Regional Board Denies Daybreak Appeal

The Truckee Meadows Regional Governing Board denied an appeal by four residents in a 6-4 vote (6/11/20).  The appeal was to overturn the approval of the Daybreak project by the Regional Planning Commission in January.  The four residents made the following presentations.

The Upper Southeast Communities Coalition had a petition signed by 690 residents opposing the development.  The Board had received 32 comments in opposition and 214 comments in support.  The supporting comments presumably came primarily from construction unions.

Introduction and Traffic-Study Issues: Steve Wolgast

    1. The traffic will become unacceptable
    2. The traffic study was based on an inappropriate review
    3. The traffic study is grossly outdated
    4. The traffic study did not follow acceptable practices.

(Appeal_SCW_061120_Final)

Flooding Issues: Franco Crivelli

    1. The developer plans to flood neighborhoods to the north.
    2. The developer’s mitigation plan won’t work.
    3. The flood modelling used does not show the actual flood risk.
    4. The city has a history of failing to enforce the requirements.
    5. Much of Daybreak is in the Critical Flood Zone.

(Appeal_Crivelli)

Mercury Contamination: Kim Rhodemyre

    1. The Mercury testing method taking surface samples is inadequate.
    2. Areas of known Mercury contamination were not tested.
    3. The mitigation plan is not well defined and poses more risks.
    4. Arsenic contamination is not addressed at all.

(USECC – Daybreak Power Point – Mercury_SCW)

Planning Issues: Jim Lewis

    1. Reno is legally committed to support Daybreak as an outcome of the suit.
    2. There is no such thing as “suburban infill”.  It is a ruse by the developer.
    3. Affordable housing needs to be in Reno’s “core” where costs are lower.
    4. There is dangerous traffic in the South Meadows and construction is not done.
    5. Daybreak has high costs which will be reflected in their home prices.

(Daybreak Development Appeal_JL)

Andy Durling gave a presentation that anticipated the arguments the appellants would make.  It mainly addressed issues of what the regional board could consider.  It addressed none of the technical issues raised.  His tone was condescending implying the appellants were emotional and that “science matters and facts matter”.  He closed claiming that the appeal had no merit.

The appellants had 5 minutes to rebut (1:15 each).

Wolgast “Is the board ready to let Mr. Durling define their role?  As an engineer, I agree that facts matter and I notice that Mr. Durling did not address or refute any of the technical points raised.  If facts matter, then why is the developer using an arguably fraudulent traffic study?”

Crivelli “We can have no confidence that the commitments for flood storage will be met.  This project will increase off-site flooding.  The claim that Truckee flooding will stop at Mira Loma is ludicrous.”

Rhodemyre “I didn’t say NDEP didn’t know what they were doing (asserted by Durling).  I said they couldn’t answer any of my questions till the ‘404’ permit was applied for.  NDEP does not do their own testing, but relies on the developers’ paid-engineers data.  The Daybreak project has not been modeled for a 100 yr flood on Steamboat Creek.  Will their design make the flood model worse?  There is no model for the situation where the Truckee River and Steamboat Creek flood in the same period.  This will be catastrophic.”

Lewis “While Mr. Pagni (developer attorney) claimed that my statements were emotional, I clearly showed all my reference material.  It is very clear that Mr. Durling lied in his presentation.  He inappropriately used terms from “urban infill” for “suburban infill”.  This deception is kind of amazing.  Mr. Durling did not address the traffic accident data that already shows that the development in the South Meadows is excessive.  Daybreak is an effort to build urban development in suburbia.”

Commissioner Hartung made the assertion that having more housing stock would reduce housing prices overall.  Council member Brekhus countered with the truism “If everything gets approved, then nothing gets built.”  Her point is well taken.  There are 90,000 dwelling-units worth of housing stock that have been approved but not built in the region.  This is double what is likely needed for the next 20 years.

Council member Bybee asked specific questions of the developer and did not get answers.  She asked repeatedly about the housing prices and expected rents and was rewarded with “median price” and “market rate”.  The casual observer might expect her to be irritated by Mr. Durling’s obvious evasion, but she voted to uphold the approval anyway.

No board members were swayed: the votes were as expected.  Council member Duerr moved to overturn the Planning Commission approval citing numerous noncompliances with the regional code.  This was seconded by Brekhus and supported by Commissioner Herman.  It looked hopeful for a moment.  Duerr made the arguments that made it easy for others to follow her.

Reese, Weber, Hartung, Lawson, and Abbott, voted to uphold the approval.  Commissioner Berkbigler suffered a power outage during the meeting, so she did not vote.  It would not have changed the outcome in any case.

It was discouraging.  The public safety issues were clear and urgent: none were addressed.  This board is not “up to” protecting the public.  There was a sense in the meeting that the votes were decided in advance.  It appeared that the Reno Swamp may extend to Sparks.  Most of our local officials seem to work for the development interests.

Meeting Agenda  (20-06-11 RPGB Agenda Final       Meeting Video

7 thoughts on “Regional Board Denies Daybreak Appeal

  1. Steve,

    Great summary, spot on. I encourage anyone who comes on this blog to take the time to watch the video. In this election year it’s important to understand who needs to go. It’s the only way we can fight back.

    As usual, Brekhus and Duerr were well prepared. Ms. Herman spoke briefly, but used her common sense and life experience to see reality.
    The Daybreak portion of the meeting starts at 1:36:00. You can view our presentations at the following times:
    1:50:16 Steve
    2:01:50 Franco
    2:12:30 Kim
    2:23:30 Jim
    3:10:20 Rebuttals

    They were all very devious. First, they were never clear on how the meeting was going to be run or how much time we were going to get. They held out until the last minute so we couldn’t get the word out to all our supporters. They did this because they knew in the final moments we’d be working on our presentations. Then they shorted us on our time and allowed public comment to go after us, silencing our voices. They arranged for their supporters to have the last word, and added in all the email responses to give credit to public support. As we are only part timers, they worked full time on this. We never had a chance.

    I have a friend in the building industry that call the vote back in February, and even got the names right. That is how sick they are.

    In my presentation, I put the question to Jeremy Smith to give himself the opportunity to retain his character, but he elected to become a Bureaucrat. Even correcting Naomi Duerr about one of the many areas of the Regional Plan she sited they couldn’t meet. If you ever have the opportunity and run into Jeremy, let him know.

    We need to keep Brekhus on the City Council, more so as a watch dog on the mayor who is trying to become the queen. We need to get Jarden and Reese out of there, we need more balance.

    It’s still going to take me a couple of days to get over the disappointment. We’re watching our town get run into the ground.
    I’ll be ready to carry on in a couple of days. Fight the Good Fight…

    Like

  2. Whats the next step? Is there any way we can stop it?

    Steven Edgcomb Reno resident

    On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:49 AM Washoe Residents for Appropriate Planning wrote:

    > Steve Wolgast posted: “The Truckee Meadows Regional Governing Board denied > an appeal by four residents in a 6-4 vote (6/11/20). The appeal was to > overturn the approval of the Daybreak project by the Regional Planning > Commission in January. The four residents made the followin” >

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s