Regional planning commission fails to approve Stonegate Hines Ranch master plan amendment amid water, traffic and community concerns

The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission on Aug. 4 failed to find the City of Reno's proposed Stonegate Hines Ranch master plan amendment in conformance with the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, after a contentious public hearing in which residents, agency staff and applicants debated water, traffic, school impacts and public safety.

The commission voted on a motion to find the proposed master plan amendment in conformance and recorded a divided result; the motion did not reach the six affirmative votes required and therefore failed. The commission then agreed to continue related items to the next meeting.

The contested amendment would change land-use designations on about 1,767 acres in Cold Springs (north of U.S. Highway 395 and west of White Lake Parkway). Under the plan approved previously as a planned unit development (PUD), the site was authorized for roughly 5,000 dwelling units; the amendment under consideration would reduce that to about 1,350 dwelling units while increasing land designated for industrial uses to roughly half the site and preserving about 400 acres of parks, greenways and open space.

Why it matters: community members and local officials said the change would replace promised housing and community amenities with large-scale industrial development that could bring heavy truck traffic, higher electricity and water demand, and erosion of promised public infrastructure such as a fire station. City and applicant presenters said the amendment would reduce projected water, sewage and traffic impacts compared with the currently approved PUD and would add regional employment opportunities, but many commissioners and residents said outstanding studies and existing service agreements must be resolved before the commission could make the required regional conformance findings.

City and applicant presentations Jeremy Smith, senior planner for TMRPA (Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency), opened the regional conformance portion of the hearing and reminded commissioners that their legal purview is limited: the commission was asked to decide whether the master plan amendment and the project-of-regional-significance determination for employment conform with the regional plan, not to approve specific development types or building permits. Smith said staff analysis shows the amendment would reduce the site's water demand from the PUD's previously forecasted 2,500 acre-feet per year to roughly 1,000 acre-feet; similarly, trip generation was shown in staff materials to decline from about 60,554 daily trips under the PUD to about 49,778 under the amendment. He also summarized staff's view that the change would increase potential jobs on the site (from roughly 2,200 in the PUD to an estimated 8,000 under the amendment) and that the site remains in Tier 2 of the regional land-designation map.

Jeff Foster, associate planner for the City of Reno, said the city made the master-plan amendment findings required under its code and that the city's subsequent entitlement and building-permit processes would review site-specific impacts such as slope, drainage, lighting, and conditional-use permits for any proposed data centers. Foster also told the commission that, based on recent city experience, —modern data centers are not the egregious water users that data centers in the past have been.— He described an example of a recently approved data center's water use and said data centers in Reno require conditional-use permits that trigger public notice and hearing.

Andy Dierling of Wood Rodgers, representing the Stonegate applicant, summarized project history and economics: he said the previously approved residential PUD became financially infeasible in the face of post-2021 construction cost escalation and that the revised mix of industrial, commercial, residential and open space was intended to respond to market demand while keeping many public-benefit features the original PUD included. Dierling highlighted planned on- and off-site infrastructure, trail connections, and a stated plan for phased construction of transportation and drainage improvements.

Great Basin Water Company overview James Eason, representing Great Basin Water (the utility that would serve the project if annexed), described the company's regulatory role and said protecting existing customers is its first priority. Eason summarized Great Basin's current Cold Springs system capacity and said the utility's 2024 integrated resource plan (IRP) shows an existing maximum pumpage of about 1,689 acre-feet per year for current customers and a dedicated surplus that cannot be redistributed to new development. Eason described three water resources the applicant has identified (groundwater, springs, streams), said Stonegate holds adjudicated senior rights in the basin, and outlined a phased approach for meeting project water needs that would rely first on on-site groundwater (314 acre-feet), then on proof of spring or surface flows (up to 871 acre-feet), and, if necessary, a long-term wholesale pipeline tie.

Public comment and community concerns More than two dozen public speakers, including local residents, representatives of Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter and other community organizations, and Reno City Council member Megan Ebert (Ward 4), urged the commission to reject or delay the amendment. Speakers repeatedly described the change as a —bait-and-switch— that replaces promised housing, parks and community facilities with industrial acreage and potential data centers. Common concerns raised by speakers included: - Water: multiple speakers warned that data centers and warehouses could greatly increase water demand in a basin already subject to recurring drought and hydrologic uncertainty. Resident Barry Levinson and Sierra Club organizers cited staff and third-party estimates to argue the basin's supplies could be strained if large data centers locate there. - Public safety and services: several speakers noted the PUD originally included commitments for a fire station, engine and ambulance; commenters and the Reno fire chief (cited by public commenters) said removal of that agreement would delay emergency response in an area that has experienced recent wildfires. - Traffic and truck routes: residents described narrow frontage roads, short freeway merge lanes and steep passes that they said would be unsafe for large volumes of truck traffic tied to warehouse or industrial uses.

Representative public comments included: - Bill Miller, a Cold Springs resident, urged commissioners to —please vote against this dystopian proposal.— - Barry Levinson, with Sierra Club, said the amendment —will open up a huge tract of land for potential data center development— and urged a no vote on the rezoning. - Megan Ebert, Reno city council member (Ward 4), told the commission she represents the community and said —a PUD that had a lot of participation from the community— should remain in place.

Commissioner questions and deliberation Commissioners questioned city staff, the applicant and Great Basin about data-center permitting, floodplain and stormwater mitigation, transportation improvements, and the timing and scope of hydrologic studies. Key clarifications included: - Conditional-use permits: Foster reiterated that data centers are allowed in several Reno zones but require a conditional-use permit and public hearing; therefore, approving the master plan amendment would not by itself grant a data center use by right. - Flooding and stormwater: Washoe County engineering staff explained that development is required to provide on-site stormwater retention/detention at a 1.3:1 volumetric mitigation ratio and that fill within FEMA floodplains requires additional mitigation, measures intended to reduce downstream flood risk versus existing undeveloped conditions. - Studies and sequencing: several commissioners and members of the public urged delay until the Western Regional Water Commission/TRPA/TMWA hydrologic study of the Cold Springs basin (under contract) is complete. Great Basin and city staff said the company and applicants are coordinating with state engineer permits and that the utility requires developers to deliver water rights or sources before service connections.

Vote and next steps Commissioner debate split along concerns about unresolved water and public-safety issues and the narrow scope of the regional conformance review. A motion to find the Stonegate Hines Ranch master plan amendment in conformance with the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan failed to receive the required six affirmative votes; the commission chair announced the motion failed and staff advised that, under the regional review code, the applicant may file an objection to the commission's decision and request that the matter return to the commission for a final hearing. Related conformance items were continued to the commission's next regular meeting.

What remains unresolved The commission's action leaves multiple outstanding items that staff, applicants and outside agencies identified as relevant to future approvals: completion of the Cold Springs basin water balance study contracted by the Western Regional Water Commission and TMWA; documentation of water-right availability and the state engineer's conditions; final engineering and financing commitments for transportation and drainage improvements; and the status of the prior PUD public-safety commitments held in other intergovernmental agreements. The city of Reno retains authority for later zoning, conditional-use and building-permit reviews for any uses that might be proposed on the site.

The commission's divided vote leaves the Stonegate Hines Ranch amendment in limbo: without a regional conformance finding the amendment cannot proceed through regional approval pathways until the applicant pursues an objection process or returns with revised documentation addressing the commission's concerns.

Ending The commission continued related conformance items to its next meeting. Additional agency studies and outstanding interlocal agreements will be focal points for future hearings if the applicant pursues the objection process or resubmits additional materials.