Approved at the end of the last real-estate boom in 2006, the Terrasante project (previously called Callamont) appears to have new life in it. It is a 395 acre property with a plan to build 210 homes located at the south end of the Callahan Road off of the Mount Rose Highway. Reliable sources say that the builder will be Toll Brothers. The county records still show that it is owned by Gateway LC that bought the property in 2009. The addition of over 200 homes will have an impact on the residents along Callahan Road.
Workers are now marking the routes for sewer and utility service: they told a neighbor that the Toll Brothers would be building the development. This is an old plan: it’s a zombie project. It has had its deadline for “final map” submission extended many times by a county commission and planning department eager to support development. The deadline for the final map submission is intended to avoid this problem of a project that met the county requirements 15 years ago to be built now with no updated review. It also does not consider other development projects that have been approved in the area that will have cumulative impacts. Changes to the plan will require that the plan go back to the Washoe Planning Commission for review and approval, but some changes are allowed during the detail design of the final map. There is no requirement for public review or disclosure. The process happens within the planning department working with the developer.
Washoe Residents for Appropriate Planning 
Thanks Steve for this update.
I have said and written before that until the Development Code is reformed, no ‘balanced’ development will occur in Washoe County. This code is pro-developer and anti-citizen. Examples of such are no public review of the final map and the former Design Review Committee now dormant (for some time).
The County Planning Department aids and abets developers in their perfidy.
Reasonable deadlines from zoning changes, to tentative plan approval to final plan approval will ensure that zombie projects get contemporaneous reviews by citizens and consider changes which would affect such projects, as you point out.
Provisions of ‘area plans’ and, for us, the Mt. Rose Corridor Scenic Plan, are routinely ignored, especially as it relates to density, e.g., Symphony Ranch, aka ‘Lilliputian Estates’.
The TMRPA Regional Plan is another disaster that needs reform.
Tom
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 6:07 AM Washoe Residents for Appropriate Planning wrote:
> Steve Wolgast posted: ” Approved at the end of the last real-estate boom > in 2006, the Terrasante project (previously called Callamont) appears to > have new life in it. It is a 395 acre property with a plan to build 210 > homes located at the south end of the Callahan Road off of ” >
LikeLike
If we hadn’t solved that pesky little water problem a few years back I’d tend to think this unchecked growth was irresponsible.
We did resolve that matter, correct ? Since it’s never mentioned I just assume it’s no longer a concern.
Thanks for your efforts Steve. Though I must remember to only open an email from you at a time of the day when it’s acceptable to consume a stiff drink.
LikeLike
Sorry about the messages being downers: the ethical lapses are depressing. Once in a while the neighbors prevail or we get a favorable decision. John Enloe, an executive with TMWA, assures residents that there is plenty of water. Of course, he has said he plans to leave the area at some point (his house is on a well). He claims that per-capita water consumption is way down because new residents are very drought conscious. I don’t have numbers to back this up.
LikeLike
When I called the county several years ago when this project last poked its head out of the swamp, I asked where I could see the environmental documents, construction rules and mitigations, etc. I was LITERALLY told, “this isn’t California and it’s not on federal land, so there’s not much to look at or that you can do.” Translation – no CEQA, no NEPA, no rights for surrounding landowners. I can only imagine all the heavy truck traffic on Fawn and Callahan, and then some unlucky residential connector streets. Construction traffic is so well known for following speed limits, and tarping their debris trucks, etc. Ok … end of today’s rant.
LikeLike
Scratch my prior comment. I thought this was a yet again renamed Ascente. I didn’t even realize there was yet another development at the end of Callahan.
LikeLike
If you are curious this is a link to the entire file for the original 2006 Callamont Estates application. The file includes not just the country reports and more detailed maps but a lot of resident feedback. I suspect whatever “updated map” is filed will try to push the density higher.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/20ticj117vnt2yj/Callamont%20Estates%20Master%20Plan.pdf?dl=0
LikeLike
If you are curious this is a link to the entire file for the original 2006 Callamont Estates application. The file includes not just the country reports and more detailed maps but a lot of resident feedback. I suspect whatever “updated map” is filed will try to push the density higher.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/20ticj117vnt2yj/Callamont%20Estates%20Master%20Plan.pdf?dl=0
LikeLike
Yes! Thank you for this information. Isnt there anything we can do to fight this impending mess? This is horrible. Not too different to the horrible tract home development that has already ruined Verdi!! Can we get a petition signed by our callahan group to get this plan back to a review board? Big developers will ruin the beauty of this area forever!!!!! We need to stop it.
LikeLike
The tentative map was approved by the Washoe Planning Commission in 2006 and no one appealed. So, it’s done. The developer now needs to get the final map approved which shows a lot more detail. Given that the plan is now 15 years old, I expect the developer is going to want to make some changes. Only very limited changes are allowed from the tentative map to final map, so if they make more substantial changes it should go back to the Planning Commission and a public hearing. The final map approval process is not open to the public: it’s between the developer and the planning staff. I think the planning staff has a lot of discretion and they work for the county commissioners who favor the developers. They are likely to allow substantial changes. Beyond the final map, the developer needs to get individual permits approved for major stages of construction. It’s possible to appeal a permit, but the appeal will almost surely be denied. The commission has voted against an entire audience of angry residents in the past. They are confident of re-election no matter how mad their constituents are. A big protest that got covered in the press, might have an impact.
LikeLike
This was my 2009 testimony on insufficient water for Ascente. Could be updated through 2020, water profile even worse. Note: Forest Area Plan water profile included Flood year! But Commission ignored.Thank you for all your efforts!I have a better email: classactionclaims@yahoo.com [I did California wage & labor settlements, not related to NV.)Regards, Caroline Lowman (775) 849-1238 (Please check out http://www.awindowsouth.com and pass the word if you wish.)
LikeLike
One thing to note as it regards to water is that several years ago TMWA completed a project which I believe effectively linked their Truckee river water distribution system to Galena’s local well water distribution system effectively merging both the well and river water sources. The wells are still used but river water is available to supplement the well water and to let the wells “rest” as regular intervals.
I bring this up only because I suspect that developers will be able argue that well water issues in the Terrasante area are now less relevant given that river water is now also available and this is likely to make it more difficult to win any concessions/limits from the developers or the Planning Commission based on water availability arguments.
In this particular case given A) the previous approvals already in place B) the county planning commission’s generally pro-development posture and C) the weakened water-usage arguments, I suspect that for those interested in either stopping or limiting the development of Terrrasante your best option may be to find common cause with either local or national environmental groups who are generally in opposition to development and particularly to development in the type of habitat found in the Terrasante area. For example, the Sierra Club has been very active in opposing elements of the Forest Service’s plans to allow expansion of the Mt. Rose Ski area. Given that Terrasante is in the same general habitat as Mt Rose, there is a chance that local residents could interest the Sierra Club or similar organizations to work with them to significantly alter any development plans. The advantage of involving a national environmental organization is that they have a lot of experience with these kind of regulatory/legal battles and are considered a very serious and dangerous adversary by both governments and corporations.
It may be worth exploring whether some of these organizations would be willing to at least make some resources available to do an environmental assessment/site survey at Terrasante. Alternatively, there may be Professors or Grad Students at UNR or TMCC who might be willing to do such a survey which the residents could then send to the larger environmental organizations in an effort to enlist their support and resources.
LikeLike