Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Planning Board — April 21, 2026

The meeting featured spirited public testimony and significant board debate regarding traffic safety and developer legitimacy on two major applications.

Date Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Duration 2.8h Speakers 47 Decisions 5 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

Safety concerns are mounting following the Hollis Planning Board meeting on April 21. The primary focus was the Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill subdivision, a proposed 35-home development that includes a new 'right-in/right-out' intersection on Proctor Hill Road.

Despite presentation of crash data showing a high frequency of run-off-the-road accidents in that area, the Board voted to move the project into the final design phase. While the Board did not grant final approval, members expressed significant anxiety regarding sight lines, bus stop safety, and municipal liability. One member stated bluntly, 'This intersection isn't safe... Who's liable if something happens there? It's the town.'

Additionally, the Board raised red flags regarding a cross-border project in Amherst that would impact Hollis via stormwater runoff into Witches Brook. The Board expressed skepticism regarding the identity of the applicant and the potential for pollutants like oil and asphalt to enter our local waters.

As these developments move forward, residents should demand that safety data and environmental protection are prioritized over developer timelines.

Apr 21, 2026 2.8h long 47 speakers 5 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“We as a board have to decide, are we making this situation unsafe for our residents and others who are traveling that road?”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the historical crash data and the potential impact of adding a new access point to a high-risk area. ▶ 1:05:39

“I don't care what anybody says, this is a bad intersection, and I don't know why everybody's afraid to say it.”

— Speaker V (David Petry) · Expressing strong concern regarding the safety of the proposed intersection on Proctor Hill Road. ▶ 1:16:23

“This intersection isn't safe. I don't care what anybody says... Who's liable if something happens there? It's the town.”

— Speaker V (Dave) · Expressing extreme concern regarding the inherent danger of the proposed intersection and the potential legal liability for the municipality. ▶ 1:14:13

“It's critical that the public be given the chance to speak when the actual plans are here.”

— Joe Geruba · Expressing concern that plan changes at the last minute prevent meaningful public participation. ▶ 2:21:57

“Golden Valley Way Holdings LLC... the primary person on the LLC is Thomas Stanley [and family]... convicted with multiple scams in New Hampshire.”

— Unidentified speaker · Raising concerns about the legitimacy and reliability of the applicant based on public records regarding the LLC's principals. ▶ 2:18:13

“The more detail you can put in here, the better off we're gonna be.”

— Unidentified speaker · Commenting on the draft development regulations document. ▶ 2:42:08
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Proposed 35-home residential development with new traffic intersection configurations.

What happened

The board voted unanimously to move the project to the final design phase, contingent on the applicant addressing a consolidated list of staff and consultant concerns.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Julie Mook, Mike
What was discussed

The board reviewed and moved to accept the minutes from the March 24 meeting.

What happened

The minutes were approved via a roll call vote.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Allison Marcotte
What was discussed

An informational session regarding Eversource's request for tree trimming and pole upgrades on South Merrimack Road.

What happened

The board accepted the application to close the item.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Chad Brandon
What was discussed

Update on the proposed 40-unit residential condominium development for older persons by Raisanen Homes Elite, LLC.

What happened

The board voted to continue the application to the next meeting.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Rebecca Brown
What was discussed

Final review of a 35-home residential subdivision, focusing on traffic safety, sight lines, mitigation, driveway configurations, landscaping, and environmental concerns.

What happened

The board did not make a final decision on approval but requested a consolidated list of concerns. The board unanimously preferred the CD5 common driveway configuration and voted to move the project to the final design phase.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Initial review of a project located in Amherst that requires stormwater management and compensatory storage in Hollis.

What happened

The board listened to the presentation but noted that because the plans might be outdated/changing, they cannot make substantive progress tonight. The board decided not to take any formal action on studies (wildlife, environmental, etc.) until a full, revised set of plans is received and reviewed.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board discussed using recent survey data and master plan progress to prioritize future zoning ordinance amendments.

What happened

The board agreed to work toward creating a prioritized list of potential zoning amendment topics.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Review of a new document combining site plan and subdivision regulations into a single, homogeneous set of rules.

What happened

The board members provided positive feedback on the layout and the value of increased detail to ensure compliant submittals.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Traffic Safety

The proposed 35-home subdivision includes a 'right-in/right-out' intersection on Proctor Hill Road that residents and board members flagged as potentially dangerous due to high crash rates and poor sight lines.
Board position: The board moved the project to the final design phase but refused to grant final approval, instead requesting a consolidated list of safety and traffic mitigation concerns to be addressed.
high concern
02

Amherst/Hollis Cross-Border Stormwater Project

The project involves a development in Amherst that would place stormwater management and potential pollutants (oil/asphalt) within Hollis, raising environmental and identity concerns regarding the applicant.
Board position: The board declined to take substantive action, citing the need for a complete and updated set of engineering plans to ensure accuracy.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of Meeting Minutes
7 Aye, 1 Abstain

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
16
Speakers
26
Comments
0
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker requested that the Eversource Scenic Road hearing be moved to the beginning of the agenda. This was to allow the representatives to depart in a timely manner rather than waiting until the end. Key concern
Request to reorder the agenda to prioritize the Eversource hearing.
Board response
The Board agreed to the request and moved the item up on the agenda.
The board immediately agreed to the request and updated the order of business.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker inquired about a specific contact number for Eversource. They mentioned that residents on Samuel's Way have had difficulty getting private driveway gates replaced after being removed by the utility company. Key concern
Request for a direct contact at Eversource to resolve a long-standing property damage/gate replacement issue.
Board response
The Eversource representative provided a direct office number and promised to follow up on the matter.
The representative provided a phone number and committed to 'nudging' the relevant department to fix the issue.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked for clarification regarding the definition of 'ribbon trees' in the context of the Eversource application. They also asked about the size and health status of the trees marked for removal. Key concern
Clarification on tree removal definitions and specific tree characteristics.
Board response
The Eversource representative explained that ribbon trees are those marked with blue and white tape and provided details on tree size and condition.
The representative answered all technical questions regarding tree marking and size.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker followed up on the issue of a resident's driveway gate that was removed by Eversource over a year ago. They reiterated the need for a way to address this specific problem. Key concern
Follow-up on the unresolved gate replacement issue.
Board response
The Eversource representative reaffirmed the contact number and promised to escalate the request.
The representative acknowledged the delay and provided a direct line for resolution.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked if there is a specific state docket or review number provided for the Silver Lake Road condominium development. Key concern
Inquiry regarding the state permit/docket number for the project.
Board response
The applicant stated they would provide the number to the Planning staff for verification.
The applicant agreed to send the number to the staff to confirm the files match.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked about the difference between intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance under current ordinances. They wanted to know if additional planning profiles should be requested to ensure safety. Key concern
Clarification on sight distance requirements and whether more documentation is needed for safety.
Board response
The consultant (GPI) explained the distinction and noted that while the ordinance focuses on intersection sight distance, the board has the right to review stopping sight distance due to the rolling terrain.
The technical expert provided a detailed explanation of how the two terms differ and how they apply to the site.
Unidentified speaker
Partial
The speaker expressed concern regarding the 'right-in, right-out' restriction at the Proctor Hill Road intersection. They argued that residents might try to turn around, potentially increasing traffic on Deacon Lane. Key concern
Potential traffic impact and driver behavior resulting from the restricted intersection design.
Board response
The consultant explained the logic behind the design (lack of western sight distance) and suggested that residents would likely use an alternative route via Rocky Pond Road.
The expert explained the design reasoning, but the speaker remained skeptical, characterizing the response as 'wishful thinking.'
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker questioned the parameters that would mandate a left-turn option. They asked if the developer could create the necessary sight distance by clearing vegetation. Key concern
Possibility of modifying the site to allow for a safer left-turn movement.
Board response
The consultant noted that while clearing might work, it would require coordination and approval from the NH DOT.
The expert answered the technical possibility and the regulatory hurdle (DOT involvement).
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker raised concerns about the bus stop location. They suggested that if a stop is not properly designed within the development, parents might use Deacon Lane, causing traffic issues there. Key concern
Potential traffic impact on Deacon Lane due to bus stop placement and lack of infrastructure.
Board response
The consultant noted that the applicant is currently working with the bus company and if the stop is on the site, they recommend a pull-off area and shelter.
The consultant addressed the concern by explaining the current planning status and recommended mitigation measures.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked whether the request for stopping sight distance applies only to major intersections or also to the individual driveways within the subdivision. Key concern
Clarification of the scope of sight distance requirements.
Board response
The consultant clarified that while they recommended it for driveways, it is less critical for low-volume subdivision roads compared to main intersections.
The expert provided a clear distinction regarding the scope of the request.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked if coordination meetings between the applicant, the town, and the DOT would be useful to resolve traffic calming and design concerns. Key concern
Inquiry regarding the utility of multi-party coordination meetings.
Board response
The consultant suggested it could be useful, but noted that the DOT is currently deferring specific traffic calming decisions back to the town.
The expert answered the question regarding the potential benefit and the current regulatory stance.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked for specific recommendations to ensure drivers do not attempt illegal left turns at the Proctor Hill intersection. They argued that signage alone would be insufficient. Key concern
Effectiveness of traffic control measures in preventing illegal maneuvers.
Board response
The consultant explained that the current design uses a channelizing island to deflect traffic to the right, making left turns very difficult.
The expert explained the physical design (deflection) used to address the concern.
Unidentified speaker
Partial
The speaker asked if there are specific engineering standards for the 'deflection angle' of the island to ensure it effectively guides cars to the right without sacrificing sight lines. Key concern
Request for technical standards regarding island deflection and safety.
Board response
The consultant stated the design meets DOT standards for deflection and radii, but the board member noted the angle appeared insufficient in the provided figures.
The technical expert provided a response based on standards, but the board member expressed continued doubt about the practical application.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker expressed concern that drivers might ignore striping and signage to make illegal left turns, especially if it is the 'easy way out.' Key concern
Human behavior/non-compliance with traffic controls.
Board response
The consultant suggested that adding more striping could help guide unfamiliar drivers, though they noted that drivers would be creating a head-on collision risk.
The expert addressed the concern by suggesting additional striping as a mitigation.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker noted that 40% of existing crashes in the area occur near the proposed driveway. They asked how adding an additional access point would affect the crash rate. Key concern
Impact of new access point on existing high crash rates in the area.
Board response
The consultant explained that the existing crashes are primarily winter run-off-the-road accidents and that the proposed channelization and signage are intended to mitigate risks.
The expert provided context for the crash data and explained the proposed safety measures.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
The speaker expressed strong opposition, stating that the intersection is already dangerous due to weather and terrain. They argued that signs and deflection are insufficient to ensure safety for residents and students. Key concern
General safety concerns and skepticism regarding the adequacy of proposed traffic calming.
Board response
The board moved into a discussion regarding the next steps for traffic mitigation.
The speaker voiced an opinion/opposition, but the board did not provide a direct rebuttal or a decision to grant/deny based on this specific comment during this turn.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked about sight lines for vehicles that might break down or stop near the entrance, specifically regarding the ability of following vehicles to stop in time. Key concern
Sight distance for stopped or disabled vehicles near the entrance.
Board response
The consultant noted that the topography/contours might actually block sight lines for such a scenario.
The expert confirmed the potential visibility issue related to the site's topography.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked if there was any suggestion to include signage for an upcoming intersection, rather than just curves or neighborhoods. Key concern
Request for intersection-specific warning signage.
Board response
The consultant confirmed that 'intersection ahead' signage is currently proposed, but they recommended upgrading it to 'intersection on a curve' signage.
The expert confirmed the current proposal and offered an improved recommendation.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked if the board's consensus was to agree with the suggested traffic calming measures or to formally request them from the applicant. Key concern
Procedural question on how to move forward with traffic calming requirements.
Board response
The staff/planner (Kevin) advised that the board needs to be specific about what they want (signage, lights, etc.) so they can formally request it from the applicant.
The staff provided procedural guidance on how to formalize the request.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker advised that the board should not attempt to decide all measures tonight. They noted that there are still outstanding plan comments and that any specific requests (signage, speed reduction) must be clearly defined for the applicant. Key concern
Procedural advice on the necessity of being specific with applicant requests.
Board response
The board acknowledged the need to be specific and agreed to coordinate with the applicant and DOT.
The speaker's procedural advice was adopted as the direction for the next steps.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker recommended that the staff prepare a comprehensive list of all concerns from both the board and the consultant to present to the applicant at the next meeting. They also argued that the intersection is fundamentally unsafe and the town could be liable. Key concern
Need for a consolidated list of concerns and liability regarding the intersection's safety.
Board response
The board agreed to have the staff/planner prepare a detailed list of concerns for the next meeting.
The board accepted the recommendation to consolidate concerns into a formal document.
Unidentified speaker
Partial
The speaker asked for a motion to follow the suggestion made by Dave (a speaker). Key concern
Request for a formal motion to consolidate concerns.
Board response
No formal motion was made at that exact second, but the board proceeded to discuss the next steps and the applicant provided clarification.
While a motion wasn't immediately taken, the board followed the spirit of the suggestion by continuing the discussion and tasking staff.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked about the sight lines for vehicles entering from the east. They specifically asked if a vehicle stopping at the entrance would be visible to others. Key concern
Sight distance for stationary or slowing vehicles at the entrance.
Board response
The consultant explained that while the channelization helps with direction, the topography might make it difficult to see a stopped vehicle.
The expert addressed the sight-line concern in relation to the site's contours.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker asked if there were suggestions to include a sign for an upcoming intersection, rather than just curves. Key concern
Request for intersection-specific signage.
Board response
The consultant confirmed intersection signs are proposed and recommended 'intersection on a curve' signs.
The expert addressed the request for specific sign types.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker expressed concerns regarding the intersection's safety, noting that the current crash data shows a high incidence of accidents. They questioned if any measures would actually make the road safer. Key concern
Skepticism regarding the effectiveness of proposed traffic calming.
Board response
The consultant explained the specific types of signage and visual cues (chevrons) being recommended to mitigate the specific types of crashes recorded.
The expert provided a technical response to the efficacy of the proposed measures.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
The speaker asked for a clarification on how the board would decide between various traffic calming options like signage, lights, or speed reductions.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Acceptance of March 24 meeting minutes.
Moved by Julie Mook, seconded by Mike.
Passed (Roll call: 7 Aye, 1 Abstain)
Acceptance of Eversource Scenic Road application (PB2026-004).
Moved by a speaker, seconded by Virginia Mills.
Passed
Continuation of Silver Lake Road Condominium application (PB2022-015).
Moved by Richard Hardy, seconded by Victor Orlando. Continued to the next meeting.
Passed
Move the Deacon Lane subdivision application to the final design phase with the ability to discuss landscaping/buffers informally.
The board preferred the common driveway configuration (Plan CD5) and moved the project to final design.
Unanimous
Deferment of action on environmental and wildlife studies.
The board will wait for a complete set of revised plans before requesting or acting on specific environmental or wildlife studies.
Not formally voted, but consensus reached.

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Community concerns raised but dismissed or ignored
At the 4/21 Planning Board meeting, members flagged a high-crash intersection on Proctor Hill Road. Despite safety fears, the Board voted to move the 35-home Deacon Lane subdivision to the final design phase. Residents demand... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/planning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #HollisNH
314/280 chars
Community concerns regarding developer legitimacy and environmental impact
Who is building in Amherst at the expense of Hollis? At the 4/21 meeting, the Planning Board questioned the legitimacy of an LLC proposing a project that would dump stormwater/pollutants into Witches Brook. No action was taken... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/planning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #HollisNH
315/280 chars
Board's internal debate on liability and public safety
Safety vs. Development: The Hollis Planning Board is facing heat over the Deacon Lane subdivision. Board members voiced blunt concerns: 'This intersection isn't safe... Who's liable if something happens there? It's the town.' https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/planning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #HollisNH
311/280 chars

X thread

1
Is Hollis prioritizing development over driver safety? At the April 21 Planning Board meeting, a major debate erupted over the proposed 35-home Deacon Lane subdivision and a high-risk intersection on Proctor Hill Road. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #HollisNH
244/280
2
Peer review data shows a high frequency of run-off-the-road accidents at this location. Despite these warnings and resident skepticism about 'traffic calming,' the Board voted to move the project to the final design phase.
222/280
3
Board members didn't mince words, questioning the town's liability if a crash occurs at the proposed intersection. The project is now in a 'final design' stage, pending a list of concerns from the Town Planner.
210/280
4
We need to stay vigilant. Will these 'mitigations' actually prevent accidents, or are we waiting for a tragedy to occur before we take real action? #HollisNH #LocalGovernment #PublicSafety https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/planning-board/2026-04-21/
212/280

Facebook — long form

Safety concerns are mounting following the Hollis Planning Board meeting on April 21. The primary focus was the Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill subdivision, a proposed 35-home development that includes a new 'right-in/right-out' intersection on Proctor Hill Road.

Despite presentation of crash data showing a high frequency of run-off-the-road accidents in that area, the Board voted to move the project into the final design phase. While the Board did not grant final approval, members expressed significant anxiety regarding sight lines, bus stop safety, and municipal liability. One member stated bluntly, 'This intersection isn't safe... Who's liable if something happens there? It's the town.'

Additionally, the Board raised red flags regarding a cross-border project in Amherst that would impact Hollis via stormwater runoff into Witches Brook. The Board expressed skepticism regarding the identity of the applicant and the potential for pollutants like oil and asphalt to enter our local waters. 

As these developments move forward, residents should demand that safety data and environmental protection are prioritized over developer timelines. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/planning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #HollisNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Follow up on the resident's report regarding the broken gate/lock on Samuel's Way.
Assigned: Allison Marcotte (Eversource)
Provide the completed well study report for the Silver Lake Road project.
Assigned: Chad Brandon (Fieldstone Land Consultants) · Due: Next regular meeting
Graph/compile a list of staff and GPI consultant concerns (traffic calming, signage, etc.) and send to Chad Brandon.
Assigned: Kevin Anderson (Town Planner) · Due: Prior to next meeting
Prepare a detailed letter regarding traffic/intersection recommendations and coordinate with the applicant.
Assigned: a speaker (Kevin Anderson) · Due: Next meeting
Submit updated plans reflecting the removal of compensatory storage/stockpiles and address the stormwater/wetland concerns.
Assigned: Applicant/Engineer (Chad Brannon/Jason Hill) · Due: May meeting
Coordinate with Fire and Police departments regarding the chosen driveway configuration.
Assigned: a speaker (Kevin Anderson) · Due: Upon final submission
Provide input/suggestions to Kevin on priority topics for zoning amendments.
Assigned: Board Members · Due: Before the next meeting
Share his list of proposed zoning amendments with the board for review.
Assigned: Kevin (Speaker S35) · Due: Prior to the next meeting
Review the proposed unified development regulations document (combining site plan and subdivision regulations).
Assigned: Board Members · Due: Not specified

Member ⁠positions

5 issues · 4 explicit · 29 inferred · 21 unclear
A split vote in this meeting was recorded without naming the dissenter (e.g. a voice vote). Members whose individual vote could not be confirmed are marked UNCLEAR below — this is not the same as a “yes.” Named votes will be filled in if official minutes record them.
Bill Moseley
Chairman
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Doug Cleveland
Vice Chairman
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing YES
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review UNCLEAR
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
David Petry
Ex-Officio (Select Board Rep)
Present
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Traffic Safety
Extremely concerned regarding the safety and liability of the intersection.
Richard Hardy
Alternate
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review YES
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.
Victor Orlando
Alternate
Present
Approval of Meeting Minutes UNCLEAR
Eversource Scenic Road Hearing UNCLEAR
Silver Lake Road Condominium Final Review YES
Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Subdivision Final Review YES ~
Preferred CD5 driveway and moved to final design phase.

Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”

Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Hollis.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-07-08.