portion of Bridge Street and the western portion of Bridge Street. Bridge Street hooks around, goes up to the north and comes back to the south. So this bottom picture, the pole line on the right hand side of that photo just right of the public notice board um that po those poles will be removed and on the picture on the left hand side that's the eastern portion of Bridge Street that's looking to the west polls on the left hand side will be removed in that picture and new poles will be put in. This is where we have a net loss in the section we have a net loss of 11 total polls that exist today. So I mentioned during the neighborhood meetings that fire fire concerns came up. You know the use of steel structures which I already briefly mentioned um rather than combustible wood is one of the things vegetation management program being on a transmission line they do get a little bit more uh care and maintenance uh than a lot of the distribution lines do. But um there is a significant and robust management program that they have to follow. There are protective devices and I I've learned about this through talking to some of the transmission engineers at the power company uh protective devices on the transmission line uh with high-speed relay equipment that can deenergize the line uh within one/tenth of a second. So when they feel that there's something going on that can they it can cut the power and I I believe that it may do that automatically. I believe Laura Clifford is on the phone or is online tonight that she would be able to answer any questions that you might have about that. Um then uh public safety preparation and prevention programs are another part of their fire risk management. So they do take this very seriously. I know it's been in the news a lot and it's a it's paramount to people's concerns. Um they do everything that they can to make sure that fires do not occur uh for their own liability and the safety of the community. Another issue that we heard in question was why don't you underground it? Now I mentioned that we have two river crossings going through Verdi. I know nobody likes to look at power lines but we are in an existing regional utility corridor running through Verdai. It's been there for quite a number of years. And then those two river crossings add additional significant challenge and also a lot of the topography that we do have to go up and over through the unincorporated uh portion unincorporated county portions of this line. Um it was estimated they've they've undergrounded some other sections and they can see about a 7 to 10 times difference in terms of cost. um PUC could decide whether or not that was a required um improvement that was a benefit to the whole community or could be bor that those costs could be borne by the only the neighbors that benefited. Uh so it could come down to kind of just the verdi area that would have to pay for that. Um this is something that that the envy energy folks can talk more about along with fire. They'd have have more information. That's it in a nutshell. Now, we have requested um that condition 9 be entirely deleted and there's reasons for that. I mentioned that the federal process was a very long process. Um going through that process was 8 years and after they got done they went out and they they uh negotiated with the private property owners in 2020. These two areas Stonegate was in the works and they ended up ultimately getting their approvals. You can see where you're running through on part of that is some of the more developable areas land. I know it's it's currently zoned one dwelling unit per acre, but the private property owner that and then there's another property to the south. Those private property owners also have their rights and the federal government doesn't have a right to say hey you have to put it here. So the negotiation process and part of the right-of-way acquisition is very important. they have gone out and they've done what they were supposed to do and the federal looked at the whole line and they gave the suggestion on the on the route in the federal lands. Yes, they do have some say. So they own a lot of the section of this line but on the private sections there is room for negotiation and that's exactly what happened here. Now, if we were to have that condition, you're basically conditioning an outside party saying Hines Ranch Stonegate, you have to follow the federal federal uh alignment that they they approved. That's not right. Um they have already agreed to an alignment here uh in this route. I understand that there are concerns about it and and we'll hear about those tonight. But these are copies of the exhibits that are part of the recorded documents. The document numbers are up here. The dates of recordation are up here. The Yeah, we had some other changes and I'll be happy to talk about that just with condition 8 and it was matching them in with the uh the county's approval in terms of hours. Well, thank you very much for your time. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you. Uh, we'll now move to the commissioners for disclosures. Commissioner Amunoz, please start. Uh, Commissioner Mun, I read received emails and no other disclosures. Commissioner Bera, read reviewed emails, material, and I'm familiar with the region. Commissioner Roar Meer read and received emails. Uh, Commissioner Belto read and received emails, familiar with the region, and spoke with someone in opposition to the project. Commissioner Armstrong, I read and received emails. I'm familiar with the project and apologies in advance, but I do have a long disclosure. Fellow commissioners, I need to disclose the fact that my employer, SURE Power, has an ongoing business relationship with Envy Energy on this matter. I have sought guidance from the city attorney's office pursuant to NRS281A uh 420 section 4 subsection A. The law presumes that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer's situation would not be materially affected by the public officer's commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another where the resulting benefit or detriment acrewing to the other person is not greater than that acrewing to any other member of any general business profession, occupation or group that is affected by the matter. Here I have a commitment in a private capacity to my employer and a pecuniary interest in my employment. Item 5.2 is a request for a conditional use permit for the Envy Energy Utility Corridor. The independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would not be materially affected by my commitment to my employer which has an ongoing business relationship with NB Energy. Nor is my pecuniary interest in my appointment affected by the request. Because this is not a clear case of disqualifying conflict of interest, I am making this disclosure, but do not intend to recuse myself from this item. Please accept this disclosure and lodge it on the record for this meeting and subsequent meetings pertaining to this agenda item. Thank you. Uh we'll now move to public comment. Uh I have several requests to speak forms. We'll start with Lacy Barnett who was wishing to make a statement in opposition. Please state your name for the record. You'll have uh three minutes. Thank you. My name is Lacy Barnett for the record and I'm here to oppose the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planned Amendment to approve this power line. And what this wants to do is go through a really unique forest area that is rare to Nevada. Not a lot of forest around here. And back there there is a really unique, very popular multi-use trail system. If you hike, if you trail run, if you ride horses, if you ride dirt bikes, motorized recreation, mountain bike, there are worldclass trails that are in this forest area that are right in the dead center of this corridor. and establishing this will mow down the center of this trail system. And that's used by thousands of people, thousands of locals, thousands of visitors that come here, spend money in Reno's economy to, you know, use this trail system. And thousands of volunteers work on these trails, put in their hours maintaining these trails, grants, private, you know, and nonprofit organizations invest in these trails with public and private funding to maintain these recreational resources in Reno's backyard that are really unique. And I understand that the Forest Service approved this way back in 2019, but a lot has changed in the last 5 years. People have gotten involved. People have invested in this area. People have, you know, there's now been hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment in maintaining these trail systems that are used by lots and lots of people. And there's a legacy project pending by Sierra's trail stewardship to expand this trail system, connect it with 15 other mountain communities next door to Reno Sierraville Loyaltton Truckucky all that. And because these trails are so popular, we want we want to connect them to other communities. So this is going to mow right through the center of that, eliminate a huge, huge, huge public resource. And you know, you're going to be wiping out all these trails. You're going to be scarring a unique piece of Nevada forest. You're going to be destroying years of work by volunteers that have happened all in the last five years, all after the Forest Service approved all this. And you're going to be disrupting a major economic impact project that is happening with hundreds of thousands of dollars of buyin from businesses and volunteers. And I just think that the Truckucky Meadows regional plan should not be to deforest what very little forest Nevada has and take away outdoor recreation resources that Reno residents use every day, spring through late fall. I think that plan should be to protect them. Thank you for your comments. Next we have Lloyd Lebard, uh, who would like to speak in opposition. My name is Lloyd Leard. I was born in Reno, lived here all my life. My kids are fifth generation Reno. Anyway, um I'm here to voice my strong opposition particularly in the misguided decision to pursue pursue the ZAG route instead of a more logical, less destructive original route. This ZAG route not only poses a threat to the natural landscape and beauty of the wildlife in our area also raises serious concerns about the necessity and cost implications to consumers. Can I show a couple pictures? Sure. Okay. That was what they were original. Sorry, one moment. Michelle, can we get the overhead? We get the overhead, please. There we go. Okay. You see that circled area? That's what we were talking about when he talked about that that the developer he doesn't want that route that he originally, you know, that they recommended because he wants more land that he can develop. Yet, he had promised all of us in videos and everything else. He was going to make hiking trails up there. It was going to be a beautifully planned community. That's all gone. He wants to put in warehouses. Okay. Now I'll show you the the the new route um which you can see. Okay, see the red line above? That was the original route. Now this zag route I'm calling it. Okay, he talked about reduction in polls. There's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 new polls versus four the other way. So there is no reduction in polls. there's an increase in polls. Okay. The decision to deviate from the initial invi invised linear route in favor of the disrupted zag pattern is not only illogical is blatantly unnecessary. This route contradicts the original v vision and fails to align with the logical progression of the power lines making it wasteful and costly endeavor that will ultimately burden the consumers with the expense. the community. As a community, we cannot stand idly while we while such decisions are made without accountability. We demand that the power company recommends its choice route and opts for a more appropriate environmentally friendly option that respects the needs of this community and protects the wildlife in this area that call their home. My kids trust house is there. That's that J C JJ JJ trust. That's my kids. We did $80,000 worth of tree removal to remove trees that were affected by bark beetles included. Okay, that's what we did to protect that area up there. Now you're going to come in and mow twice as many trees down for no reason. There's mu deer, there's analopee, there's bear, there's Thank you. Thank you for your comments, sir. Please no pause during public comment. Thank you. Uh, next we have Anthony Casano Labard who would like to make a statement in opposition. Uh, yes, my name is Anton Leard. Um, I just want to hit some bullet points with you guys. And yeah, we did a lot of uh, we acquired that property right around the time they were collecting, you know, their easements, whatever. I I'm sure the guys that were selling, I'm sure they got those easements and they did all that. But the whole time we were told that they would never use that route or they would never need to use those easements. It was an emergency thing. They were not transparent with us. They did not reach out to us. They did not reach out to any of the property owners in our area. I do not feel we're well represented by our ward either. You know, I that's personal feeling to me. you know, I don't know what route we have to go, but we have to get together as property owners and talk about this. Um, the biggest thing that I'm sad about is the effect it's going to have on the wildlife, and I'm talking about the habitat, the ecosystem. You know, you can go through that environmental impact study, and it needs to be re-reed, and you guys need to look at it because I I will tell you, even the amount of bird species that are up there is unbelievable. And it's beautiful and it has it. There's no reason to go through that side of th those trees. And my thing with this whole the development, whatever they do with Stonegate or whatever they're going to do, they should have to bear the burden of that. Not not us, not original homeowners, not people that were there before that didn't have any awareness of any of this. Um I you know, it's a huge increase. They can throw whatever they want on numbers on how it's going to, you know, how they can prevent fires. The research I've done regardless third party, it increases it 10 to 12%. Okay, they raised our home insurance. They raised our fire insurance. The people on the California side are getting their fire insurance pulled. So, it's it's a big deal to us. Um, you know, the negative impact just not on us, on our neighbors property. We were there first. You know, it it it's important the like I said, the lack of transparency. They didn't reach out to us. They did not do a good job of contacting any of the property owners. We didn't even know about the uh change in the direction. We sat there with these guys. They showed us the the the the regular route with no uh jog in it, nothing like that. Explained to us that they were just doing what they were doing and we went along with it. I'm I'm upset obviously. I apologize. Um, I like I said, lack of representation. I I mean, how many people are actually here from Cold Springs, you know, I I just don't get it. And they didn't do a good job of explaining things. And yeah, ESA needs to be re reviewed. And how exactly, and I heard their statements on how it's going to affect the city, but can they throw some numbers behind this and actually show us what it is? How are we going to benefit? How does Cold Springs as a community benefit from this this power line system? Are they going to do something on the side for us? Because the power runs out there all the time. It drops all the time. We have a generate generator out there. We use it all the time. Stonegate should have the burden. Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Austin Slaughter who would like to make a statement in opposition. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Austin Slaughter. I'm here on behalf of the Fenomore Law Firm and we represent Julie Leard. Um, and as mentioned, the JC JJ JC JJ andJ Trust, which owns two impacted parcels in the Cold Springs Valley, um, which is on the back side of Peine. Um, as was mentioned in the earlier public comment, a lot of the Cold Springs residents were not involved in this process. A lot of the focus has been on Verdi. And as you saw through the presentation, Cold Springs was kind of addressed towards the end of that presentation. Um, so there's a feeling amongst the community that there was not enough public comment um, for those impacted residents. And so what we're specifically looking at is that that what we're calling the zag or the you know the there's whatever term you want to call it but it's what that condition nine that was mentioned in the uh presentation is what we're basically having issue with because that now runs directly next to um our client's property um about 40 acres of residential property as well. Um so we have some lingering questions kind of about the process and how that specific deviation um came about. Um so when was that specific path of the deviation selected? Um it's our understanding that there were three alternative paths including ones that did not directly um abut the 40 acre um residential parcels and as recently as January of this year the path of transmission line was different than now proposed. However, at some point that was altered to include that zag. Um um so and in addition what considerations were made related to the placing the transmission line in that final selection because now that ZAG is include is now in a heavily forested area whereas the prior um proposal was not through kind of a more heavily forested area. Um so that's going to affect the wildlife. Um I believe there's a plant species called the Webers Avesia which is a threatened species which is included in that area. Obviously, wildfire is always a risk, especially um with heavy winds um in that area. Um and I reviewed the environmental impact statement and some considerations specific to the ready city uh the Reno City Council or the planning commission, apologies. Um is your uh tree code specifically sections 18.12.504 and 505. Um was there a tree mitigation program in place? Is there a tree replacement program in place? um we haven't seen those and that hasn't been um communicated to the property owners. Um so again, we believe that there was just not enough public input for the Cold Spring Valley residents specifically. Um and um you know, we should kind of include those comments and uh consider not uh limiting consideration 9. So I thank you for your time and consideration. Um it's requested that the information regarding the apparent changes and issues to the transmission line be addressed um before any further action is completed by this commission. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have please no applause during public comment. It's a decorum issue I don't want to ask again. Thank you. Uh next we have John Dobra. I apologize if I botched the last name. Wishing to make a statement in favor. Say John Dian. Is it I may have just had a hard time reading your handwriting. John Dian in favor in opposition. Okay. Well, you can still make your comment in opposition. The form just had it in favor. Yeah. My name is John Dugan and I live out I'm sorry. Could you state your name at the microphone, please? Thank you. My name is John Dugan. I live out in West Reno on Leroy. Uh been here since uh 1982. Um families recreate up in that area. So when I heard about this, it was kind of an interesting uh you know, deal. Didn't quite understand what was going on. You've got a bunch of different options to go around Peine through a non-wooded area and you're you're uh looking to go right through the the only woods in the Reno area in the in the Peine area. It's it's incredibly uh unique wildlife area. Um I think maybe you guys need to go up there and take a look yourselves, but uh that's the deal. They have options to go around Peine um where there's no woods, there's no wildfire. I mean, we have hellacious winds here. Uh, if there was a wildfire concern, it would be uncontrollable. You'd lose that whole area like that. Basically, it's a wildfire uh wildlife thing. And for me, I' I'd like you guys to take another look at that. Definitely oppose this. Okay. Any further comments, next we have Annne Sweder, uh, who would like to make a statement in opposition? I'm Anne Sweder and I'm a 40-year resident of Wo County and I ride my horse in the beautiful area of the western slopes of Peine where these power lines will cut a large swath through. The area is enjoyed by all Washer County residents as specific area as this specific area contains a unique alpine forest landscape which is used by all forms of recreationists. The Peine Maze trails are maintained by volunteers who invest a lot of time and money. Uh, plus these huge power lines are going past 14 homes in Verdi. Who wants a 105 foot pole in their backyard? What will that do to the property values? I would not buy a house with that in my view. How will I keep the How will they keep the lines from arcing from high winds since they are running through a forest? Fires have been started in Reno from lines arcing. The placement of the utility corridor from Verdi to border town station will make a huge scar through these scenic pee maze of trails ruining this recreation area. These utility lines would also have to be maintained and access roads would be cut through for that purpose. Recreational areas are getting less and less in the trucking meadows. Don't make this alpine forest area another victim of scenic disaster that no one can enjoy. There is an alternative for this corridor. It is a better option. Please preserve this beautiful and scenic recreational area. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Nathan Vic, who would like to make a statement in opposition. Hi, my name is Nathan Vic. Um, basically what everyone else has said, uh, so far, uh, this is a very rare alpine forest that we have up here. Um, I've only been here for a couple years. Uh, and this land is a huge part of moving here. Um, the off-road community is huge here in Reno. Um, I mean, the the amount of money it brings in is is very significant. So, uh, for that area to, uh, you know, to be devastated by these power lines, uh, cutting through that trail system would just be a huge deal to the off-road community. Um, you know, we have about five different motorcycle dealerships. They sell UTVs, ATVs, you know, dirt bikes, all this all this kind of stuff. So, um, that area is very special to the off-road community. um like she said, as well as uh equestrians, um you know, hikers, all kinds of different people. It's a very special area because they have other options to go around in non-wooded areas. I I think that would be a better a better option. Um you know, it seems kind of weird that that they would go through the wooded areas. I I assume it's going to be more expensive to go over the top of Peine versus going that way. Um but it would it would be a much safer option in terms of uh fire danger and also um you know taking away resources that we have here in Reno. Uh that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next we have Kurt Genshin who would like to make a comment in opposition. Thank you commissioners. For the record, my name is Kurt Gensheimimer. The Envy Energy Power Line project will have a negative visual and community impact on the residents of Verdi. As a longtime resident of Verdi and a program manager for the Sierra Trail Stewardship, a nonprofit trail building organization. I'm currently managing two different statef funded grant programs in the Peine Maze network of single track trails. The proposed PEIine POV alignment will run straight through the middle of this rare alpine forested corner of Nevada. That's a very popular for multi-use recreation, including motorized use, negatively impacting multiple trails in the system. considering there's very few legal motorized single track networks in the entire state of Nevada. On top of the fact that there are very few alpine forest settings in Nevada where legal single track exists for multi-use and motorized recreation. The Peine Maze is a very special place and cutting a 100 foot wide swath through aspen groves and pristine alpine forest for a power line that will it will ruin the visual aesthetic of this entire area. not to mention create increased wildfire risk in a dry forest already susceptible to devastating fires. People moved to the Verdai area for its incredible recreational access to national forest lands. In the May 7th Wo County staff report, it stated that this project will have a less than significant impact to the aesthetics and the community character of Verdi. As a longtime resident of Verdi and a daily user of trails on public lands in Verdi, specifically the the Peine Maze, I couldn't disagree more. The trails may not be in visual sight from old highway 40 in Verdi, but they are an essential component of the Verdai community. Trails and access to them is the main reason why I moved to Verdi in the first place. In a time where development is swallowing up verdi on all sides. This power line project is just the latest in a long line of community altering developments. I am not opposed to the concept of a power line as I understand its need but I am opposed to the peine povville alignment of this power line. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Uh, next is Julianne B who would like to make a statement in opposition. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, Julian Zotter for the record. Sorry, bad handwriting. Um, appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. You you're going to hear all night all these reasons to oppose it and I don't have any any new reasons just adding on to it. Um something I think that is really important to consider. In the presentation it was noted that in order to mitigate fire risk, they do this vegetation management plan. That plan is literally mowing down and creating a scar underneath these power lines. And you can see it you can see it go right over the mountain when you're on Highway 80 heading west. You can see a big old scar right through the middle of the mountain where they're already doing this vegetation management. So that would just be an additional thing through this very unique section of forest that you've heard all about. Um I think it's really important to note too that Peine Mountain historically was completely forested at one point. And when you know Reno became Reno, they logged it to decimation. And this little tiny patch of forest is all that's left of that ancient forest. And this little tiny aspen grove is the only aspen grove in Nevada that on that side of the mountain. Running a power line right through the middle of it and then continuing to mow it down every year after year after year for fire mitigation when we could just put it in a non-wooded area. I would like to see the actual economic comparison of, you know, a longer line around it versus this line through a wooded area that, you know, you have to continually maintain each year. Um, I think that's all. I'll yield to the rest of my time. Thank you. Next, we have Don Schmidt, who would like to make a comment in opposition. Good evening, council. Uh, for the record, my name is Don Schmidt. Um, my comments are very similar to most of the others here today. Uh, I just want to say that I am a longtime OV enthusiast uh, living in this area only for about 10 years now, but I'm part of a very, very large group. So, when I speak, I feel confident that I'm speaking uh, for this larger group. Uh, there's a group here in this area called Reno Area Dirt Riders. Uh, and there's over 4,000 members in this group. And all these people, uh, just like the others were saying, were are using this trail network up on Peine. Uh, all different forms, OV, mountain bike, equestrian, uh, runners, all of that stuff. Um, my friends and I, we've spent countless hours volunteering and advocating for sustainable ov routes in Peine. And uh over the years we've we've raised a substantial amount of money to maintain those trails and improve them and like Kurt was saying to expand upon them. Um I understand the need for utilities in the area. Uh but the proposed utility corridor definitely poses some problems. Um we all know what can happen when power lines fail in the forest. Uh we've seen that in Greenville and other places in California. It's devastating. Uh so adding power lines through this forest obviously is creating a a fire risk and an already uh risk averse area. Um on top of that it's going to be visually uh impacted like Kurt was saying uh in the Verdai area and all the way across the mountain. Um, the gentleman from uh, NV Energy had mentioned that alternative routes are underground alternatives were too expensive, but I would probably ask him and his company how expensive would it be if this power line were to burn down this last little remaining forest. Um, that's all. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next we have Terry Rupert wishing to make a statement in opposition. For the record, my name is Terry Rupert. Uh I've lived in Reno 45 years. I've owned property that will be affected by this zigzag alignment that's being opposed. It's out on Stolot Lane. It's parcel 2. who I'm representing myself and Mentor Investments LLC. I won't be repetitive to the comments that have already been made. I ask you to please go out and look at this proposed zigzag route. It's um it is disturbing to say the least. My other comment is that we have worked cooperatively with developers involved with Stonegate. We negotiated with them some rightaways to use access emergency access through there's six lots out there emergency access through that property if needed. Uh I also was contacted by Stonegate. Apparently there is um an endangered species uh which is on my lot and also somewhat in Stonegate. They wanted to buy the environmental rights to the endangered species that is particularly on on my lot more than any other. And so I kind of feel like we really tried to cooperate with the Stonegate development. And I have had no notice of any of this. I had to find out from my neighbors. Uh I don't live out there. It's undeveloped land at the moment. I I've had to find out from others. And Nathan, I know we've been playing phone tag. Uh, we didn't actually get to speak, but I'm a little confused. Uh, I saw two different maps with some various opposed routes, so I'm a little unclear. Are we still looking at a couple different routes? It It seems that maybe we are. Is that true? No. Okay. I didn't get to talk to Nathan, so I apologize for my lack of knowledge on this, but this zigzag route, it infects all of us. There's six different parcels that we we bought out there with the intentions of building. This is going to greatly devalue all of those properties. And I know they can't talk to anyone about property values until they've decided on a route. But I mean, shouldn't we have at least been included in the conversation? We worked really nicely and cooperatively with Stonegate. They've given us no consideration, and I will leave it at that. But I do oppose it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Ken McNeel wishing to make a statement in opposition. Ken McNeel. Um, I don't think you have it quite right. I put a question mark next to opposition. So, I I don't want to say that I'm opposed, but I'm certainly not in favor. Okay. So, I I had I had a struggle with that. Okay. Um, a number of people have talked about a fire issue, but we haven't heard anything from the Reno Fire Department about any concerns with this power line. And I would think those are the experts. We should hear from the Reno Fire Department if they have concerns about this power line. And we haven't heard that tonight. I don't know how you can make a decision with all the questions raised about fire and you don't have an expert from Reno Fire Department giving you an expert opinion. Also, evidently Stan Lucas has not signed an easement for their property. There is some letter from Stan Lucas, but there's no copy available to the public. The public has a right to see this letter, to see what Stan Lucas has written. whether or not they're going to agree to the seizement, what their conditions are, or what what's the status of this letter, but there's there's nothing that we can read. I also think undergrounding is is a good idea, and if it's too expensive, is it possible to put in the conditions of approval that Nevada Energy will apply for a grant so that they could possibly underground the line. I also want to say that the people from Cold Springs who are voicing their concerns, they've convinced me that it doesn't make sense to change the route. And so I don't know how the planning commission is going to vote, but I don't live in Cold Springs, but I'm convinced that they make sense. Also, Blake Smith has sold a piece of property in um along the U I80 in the Truckucky River. He sold that property recently within the last few days to Nevada Energy. And I'm told the reason he sold that to Nevada Energy is so they could put a substation in. I'm also told that this substation would be somehow connected to this power line project and that hasn't been talked about tonight. I know it's just recent, but still if that substation as part of this project that should be presented to this planning commission and I don't think you should make a decision if that's the case. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next we have Marvin Small wishing to make a statement in opposition. Oh, apologies. Well, we have it on the record. Thank you, sir. And with that, uh those are all the public uh comment forms that I've received. Is anyone else in the chambers wishing to make a statement on this item? Seeing none, do we have anyone on Zoom? Okay, we do have somebody. We have some people that registered on Zoom, but I just wanted to state that we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record and no voicemails were received. So, um I think we have Tom um he's raising his hand. If anybody else on Zoom wishes to speak, please raise your hand so we can bring you over. So, go ahead and bring him over. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Please state your name and you have three minutes to make your comments. Uh Tom Van, written for the uh record, resident of Ward four, W four here in Reno, soon to be Ward One. Just wanted to let you know I'm expressing my personal opinion only as a resident of Reno and in no way reflects the position of my employer. To say I'm in opposition uh to this would be an understatement. This is a horrible idea. A vote for this is a vote against outdoor recreation in the area of Reno. We need to find a different path and get it done without destroying forest. You guys had an alternatives that would have worked. There was that trail that or that route that popped up over Pemine on the east side. If you've never seen that area back there where the maze is, it is a gem. It is a very special place that is very unique to Wo County and specifically Torino. It's beyond beautiful and it's about to get a major renovation that's going to make it more attractive to locals and tourists. Power lines ruined views. Look at those on the back side of Bird Eye Peak between Very Peak and Stampede. Go look at the hills on the south end of Carpenter Valley over by Taho Donner. These projects ruin the views and we have an amazing one. It is such an asset to the people of Reno. But I want to talk to you guys about the effect on tourism. Tourism's a major component of the Reno economy. 4.3 billion dollars of economic impact in 2022. Three billion dollars of economic impact in 2023. And you know what the uh destination is trying to market itself as? Is the premier outdoor destination. Well, guess what? They are building this amazing trail system running all the way from Reno up above Susanville. It's called the connected communities project. And you know why they're doing it? for the economic impact to the towns and cities of the Lost Sierra. Within five years, this area is going to be a na international destination for those that are into mountain biking and moto. And believe it, those are major segments within the outdoor recreation market. People are going to have a choice how they come in and experience this trail system. They're going to come through the Sacramento airport and they're going to pop up over drop all their money between Sacramento and the cities in the Los Sierra. or we're going to bring them in here to the Reno Tahoe International Airport. The RGAA is going to benefit. The city of Reno is going to benefit. The residents of Reno are going to benefit and all we have is this area of the maze. Verdite is the access point for Reno. That's what we have on the plan and it's a very very special asset. So we ask you guys to reconsider. Power lines are great. We need them. I get it. Hop over peine. Nobody would even notice like a few missing safe brush and stuff. It's not going to be that big of a deal, but where you guys are planning to put this now will ruin one of the most unique and beautiful assets that Ringo has for outdoor recreation. Thank you very much. Thank you. And um next we have Brandon on the line. Brandon, can you hear us? Yes. Hi, Commissioner. Can you hear me? Yes. Could you please state your name for the record and then um you'll have three minutes to speak. Yes. Hi. Uh, for the record, my name is Brandon Kerzy. Um, I would like to address those in this meeting that have the ability to change the outcome of this proposed Envy Energy Project. I'm a lifelong resident who grew up in the north valleys and I have lived in Reno my entire life of 44 years. I'd like to express my disapproval for the proposed routing of these utility lines through the last forested off-road recreational area in Reno. This area provides recreational opportunities not available anywhere else to Reno residents. What makes this area so special? The thick forested area provides recreational users shade and one-of-a-kind beauty for our area. The tight trails that flow between the thick forest trees are simply amazing. This area and marked trail systems are the only place in Reno that can be ridden in the heat of the summer months. desert trails are too hot and without shade are unusable in the summertime. By eliminating this area, you basically have eliminated a lot of the recreational availability. By installing these utilities right through the managed trail system, it will forever ruin the recreational aspect of the area. We get tourism from folks that come here specifically to ride these trails. I met and rode the trail system last Sunday with a guy from Alaska, for example. never been there and I showed him around and we had a great time. He's going to come back and probably bring his friends. Beyond that, this will forever destroy the pristine aesthetic of the area. When you go to a national park and you have a picnic, do you want to sit and stare at 100 foot tall power lines and 100 foot cleared ground? I don't think so. The power lines will need to have clear-cut access forever preserved around them and destroy the use that is the single track riders use and enjoy. The large area surrounding them will remove a large path of old growth pine trees and aspen. These overhead lines also require a road for maintenance. The hard work of many organizations and the donated money will be all for not as the trail system they fought so hard to maintain will be gone. Being a born and raised resident, I have been slowly stripped of recreational activities I've grown up enjoying in the area. I used to go duck hunting with my father in the South Meadows area and I watched as they brought in large amounts of backfill and ruined the natural swamplands and built track homes on top. I used to be able to ride my back out my backyard from Lemon Valley all the way to Pyramid Lake. Now land has been taken by Indian colony and routes have been blocked off. I know there's plans to build a larger road in that area, which will also lose further riding area. Just recently, access to BLM land from Rattlesnake Mountain has been blocked off for development on the east part of town, right by my house. This trail system is one of the last great recreational areas I frequent. Isn't that what you are promoting in the city for outdoor recreational opportunities? There are becoming fewer and fewer of these. Can we not leave some pieces of the natural habitat untouched? Brandon, your time is right. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Matt. And I just wanted to remind people on Zoom, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand now. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Could you please state your name for the record? And you have three minutes. Yeah. For the record, my name is Matt Carpold. Um, I'm in opposition to the proposed alignment. Not going to repeat what anyone else just said, but want to reiterate the beauty and value that the Peine Maze and the associated trails brings to our area. And it seems like there's a simple solution just to reroute around the forest. So, I'm in favor of trying to find one of those solutions. Thank you. Thank you. And nobody else raised their hand on Zoom, so I think we're done with public comment. Okay, go ahead and close public comment and move it back to the commissioners for questions. Uh, Commissioner Belto, uh, Nate, I got some questions for you. So, I want to talk most in this line of questioning about condition number nine. So, there's a line in the staff report that says um, staff would prefer condition number nine. Why is that? Why why do staff oppose removing condition number nine? And if so, what are the factors in the analysis that you think are not satisfied if condition number nine is removed? Nathan Gilbert, principal planner. Um, I think the the robust nature of the IS with that alignment. Um, it analyzed that area comprehensively. It analyzed analyzed views. It analyzed um the protected species, species of concern, tree preservation, and the like. That's where that alignment came from. Um as I mentioned, the original application material didn't even show this deviation. Um the application was submitted in September and it was brought up uh in March. So that MA map that I showed was actually from the original uh which was done in January of 2020. And then that revised easement uh with the Hines Ranch Company, Stonegate, was done in in uh spring of 2020. So just we don't have the information. We don't know how many trees are going to be felled, you know, with this revised alignment. We don't know if there's protected species. The environmental uh assessment was done with the alignment as proposed. And that's the information that we have. uh if if an alternative the zigzag as folks have been calling it um staff doesn't have any any point of reference to uh really fully vet environmental impacts. I have a few questions on this. Do you mind if I Yeah, you can ask these. Um so do do you think that the proposal to remove the condition would then not be in compliance with the FIS? It doesn't need to be uh for for for the purposes of this body that EIS is advisory, right? That was the comprehensive analysis. It's non-binding on on private land. Um does does that answer your question? Sorry, let me ask that question a different way because I think I asked it poorly. Um, given what's being proposed now to remove condition number nine and have a zigzag as it's being called, is that consistent with what the EIS has with the in your opinion? It's not. Um, and just to be specific, what part of the analysis are we So, if if we were to say that we think condition number nine is necessary and what's proposed was not appropriate in your opinion, what findings would we be reaching that conclusion under? I have to look at my findings list. I appreciate Yeah, I appreciate it. This is a very voluminous I can tell you as as I highlighted in uh the presentation with the master plan and regional plan policies um you know it it's it's policy guidance but that zigzag would be the the ranked number six on preferred alignments as opposed to the EIS alignment uh which would be one and I think that would be uh staff's concern would be making the finding for CU finding number two and condition number five and six. Thank you. I I have some questions for the applicant, but if anyone has questions on this topic for Nathan, I don't want to take up time or I don't May I May I ask a quick question? And I would appreciate maybe this is even a legal clarification. Yeah, go for it, Commissioner. Um I'm curious about this private land. you know, when you have an FEIS and a record of decision, these are connected actions, even if they're on are on private land. So, would that not apply? I mean, there seems to be I would look for some clarification here because I do think that there's sort of a federal Yeah, the connected action. I I think some clarity around that could be helpful. Uh Jasmine made for the record uh you're correct that there is um connected action. The the EIS is only binding on the public property, not on private property. Nonetheless, um this alternative or this deviation wasn't analyzed at all. And so I think what Nathan was saying is that he has no basis on which to either recommend or deny the deviation. Okay. So, um would you mind if we ask the applicant really quickly following up on that? Um is the plan or the coordination with the Forest Service to get a DNA on the FIEES decision? Uh Mark Sullivan with Envy Energy. Thank you, Mr. chairman and commission members for the opportunity to be here tonight and for you to review our project. I know it's a a pretty massive project in the perspective of how much documents that you have to go through and review. So, we appreciate your time and and diligence. So, to answer the question with regard to uh when they did the FEIS um they study that route, but on private property that doesn't extend out into private property. Now, in our case, uh we we're going to go study it. We've already talked to the Forest Service. We've talked about that that deviation because we can't dictate. Nobody else can dictate where you're going to put it on somebody else's private property. We went and obtained that easement. We obtained those easements in 2019. They were recorded in 2020. I mean, you've heard Leard get up and speak. They they purchased their property subject to those conditions. Actually, one of the pieces of property they purchased has the new alignment on it. So, where the alignment originally went, it moved over and now it goes a different way. Well, that's the property they bought that was subject to that. So, they knew or they should have known. They have an attorney that could show up here tonight. They certainly could do the due diligence and figure out where this alignment was. It's the first we've heard of it. As Nathan said and as Mr. Snow would have said, we've been working on this since 2011. There was four alternatives that were studied. All of those were eliminated for all the issues that were illuminated in the EIS. This was the route that had the least amount of impacts to people. And anytime that you have a power line, it's not my first one. We've done a few of these. If I take it away from where you don't like it and I put it over where you are, you're not going to like it. That's just the way it is. People don't like to have that stuff. They're like, "Hey, put it in somebody else's backyard, not my backyard." And that's fine. This wasn't avy energy route. This wasn't a it was a federal process. It was a public process. Uh the EAS states, they had several meetings. Uh they weren't conducted by us. There were meetings that were conducted by the Forest Service. They invite the public out, take all their input, put all that that what an EIS is, it's it's stating that there's impacts. So that's what EIS is for is to look at what those impacts are and to mitigate those impacts. And that's what the EIS has done. I mean, wildlife, nobody I didn't hear anybody talk about the mildeer habitat up there, but there's, you know, mildeer that go through there also. I mean, we've contributed 900,000 I don't know when that was several years ago to the to to the fund so they can help treat that and all of the things you know if we're doing Actually, I'll stop there because I I think did I answer your question? I was curious if they the Forest Service was going to allow that under like a DI DNA or if they had a more involved analysis with the ZAG route. Well, the route that goes around that hasn't been analyzed, although Stonegate has a pretty good idea of what's there. We have a pretty good idea what's there. We're going to work with the Forest Service to be able to amend our application. And so, at the at the least, what I would like you to do in reviewing of the project, instead of saying condition 9, uh, it says exhibit, uh, it refers to the FIS and it says exhibit D. if replace exhibit D with or any amendment or concurrence with the Forest Service and that would give us an opportunity at least to go analyze that route and see what's out there. But I think you guys know what happens with EIS that you you you analyze it and then you either mitigate it or you avoid it. So I mean those are pretty much the two options that we're going to have. the Weber ofvesia out there. They actually set aside I I think the Ruperts actually mentioned it that they wanted to try and acquire some rights for their Weber ofia, but they stonegate set aside I don't know how many acres a huge parcel of land up there for Weber of Acia itself. And so they set that aside, put a conservation easement on it. And so they've done a lot of that trees, the same thing. They did it on the other side of the parcel where they have a huge area there. So um we're going to go through the process and we're going to treat it or avoid it. It's going to be one or the other. So, we are going to work with the Forest Service. This isn't like the last opportunity. We're looking at that. And I'm sure uh Mr. knows how that process works. Also, he can confirm that. Commissioner Belto, go ahead. Yeah. So, I I'm going to be like super blunt with where how I'm thinking because I want to give you an opportunity to kind of respond to this before we go into public comment. Um, Nathan is very good at his job and I tend to defer a lot to Nathan when he tells us his views on project on projects. I'm a little concerned that he's saying they haven't had an opportunity to evaluate this deviation. Um, and it sounds like you want to basically have us condition it and then defer to what subsequent people defer to an amendment that we're not able to review. And I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with that. So, how help me process this when we have Nathan telling us they haven't had an opportunity to review this deviation and make an assessment of it and I'm hearing a bunch of public comment about potential fire concerns or other concerns in the area. So, h how just help me what is your response to that? Well, um typically they wouldn't look at private property. So, the analysis that occurs occurs at the federal level. So he's reviewing the FIS information, right? The the document that was prepared uh over those the course of those eight years. And uh when it's not going to be any different. We're going to we're going to produce the same type of material, that same document, and if it says no, you know, you have something in the way here and you can't go through that, then we can't go through it. But usually you can either mitigate it or avoid it. So maybe it changes uh it a little bit or something. I know our poles, when you think about a power, this isn't like a typical devil. We're going to go through and we're going to grade a bunch of stuff and we're going to put a building on it and it's going to be, you know, 50,000 square ft of grading. Our poles, you know, they're about this big around. So, you're going to cut, you know, a 4ft hole in the ground. And it's the same with trails and recreate and those types of things. I mean, we have a maintenance road that we'll put in along the along the transmission line, so we have access to maintain our poles, but the reality of it is is we're not going to restrict anybody from doing anything up there that they're already doing. So, I think that the the idea that um it any impacts are going to be addressed and so we can't we're just not going to be able to move forward unless we do that. So that's why I was asking you if you could if you say whatever I mean you're agreeing with I didn't hear Nathan say any and Nathan is sharp. I I've known Nathan for a long time. He's very bright and so very thorough. Does a great job. He's actually great to work with. He's uh so I don't I didn't hear him say anything that said I don't agree with any of this stuff in the FIS. In fact, he's doing the opposite. We're saying hey we need to alter this route a little bit. And he's like no I agree with everything in the FIS. So if we if the FBI if we go back to them and say here's the route that we picked we want to do the analysis for this easement this is a private property owners the the FIS doesn't apply to private property owners so we're he's the private property owners gone the extra mile and said hey we'll let you come on our property and do this analysis and so a lot of times when we pick a route which we didn't pick right this was a federal process this was vetted out you know over the course of eight years and when so then when that route got picked I mean we're we have to go in and talk to these owners and one of individuals you mentioned, Lucas, you know, we got an easement from Mr. Lucas. He's uh we we have that easement. But anyway, we have to go talk to those guys and we're beholden to negotiate with them. They don't we the only option that we have is condemnation. And I'm sure your city attorney will tell you it's not a pleasant process. You know, we don't want to go through that process. We don't want to take people's property. So, we go to the property owner and go, "Hey, can you work with us?" And these guys said, "You know what? This is developable land. Here's what our zoning is. Large lot residential. we have a master plan or planned unit development. Here's how many lots we can get in there. If you guys put this across there, it was about 4.75 acres the original alignment that would take from his property there. And so you're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars that it would have cost him in his development. So we're like, okay, well, where can we go? And we developed that with him. We developed it with Terillac, who's the guys that own the property before the Leards did. So we got that easement from them. And then they when they bought that property, I mean, it's subject to that easement. And so I understand you don't like it, but that's the way it is. I mean, I don't like that I have easements on my property for sidewalks either because it takes up my property, but I bought the property subject to that. So, I think that the idea is you're not approving something is um not going to be vetted the same way the balance of that EIS was vetted. It's going to go through that same process. So, it's I I would liken it to this. So, if you guys do a regular special use permit for somebody and you say you have to you can't have it has to be under 65 ft that building and they say well it doesn't work then we we need 75 ft they don't get the project right you can't go forward so you can grant SUPs it's for a special use right something special condition and that's what this is you know I mean and this is not our doing either is like what we want to go out and build power lines this is nerk right and fk these are federal agencies who regulate us and they say if there's there's two lines out there that are feeding these substations. If both of those go down at the same time, you're going to have an overloading of all the lines out there and they call it a cascading and all of it's going to go out. And they're saying you can't be in this position. And they're asking us, why is it taking you 10 years to do this? You know, what what would it mean for the project if we wanted to keep condition number nine uh with an approval? What would that look like for you all? Well, we don't my understanding of the condemnation process, we'd have to condemn the property owner. And when you go to court and we say, "Hey, we want this piece of property. This we have to have it." We actually make a statement. I guess your city attorney can attest to this. We have to make a statement that there's not another option available to us. This is the only option that we can do. Can I get up and make that statement when they already gave us an easement? It's not possible. They they they're going to go into court and they're go, "We gave them an option. They chose not to take it. They chose to go right through the middle of our property and damage us." and the the financial impacts of that, you know, when you you're doing a taking taking somebody's property. Uh I mean, there's some question whether or not, and I mean this is more of a legal question, but there's some question in NRS37 whether or not a city can force us to do a taking. So, we would have to go take their property to keep up with keep on the original FEIS. So, and I believe some of our legal counsel have contacted the city attorney's office about it, but I don't think we've had a lot of discussion about it. But I think it it um the the short of it is is we we didn't pick the route. We don't get the opportunity to modify the route a whole bunch. We have to work with the property owners that are there. And that's the bag we're left with trying to deal with. you. Uh, any further questions? We'll go with Commissioner Bisera. Oh, thank you, Commissioner. Both. Um, I'm going to try not to be repetitive here. Try to find a theme. I I guess this one's going to be for staff first if that's okay. Oh yeah absolutely. Nathan. Hey, Nathan. Uh, excellent job. um prior to this meeting um and this being posted uh when did y'all sit down with the applicant and the uh to to actually review the deviated plan? I guess the one that's being called zigzag. Yeah. So again, the application material was originally submitted in September of last year. It was on hold um getting at they needed um agreements from Stan Lucas. Uh, and I want to clarify, I I wasn't aware that they had just uh a few days ago obtained an easement from Stan Lucas. We were able to move this forward eventually because Stan Lucas signed an agreement that said that they were party to this application, but that the easements would be worked out. That would be conditioned prior to any development. But the to my knowledge before just right now, I didn't even know they had an easement regarding this zigzag. Um that was uh again the application submitted in September. I had uh comments to the applicants representative uh was brought up in passing. Oh wait, we might you know change the the alignment. And I made it clear in my comments, my staff comments that uh hey the alignment needs to be set in stone. The conditional use permit is for a specified alignment. So let's get that alignment. Um I eventually got it over, you know, over some protracted effort. Um but that was in in March. uh where that was discussed probably April May uh is when we had this this information on the alignment that's included in your in your staff report packet. Okay. Um and and do you feel comfortable with what's being presented? Uh let me rephrase that question. Is the packet before us, the material before us um in correlation to the original alignment or the zigzag with condition number nine? And it would be the original alignment. The original. Okay. So, so, so is it fair to say that we're looking at two different things here? What the applicant has proposed is what what we're all calling the zigzag tonight. That's what they've requested. Staff support is contingent upon condition number nine, which would maintain that original alignment in that particular portion. Okay. So, so if we kept COA9, it would have to be the original alignment. Correct. If if we agreed to their request to remove CO9, it could be the deviated if they wish to go that route. That that would that that is what they are requesting. Okay. And and as Commissioner Belto said, you're really thorough and good at your job. So, I was just a little surprised when I heard commentary that there wasn't an opportunity for you or staff to properly review the deviated plan. And I was just wondering why. And if you haven't had a chance to thoroughly review it, is it fair to say, and maybe this is a question for the applicant, if the general public has had an opportunity not just to review, but be presented with the deviated plan and the impact of the deviated planner route? Well, I I watched the county commission meeting and the county staff was presented materials with the original alignment. With the original alignment, it's not it's not part of their review. I mean to be fair that that this is that alignment is in the city of Reno's jurisdiction, but the material presented at the planning at Washu County Planning Commission showed that alignment. The original. The original. Okay. Thank you so much. And maybe I'll ask the applicant's representative a couple questions. Yeah, for they get for the record Dave Snellgrove. But I do want to point out in terms of Washer County Planning Commission that original alignment was from directly from the graphics in the EIS when this was originally submitted and Nathan has mentioned back in September we initially submitted this the maps and graphics that I had and I probably shouldn't have put them into the application because they were already part of the IRS. So there was a confusion aspect there when this came in and we turn we resubmitted I think uh March 8th to county and March 11th to the city of Reno which we're now at the start of June which is longer than you normally have in going through an application review. Um usually it's a couple months to get to planning commissioners been three months. This alignment as was mentioned by Mr. Sullivan. I identified it in my in my uh presentation. The what we're calling the zigzag, those two easements were obtained back in 2020. If there was an error that was made on that in in not understanding where things were more on me than it was on what the actual request was. And there's been over three months well about three months of time uh which is more than what is typical for things to come to planning commission. That alignment is the alignment that we're proposing is that zigzagged alignment for lack of a better term. Great. Thank you. If you may just for a second. So, so, uh, thank you for that clarification. Um, so, so I'm understanding it correctly. The zigzag has been in place at least from your end since 2020. 2020 is when the recorded easements are. Okay. So, that's fourish years. So since that time has has your end taken the time to present that to the general public as well for feedback, input and that whole process. I got involved in the project about I think it was last July when I first got involved with the project. So NV Energy has been working a lot lot longer than I have. So I was on the on the uptick and learning which Nathan's gotten to learn along with me. Um so that's probably a more appropriate question for Mr. Sullivan. Sure. Thank you so much Mr. Sullivan. Mark Sullivan for the record with MV Energy. Uh there's been several public meetings. We had uh citizen advisory board meetings. We've had neighborhood advisory board meetings. And so there's been lots of opportunity. And when we submitted our application to the city of Reno, like you said, I think the city of Reno's had and Nathan could confirm it, but I think since March, you guys have had that document. So that shows where our alignment is that we're proposing. So, it's uh I get I think what I'm hearing is there's a suggestion that maybe it wasn't publicly vetted and people didn't have an opportunity to review it, but it's been out there for a long time and with neighborhood advisory boards, citizens advisory boards, public meetings in general, u I know we've at least had three of them. So, uh and then also it's a public document at the city of Reno. Great. Thank Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I I understand that. I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is where there might be a potential disconnect. Uh while it's not required for the applicant to reach out to us commissioners and chat about things about their application, usually it's helpful. And since this has been a what 13 15 year long process, um I know I for sure haven't been reached out to just to discuss it and I've been reached out to discuss far smaller projects. So if I haven't been reached out to, I'm concerned that maybe the general public hasn't been reached out to. Uh but I'll take you at your word that you guys have reached out. Um regardless I am puzzled by some disconnect here. So then my last question uh is at least for now. Why would you want to remove COA9? Uh because it's not workable. Um if we have to go by the alignment that's shown there, we can't obtain that property to to go across that alignment. Okay. Because we already have an align an alignment that was given to us by that property owner. So, we don't have we don't feel we have an avenue to go down even to sue them and condemn the property. We wouldn't win. And it's a very expensive and lengthy process also, but we still we don't feel we'd prevail in court because they already gave us a a piece of property that is viable. No, I understand that. And and I think one of the things we try to balance here, at least I'll speak for myself as one commissioner, is the quality of life factor. While you're probably speaking in terms of financial cost and financial expend expenditures, uh we're trying to look at some of the other findings as well. What's the cost to the wildlife? What's the cost to the quality of life for people and so forth? And so that's what we're just trying to figure out here. And so I'm going to take a step back and yield to my fellow commissioner to my left. Sorry, Commissioner Munz, please. Thank you. Uh Nathan, this is going to be for you. Um, if you could in your uh your presentation, can you pull up the deviation or the zigzag um and show us exactly where that's going? Okay, you can see uh the line in yellow that um I wish I had a pointer or a mouse. Apologize. Um but uh where where it going heading north where it veers west and then north again that that's the zigzag. And what portion of that is in the city limits? All of it. The whole entire the entirety. Is there a is there any other is there any other overheads uh overviews of that? I want to know exactly what it's going through the middle of and this does not give us a good I do indication. So I'm trying to find out exactly what is that's going through and I'm glad I added that. Uh okay. So the highlighted parcel is the Stonegate parcel. It's one one piece of the larger Stonegate PED. And so if you can see um uh the home on the on to the west that's the existing home. Now that um power line would run, it would straddle th those southern and western property lines and then veer northeast to to meet up with the uh Alura's existing utility corridor. So that line's going to run through a heavily forested area and again as I as I brought up um you know it's about 60 60 ft higher in elevation than the original alignment. Um that answer your question? Yeah, that does. Um, one more and this may be for uh, Envy Energy. I want to know what line is coming in from the west uh, in I'm assuming from the Truckucky area into Verdi. Where is that line coming from? Actually, most of the power that we have goes out, but yeah, we have three lines over there. There's a 101 line, there's a 102 line, and a 133 line. And all three of those lines run west into California coming through Truckucky. Is that correct? Going through. Yeah. North Truckucky sub. So they're going to be on the north side of the Truckucky River dropping down into Verdai. Okay. Uh thank you. That's why and I would add when you talk about the forestry um you know one of the conditions that's in the EIS is that for every acre that we disturb of habitat we put three acres in of habitat. So it's not all just about the finances of things. We look at that the PUC looks at us and says you have to produce the lowest cost alternative. And so that's what we originally developed. But in the end, I mean, if we can't get the project to move forward without making some of these mitigation measures, I mean, we're not going to have a project. So we have to do what is right. I think what Mark just said, again, for the record, Dave Snellgrove, what Mark just said in terms of making things finite, and that's been one of the concerns in terms of condition 9, it says no, follow the FEIS route. there may be another route if you give some latitude to be able to work with the property owners if there is something an alternative that ends up working out for them. We'd appreciate it if we can't get the FBI route as Mr. Sullivan said the condemnation I proceedings would be very questionable whether they'd even be able to be successful on that. So it could basically kill the projects been going for since at least 2011 and now we're 13 years into it. So you in terms of condition nine if there's something that has some allowance for some alternative to look at an alternative with the property owner if it ends up not being the zigzag that it could be something else. it may may not be able to follow that FEIS and I think there's a high likelihood that it couldn't because they already said no, they don't want it there. I have a couple questions. This is actually for the applicant maybe. Yeah, Mr. Sullivan, you'd be good for this. So, um, apologies. I understand this is redundant. You've kind of walked through it a couple times, but I just I I want a better grip on the fact pattern of how we got to the zigzag, right? So what I'm hearing is that, you know, on the one hand, the the zigzag is kind of a new development. It wasn't particularly well known by staff or maybe the general public, and I understand your uh your assertion to the contrary of that, but how did we get to the zigzag pattern being somewhat of a surprise if if that original uh path that was presented kind of in the materials previously wasn't workable, right? because it sounds like maybe that hasn't been a viable option for some time, but it was the initial option and it was what was presented at least originally in most of the relevant materials. So, can you walk me through like how did we get to this position because I'm not getting it. Okay. So, the FE uh the EIS is done by the Forest Service. They look at those four routes. They determine that this is the preferred route. They give that to us. That was I think 2019, 2018, 2019. And then we go out for the private properties and we go talk to those property owners. And so we have to negotiate with them. U the Lucas one was a great example. They were I mean I don't know if you're familiar with the Lucas's. I think your legal team probably is. But you know he's very ligious. And so he was the last guy that we got an easement from. But that alignment remained pretty much the same. You know it's down the down his parcel line. And the same as this. What they asked for is around the edge of their parcel line when we came to them and said, "Hey, here's where the alignment is and they said that's going to take a lot of our property, a property that we're going to develop, so we want to put it somewhere else. It's their private property. So we said, well, where would you like to put it? And we negotiated with him, we negotiated with the listeners, we negotiated with the predecessor owners of uh the Lebards. So all of those people came together and said, we all agree with this alignment and that's how we came up with that alignment. So that was I think two 2019, April 2019 maybe or was it recorded maybe in uh April of 2020? So, um, so it was public record from that time forward. So, when we submitted materials, uh, to Wo County and to the city of Reno, that should have been included in those packets. If it wasn't included in those packets, and that was a mistake. And so, that's I think what Dave was saying is it wasn't included, and I think Nathan said that too, it wasn't included in the initial packet, but when we resubmitted it was included in that material. So the length of time that you would normally see a a project like this that has been public material certainly long before that on public record but as a part of the application it was included in that and made available to everyone. We didn't know that that was the route that was going to go until the federal government the forest service gave us our EIS and said here's where the perverted route is. We we didn't know what it was going to be. Does that make sense? That answer your question? Yeah it does. I appreciate it and Commissioner Munoz, did you have a followup? Actually, yeah, I just want to jump in on that question real quick. Um, obviously we can't see the land. I I I I am taking everybody's word, your word, and uh for what we're looking at, and what I'm hear isn't heavily forested. Would it be safe to say that the route that is chosen now, the route that you are proposing is less likely to be developed because it does go through the middle of a forest? No, I don't think a forest stops developers. Um it's I think uh topography you know I think the Reno code calls for maybe 15% there's hillside ordinances which reduces your ability to develop. So you know in flat land maybe you get a unit you know on a hillside if it's between certain slopes. I mean Nathan probably knows this off the top of his head but between a certain range you know you get reduction and there's some areas you just can't build in. I know some of this area uh he's put a conservation easement on and said he's not going to build in that area and a lot of time that's a tradeoff right to to get greater density in another area. So, this area where he's talking about um I don't think that they are uh we're planning on building there. Now again there's some uh you know, some of this stuff is more uh hearsay, I suppose, but the developer told me there's less trees going that route than our original route. And I don't we'll leave that we'll leave that as hearsay. Yeah. Um but so you did confirm that the because of the topography because of the location the probability of developing in that area is quite a bit less in your opinion than it would be in the originally proposed? Again that's what I was told by the developer and that's it makes sense to me because that's the property that they said hey we'll give you an easement on it. So if it was I don't think they're going to give us the most valuable and it like I said it runs along the property line. So that makes sense to me also, right? That that's going to have the least amount of impact. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you. My next question is for staff. Okay. Thank you, Nathan. So this I'm going back to something Commissioner Belveltto had pointed out earlier um with respect to the findings and um just kind of for folks in the audience. One of the findings that you said you would struggle with was finding number two which is compliance with title 18. Do I have that correct? No. Finding number two or sorry that's a general criteria. No that's Well, I guess we're talking about two different sets of findings. So, I was assuming you were talking about the general approval criteria findings. I was I was referencing conditionally use permit. Gotcha. Okay. And so, that is the proposed land use and project design is compatible with surrounding development. So, can you walk us through just one more time so I can get a better handle on it? What's your main concern with that? Is it just the fact that despite the fact that it's private land, it is still within the city of Reno's jurisdiction? And so there are some relevant rules, maybe regulations that would apply there. You don't really have line of sight to the impact. So you're not really sure that it it could be compatible with the surrounding development with the information that you have. Is that your concern? That is a concern. Is that your primary concern? That is that is probably the primary concern. Um again, the the uh let me get my bearings here. I think compatibility as I as I referenced you know was was uh robustly evaluated with the EIS this area was a particular area of focus there was community input uh I don't know if I mean this was some time ago but there was significant public input um on the proposed alignment um and concern with visual impacts addressed in the IS um with with that alignment that was um you know adopted in the IS in 2018 final record of decision in 2019 and B energy knew that alignment um they're not beholden to it again this is up to the planning commission u but they made their negotiations in 2020 so they they knew what the forest service alignment was and staff's perspective is while you know it's certainly within this body's u discretion to to veer from that we don't have the um information to say what the impacts are. Got it. Understood. And then just kind of an unrelated question, but going back to the to kind of the concerns around fire, can you just maybe walk us through like at what level at least with the city of Reno's like jurisdictional nexus, like what has been the feedback from the fire department on the the perceived risks or maybe perceived benefits of how uh NB Energy has proposed to construct it? like what actually is their view of the the fire risk? Have they actually opined on it to this point? I assume they would have had some some view on Yeah, they they reviewed the information. We met with the fire marshall and discussed and you know really it's a it's a it's a cost benefit, right? Are are underground utility lines safer? Yes. I mean there there's there's no disputing that. Uh but it's a cost benefit. It's a feasibility given the the hillside terrain. Um particularly in the the Verdai Somerset area. I mean, there's numerous power lines there currently. It's the Somerset Fire Station with the brush truck. So, no, they they did not express uh concerns, didn't provide comments um specific to to undergrounding. Thank you. That's all I have for now. Does anyone else on the commission have uh questions? Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. If I can just kind of follow up on something that Nathan said. Um, I think Nathan's been very clear that staff is is comfortable with the current alignment that we feel that's been vetted. Um, with this deviation, I think, as Nathan says, staff has not had the chance to to vet that alignment. We don't know what the the impacts would be. For example, the number of trees that would be taken out, the viewshed analysis, um, any habitat impacts, as Nathan mentioned, the the polls would be higher. Not to say that potentially we whether we would or would not support that. We don't have the facts to do the analysis and perhaps maybe supplemental conditions could be added to that alignment, but we don't have that information to process. Oh, that's helpful. So, is it fair to say that due to complete information, the city's position is you're uncomfortable making a recommendation either way because you don't have the information. Therefore, when it comes to making a finding, you lack information. and therefore the body lacks information and that makes it difficult to to arrive at a finding. I'll let Mr. Gilbert address that. I would concur with that. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate uh your concurrence on that and I will defer. Commissioner Roier. Yeah. Going along those lines, is there a very Mr. Mr. Sullivan, can you outline going forward what the permitting path would be with the federal agencies to analyze the zigzag? I mean, say you got approval today, say you had, you know, and the condition 9 was not an issue. What is the permitting path to give some certainty to get this analyzed? So, in the conversations, Mark Sullivan for the record, sorry. In the conversations that we've had, our we have an environmental team that uh is communicated with. Marne Steel is the name of the person that's running the project from the Forest Service and uh Marne's laid out a list of things and actually I can pull it up and I can tell you um exactly what I mean but this the study is going to be it's going to be an amendment to the FIS and it's going to list I mean it's going to go through that same process of uh all the same things that we did or that they did in the FIS Yes. Is with that is it the amendment that would fall within the 12 month time limitations? I'm sorry. Would would the would the subsequent permitting fall under a 12-month time limit for analysis by the agency? Would would in one year's time the answers so to speak from permitting and analysis be available? No, it'll be probably a couple of months. Okay. I mean, we would we would embark on that right away. I mean, and what we would propose is that we would start construction on the south side of the project so we can get this construction season in and then we would be a when we built up to that point, if it wasn't completed yet, we would stop there and and then when it's completed, then we would move on uh through that area. shocking but my email's not working so great. Anyway, it would be all the same studies that were required. Okay. I was just curious what the path to is it I know with the amendment I mean then there's a notification and the record right it would be the same process. So there' be probably a 45day comment process I believe through the forest service. It would be Nevada Shipo, Cal Shipo, um all the same groups that we went through for the original EIS. They would all be included in that and provide input, you know, analysis of, you know, biological cultural resources that are out there, whatever those may be. And um we're we're aware of the Weber invasia. We don't believe there's any Weber invasia in the area that we're going in there. Um and the cultural resources cultural resource study was done on the site was my understanding again from the property owner. Uh but there was a site that was down south closer to our 345 al tourist line and that was already mitigated which basically mitigation for a cultural site is they pull all those things out. They document that. They send it to the state. The state gives it to the property owner. But it would be all the same process is my understanding for the amendment. Okay. Um, and EIS being a disclosure document, not necessarily a it's not like a SQA equivalent substantive action. You disclose if there's an impact. It doesn't necessarily mean you would have to not proceed with the project. Correct. No. Yeah. Usually, like I said before, they're going to give us mitigation measures. Either there's no impact, so we're not going to mitigate. It's either mitigate or avoid is typically what you find in EIS. And that's what you'll find in this one. We're either mitigating things like u when we're cutting trees down because one of the things that they talk about is wildfire. We built it in the National Electric Safety Code. They have standards in place. They're constantly updating those standards. I know from the building department perspective um you know years ago they had problems with people evacuating out of houses when they're on fire. So they lowered the window sills down. This is a requirement for a height on windows. So that's the same thing that happens with fire mitigation. We constantly are getting updated. We used to have a 20ft setback from our power lines. Now there's a 25 ft setback. Actually your guys's code in the EIS is going to be 21 ft, but uh through regional planning, you know, they have setbacks that also it's an additional 10 feet on each side. Um that's a government uh mandate, not ours. We don't need that extra safety because we already have it built in. So there's a lot of things like that that we're going to already do, but what we do is we're going to mitigate that stuff. Like they said, it's 3 to one, you know, on the habitat stuff. So, uh it's actually it seems like a bonus. You're going to take some out, but you're getting you know, three times much. It's like happy hour. Um, I also had a question. Under the PCUN, are you able to go back to the utilities commission? And if there's an ownorous condition put on you by local government in a CUP or an SUP process, are you not able to go back to the commission and have the commission review those? Yeah, that's an NRS. And I believe uh what it says though is it's at 200 KV or above and it's 120 KV uh facility, so it's got to be a higher level. And usually I think that's correlated to higher cost. You know, there's a certain number that that would hit and that they would be interested in. But again, the undergrounding, I think Nathan brought up the undergrounding part. He actually uh he called me on the undergrounding stuff too of how it works. But they're the ones that decide who's going to pay for undergrounding if somebody chooses to underground. And I think the number currently, the last number I had is up about seven to one. So if you have a million dollar overhead uh cost, it's going to be a $7 million underground cost per mile. And then you know one thing I didn't hear a lot about although it was mentioned that this is an issue of resiliency under NERK. Could you tell us what the conditions current conditions are in this area? I understand that this is going to give redundancy to West Reno. What are the current conditions and can you tell me about the need for this? Yeah, what it is is um the NERK requirement is that you have to if two systems fail that you have to have a way to back up those those two systems so you don't have overload on the system. and everything cascades and goes out. So the current conditions when we were did the study I think um and I don't have the MVAs right off the top of my head but um they determined it was needed. It was like 74 MVAs and maybe we had the ability to provide 85 or something like that. I mean it was there's a narrow margin and they're saying you guys need to fix this problem and so there was a peak you know we had a big growth time and then it kind of slowed down a little bit but you know we monitor that and then you know we don't have a choice we have to move forward with it. So there the need I don't think there's a question about the need. Again that's a PUC PUCN that forces us to I mean we put it in integrated resource plan. We just submitted a brand new integrated resource plan I believe yesterday. So it talks about all the stuff that we're going to do. Those things are all available to the public also. I think I I'm good. Any other questions from the commission? Uh yeah I have a quick question. It'll be for you, Miss Sullivan. Um the I'm going to go back and touch on the lines again that are running either to or from Truckucky. Uh if you look at those lines from overhead on the most recent um Google Earth, there's a very significant um road or scar or uh very visible look to where the power lines are. Are we to expect the exact same or something very similar? Because you you've come and said several times that they're you're going to add vegetation, you're going to uh put back the roads the way they were. You're going to make sure the area looks uh like it does now. with you saying that and then looking at these power lines that have been in for years, uh, very visible, plenty of time to have grown back over, but they're, um, purposely kept clear. Is that the same thing that we should expect going over the top of Peine? Yeah, there's two different things, Mark Sullivan. Um, there's two different things going on there. One of them is um, and I don't know if that's overhead line or an underground line. underground lines, you know, have different standards also. But the overhead lines, um, we clear the vegetation out of that right away to prevent fire. And so the setbacks are required. I mean, it's all laid out. You know, there's standards that we're required to meet. And so that continues on. We'll we'll clear vegetation out. And this is permanent vegetation we're talking about and and trees also. And then there's temporary. So like the roads, you know, if we have to widen a road, um, the EIS is requiring us to put everything back that's not temporary. So the permanent construction you'll see underneath the power line. I mean we'll have a a road that goes underneath or at least we'll have access points that may be using various different roads to get there. A lot of them existing and that's what we try to do. Uh but there there'll be typically we have a road underneath the access but we can't have I mean we can't have a bunch of vegetation around our poles and those types of things because that's how you get power poles. They burn down. Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Biser. Sure. Just a question may maybe for Nathan and Mr. Sullivan might maybe at the same time. Um, a lot of great discussion, a lot of great questions, a lot of unknowns. Um, this is a project of regional significance though, right? So, um, I'm a little concerned that some of the unknowns are unknowns for being a project of regional significance. Um, so I'm curious, um, would it be would it benefit uh, staff to be able to sit down, have the opportunity to sit down with the applicant, hash things out a little further, find alignment on some of these unknowns and just in general like so if I asked you or the applicant, hey, how many trees are going to be knocked down with this new route? what's the impact on the wildlife and so forth that we can get a very clear-cut answer. No pun intended actually. Um yeah. So so so would would you all be amendable to something like that? Having like time to realign, sit down and have the opportunity to bring something that's a bit more baked. I I think more robust analysis. Yeah. Yeah. We amenable to that. Okay. And uh Mr. Sullivan and crew. Yes. Mark Sullivan. Um we're hap I mean we're already going to go through that process. I mean what we would ask you to do is just that change in the amendment keep keep condition 9 just change from exhibit D which shows this FA FIS alignment and change that to or as amended. So if we do go we go back through the process with them and there is some other alternative whatever that alternative may be then um they're the ones that do the analysis. You guys look at the analysis. Nathan's not going to do analysis. He's going to look at the analysis that the Forest Service does. So, he's not going to do tree counts. He's not going to do, you know, any of that, uh, you know, looking at endangered species or wildlife or any of that other stuff. Is that right? Is that fair to say, Nathan? Yeah. So, all this analysis is going to be done by the Forest Service. So, if the Forest Service does it all and they agree to amend another route, whatever that may be, um, we would just like you guys to accept that and and it's a and then the city certainly will get that. Oh, I I appreciate that. I think that that the nuance here though is that um while that might be the case uh that's not before us today and so it is before you that's the application that we submitted that zigzag route is what I understand submitted I understand that but the the impact of the zigzag and the answers to to to the application is not before us uh you yourself have been unable to answer very clear-cut questions only referring to well it's posted it's in the it's in the packet and this is not uh what questions are you referring to uh just line of questions throughout so so all I'm asking is if you would be amendable to be able to continue perhaps this uh uh this matter before us this evening to be able to sit down and find alignment with our staff to then come before us through the process so we can actually uh have a more thorough conversation included with the general public. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to be able to do that because of our schedule. And so, uh, if you guys vote it down, I mean, we have to go through the process. A PUC forces us to go through the process. And so, we would have to continue on this process until we get an ultimate denial if that's what it's going to end up being because we don't have the ability to just arbitrarily say, "Oh, we're going to give up now." and and there's a lot of impacts um based on schedule and construction and you know there there's just a plethora of things you know ordering materials and having materials sit and you know there's a lot of impacts that you know I could probably talk a half an hour about that so I don't I don't have the ability to do that um I would ask that you would recognize that there's not going to be a difference between this route and and the outcome in the FIS and an amendment they're going to tell you the same stuff it's going to be a avoid or treat. That's what you know is going to happen, right? We're going to avoid if there's some kind of feature out there that we have to avoid or we're going to treat it if there's something out. I mean, that's what you've got in the EIS now and it's going to be the same. I've seen Well, you guys are playing commissioners. You've probably seen 20 of them. They say they all do the same thing, right? They address what what the issues are and that's what's going to come out of it. So I think that you could be secure in knowing that that's what's going to happen that the things are going to be taken care of just the same as if it was the original route the way we're going to treat those things or avoid those things that's going to happen on the other route also. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Do you have any further questions from the commission or should we move into discussion? I'm not seeing any additional questions. So we'll move into discussion. Would anyone like to start? Okay. Yeah, Commissioner Mus. I'll start. Um [Applause] I'm going to ask the commissioners, if you haven't yet, um to open up Google Earth and look at the lines coming down from Truckucky down into Verdi. Um could we put that up on the big screen for everyone? Would that be okay? Sorry. Jesus. So, I'll continue while she puts that up on the overhead. Um, the concerns that we heard over and over and over and over. So, if you go from Donner Ridge here and follow that line all the way down. The concerns that we're hearing from the public are look what they're going to do to this beautiful area that everybody uses. Can you can you point it out again? I'm sorry. Yeah. So, you can see the line drops down top of the So, very real concerns. Um, did you get there is no ifs about it. If they do put the line through the forested area on the zigzag up there, it is absolutely going to take out the whole center of that without question. There's nothing they can do. That was confirmed by Mr. F S Sullivan. Uh, they do have to have a a certain clearing through there. Um, it is going to take that area out 100%. There's nothing they can do about it. uh whatever the reasons may be um some of them from the people that own the properties now um there's obvious reasons why they don't want to go through the more developable land um I think that's pretty pretty evident and why they would try and send it through some area like this Thank you. It's pretty hard for me to make the findings not knowing what really is going to be done there. We don't have without, like I said, without being able to sit down and see it and walk through this area that's going to be um permanently modified. I don't feel there's any way that I can come to the conclusion of what the impacts are actually going to be. and that being confirmed by Nathan numerous times, uh, we don't know what the impacts are going to be. So, just for that reason along with a few others, there's I I just can't make the findings in this. Um, and I will not be in support of it. All right, Commissioner Roar Meer, I'll give a counter point to this. Uh, respectfully, though I appreciate your points. Um, so coming at this, you know, I just really feel strongly and I'm no longer in an energy career, so I can feel comfortable saying these things. There's a federal process here that took almost 10 years, baseline studies, environmental impact statement, which is the most thorough analysis. Four alternatives were considered. The applicant didn't pick the route. It was done through a multi- agency, multi-year process costing, I I'm sure, considerable amounts of money. And these are the tensions that we have to deal with. We need energy. We need reliability. We need infrastructure. And so I'm going to trust the federal process. I don't think local government at the end should stand in the way of these efforts. Um it's happened in Wo County more than once that these things are usurped at the very end and it's kind of there's no good path forward when they get to these challenges. So I am going to support this on the premise that our federal agencies the US Forest Service here namely as the lead agency will be doing a thorough review. They might even require supplemental EIS, another EIS depending on the level of impacts that they find and and the applicants and V energy in this case will have to they'll have to follow whatever the guidance of the feds are. But I don't think Reno should be standing in that path. So I will support the project and I'm not going I'm going to allow the zigzag. I would be supportive of removing condition 9. Commissioner Veltto. Uh, I would be supporting the project with condition 9. I'm a little concerned about the change that's being made in hearing from staff that they have not been able to evaluate it. Uh, so I would be supporting it with the conditions and think I can make the findings under that scenario, but I'm very concerned about the change not having been evaluated by staff. Commissioner Bisera, please. Uh, similar sentiments, a little blend between uh, Commissioner Munes, Rory Meyer, Velto, uh, I I won't be able to support this project as presented. Uh, particularly taking the lead of staff and others and not know not being able to answer basic questions and the impact. I would suggest still um instead of a denial um to recommend the applicant to sit down with our staff and perhaps the community to try to align on on a viable solution uh and then bring it before us through the local process. Um and and go from there. Um, and then that way if it does go through the appeal process one way or the other, uh, our city council also has the relevant information, uh, through due process to make a more well-informed decision as well, one way or the other, so I won't be in support. Thank you, Commissioner Bisera. Uh, my sentiments are similar to Commissioner Veltos. uh having familiarity with the EIS process, I am comfortable saying that uh you know, I do trust the federal process. I understand that it's very thorough, but this isn't a federal jurisdiction matter. I mean, I think that that was kind of thoroughly discussed this evening. I have concerns about being able to make finding number two under the conditional use permit. I share Nathan's concerns and uh also have a lack of comfortability with moving forward without having the facts. So, I don't want to outright deny, but um I can't get comfortable with the amendment as presented. So, that is my sentiment on this. Uh any additional comments from the commission or should I entertain a motion? Uh sure. One one additional comment. I I let me rephrase my last statement. I can be in support of this with condition 9. So, I cannot support a removal of condition 9 and the and adding the deviation. So, I just want to make that clear. Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Bouser. Pretty much similar uh clarification as uh Commissioner Munes. And again, if that's a deal breaker for the applicant, again, I would suggest going back and continuing this matter to find alignment with staff. Any additional comments? Just that I could also support the idea of continuing this to allow more discussions as an alternative. I don't necessarily know if that's agreed. Okay. Is anyone interested in making a motion? Did we get some clarification if people uh if the city staff and applicant want a continuence? We certainly can. Mark Sullivan, for the record, we're always going to uh take an approval over a denial. So, if you guys leave condition 9 in um and you approve the project with condition 9, we would certainly accept that. Uh, does staff have a view that they would like to share? Nathan Gilbert, I apologize. I didn't hear what Mr. Sullivan uh shared. [Laughter] If I may, sure. Yeah, sure. Sure. Uh, Mr. Sullivan said he would rather take an approval than a denial and he would be amendable to us saying move forward. uh while keeping COA9, but I think I'm still a little unclear there. Would staff only be comfortable with COA9 as long as the original route was in place or that that is what condition of approval 9 says? Correct. So, Mr. Sullivan, did are you aware of that? I I thought that would be the case. Nathan, am I aware of what condition 9 says? Well, I I know you Well, I've been arguing with you all night about it. I'm pretty familiar with it. No, I So, CO9 is essentially saying y'all would stick with the original route right? Yes. Yeah. Oh okay. Yeah, I understand that that's what it is. Okay. Just And you would be okay with that? Well, this evening, you know, I'm not the ultimate decision maker, but my job is to get approvals. So, if I can get an approval from you, you know, I'll take it back to the team and say, "Hey, here's what they did with it, and we'll see what ends up happening." I mean, I don't I appreciate it. You know, I know this is heart-wrenching. You know, these are the tough decisions, right, where you're trying to balance what's right for the community and what's right for um individuals. And I know how challenging your guys's job is. And um so I appreciate you guys spending the time on it. You did. And uh I I certainly would appreciate an approval. Thank you. Any further discussion? Well, I can certainly support the original route if that's the motion that's being put forward. Um, I suspect this will go to appeal. So, I don't know who wants to make the motion. I wouldn't be making that motion because I still support the zigzag. So, I just want clarifying question maybe for Nathan given this uh dance this evening. Sure. Um, are you all comfortable with with uh an approval with the original CO9? Yes, that was staff's original recommendation. Right. Right. Okay. Yes. Okay. Great. Approval with conditions listed in the staff report and the original route. Correct. Okay. Um, I have it up. I'm ready. Commissioner Munoz, please. Commissioner M. In the case of LDC23-000015 NV Energy Utility Corridor based on compliance with the pickable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed by staff. Do I have a second? Uh, Commissioner Bel. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Uh, can I get a roll call vote, please? Armstrong. Yes. Visera. Yes. Munoz. Yes. Roer. Yes. Velto. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And with respect to an appeal, Mr. Chair, I was going to say if you could please read the appeal process. Happy to. Any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the planning commission may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the mayor, or a city council member or any person who is agrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk. We will now close item five and move to item six. Truckucky meadows regional planning leazison report. I believe commissioner Ber was there. Uh yes Roshambo. Commissioner Ro I don't uh nope uh st standard uh meeting we discussed uh a few items that came before us but uh nothing out of the ordinary uh but there'll be more to report at the next meeting which may be at city of sparks uh considering that the Reno rodeo is going to be taking over uh 9th street. Okay, thank you. We will close item six and move to item seven staff announcements. Uh just a few announcements this evening. Um first I think we we made the announcement at our last meeting but just so everyone is aware uh the July 3rd meeting will be cancelled. Um we will not be having a meeting on July 3rd. Um which I think we we did not have a quorum for that meeting with the holiday the next day. Um as far as council actions, the Santa Quillys fire station amendment that you approved recently, that item was continued at city council. um with a date uncertain. So, I'll keep you posted as that moves through the process. Um next week, the Riverside specific plan district that you approved recently, that will be heard by council next Wednesday along with the Valley View Valley View Planned Unit development which came before you um about 7 months ago. Um they at the request of council made some changes and they're going to bring those forward next week. And those are the only announcements I have today. Thank you, Mike. We'll close item seven and go to item eight, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Seeing none, we'll close item eight. Move to item nine, public comment. This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment. I did not receive any request to speak forms, no voicemails, and no correspondence received for this item. Anyone in the chambers wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, we'll close item nine and move to item 10, adjournment. So move. So moved. We are journal.