thank you hi good morning Madam clerk good morning Madam mayor are you ready to roll I am okay give us just a second all right Madame mayor we are ready to call to order the Wednesday May 25th Reno city council meeting all right good morning everyone nice to see you okay this is uh the city council meeting for Wednesday May 25th 2022 for the record and at this time we're going to start with item A1 Madam Clerk and that is pledge allegiance and I would love it if Mr Tom Dolan would lead us in the pledge good morning Mr Dolan a pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Madam clerk before we call the role I'd actually like to observe a moment of silence for the tragedy that happened yesterday in Texas and all those who lost their lives so please indulge us for a moment of silence all right thank you madam clerk please call the roll thank you Madame mayor council member breus here D here dogado Weber here Jordan here Reese chivy here Madame mayor you do have a quorum of the Reno city council all right thank you so much I'm going to send it right back to you for item A3 public comment thank you our first item today is general public comment it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the mayor and Council as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the council's agenda please note that Council may not take action upon any matter not agendized 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 3 minutes if you're an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment please raise your hand at this time lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers of the behavior continues our first public commenter today is leavon Reed followed by George Campion followed by Terry Brooks good morning leavon morning nice to see you like rock stars in the room today we got Ethan O'Brien we got leavon we got Cory I try to be a public servant so good morning mayor Hillary sler I am good morning Reno Council I'd like to say first I liked your commercials when I saw you at 5:00 on the your um campaigning I thought those are really good I like to also see on Channel 8 KO L8 the morning 9:00 break I think if you came on with uh masto is her name right Katie masto I think you should promote our renal area more so I think that would be good esecially in the next few weeks we need you to get reelected believe me I'm afraid for the governor and the senator right now's seats but we need you Hillary there's a lot going on in this community and a lot that needs to get done so now my three comments as what I think if you notice the electric scooters that going around all over town I I have a suggestion on how to make that more efficient I know you can only use a credit card to use them but a lot of people don't have credit cards so my suggestion is when you can buy the little cards gift cards maybe you do them at Walmart the city um downtown RTC put those on there and let them do for half hour an hour do those and you could buy two or three then you can run around town and that would be easy for everybody and then the second part of that is we have safety issues as far as people around town were trying to do the green promoting space so we where cars can see them but I do think we need to turn around and uh have a place to put these scooters we got electric scooters everywhere and it's like we got nowhere to safely put them cuz I have one two days and it got stolen and I was like wow so if you buy electric scooter you should have wanted to get stolen quick and then now my last thing is I want to suggest about the hospitals we have a real problem where I was in the hospital three times the last week and you wait 8 n hours to get in the hospital to get in to see the doctor so I think that needs to be improved for our people visiting the community and for the tourists and everyone around us and then my one last pet peeve is still the homeless I think we need to wipe up that Corridor and don't let them be down with tents and that on on Fourth Street because we already allocated place for them so they shouldn't be out in the street they're you know looking making it look worse and I really want to commend you guys on the Ambassador Regal Group I see that's really improving cleaning up the community so that's a real great program for you and Hillary I just love you to death you have got to win again cuz we got to get a movie in Oscar I like seeing him lately a lot and Naomi D dur I've been seeing that you show that you're doing a lot for the council and the community so good good thumbs up for you guys so the rest of you I want to see you on there I want to see you guys actively showing that we're doing a lot for this community as a servant of God I want to see this happen thank you thank you George Campion followed by Terry Brooks followed by Jessica Castro can I do something here it's thank you okay my name is George camponi and I'm here again to point out he tore down motels where poor residents lived during a housing Crisis City leaders did nothing okay following that is a quote that Miss shivi Madame mayor talked about horrific conditions and affordable housing last week I brought forward this picture of what I consider horrific all right and I want to talk about today basically unregistered Vehicles all right because we have a problem I on K K8 all right this here if you look really close it's a 2015 all right and I would ask this officer back here to run its plate this is a city or Court employee is parked in your court parking lot right over here anybody you want to take a walk with me I'll put $100 on it all right it's there okay that's just one of them here's here's another one my managers have called on this this is sat out front of the Terrace River apartment for over a year and a half I actually presented this to a and Jenny you pay attention to this this is in your District okay your ward all right I brought this to intention of a of a what do they call it parking enforcement he did nothing they have called on this continuously they have gotten no response it does not move it sits there people don't care about lines you got people drawing lines right okay what is this what does this tell you this tells you it's a median not only that because of all that trash sitting there because a sweeper can't get to it all right there's a red it's red there's no way you can park there that it's not red on a daily basis I see more police officers pass that by with not a glance why is that I guess they're not responsible for parking control anymore that's fine all right let's let's look at this there's another one this has been sitting here now just for three days and you can talk to your maintenance people who have done repair work grass work on the ly theater they have seen this sitting here they were there this morning it's sitting there still all right what are we doing about this this is money wasted what we got parking enforcement if they're not care doing their job give me the damn manual I'll pass the damn test and I'll show you how to write tickets okay all right the other Jenny write this ticket number down 18 3796 all right you will see that this was not only initiated in November 2019 it was closed and RV was never taken off it was reopened because I told him it was not moved thank you so much all right thank you sir I'll be back will you please make sure you give those images to our clerk so she has them on file I'm sorry Terry Brooks followed by Jessica Castro good morning it's me Terry Brooks again and today I'd like to address following the money to employment in the case of homelessness most existing businesses are owned by the rich which makes them a lot of profit which is how they became so rich not all of the work is done by them they usually hire other people to do the work for them and even though the owners don't do the work they make a lot of profit off of those who do the work and and their profits usually grow really high while the workers who do the work often barely get by it's the owners who decide who it is who gets hired and they also decide who it is who gets fired it's the business owners who decide the wages that the workers make and decide the days and hours they work and if or when they get a break it's the business owners who make all of the decisions and in order to increase their profits they make all of the revisions if the workers don't work up to par those workers will likely get fired by the owners who then decide who will then be hired to get fired and lose their job was not the workers's intent now they have no money and they can't pay their rent so then they will probably wind up homeless and on the street where are they going to sleep what are they going to eat you can follow a little money to those who still work but you can follow it only as long as they're still going to work it's the rich who make most of the money that's why what they're in business for but the workers make just enough to live on without it they'll wind up poor I would like to thank you all for listening to me today and just so you know I speak freely I I don't expect to receive any pay oh this is chapter 31 all right good you're getting through them thanks D our final public commenter today is Jessica Castro hi my name is Jessica Castro I haven't seen you all for a while um because I've been paying rent at a ridiculous rate um I've had to work three jobs for the last four months just so that my daughter and I could have a fairly um decent life so but that's not what I'm here to talk about although that is very important and it does just like Terry said it ties into everything um I'm working three jobs as a single mother of a 16-year-old to make meet um I'm also doing Outreach the first week that I stepped back out there um I was told about two different incidences of rapes again the last time I came here I was blackmailed I was blacklisted um even by my own people saying that I just like to exaggerate and I like drama this is not the truth um I have a very very good unsheltered friend who has been on the streets for a very long time this woman has been in and out of foster care since she was eight years old um she's been handed pretty shitty life um the other night she was walking near the car's campus um the super shelter that was built and we all know it's very unsafe she was walking from the car's campus to a store in the middle of the night because she was thirsty um and wanted something to drink um so on her way back she was attacked by three men um they jumped out their vehicle and they raped her um you all built a super shelter that is in safe inside and it is in uh it is not safe inside and it's unsafe outside as well um I was also told of another rape inside of the facility um uh a disabled woman was being raped by men um the guards don't care they don't care they don't care unless they're going to get a pat on the back um maybe he felt unsafe I'm not sure what the situation was I wasn't there but I do know that nothing was done I do know that it was reported to me by somebody else who came to me and said I I cannot believe what I just saw the other night um you know this is It's terrifying I feel like we all speak different languages I feel like you all speak the language of money and image and I'm speaking the language of humanity so I'm my pleas are falling upon death ears I know that death ears I know they are I know they are um like Terry said you know I'm working three jobs I'm paying do you know the average for a one bedroom apart right now in Reno is $1,700 you all do have the ability to help us and you're not you can say that it's all you can make excuses you can say whatever but you chose to sit in that seat you chose to be my leader you all did you chose to take this public seat so that I could come to you and say this is my plea to you and this is what we need help with and I've done this over and over and over I get basically shamed for coming to you and speaking about things that happen like rapes so here I am again I'm going to go back into my hole and go work so that my daughter and I can have a somewhat sustainable life thank you guys again thank you Jessica all right Madame mayor with that we have no additional public comment for the record I would like to note that we did receive six comments which were General in nature and not directly associated with an agenda item on today's meeting one in favor two in opposition and three concerned those have been distributed to the Reno city council and are available on reno.gov meetings additionally we have two voicemails which we will go ahead and play at this time um yes I wanted to see if there's anything you're doing about the poisoning of the alcohol at these licensed facilities in Reno since these people came in it decided to take over and seem to think that it's okay for them to poison the citizens in the City of Reno um we just like to know what it is you're going to be doing about it and we've called several times but we just keep getting pushed around so we'll try back tomorrow and if you like you can leave this message for the city council members since they wanted everyone to be in with the program and that includes licensed facilities like markets and CVS and places like that um I don't know this is a federal capital state City crime that isn't being solved and it's been going on for quite some time five years and let's see this bit of it for the past two so we'll try back yes this is uh Jerry my said today at the city council meeting I was improperly chastised by city council member Devin Reese over two buttons on my four button Hawaiian shirt that were unbuttoned now before I ented the city council the uh I asked the guards am I dressed appropriately yes I was told by a security guard and a police officer when I came into the room prior to the meeting Devin was standing right there I faced him and said hello to him he faced me and said hello to me and said nothing said nothing about my shirt being open or that it was inappropriate so I come I I come to the meeting I come to the comment section I am somewhat critical of the handling of T of Paradise Park some people may uh some council members may be a little bit unnerved by this but Devin says nothing until after I'm done talking I start to walk away and he decides to pull out some either policy or some kind of number and say that I was inappropriately dressed I told him he was wrong he was wrong in saying that there is nothing wrong with a shirt being unbuttoned it's a hot day I'm 77 and I was having a hard time uh breathing but still he went on and on and so did I before I know it a city uh uh the the police officer comes up to me to now remove me he got a high sign or something I think he did it on his own bition he put his hand underneath my armpit I removed his hand I said I will walk with you outside you could escort me but please don't manhandle me like I'm a criminal I do have to go to the second floor to pick up some copies of tapes when I do go to the second floor um I see uh Rick Ciera I have a private friendly conversation with him all the way up to the 14th floor I don't do my business I'm enjoying talking to Rick and vice versa but when Rick leaves me at the 144 two cops come up to me and now they want to escort me out the building because they think I'm creating a problem there is no problem they go talk to Rick Rick has no problem with me he he voices that they still come out the cops and they say we're escorting you out the building you're problematic I said no you'll escort me to the second floor to barara and get copies of my tape I said but I'm UNC this has all been handled wrong Devin has it out for me he's he's actually called me in private homophobic look it why if if I came to a city council meeting in address and I BL all right Madame mayor with that we have no additional public comment okay thank you madam clerk um I'm going to actually send it over to the city manager do you have any updates the agenda no updates to today's agenda thank you okay thank you so much at this time we're going to go to item A4 approval of the agenda may I get a motion Mo I have a motion in a second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries item A5 approval of the minutes may please get a motion I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries and just for the record Madam clerk I want to make sure that would be item a 51 52 53 and 54 there any changes ever hold okay no changes all right we're going to move on to Item B consent agenda at this time I'm going to ask Madam clerk do you have any public comment for consent agenda thank you Madame mayor we have no public comment registered for consent agenda additionally we have not received any general public comment okay thank you so much at this time I'm going to start over to my left that's Council Weber do you have any items you'd like to pull off the agenda okay thank you so much councilwoman D yes uh B7 please vice mayor Jen she just pulled s councilman delado nothing councilman Reese councilman breus B2 B4 and B5 all right may I get a motion to accept all the other items thank you so much I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries okay we're GNA start with item B2 and that I'm G to send it to councilman breus yeah I just would like a staff report um staff wasn't available when I did my Monday agenda review and I I didn't get kind of the detailed version of this large budget augmentation is our intern Finance director here good morning Vicki good morning good morning Madam mayor and council members Vicky vanen interim Finance director for the record um before you you you have an item for the uh budget revisions and augmentations for the third quarter um which is January to March 31 and uh in the general fund we have a total of $23 million being augmented most of that is from increases in the SE tax uh property tax business licenses and franchise fees as Council knows this budget was built um during a time when the economy was uncertain and revenues have come in much higher than were anticipated and so most of this augmentation is bringing forward those um revenues that we see coming in in the current year and this actually is in line with the tenative budget and the final budget as it was adopted for next year so it's bringing those revenues that we're seeing the growth in in the current year um in line we do have a few other augmentations uh the majority of the other ones are in the other governmental funds and it's just bringing forward the fund balances from the act for the annual financial report when it was actually adopted in January and just adjusting those current year beginning fund balances to actuals um this is kind of an accounting function that we do each year just to make it a little cleaner on the books and those are the the the big items that we have on here okay may I um Madame mayor ask a followup question so the 11 million of carry forward from the f-21 fund balance adjust to actual um do we usually do that in this late fourth quarter um augmentation it just see seems like it's a little late this year year it it is a little late this year uh council member braus um we typically do it after the um annual C the AER is actually adopted and we have those ending fund balances is when we typically do it um we we're just running a little bit late this year with it okay so it's the 11 million and then you built the FY 23 off of that 11 million correct okay and then the other one was the carry forward on the stabilization 3.1 that's not augmented money that's is that from the prior Year yes okay and we typically do this like this in this at this point in the year and we we anticipate we're going to expend it in the year so that in case something happens in the month of June we have a catastrophic event or something flooding or something and we needed to access those funds we would have budget authority to do it okay but we have a policy about how to use the stabilization it's not it's not like contingency and then the last one is the the last trunch of the arpa money when's that going to come in is that this month any day now should have it any day now I did speak to another local agency and they have not rece received theirs yet we have applied for it I did apply for it it typically takes 10 working days so anytime now we are expecting it our other uh local agency that I spoke to they have not received theirs either and no correspondence either so roll into this year's books though correct and it will come on your four on the fourth quarter which will be coming on the eth okay this is really the third qu yes thank you um all right can uh you please give me a motion yeah I'll motion all right I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries all right sending it back to you Council on breus yeah this is item B4 and I I will read a disclosure um before I ask questions and for staff rep report um in entrance to full transparency on I Forum disclosing that my fact that my husband arm under analysis the community services director for the city of Sparks this item is a proposed professional agreement between the cities of Reno Sparks and Jacob's entertain ener Engineering Group to obtain dewatering predesign and evaluation services for the tumare facility it's a $1.47 million agreement based on the city's joint ownership of the facility and existing cost sharing agreement maren will pay 787 Sparks will pay 359 if this is approved talk to the attorney's office and here because Sparks have an existing cost sharing agreement parties share the public Regional water treatment goals and objectives my commitment in a private interest to my spouse as an employee would not clearly for Sparks would not clearly materially affect the Judgment independence of Judgment of a reasonable person um please I'll hand this to Madam Clerk and she can put it on the record attached to this agenda item thank you so what is this about I have a quick presentation oh good all right sure um so my name is Matt Smith I'm the associate civil engineer with utility services and today I'll be discussing item B4 which is the dewatering evaluation and predesign services agreement that's what I thought so a quick project overview so this is going to be located at torf uh which is east of East McCarron and geographically at the plant it's on the southern side of the plant so um torf is a unique facility it's heavy it's a very heavily regulated Waterway um we're just focusing on a small part of the plant we're not gaining any discharge capacity with this project and um we're fixing just issues that will fail and um so my goal with this presentation is that you'll have an understanding of the process and why we are recommending um you to approve this agreement today uh so what is dewatering at torf um we know that the city of of Sparks and Reno sewers come in at torf um raw sewage is 99% liquid and 1% solids doesn't seem like that much on the solids side but 30 million gallons equates to about 165 tons of solids that are produced daily and hauled off site so the water the sewage goes into the main treatment unit and really fundamentally dewatering is separating the wheat which is the liquid from the chaff which is the solids um and then the liquid is 99% uh liquid at that point after it's separated the thicken solids is 2 to 6% um and then we thicken those solids even further uh up to about 15 to 20% so this is what it looks like so we have sludge uh which is separated into centrate and Cake there's your liquids and your solids so um sludge can be related to as a consistency of say chocolate syrup and I'm sorry about the food analogies but it's the best way to to understand this um so chocolate syrup to say like Cream of Wheat per se um after it goes through the centrifuge the centrate uh this looks pretty good you're looking for a Coors Light uh looking C centrate uh Guinness not so good so um on the cake side cake is actually the only one of these terms that is an industry term um and that's just because of its physical uh resemblance of crumbled cake I'm never GNA eat cake yeah believe me the only resemblance is the physical look of the cake so um this just gives a schematic overview of How It's how it performs and the existing building the centrifuge is up top reive that sludge and then the liquid is separated put back into the plant the cake falls down into the cake pumps and then it's pumped into The Hoppers those Hoppers store that cake and then the trucks come through load the cake up and take it to the landfill so just before I leave this slide you can see that we have two centrifuges and you might not be able to see it well you can't but there's four Hoppers there um which hold our sludge so why we're recommending this there's a number of reasons why we're recommending this but I'll first touch on the the risk ranking um for fiscal year 20 21 and 22 they've been elevated so number one is the highest rank an ing risk rank um and I do this exercise with the maintenance and operations staff at the plant and so they have deemed this to be the highest ranked um project at the plant capacities one and I have two arrows there because uh one's pointing to Cent refuges uh we have two Duty and zero standby which the industry standard is to have a redundant system inevitably one is going to fail you have to be able to um put the other one on otherwise it's kind of an emergency um we have limited space some some kind of counterintuitive is uh over time the the machines have gotten higher capacity but they haven't gotten any smaller this building was built in 1983 and so the existing constraints make it very difficult to select new equipment um overall it's just not code compliant it's not safe um and any modifications to the building I'm sure you're aware with seismic retrofits this is one of those um um buildings that would fall under that category of needing a seismic retrofit so today our recommendation is to approve the dewatering evaluation pre-design agreement thanks Madame mayor May yeah that was a great presentation I really appreciate it unfortunately it's only one component that I understand is part of a very expensive uh General master plan for torf that has a big price tag and that whole picture has not been presented Ed to this body Mr manager um this is directed to you because I've been asking for this to come on the item on the agenda for some time now I was at Tuma last week I think it was and and Council uh mayor Lawson made a comment to the degree you know some knowledge about the general plan and what what sparks knows and has been presented about you know the plant and its needs and we have't over here at the same time we're doubling our smaller plan up in Renoe and we have not understood the whole picture here at torf and we have not done a rate study to understand how we're going to pay for all this the rate payers in Reno everyone rolled into renters has increased their sewer rates 35% since I've been on the council to my last estimate while hookup cost for warehouses new apartments New housing has been at $214 so we've created a tremendous inequity in our rate structure in my view and how we pay pay for all these improvements at the same time we are embarking upon very costly Endeavors a million dollars for design is huge immense I I wonder what the Project's going to be it's probably do you have a number that you work on of design to Construction in this field since the recommendation from the consultant we don't know what the recommendation is yet and so we're we're waiting until we get that recommendation to really firm up our budget we have some place holders in our uh 5year CIP yeah and if I had had a presentation on the general plan for um torf would there be a placeholder in there that I would know what this Project's going to cost and what the total demands for torf are in the next 10 years Mr Smith hold on once second so council member breas I I think we we do need to clarify so there is a a plan in the works for Tom Warf and the and the several jurisdictions are working through that and you will see it in in due time this project uh um the centrifuges have reached the end of their useful life they are near a failure State and they need to be replaced it makes sense for us to make sure that we build in redundancies like we have in other features at tum Warf when we do that and so while it is true that Sparks needs um probably some treatment capacity expansion in in at Tor so that they can continue to discharge to the trucky River and stay within the boundaries of the discharge permit this project is not intertwined with that well it to me in my view it's spending at tomworth and I've been hearing for three years there's a general plan General plan it's been adopted the JCC's seen it we need to have it here we need to know the whole complexion of what we're spending at torf in combination with stad so I The JCC has seen this and approved this and it's part of the CIP this is not coming out of the blue it's part of the 5-year CIP and has been so for some time and I argue that this bodies because we're the ones who set the rates this body needs to see that plan and understand the full complexity of what we're doing with our sewer treatment plant that is plants which is getting very costly by the week with projects like this I'm not in support of going on More Design efforts for more projects until we have the big picture of the cost for sewer in this region coming forward in the next 10 years and that it's equitably distributed thank you madam mayor my question is for Mr Hall um the disclosure that was read by the ward one member beforehand was rather lengthy and also so new I I guess I'm trying to figure out I don't understand um Miss breus has served on this body for many years and has never read that disclosure and so I'm trying to figure out is this advice that you've made the word one member or has she failed to read the similar disclosure for the last nine years my understanding is that she approached our office and wanted to make a disclosure out of the abundance of caution since her husband works for Sparks so we accommodated that request okay yeah and just for clarification um ethics are A Private Matter and things have to I think I have the floor and I wasn't asking for council member bre re please um that was my first question the second question uh really has to do with um Mr manager your uh comment and I wanted to see if the public had the opportunity to have a better explanation of the 5year CIP because I do think that's important obviously the rate study is is uh coming down the pike I think we'll probably take it up after the Break um uh meaning our summer break I understand that a lot of the constituent stakeholders in the business and development Community who understandably are uh know that a larger rate increase is coming for them is coming down the pike too but can you speak to the CIP for this particular item not to the broader everything under the sun sewer question but just as to this item well I mean I think you know at some point here I'm going to have to defer to Mr Smith um but you know torf is a large and expensive entity it serves a a broad swath of the community in terms of um its sanitary super treatment capabilities um it is unique in terms of um it's the the technical I'm going to sound real dumb here the more sciency parts of of how we treat water and and clean it enough to get back to the river um one part of that is is what we're talking about today where we pull solids out of the water that comes in uh so that it is easier to clean to the standards that are necessary to meet the discharge permit um the center fues are old they don't have redundant capabilities like other portions of tum Warf do and the consequences of failure are immense and what are the consequences of failure the consequences of failure are that we would not be able to meet the standards of the discharge permit thank you appreciate the response okay all right is there anything you wanted to add no no okay I just saw you get up so I wanted to make sure any other comments move do approve all right thank you I have a motion in a second I'll Madam mayor I'm not going to support it I'm not gonna we have got to get ahead of all the costs we are encumbering whether they're revolving Loan Fund debt for up rorf design commitments we have got to get ahead of the costs of the sewer and its relationship to this recycled water effort and we're not going to get there until we are held to having to have that discussion and communicate to the public what the costs are because they are mounting and they are not equitably distributed and in October we'll probably see I would imagine an 8% sewer rate increase on the quarterly for households thank you all right thank you that was discussion I just want to make sure Madam clerk you have that on the record okay so motion and a second all those in favor say I all those opposed no motion carries all right we are heading it back to you at item B5 yeah this is an agreement to an agreement or excuse me an amendment to an agreement for the stonate development and you know Chief I don't know if you're the right person to answer this because the notice says that it's an amendment to the Pud agreement but the language that I see amended in there is this section 5'8 the city manager is authorized to make operational judgments and decisions regarding the administration of this agreement and to accept extend accept or wave performances by the counterparty so it would appear to me that um the administrative executive delegation of this agreement has been broadly increased do you have an answer to how it read before I'm not certain that Chief Cochran is the right person to answer that question I could take stab at it or we could hand it over to Mr Hall okay because 5.8 it says that gives the city council Authority as written and now that Authority is delegated to the um city manager without consult consultation with the council and um it wasn't in the notice I had to pick through it on the reading and furthermore how is the public to know when the manager waves could basically zero out the whole agreement I disagree I think the provision in 5.8 of the original agreement is consistent with the amended agreement with respect to the city maners city managers Authority uh to administer minor uh changes to the public safety facility and the fire facility all other responsibilities of city council are still in the agreement so I don't see any issue I think both uh section four and section 5.8 are consistent so I don't have any issues with the amendment you don't see material that in 5.8 is written that it says unless the city council has limited the authority of the city manager so now the city council cannot bring this before and say hey city manager on this area we're going to limit your Authority now he has unilateral authority to wave all performance of this agreement so I read it it it it amends it does not replace so I again I don't have any issues with the you don't see okay well that's a legal reading I see this is greatly reducing the policy role of this body in a in uh delegated powers to the executive it wasn't even noticed as part of this agreement I won't be supporting this Amendment thank you Madame mayor vice mayor Jordan move to approve I have a motion in a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed opposed motion carries all right um vice mayor Jordan and councilwoman dur I think it was B did we do B B5 yep okay good so B7 I see our visitors in the audience and I just wanted to say this item is a resolution to support endorsing the Nevada Western Heritage Center Alliance um to help Revitalize the renos Sparks Event Center uh a livestock Event Center and I just wanted to say that um I have been at this livestock Event Center for decades and I have long thought that it needed an upgrade even when I was at the uh treky River flood project it was discussed with me potentially moving it out to the middle of the flood plane um nobody really thought that was a good idea but we all knew something needed to be done to make it a really effective and uh a real draw for our community um a place to go I had an opportunity to uh meet with the folks in the audience I'd love to hear from them um on this resolution if that's appropriate Madame mayor but um I was very impressed with the plan that was proposed uh the vision I think that was expressed in that plan and the opportunity to really Elevate what is a livestock Event Center to something much more for our community you know really an outdoor venue for so many different kinds of activities that could be used far more often than just let's say for the rodeo or for a um you know a specialty show but a a a much broader array with better parking and it seemed like everything was better so I'd love to see a presentation or hear something about the proposal yeah if we could all right vice mayor that was going to be mine is to see if Mr Dolan or or M and I I and I just want to let Council know and if you have not seen the plan definitely get with them we saw that the rcva it is phenomenal it would be incredible for this community and for our visitors thank you to Mr deetto for all you do and give back to this community all of you you're all sort of um rock stars in this community as I look at Ethan come on Ethan you got a joke for me somewhere you always got some joke somewhere but would one of you like to come up and talk about it Mr deeto or Mr Dolan come on up and I don't know if staff have a picture or anything to show as far as you know a staffor of Awesomeness and experience would you like to come up and and up real quick just to kind of fill fill in the blanks for the introductions thank you Madame mayor and councel Ashley turny Chief inovation and experience officer for the record um I'm actually the city manager's designate on this board for the Western Regional Alliance Heritage Western herit CER so close um so on behalf of the city manager's office uh we have been in coordination and talks with this board of their efforts to bring forward to each of the municipalities a resolution of support um at this time there is not funding mechanism attached to this this is support from the board as we understand that livestock is in dire need of some updates and um as mayor mentioned this information is available to each of the council members in support for what their plans are uh they have been fortunate and through a lot of their efforts have gone forward to the legislature to receive funding and we'll continue down that in order to make those updates so Mr doretto and Mr Dolan are here to be able to fill in blanks with questions um I know that we don't have a full presentation identified for today as this was a consent item but they can answer quick questions for you today do we though have a picture just um in our backup perhaps I do not believe that we have a picture that is readily available it is in the support documents but based off the existing agenda system we can't pull those both up at the same time gotcha um but it is available to the public online and I would like to just um Mr City Manager for future agenda to put that on so we can have a full presentation because it's pretty impressive I think the community is going to be absolutely um in complete favor it is it is really quite something and you guys have put in a lot of work and it's it's way overdue way overdue so um I'm really excited about this project so so if you want to take a minute and give them a quick update I'll turn over the floor yeah thank you uh Perry deetto I somehow managed to end up as the president of this 501c3 somehow um I I would be remiss if I didn't introduce members of our board of directors who I'm so proud to be serving with michan aaga Olie Miller and Ethan O'Brien joined us today Mr Tom Dolan you've heard the other names uh Mary Simmons um and um others I can't recall right now but I'm usually work used to working off of a PowerPoint but we understood was be a consent agenda item nothing has changed since I've briefed you individually other than the continued intensity of the desire to move this program forward the more we get into it the more we are recognizing the need the potential to broaden this to uh being much more than just a livestock Event Center uh I remember the Glory Days when it was first established the good news is we don't have to start from scratch we've got a head start on this we believe there's funds A available we'll be back when it comes time to look for the money but we are organizing ourselves um I'm very very proud to also announce that Mr Phil satri has recently joined us as an advisor uh to this effort so uh we're all in it we believe in it uh it's a lot of hard work thank you for your consideration of support for for our effort Tom hi I'm Tom Dolan and I uh Perry hauled me in on this deal so but I just want you to know that I've uh I've been in this town for I've worked I've had dealerships for 53 years on on kitsy Lane and you know we've always supported children and we've always supported the the the city and this is a major major deal I mean the people that are behind this are phenomenal I mean when I say phenomenal I mean people that have really mold the city and uh everybody has uh really done a good job as far as um jumping on board um we want to do a couple things what we really want to do is we want to make the Western Heritage stay I mean we're losing the Western Heritage in in in Reno Nevada and that can't happen we've had this Western Heritage we've had the rodeos we've had all that kind of stuff it's all really situated right there and it's in a community that Oscar and we've talked about and uh it's something that we could fix up over there there's some places there's parking we're going to put up a big parking uh facility and and things like that the other thing is in this of which I really like and I'm going to back personally is the support of children and uh I'm just one of those guys that that uh I've supported children all the time in Reno and I really I think it's the future and to keep Western Heritage and the city and everybody around here I'm talking about Sparks Reno everybody from South Virginia all the way up and so I just want you to know that um being being a a supporter of this community for a long time it's the only time I've come to you guys about something that's important to me and that's this sit this deal that we're putting together it's a tough deal to put together it's a lot of work and and naom you're absolutely right it works it it is a lot of work meeting after meeting and he only told me I had to come once a month you know and that's not right he lied to me and I just want that on a record that no it's just a bunch of us have gotten together and it's going to be a good deal with Phil satri now and all the other people and we have everything in the whole city that's going to be working out of that area not only to build that but also to you know to build up the area and uh get the people over there all involved in it and I think it's a real important important situation and District to uh to pick up so anyway thank you very much and I want to going in further because we will be back all right I have a couple of questions for you oh boy we're gonna start with councilman Rees well no hard questions today because we've been uh had the opportunity to talk about it offline but I want to say a couple things number one thank you for uh both you gentlemen and for the other board members continued investment in this community it's uh pretty impressive to see the folks who are associated with it because they're the folks who built the community uh the esqua family obviously Mr deetto and Mr Dolan it really is a joy and we don't get you to be in Chambers enough obviously uh because you're out there doing work and we're up here doing work and so it is nice to see you uh Mr Dolan personally thank you for uh not only this effort because all of you are serving on more than one board but uh for other efforts you've undertaken organ and tissue donation some of the school uh programs that you've initiated those have really affected our kids but I guess ultimately it is that tie to Western Heritage and Western Nevada that we all seek to preserve as an opportunity to understand and know more about the place that we all love so thank you for that too because uh it is being lost now in a couple of weeks the rodeo will be uh getting underway that's very exciting My Hope Is that you'll get Madame mayor into one of those fancy um Wells Fargo wagons when she and I were there last year uh it it's quite an impressive feat but it'd be more impressive with her in the wagon I'm trying to throw her under the bus so I did that last year I did that it's always a fun evening but thank you so much for the effort and yes I do know it's a big lift but hopefully if everybody comes together the state the federal government uh County us everyone will have a role in preserving this important uh Touchstone for our community and uh there's a lot to work ahead but uh thank you for taking the effort and because nothing happens without good folks like you stepping up to uh make that effort so thank you so much thank you all right vice mayor thank you very much and I'll um just Echo some of that I mean you guys just do the work to get it done and and anything that this group of professionals and amazing community members is involved in is is bound to be successful so I'm just going to tell a really quick story because I I think what's important about the livestock Event Center is and children is the memories the memories that are created at the end of as we get older in life that's what we always hearken back to as the memories so I'm going to tell a quick story about 4 uh in 1981 uh at the livestock Event Center when I was showing my grand champion Pig uh Franken swine who I loved dearly and bathed and raised this pig which taught me many many great things in life and I went to 4 and I showed the pig with the cane and I had the white shirt and the green bow and everybody that's been in 4 knows what I'm talking about so I had heard stories though about what happens at the end of the show and your animals get auctioned off and oftentimes we were hearing different slaughter houses and meat packing places we buying all these animals and I was so relieved when my grand champion Pig went up for sale and went up there and I don't even remember uh what it went for I was so excited because a man had bought my pig and I was convinced this man was going to raise it as a pet that man was JN aaga so I was convinced and I didn't find out until years later that my Franken swine was probably at a buffet uh a week later but my point is the memories that are created in these sorts of facilities are those in which we carry forever and so the importance of this can't be overstated so I just wanted to share that story uh I think we're all in on this I love that you'll never forget the memories exactly councilwoman dur yeah and um not a story but just um just I want to put an emphasis on what both of you just said um I moved here in the 70s and um so I'm not fifth generation or anything but I quickly adopted the Nevada way and the Nevada way was take a person at your word you know trust but verify um but a lot of it was oral agreements handshake deals um that's how we rolled and that's how I ran my life you know since I arrived because I came at a young age at 20 I was very impressionable and I was very impressed with what Nevada meant Nevada also where did that come from well to me that came from our Western Heritage and I think you know for years I mean at least 15 years in a row I went to Cowboy Poetry out in Elco and I always you know occasionally there would be little popups maybe something at Bartley maybe something down in Carson City or something but there was never as much a focus here as there was let's say in Virginia City or out in Elco and I always felt that we this is what sets us apart I mean we are not our surrounding states we're not California Oregon Idaho although Idaho has a good Western Heritage as well but we um and we're not Arizona we we are unique nevadans and I think that this is an amazing opportunity to really bring that Heritage to the four so many people are moving here from so many other places you know fast forward now it's 45 years or so since I moved here and um you know many people just moved here yesterday or last year and they're talking to me for example about you know I I hesitate to bring it up but what are these Wild Horses uh you know they they don't understand what's happening here and they don't understand what's so unique and special about here it's not just gaming and the some of the vices that we're known for it's this unique culture and this Heritage whether it's the bass culture whether it's our our uh you know Cowboy culture whe whether it's our Native American culture all of these are what make Nevada Nevada and so different um and then we've had so many immigrants come here from other places that have brought their cultures you know mine included um so we're a Melting Pot but we also need to hold firm I think to uh those that came before and I think this is a great opportunity to both um highlight Western culture as well as highlight the diversity uh who has been part of that when did they come whe you know whether it was I I won't starting a list because I know I'll leave someone out but you I think you get the flavor of where I'm going it's not just one thing it's it's more of a a sense of uh a being and a sense of who we are than any particular person race Creed or even culture so I hope to see that at this Center I think it's a huge opportunity so thank you all right thank you councilman Weber thank you so much just so thankful for what you're doing that uh when I met with you Mr dto Perry um I just wanted to say thank you for putting this this group together both of you all of you um I know as a county commissioner we worked on um on this obviously um we use livestock Event Center um and then on rsva for many years um we've always worked on it but to bring it together like what you want to do and bringing the the Heritage and and what it's going to be for our community and children um it's been good you know I think it's always been good but you're going to make it great and I I just say thank you thank you thank you all right councilman Delgado thank you madam mayor um I won't believe let these gentlemen get out and raise some money and make this thing happen right um but more than anything just want to show my appreciation not only to the both of you but to your board um Ethan uh Mrs swaga uh the family is um your commitment to Community uh the first thing they did is reach out to me and say Oscar we want to make sure that this is embraced by the community that surrounds the livestock events it's not just for everyone outside but it's definitely part of and the long lasting Legacy of the community that surrounds it so how do we make it better uh and so that really touched me in the sense of saying this is what again what we're all about here in Northern NADA especially in Washington County Areno and so your guys' commitment um is weighs and Carries very thoughtfully uh with me and I know with those community members as we don't see to change that Community but we see it how we can better it uh and with the things that we've already done here at the council with respect to the support of all of you with trainer pool with Pat Baker park and this is an added amenity uh also with rtc's the AI and Wells project which is going to be tremendous the first multimodal uh pathway in Ron waser County this is going to be an added asset to that so I appreciate all the hard work he has to put in look forward to continuing to work with you on this and I know the community is also excited about the opportunities as well so thank you Madame mayor all right thank you I also want to call out our very own Paul Gordon we've but um you have done a tremendous job too we've sat down many times and talked about how important this is to you and so I want to say thank you because it really means a lot so and Rachel uh tremendous job really tremendous job so with that being said in honor of Mr asaga I would love to see a motion um and I'm going to send it to councilman dogado it's your word Madame mayor move to approve and support resolution I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries unanimously congratulations thank you thank you so much and please indulge me for just one minute because I would be missed if I didn't make sure for clarity this effort started long before this board was formed the Reno Rodeo Association as you know took a million dollars of their money and got a matching Grant of a million dollars from the state to advance it to the point where it is um Rachel help me out I I need to mention our other directors Mary Simmons is is on our board keran Satler who will be the rodeo president in uh 20 24 uh Dr Andrew morenzi uh Clint Theses from Summit Engineering who's dedicated so much time and effort to this and also uh Mike tvin and um of the rodeo did I okay all that without a without it okay I'm doing good all right well thank you so much this is way more than what our expectations were and uh we will not let you or the city down we're going to give this our best effort we're more than happy to support this is really important so when Terry when uh Perry speaks we all [Laughter] listen is that true oh yeah ask Ethan but thank you very much I appreciate your those very kind comments and all that kind of stuff but I'll tell you what it's something we have to keep in this town and please support I mean whatever we can do together and talk this up and all that kind of stuff we can keep that place good and you know about your pig okay that's the building that we're probably going to knock down but we're going to make it a nice one it's going to be beautiful over there okay just keep the pig around okay thank you I love it the ever famous Tom Dolan everyone thank you okay Madam Clerk we'll send it right back to you thank you Madame mayor we're moving on to our C items today our public hearings item C1 okay Meridan 120 South open space okay thank you um at this time Madam clerk let the record reflect that the city council is now opening the public hearing Madam clerk was proper notice given and any correspondence received thank you Madame mayor proper notice was given and no correspondence was received for item C1 okay at this time I'm going to ask staff for a presentation all right thank you Madame mayor council members for the record Nathan Gilbert senior planner so the issue on review this morning uh is a request for a master plan Amendment from mixed employment to Parks Greenways in open space and rezoning from industrial commercial to Parks Greenways in open space uh this is on an 8.3 acre uh portion of an 80 acre larger parcel uh just uh southeast of Boomtown Garson road so a little bit of background uh in June of 2020 Council approved the Meridian 120 South Villages 1 through six and added a condition of approval number 28 requiring a zone change from industrial commercial uh to the open space designation uh turns out this required a corresponding master plan Amendment and that's what you are reviewing today as far as compatibility uh Parks Greenways and open space master plan and Zoning does designations are consistent with the surrounding open space areas uh this designation will be deed restricted uh per the mortson Carson overlay district code standards the Planning Commission was able to make all master plan and zoning map Amendment findings uh recommended unanimous approval is six in favor uh staff recommends to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and improve the master plan amendment by resolution and refer the zoning map Amendment for a second reading and adoption thank you thank you um at this time um if that is the is that staff's complete presentation well that that was very brief okay at this time I believe we will move into a presentation by Mr Gordon and then we'll open it up for questions for both that was a very brief presentation which hopefully Mr Gordon yours will be equally as mine as well thank you for the record Garrett Gordon today on behalf of BT South so as Nathan mentioned in June uh 2020 this body approved the tentative map for Meridian 120 South that included Villages one and two three and four five and six that was approved two years ago our plan is now today to finalize three conditions of approval with this body in order to move forward with final maps and development this item before you right now is the first uh condition there'll be two other at the next agenda item what have we been doing for the last two years since this was approved as this body knows Final maps have to be approved within four years after tenative map approval so what have we been doing the last two years why aren't we have a shovel on the ground yet well number one we participated in numerous stakeholder meetings for an M good text amendment process you'll hear a little bit about this item nextend agenda item uh that has now been definitely postponed so there's no more text amendment process it's been postponed again we'll talk about that next agenda item number two for the last two years we've successfully defended litigation by The verd Neighborhood group judge Freeman denied their petition in August of 2021 however that neighbors again appealed to Nevada Supreme Court to run out this four-year clock but we're ready to move forward finalize these three conditions and get a shovel on the ground for so much needed housing so as Nathan mentioned there's three conditions we're dealing with today this agenda item is number 28 and what does this do it's down zoning our property we're coming to you today to say we want to satisfy condition number 28 which says eight Acres of industrial land that's currently zoned and master plan in this area and as this body knows would absolutely be ready for Prime development from an industrial developer we're saying down Zone this property to open space given that was the uh agreement uh and the condition of approval that we made with this city council in order to move the tenative map forward as Nathan mentioned you can see in the lower lefthand corner it's currently Zone industrial it's now being converted to open space mixed employment master plan converted to open space so I don't think I've ever done this before but I'm requesting you to uh please down Zone my client's property in accordance with a condition of approval I look forward to talking about the other two conditions the next agenda item thank you thank you very much councilwoman breus um Mr um Gilbert so on Mr uh Gordon's slide he actually had something that was a question of mine which was um I thought we were amending the Morton and Garson area plan we were going to go back in and do an amendment and and uh you know relook at all the change conditions there and he said it was postponed by the City of Reno in 21 December 21 who who did that cuz I thought it was Miss jardan who asked for that the council con you know consented to that and we were going to amend the Morton Garson plan area that's correct and Nathan Gilbert senior planner we'll get into that with the with the next item but as far as the postponement of work yes it it stopped who stopped it staff at advice of the city attorney's office oh the attorney said don't don't don't do your legislative duties okay so um I I need to understand the relationship and maybe this is for the body of the you know those who are here of this um item before I vote on the other ones but he he said and and I've never seen it before um and I don't I don't dispute that it happened but that a condition of approval was a subsequent leg legislative change of resoning these properties that was part of the June 2020 approval of the uh Rodan 120 Sal Villages out and then what's this property because I've seen time and time again property have a an open space designation on it and someone come forward to say I've got a parcel I have no property rights you have to let me develop here so usually the fix on that is to put it hand inand with the deed restriction that's correct that's code that's actually specifically in the Mortenson Garson overlay District be deed permanently deed restricted and then who will own it uh the applicant still still owns it well oftentimes planning through their approval requires the standup of a homeowners association so you don't have a property owner you know die dis uh dis dissolve it's usually connected to an instrument that will maintain a property for a long time we we can't condition master plan amendments or zoning map amendments yeah but you could have conditioned the you you did condition a tenative map that was that condition was added by city council city council okay well that puts us in a tough spot I think um but I'll wait to hear what others say but I really I I'm not going to be able to take a vote on this until I understand the relationship to some of the other conditions so particularly because there was a road that went through here thank you was that a question yeah under our rules we each get three minutes and then we get a second three minutes so since my time's expired I'll I'll follow up on that but I was I was looking for that I didn't see it in the staff you know report but I saw it on his map thanks okay I'll come back to you if there's no other questions all right any other questions go ahead vice mayor J um move to approve item C11 oh excuse me I was asking for my second round of three minutes back to you Council yeah so we have them so um Mr Gilbert on his slide and Madame um clerk could you show that again um and I you know look I get that sometimes the body planning commissioner city council put conditions on and sometimes they're not very well crafted by the body that's why we have technical staff to help us so I appreciate the fact that the council applied that said go back and do this rezoning but didn't you know take uh that next step that it's normal of approvals to have it make sure you have a an instrument to manage this property for a long time could could you all go through cuz could you mam clerk could you put up my presentation please yes no no I did want your was yours the one that showed the road going through yes yeah so yes the alignment uh does run through a portion of of it so can you put a road through the open space you can put a road through open space that's one of the very limited I thought there was one along the backside of that open space on maybe on his slide this is per our mapping system okay I thought his showed and then um and then are the subsequent issues to amend conditions the next item on the agenda for the tentative correct so the council could say through that tenative um make the homeowners association manage this open space so that you know whoever owns this The Entity doesn't dissolve someone die and then we have a a Remnant little parcel hanging out there in in Reno potentially yeah thank you all right any other questions there are none I had a motion and a second all those in favor say I I I all those opposed opposed motion carries all right you ready Madam clerk sending it back to you thank you madam mayor Madame mayor Madame mayor carall for the record so just for the record we opened C11 C12 and C13 so um with respect to the ordinance introduction I I need to go ahead and read that all right C13 so ordinance introduction bill number 7210 ordinance to amend Title 18 chapter 18.02 of the Reno Municipal Code entitled zoning rezoning uh plus or minus 8.3 acre portion of an 80.6 4 acre parcel generally located 0.21 miles Southwest of the intersection of Boom Boomtown Carson Road and Oldtown Road from industrial commercial to Parks Greenways and open space together with other matters which pertain to or are necessarily connected therewith W five all right what do you need us motion motion okay so Madame mayor I guess my question is was C12 and C13 can can we take those separately we have to take them separately or can we take them together or didn't we just vote on one I think just for clarity if we take them separately I think it okay that's where I was getting Lo CU because one of them is an introduction so um okay so C1 to move to approve all right I have a motion I have a second all those in favor yeah Madame mayor I'm not going to support um because I really object to rezoning lands to open space with essentially no development rights without I appreciate it's deed restricted because that gets into market conditions but if you don't have an instrument to care for this this property can go on the tax rolls D linkid not have anyone responsibility it's it's highrisk fire area it'll be a nightmare for COD to come out there Trace down ownership it's very problematic I would encourage the thoughtful consideration of amending this tenative map to make the H Owners Association responsible for this Remnant parcel thank you okay so I have a motion and a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries okay back to Madame mayor just for an additional point of clarification um can we ask Madam clerk if we took a public comment on these items I asked you when we opened we did ask when we opened C11 C12 C13 there was no public comment and no correspondence received okay thank you thank you okay vice mayor move to refer I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I I all post okay all right sending it back to you vice mayor thank you very much um that was C13 correct C1 yeah that was C13 so we are on item C2 at this time per okay I could I just want a clarification I only remember voting twice um so we just voted on C so we voted on C12 so now I need a motion on C13 that's what I thought that's why my apologies confusing anybody um I thought that was a motion to uh refer which was item C13 but we were actually on C12 and that's what you asked three separate motions we no I have three motions we're we're all set we're on item C2 well our attorney was confused too so okay so we are now for clarification on C2 I'm going to send it back to you Madam clerk let the the record reflect that the city council is now opening the public hearing um Madam clerk uh was proper notes given and any correspondence received thank you madam mayor for item C2 proper notice was given we did receive correspondence in 21 um comments which were directly associated with this agenda item prior to 4m yesterday we had one comment in favor 18 in opposition and two comments of concern we do have some live public comment and I've got a handful of voicemails but we'll transition into live public comment first if you would like thank you our first public commenter today is Michael Hill followed by Michaela Davies followed by Ed Coffer hello I'm Michael Hill I am one I apologize for my dress code I was not aware that there might be a dress code here no you look fine thank you oh you're you're absolutely fine don't um up I am worried about the development of that area because it has for a long time been used as public lands for people to go hiking on go camping on um and it borders very closely to the National Forest Area I am an avid Outdoorsman an avid shooter and a veteran and and just this past weekend I had four friends from the Netherlands out there right on the um National Forest Area we all went shooting and from their vacation here thus far starting in Vegas going through Zion National Park going up to Yus they said that was the highlight of their entire vacation thus far I am worried about this Development Area because I'm worried about it encroaching on the ability of people to enjoy the public lands of the national forest um without un uh without undo um issue it used to be you could just walk right in there from the Oldtown Road Access Road take a tent take a backpack in there hike in there be able to camp out you know go in there a decent we in go with a couple of guns and your buddies and go shooting as long as you weren't uh still within the congested area and now the only real way to even get back to a point where you can do any outdoor activities is if you have some sort of off-road vehicle to take that access road into the national forest this severely limits the ability for um people without as much funds because they can't get a side by side an off-road vehicle those sorts of things in order to be able to access the area for public use and for them to be able to enjoy the outdoor space um I yield the rest of my time back right thank you CL sorry Madame mayor trying to coordinate a couple different things here um Ed Coffer followed by Argus or I'm sorry Aris followed by Alice house good morning I'm Ed Coffer I'm here for the society for the preservation of ver and I have a few things I'd like to share with you the city acknowledges that the cap for the MGD is 3,000 units it's Undisputed that the MGD still rules Meridian South properties removing condition four is very clearly a violation of the MGD The District Court denied the prj because condition four held the project to the cap BT South counselor states that San Lucas is a false narrative San Lucas is relevant to all MGD properties Stan Lucas won at the at the court because the MGD was completely misapplied BT South and the council have completely misapplied the mdod the use comes from RMC but the number comes from mjod those involved into the history and a lot of us have been here since the Inception know the MGD intent senior planner Nathan Gilbert has been involved in the MGD from the beginning the Verdi residents have been involved in the mjod and Verdi residents have backup documentation but the developer and the council were not involved developer bought the property knowing of the special development requirements developer is trying to avoid the legal requirements of mgot the City of Reno senior planner again States 30,000 allocated to the property owners residentials allowed an AC subject to the Caps of the MJ which would limit capacity we agree with Nathan's recommendations I have appeared before this body and several other bodies of the city over the last five years and I've stood up here every time a arbit arbitary and capricious decision has been made by the city you can't set the rules then turn around and bend them to suit the developer and what other issues may be involved we're going to we're going to hold you accountable for enforcing the rules that the city has in fact established so I thank you for your time oh one other thing I I still have a couple seconds um Lawrence belli has been a resident out there for 85 years he's 91 years old and he's not doing well so he asked me if I'd be kind enough to read a short letter to you this morning and with your Indulgence I'll do that Mr belly States I am 100 I and 100% of the belly Ranch blue hair and subdivision are against you allowing more than one house per acre on Meridian 1 and two there'll be small a Jo in Parcels it will forever change our established neighborhood of 50 plus years the main reason we object is that we had no protection or knowledge of the change thank you have PowerPoint uh not quite oh good morning Addie Aris we've taken a few slides from counselor's presentation Planning Commission to show how MGD has been manipulated misinterpreted misapplied in the top right is a parcel zoned AC that has two numbers by it Acres if commercial use 242 dwelling units if residential use now this parcel isn't on counselor's map because it proves if you use AC Zoning for residential you have to have the duus and it counts towards the cap counselor here has misinterpreted MGD by saying the cap only applies to residential zoning and uses table 240 as proof but there are two commercially zoned prop properties on that table that are being used for residential table 240 represents all land used for residential and proves if you use commercially zoned property for residential you must have the duus and it accounts towards the cap additionally Meridian 4 was IC not HC counselor has misapplied the percentages in this code the percentages are applied to the changes in the density it distribution not the 3,000 cap there is no density bonus counselor is just wrong on subsection one here the plain language of this MGD law is all properties regardless of zoning that are used for residential cannot exceed 3,000 when added together this is verbatim verbiage from the handbook that was manipulated by counselor and a PC commissioner the non-residential equivalents in the verbiage which are hotel rooms are what are excluded from the 3,000 limitation per backup documentation and emails from Washo County assistant DA mateline Shipman who signed the settlement agreement the exclusion from the 3000 limitation was the existing boom hotel and the 2100 room Hotel Boomtown had a permit to build counselor and commissioner velto omitted the verbiage including non-residential equivalents in order to change the meaning of the sentence to favor BT South neither counselor nor commissioner velto have any background history of MGD they don't have any backup documents we do do neither of them asked any questions about the verbage they just eliminated it this is the land use plan I worked on this plan and the handbook MGD has to be taken as a whole it's not ambiguous it's just been manipulated as evidenced by counselor's presentation thank you so is it the left hand click hello Alice house for the record we are here again to have our voices heard Alice I apologize if you don't mind turning the microphone to face oh sorry thank you Alice house for the record sorry Villages three and four were conditionally approved if condition cannot be met the property has to be used for the intended purpose commercial use counselor's options contradict each other counselor's First Option says they are exempt from the cap counselor's second option says we are subject to the cap increase it application acknowledges they are subject to the cap verbiage manipulated by counselor and PC commissioner Alex velto up to 3,000 I'm so sorry am I clicking the wrong one I'm [Music] sorry um okay now verbiage manipulated by the counselor and the PC commissioner Alex VTO up to 3,000 residential units including non-residential equivalents on the remainder of the properties which elimination does not include the 124 and the 176 Acres noted above a nonresidential equivalent is a hotel room backup docum documentation and emails from the was County assistant DA Marilyn Chipman who signed the settlement agreement the exclusion from the 3,000 cap is the existing Boomtown hotel and the 21 room Hotel boom Town had permitted for the exception was tied to what was on the Boomtown property at the time of the settlement our intentions are not to delay this project but instead to have the city uphel uphold the unique codes and restrictions and conditions that govern the verd area BT South and their counselor are very aware of these or they would not be here trying to elim eliminate the condition misss before you today BT South brought bought this property knowing these rules existed they continue to try and skirt around the rules costing the neighbors great expense and precious family time we are here for the love of our community I leave you with these questions why is BT South's counselor here today could be BT South be spending their time and money coming up with a more compatible project within the guidel lines thank you for your time and thank you for hearing the folks in ver ey thank you Dean Radcliff followed by Diane buzzle hello members of the Reno city council and Madame mayor thank you very much for your service my name is Dean Radcliffe and I am a 40 plus year resident of ver I have been passion about verd for my entire adult life and was fortunate to serve on the verd citizens Advisory Board from 1999 to 2005 this of course was the time that these Verde properties were annexed into the City of Reno and the settlement agreement was reached the Morton and garon development standards handbook and Morton and Garson overlay District resulted from the annexation lawsuit and I was fortunate to worked on all of these as the chair of the Verdi cab today you all represent a city that Annex Verde properties and made promis a contract on how these properties would be developed it was agreed that there would be up to 3,000 dwelling units on all properties in total all properties all planning areas all zoning could have no more than 3,000 homes when added together this is in code it's code 15 the administrative amendments of the MGD and this was a truth promised to all residents of ver ey Boomtown has 753 dwelling units allocated for the settlement agreement you'll not by reviewing this simple math here on my slide that they are over their allocation by 292 units as the equations note it is really all math it is up to 3,000 dwelling units as you note if one property owner's number goes up another property owners has to go down the right side or that 3,000 of the equation can never go up but it can go down for example s Tera wants in addition of their 1,180 units then Morton and Boomtown quy must go down in their number of units this is Santa's application submitted in October of 2020 which complies with the Morton and Garson overlay district and allocation of units the plain language in the code is clear all properties regardless of zoning that are used for residential cannot exceed 3,000 when added together can I have a density bonus if the maximum number of homes is 3,000 can I put an extra 300 on a some acreage and the new total number of homes is 3,300 no the amendments are clear the cap is 3,000 total BT South bought the property knowing of the special development requirements now they are trying to avoid the MGD the commercial properties are reflected in the land use plan as is the Zoning for the residential areas so what does verdi want the questions are here on the slide I'd love for everyone to think about them how is this good for the community what has changed to justify what is best for the community and why does council want this if it's not good for the community those are my questions as you know I bring my lovely Morton and garon development standards handbook that I still have you guys because I'm at packrat at heart um from October 2003 um so I attended more meetings than I can ever recall um spoke at The Old City Hall and again I I'm very passionate about ver I thank you very much for your time and attention and I want to give a special kudos to Mickey and her staff oh my gosh you guys have been amazing thank you thank you Diana buzzle followed by Michaela Davies in additionally we have one public commenter in Zoom chance reading hi my name is Diana bazelle for the record I have lived in my house for a long time and I don't plan on on leaving I will apologize to my neighbors for that I have no idea why this development has been forced upon us and why it has and is still not being appealed to the fullest extent you as a group at one point noted that adding all of these houses and businesses were not safe with our current infrastructure we have one Bridge one on-ramp that includes all of belly Ranch the existing neighborhood I live in all of the houses you want to put up on the hill we still have one bridge and one offramp but since now we are still moving forward I want you all to consider a lot of reasons why it doesn't serve the greater good of our neighborhood or anybody else to allow these measures to be removed just the other day I was trying to get home and I was stopped because there was a semi going north and a pickup truck with a ski boat not a big boat a regularized boat going south and they could not get across the bridge at the same time if two common Vehicles can cause gridlock on a normal day what do you think there's going to be an an emergency could you could you please just take a minute to consider how we feel the people who have lived there for years imagine you you find yourself at home where it takes 10 15 minutes to grab the essentials the kid the dog maybe your husband and leave in an emergency now imagine I add a thousand cars to your neighborhood that's a thousand more people that's going to bring you to a minimum of 30 to 40 minutes to get to the highway if you live on the far part of belli and you're competing with people from the other side of the development as I said we're still at one onramp I understand what the developers Engineers say and I've taken architecture I've taken engineering and I can tell you to a point it's a paid opinion I can find an an engineer that will say there's three cars perh houses in ver if you keep letting them change the rules you're telling them they can do whatever they want if they don't have to do the required Highway access for safety because it's not convenient for them or they didn't plan it out correctly in the first place the development should be cut in size to what can safely be evacuated with a fire moving West from kichi Ranch this should also include the houses built on the north side of the highway Cabella's customers boomtown's customers the Comm commercial customers remember we're all still on one bridge and one on-ramp even if they don't live their fulltime if there's a fire they got to go on one onramp that's a lot of people some of us might not make it Michaela Davies followed by chance reading good morning um my name is Kaya Davies and I represent the society for the preservation of verd most of which you have just heard speak um I just want to start out by saying that I guess just two years ago you all issued this decision which is now on appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court and notwithstanding our discrepancies regarding the legality of this decision you are now being asked to amend two amendments that you insisted on including because you all felt that you are bound by a law to put in there and now BT South is asking you to remove them and I won't I won't reiterate what the members have so eloquently stated about the legal validity of doing that but I just want to state that mg God is law it's codified in the Reno Municipal Code you are bound to follow it and district courts most recently right have stated that if there's any ambiguity you look to the handbook the law means something and what the Verdi members have stated is exactly what that means the 3,000 cap applies to residential units and um not to be antagonistic or anything like that but I mean just really consider what you're being asked to do right you issued this decision for a reason you included those requirements for a reason and now you're being asked to remove them so with that I will leave but thank you thank you give us just a moment to move chance reading over okay thank you hello thank you chance go ahead and state your name for the record and you have three minutes uh my name is Chance reading I am a ver resident and a member of the Verde Community Council I'm sorry that I could not be there in person today um can I just verify you guys can hear me okay we can thank you um I can't say that I'm surprised that we're in this position um I know the developer playing the poor me role um of how the residents are delaying their their progress um I I find that um really kind of absurd this developer has not conceited on one item this entire time and has forced our hands um as they've tried to change this code um and they've seemingly you know been assisted in doing so um this 3,000 unit cap is 3,000 and I I I know we're in strange times in our world but I don't know when 3,000 not did not become 3,000 um I think that the kind of precedent that we're going to set by allowing them to go over this cap even with this exception that they've written in is basically allowing them to do the same exact thing on all the other area that they haven't built on the open space as um council member mentioned earlier is an issue um what if one of these buildings is torn down and that developer says well they built over the 3,000 so now we can you know what if Boomtown comes down or what if one of those warehouses comes down in 20 years now those can just be built those developments too um you know I think it says up to 3,000 and the mg is very clear up to up to up to it does not say you are entitled to that um if there are units available and they can go get them in the planning area then that's what they should do um you know that should be on them though uh that that area was designed for commercial use it was designed for a reason because we have very limited commercial resources and they the ones that we have right now are already being overrun with just the new residence that we simply have I don't think that town homes built on top of the highway are some sort of high demand creature that we must slip in here um there's you know like I said there's basically no commercial um in that whole rust Reno area and unfortunately for them if they're going to pursue this 3,000 is the hill that birdey residents are willing to die on and um if they want to avoid more delays and more conflict then I would highly recommend that they find a better use for this that's compatible with the existing rules so thank you for your time [Music] right thank you thank you Madame mayor at this time we'll transition into the voicemails just for the record there are eight of them okay thank hi I'm Anna Tiner leaving a message about project l dc21 d38 I am a Reno West Reno resident I'm very opposed to increasing the number of homes being built we already have the lawsuit agreement why on Earth would you go against it it's ruining the quality of life in our area the Environ environmental impact is terrible it's creating dust uh it's an isore it's creating too much traffic for the existing infrastructure The Strain on our electrical sewage power water is absurd all it's going to do is raise existing homeowners taxes for no good reason this needs to be limited they are not putting in any new recreational amenities like a pool a golf course a tennis court for the community all they have done is destroy the existing very popular recreational site where the homes are that used to be used for hikers bikers ATV riders horseback Riders like myself and it's destroying that entire area now we can't access it it's no trespassing so the one good amenity we used to have in our area for recreation has been absolutely decimated ruined and destroyed by the project adding more homes will just ruin it even further this needs to stop you're turning our area into a bedroom community which is not sustainable economically it's foolish as anyone in responsible government knows you need a mixture of uses and you need infrastructure and smart planning like parks and Open Spaces that has not been done here is an absolute disaster and the voters are not going to stand for this so do not allow more development stop it now yeah just wanted to call and express concern on Project number LDC 21- 000038 that's the Meridian 120 development out in ver ey my understanding is that uh they're trying to build two and three story triplexes in within this development which is not legally allowed within the uh development terms so I wanted to voice my concern on that thank you hi this is Donovan Greenwell I live at 2425 Warrior Lane I'm calling in reference to the project LDC 21- 000038 Meridian 120 out in verdy I'm calling to please stress a no vote for the increase above the 3,000 cap and the two and three story triplexes this is a rural setting um kids horses dogs um and the the original cap was set at 3,000 and now they want to add two and three story triplexes to this area this would be a horrible fit for this area not having any transportation buses out there I do not believe this is a good idea so please put nonan green roll down for a suggested no vote thank you my name is immanu hello Mich I would like to talk about um the issue of Meridian 120 South that is coming up in front of city council tomorrow um I am in opposition of this approval in June 2020 this has been approved with certain conditions now the developer wants to change some of these conditions under which it has been approved I am in opposition of changing the conditions the developer has changed the zoning um to arterial commercial this does not change the fact that infrastructure is lagging behind development all over ver and westo infrastructure for example includes that the homes are on Wells and there will be um a lack of groundwater there's also a drainage problem there's a traffic and safety problem in case of a fire there might not be enough evacuation routes for residents and I also want to talk about the issues of schools um these kids will go to probably Verdi Elementary and it will take a decade until a new elementary school is built verd Elementary is already flowing over my kids had to be sent to Middle School a year early because verd Elementary is flowing over but the middle schools are not better off either so I deeply oppose more development without putting in more infrastructure thank you by my name is Katherine Smith I live on Blue Heron Circle and have for um over 50 years I have watched the natural reforestation of the area designated um at the moment I can't find it oh LDC 22 [Music] 238 and that is um to to allow a developer to put um triplexes in an area that is being Naturally reforested by um the the by Nature among other things and uh that would carry the cap well over 3,000 which has been agreed to in the um Morton and Garson settlement agreement the ver settlement agreement regarding development please we reject any additional homes we're not opposed to growth but we are opposed to destroying the Morton and Garson agreement thank you very much goodbye hello I'm calling in regard to Reno project number LDC [Music] 21-38 my name is minan tinum and I live on live and own the property at 2200 Blue Heron Circle I would like to leave this comment I am opposed to the meridian 120 Property Owners request to increase the number of homes and allow 2085 two and three story triplexes in the area close to my property the request goes against the Mortenson Garson overlay district and the settlement agreement I am asking the Reno City counil to abide by the mortson Garson handbook and the Morton gar Garson overlay district and the terms of the Verdi settlement agreement and I and to reject the Meridian 120 property owner's request thank you for listening all my name is Paul Smith I'm calling in regards to LDC 21-0 0038 the Meridian 120 project where the owners are wanting to increase the size of the um buildings permits above the 3,000 I live in the Bell Ranch area that road is already uh small can I don't see how it's going to handle 3,000 little alone more so I am against uh them building any more in that area um thank you again my name is Paul Smith I live in Lynch you need to know the address is 4851 team of Canyon Road in Reno thank you bye hi my name is Rick Harris I live in valet Ranch and I'm calling um for the Meridian 120 um that's on the agenda tonight and um I just want to voice my opinion that the request to go above the 3,000 cap that was agreed to should not be allowed um so that's what I'm against thank you very much 550 River Bend Drive we know thank [Music] you all right Madame mayor and with that we have no additional public comment we're looking to move into staff presentation okay thank you so much all right Nathan it's all you all right thank you madam mayor members of the council Nathan Gilbert senior planner so the issue on review uh this afternoon is a request to amend conditions of approval for the Meridian 120 South Villages 1 through six project you can see it illustr the the uh extent of the those approvals the crosshatch on this graphic specifically the request is to delete condition number 31 related to a temporary secondary emergency access road and to modify condition number four designating 285 residential units in the arterial commercial Zone these cases uh villages 1 through six were approved concurrently by Council on June 10th 2020 a little bit of background on the Morton and garison area uh this area was was annexed in 2001 uh the city was sued by Washo County and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement between the county and the City of Reno outlining development parameters um in 2004 that that settlement agreement was implemented through uh adoption by city council of Base zoning a Morton Garson overlay zoning District overlay and a corresponding Mortenson garison development standards handbook that settlement agreement expired in 2012 so since then uh the plan area is largely built out or or fully entitled uh the plan area uh was broken down into planning area one which is north of the tury river planning area 2 South of the tury river and planning area three south of Interstate 80 each of these planning areas outline uh certain the maximum amount of residential dwelling units allowed within each um planning area one uh Stan Lucas project uh was appealed or excuse me approved uh it allows for 676 units and is ultimately approved for 632 planning area two allows for 525 residential units there are 10 remaining uh with the approvals of the Bluffs apartments in the Meridian 120 North uh subdivision planning Area 3 uh allows for 1,799 with the approval of the meridian 120 Villages 1 through six in addition to the Santa quy properties uh there remain remains a residential development capacity in planning Area 3 of 153 units residential units that being said there's there's still a 26 acre uh M multif family residential 14 units per acre uh project site uh the Meridian 120 South was approved in 20120 and with that staff analysis it noted inconsistencies between the uh overlay Zone and the development standard handbook uh specifically with unit allocation whether or not zoning is conceptual and things of that nature while they were adopted at the same time the handbook and the zoning overlay there were a few inconsistencies that didn't get carried forward uh to address some of that a text amendment was initiated uh the handbook provided a process to assign development potential to specific property owners and it allowed transfer of that development potential through notorized consent so this graph here uh shows who was who was allocated what in the original handbook 1,562 with the overall allowed 1,799 residential units in planning Area 3 were identified as Santa quilis portion sure correct the the aqua blue and sort of light blue that's correct okay that's the Sant quicy portion and and that matches yeah got it thank you uh one thing that has remained consistent is that 3,000 uh unit cap that was in the settlement agreement that was in the handbook that's carried over in the overlay District it reads uh what currently reads in code is the total amount of development resulting from any change in density shall not exceed 3,000 dwelling units and 300 commercial acres cumulatively for all properties in the mg uh condition number four as was approved by by Council in 2020 uh was intended to address that first come first serve scenario at that time we didn't know we knew Santa was coming we didn't want to over allocate uh the the development potential um within planning Area 3 and so that condition uh was was recommended to address that uh since 2020 several lawsuits have been filed Tech text Amendment work was stopped uh one of them was the society for preservation of Verdi versus BT South in the City of Reno that's pending in Nevada supreme court hearing uh the Stan Lucas versus City of Reno was decided by the Second Judicial Court decision and they give guidance and saying it is envisioned that the handbook will be development standards applicable to the properties and be adopted by reference as a part of the Reno Municipal Code overlay districts Reno Municipal Code will apply where matters are not specifically addressed by the handbook in the event of a conflict between the handbook and re Municipal Code the handbook shall apply so just a frame of reference uh I think that's enough background with the specific conditions at hand uh the request to delete condition number 21 or excuse me 31 that required temporary secondary emergency access I know it's hard to see in this graphic but that was the tentative uh alignment that's in addition to the secondary access uh that's also required by a separate condition this wasn't a staff recommendation or recommendation by the fire department this was added by the city council at the public hearing uh since that uh 2020 approval the Santa quility properties was approved in 2021 and uh permanent secondary access is currently under construction through the site our requests for condition uh to modify condition number four which requires either a text Amendment to the MGD to increase the number of units allowed within planning Area 3 or a mutually agreed upon reallocation of units in place to accommodate the number of units proposed with the final cap a request to modify excuse me the applicant's request is to modify condition the condition to specify that 285 residential units are allowed in the AC zone of planning Area 3 uh Planning Commission heard this item in April 20202 uh discussion included that additional temporary fire access was no longer needed the capacity of dwelling units and unit allocation in planning Area 3 whether the mjod dwelling unit cap is applicable to commercial zoning and overall questions on the status of the text Amendment the Planning Commission recommends on a 42 vote that Council delete conditions 4 and 31 staff's recommendation will be to maintain the existing condition with striking reference to any um further text amendments it would read prior to the recreation of each final map for villages 3 four 5 and six the applicant shall provide documentation that mutually agreed upon reallocation of units is in place to accommodate the number of units proposed within the final map and that concludes my presentation all right thank you Nathan okay Mr Gordon [Music] for the record Garett Gordon today on behalf of BT South so as you heard today's request this agenda item is to modify two conditions of approval again the background is this tenative map was approved in 2020 this city council found all findings for all six Villages infrastructure schools water sewer roadway capacity the findings were all met Villages one and two were 75 units Villages five and six were large uh residential units and most importantly I say most importantly given the housing shortage we're in right now are the triplexes it was important to this Council to have some density to have some mixed densities out here in response to missing middle housing So today we're focused on that missing middle housing Villages three and four approve for 285 units for the triplexes and the conditions I'm asking you to modify today will allow those Tri plexes to get built and move forward so two conditions of approval we need amended number four and number 31 they are impossible to comply with as written today if this Council takes no action or denies our request this project is dead the Reno Planning Commission recommended removing both of these conditions the first one being number 31 I thought Mr Gibble did did a good job existing condition number eight requires secondary remote access by the 256 residents that will stay in place that was approved by the fire marshal in 2020 and will remain as a condition of approval at that hearing in 2020 city council added condition 31 to uh uh request us to attempt a temporary emergency access point to connect to I80 now that's no longer a necessary and B it's not allowed it's not necessary because as Mr Gilbert mentioned the actual Road alignment has already been approved on the Santa tenative map and is under construction so there's no longer a need for temporary emergency access and staff agrees because it's in place and for those of you may have been driven by this area recently you can see that road is under construction but two it's just impossible to satisfy here's an email from endot saying that endot and the feder high Federal Highway Administration is not going to allow another access point off I80 so staff agrees Fire Marshall agrees we're respectfully asking you to remove condition number 31 because it's impossible to satisfy and no longer necessary the second condition again this deals with our 285 triplexes that are desperately needed here's the condition we're asking you to delete today as written it gave us two options for moving forward with these Villages one to do a text Amendment and two to go reach out to other developers and ask them for their units number one text amendment process was indefinitely postponed there's no longer a text amendment process only city council and Planning Commission can initiate a text Amendment we can't go do it on our own why is that process dead and let me say first first of all we have participated in good faith for the last two years sat at dozens of stakeholder meetings talked to Residents talked to council member jargon as part of that process the only thing we needed in that text amendment was to comply with this condition to verify we can do our triplexes that was it everything else in the text amendment was going to be What the residents wanted new Ridgeline definitions new Wildlife corridor new fire assessment fees about 95% were issues the residents wanted resolved we just needed to resolve this condition of approval with the triplexes why is that on hold because the neighbors behind us are suing us your city attorney's office is saying we're not moving forward with a text Amendment because the neighbors are suing you and the city is also being sued by the lawyer for um for Stan Lucas so I think it's unfair for someone the the testimony you heard earlier that keep the condition as it is that was agreed to by everyone involved when the neighbors continue to Sue and prevent us to get a text amendment that we've been participating in for good faith so we're asking you to please remove that text Amendment condition because it's impossible to satisfy because it's indefinitely postponed this number two what staff mentioned why don't you just go out there and do a horse trading for other units those words two words are very important mutually agreed upon we have in good faith went and talked to other developers and there's no mutual agreement for the reallocation of units so now we have a condition number four that we don't have an agreement with other developers in a mutual agreed upon fashion and the text amendment process is basically dead so if we don't take action on this item today condition four final map for villages 3 four five and six can never move forward and this project is dead the only issue I've heard about why we can't remove this condition number four is this cap I assert to you that cap does not apply to commercial zoning and how can I say that number one here's a table you can see planning area one planning area two planning area three Center land use designation single family single family multif family single family dwelling units on the right hand side 3,000 commercial units and Mick you just want to make sure I don't run out of time I don't know let going 3,000 residential units nothing in there refers to AC zoning there is no cap for AC Zoning for residential you heard folks earlier hold up a handbook and a settlement agreement but let's actually read it rather than just holding it up the settlement agreement says the parties agree that in determining the appropriate density and density distribution the following maximum density distribution is eligible for consideration during a termin this agreement a 124 Acres of commercial along I80 B up to another 176 Acres of commercial long a80 C up to 3,000 residential units parenthetical which limitation does not apply and not include one and two the cap does not apply to the 124 Acres of commercial that was existing and the additional 174 that's also now existing doesn't apply that settlement agreement language was put in the handbook you heard a minute ago Stan Lucas judge judge Dracula said if your or city ordinance is am has is am has an ambigu in it go to the original handbook well here's the original handbook and it says the maximum density Allowed by the sellum agreement is a or Little Dot existing 124 acres two another 176 Acres three the 3,000 units which limitation does not include include the commercial acreage it is crystal clear and undisputable based on the actual language not what we thought or what we want to think but what the language says in these documents that we can do 285 triplexes that the community desperately needs in arterial commercial and that begs the question well if you can do residential interial commercial the cap doesn't apply what can you do the uses this is right from megod uses permitted in each zoning District shall those be identified in the title 18 what can you do an arterial commercial in Title 18 triplexes how do you do a Triplex over 100 of them you need a special use permit what was bundled with this application in 2020 a tenative map and a use permit also it says uses for an AC what would be prohibited Auto Repair single room occupancy adult business there's no an there's no n after billboard that says residential if it was this Crystal Clear prohibition on on residential and Commercial why wasn't it listed as a prohibited use in commercial arterial commercial because it doesn't apply the settlement agreement says that the the mg good standard said says that this says that so we can move forward with our 285 triplexes by removing condition number four now what happens if this body says no we're not moving forward let's trash this development that's trash this entitlement were done well there's a lot of other issues that came forward with this application one we just rezoned an industrial property to open space so you're not going to get an industrial on the south side of 0 two this development this Council said if we're going to move forward you have to dedicate three acres of land for a fire station this project goes away no land for a fire station is dedicated also condition number seven how is that uh fire station paid for 1,6 $168 is paid for every unit for fire facilities and equipment that 1,68 was applied to all units throughout mg good in the calculation that was done to make sure there was the right number in order to fund the fire station so if we're not going to allow 285 triplexes that's a half million dollars out of this budget and if this project goes away alt together because now it's not feasible to build this project without the triplexes the land will never get dedicated as well and let me say the Santa project that you approved didn't have a fire station because the fire station in OT is master planned on Meridian this development was approved first you move forward with Santa on the basis that this was going to get approved it's definitely a domino effect If you deny this request no fire station out there no land out there no funding out there so it's critical to remove these two conditions for a fire station that's needed this slide was also shown to you this is is right from megod says don't exceed 3,000 and 300 commercial Acres this is why your Planning Commission said applicant you're absolutely right it's apples 3,000 units and oranges commercial acreage and you can do your triplexes in the commercial acreage no problem other issue is number three there's also the ability to raise it by 10% so in the planning commission's motion they said you know what we totally agree with you applicant go forth and build some triplexes that we desperately need in our community but also another argument that supports or another option that supports your request is Planning Commission and Council have the ability to raise it 10% so you're 285 units and probably actually a little less than that given the count you just heard from Nathan allows us to move forward with our triplexes even with that 10% so we're asking you respectfully to re delete 31 because it's impossible to satisfy and in order to construct our 285 Triplex units that are desperately needed we and also uh the condition is to remove condition number four because it's impossible to satisfy because the text amendment process is dead part of the reason why of the folks behind me are suing you the city and us and two the cap doesn't apply to residential or three you can say the application of the 10% density increase covers this all wrap it up in a bow call it a day a vote today to delete these two conditions will allow for the construction of 285 triplexes that are desperately needed during Reno's housing shortage ensure that no industrial projects are constructed south of I80 obviously if our our request is denied we're going to go back and not Zone our land that just happened to Industrial we're going to stop that project at at Regional that was part of the compromise deal with this body if we agree to your units and your tenative map we're ensuring no Industrial projects are constructed south of I80 that's a firm commitment we complied with ensure that the fire station is dedicated the service the whole megod area the master plan of megod shows the fire station on our client's property this development will dedicate that land to the city for the fire station and ensure the complete funding of 1,68 units is collected to make sure that fire station in part can be operated and maintained so with that I appreciate your time and I'm happy to answer any questions all right Council be yeah this is very complicated I hope we'll give it due time and consideration and not stick to our difficult rules Mr Gordon you said that um their effort in the courts is just run the clock do you think their claims are frivolous on the 3,000 cap uh for the record Garett Gordon so the neighbors filed a petition for judicial review the ver ey Society after this body approved the ten of the map in 2020 that went to judge Freeman and he dismissed it on the motion to dismiss so yes I believe that that was a frivolous piece of litigation and judge Freeman agreed now they're attempting or not attempting they appeal that to the Nevada Supreme Court part of the reason why we can't go through a text amendment process is they're suing us well let's stop there because you know we could you know we that's that's not fact that hasn't been established it's fact but well I'll rely on our Council for that but C we just had judge dra tell us you know you better issue Stan Lucas his tenant a map couldn't judge Freeman or someone else extend your clock out this clock that's being run by these neighbors you State uh no so under state law you have to record a final map within four years of your tenative map approval we're already at two years in good faith going through a text amendment process now was stopped but a judge couldn't say you know we're going to give you two more years a judge just can't add time onto onto the map no okay I appreciate that those are my questions for you I thought certainly if a judge can tell you to go issue a tenative map a judge can add two years me but to your point about Stan Lucas the judge dra also said if there's an ambiguity in your ordinance for mg good you go back and look at the original settlement agreement which I showed here that clearly states the units don't apply to a and B so I followed that direction from the judge to go back yeah we'll get to that a little bit longer because I think in asking for the AC from IC on that land that you've created your own hardship of asking for a zoning District that allows residential whereas that wasn't there before and when that rezoning occurred there was always discussion that it would be within the cap I completely disagree and here's why that land was zoned Hotel commercial okay we down zoned it to AC and the resident actually spoke in favor because the intensity of uses at a hotel commercial zoning with a casino and other intense uses we down Zone the AC which is still commercial which is still where the cap doesn't apply down zoning is disputable when you C when you can't do hotel consideration when you get to consideration of demand for Services Public Safety and and so on and two okay it was Hotel commercial but it's all of it's all of record what discussion was there about the cap but I want to ask Mr Hall Mr Hall I thought Miss Jordan's desire to do this text Amendment as contemplated in that approval was going to put us on the path to clear up some of these concerns like the infrastructure access to the fire national forest and the cap allocation which there is precedent in other planning um documents that we have is it true that you have said don't move forward with that condition that the Council applied because you were there when the council applied that commission condition yes we didn't think it was appropriate to go forward with the U Amendment okay I don't remember that at the time of condition applied by the council but thank you and I'll yield the floor for my next round back you thank you all right councilman Jordan thank you very much um my questions are to for our legal council I guess my question is what is the status of the Supreme Court um case time time wise and then secondly um Can Can you provide us what your interpretation is having heard the arguments of Mr Gordon can you tell us what your position is sure starting with the Supreme Court case the appellants filed their opening brief and the reply brief is due at the end of the month Council for the developer will be um preparing that brief and then we'll sign on to that brief with respect to my position on the uh request for Amendment of the conditions 4 and 31 um we agree with staff's recommendation with respect to condition number four that they have to get additional residential units from the other developers and um so we don't agree with Amendment or deletion of condition number four with respect to condition number 31 I understand that the fire department has signed off on the secondary access so I don't have an issue with deleting condition number 31 okay and then back to the Supreme Court um in your estimation do you know when that will come to some resolution do you have any sort of timeline on that I do not no I think we're several months out okay several months out yes okay but but not years not years okay that that was that was my questions for now so so is is the discussion let's say today the vote is not to as Mr Gordon said let's say we deny this today is there discussion in the Supreme Court contemplation with regards to the item in which we're discussing today in other words will there be Clarity on that issue when it's ultimately decided on the issue that's being discussed here today on the hard cap of 3,000 no okay so we have two completely separate thing okay that was helpful thank you okay Council Mur go ahead um sure um both the um the people requesting the change and people that are opposing the change put up a table and it's called administrative amendments and I'm sorry it's all both of them are in very small print but they speak about a 10% change in uh density a 25% change and and yet it it was there was also a comment made can you have a density bonus could you have 10% more than the 3,000 and um the comment by the people opposed was no and I I'm seeking clarification on this and I I wondered if Mr EU or Mr Shipman could opine when they refer to 10% and 25% increases is it just mean that you can densify an area but you still have to remain within the 3,000 cap is that your interpretation yes still a hard cap of 3,000 hard cap of 3,000 but you could move density from location to location right okay so if let's say an area was contemplated to have um I'll just pick something mf2 multif Family 21 it could go up to mf30 and you could have more density there but you would have to retract housing units to stay within the 3,000 correct and that's that's your opinion for yes legal opinion okay so because I wanted to understand that because I was asked that question and you know there is an implication there's they're saying well in the AC zoning it allows housing and that housing isn't constrained by this 3,000 cap but your position is it is yes that's correct okay that that's very helpful but then Mr Gord you put up something completely different for the record G Gordon yes in the Stan Lucas case that was decided a judge said go back and look at the original documents if there is an ambiguity and I also did just to make sure I had credibility standing up here today I I am 100% certain from a legal perspective if you read this document it clearly says 3,000 resid IAL units which don't apply to A and B I honestly think the problem here is that this 3,000 cap has been misinterpreted or misunderstood since 2020 and it's hard for folks to go back and say well actually that shouldn't apply because I don't know how in looking at the settlement agreement and looking how it was codified in the uh Morton and Garson handbook and then originally codified in the ordinance it says here at the bottom the maximum density allowed existing 124 Acres of commercial additional 176 of commercial which limitation does not include the 3,000 those commercial uses which makes sense because you're capping residential units in residentially zoned areas in commercial the mg God says you can do whatever is allowed in Title 18 and there's no specific prohibition on residential so so it's it's clear to me that it's allowed okay if I could continue my time um go ahead yeah so what I'm what I would say is that many of us were not at this dice were not here during the mg good discussions but some of our staff were or inherited very close in time to uh the discussions and we have people here that were actively involved and um their understanding throughout this and it sounds like the settlement agreement mattye Shipman who I know who was the county um attorney for administration um all had an understanding of what was being agreed to and that has been carried over now for what a decade and a half or almost two decades is a basic understanding of what the settlement set and what was put into the handbook so you know I think part of the challenges have come when the handbook was put into our ordinances I think certain things were left out or or changed and that's why I think we're keep being directed to go back to the handbook because that was the document um so I just these are just questions because again I was not there we have to rely on all the testimony that we're hearing and our attorney's um evaluation and judgment as well so okay that's I'll stop right there thank you uh councilman ree thank you Madame mayor Mr Hall I just have a couple of questions um so obviously it's been a long time since either one of us were in law school um and so I want to just ask a couple things so number one my experience is is that two lawyers can develop five opinions right so it's not so much that I'm asking um that there is no ambiguity because I think there's enough between your interpretation mine um the courts in other cases Mr Gordon everybody has some thought about it what do you do with some of the statutory construction cannons about you know the importance of the word and you know A and D what do you do like this exhibit that Mr Gordon put up which had a b and c um I where is Page the prior page to that I I would like to get that somehow this morning um because it's referring to says which limitation does not include one and two above but I'm not sure that's referring to a and b which are above C or if that's referring to a paragraph which I'm not seeing on this page does that make sense so I I need to see that so Mr Gordon either you've got to produce it or we're going to have to grab it somehow because again Mr Hall my point to you is you know as lawyers we're trained to look very carefully at the text the words and so ands mean something ORS mean something uh commas in a place will mean a thing uh semicolon in a place would mean a thing and I am confused by this particular slide so I'm just trying to understand what we understand it to to mean I think that the intent of that agreement was for residential equivalents in those areas so that would be hotel rooms I don't think they could increase the 3,000 unit cap Beyond 3,000 so I disagree with that interpretation and I'd also point to our code 1802 603 C6 which said the total amount of development resulting from any change in density shall not exceed 3,000 dwelling units and 300 commercial acres cumulatively for all properties in the mg good so when I'm looking at that language I think it's pretty clear that the cap is 3,000 for all properties you said and I guess that all all zoning districts is what their question is then Mr Hall why is residential allowed in the AR material commercial that that doesn't make sense to me well I thought that was a pretty good move by Mr Gordon to get a zone change so that he could make an argument that he can exceed the 3,000 cap um just because our zoning code allows for residences in the arterial commercial doesn't mean that we can go beyond the intent of that settlement agreement beyond the 3,000 right yeah you know I will say that the arterial commercial allowing residential is a very good thing in Reno zoning code because it allows us to meet housing but it was always within the context in this plan area of the 3000 I want to commend Mr gilber and ask him you know we have other plan unit developments under central control of one developer like dman Ranch that had caps right and in those instances who keeps the running total is the master develop ER who does that usually I mean we have this precedent in plan areas of having caps and keeping totals on them correct that's correct that would be typical of a planned unit development a caveat this for better or worse this isn't a planned unit development but it's certainly a defined plan yeah so the job and I'll tell everyone because Perry deetta was here years ago they had deani Ranch they had multiple partners one of them lowest Brown had a spreadsheet the size of that back wall with every everyone and where they were going so in lie of not having this in a plan unit development in lie of not updating this plan area when we knew things were coming and I called for that in 2014 said let's get with the county do a Verdi ey area plan get the infrastructure in there not be in court for 10 years let's do that we could have done all that but it's defaulted to staff and they've done a good job and Mr Gilbert you're holding back some on a calculation for that that multif family LW right that that's on there separate you said there's an mf14 Zone parcel somewhere that's correct there's 26 Acres of multifam which is would be over 300 okay so we got to hold back for that so it really is kind of a Hunger Game situation there and you know he's Mr Gordon's saying well this project will fail you know won't happen but you know that's just the rules that we' we've agreed to we've kept and it's unfortunate but my issue is really on this secondary access I am very troubled by it after our last um two months ago I went out and Trace the route on my monthly tour of this Santa exit and it is frightening what is going on and it was after that railroad RightWay agreement that we did with up so we've got an atg grade crossing we've got a Country Lane Meandering by a park under a tunnel I am terrified by that being the permanent access for Santa and even being you know loading off this this and even in the temporary situation so I want to drill in on those temporary access uh relief that they're being provided because I'm very frightened by it um why are we okay with that now with the temporary access yeah we had two other accesses on this tentative map these tentative Maps options that they were going to go for that's correct they're they're still there there's the Planning Commission just approved a realignment um of of the Santa secondary access that's under construction so that that permanent secondary access which was required and and and is still maintains a uh condition of approval with this entitlement so it will stay J okay I'll I'll hope to be able to talk about the safety issue later Council thank you thank you madam mayor and and the secondary access I I do want to thank the um Mr Gordon and his team for working towards they did work towards that original uh NV Energy Road access and and they weren't successful in that but the fact is that this other secondary Access Road um is under construction and my understanding it will likely be completed before any first home is even built is that correct Mr Gordon I'm getting headshake yes um it's it's it's okay um but I'll go back to a few things the the meetings we started the text Amendment group meetings with a great group of stakeholders and it was probably the first time in my 10 years on Council where literally in a room we had the developers and a a group of residents sitting down and speaking face to face in a super productive and respectful Manner and a lot of issues were debated and resolved in that process and I came out of those meetings thinking this is the model for the new conflict resolution because it was so productive and it's unfortunate that the pandemic caused some issues with us being able to meet and then of course the litigation put the breaks on that uh in understandably but that process was super productive but I will tell you through all of that and through our hearings previously um 3,000 was 3,000 and and my understanding was What the residents and the M God to me is very clear is that the 200 the the the units along the freeway the the triplexes we know that's needed we know that we want that we know the density we we understand the need but it was my understanding that the those units if it went above the 3,000 you would have to acquire them from some other somebody else in the mg good and you know it was said that they couldn't come to an agreement well I don't know the details was it they couldn't come to an agreement on the number of units they couldn't come to an agreement on the cost paid for those units um I just know that was always my impression of the discussion and the conditions so um my position remains as it has is that 3,000 is 3,000 the road is fine the removal of that condition I think it's being met by another access road so Madame mayor that's uh that's my position on this right Council Weber I just wanted to know um what did we could someone explain Mr Gilbert about the 2020 when we were moving forward what what happened in 2020 and what did we what were we moving forward on or waiting for thank you Council council member Weber I'm not sure I understand your question in 2020 which action well I I I believe that this was before the council in June of 20 2020 June of 2020 21 2020 okay 2020 so what did we come out of that meeting with uh 32 conditions of approval okay and that the project was approved and the project project this project was approved correct and was there a Planning Commission vote prior to that there was and do you remember what those numbers were or I I don't remember offand the Planning Commission um vote breakdown but the the governing body this Council uh approved that with those 32 conditions of approval Villages one through six were approved okay they are approved and I guess one one other thing to add to that is renew Municipal Code when there's litigation does allow extension of the time for recording that that map so that that standard four-year uh time frame to record uh it's extended if it's involved in litigation okay I think that's thank you all right councilor yeah just you can stay there Nathan just a quick question and and also I guess for the applicant too um I thought when was the AC put in industrial to AC was that when we approved no that was over five years ago sorry I can't I no it was over five years ago I I can't remember the the date off hand my my understanding of that would have been to support and and I've told applicant this to support in terms of um some kind of retail U support services for all these residents that were all the 3,000 units need something need restaurants maybe a cleaners maybe a gas station maybe a Jiffy Mart I don't know what would be approved in AC but that's what I would have thought would go along with all of this residence I mean think about three three or 4,000 units at Daybreak they have a Town Center built into that and they have some retail commercial that's my understanding that was my understanding I mean I was here 5 years ago when we would have done that I've supported this Meridian 120 with those 32 conditions they made sense to me so what I what doesn't make sense to me right now until I hear more is somehow using the AC because you're allowed houses to exceed this cap that's I'm I'm not there I'm not understanding that move I I think the typical understanding of AC would be something like that you know I have near my home we have lots of residential and then there's a little shopping center so arterial commercial is essentially a mixed use Zone it allows for residential that the Morton and Garson overlay doesn't preclude residential development it's not a prohibited land use in a commercial Z that if you move it there then you have to take it away from suggest I guess the caveat with with that interpretation that well it's Unique and separate there's no density cap well there's a whole lot of uh commercial zoning and the in the remainder of that and if if that's if that's the directive no it's notc B you can do all I mean you could see a lot of conversions that KO KOA Campground by Boomtown boom toown I mean it's a Pandora's Box potentially with that that interpretation what you're saying I think if I understood your recommendation it's that okay you can move housing there if you want housing along the freeway have housing along the freeway if you want triplexes have triplexes but you have to it's a zero sum gate that there's only 3,000 and if you want to put it there in the commercial somewhere else correct is that what you're saying yes okay one I guess one more question was I just want to understand so Santa was not appealed is that right I'm sorry Santa was Tera quy was not appealed no it's not in a lawsuit no okay I think the the issue there and representatives from Santa were involved in in the initial um text Amendment discussions is if if with especially with the Stan Lucas directive that the when there's a conflict the that the handbook applies will now s tera's development capacity is being precluded right that's what I was just they have 26 they have they have 26 Acres of multif family um 14 units per acre and they're not going to be able to develop that at their full development capacity if this condition is is modified okay could you say it one more time because now I am confused I thought what you were saying is they have to stick to the limits that you just showed us I think it was 1,500 or 1700 I got a little confused but there's 1799 allow residential units allowed in planning area three right Santa KY was like I can't remember the number off hand but I thought it was like 3,000 they they have their entitlements that that's done there is a remainder that 14 uh excuse me 26 acre portion of mf14 that if we apply this this development cap is not going to be able to develop at their at their full potential to all of the units because the 3,000 applies to all the planning areas and so that's that first come first serve you know a scenario that I that I I mean if we continue to hold firm to this they too will be affected in that they can't exceed this cap either I mean they couldn't exceed exceed the cap but they wouldn't be able to develop their property at its full potential either because of this C correct gotcha okay and then Nathan just really quick because the one thing this is like really complex and um the one thing though regardless and I think everyone knows I always have issues with sort of the fire the access all of that um so what does that look like let's say I mean wherever we go today I mean yeah I think this is really important so Santa the way that the MGD reads is that prior to the first residential final map in planning Area 3 you have to have a dedicated fire station Santa quy doesn't have any Final maps approved yet so depending on on I mean you know they wouldn't be able to move forward with their final Maps either unless there's a dedicated fire station in planning Area 3 that's the overlay standard okay but in this in in this though there is one dedicated in this project this there is one identified and that's that's a condition of approval it's also it's also a code standard so that code standard again says no Final maps in planning Area 3 until fire station site is dedic at to me that seems like part a good incentive for parties to come together because nobody's going anywhere and that is really important Mr Garrett or Mr Gordon um so just I want you to clarify so it's on the record that will be in in this um in these conditions correct ABS absolutely right so um to answer that question the existing conditions of approval number 7even and number 27 require us to dedicate 3 Acre fire station property to the City of Reno prior to our first final map and also pay that fee towards fire facilities and Equipment as well so if we don't get the 285 triplexes then you don't get the money that's required for the fire facilities and equipment what about ALS real quick um Madam mayor also this is the kind of the master plan for the area and you can see that red square is the fire station and that land is currently zoned public facility so this was teed up Santo was teed up to have the fire station dedicated on Meridian land and then funded with this assessment prior to the first final map and with no project there's no dedication of that fire station for the area Okay Madame mayor I think I'm still had about a minute and a half is that correct Madam clerk I didn't see it it yeah it looked like it ran out there's two different clocks going okay well I'll get back to you okay thanks all right just really quickly um pray Mr Palmer come up please because I want I want to make sure you're always the most important component to me no I appreciate that but I know my wife would argue with that um yeah so can you talk a little bit about this and then I guess what I want to understand is how close is is the next fire station so uh in regards to the Reno Fire Station the closest other station would be our station 11 um on charlin's and Mayan and if I remember right for it's about eight minutes away from uh the bridge there the the Cabella's overpass eight minutes okay and then can I just are they required to put in sprinklers correct so the way the code reads and and what was agreed to on this development is that every house will have sprinklers in it until the fire station is built up and running uh and that's based simply um due to the proximity of station 11 being over six minutes away okay all right and then what about the access so the secondary access works for code uh initially um when the developer came to us they were looking at that north entrance uh to uh get with ot to come in off of uh Interstate 80 um but the access point that they are putting in right now meets code it all meets code okay all right all right thank you so much you're welcome apprciate it okay Council Mur I'll come back to you for a minute yeah I think I had a minute and a half but anyway but I'll try to stick to the minute want two minut no I don't I just want my minute and a half two minutes for you okay um three things actually four so Mr Gordon said that there was $168 per home uh assigned and there's to my knowledge 3,000 units and that's 4.8 million and I want to make sure and maybe this is a question for you uh our staff does the $68 apply to all 3,000 or just the ones of Meridian 120 or did you explain that Nathan Gilbert no that was that was a condition of approval specific to Villages 1 through six okay and how many units were supposed to be in one through six 621 621 okay and then how were we planning to fund the rest of the fire some to be determined there a similar one you you're saying 3,000 that's that's the whole so Santa so in planning Area 3 Santa had the same condition oh that's what I was asking so it's rough if you add up the 3,000 units it's 4.8 million but you're saying it wasn't applied to Stan Lucas bless you was it applied to Stan so that that that contribution for the fire facility fees was applied to this what we're hearing today villes 1 through six as well as um uh the Santo quy I would have to double check I can get back to you if that was on Stan Lucas suest if we take out Stan Lucas because we're not sure maybe it's $3 million um the second thing I want to ask is there's an overlay here and we have zoning but we also have a overlay that has a certain limitation on top of that overlay that's how I interpret it is that what your s the overlay is the settlement agreement or the handbook that that's trumping our zoning is what you're saying the overlay the overlay is our zoning yes and so the directive from from that Stan Lucas decision was there are a few in there are a few inconsistencies and one of them one of them was unit allocation if that's the issue if there's an issue go to the go to the handbook gotcha last question was on secondary access um I just want to make sure so I recently drove over the bridge over I 80 so you get off to go to Boom toown you drive over this little bridge to get here and we've talked about this little highway bridge forever is that now on schedule to get upgraded because that's just a one way each way that that's still on end Do's radar I don't know what the status is and have we made any progress with this other access we talked about that Envy energy tomwa that direction there are two two entrances and exit primary one is the primary going Boomtown Garson road the second uh connects to quy Road and are we confident that will be built in order to remove this condition yes it's under construction it's okay and it's complete I mean we did everything we need to do they're both condition yes before to okay thank you thank you Madame mayor okay councilman Ree thank you Madame mayor I want to sort of try to move beyond the uh interpretation of these dueling documents I mean I think this handbook sort of explicitly exempts commercial sites from the cap but I also want to honor some of the comments that council member Jordan did so I just want to move past that for a second um I uh I live in this community so I you know we eat in the restaurants in verd we live in the backside of Somerset so we enter and exit through there um and so I also went out with um a couple of the residents who are here to speak today yesterday and the question I asked of them and and I I want to see who is best to answer this um is if I were not thinking about the 3,000 number if I were not thinking about a planning process which I think has spawn more litigation than any other what would I personally desire to see along I80 and so um I I suppose from a planning perspective maybe Mr Gilbert I'll let you take a stab at it my thought at least initially was um number one I think it's a less intense use to have residential there fronting I80 than it say commercial so if the idea is to build a bunch of artisanal coffee shops and um you know a bike repair shop and a dentist there along that route I mean I think 's a more intense truck traffic box trucks that kind of thing as opposed to residential so that's sort of what I'm trying to find out which is the less intense use of this particular parcel the there are numerous commercial uses allowed in the arterial commercial Zone that could be significantly more intense than residential units can you give me example because that's I mean a that scares me because what you're saying is I should anticipate lots of trip traffic there um but I mean I I just do not see because I don't see the the massing of people to use a space um I don't see a you know a Grove at South Meadows being put there or a village at ranchera esque uh you know cute coffee shops and Pen bakeries being placed there so what is going to end up there if it stays as a commercial component of this community to answer your question there there are a variety of uses you could be a Costco right so that's really going to affect your peak hour traffic it could be something much less much more benign which wouldn't we'd really have to evaluate uh the the impacts on it's going to be whatever is commercially viable right right so if they cannot put the artisanal pen Bakery there with a cheese shop next door they're going to make a use of it right so I'm trying to figure out that sort of the less intense use then is residential the the triplex uses is relatively less intense use [Music] okay Council breus oh sorry I'm I apologize it's actually councilman Delgado he his um pad is not working thank you I apologize he's been waiting actually for a while go ahead thank you Madame mayor and and I thank you to my colleagues have asked several the same questions I was going to ask the where I go back to and Mr Gilbert or Mr Gordon uh Mr Gilbert first help me understand um number three on Amendment that was prescribed uh chapter the zoning districts as an amendment portion where it says density increases by a maximum of 10% with the language oh so this is the the mg at the end correct so explain to me a little bit more as to what does that mean to you with respect to bonuses in terms of densities that's above and beyond the staff's position that's that's Project Specific that's not increasing that that all that 3,000 cap above that it's not allowing no that that is again the the allocation of units between between planning areas and within planning areas that's not that's not a bonus for for to go above the 3,000 cap that that that's a bonus for Project Specific that that's the option okay it doesn't so when I read it doesn't Clearly say that but your guys is what you guys are telling me that's what that's what the thought was correct and then through the it's a lengthy document and references that 3,000 cap okay thank you Madame mayor I'll come back with followup all right Council Weber thank you madam mayor in relation to that same comment wasn't it dwelling [Music] units I just want to ask we have residential land and um it only applies to residential land but isn't is it dwelling units or is it residential units or is it I don't understand if commercial is it's not a dwelling unit ER us for the record Garrett Gordon so uh looking at this number 16 from mg good um yeah it says density shall not exceed 3,000 dwelling units if that was a period after that sentence that sentence then I think we'd have to go through this text amendment process but it goes further to say and 300 commercial acres cumulatively for all the properties in megod and if back to the settlement agreement and the and the handbook you can clearly do Residential in commercial uh the 300 commercial acres and number three to point out Mr gato's Point 10% it uses that same word density so you look at number one it says a change in density shall not exceed 3,00 000 number three says density increases by a maximum of 10% may be approved by the administrator so I read that as you can increase that density you have a cushion of 300 units through a map or through a use permit we have both that would cover the triplexes that we're looking for and just to clarify the record earlier we prevailed with the society for Verdi on uh not on a motion to dismiss but on the petition for judicial review just want to make that clear um for the record thank you Council breus yeah you know I appreciate Mr um Gilbert's comments that well you know this condition um you know with the fire station is an imp impediment or impetus for parties to collaborate I actually see it as an as an opportunity for someone to hold this hostage on if if you don't give me the triplexes then the fire station isn't going to come in and then Santa can't happen so you know I think we really have to realize we are playing a hunger game like situation and within that parody is very important and that's why that staff provision of not going above the 10% for anyone project in their allocation is the most due process and you know a lot of these issues I want you know coffee shops or you know you know 300 here to this one area can all be done through opening up the um I'm not asking you a question Mr Gordon so um all through the um us doing our legislative job which is adopting an update to thegod if we wanted to and sure that would really then be hey the Reno City council's priority for transportation improvements is this terrible overpass because we're in bad shape but I want to focus on the secondary access because it works in condition this one condition that's being asked to be relieved Works in condition with this other concert with this other condition that I don't think provides the protection so Mr Gilbert if we get rid of this secondary access and let them rely upon this one for Santa that you say is under construction does it have to be completed and approved and accepted as a secondary access before they can file a final map per permanent SEC for villages 1 through six permanent secondary access is required before the 256 unit before the 256 unit correct and how many are in each Village I I don't know does that get you through two Villages does it get you through three tentatives how many tentatives does it get you th I'd have to look and yeah it gets you through like three tentative Maps so you can final plat three tenative Maps before this secondary thing secondary one is done but the other problem that I really really see having driven this fairly recently is and I didn't four-wheel it up through Santa just went to kind of the railroad crossing is this centa thing does not happen and then we've got a temporary Road out there that's been accepted who has maintenance responsibility for this temporary Road can you answer that is are they held once this temporary road is completed again that condition 31 requiring that additional temporary Road was a counseled condition I don't believe that and so I would tell the council if you want to relieve them of this other one I would say it has to be approved and accepted as a secondary Road prior to any file map final map filing and maintenance responsibility by the developer you know until it is accepted by others because I think it's going to be incorporated into a permanent Road at some point right dedicated into City Road that is providing the most protection that is so necessary approved and accepted yeah I would I would I would replace condition 31 or work it in concert with that other one and say that that road has to be approved and accepted as a temporary access by the permit reg you know by us and maintained by this you know the this developer until it is otherwise improved and accepted as a public road because what if Santa doesn't have and we've got all these people hanging out there we hear you we hear you yeah thank all right coun uh vice mayor Jordan thank you very much um thank you madam mayor and this is I mean it comes down to different interpretations and and I can respect that I mean we could probably get 10 lawyers in here and you'd probably get 10 different interpretations so that's why I go back historically to just what I felt was um you know discussions in good faith and understandings of 10 years of history about that 3,000 cap um so I'm going to take a stab at a motion and we'll see where it goes in the case of LDC 21-38 Meridian 12 South condition Amendment based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moveed to uphold staff's recommendation and amend condition of approval number four regarding dwelling unit allocation and modify condition number 33 regarding a temporary emergency access route uh to include it being approved and accepted by the developer um and City maybe to our city manager to help me with that language um for condition number 33 the reason for this is based uh in the current MGD language as well as the Stan Lucas Court case which specified where the MGD is determined to be unclear or ambiguous the Planning Commission and the city council should refer to the h book for background history and intent both the expired handbook and the expired settlement agreement and the current MGD code all specify that the total amount of development resulting from any change in density shall not exceed 3,000 dwelling units and 300 commercial acres cumulatively for all the properties in the MGD in this case the applicant has the ability although they they say they've had difficulty in doing it to stay within the 3000 cap by working with the other MGD Property Owners on and agree upon reallocation of the units there are additional units in the three planning areas and they need to continue to work on those the application should follow the mg requirements and stay within the 3,000 unit cap by working with the other property owners to obtain the additional units from their allocation second thank you so much I have a motion and a second and I have a question go ahead councilwoman I heard um councilwoman Jordan say condition 33 but I think she 31 I apologize okay I want to make sure yes it it was 31 and then I also heard you add something about the secondary Road being approved and accepted could you just yes just approved and accepted to to language as council member breus had indicated um yeah I think she said approved and accepted as a temporary access um and maintained by developer until a final road is approved correct yeah and you probably have a permit ldp whatever for that road if it's under construction it has a permit right now by Santa correct Mr Gilbert I they just can't Santa just can't be out there grading that road in right you know it's m Mass grading per yeah so I would reference that mass grading the only thing I'm conf concerned about I want to be clear is you know we're telling people to go work with other people and kind of get their units it feels like it could be construed as a um effort of you know us trying to interfere with other people's property rights and allocations and it's it's just not that um it's just being knowledgeable for example of their plans like the mf14 guy could be like I'm not even in the game for residential units I'm in the game for manyi storage units well and see and I don't Madam mayor if you'll indul for half second um I don't don't view it as that I view this as again back to our productive and constructive um Community meetings I see it as a this is this is an MGD 3000 cap everybody uh is swimming in the same direction it might be that they get there uh in a slightly different fashion but to me it's it's just a a a regional discussion amongst the developers in this area to me um the discussion is even more prominent now if if uh Meridian has a potential fire station location uh as as something they can discuss with potentially getting these additional units that they seek um so I I see it as as a regional beneficial discussion and nothing more okay well with that I can support it Reus you have um one minute no I just we're in discussion of the motions and I'll and I'm I will vote for the motion if you needed more time no okay all right any other discussion on this so here here's my issue and I totally get exactly where you where my colleagues are coming from and I think you're spot on but this one is always like the really big heartburn for me and what I fearful of is that we will have inadequate fire service without it quite without the road yeah so I want to make sure um that is it but I mean I can absolutely see where the heartburn is and I think there is definite two different interpretations but I also fear that they won't get the fire service out there so it's really that is concerning so I want to make sure that that is in there correct Mr Gordon that's in one of the conditions um for the record Garett Gordon um with the motion on the table would not not allow us to go forward with our 285 triplexes today so the dedication is in fact in question as well as uh the fee if condition for was removed there's no uncertain terms you're getting fire station land and fire station fees all right go ahead I I just don't understand that because we approved just two years ago um a project with 32 conditions that include a fire station secondary access and it wasn't premised on an additional 285 units so it it was you approved a tenative map right with 285 units in villages three and four you made every single finding for all those triplexes you put a condition on there to say go get a text Amendment work with the neighbors and clarify the arguable ambiguity that we can do the triplexes in AC the councilwoman Jordans point we worked in good faith we were at the table for two years working on this and now we're told you're done and so now I would just ask that we are allowed to move forward with our 285 given our interpretation allow us for what you've approved I'll just say when I voted on it I didn't think it was an additional 285 I thought it was within the cap I'm just going to be honest you and and Madame mayor I would like to get some legal clarification on this because I too didn't under uh didn't believe that the 32 amendments and conditions that we applied two years ago that was conditional if they didn't get this above the cap was somehow going to relieve you of the obligation and the condition as it related to the fire station so I don't know how and maybe this is to our city attorney's office somehow not getting the additional above the cap um units somehow unwinds the fire station could we get our city attorneys to chime in on this because I think there's some correlations being drawn here and connections of dots that maybe shouldn't be connected I my understanding was that they were going to offer the property for the fire station and that all of the properties in the mg God were going to make a contribution to the fire station so that's how I understood it I didn't know the conditions of that were that they were going to take that back if we didn't allow them the additional units on top of 3,000 that's way I understand okay so I am a little offended today uh as I stand here that somehow a condition that we put in and you agree to in good faith you are now going to say we're going to take that back because you won't give us a plus plus so Mr Gordon that is not what my understanding was and that has been affirmed by our City attorney here today so you're telling me on the record if you don't get these additional units above the 3,000 that you're going to take the land that you dedicated in good faith back I'm not saying that what I'm saying for the record is we have a tenative map with six villages with 32 conditions Prior the condition was prior to recording the first final map we have to dedicate 3 acres to the city it hasn't been dedicated yet nothing's been dedicated we dedicated the conjunction with the first Min map I'm saying without the 285 Triplex units it appears this project does not pencil anymore so there's no reason to app uh comply with any conditions and the Project's dead so I'm not taking anything back will say on the record that that that sentence you just told us just now was not a sentence that you put in asterisk on two years ago I wasn't here two years ago okay so my point being is we're now being told that there's an asterisk well we would dedicate that and we would do the fire station but only if so I will say again I'm offended at those comments being made at the podium here today Mr Gordon I can also say in good faith we stood at the podium and said we would do a text Amendment and I sat in those meetings with you and it is not our body's uh fault that litigation was brought forward and those issues are being litigated and brought to the Supreme Court which those will be resolved in a in a mere matter of months what I don't like is the inference that if we don't do a something here today you're going to take something back that you agreed to two years ago and so the record's clear I'm not saying we take anything back I'm saying there' be no final map to record to comply with all the conditions nothing was given yet until we go record a final map so I'm not saying anything's being taken back we'll comply with all those conditions if approved okay all right so I had a motion I had a second um all those in favor say I I all those opposed okay Madame clerk I'm going to ask you to give me a roll call vote thank you Madame mayor council member breus hi Durer hi [Music] delado Weber Jordan I Reese no shie no motion fails 43 all right thank you so much okay at this time Madam clerk I'm going to send it back to you um do we have an attorney client I think we do oh motion I oh it failed oh sorry can we have our roll call vote again I mean no um you want to do another roll call would you like me to repeat the roll yeah go ahead it would be helpful the the motion that we had was four in opposition three in favor council member breus D jardan in favor council member Delgado Weber Reese and shivi in opposition so okay so then I've got to send it back to um councilman ree yeah um I'm going to move that in the case LDC 21 uh 038 based on a compliance with the applicable findings I will move to uphold the recommendations of the Planning Commission and delete condition 31 and also uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to delete condition four regarding dwelling units this is based on my belief that the 3000 residential cap does not apply to arterial commercial zoning and the ambiguity would be drawn as against that uh interpretation U because that proposed increase uh also falls within a secondary argument about a 10% increase in density which is allowed by code Madam mayor second that I'm sorry Madame mayor yeah it would certainly include that as a condition all right I have a motion I have a yeah I'm not going to support I mean this absolutely continues the litigation of the mjod and it's very problematic to to take there is so much precedent against going across a cap in in an area I mean we we administer lots of plan unit developments to a cap this is guaranteed to get us into court and it's not in Mr Gordon's interest I I'm just I'm I'm amazed that we're willing to go there but no Mr dogado thank you madam Mary just really quickly the way I read 16 administrative amendments is a little different than what I believe our staff does and I think it allows us the opportunity in number three to to allow for some of these density bonuses opportunities with respect to the current needs of our community um I definitely hear um and and then above that it shows number four that if we want to go up to 25 there's a process above 25 there's another process and so forth but that 10% Max is an opportunity we can have a discussion here I and so it's I just read it interpret it differently um the way I see it I appreciate the council members re laying out his his direction is why I propose it today though it's um very tough and I know it's a very complicated issue um but I know housing is a big issue for us right now in our community that that needs to be built so thank you all right any other go ahead Council yeah um I am very concerned about this motion uh for my council members um this goes completely against our attorney's recommendation our staff's recommendation their interpretation our positions in lawsuits and finally to Mr delgado's point I'm reading it right here on amendments the very first line before it talks about density it says the total amount of development resulting from any change in density shall not exceed 3,000 units and 300 commercial acres cumulatively for all properties in the mg good it says it right there it's the total amount of development resulting from any change in density I asked our attorneys earlier in this conversation I said please guide us on what this means and they said you can move density within the villages you could make one Village more dense one Village less dense but you cannot exceed 3,000 units but what I heard the motion saying is you could exceed 3,000 units by 10% I think that's what you just said Mr ree um and and I I I completely I don't agree I isn't the viice that we've received it's it's not a position that's supported by the handbook so um I'm concerned about fire Madame mayor but I have one more thing concerned about and I think that everyone is interpreting this very different well I one more thing to say and that is that the fire um station I think what Mr Gordon is saying is that if he doesn't get this density bonus they won't move forward with the project period okay if they don't find it penciling somebody else will move forward with a project and will have to have a fire station that's what he's telling us not if what if came back next week and said now we need 100 more units to make it pencil would we say fine that's fine whatever you think it takes to pencil I mean he's telling us it won't pencil without 285 so I'll leave it at that councilman ree go thank you madam mayor I I'll just be brief um it is obvious that we are a body divided and we are a body of folks from all different walks of life uh political backgrounds ideologies and so we're going to disagree at times and so um think it's a close question I think council member breus is right that we invite litigation no matter which side we side with and in this case um I think the words matter and this particular um reading that you've given excludes the word and 300 commercial it also ex ignores the mg good which clearly calls out an a b and a c category of things and it says without these other things there are no limitations to this other category and so it it's it purely is an interpretation about what I think a judge is going to ultimately do and our Planning Commission agreed with that recommendation too it's very strange Because by the time we get to this body when we don't like it we say the Planning Commission got it wrong when we like it they say they got it right it it's always very difficult there are no easy choices I don't think this is an Easy Choice uh but it is within I think the reasonable interpretation and I fall back on two things one um I I think a less intense use is residential in that area I don't want to see a coffee I mean a Costco there I don't want to see uh box trucks on that roadway um I don't want to see all those things so the less intense use and then the last thing is of course fire I want to make sure that the communities there have access to a fire station and fire Services because it's a very difficult and complex area in the wooy and so as a result again close question that's how I fall all right uh councilman our vice mayor J thank you very much and and I will just open this by saying I respect all of my colleagues and their votes on this I mean it we have to be able to disagree uh in an agreeable fashion um I have been out in this region and worked for projects including this one for many meetings um but on this one to me it was quite clear that this was going above the 3,000 cap and I understand there can be different readings of that um on this one I fear feel strongly about it um I am saddened to see very collaborative discussions I think that now are unfortunately probably over with this action so all right so uh I had a motion and a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed no post all right Madam clerk roll call thank you Madame mayor council member breus no do no Elgato yes Weber yes Jan no Reese yes chiie yes and something's going out there it needs a fire station all right um so motion motion carries motion passes 4 three all right sending it back to you madam clerk thank you Madame mayor we would be moving on to item C3 I'm not certain if um city manager Thornley said you did have a attorney client we do have one c31 C32 are tea hearings um they should be considerably shorter than the remaining items on the agenda I don't know if you want to knock them out Miss vanen is here or she I know we need a break not C4 or C5 I think C3 c31 and C32 and then we'll and then we'll take a break okay so we're moving on to open item C3 which will include c31 and C32 at this [Music] time Madam mayor point of order I I don't need a staff presentation I think we've done this several times but I know there is a process that we must engage in so I don't know if we can um do that process and I apologize I'm so sorry no worries m madame mayor I'm suggesting that we don't necessarily need a full on staff report but I'll leave it to your discretion I'm prepared to make a motion okay thank you second I have a motion in a second I'll Madam mayor sorry can we open the public hearing and just the process stuff what are you doing I'm so sorry just kidding sorry we're we're all a little frazzled that last one was don't like it at all um hold on okay Madam clerk let the record reflect that the um public hearing will now open was proper notice given any correspondence received thank you madam mayor proper notice was given and no correspondence was received okay all right move to approve staff recommendation all right I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion car c31 and two or was that just that was c31 that's correct yeah all right so we will go on break and return at 2:30 all right good for e e e all back okay give us just a second to get it back to all right awesome welcome back thank you looks like all members are present so we're moving on to item C4 an annexation ordinance introduction to be read by the City attorney all right um I'm going to send it to Carl Hall and then I will um or actually let me open the public hearing first let the record reflect that the city council is now opening the public hearing Madam clerk was proper notice given and any correspondence received thank you madam mayor proper notice was given we did receive one comment associated with this item in opposition we have no registered public commenters in the audience additionally we have no hands raised in the zoom meeting so we have no additional public comment at this time okay perfect then I'm going to um just send it to for a staff presentation take it away I'll go ahead and oh go ahead we're thank you mad mayor ordinance introduction bill number 7211 case number a anx 22- 00002 Gateway at Galena annexation ordinance annexing annexing two and making part of the City of Reno certain specifically described property territory of three Parcels being plus or minus intersection of Mount Rose Highway within the City of Reno sphere of influence and the trucky Meadows service area wo County Nevada together with other matters which pertain to or are necessarily connected there with or to all right thank you now it's all you all right we're ready thank you so much for the record Joey winter associate planner here for this item which is the Gateway atalina annexation this is a applicant initiated annexation request and the applicant is here today but I'll start with a brief staff presentation on this item and in my staff presentation I hope to do three things actually I will do three things um first establish the location of the site then we'll move on to the what what this request in front of you is and what needs to be considered with this request and then finally wrapping up after the review considerations why staff analyzed this request and recommended approval of the annexation so to jump into it starting with the location of the site this is south of downtown along Interstate 580 the site is in yellow there immediately west of Interstate I80 just south of the interchange with Mount Rose Highway and then wedge Parkway comes down the west side and provides access to the site I will put on the screen now some more local landmarkers to help Orient us Orient us better the Sierra Summit Mall is to the northeast of the site and then working clockwise from there you have orat facilities to the southeast and South Galina High School to the Southwest immediately north of the project site in between the site and Mount Rose highway is the University of Nevada Redfield campus across Mount Rose Highway North of that would be the ry's shopping center so that's the location moving on to the what of this request the site is 33.7 Acres the applicant has submitted and has an approved tentative map to develop housing at this location and as Allowed by state code they have petition the city for annexation under state code NRS section 268 670 this land is identified in the Chucky Meadows Regional planed as tier one land tier one land is land that is adjacent to infrastructure and adjacent to development and development is anticipated on this land in the near future the site is completely surrounded by Ward 2 it's on a county Island within the city's sphere of influence and it already has a City Zoning designation and the city controls land use that zoning designation is mixed use Suburban the reason why this site is not already annexed into the city is the ownership history of the property this was a planned expansion of the University of Nevada Redfield campus it was owned by the state and it was there was no motivation to Annex it while it was under State control it is now under private development there is a tenative map to develop this privately and the applicant has petitioned for annexation infrastructure in the area there are roadways adjacent to the site public roadways sewer connections and water connections are available for development and police and fire service areas en Circle the site and again just emphasizing what the request is before you everything shaded in red on your screen is currently within the city the site is outlined in yellow and this request would be to bring that subject site into the city via annexation the review considerations for this type of annexation request are on your screen now I'll go through them all briefly and I'll lump some of them together so if you have any further questions on any of them please follow up starting with the first two the location of this site is a logical extension of the boundaries of the city it is completely surrounded by W two or in circled by Ward 2 the next four bullets I will together and then talk about briefly this annexation will accommodate plan regional growth there is starting with that Regional land designation of tier one land this is land that is adjacent to development adjacent to infrastructure and anticipated for development in the near future the City Zoning designation for this site is mixed use suburban and the city controls land use on these parcels and this is the type of development that has came in that we anticip to see as for how long this has been part of plan growth I think it's been in the in the works for a while and you can see that starting with there's some Industrial Development moving southeast of the highway across the freeway from this site and additionally if you go back to the Redfield Regional plan which is 15 or 20 years old now and is no longer in effect but that did anticipate development of this nature in this area Water and Sewer Service again are available this is when within the service area for both of those utilities as well as police and fire the city police and City fire currently have service areas which encircle the site and then Capital facilities this is a logical extension of City roadways for this development a fiscal analysis was submitted by the applicant City staff analyzed that request the finance department determined that annexation of these properties would have a net positive fiscal impact for the City of Reno this is not part of any Community Management plan area for Washo County and this annexation does not create an island in fact it actually does the opposite this is an existing a remnant of County Land completely encircled by the city and we would be reducing the size of that island so after looking at those considerations and analyzing the request staff came to the recommendation for approval of this annexation request with the recommended motion here on your screen specifically to refer this item for a second reading and adoption and that concludes my presentation I'm here for questions thank you good job I think this is your second time in front of us you're killing it I had a chocolate milk this morning so I'm ready to go I love it I had a chocolate milk this morning and it was fun I I got to um know a little bit about you when we all went to the what was that called yeah the great places to work and then we all went out it was really fun it was really fun to get to know like you know everyone we work with and um it was just really cool to get to hear your story so well anyway I'm glad you're back so good job awesome okay I'm gonna send it to councilwoman do yeah go ahead you're one um I um support this and I do have a couple questions though um my first question is well what I what I think I brought up to staff and I certainly brought up to applicant was why we're annexing after you've done a tenative map it's so confusing to me I mean I thought the process works from beginning to end we Annex then we evaluate you know Master Planning and Zoning do tenative map you know there's a process and yet we've done that process and yet we have an Annex could you just explain that again yes thank you for the question and I do appreciate the question and do understand the confusion but just to clarify we being the City of Reno is not annexing this property this is not part of an annexation program this is a request from the applicant this land is within the city's sphere of influence so you can't it can be developed and under County if we didn't anex no it would be the city controls land use on the parcel the tenative map came to us Was Heard by the City Planning Commission all permits will be reviewed by City staff regardless of annexation status I understand all this all I'm asking is when it came into us to get a tendon map or right they got the ton map why didn't we say where's your annexation request as City staff we can't really speak to when the timing of those applications come in that did come in and we did bring up the issue of that this was still in the sphere of influence and the applicant has brought forward now an annexation request I get all that but I'm still struggling maybe this question for Mr manager I'm just not sure I just so as Mr winter uh just said we don't have at present a current annexation plan and so we are uh at the mercy of the applicant in terms of whether or when they would like to Annex their so they could get a tened map like a couple years ago but not Annex for a couple years or something they could get a tenative map and not Annex at all they would just have to develop it under our standards okay all right well um I want to move forward with it it's just I think it's a very unusual haven't run into this process before in my ear here so I just I didn't understand I thought we start with annexation so the only other question I had is a couple times you kept saying it was completely surrounded but on one whole side it's um university and they're still in the county right yes that is correct and it's right here on on your screen again yeah the Redfield campus is under State ownership it is still in the county right and then lastly just that finding about um bringing in funds when you look at it is do what was the net was it like $10 or $1,000 or so someone must know I think I can pull that up in a second it's not that critical I just wondered is it usually development costs money you got to provide police and fire and so on and so forth services to to homes because it's not commercial so I just if you had it off top your head that'd be great if you don't it's fine yeah I I want to say it's somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000 was what the estimate from the applicant was our finance staff did not put that number on it they evaluated and said in general this will be a net positive okay well I'm supportive and going to make a motion but I think there let me go to councilman breus before go ahead councilman breus thank you um and it's vacant so the annexation prior to an election doesn't matter then right yeah that thank you for the question we did look at that and I believe it's more than 90 days before the election is when those come in and this would fall outside that window but it was it was looked at okay okay yeah that's good one time it wasn't now here's the thing you said it's an island now an island is language when you're talking to my interpretation and just for everyone to know when we talk annexations because we've made decisions to not have annexations in Title 18 and just re work straight off of 2 68 oh excuse me which is odd and unusual but um islands are Creations when you're talking about annexation programs is that your understanding and then you default into contiguity and other factors when you're outside of any annexation program yes so this would not be part of the annexation program if it was part of the annexation program we cannot create Islands as the city but that does not apply under this portion of state code where it's an applicant coming forward and petitioning but if we were in a program of annexation we probably would be creating an island if this was part of our annexation program we could not do this because it would create the red field campus would be an island less than 40 acres that's prohibited by state code yeah yeah and that is my problem with all of this I very much Support Program of annexation the concept which is embedded in our regional planning framework which is a Cooperative effort and because we've gotten to the point where we've had other priorities you know not doing an annexation program we're creating in my view uncertainty and also um lack of cooperation with our other jurisdictions because what we've done now is we've got Redfield just hanging out there for the sheriff to reply respond to um and so I said I think a while ago at our last annexation I'm just not going there with these unilateral applicant walk in the door city council look at it I want to adopt a program of annexation I want it to be a very good one I want it to be in the context of the sphere and I want us to follow that and not Annex outside of the program of annexation I think that is how we get into problems and so I can't support this one at this time I really hope that we can prioritize getting a program of annexation so there's land use certainty out in the region I think when you don't have L use certainty you have issues like the M God that we just dealt with so I'm not in support and I apologize for that okay thank you so much any other questions from Council no okay that being said I'm going to send it to you to give us a motion please yeah thank you Madame mayor um I'd like to move to Annex this uh project on C4 NX 22002 Gateway at Gina annexation and if I get a second I have one more question I have a motion and a second one question councilor is it possible I mean should we be annexing the campus I mean does that have to remain in the county um it does not have to we have we have had we have had discussions with the applicant about that we have been in contact with the Redfield campus there's nothing to report but this would not preclude a future annexation and we could put them in annexation plan actually and Annex them I think if we had an annexation plan that could be considered okay I mean it's good to not have Islands I me to council member Reus this point it's good to not just have one place that a sheriff's responding to so I would just assume do it all um I'm just you know for the future so okay anyway so I have a motion to go ahead Council one quickly wanted to ask um I thought you couldn't anex somebody without them wanting to be Annex w't that's what's happening theyve petition I missed that sorry all right so I have a motion a second all in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries no okay motion carries all right thank you thank you guys have a good day if I can make a point of claric here for I don't know 3 hours four hours thank you I did offer to do it for lunch Madame mayor could I just clarify CU I think someone misunderstood me and it was a point if someone's in a program of annexation they can be annexed against their wishes that's the only way it can be done and that's how you solve problems like the islands that you create through this method and in fact my own development was Annex probably I didn't live there but against not with their agreement but they were Annex into the City and they were an island okay thank you so much good job thank you all right okay moving on Madam clerk sending it right back to you thank you madam mayor moving on to item C5 which is a request for you conditional use permit okay uh at this time let the record reflect that the city council is now opening the public hearing Madame clerk was proper notice given and any correspondents received Nathan so nice to see you again Madame mayor proper notice was given and we did receive two letters in opposition of this item prior to 4 P.M yesterday those have been distributed to the Reno city council and are available on reno.gov meetings all right perfect I'm going to send it right back to you Nathan right hello again Nathan Gilbert senior planner with development services the issue on review this afternoon is a request for conditional use permit to allow a Skyway essentially a pedestrian bridge over East Commercial row uh the site zoning locate excuse me the site zoning is mixed use downtown Entertainment District and is master plan downtown mixed use key issues in staff analysis were project design and safety and compatibility with the surrounding area little bit of background uh the design design standards for skyways were adopted in 2000 uh the Reno City Center re renovation uh to mixed use Excuse me the Reno City Center is currently undergoing renovation to mixed use residential commercial uh facility that's the former Harris buildings uh this will provide direct access from existing parking garage at the Whitney Peak uh to new offices in the the uh City Center complex skyways are allowed subject to review and recommendation by the design Review Committee and the Planning Commission ultimately a Skyway is a city council decision uh as far as design was modified from its original open truss design um initial uh Concepts that were presented to the design Review Committee had uh features very similar to the bridges over in in Wingfield Park um based on the feedback received from the design Review Committee uh revisions were received to um incorporate their comments as well as NAB comments uh related to safety and an open U excuse me a covered walkway concept and that resulted in the the request that you have before you today for a cover bridge design uh that takes into consideration precipitation management uh color pallet and a color pallette matching the existing buildings uh as condition it does restrict access address security and maintenance of the uh Skyway Bridge requires a lighting plan and would have murals painted on the columns uh it's 232 by 11t semi-enclosed Bridge so it you can see in that graphic there it has uh um the uh kind of mesh sighting to give it an open feel but provide that security and provide that uh uh coverage that uh the roof coverage that the design Review Committee commented on the majority of the spans goes over the old Harris Plaza uh The Columns are all on private property and the design includes concrete floors slanted metal roof decorative railing and a powdered coated mesh siding uh there are three existing Sky bridges in the vicinity uh there this location is right next to the Reno Arch where there are numerous special events uh during the warm Seasons uh there are conditions that address that no loitering in the bridge uh this would be really uh restricted to key card access for the employees to access their uh commercial offices to that existing parking garage and signs on the Skyway are restricted through conditions of approval Planning Commission was able to make all required findings for conditional use permit related to consistency with fre new Municipal Code compatibility with surrounding de development uh consistency with development standards uh public services and utilities available compatible characteristics and that it would not be detrimental to public health safety or welfare additional findings are required for Skyway conditional use permits Planning Commission determined that uh is consistent with Skyway design guidelines and lessens the tunnel effect with the final design does not impair the view of officially recognized Scenic resources is consistent with orderly development of the product project or area and addresses pedestrian uh circulation by providing written consent of greater than 75% of the owners of frontages on both sides of the affected block at the April 20th Planning Commission hearing Planning Commission discussed balancing adopted master plan policies for supporting skyways in certain downtown locations and promoting Street activation and limited employee key card access providing a functional connection between an employment center and a parking area uh Planning Commission uh recommends to city council with conditions uh they recommended approval five in favor one opposed with that Planning Commission recommends the city council approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions that concludes my presentation all right good job Nathan okay I'm gonna um start with councilwoman breus go ahead um that's what we're supposed to issue yeah thank you um Mr Gilbert thanks for that presentation I have a few questions because it was unclear to me so and I just spent some time in our new code so the skyways reside in Title 18 in the development standards section title correct uh it's it referenced appendix yeah yeah but then it referenc appendix but for procedural purposes um because I was looking in the use table to see if it's an accessory use you know like in zoning districts but it more seems that it's a development standard in an like grading that then is triggered a conditional use that's correct okay thank you for helping me understand and um and so with that we look at the conditional use permit findings and then um then the design you know criteria the specific standards if you will or guidelines for those let me ask you um you say It's associated with the Reno City Center complex and you know you say it's the form Harris buildings but I'm really uncertain what that is and I did see a lot of characterization of that um and you you're mentioning that it's a skybridge for employees but I thought this Center City complex or city center complex was a residential project it's a mixed use project do you have a delineation of you know Square footages occupancy all the building permits that have been um pulled so we can understand the complexion of this project cuz it wasn't subject to any other planning entitlement correct no correct that this is in the the downtown mixed use Zone which goes straight to building permit yeah did it get any kind of traffic analysis or anything so we could see a characterization of it I I can't speak to that other than permits are actively uh being worked on okay and this this garage has how many um parking spaces I don't know off hand and it's going to be exclusively for the people on the other side of the parking um of the parking gr of the tunnel or the sky Bridge it's exclusively it's not going to be for um like pay to park or for anyone else in the vicinity it's restricted to key card access well that doesn't necessarily comport to the same concept if you if you don't mind because I thought at one point that that property maybe was associated with the Whitney Peak or you know can other people validate and and can it be a private parking lot for fee for other users maybe the condition is written for key card access for employees and exclusively for but but just that one building that's connecting not the that's completely the conditional use permit is for the skybridge itself and that's for access to the skybridge and it's but on the other end is just a commercial building that's all employment correct correct not residential correct okay and what's the square footage of that building I don't know I've maybe the applicant knows a few more and then there were in the table in the design guidelines a lot of like um requirements of like a checklist you have to go through a Frontage that they control so much Frontage then that's the width of how big wide it can be did you go through all that and confirm that this meets those standards correct okay I didn't see it in the record I'm going to cut you off right there and go to um Council M dur and we'll come back to you Council woman breus yeah okay go thank you I had an opportunity to go out on site and look at this and um there were a couple things that I really liked about the approach one was a use of the design Review Committee and as I understand they actually at the at the direction the design Review Committee went back modified the design so where they started is not where they ended where they started was well-intentioned but it didn't fit the architecture so I was very pleased that there was no buckling or resistance to that I think the design Review Committee brings a lot of value and I am very pleased that the applicants listen to that and spent money to revise I think that's really worth noting the second thing I want to note is that it's narrow um it's really intended to be a Skywalk versus a gaming facility a restaurant or something else and I really like that um I do have something I'm not as keen on and that is that we don't put people on the ground we we always want people on the ground in our city to have Ur a lively Urban environment and I think that that's uh 300 or more people that won't be on the ground uh necessarily I don't even know if they're all use it I mean I imagine um everyone will use it because it's a simple way to get to your car but I mean are they gonna um stand up there and watch events or something I don't know but um but anyway do you could you just speak to that I mean we got two letters of opposition so could you just summarize for us what the concerns were because so far I think this is uh a pretty good thing but yes so we took the feedback from the nabs the na the NAB conversation was actually very enlightening the yeah it really was uh the design Review Committee uh comments really pared some of that and added added some extra uh the the special events and loitering on the bridge um oh really that was discussed yeah that was discussed and then what was the answer there's a specific condition of approval spend more than 10 minutes in there or something no no loitering yeah no loitering but I thought I heard you saying no loitering under the bridge what you no no in the bridge in the bridge okay yeah thank you I I could swear I heard you say no loitering under the bridge and I thought well it's going to be shade someone's going to stand under there but no loitering in okay I think that's very good and then was there another issue I've heard this always about getting people down on the ground do you have a thought well I think the and I can go back to the finding I that's an actual uh finding for for the skyways and that that provision that says provide written consent greater than 75% of the owners frontages on both sides of effective block meet that criteria okay but I'm asking you from a city design perspective we want people down but but these special people coming from this special section of this buildings in other words it's not all the Gest it's not everyone in the building it's just for people have key card access that's correct so some subset of the people in the building would be using this corre but not everyone not everybody okay I don't know exactly why they need it but I get it and I'm I'm not opposed to it and I like the process that was followed very much okay councilman Reese thank you madam mayor I too like council member der am uh excited uh to have seen it gone through the design review uh board and the process that was identified there there had been some Kur fuffle some months ago when the university did not similarly go through it in large part because no one knew it existed so it was a good to know that it also has gone through the NAB um as to this concern about deactivating spaces I think you know um at least one very uh vocal blogger was talking about how our own uh Consultants have said don't use these and I think that's a mischaracterization and it's why we don't read and believe everything you read on the internet because I had the chance in my briefing uh the other day with gel to talk very specifically about uh the use of of skyways and of course the goal is to avoid skyways like we see on Sierra Street where they're connecting huge chunks of buildings over entire cityscapes right not a small narrow path to take employees safely from parking to work right I also had the privilege of going on site and um seeing the conversion of the Cai property uh to see it in all its various forms and one of the things that struck me as very exciting is that we are going to reinvigorate the street because there's going to be a park there there's going to be a Starbucks a couple of very nice restaurants that open onto that and a stage and so so it's really going to provide a way to enliven the area I mean that particular stretch of commercial I I don't know that there's a lot of people traffic that's going to use the street and we certainly don't want to ask people to you know play Frogger with oncoming traffic as they're going from you know car to building uh my understanding is that there are I don't know some several 50 70 80,000 Square F feet of office space imagine if you will the old haras right and all the area that was gaming is now going to be converted into work space and those employees uh and I suppose it's not a secret I don't think of who's going in there but those employees will be able to go safely to and from their car um and so I I I just see this as a great opportunity for us to um make certain that um not only do we have the street level engagement that the project brings we also provide a safe way for employees to come and go that key card access I think is a very good thing uh because it means that you know I'm not going to be using it to go from the parking garage into the city center I won't have that access nor other people I understood that there were also a bunch of changes that were made about you know they didn't want to see flower baskets hanging and dripping onto the ground below uh the design Review Committee didn't like the look of it and so a lot of things happen to make it better so uh for our public who is considering contemplating this please know that um a lot of effort has gone into and a lot of public in put into the ultimate um you know design elements of it and there is no uh you know sneaking in under the cover of night or disregarding some important group's thoughts on it we've taken all that into account and that's how we got to this point all right thank you vice mayor J thank you very much um I did want to ask Mr Gordon um how many people do we is this tenant that we anticipate will use this sherff thank you for the record Garrett Gordon so the the tenant who's requested this connection is clear Capital uh 500 employees plan for the building they've leased floors three four and five about 75,000 square feet okay um I too like council member derer um you know we want to see as much Street activation as we can get but I do also appreciate the the developments that City Center has done at the street level which will certainly activate it to a high degree than it has been in my tenure here which has really been very very minimal um so I appreciate that and and I do also appreciate the input from the NAB and the design Review Committee because the first um I don't think it's any shock to you because I think I told this to you the first design was not particularly attractive I didn't think um and didn't really suit the area very well um and it's much much improved so I think with the conditions put on um and the the nabs input and the design review committees I think it's a much improved um product for a very narrow group of folks um and we do want to see those folks on the street riding the scooters yeah I said it um and and going to Shops and and that sort of thing which is the ultimate goal um but this is much improved than what it started out at so good job perfect thank you Council breus yeah so um Mr Gordon do you know how many par parking spaces are there in this garage uh for the record Garett Gore the garage that The Pedestrian walkway connects to yeah so that is uh owned by the Whitney Peak and we have leased approximately 360 370 spaces on the fourth F fifth and sixth floors uh to connect to uh the old Harris Building the balance of the garage I want to say I might be guessing here but 500 or 600 spaces and the balance of the spaces are still going to be used for Whitney peak's valet service okay so um and I appreciate that information thank you I have no other questions for you um and I was looking at the floor plan that to me is a big issue in that you know what and I would and I'll tell you I get why this community has taken a lot of efforts to have regulations related to skyways um I think there's three really great examples here in downtown and one maybe South and if anyone's walked by the University of Nevada Arena recently there's another one cuz boy oh boy is that a footing but I was not you know necessarily closed-minded to this one because I think it's a minor street but I really thought it was going to be serving a complete residential product and I think the residential needs of um residents are different than I'm going to work in downtown and um when I learned it was a office environment and we're committing to spanning a city you know a tunnel effect the darkening over the RightWay for someone who's just leasing maybe a half or a third of a garage owned by someone else uh-uh and one of the findings is orderly phasing of the development and I don't know if it's the development of of you know the garage or the it's probably I would interpret it to be on each sides and I just don't see that it's orderly phasing you know this garage has been there a long time I see it has needs but it's meeting other needs and those needs are a very functional garage that's good it's being parsed out among different users but for a short-term use by one office tenant who I think is Jump spacing from somewhere else downtown I don't think it's worth spanning over our RightWay um I don't think it meets the con the master plan policies I won't go into because I have a little difference of staffs analysis on you know the applicable policies about downtown activity and walkability um but particularly orderly phasing of development it's not justified in my mind so I won't support this thank you we thank you Madame mayor I I um got to go see the site yesterday and was really exciting to to see it all and what I envisioned is that these employes that are using those parking spots would probably not use it every day because they're going to want to be down on the on the ground when they go in to get their coffee go in to do things it'll be people moving around maybe when it rains or snows maybe they use it maybe there's somebody that has handicaps and that's an easier way to go but I think a lot of the employees will be down on the ground lunch breaks are going to go out I I just think it's great so I just wanted to throw that in all right um thank you I wanted to say that I went and I looked at it because at first I got to say I was very nervous um because of what happened with the university when we were looking at the last one and we didn't go to the design review committee so um I was really glad that you followed that process and then the other thing I thought was interesting I was in um Minneapolis not too long ago and I don't know if you've seen there downtown it's all connected by um these walkways and there's lots of people on the ground as well so after seeing that and in Minneapolis is great downtown it's pretty incredible right so um after seeing that and also seeing you know cities how they can do them really well and not to mention um I do think it's important that we have Workforce downtown I really really do um downtown is changing dramatically and I think that that's a a big piece that's still missing is that downtown Workforce and I still want them coming down and living down there so um I actually think it was it was done really really well and so whenever I looked at it it just and it's so minor actually it even seems like but anyway I think good job okay I'm going to send it councilwoman dur and then I'm going to send it to um Vice May Jordan just had a real quick question um and it's probably for you Garrett um you said 500 employees and then how many residents are you expecting in that unit it was quite big and amazing and what I'm wondering is they don't get this they a resident could would have to go down go up the garage or will the will a resident even have parking in the Whitney Peak garage thank you for the question for the record Garett Gordon so there's between 700 and 800 hotel rooms historically converted into over 500 Apartments and those residents will use the existing haris parking garage there's about 800 parking spaces there so that you can imagine one per unit or even two per unit for some folks plus the retail commercial we use the harr's garage and where is that just remind me it's uh the valet was off Center Street and you pull in it's just to the north of the Santa Fe there if you look if you're looking down so that'll be residential garage and then this garage is to accommodate those 500 employees all right thanks thank you okay go ahead vice mayor move to approve I have a motion in a second all those in favor Madam mayor um I'm not going to support I don't think it's appli conditionally use permit finding number one object consistent with objectives of the title I don't believe it is because it is not a skybridge attaching in particular a project of relationship with one another in fact it may be a uh a skybridge attaching on one side where the parking is you know the other half of the sky Bridge less relationship to the project than what it's attaching so I don't think that's consistent with the title of skyways um the um I don't think it's you know under the Skyway findings consistent with the guidelines and lessens the tunnel effect I don't believe that it it does that because I think we're creating an increased incremental tunnel effect in downtown Reno which I think we really feel all the time the more more you out of these the more you do create a tunnel effect but particularly number three is my hardest one the applicant has demonstrated that the Skyway is consistent with the orderly development of the project or the area I don't think so this lease could go away tomorrow this Capital could you know I don't know we don't have privy to their lease Arrangements but I think they've jumped from one lease to another commercial space and that's great maybe they're expanding but it could go away you know is it a seven-year lease and then we've committed to a skybridge I don't think so I don't think that's consistent with the title either so I won't be supporting thank you very much okay thank you councilman ree thank you madam mayor I just think I want to be able to be clear on the record you know one of the things that we are tasked with as a body is thinking critically about about uh Economic Development and our downtown environment that includes both the commercial applications of our role as City Council Members as well as the residential ones and in this particular case um this project itself the city center is pretty phenomenal and if you spent any time in it you would know that it is going to I think transform the nature of downtown in terms of the number of people living there and also working because this is you know what downtown seek for vibrancy a live work play right and so there will undoubtedly be people who are living in the city center project who are um either on a short-term basis or long-term basis working in the businesses that are also located there and clear Capital uh is certainly one of them but there are a number of other businesses and again let's root for Reno I I think this is a something that Madame mayor you have uh taken um the lead in uh helping this community to um see a vision for a vibrant downtown so we can't always be saying we want a vibrant downtown we want more walkable communities we want more liable communities and then on the other hand be paying lip service to that by saying no I don't like this particular element of some obscure code AS justification for it all of these things were found by a five to one vote of the Planning Commission it appears that that will be a six to one vote at this body if I'm reading the te leaves correctly that tells you that one of these things is not like the other right uh and at the end of the day we should all be sad by that I mean that um some folks just do not want to see Reno succeed and I am not one of those people so I'm happy to see this project moving forward okay thank you so much okay I have a motion in a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed I'm opposed motion carries all right thank you moving right along Madam clerk I'm going to send it right back to you thank you madam mayor we're now moving into ordinance adoptions item F1 to be read by the city attorney's office okay I'm going to send it to the famous Carl thank you madam mayor ordinance adoption number 6626 ordinance of the Reno city council providing for the levy and manner of collection of Assessments for the City of Reno Nevada neighborhood Improvement project otherwise known as the downtown Reno business improvement district ratifying approving and confirming all of their actions previously taken by the city council the City of Reno and the officers of said City directed toward the acquisition and improvements of said project in the district together with other matters properly relating there too okay thank you so much mam clerk any public comment on this item Madame mayor we've not received any public comment additionally we have no comment registered okay I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries unanimously okay sending it uh right back to Carl Hall item F2 thank you madam mayor ordinance adoption number 6627 case number LDC 22-56 Moana Park and field zoning map Amendment request for a zoning map Amendment from General commercial neighborhood commercial and single family residential to public facilities the plus or minus 2.79 acre side is located south of Moana Lane West of Baker Lane and east of Grant Drive the site has a master plan land use designation of parks Greenways and open space w two all right Madam clerk any public comments no public comment registered and no one in the audience all right thank you so much going to send it to you Council motion to approve I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries okay item F3 sending it right back to Carl Hall thank you madam mayor ordinance adoption ordinance number 6628 case number LDC 22- z53 85 Keystone Avenue specific plan District request for resoning from professional office to specific plan District the plus or minus 0.47 acre side is located on the southwest corner of the intersection between Keystone Avenue in West First Street site has master plan land use designation of suburban mixed use Bo one all right thank you so much Madam clerk any public comment none registered okay thank you sending it to councilwoman breus move to adopt I have Motion in a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries unanimously item F4 sending it right back to you Carl Hall thank you madam mayor ordinance adoption ordinance number 6629 ordinance authorizing the issuance of City General obligation additionally secured by pledge revenues various purpose subordinate lean bonds series 2022 in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $60 million in order to finance a portion of the design acquisition construction improving and equipping of a public safety center a portion of the cost of the design acquisition construction improving and equipping of an aquatic center at Moana Springs and preliminary work to design a Fire Department headquarters all right thank you so much Madam clerk any public comment we have none registered all right I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I I all those oppos motion carries all right Madame clerk item G and now item H H1 any announcements uh from city council regarding boards and commissions go ahead councilman Reese Madame mayor I just have one announcement and I unfortunately Mr flansburg is not with us today but I believe it's Mr flansburg birthday today so I just wish him a very happy birthday uh even though he is traveling and so yeah he's traveling so good for him happy birthday Mr flansburg Happy Birthday okay all right Madam clerk sending it right back to you all right Madame mayor let's go ahead and open the Redevelopment agency board perfect so if you so I'm going to go ahead and open item L1 roll call council member breus here D here Delgato here Weber here Jordan here Reese here J here Madame mayor you do have a quum of the Redevelopment agency board okay thank you so much item L2 public comment we have none item L3 approval of the agenda I get a motion I have a motion second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries unanimously all right it L4 approval of the minutes from the April 27th meeting I'm moved I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries unanimously all right so we're moving on to item L6 which is general public comment which we have none so I'm just looking for a motion to adjourn the Redevelopment agency board tojn I have a motion in a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed motion carries okay so wrapping up our regular meeting we're moving on to item J which is closing public comment we have none registered to speak um in the audience it should be noted for the record we did receive seven comments which were either General in nature or received after 4 p.m. yesterday yesterday May 24th five of those letters were in opposition of various items and two were concerned additionally we have three voicemails which we'll transfer to now okay thank you hello this is a resident on Deer Mountain Road calling in regards to the um Tri uh villages 3 and four Reno project number of LDC 21-00 038 uh we're calling simply to ask that the city follow the established guidelines and agreements regarding developing these properties uh not quite sure why they're trying to squeeze so many apartments in there my understanding was that we were to expect commercial in that development uh with some possible residential uh um concerns of Ingress egress um the number of people livestock and so forth being able to exit appropriately uh water supply as they will be not only supplementing water but utilizing uh Wells and so forth and how that's going to work with our wells um we're opposed to all of that and voicing our opinion um number to reach me back if needed 775 453 0249 thank you kindly hi my name is Byron Brown I live in verdy I'm calling about the Meridian 120 a requested changes by the developer I think that 3,000 residential units are already too many for our little Community let the developer put in services that will help the local community such as grocery stores restaurants Etc item two the I80 overcross or overpass is inadequate for the existing traffic additional traffic will only make it worse for pedestrians and bicycles and they are the pedestrians and bicycles are already at risk now and the additional traffic will make it nearly impossible to get over that overpass thank you very much my name is Laura leening I live in Deli Ranch Estate I'm calling in regards to Reno project number LDC 21- 000038 and I am voicing opposition um to um non non-compliance um towards the um the Mortenson Garson overlay district and um the Garson and handbook and that was agreed upon the AMX properties 20 years ago we do not want above the agreed amount and we do not want a Triplex um village being built it's we want to preserve ver ey it's already been partially destroyed with logistic centers and multiple family units thank you hi my name is Lori Moore and I live at 1435 Meridian Ranch Drive 89523 I'm calling about the Meridian 120 South project Villages 1 and I want you to know that I totally against allowing 3,000 more residential unit need is to have some uh grocery stores and infrastructure in that area I'm so upset because traffic and Life Safety Services are really an issue in this area and putting more people and more density in this area is not a good idea we already see what has happened to the um area that has been developed and has created even more traffic problems so please consider not allowing 3,000 new residential units in that area and I don't know what the planning department is thinking of when they go ahead and approve that um I'm not happy with what's going on with the planning department okay that's my comment and I hope it that something gets done thank you bye all right all right Madame mayor with that we have no additional public comment and I'm just looking for a motion on item K adjournment all right before I do that actually I have my own public comment and I just want to point out uh we have one of Reno's finest over here who actually spent the entire day with us did you did you end up drawing the short out of the stick is that what happened just happy to be here no well nice to see you thank you for being here and um doing such a good job appreciate it all right give me a motion I have a motion second all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries unanimously okay have a great afternoon everyone thank you so much