(Brekhus, Duerr and Schieve voted “no”.  Reese, Delgado, Jardon, and Weber voted “yes”)

Neighbors packed the council chamber only to hear that there was an embarrassing debacle with the agenda.  The printed (and online) agenda indicated that items would be taken in order starting at 10:00 AM.  But, some council members had concluded that it would be more sensible to address item C.3, Daybreak, at a “time certain” of 2:00 PM or later.  The 2:00 PM time was shared with some of the neighbors, but not with all of the council members or the applicant (Newport-Pacific Land Co).  There was no good way to resolve this problem since some would be coming earlier to address this item and some would come later.  The council voted to follow the printed agenda.  Fortunately, it took till roughly 2:00 PM to get to the Daybreak decision following the printed agenda.

Public comment garnered 226 online “opposed” notes, 87 “support” notes, and 5 “concerned” notes.  The “support” notes almost surely came from developers, builders, and realtors with a financial stake in the outcome.  Speakers made the following points.

• The Daybreak development is a give-away to the speculators since the taxpayers will pay the costs for the infrastructure to support the development.
• The speculators presentations are “gas lighting” meant to deceive and sow doubt about the truth.
• Mayor Schieve’s initiative for 1,000 homes close to the city center makes much more sense than building Daybreak in a flood zone.
• The city should clean-out the “zombie” plans which were approved before the downturn of 2008 and are no longer compliant with the current master plan.
• Daybreak will cause downstream flooding of neighbors to the North.
• The schools are currently strained and face a teacher shortage.
• We need healthy urban planning in Reno.
• The NPLC study for Mercury in the soil is wholly inadequate and didn’t discover known Mercury contamination on their property that had been identified by an RTC study.  RTC found levels “Not suitable for human habitation”.
• The process is flawed and sets a bad precedent for the future indicating that speculators can get special treatment by suing the city.
• The project is not ecologically sound, nor is it sustainable.
• The speculators claim that they need only meet the requirements of the old master plan, but in their complaint (suit) they did not properly reference the regional plan.
• There is no current traffic safety data.  RTC has no traffic accident report for the area since 2017.
• Daybreak will be disastrous to the horses who need access to water.
• The fact that the stipulation agreement does not allow the city to make conditions on the project is grounds in itself to deny the project.
• Retention ponds in the Double-R neighborhood have been full for years due in part to the high water table.  Mitigation won’t work even with 1.25 X volume reduction.  The speculators only considered the most favorable flooding scenarios.
• Reno has no enforcement of drainage feature construction or maintenance.
• Engineering reports asserted that airport wouldn’t flood, that the bridge over the Truckee was high enough, but these and many other engineering reports were proven wrong.
• The speculators did not adequately consider the flood risk from Steamboat Creek which is more prone to flooding than the Truckee River.
• Some of the new homes will be built on 4 foot lot lines.  Such close proximity will likely lead to conflict between neighbors.
• The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Authority (TMRPA) indicates more than 20 years worth of approved lots and fewer people moving to the South-Reno area every year.

Council members’ discussion:

Brekhus:

• The speculators claim that the city made “illegal exactions” from them, yet they voluntarily make much greater concessions.  This does not indicate good faith.
• What will happen to residents in Heron’s Landing if Daybreak is raised?
• The speculators claimed to claimed to meet all the goals of the Re-Imagine Reno master plan, but this is not true.
• We need the most current flood map before considering the plan.
• The Mercury testing seems superficial.
• “It’s a false narrative that we have to approve anything at any time just because we’re in a housing pinch.”
• This will not be housing that is affordable.  It is not what the master plan specifies.

Reese:

• When will the new FEMA floodplain map be available?  Arlo Stockman (Reno Planning Manger): the development design will need to conform to the new floodplain map when it’s available.  [This will be reviewed behind closed doors between the developer and the Reno staffer.]
• What gives us confidence that the plan will faithfully adapt to the new flood map when the city can’t get involved?  Stockham is confident that the changes can be implemented.
• He’s impressed by the speculators’ experts.  We accept risk in everything we do.

Duerr:

• If a new independent review should be required, it should not be performed by someone with ties to the local community.
• The FEMA flood study won’t be released for 1-3 years.
• There is a high-hazard, earthen dam storing effluent on the property.  It is on a fault and could flood many neighbors.
• There are too many unknowns.
• “I am concerned about existing residents.  Nothing has been done to protect them.”
• The traffic report is not complete.
• She can’t make many of the required findings.

Schieve:

• Does this plan comply with the Re-Imagine Reno plan?  Durling “It complies with that and the previous master plan.”  [Implausible.  If this were true, they would not need a zoning amendment.]
• The speculators want the plan considered under the new master plan that allows higher density, but not the part that discourages building in a flood plain.
• She can’t support building in a flood plain.

Delgato:

• He’s concerned about the traffic and the density.  Michael Piney (sp?, speculators’ lawyer) offered to reduce the density again from 4230 to 3995 for a total of 15%.  Piney also agreed to provide the Mercury test results in the Alexander Lake area.

Jardon:

• The community is more concerned about the housing shortage.

In closing …

The neighbors lost, but they had an impact.  You could see it in the meeting.

1. The vote was 4-3: it just barely passed.  The residents raised concerns that were echoed on the dais.
2. The speculators were afraid it would fail which led to the three rounds of last-minute concessions.
3. The 226 comments submitted online represent only part of the public opposition including neighbors who sent e-mails and those who went to the meeting.  Residents are paying attention to the new developments.
4. The 87 comments received online in support of the project show that the builders, developers, and realtors were also concerned that the project would be denied.

The following is a guest post by Valerie Truce.  She published it as an opinion piece in the Reno Gazette Journal on September 16.  The City Council will vote on Monday whether to approve the development with few changes or to fight it in court starting September 27.

Despite a denial from Reno City Council on November 28, 2018, the Daybreak development, a project consisting of 4700 dwellings, is back on the council’s agenda on September 23, 2019. Daybreak, formerly known as Butler Ranch, is a bit over 900 acres on the west side of Veteran’s, in between South Meadows Parkway and Mira Loma
Parkway. If you’ve ridden your bike along the path, or driven along Veteran’s, you’ve probably noticed the vast expanse of wetlands and pasture.
Daybreak presents several concerns. Top on the list, it’s in a flood plain. The speculators said they’d create a complex arrangement of culverts to take care of flooding, but the area floods frequently. When the natural sponge of wetlands and pasture is taken away, areas adjacent to it, Heron’s Landing, the Rosewood areas, Eastside Subdivision, Hidden Valley, Steamboat Creek and Veteran’s Parkway, will flood. The water’s got to go somewhere.
Look at what’s happened in Lemmon Valley. Ask the residents of Double Diamond what it’s like to live in a wetlands area. They suffer from nuisance flooding. Many have had to replace their plumbing due to corrosion of pipes from water underneath their homes. Which is why our newest master plan, Reimagine Reno, discourages building in flood plains. We know what future problems will bring.
Despite the efforts of thousands of hours of citizens input, creating Reimagine Reno, our master plan, we’re now asked to return to a  dysfunctional paradigm. The speculator wants to amend the new master plan to accommodate his needs. The speculator is also asking the city council to neglect other concerns.
Reimagine Reno says our community needs infill housing, dwellings within McCarran circle where there is infrastructure to support them and where most jobs are. Yet, southeast Reno has become the new hot spot. The council has approved a 15 building apartment complex on Geiger Grade, 1300 apartments on Steamboat on the corner of
Veteran’s, 1300 homes off of Western Skies Drive, and hundreds in the Bella Vista II project at the northern end of Rio Wrangler, not to mention several smaller projects like 200 apartments on Old Virginia Road.
Due to tremendous growth southeast Reno is riddled with congestion and traffic accidents. Getting in and out of neighborhoods onto thoroughfares is often life threatening. Our local emergency room has seen a sharp uptick in vehicle related accidents due not only to distracted drivers, but congestion.
Not only is Daybreak’s ecology and our infrastructure unable to support 4700 dwellings, we don’t need them. Reno’s population is supposed to grow by nearly 100,000 by 2038. At 2.6 people per household (PPH), we’ll need about 22,000 dwellings. We already have over 34,000 PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) aka zombie projects, projects currently on the books for which building is yet to start, and almost 16,000 dwellings in projects currently being built. The math is simple. We need 22,000 dwellings. We have 50,000 on the books. We’re overbuilding.
Unless the speculator makes significant changes, in terms of number of dwellings and Daybreak’s impact on the wetlands and infrastructure, it should not go forward. Our city council needs to stand firm on their previous decision. It was based on sound reasoning. We need to implement our master plan and protect residents from the avarice of
speculators.
Readers, you have options. Attend the meeting at city hall on the 23rd. Call or email your city council representative before next Monday. Let them know we stand united in protection of our beautiful valley.

Reno City Council contact link.

With its population of 1,400, Verdi residents are dreading the plans to add over 3,000 new homes to their community.  It will be a mixture of single family homes and apartments adding roughly 8,000 residents and maybe 75,000 additional vehicle trips.  The zoning “overlay” to intensively develop the area is the Mortensen-Garson overlay which was approved by Reno in 2004.  (Verdi Area Development)

The Washoe County Citizens Advisory Board for the West Truckee Meadows and Verdi Township was packed with over 100 attendees for their meeting on 9/17/19.  The first item on the agenda was the Mortensen Ranch development.  This is a plan to put 676 homes on 955 acres on a lot bordering on the Somersett development.  There will be 700 acres of open space which is mostly too steep to build on.  There will only be two access roads to the development with an additional emergency exit that will be gated.  The developer said that they were not allowed to connect to roads in Somersett.  The developer will be seeking approval for a Special Use Permit and a Tentative Map when they go to the Reno Planning Commission.  The project will be annexed into the city.  The developer needs an SUP for their development since it is large and also because it is built on a major drainage-way.  Angela Fuss was present now representing the City of Reno.  This is a new role for her having represented Lumos, a development-engineering firm until recently.  Paul Soleagui is the traffic engineer, and he defended his study that indicated that the planned roads were adequate.  He is known for defending a traffic study conducted on the Independence Day weekend and another one done the day after New Years.

The CAB received 18 comments from residents who didn’t speak who were opposed to the project.  They received none in favor.  Residents expressed the following concerns during public comment in the meeting.

• Building on the open space will detract from residences at Somersett.
• There has been a lack of information available to residents about the project.
• The project has higher density than allowed in the zoning and the zoning “overlay”.
• Inadequate fire fighting coverage: the nearest station only has two on staff.
• Access is inadequate for evacuation or for fire fighter access.
• The Verdi elementary school already needs trailers for classroom capacity.
• TMWA bought the local water utility which will pump more water from the aquifer presently used by many residents who rely on wells.
• The taxpayers will end up subsidizing this development for schools and emergency services.
• This developer is not coordination with others who are building in the same area.  There needs to be a broader plan addressing the cumulative impacts of the several large developments on infrastructure and schools.
• One speaker listed a number of “findings” (requirements) that the plan does not meet.
• Adding so many homes will undermine the “dark skies” characteristic of the area.
• This plan will violate the zoning overlay requirement to protect the view of the ridgeline.
• The I-80 off ramp is already dangerous: it will be worse with more traffic.
• The roundabout at Cabela’s won’t take more traffic.
• There will be drainage problems through Sierra Canyon.

CAB Chair Borchard asked point blank whether the several developers were coordinating to address infrastructure issues.  The answer was “no”.  The CAB voted 3-1 to deny (Borchard, DoMoe, House opposed; Lazzareschi in favor).

Also reviewed at the meeting was the Meridian 120 South development.  Most of the audience left.  Andrew Durling representing Wood Rogers gave a presentation describing the development for “villages 3 & 4”.  This presentation is not available to include in this blog.  The Planning Commission previously denied the tentative map, but approved the Special Use Permit.  The Reno City Council upheld the denial.  The developer is now suing Reno challenging the denial.  The new tentative map has 14 homes on 15,000 s.f. lots and 64 homes on 9,000 s.f. lots.  The zoning is for 15,000 s.f. lots.

There are a total of 6 “villages” including a total of 545 lots.  The residents and the CAB members want to see the total plan to assess the cumulative impacts on traffic and other factors rather than reviewing it piecemeal.  The total plan was not presented.

Public Comment:

• This property acts as a natural sponge to retain runoff and to recharge the aquifer supplying local wells.  It should not be made impervious with new development.
• Evacuation in case of a wildfire looks problematic.
• The new plan includes more housing units than previously negotiated.
• It is in a flood plain.
• The local elementary school is already using trailers for classrooms due to overcrowding.

Board Discussion:

 Borchard: this project is not responsible with respect to water.  It should be denied following judicial review.

Lazzareschi: recommend approval of the special use permit, but reserve judgement on the tentative map.

The board voted to deny the project 3-1 (Borchard, Viden, House opposed; Lazzareschi in favor)

Last on the agenda was consideration of the application for a special use permit (SUP) for the Verdi Village apartment project.  This consists of 11 buildings: 6 are 2-storeys and 5 are 3-stories tall on 10.7 acres.  The existing zoning under the Mortensen-Garson overlay is MF-14 which would only allow 150 residences.

Public Comment:

• The property is currently an orchard that serves to recharge the aquifer.
• South Verdi Road and Garson Road are dangerous with the existing traffic.
• Increasing the density of this development means that the limits of the Mortensen-Garson overlay are being exceeded beyond the 3,000 stipulated.
• The name “Verdi Village” is an insult to the established community.
• There is no comprehensive plan shared by the developers of the area projects.
• The claim that the development will only provide 20 more students to local schools lacks credibility.

Board Discussion:

House: the Garson Road bridge will probably not be adequate for this additional traffic.  Garson Road should be improved, but Reno is opposed and does not want to have additional traffic on it.

Borchard: three stories is a problem.  Downward illumination will be an intrusion on nearby residents.  There should be a special assessment district specific to the new developments.

Viden: the developers for the area developments should get together to produce an effective, comprehensive plan for infrastructure.  The increasing draw from the large well has hurt existing homeowners.

The board voted to send the comments to Reno without a recommendation.

The Reno City Council voted 4-3 to delay a decision on the Daybreak development until their meeting on September 23.  This review is proceeding in an unusual way because the investors (Newport Pacific Land Co.) have already gone to court and negotiated a stipulation with the City Attorney (Karl Hall) and Council Members Delgado and Reese.  Following the denial of the project by the Reno City Council on November 28, 2018, NPLC went to the Reno Planning Commission with a proposal for a part of the Daybreak project called Rio Wrangler North II.  The Planning Commission denied this project, and NPLC went to court with a petition for judicial review and a claim for $50M in damages against Reno for the original Daybreak project.  Their claim is that the city denied them their project unfairly thereby “taking” value from their property.  The stipulation mandates that Reno must agree to the Daybreak plan with minimal changes or go to court starting on September 27.  The main point being that the city cannot add more conditions to the project to gain approval.  The court action on September 27 would be Reno’s motion to dismiss the case brought by NPLC.

Neighbors were disappointed that the city council did not affirm their previous denial of the Daybreak project, but it was understandable that the majority preferred to delay.  NPLC has made many changes to their plan and provided this information to the council members just yesterday.  They do not have a new, complete proposal, so the Reno Planning Department will need to update the existing plan with these changes.  Once the changes are incorporated, the council members will be able to review them, but this must all happen in less than 12 days.  None of the council members were satisfied with the accelerated schedule.  Voting for delaying the decision until September 23 were Reese, Delgado, Jardon, and Weber.  Voting to deny the project again were Brekhus, Schieve, and Duerr.

Karl Hall gave a presentation describing the stipulation and the “order on stipulation”.  He also covered the choices facing the city.  (Daybreak_Discussion_KHall)

Andy Durling of Wood Rogers gave a presentation describing the proposed changes.  He spoke like an auctioneer to try to cover the material in the 10 minutes allotted.  No reasoned conclusion could be drawn under these circumstances. (His presentation is not available at this time.)  He went on to make the point that the zoning amendment had already been approved for the Butler Ranch North portion and that NPLC could proceed with that and it would not get some “improvements” that are incorporated in the new plan.

Points made during public comment; (note: there were 124 comments received in opposition online.  There were four comments received online in support)

• There is already area flooding due to blocked drainage channels that are not maintained.
• The Daybreak development could cause flooding leaving Reno liable as they were for the Lemmon Valley flooding.
• Earlier development projects contributed more to the community in terms of schools, fire, road improvements, etc.
• Reno staff admits they don’t enforce requirements in the Reno Development Handbook.  We are not confident the flood mitigation features will be incorporated.
• This process is not transparent.  It looks like “Let’s make a deal.”
• There have been many “100-year” floods in recent history.
• Daybreak only considered flooding on the Truckee River.  They did not consider flooding on Steamboat Creek.
• Reno has no enforcement on previous developments that violated the master plan.
• The council was right to deny the project earlier.  They should affirm this decision.
• Reno should buy the Daybreak properties from the investors and set it aside for recreation and flood control.
• The wetlands are critical for the wild horses and other wildlife.
• NPLC is a real-estate speculation firm.  They can’t commit to what the developers will do later.
• Only 245 homes were approved in the original Butler Ranch development.
• Why should Reno grant NPLC an exemption from the Re-Imagine Reno master plan?  If every developer gets an exemption, the master plan is meaningless.
• We need common sense development that does not engender these problems of flooding and traffic.

Discussion by the council members and staff;

Brekhus

• The stipulation violates the Hanson Rule related to legal counsel acting on behalf of a governing body without that body’s approval of the action in a public meeting.
• This sets a remarkably dangerous precedent: NPLC should re-apply and pay a new filing fee.  Why do they get a “do-over”?
• This is a new application and should go through the Planning Commission.
• Why should we let this project jump in front of others awaiting approval?
• We should see the new tentative maps before considering approval.
• NPLC could move forward quickly if they would comply with the existing zoning and master plan.

Delgado

• “Why not bring this back as a new project instead of requiring a new decision on a modified version?”
• The earlier denial by the city council was based on their inability to make the “findings” required to approve the project.
• We got a lot of new information from NPLC just yesterday.
• I hear the lack of trust in the city’s code enforcement.

Duerr

• “Why did NPLC get to file their complaint so late?  They only had 30 days from the decision.”  Hall answered that the 30 days starts from the filing date, not the decision date.  This answer was not entirely satisfactory.
• A lot of documents have been submitted since the development documentation binder was distributed.
• There is no map for the current or revised development.
• The Butler Ranch North Planned-Unit Development (PUD) approval is now 15 years old.  They have still to get a tentative map.  Is the old PUD even relevant?
• I don’t even know what questions to ask at this time.
• The need for an additional fire station is not addressed.
• This project should be re-submitted as a new plan.
• The investors claim this is an “exaction”.  This is not possible since the project was never approved.
• The housing density is way too much.  I don’t see how this can change by 9/23.

Jardon

• Can we get answers from staff about the changes in 2 weeks?  Can staff identify red-flag issues by then?
• Can we negotiate a later date for a decision?  An additional month to October 23 would be a better plan.

Reese

• His goal with the stipulation was to have the negotiation be as much in public as possible.
• The master plan only “discourages” building in flood plains: it does not prohibit them.
• We have a critical housing shortage.  Reese wants to continue to explore the process.
• He wants to know “What were the investors assumptions and who did they talk to?”
• We should move forward from where we are and not start over with a new application.

Schieve

• There is not sufficient detailed information to consider approval at this point.

Weber

• We should move forward.
• She wants to delay a decision for an extra month.
• We need to grow and build homes or we’re dying.

Hall

• Today is a day to decide if we want to engage in the settlement process.
• If the council approves the delayed decision, they may be able to negotiate a delay in the due date.

Arlo Stockham (Reno Planning Manager)

• The planning department can review this in two weeks and identify any red-flag issues.

AGENDA … VIDEO

Reference from previous pages and posts;

Take-5 to push back against the Daybreak Development

Daybreak Strikes Back

Daybreak Denied

Daybreak Development Continued

Daybreak Redux at NAB3

Rio Wrangler North II Denied by Planning Commission

Daybreak

The massive Daybreak development will worsen flooding along the Steamboat Creek.  It will destroy the natural flood storage capacity in the area and divert runoff downstream toward communities to the North.  It will mostly fill the area from Damonte Ranch to Hidden Valley with 4,700 homes.  The Reno City Council will consider approving the development on 9/11.  This is not just an issue for the Damonte Ranch neighbors.  Steamboat Creek flooding can close the airport and block access to Route 80.  This is a regional issue for the future of the Truckee Meadows.  AGENDA

PICK YOUR APPROACH …

You can e-mail one or all of the City Council Members.

• Mayor Hillary Schieve; schieveh@reno.gov
• Council Member Jenny Brekhus, Ward 1; brekhusj@reno.gov
• Council Member Naomi Duerr, Ward 2; duerrn@reno.gov
• Council Member Oscar Delgado, Ward 3; delgadoo@reno.gov
• Council Member Bonnie Weber, Ward 4; weberb@reno.gov
• Council Member Neoma Jardon, Ward 5; jardonn@reno.gov
• Council Member Devon Reese, At Large; reesed@reno.gov

You can fill out a public comment form online and pick “oppose” and “no” for speaking in person.  This will be agenda item D.1 on the 9/11/19 meeting agenda.  LINK

Some of the city council members (Delgado for sure) have Facebook pages.  It’s another place to express your opinion.

You can write the City Clerk, Ashley Turner, who will faithfully log your position and your comments. … cityclerk@reno.gov or turneya@reno.gov

You can make one or all of the following points.

• This is the last “natural sponge” to absorb runoff and store flooding from Steamboat Creek.
• This project is not compliant with current zoning or the master plan (Re-Imagine Reno).
• Technical flood control questions from the Truckee Meadows Flood Authority have not been addressed.
• There has been no comprehensive testing for Mercury on the property.
• Traffic along Mira Loma near Veterans’ Parkway is already dangerously heavy.
• There is no plan for an additional fire station which will be needed.

There will be public comment allowed on the specific Daybreak issue.  If you want to go and speak, you can speak at the beginning of the meeting during “General Public Comment” or later on the specific agenda item D.1 which is instructions to staff regarding the Daybreak ruling.

“Evil succeeds when good men people are silent.”  Make your voice heard!  Be counted as one opposed to this dangerous and destructive development.  Do it for your love of the Truckee Meadows.  Do it for yourself.

See the previous post for more detailed information on the development and the current status.  Note: I was mistaken that the court case was a petition for judicial review.  It was rather a civil case for damages brought by the developer against the city for wrongly “taking” their property by imposing unreasonable restrictions.

The massive Daybreak development will be back before the Reno City Council on September 11.  It is a disastrous project for 4,700 homes to be built on the east side of the Reno basin from South Meadows Parkway up to Mira Loma Drive.  Most worrisome is the fact that it will occupy much of the last space available to store floodwaters for the entire valley and for natural percolation into the soil in the Steamboat Creek watershed.  The developer is proposing a complex arrangement of culverts and drains to control flooding in their development.  This may prove unfortunate to neighborhoods to the North where the the runoff is headed.  The developer expressed that the effect on downstream properties was not considered.

The developer petitioned the Washoe District Court for a judicial review of the Reno City Council decision to deny the project which required changes to the Reno Master Plan (Re-imagine Reno) and to zoning.  This led City Attorney’s to negotiate with applicants and their attorney’s to try to avoid court proceedings, which was done out of the public eye and behind closed doors. The negotiated stipulation that was provided to the court and then remanded by the court on August 29 favored the developer by almost eliminating Reno’s ability to add requirements or conditions to approval of the project without Daybreak’s approval. Reno can only approve the project (it might be presented with ‘slight modifications’), or it can deny it and go to court on September 27. If Reno approves, then it will have a first reading on September 23 followed by the second reading sometime at the beginning of October. If Reno approves the project, it is further obligated to support the project before the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Authority.  Reno attorneys Karl Hall and Jonathan Shipman were parties to the stipulation agreement.  It is not known what went on during the negotiations.

There’s a fundamental issue.  Does Reno control development at all?  Daybreak is not compliant with the master plan or existing zoning.  What entitles them to a special exception for the benefit of their investors?

Note that the developer petitioned for judicial review on February 15 when the deadline for them to file would have been Christmas 2018 (probably December 26).  That was 25 days after the project was denied.  Why was the developer granted a 7 week extension?

NPLC Complaint against Reno seeking damages and judicial review: NPLC_Complaint_021519

Judicial Ruling (Stipulation by Reno and developer attorneys): USECC – 20190826 Stipulation – Daybreak

Judicial Order (enforcing Stipulation): USECC – 20190826 Order on Stipulation – Daybreak

Concerns about the Daybreak Development from the public:

• It would develop the last “natural sponge” to absorb runoff on the Steamboat Creek.
• The flood data the developer used was out of date and incomplete.  The developer has not addressed concerns about their analysis.
• The ground water is only 1-4 feet below the surface in this area.
• Newer homes nearby are suffering the corrosion of pipes due to the high ground water.
• There are many unaddressed issues with this project.  This area is identified as a “critical flood zone”.
• The Butler Ranch North area has been designated as critical flood storage areas by the City of Reno, Washoe County and the Army Corps of Engineers
• The developer’s flood model does not consider the effect on neighboring properties.
• The Army Corps of Engineers have recommended over decades in their Draft Feasibility Studies not to build on this site.
• Re-imagine Reno indicates not to build in a flood plain.
• Earlier tests show high Mercury contamination in areas associated with the Steamboat Creek floodplain.
• Steamboat Creek is fed by nine tributaries all of which are subject to flooding and contributing to increase Steamboat flooding.
• Traffic on Mira Loma between Veterans Pkwy and McCarran is already dangerously heavy.
• RFD is concerned that there is no plan for an additional fire station

Council Member comments from November 28, 2018:

Brekhus: “Why are different flood models used in the analysis?”

Delgado: “I don’t know why this project is before us now given the number of  concerns that have not been addressed. I’m concerned that we may be making a situation like the North Valleys.”

Duerr: “It is one of the most dangerous projects in the area.  Double Diamond is in my ward and has chronic flooding problems.  A 50-year flood on the Truckee can produce a 100-year flood event on Steamboat Creek.”

Bobzien: “I’m particularly concerned about the open questions from Mr. Aldean. I can’t make the findings to move forward.”

HISTORY

This has been a long and tortured process for this massive development.  Here’s a summary of some of the key points to date.

NPLC BV investment company (Newport Beach) buys 980 acres for $52M in June 2017.