Regional planners decline to find Stonegate master‑plan amendment in conformance after hours of public comment

The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission on Aug. 4, 2025 voted 5–4 not to find the City of Reno’s master‑plan amendment for the Stonegate/Hines Ranch project in conformance with the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, after more than three hours of public comment and two hours of staff and applicant presentations.

The proposal, approved by Reno City Council May 21, 2025 at the municipal level, would change the previously approved Stonegate planned‑unit development from roughly 5,000 dwelling units to an amended plan with about 1,350 homes and substantially more industrially designated land — roughly half the project footprint under the applicant’s proposal. City and project representatives said the change reduces projected water use, sewage generation and student generation while increasing regional employment.

TMRPA staff framed the commission’s role as narrow: the body must determine whether the proposed master‑plan amendment conforms with regional policy, not approve specific future uses. Jeremy Smith, TMRPA staff, summarized staff’s analysis and noted the agency used the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan for this review because the project entered the City of Reno process before the 2024 plan adoption.

City planner Jeff Foster told commissioners the city’s review found the amendment met master‑plan goals and that future site‑specific impacts — including any data center or industrial proposals — would be evaluated through conditional‑use permits, building permits and other entitlement steps. Foster said, "No data centers would be allowed by right under the current framework for how the City of Reno analyzes data centers," and emphasized that future entitlements are intended to address lighting, noise, traffic and other impacts.

Stonegate representatives and consultants described the project history and rationale. Andy Dirling of Wood Rodgers said the 2018 residential PUD became economically infeasible after post‑2021 construction cost escalation and that the retooled proposal would deliver a mix of industrial, commercial, residential and more than 400 acres of parks, greenways and open space. Dirling and the city said infrastructure improvements — paid for by the developer under existing practice — would be required before large‑scale development could proceed.

Great Basin Water Company represented by James Eason told the commission the utility’s priority is protecting current customers. Eason said Stonegate has adjudicated water rights totaling roughly 1,700 acre‑feet, and that staged availability would provide about 314 acre‑feet from existing developed groundwater immediately, with additional water contingent on future infrastructure and proof of flows. "Protecting our existing customers is our number one priority," Eason said, adding that new development must bring water rights or sources to be accepted into the utility’s service territory.

Opposition from residents, environmental groups and local leaders focused on three themes: water availability and aquifer health, traffic and safety on narrow North Valleys roads, and the loss of promised community amenities and public‑safety commitments. Dozens of speakers described the change from a largely residential PUD to a plan with large industrial acreage as a "bait‑and‑switch." Barry Levinson and Sierra Club organizers emphasized that if 15% of the industrial acreage were used for data centers, that could exceed 250 acres and substantially increase water and power demand.

Speakers warned about emergency response after recent area fires and noted that the original PUD included commitments to a fire station, ambulance and other services that would not necessarily remain under the new master‑plan designation. Several commenters urged the commission to delay a decision until ongoing basin studies by the Western Regional Water Commission and Truckee Meadows Water Authority are complete.

Commissioners split over the required conformance findings. Supporters of a conformance finding pointed to staff’s analysis that the amendment reduces projected water, sewage, traffic and student generation compared with the approved PUD while increasing jobs and potential fiscal benefits. Opponents cited uncertainty about water balance studies, regional coordination with Washoe County master‑plan goals, timing of infrastructure improvements, and loss of prior public‑safety commitments. Some commissioners also pointed to the commission’s limited jurisdiction and said those mitigation specifics are for later entitlement reviews.

Commissioner Marilyn Kramer moved to find the amendment in conformance with the regional plan; after a roll call the motion failed 5–4. Roll‑call votes recorded were: Rob Pierce — no; Marilyn Kramer — yes; Michael Flick — no; David Jackaman — yes; Carrie Roermeier — no; Carl Nieberlein — no; Dan Lazarevski — yes; Shelley Reed — yes; Alex Veil — yes. Staff legal counsel told the commission that the applicant may file an objection to bring the matter back for a final decision by the commission.

The commission continued remaining agenda items to its next meeting and adjourned. The Stonegate/Hines Ranch amendment now may proceed through the objection process or return to the City of Reno for additional refinement, and any future data‑center proposals would require conditional‑use permits and will‑serve letters for water and power before construction.

Next steps: the applicant may file an objection to seek a final regional decision; separate state, regional and local water studies cited by commenters are ongoing and were referenced repeatedly during the hearing.