On September 24, 2013, the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) voted 4-1 to overturn County Staff and the Washoe County Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny a Master Plan amendment to change approximately 40 acres from an Industrial, Commercial and Open Space land use designation to Suburban Residential. This vote was taken after receiving a report from the County Planning Commission. Pursuant to the Planning Commission staff report from December of 2012, this amendment could permit a 360 unit multi-family residential project.

Any master plan amendment within the Truckee Meadows, requires a conformance review by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency. Mayor Martini asked staff to brief the City Council on this Master Plan Amendment approval to provide the Council the opportunity to provide staff direction as this Amendment moves forward to the Regional Planning Commission.

This master plan amendment was initially considered during the Washoe County Planning Commission meeting held in December of 2012. It was at this meeting that County staff recommended denial of the master plan amendment as staff could not make the required findings. The reasons County staff cited for recommending denial are discussed in the analysis section below.

The County Planning Commission had a split vote of 3-3 (one vacant seat). A master plan amendment requires a super majority vote for approval; this action therefore was a “technical” denial of the master plan amendment.

The applicant, Sugarloaf Peak, LLC, appealed this denial to the BCC. The BCC heard this appeal at their May 2013 meeting. The BCC voted 4-1 to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Master Plan amendment at their May 28, 2013 meeting. At the time of the motion, there was no testimony provided by the Commissioners to make the findings required for approval. In reviewing the approved minutes, there was no motion to remand the item back to the Planning Commission.

The item was re-heard by the Washoe County Planning Commission on August 6, 2013. At this meeting, each planning commissioner reported why they voted as they did. Commissioner Reynolds explained that he would have voted “no” and why. Commissioner Reynolds was not present at the initial (December 2012) Planning Commission meeting as he had not been appointed to the vacant seat yet. The report back to the BCC from the Washoe County Planning Commission was 4 against and 3 in favor of the master plan amendment, which meant that the Planning Commission again voted for denial of this master plan amendment.

The Planning Commission’s report was considered by the BCC on September 24, 2013. For this meeting the staff report outlined what the BCC could do: “take final action to adopt, modify or reverse the BCC’s action on May 28 adopting Master Plan Amendment case number MPA12-001 (Village at the Peak).” The BCC voted 4-1 to adopt the Master Plan Amendment. At the time Sparks staff composed this staff report, minutes were not available for the September 24, 2013 BCC meeting.

Any amendment to a Sparks, Reno or Washoe County master plan requires review by Truckee Meadows Regional Planning. A land use change requires a conformance review by the Regional Planning Commission. Any appeals of the Regional Planning Commission’s decision require a hearing by the Regional Planning Governing Board. The master plan amendment was not solely a request to change the land use.

There were three changes that are necessary to permit the multi-family development contemplated on the site:

• A land use change from Industrial, Commercial and Open Space to Suburban Residential

• Amendments to the Spanish Springs area plan to: o Change the “Character Statement” in the Spanish Springs Area plan to change the residential density limitations in the suburban core such that new language would state “The suburban core includes a broad mix of non-residential uses together with single family residential densities of up to three dwelling units per acre and to include a Specific Plan as defined herein as an allowed use.”

o Amend policy SS1.3(d) of the Spanish Springs Area Plan to add “Specific Plan (for Multi Family densities up to 9 dwelling units per acre) to the list of regulatory zones.

The original Planning Commission staff report (dated November 2012) outlined County staff’s recommendation of denial and concluded that, “the request cannot be granted within the current framework of the Spanish Springs Area Plan.” The position taken by County staff is most readily conveyed by the following statements from their staff report. “Based on a thorough review of the Master Plan, staff is confident that the requested amendments to the Character Statement are not in substantial compliance with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. The request to drastically change the Character Statement would result in a significant departure from the policies and action programs currently adopted. Additionally, the proposal is not supported by the policies and action programs of the other elements of the Master Plan, specifically the Housing and Land Use & Transportation Elements. These elements support and promote a range of housing types including higher density developments but only where those higher density developments are appropriate.”

Commenting on Policy SS.1.3(d) by stating that “The request to amend Policy SS1.3.(d) to allow a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre is a clear violation of the Character Statement and therefore is not in substantial compliance with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan.” “Based on thorough review of the Master Plan, (County) staff is confident that the requested amendments to the Character Statement are not in substantial compliance with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. The goals and policies of the Spanish Springs Area Plan are designed to implement and preserve the Vision and Character Statement and were developed as a result of significant public involvement with the intended purpose of satisfying the desired character of the community. The request to drastically change the Character Statement would result in a significant departure from the policies and action programs as currently adopted. Additionally, the proposal is not supported by the policies and action programs of the other elements of the Master Plan.”

Regarding Finding #2, County staff states, “the proposed amendment would result in land uses which are incompatible with adjacent land uses, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.”

Regarding Finding #3, County staff finds, “The proposed amendment does not identify and respond to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the BCC, and the requested amendment does not represent a more desirable utilization of land.”

Regarding Finding #4. in regard to adequate transportation, recreation and utility facilities, staff contends: “Additional study is necessary to determine the service and facility needs of this density increase.”

Regarding Finding #5 County staff finds, “The proposed amendment does not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County and does not guide the development of the County based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services.

The original Washoe County Planning Commission staff report has been attached for further detail on each of the findings. The master plan amendment still requires a review of conformance to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Commission. Applicable policies to be considered for regional conformance include:

• Consistency of the proposed plan with the regional form and pattern (as defined by the combination of Centers, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridors, residential areas, open space, greenways, and natural features), and with regional projections of population and employment growth;

• Compatibility of the proposed plan with goals and policies regarding development constraints;

• Compatibility of the proposed plan with goals and policies regarding infill development, housing and jobs/housing balance;

• Compatibility of the proposed plan with existing and planned public service areas, policies, and priorities; availability, timing and phasing of infrastructure; fiscal analysis of service provision;

• Compatibility of the proposed plan with existing military installations; and,

• Cumulative and indirect effects of the proposed plan.

Review of the master plan amendment is requested by the respective local jurisdiction (in this case Washoe County) and not by the original applicant, thus making the applicant, in this case, Washoe County. For approval, this item requires a super majority of the Regional Planning Commission (RPC). If the Master Plan Amendment is found in “Non Conformance” with the Regional Plan by the RPC, any appeals would be governed by NRS78.0282(5). The County would have the ability to file an objection with the RPC within 45 days of the decision and with that appeal attach its reasons why the plan is in conformance with the Regional Plan. The RPC would then consider the objection and issue its final determination of conformance or nonconformance within 45 days after the objection is filed. That determination may be appealed to the governing board not later than 30 days after its issuance. Should the item be considered by the Regional Planning Governing Board (RPGB), the Governing board vote needs only a simple majority.

Staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding the City’s position on this the Master Plan Amendment for the Village at the Peak development in the Unincorporated County.