[snorts] All right. This is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated Wednesday, February 4th, 2026. The time is 6 p.m. We will now stand for the pledge of allegiance. Uh Mr. lead us off. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Madame clerk roll call. >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams >> here. >> Manny Bera >> here. >> Christina Delviar >> here. >> Tina Gianiantini >> here. Carrie Romire. Alex Velto >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Item A3, public comment. Madame Clerk, >> it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer. If there's disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, I do not have any request to speak forms in chambers. We do have a participant on Zoom with their hand raised. Alex MacArthur. Um, when you're prompted, uh, unmute your mic, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Commissioners, my name is Alex MacArthur. I live at 2087 Chancellor Circle, directly adjacent to the proposed project on 2093 Chancellor. I'm asking the commission to deny this major site plan review, or at a minimum, condition approval on a 15t sideyard setback for three critical reasons. First, incompatible scale and intent uh 1808603E1. The applicant is proposing a 32 foot 8 in structure at top of 10 ft of artificial fill. This massive footprint isn't driven by housing needs, but by vehicle storage. The plan includes four garage spaces for a home with only two bedrooms. My own four-bedroom home functions perfectly with a standard garage. We should not sacrifice a neighbor's light and air to subsidize a garage dominant facade that is fundamentally incompatible with our established residential character. Point two, extreme encroachment on light and air. By placing garage wings at the minimum 5' 10in setback while simultaneously elevating the site with 10 ft of fill, the applicant is creating a nearly 40ft vertical mass just feet from my property line. The major site plan process exists to mitigate exactly this type of sight specific impact. This design proposes prioritizes maximum storage over the light and air amenities that have defined this neighborhood for over 50 years. Three, unreasonable safety and stability risks. This project relies on armored slope protection to hold back a steep 10-ft high-filled slope. Placing this much artificial weight on a hillside parcel creates significant [clears throat] drainage and stability risks for my existing 1970 structure. Under RMC1804302, grading must be limited to prevent hazards to adjacent property. The proposed infiltration trench is a minimal check the box solution for such a drastic artificial grade change. This applicant has options. By reducing the garage capacity or increasing the side setbacks to 15 ft, they can respect the hillside and their neighbors. As proposed, this project is materially detrimental to the safety and welfare of the immediate vicinity. I urge you to deny the request or require a 15oot step back. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. I do not have anyone else in the Zoom meeting with their hand raised at this time. >> Thank you, Madame Clerk. We will now move forward with item A4, approval of the agenda uh for our meeting tonight, February 4th 2026. >> Commissioner Val, move to approve. >> Are we um sorry, can I ask are are we moving the training item to the first item tonight? >> Yes. Do we would you like me to specify that before approving the agenda? >> That would be okay. So tonight we will plan to take item D1 after item B in advance of C1 and otherwise proceed as listed. So item A4, approval of the agenda, February 4th, 2026. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? >> I'll second. Commissioner Beltos first. >> We have a motion from Veltos, second from Basera. All in favor? I I >> I >> motion carries. Item A5, approval of the minutes from our January 21st, 2026 meeting. >> Motion to approve those minutes. >> Commissioner Williams, motion to approve. >> Commissioner Dov second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Commissioner Velto, I was not present, so I'll need to recuse. Uh, six six in favor uh with one uh recusal on that from Velto. Item B, staff announcements. Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. Um, an update from council last week. The lacage resort specific plan district project was approved by council with the added conditions of a deed restriction on the golf course for 25 years that will take effect upon co of the hotel and some addition of uh solar car ports within the parking areas. Also approved was the 386 Hulkcom Lane zoning map amendment that this body approved last month. I think it was your first meeting in January. So that was approved as well. Both of those items will go for second reading at city council next week. Thank you, Mr. We. We will now move to item D1, a staff presentation from Miss Fouse regarding infill development. Right. Good evening, commissioners. Did we lose? >> It's not up here. I think I might be by Commissioner Valto right there. >> I stole it. Oh, it's my clicker now. >> Good evening. Angela Fouse, assistant director of development services for the record. So, this is going to start our our series of trainings and our intent is to give you guys some education on topics that you have to make decisions on. Um, infill is something that you guys often make a lot of decisions on. And I've heard a lot of kind of mixed feelings about infill, whether it's parking, whether it's density. Um, so I thought, well, let let's understand some of the challenges with infill because there are challenges that come with it, but also some of the good things about infill so that you guys can be a little bit more informed about where we are at as staff when we're looking at our zoning code and and what's before us in terms of projects. So high level, what is considered infill? I look at it as there's there's kind of two ways for a city to grow. You can grow up, meaning high density, or you can grow out, meaning sprawl. There's lots of things in the middle as well. By definition, basically infill is anything more in an urban area. And it can be vacant land, it can be underutilized land, or it could be previously developed land. So, it doesn't have to be just um land that's that's vacant and oh, we're going to put a tiny project on it. It could be like, well, let's tear down a building that's that's in bad condition and put something new on it. So, um I think a lot of people think infill is is a bad thing because they think, oh, it's going to change the character of my neighborhood. I don't want high-rise apartments next to me. But there's there's so many ways to look at infill other than black and white. So typically when you guys think of infill, you probably think of, you know, higher density, but it can also be a duplex. It doesn't have to be Oh, man. >> Sorry, technical difficulties. We're just trying to make sure the Zoom is shared to um the presentation is shared to Zoom. >> There we go. Um so again, Enfield can be anything from a high-rise, it could be mixed use. An example would be if you have maybe a coffee shop or some retail on the ground floor. Maybe you have residential or office on the second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth floor. Again, infill is typically what we'd see more of an urban area. From a Reno perspective, we often use the term the McCarron Ring as more of an infill area, but we also have infill outside of the McCarron Ring because we've had such a kind of a sprawling city that anywhere where we already have existing development, we really can say is infill. The key thing with infill versus sprawl is do you already have services and facilities there? Right? Do you have schools already built? Do you have roads already in place? Do you have fire stations already available and and there's firemen working in those fire stations? Those are all good things. Meaning as as taxpayers, the taxpayers don't have to pay to have a new fire station built because new development's there. It's already existing. Um those roads are already there. That sewer line's already there. That water line's already there. A [snorts] lot of times when we see new development, maybe the sewer and water lines and the roads are there, but they're they're dated. Maybe the water lines too small to handle your new project. Maybe the roads have a lot of potholes and have to be redone. So, as I think a lot of people think, oh, infill's cheaper than sprawl. Not always. Sometimes infill is actually more expensive because you have to upgrade all the existing sewer lines and water lines and the roads. Um, and a big thing too is public transit. You know, Reno has RTC, which is our public bus system. We don't have subways. We don't have light rail, but public transit is still something that, you know, we as city planners look for when we're looking at where does it make sense to have infill. Some of the common complaints we get, and you guys have seen a couple projects even in the last year come forward where maybe somebody wanted to build um a three-story in an area that was only zoned for a twotory. Maybe they were asking for a parking variance or a parking deviation. Um, and I know this group talked about, well, gosh, you know, in my neighborhood, everyone has, you know, two to four cars. >> Uhhuh. [laughter] And fair, right? I mean, I think um, you know, if you've got kids and they're driving age or maybe you have parents or or other people living in your house, a lot of times we have more than two cars in a house. Where are people parking? But think of it on on the other hand. A lot of people don't have cars because they don't want cars or they don't need a car. They are comfortable living somewhere where they can walk to the grocery store or bike to work. These are all good things, right? These are the kind of developments we want to see. So just because maybe in your mind you're thinking, well my gosh, everyone's going to need two cars, just your average family. Not necessarily true. A lot of times people actually don't want cars and they choose to live in infield places where there's public transportation or where they can walk or bike um and they don't have to have a vehicle. So there there's just the pros and cons, but by far that's probably parking is probably one of the biggest complaints when we see infield development come proposed. The other big one is well this is just too dense. You know my neighborhood is mostly you know one and two stories and you're going to put in a three-story apartment complex. I don't want that in my neighborhood. We get that a lot. And I think it's fear. It's fear of, you know, oh, the extra crime's going to go up. Um, the streets are going to have cars everywhere. It's just going to be loud. Construction's going to go on forever. So, there's this this fear of how is this going to change the character of my block or my neighborhood. So, that's something we hear quite a bit. Um, declining property values. That's another big one we hear. concerns about is my neighborhood going to go down in value because now I have, you know, a triplex next to what is a single family home and and some of that is true, some may happen, but I would say by far it's the opposite. Anytime you bring in new development, you know, gentrification, it generally raises property values. So there's this again perception, I think, of what people are afraid of and then a lot of times the reality of maybe it's not as bad as we all think. So, let's talk about why Infield is good. Um, for one, it's again, you already have existing infrastructure like we talked about. Your roads are already there. So, we're not paying to put in new roads. Um, your schools are there, your police stations are there, the fire stations are there. Those are good things, things that we don't have to pay extra money to put in because we're sprawling out. We also like the idea of sustainability. And from an environmental perspective, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to have cars? Wouldn't it be great if we could all walk to work or bike to work or take public transit? How much better would it be for the environment? Right? These are all pros. How much better would it be for our own health if we could walk and bike rather than getting in our car and then going to work and sitting for eight hours a day? Like we wow, right? These are good things that we actually support in terms of development. And also just kind of that mixed use. It's nice to go to communities where maybe you you know stay at a hotel or an Airbnb and you walk to breakfast. And I think about a lot of neighborhoods in the Reno Sparks area. We can't do that. Most of us don't live in areas that are walkable to go to dinner. [laughter] >> A long walk. >> It's a long walk. Um, so you know that these are the kinds of things that so many people say, "Gosh, I wished I lived in an area where I could walk to a bar or to a restaurant or to my job." So the benefits of infill for sure there there's a lot of exciting things that comes with infill. Um, let's go back to the Reno master plan. I think the word infill is in our master plan about 87 times. So when we updated our master plan a couple years ago, by far what people wanted walkability. That was one of the big things. Well, how do you get walkability? We need infill. Does that mean everything should be infill? Of course not, right? We need that mix of more of the suburban type development because a lot of people want that versus the infill. again something that we aspire to be doesn't mean we have to have it all at one time. Um but within the master plan it identifies some key areas where we want to support infill and then that translates down to our zoning code. So downtown by far the urban corridors that would be your Virginia Street whether it's North Virginia, South Virginia for street and then our redevelopment areas. So downtown is generally a redevelopment area. We also have redevelopment near the red um the old park lane. we have redevelopment out um in the Verdai area. So, it's kind of a hodge podge where redevelopment areas are, but those are areas where through our master plan, we're trying to encourage and promote infill. So, that then translates down to title 18, our zoning code. We did a a code update about a year ago and we really tried to look at how do we better support infill development. We have a lot of uh zoning districts that are very pro- infill and most people don't even realize it. Within our downtown area, it is probably the easiest place to do development and yet nobody is doing development. Our downtown offers unlimited density, meaning you can go as dense as you want. If you wanted to go a 100 stories, a thousand units, you could do that by rate. Submit for a building permit. Doesn't come before planning commission. You don't even have to have parking within our downtown. We have zero parking requirements. All things that you think, wow, why aren't developers rushing to Reno where it's basically cart blanch, do what you want. But again, uh, infill is expensive. And then there's the market side of it, too. I think there's, um, a lot of people that move to Reno move to downtown Reno because they like the idea of downtown Reno. But then there's the other side of, you know, we have some unsheltered population challenges. Um, I was out walking earlier today and I had to dodge the the poop on the street. You know, whether it's dogs or human feces, you know, these are things that we as a city of Reno deal with through our infill development that makes it tough. [snorts] Um, the other thing that we offer, I would say that's probably unique from our zoning code perspective is our density bonus. We have two kinds of density bonus. One is if you are doing affordable housing. Let's say you're in the Wells Avenue area and you are allowed to have 30 units per acre. So you're on one acre, you can have 30 homes. If you do affordable housing, we allow you to do more units than the zoning allows, but it has to be affordable. And we also have a density bonus for infill. So again, not just for affordable, but just trying to do more infill, trying to encourage more infill. We offer a density bonus. Um, we have had a handful of developers take us up on that and they're not bringing in, you know, hundreds of units. It's typically a small development. They're like, if I can just get two more, if I can get two more units, I can make this pencil. So, that density bonus I said I would say has been great for those kind of smaller developers that are just trying to make it pencil for their site. But with that again is how do we protect the neighborhood? um you know, if we're encouraging these density bonuses, we're encouraging developments that have reduced parking or in some cases no parking, what are we doing to protect those existing neighborhoods? Um, one big thing that we do have requirements for is screening. So, if you have a single family home and you've got a three-story building next to you, we have requirements of how much landscaping you have to have um and and what that fencing or wall screening looks like. We also have a requirement for stepped back buildings. Anything over two stories. So like a third story, you have to actually push that story back. And the idea is that everyone generally has a one or a two-story house. So twotory generally doesn't scare, you know, neighbors, but that third story really makes a difference and especially if it's looming over your backyard. So, the idea is that we would still get that density, but you have to push that third story back so that again those windows aren't looming over your neighbor's backyard. Um, again, is it is it is it great? No. Is it help to maintain that community character? We hope so. The other thing that we recently adopted was our ADU ordinance, accessory dwelling unit. One of the challenges with that is that yes, we we like the idea of having more density. Adus help provide that whether it's to another family living there or to maybe an extended family whether it's your kids um whether it's your your husband you just want to give them a man cave or whether it's to you know parents as I think we're all kind of seeing as as people are aging in place um ADUs offer a good option and so we said well how do we again maintain neighborhood and protect that character so ADUs are limited in terms of how big they can be the size and how high they can be. Um, one of the big things that council changed, I think, from what what you guys had adopted was the setback. So, your primary house, your main house generally has a pretty big setback from that rear property line, ADUs have to follow that as well. So, that is again one thing that just in protecting the community character. Um, council kind of, you know, saw the importance of that and and heard some of the the outreach from the community, so they added that. So, there's a lot of give and take to infill. While we like the idea of infill, we want to make sure again that it doesn't negatively impact that character of that community. Um, so all the good things that next time you guys have a project that is infill, you should take into consideration. I would like to think that, you know, every every neighborhood is different and we kind of have to weigh that in as well from a zoning code. We also have all these separate neighborhood plans, whether it's, you know, the Plumis neighborhood plan um or an overlay or the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan. those those [snorts] plans were all built based on um neighbors coming together and saying I want to protect what's unique to my neighborhood. Newlands is another great example where we have all these really neat old houses and they're they're different, right? You can go to Newands and you know it's not Somerset, you know, it's not South Meadows. It's not Stuckco and neutral colored khaki, right? There there's something different and special. So, how do we preserve that? So again, all the things that we as as staff look at when we're writing those staff reports and and working with developers and and hopefully you guys will take that into consideration as well. So that is it high level infill good and bad. Any questions? >> Thank you, Miss Fouse. Yes. Uh Commissioner Delvier, [gasps] >> thank you. That was super helpful. Um but I do have a couple of questions again just because we're, you know, we see things and uh looking for a little more explanation. um one and I'll give the example of um Lorage. So it was called uh infill but it would be helpful for us to sort of understand you don't have to explain it tonight just in general when when they bring up infill for us to understand like what kind of infill or why it's called infill because you know it's it's just sometimes it's just easier for us to understand that a little better. So that's just one recommendation. And then I'm also kind of curious if um and this is um I'm thinking about the piece of property I can't remember. It's near the 1200 Riverside. It was that little house on the corner. And there was a couple of different options. Somebody wanted to build housing. Somebody wanted to do a coffee shop. And so I'm just kind of curious, do you prioritize? Is it who comes to the like h how do you decide sort of which which infill if you have multiple options and opportunities? >> Yes. I think one of the challenges with your role and our role as as city planners is we are not, you know, marketing. We don't get to say we could really use a Sam's Club here. So, we're going to save that for Sam's Club. Um, that's kind of where zoning really takes over. So, zoning, our zoning code basically says here's a list of uses that are allowed. Um, and for the most part, most of the infill area within Reno, I would say more of the McCarron ring infill, right? We have single family zoning, which mostly you can just do housing. We have a lot of mixed use zoning and sky is the limit. A lot of our mixeduse zoning was allows for office, even some industrial, um, you know, apartments, all those things that go into a mixed use. So we we don't have a lot of control over what the private property owner wants to do other than here's what the zoning code allows. Um again our goal is to mitigate impacts. So when somebody comes to us 99% of the time they come to us with a project and we say oo you didn't deal with this or have you thought about that lights are going to impact the neighborhood. We got to reduce those. Right? Those are the things that our staff looks at and says, "Does it meet code first of all? And are there things we can do to address the negative impacts, parking, lighting, noise, all those things?" And that's when by the time it gets to you guys, right, we've looked at it for three months and we've, you know, we've baked it to the best that we can to try and make it a project that, you know, hopefully the neighborhood can support. Um, so that kind of addresses that. Zoning pretty much zoning code tells us what we can and can't do. >> Yeah, makes sense. And then I have one more question if that's okay. Um, basic, you know, we talked about infill and how we're encouraging, you know, walking reduction potentially of cars, sustainability, that sort of thing. Um, again, I think it would be really helpful for us as planning commissioners if maybe they went into a little more detail um when they're presenting it. Uh, because obviously we, you know, these are things we we all want, but sometimes I don't necessarily see that. And so I'm just trying to figure out like how does this make it more walkable or we don't have a bus stop there so how does this actually help? So things like that they seem a little conflicting to me sometimes. So and I'm again not asking for answers just sort of more maybe explanation when we're when we're hearing it in front of us would be super helpful. >> Yeah. No, that's good input. >> That's all. Thank you. >> Commissioner Roire, >> you already had yours on. Uh yeah, I just wanted to ask because I think that applicants often like these words >> to help sell projects, but perhaps their definitions are loosely >> attributed to the you know the intent. So when you think of infill in our region, you mentioned the McCarron core or inside the loop. >> Uh what is your thoughts on South Reno for example? Is that infill or does it case by case matter? >> Yeah, and that's where I think there is no black and white definition. Um, at one time our zoning code said anything more than I think 30 years old, maybe 50 years, no 30 years I think for infill. Anything built built environment of more than 30 years and that's you know the majority of the city. When we go back to that definition that was on that first slide, I think this better kind of encompasses what infill is, right? Is it in in an more of an urban environment? Is it surrounded where we already have services? So, if I was to go out to let's say north alleys and I had a 5 acre site and it was surrounded by, you know, one acre parcels, meaning it's it's a pretty big land. Um, is that considered infill? Not necessarily. Right. There's probably septic and well out there. There's probably not sewer lines and water lines. Um, the the the hardcore urban area I think that we all think of is more of within the McCarron Ring, but definitely outside of the McCarron Ring. So, so much of our city is more than 30 years old, right? More than 50 years old. It's a built environment. So, we look at it as are you in an area that is built around you? Do you have sidewalks? Do you have sewer lines? Do you have water lines? Um, is it a parcel that is vacant? And we have a lot of those. Kind of a hodgepodge of just vacant parcels where no one developed. I absolutely would consider that infill. Is it an area where maybe it's a a house that needs to be, you know, redone and maybe they want to add a second story? Sure, I could count that as infill, too. um you know there's no black and white answer because this is the the general answer of what is the definition of infill but that encompasses so many things um so again from our perspective we try and focus on and this goes back to the regional plan um within the McCarron ring is where we're focusing more of our intense development based on where our zoning allows for it where the regional plan has these kind of tier one areas where they support more intense development um but a lot of it goes back to where the existing services um and and public services exist today. >> Uh Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Uh thank you and hi Angela. Nice to see you. It's uh >> nice to see you. >> Yeah. Thanks. [laughter] Good presentation as always. >> Okay. As long as you can hear me, I suppose. I guess I I do have a few um for you and Mike. Uh I guess a really quick one maybe maybe a suggestion. Uh building on on Commissioner Deliar's uh point about trying to understand which projects are infill and not and Commissioner Roar's question as well. Would it be helpful to formally identify when a project is considered infill as part of the standard project summary and staff reports alongside items like ward request location and proposed motion? And then that way it's kind of a classification system. I'm going to say I would I'm going to revert back to our regional plan and our zoning code and our master plan that say here's the key areas where we want to see more intense development and that's based on if you're in a zoning district such as mixeduse urban that by definition is more of an infill area where we encourage unlimited density. Does that mean every single parcel with a zoning of mixeduse urban is is infill? Maybe, maybe not. Um but but infill is a broad definition and it doesn't necessarily change how we vote on anything. We go back to what does the code say based on what's the zoning. So I would start with what's your zoning and what's what's allowed in that zoning and are you meeting those zoning requirements. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. And um um would you mind just kind of discussing a little bit about how misalignment between zoning and existing residential uses like mobile home parks let's say that in zone commercial affects infill infrastructure and neighborhood stability and whether there are like realistic policy options to to address that currently. >> So is your question specific to mobile home parks? Yeah, like like just more like uh more sometimes when we have misalignment like misalignment between zoning and existing residential uses. >> Okay. I think I think I think what you're asking is how do we better align when maybe a property is used as residential but it's zoned commercial. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um so a couple things within our zoning code. You do have residential adjacency standards and that is based on what your property is zoned for, not what it is currently built at, built as. Um, mobile home parks in particular with the code update, we just amended that to say that mobile home parks regardless of zoning are considered residential. So, if you are building an industrial development, which we've seen quite a few of them in um north valleys and you're next to a mobile home park, but maybe it's zoned commercial, our code today now looks at that mobile home park as residential regardless of the zoning so that we can provide those extra kind of buffers and protections. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And I do have one, they come in threes. Um, I guess from your your perspective, you know, representing staff, what do you what do you believe are the like biggest barriers currently the city can realistically address to make and feel more feasible as especially as they come, you know, before us? Is it like cost zoning flexibility uh or infrastructure coordination and and how do we take that into account, you know, when reviewing those those projects? I think probably the biggest um con well the comments we get from developers is the cost of infill. Most of the time if you're coming into an older neighborhood the pipes are also old and so you have to then pay to upgrade the sewer lines or the water lines or the storm drain those are kind of un unicipated costs until you get in there and you see how bad they are. Um so that by far is probably one of the biggest complaints we get from developers of in terms of cost. The other thing we get um comments I'd say from the general kind of development community is just neighborhood push back. Right? Anytime you have infill you have people already living there. So generally that creates more of a um a neighborhood push back versus a greenfield area where you don't have existing neighbors. So that that tends to be um one of the challenges. And we tried to, you know, kind of work through that by saying if you develop in certain areas like downtown, you don't have to go through a public review process. You go straight to building permit. Nobody can weigh in. It's straight to building permit meet code. Again, we're not seeing a ton of developers flocking to downtown Reno. Um, just it's expensive. >> Great. Thank you, Angela. >> Uh, Commissioner Jockerman, I'll ask one question. And so you mentioned in your presentation and is clear that there are a number of places in the master plan that push us towards promoting infill as the planning commission. I view that as sort of our job to carry out that policy that's mentioned very frequently in the master plan when and my question here is for in your staff review when you see applications coming in for some of these infill projects. We have pro parcels that are adjacent to roads that are not ours. So they might be owned by NDOT. And in your review as staff, can you tell me is it easier to review those applications when we are dealing with our roads or we're dealing with both NDOT and our roads? >> I think at the end of the day it it starts out the same, right? It probably triggers some kind of a traffic study. And if the traffic study recommendations come back that maybe our road needs to be widened or um the you know the end dot road needs to be widened then the recommendation's the same. It doesn't matter who owns it. I think the challenge with some of these end dot roads is they're major roads like McCarron. McCarron's not just a little road that you can easily widen. Um, most of our city roads are the smaller ones that we have a little bit more flexibility to say, "Oh, add a turn lane or you're right. They're they're just smaller and they're easier." Um, but the big ones, the the Kitsky's and the um parts of Fourth Street, McCarron, those ones have, you know, a different level, even Virginia Street, um different levels of requirements because they're owned by ENDOT, but we work handinhand with Endot. And so if it's something that the traffic report comes back and says it's got to be widened or you have to add a delaw lane, it doesn't matter who owns it, the requirements are still the same. And we work with the NDOT or RTC staff to say, are you guys in agreement with this traffic recommendation? >> Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? >> Miss Fus, I just wanted to say thanks. I know it's after hours. Uh this has been great. I would probably suggest that as a newer commissioner, this presentation, maybe as we move along in the city's training, which I'm I I love because it's we can all sit and read this, but we never actually get to like ask those questions. There's been great questions. Maybe we put this in a packet for future commissioners. Yeah, >> I think would be really beneficial. It's a great idea. So yeah, anyways, thank you. >> And there's a lot. We're going to be better about educating you guys on topics that you have to deal with when you make decisions. So >> this is great. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you very much. >> That concludes item D1. We will now move to item C1 from our agenda. Staff report for possible action. This is case number LDC26-34, Spectre Residence Grading. For this item, we will hear a presentation from staff. Mr. Foster. >> All right. Good evening, planning commissioners. Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, the loan case I'm bringing you tonight is LDC 26-34, which is the Spectre Residence grading request. Uh, the project site is about 82 acres in size. Uh, located at the northern terminus of Chancellor Circle, south of Heather Ridge Lane. And if you're like me and didn't know where this area is at, uh it's at the it's southeast of the Mayberry and McCarron intersection. The request uh before you is a major site plan review to allow grading resulting in fills greater than 10 ft in height. Uh as we zoom in, you can see that the surrounding uh land uses are all single family resident residences and the key issue that staff analyzed um is grading. So, let's see here. Uh, zoning single family three, uh, three units per acre. Master plan, a single family neighborhood. And on the screen are four goals and and policies that the request lines up with. Some background. The lot presents uncommon design challenges due to its topography. Um, all but a small portion of the parcel uh is adjacent to ch small portion of the parcel adjacent to Chancellor Circle contains slopes greater than 30%. For reference, Chancellor Circle is at the bottom of the image on the screen and all of the purple area uh contains slopes greater than 30%. A major site plan review requirement was identified during the building permit review process. The site does qualify as hillside development because slopes exceed 15% on 25% or more of the land area, but per the code section on the screen, development of a single uh single family house and permitted accessory structures are exempt from article 4 regulations dealing with hillside development. Turning to grading uh cuts are expected up to eight feet in depth with a maximum fill anticipated to be 12 feet in height. Approximately 127 square feet of surface area requires more than 10 ft of fill and that's in the area shown on the screen here. This area of deeper fill occurs beneath the section of the future driveway where it transitions to and abuts the engineered retaining foundation wall at a at the front of the house. Engineering staff has reviewed the design and stated that there is no issue provided the contractor follows the recommendations for soil compaction outlined in the geotechnical report for the project. Uh the applicant's representative will be making a presentation and will discuss some of the more nuanced information regarding the site design and approach. Condition number five is recommended to address enhanced grading techniques. And overall, the proposed grading and retaining wall design approach achieves the intent of hillside development, sorry, hillside slope treatment standards by limiting slope heights, integrating grading with the natural terrain, breaking up vertical elements, and minimizing visual and physical impacts. Here are the recommended findings uh for a major site plan review. Staff can make all recommended findings. Here are the major site plan review findings specific to Phils. Again, staff can make all applicable recommended findings. Here's the recommended motion. I'm available for questions. Again, the applicant's representative will be making a presentation u at this time. All right, there it is. Um, thank you. I want to u first of all acknowledge that we're the main the only item on tonight. So, I really appreciate you guys coming downtown. >> Please state your name for the please state your name for the record. >> My name is Nathan Tolbert. I'm the lead designer for Form Consulting. We're based out of Genanoa, Nevada. Um, and we represent the um the ownersh um this process. So, uh, I'm going to duplicate a lot of what, um, the pre planner already presented. Um, but I I figured abundance, uh, of information and blow you away with that. And then, uh, but I'll go fast. So, again, the location, you see the the red, uh, pin shows you kind of where you are in in the area of Western Reno. Um, and again, the aerial is showing the location of the lot. Um, little bit of history. Um this is uh the [clears throat] last remaining lot in its development that was uh started in the early 70s. Uh so it's been vacant and it and I don't believe anything else has been built out there uh in the recent history. So this is um like I said the last one and it's the last one because it presents a lot of design challenges. Um it's a very steep uh lot with [clears throat] a culde-sac access. Um, so, uh, it took a lot of design and and and careful, um, thought about how we were going to be able to put this thing together and make it work. Um, so, um, that's a lot of, you know, where where we got to where we are. Um, the existing conditions, there's nothing on it. Um, it's got minimal, um, infrastructure. Everything's right to the county or right to the property line up on the upper elevation. Um, the upper front yard is the close of the co of the pie shape on the culde-sac. there's not a lot of front yard room there. Um, so when what we're planning to do is basically take that area and then uh cut into the hillside to get as close as we can to reduce the amount of fill. Um, and then when we got through the process, we realized that the one section uh was over 10 ft, which triggered the the review, but that area is completely in the driveway area. Um, I believe there was a comment that this house was built on 10 ft of fill. It's not. Um there's it's only this one section has fill and that's to get the the driveway level coming in and I'll show you that in one of the the slides. Um so here we are. Uh we've submitted to the city of Reno. We've gone through the entire process. Uh this was triggered. Um we've resubmitted all of our comments uh back to the building department. And so this is the last uh element, which is why again we appreciate you hearing us tonight instead of pushing off to the next one because should you be kind enough to approve it, we'll um be able to push forward and get that permit and get uh construction started uh sooner than later. Um, but the construction approach is we're going to do the initial grading with a cut and some of the fill and compaction and then come back after all the the walls and everything are established and braced and then come down and finish the back fill which will be where this section of fill is located. Um, so this phase approach uh preserves you know proper compaction, make sure all the settlement and everything is able to be maintained and it's pretty much typical of how the building works today. So this is the lot. Um this is looking at it from the culdesac. Um you can see the two neighbor parcels. Um and then this is standing the second one on the right is standing at the driveway looking down. Um and you can see there's very little of the lot that's uh at all level with the street. This is the back view looking up from Heatheridge Circle. Um so we are the one on the left. We're looking northwest from the property corner and the other one we're looking souththeast southwest from the northeast property corner. Again, you saw this this slide shows you what the slope uh scale is and then I colorized the version that you had in black and white to show you where those cuts and fills are. And the only section that we're talking about is the red section um of where that fill abuts the uh the retaining wall of the house. Again, here it is in site plan view. Um, so you can see where we've done as much as we can to push that um that lot forward um so that we're not um affecting it. We're affecting as little of the properties are. We're still having a pretty major impact on the a lot of the percentage of the lot is being affected, [clears throat] but part of that is to be able to to be able to efficiently build on that site. Um there are two garages um but they are both small and they are both um panic. They're not actually going to be filled. There's no fill proposed under the garages. We're actually canolvering those with the concrete floor that's going to be suspended. Um like I said, we're trying to maximize the use of the lot and uh and minimize, you know, the detriments. Uh this is a little low the floor plan of the the main floor. So you can see the two singlecar garages. Um and then where the fill area is is right there in the middle of the the screens are coming out of the front door. Here's the upper level or the lower level which is shows where that retaining wall is going through where the deck where the um where the fill is going to be. And then this is the mess. This is the the slide that kind of shows it the best. So you got the street up at the left. You can see how we're going downhill. Um we're we're back filling and cutting into the hill as much as we can. And then we have that one section and like I said it's 127 square feet right at the end which is actually going to be the pedestrian pathway to the front door um which hits that 10 foot and actually doesn't quite make it on CAD because we're perfect we get to the inch on CAD but we're right there at that 10 to 12 feet um for that one small section of back fill but again none of the structure is on that we've done a lot of design um and modification of our designs through the process to get it to where it's like I said as minimal impact as we can yet. So, running through all the findings, we felt like we've we've met them all. Uh the planning uh department also agrees with us. I can run through all these, but I mean, I'm sure you guys have probably seen all this stuff before, but um we hit both of those all the way through. So, if you have any questions, I can answer them. And uh otherwise, I'll let you guys get on with your deliberation. Do we have any questions from the commission? And I cannot see if Commissioner Bisera has his hand raised. >> I I do actually, but happy for someone in chambers to go first if they'd like. >> I I apologize. We need to um go to disclosures and then public comment. My my apologies. So, uh we'll start we'll start in in uh in person with Commissioner Velto with disclosures. Uh >> Commissioner Velto, uh no disclosures. Commissioner Delviar read received and read all of the documents and also the public comments as well and am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Gfantini read and reviewed all the comments from the NAB and reviewed the application. >> Commissioner Jockman read materials. Uh Commissioner Williams same. >> And Commissioner Mayor same. >> Commissioner Viser you are on mute. Oh darn. Always happens at least once, right? Commissioner Visera, uh you have read and read material uh familiar with the site and um uh yes, that is it. >> That concludes uh disclosures. Madame clerk, do we have any request to speak for public comment under this item? >> I don't have any in person and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? Seeing none, we will close public comment. And now we will move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Bisera, please. >> Uh, great. Thank you. Um, sure. I I guess I'll just kind of give a little context. It for me, I mean, great presentation. Uh, Jeff and Mr. Tolbert. And to me, it seems like it's more uh less about whether technically complies and more about risk tolerance. I think there's some sound engineering behind this and that's great. Uh Jeff, first one's for you. I and I think I'll just kind of start it with uh what we heard from the resident that called in. I think the request from them was a 15T setback. Would you mind clarifying how setback standards were applied here and whether that concern can be accommodated or maybe it does already? So Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, the uh zoning district is single family 3 res uh single family 3 and the required sideyard setbacks in the SF3 zone as with all single family zones are 5 ft. So each side property line um is required to have a minimum setback of 5T to the closest point of the structure. Um they meet uh the current site design does meet the required five- foot setback. >> Um would a larger setback be advantageous to the neighbor? Clearly it would. But [snorts] they meet the code requirement of a minimum of 5T. >> Okay. So then maybe my followup will be just what gives you and Mr. Tilbert, you can chime in on this one too. I'll just kind of throw out to both of you. What gives you the most confidence that that this project as presented would perform as intended not just on paper but say in a real storm of events over time? >> You're asking a hypothetical question that yeah I'm not sure that Go ahead Mike. So, Commissioner Bera, this is Mikey. Our engineering division looks at these and we have and it goes through a fairly extensive review in terms of meeting current code standards and they look at everything from drainage to geotechnical to everything. So, our engineering staff is is confident that as designed, this project meets all code standards and will function. And it's they they they do that analysis in their review. >> I would I would I would What's that? And I think the applicant may have something he wishes to add as well. >> Okay. Indeed. But I would also add that keep in mind the only reason we're here tonight is for the 10 ft of fill or the the fills in excess of 10 ft. Um but for that this applicant, this project could go straight and did go straight to building permit. So we would never even see it but for the minor amount of area that has fills over 10 ft in height. So, um, kind of everything else we do analyze at the building permit stage. Um, I happen to be the one reviewing the building permit and, um, you know, we're looking at all of the issues that we always look at on building permits from a planning perspective, i.e. the 5-ft setback, uh, from a building, uh, building department perspective, from engineering, everyone is looking at this just as we always would for a on a on a building permit. So, and go ahead. >> Thanks. I'm going to back this up to the site plan so you can see some of the extra that we've done. Um, so starting out at the front of this is going to be driveway as you saw in that cut fill where it's going to come down. Well, we've put um drainage and catching that and we've actually planning to um contain that water into a water tank which is shown there to the left um behind the garage on the left um so that we can not just disperse that so it will escape from there over time. And then on the lower sections, if you see the two um horseshoe shaped grade shaded areas, those are where we've enacted some basically the best management practices that we've brought down from Tahoe from the TRPA that are going to accept um the infill. We have an infill trench around the outside and then we're going to take those and dump that infill water that comes around the back into some armored um slope which will allow the water to infiltrate into the ground down below the property so that we're trying to keep as much water and saturation away from the project as well. And none of that is code required. It's just something we've done to try to um increase the amount of um stability and sustainability of the project. Thank you, >> Mr. Mr. Tover. Uh, Commissioner Murray, for the record, just want to say thank you for stepping up to the plate and adding the additional context there. And Jeff and Mike thinks as well. >> Thank you. Sorry, Nathan. For the record, >> uh, Commissioner Jo, >> your mic's off. >> Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask one question and Mr. Foster on this. So, um, madame clerk, would you be able to pull up the map that shows the portion of the site that's in excess of 10 feet on that cut fill profile? >> Is it in the applicant's presentation or in the planet the >> it's exhibit D, I believe, of the staff report. >> Okay, give us a second. >> So, there and I'll I'll proceed, I guess, with my question. the the figure will be helpful, but it if if I may for a minute, if we were to introduce a step of two feet at the beginning of the property, they they wouldn't be here tonight because they would be under 10 ft of fill. Is that is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, and and and in doing so, that would create a low point, which would be poor for drainage, if I would if I may take that next step. So, I I think it's a much better product to stick with what the applicant has proposed here because that's better for drainage on site. It's not something that's going to be visible to anyone else. And I think it's a reasonable request. It's a benefit to drainage given everything else on the site that is uh within code as as far as what I'm hearing here. So, thank you. That answers my question. >> Can I ask one more to the setback? >> Yeah, >> sure. Sure. If you would like to add something, you stop on your head. Right. But um Whoops. Um as far as the setbacks go, we we designed this if you see the the angles um so that we were as minimal encroachment into the setbacks as possible and trying to maintain uh the views of the neighbors um because there is no, you know, ordinance that preserves views, but we're trying to be considered that as well. But you can see the sections on the left and the right that actually do get close to the setbacks are corners and not solid walls. So, we did try to take that into effect. And um quite honestly, I was under the understanding that the the neighbor was good because after the neighborhood advisory meeting, the owner and they had a meeting together and I prepared documents that showed what happened when the house was pushed down because you push it farther out, it just increases the amount of fill and reduces the amount of their view to the downtown corridor. So, I honest to be frank, I was surprised that they had uh continued to have an objection, but um that's their right. So, that's their right. So that [snorts] was it. I just wanted to make sure you knew that we did try to to be good neighbors and the owner is continuing to do that. So he may have to give them more of wine when he gets going. I don't know. >> And I guess I'll I'll add to this. It's not a question, just a comment. I can see a way that had you fully complied with the code such that you wouldn't have to be here tonight, I think the product, the house would be in in in poorer shape. There would be a low point on the north north side of the driveway where water's going to drain to. that would create an icy situation. All else equal, that's, you know, maybe what you would do. I think this is better than that. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Delvr. >> Uh, Commissioner Delvr, um, I just wanted just a little bit of clarification and I wasn't sure if it was a condition or just best practice. Uh, it sounds like you're going to build a retaining wall first and then do the fill. Is that what I understood in your presentation? >> Second phase. Yes. >> Okay. But but okay, that was all. Thank you. >> Commissioner Williams. >> Commissioner Williams. Hey, uh Mr. Foster, I got one for you. Um this project involves importing a a decent amount of fill. Is there any additional like dust control measures, traffic control measures, erosion for that like that we should be thinking about as a condition on top of what normally is >> so just because we're reporting all this? I mean again those are some of those things are are things that the uh engineering department looks at during the building permit review phase and standard permitting require requirements that they have to to to have in place or or boxes that they need to check um uh during the building permit review phase. So it's it doesn't rise to the level of of kind of a condition of approval type of thing because it's just part for the course. >> Okay. Awesome. That's all I got. Thanks. Do we have any other questions from the commission? >> Hearing none. Uh would anyone like to entertain? Uh we will now move to deliberations and we will entertain a motion if one is made. >> Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Please proceed. In the matter of case number LDC26-000034, uh, based upon compliance of the applicable findings, I move to approve the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Roer second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C1. Uh we have a staff request for a fivem minute break. So we will take that and reconvene for item D2. >> Thank you. Do we have any >> Mr. Chair, before we go further, can I just clarify that the one of the the first appointment is for a partial term that was vacated by Commissioner Roire. So that would go through September of this year, where the other the second appointment will be for a full term going through 20 uh February of 2029. Thank you, Mr. So, proceeding with the vacancy for Commissioner Roar Meer. Do we have any nominations? >> Yes, Chair. Uh, chair, I'd like to nominate Commissioner Villan Noeva to serve on the regional planning commission. >> She's not. >> She's not on that commission. She >> What did I say? [laughter] >> I'd like to nominate Commissioner Delvr. >> My your names are last names are very similar. >> We look so different. I'd like to nominate Commissioner Delvr to to fill the replacement on the regional planning commission. And I apologize for my misstatements. >> Do we have any other nominations for this vacancy? >> Well, I was planning to nominate her for the fullterm vacancy. >> I legal. Do we have the ability to do that with this recommendation at this time? >> Yes. >> Okay. So I'm I'm sorry. I'm hearing from legal that we can nominate for a full term or recommend because we cannot nominate and Mr. You're saying that this is for uh uh 6 months roughly to the end of the term. >> Can we nominate both for a full term? >> So I thought the question was can you recommend her to fill a full term or you recommending that that you just fill the rest of >> and and is your answer that we can do both? Yeah, we got to appoint both. So, it depends on which what the motion is. Is it for the partial term or the full term? >> Um, my motion would be to nominate Commissioner Delvier. Uh, for the remaining term, I make the assumption that we'll have the same planning commission. So, I'm I guess I can't project how we'll vote in the future, but um I support Commissioner Delvr for that position, and that would be my motion. So, we have a nomination from Commissioner Velto to serve for the remainder of the term for uh the vacancy filled created by Miss Roar, Commissioner Roormire. And then we also have a nomination for a three-year terms presumably starting at the appointment that would be by city council at this time. How do we proceed with those two nominations? But we could ask for another nomination for that full term. >> Um my my recommendation would be if there is a second to take them in order of filling commissioner Roar Meers and then filling my position, my vacated position. Uh and if there's a second, we could take a vote. If that vote fails, we can proceed with a different route. That'd be my recommendation. Okay let's >> Legal Council signaling yes. So, I'm happy to make that second. Commissioner Williams. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for Commissioner Delvr. Uh uh actually, I would prefer that legal read this motion into the record before we vote on it. >> So, the motion for Mr. Vilto is to have Commissioner Delvr fill the remaining of Carrie Roier's position on the governing board. Could we ask Commissioner Delvr what her preference is? >> Yes, I think so. I'm just gonna go [laughter] ahead. >> Sure. We have a motion and a second. We can now deliberate on the motion. [snorts] >> I got you. >> This is Commissioner B. >> Sorry. Go ahead, Mary. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I uh I was just going to say excellent choice. Um I I shared my my thoughts uh ahead of time and um I think you'll serve this body in the region quite well. Commissioner Delvr, >> thank you. Um can I just get clarification on the terms because I was I was thinking it was for the three-year one. So I just I'm just not aware of what the remainder is. So, in advance of the meeting, staff informed me that we were filling a vacancy created by one that was terming out, which was Commissioner Belto, and a vacancy that was created by the resignation of Commissioner Roar Meer. I was under the impression that those would be the two items that we would deliberate on tonight. The uh we have a nomination to appoint a commissioner for the vacancy created by Commissioner Roar Meer, but for a three-year term. So that's outside of uh what I expected that could be within the purview of this agenda. So I'm looking to legal for how to proceed here. >> Jasmine may just for the record I think your question on the um partial term was when it would end because it would commence immediately I believe and it would end in September 2026. Is that correct Mike? >> That's correct. Thank you. >> So if I if I can clarify if you don't mind. So Commissioner Roireer resigned. So her term is through September 30th. So whoever is put into that role will serve until September 30th will bring this item back to fill that position once that term ends. There's a second vacancy uh filled from Commissioner Velto terming out. That will be a full three-year term. So, it will commence when city council makes the formal motion vote, I guess, and then it will end in February of 2029. So, it the current motion and second on the table is for Christina Delvar to be recommended for the partial term. >> Understood. And then what how does it work after that? Um, then could I potentially be nominated again for another? >> Yes. Okay, understood. Thank I'm just trying to understand that. >> And and if I go to legal here, if we take So, we have a motion and a second in front of us. If we vote on that, can we still proceed with the motion that's been made by Commissioner Roar Meer? I I recognize that this is just a recommendation. the recommendations would be in conflict in various ways, but >> we have multiple nominations that four recommendations that could arguably be entertained. I'm looking to you guys to see can we entertain both of those nominations, those nomination recommendations, >> and I'm not going to serve twice. [laughter] You want to fill two spots. So, I think the way that is probably best for us to go about this is to vote on the motion and the second that's been made. Then we can see if there is a second for the nomination by Commissioner Roar. Uh should there be one, we'll vote on that and then we'll address the vacancy created by M Commissioner Velto. Would that be a legally prudent way of going forward? >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second. And uh if if you may uh city attorney's office, if you could please state uh for the record what this motion is that we're voting on at this time, which is the one that was initially made by Commissioner Velto and second seconded by Commissioner Williams. >> So the motion on the table is to appoint Commissioner Delvr to the governing board for the remaining term um pending for Miss Roier. And there's a motion and a second as I understand it. >> So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously for that recommendation. We now have a recommendation for nomination from Commissioner Roar Meer. Do we have a second for this? >> Commissioner, >> for clarity, what is that what is that motion before us? Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer, would you like to state the uh, nomination recommendation that you would like to make with the term? >> I recommend Commissioner Delvr for the replacement of Alex's fullterm three-year governing board position, not the interim few months remaining on my term. >> Can I have a point of order? We just had a motion. This is a recommendation to the to the city council. We just had a motion that carried unanimously to recommend Commissioner Delvr to fill Commissioner Roar Meer's term. It seems odd to me that we would then take a second motion to fill a different seat and then submit to city council. We have the same person. We would like to fill two seats. That's our recommendation. That seems quite odd to me. So I I don't >> which is why I had hoped we would make a recommendation for someone else for the shorter term position. >> I understand but we had a unanimous yes vote on that motion. So I think it is quite odd for us to >> I think I think we need to address this one vacancy at a time. Are there any other nominations uh motions that would like to be entertained for a nomination for the vacancy created by Commissioner Roar Meer? I believe Commissioner Bisera submitted his own nomination. I saw that in writing. >> Commissioner Bisera, would you like to submit a nomination for this uh vacancy created by Commissioner Roarmy? >> Um yes, humbly. Whether it's Commissioner Warmire or Commissioner Velto, I I think really it's up to this body to decide. Uh I'm totally in favor of doing a switcheroo. So, Commissioner uh Delvr, not Bill Noeva, but Delvr uh does the whole threeyear thing from the outset if she would prefer that. That's no problem to me. But yes, I'm happy to to step up and continue my service at regional in a fuller capacity as I have been since the beginning. Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Bisera. This motion is to appoint Commissioner Delvr to the Regional Planning Commission representing the city of Reno for a full three-year term. Do we have a second for this motion? >> Commissioner Fel, again, I'm not seconding. What is the governing document that tells us to recommend? I'm guessing it uses the phrase the planning commission shall make a recommendation. If it says a recommendation, that's one recommendation. I think that for us to entertain multiple recommendations for a position would probably be inconsistent with whatever gives us the authority to make a recommendation. Now, I can tell you I haven't looked at whatever tells us to make the recommendation. It's possible it says this planning commission shall make as many recommendations as they like to fill one position. That would be inconsistent with my understanding of the process. My understanding of the process is we're to make a recommendation to fill a position. A is one. We've made a recommendation. It's been approved unanimously. Therefore, we should move to the second seat and make a recommendation for that seat. So, I I hear your recommendation about how we should make recommendations. I'm going to defer to the city attorney on this on this matter. I believe you told you told me previously that we could uh vote on two recommendations that have different terms as it pertains to the vacancy created by Commissioner Roar Meyer. Is that correct or can you please elaborate? So, here's what I'm understanding is there's should be a motion to reconsider the previous decision to appoint uh Commissioner Delvr to the uh remaining term of Commissioner Roire. So, reconsider that and then make a motion to appoint Commissioner Delvr to the three-year term and then make another motion to appoint somebody else to finish Commissioner Roier's um position there at the governing board. >> Okay. So, in hearing that, do we have a uh request for a motion to reconsider the previous recommendation that was just made by this body? I see Commissioner Bera, your hand is raised. Yes, chair. Um, I I move to reconsider the prior motion to now re reconsider Commissioner Delviar uh to to to Commissioner Roar Meyer's recommendation as she put forth. >> Second. So, we have a motion and a second for a reconsideration of the recommendation that we just made as a body. >> All those in favor or would we like to let's deliberate on that? >> Uh, >> yeah. Yes. Thank you. I just want I do want to respond to uh Commissioner Belto's note that like you know I think we're going to make these recommendations and as we've seen before city council is empowered to um adjust if you will. So you know whether you know uh Commissioner Delvr does goes forward one way it might turn out to be another way. Uh but but I I think it makes sense though to proceed with this reconsideration though and and have her start, you know, from the beginning with a more longer trajectory because I believe that's what her desire has been was my understanding, I think. But uh Commissioner Delvar, would you like to weigh in? >> Sure. Yeah, I was uh in my mind I was thinking this was the three-year position. Um I mean, I'm happy and honored to serve in in any way. Um but I do think it's important to have sort of that for me to have that consistency and I really feel strongly that um being on the regional planning will help me uh do a better job both here and regionally as well and so the longer term is more appealing to me. Again I'm happy to do whatever makes the most sense and whatever city council decides as well. >> I'd like to add some commentary and just deliberation. You know, prior to the current change up, we've always had a sort of tenure on the board turn, then it's your turn to either do regional or be the chair or be the vice chair. And Commissioner Delvr has been the longest serving member outside of uh Commissioners Belto, whose term is nearing and commissioner Bisera and myself who have already served. So it would be in fact her term under these sort of old protocols of which this board operated which was far more objective than it was a popularity contest which seems to be how it operates today. Uh I really appreciate Commissioner Delvr and her service to this board and I would love for her to be able to serve a full term which is why I advocated for her for the three-year term instead of just a few months. >> Commissioner Valto. Uh, all I'll say is I'm comfortable with the vote I've made and I'll probably be sticking with my vote. I will tell you I fully intend if you come back in September [snorts] to support you then as well. Uh, I don't have any reason not to support that, but I'm comfortable with the vote we've made. >> Uh, Commissioner Williams, you kind of took exactly what I was saying. Uh, I am comfortable with my vote and come September, I'm happy to support you to continue that for a full year term also, Christina. So, >> Commissioner Gfantini, I also stand by my vote. >> Commissioner Rormire, I don't trust that these individuals will be on the board, nor will they vote the same way. And that is why I strongly encourage anyone who will to vote for you for your three-year term starting uh as soon as council makes a decision. And Commissioner Ger, for the record, can I um Yeah, I I appreciate those uh preemptive promises. I I I but it it it unsettles me from a broader lens in that we're making certain promises when their composition might be very different and would be very not just unfair but shaky on legal grounds if we have different individuals later on who who who can't be reviewed fairly and properly at that time. So, I don't know. I'm concerned by those um promises of voting for Commissioner Delviard later if she takes a shorter stint. >> Commissionerto, >> chair, I'm ready to vote whenever you would like to call for a vote. >> Are there any other deliberations from the commission? >> Can we just have the uh motion uh before us before we cast a vote? just because there's been a lot of >> so reconsiderations. >> Absolutely. So, uh I will look to the city attorney for advice on this. We have a motion and a second before us that is for reconsideration of the motion that we all just unanimously approved about 10 minutes ago uh as an as a yes vote in favor for reconsideration. Can you please clarify for this body? >> That's the motion on the table. >> Okay. Uh, Madame Clerk, could you please conduct a roll call vote? A yes is for a reconsideration of the motion we just made. >> So, we have a motion by Commissioner Bera and a second by Commissioner Roire. >> Correct. Motion. That's correct. >> Uh, David Jockman, >> no. >> Jacob Williams, >> no. >> Can I clarify? >> I thought a yes was yes reconsideration. A no was no reconsideration. Correct. >> Okay. >> Uh Christina Delviar. >> Yes. >> Tina Gianiantini. >> No. >> So then Commissioner Baser and Commissioner Roire are Yes. >> Are you yeses? >> Yes. We would like a reconsideration. >> Oh, sorry. I'm the one that has it wrong. >> Correct. [laughter] A yes is to reconsider the motion that was just recommended by this body. >> My apologies. >> Does your no vote stand, Commissioner Belto? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, you voted no to not reconsider. >> Correct. >> Corre. >> Would you like to reconsider the original motion? >> Reconsider. >> Okay. So, that is four nos and three yeses. So, the motion to reconsider does not pass. It fails. >> Okay. So, that So >> that means the motion that was made >> to put commissioner Delvr into the partial term stands. >> Okay. So that concludes this body's recommendation for the vacancy commi created by commissioner roar roar. Am I understanding that correctly? >> Yes. >> Okay. That will we will now proceed to the vacancy created by commissionerto. Do we have any recommendations for nomination on this item? >> I would like to nominate Manny Berero. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Delvr and a second from Commissioner Roar Meer. We will now move to discussion deliberation. Uh would anyone like to speak at this time? Just reiterating my previous in that the old protocol was about duration served on the board and less about personality and politics. It would be very nice to restore order and by doing so putting in people who have been on the board longer that enables everyone to have a turn because these positions come up during everyone's term and that makes a very straightforward process versus this sort of popularity contest which we just experienced. Commissioner Visera, you had your hand raised. >> Oh, u might be a little lag. I I just I think it was just lagging there. Um but I do not have it raised, but thank you for the nomination. Um Commissioner Delvr and the support from the others. >> We have a motion and a Commissioner Delvier, please. I just I just wanted to say uh the reason why I recommended him is um I really appreciate how he comes to these meetings and um is very very well prepared, has done the research, has talked to people um and I feel that he would be very strong in the regional role as well. Um, and I feel like he has the he knows a lot of people who and he networks a lot with folks um that would enable him to be a very strong person in that role. So that is why I nominated him. >> We have a motion and a second. Madame clerk, would you conduct a roll call vote for this item? >> Sure thing. >> Um, Commissioner Jockman, >> no. >> Uh, Commissioner Williams, >> no. Commissioner Bera, >> yes. >> Commissioner Delvier made the motion, so you are a yes. Uh, Commissioner Gianiini, >> no. >> Commissioner Roire, you made the second. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Belto, >> no. >> Motion fails. Do we have any other recommendations that anyone would like to make for the vacancy created by Commissioner Velto? >> Uh, Commissioner Belto, I would like to nominate uh, Commissioner Gon Fiantini. >> Do we have anyone who would like to second this motion? >> Commissioner Williams. I'll second that. [snorts] We have a motion from Commissioner Velto to recommend Commissioner Gonfantini to the Regional Planning Commission and a second from Commissioner Williams. Madame Clerk, would you please conduct a roll call vote for this item? >> Commissioner Jockman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Williams, >> yes. Commissioner Bera. >> Respectful. No. >> Commissioner Delvr, >> no. >> Commissioner Gonfiantini, >> yes. >> Commissioner Roire, >> after what I just saw, absolutely not. >> Commissioner Velto was made the motion. So yes. >> Yes. Uh, I will not make any comments. Thank you. Yes. >> All right. Motion passes four to three. That concludes item D2 on the agenda tonight. Item E, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. We have not had any meetings since the last city meeting roughly two weeks ago. Commissioner Roar Meer, have there been any subcommittee meetings since that time? >> Hearing that there has been nothing for the TM truck meadows regional planning leazison report, that concludes this item. Our next item is item F, future agenda items. Mr. Do we have anything from staff on this? >> Nothing tonight. Thank you. >> Hearing nothing, we will move to item G, public comment. Madame clerk, do we have any request to speak under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms in chambers and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised. >> Hearing none, that will conclude our meeting. Item H is adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Williams second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Meeting adjourned.