Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District Meeting 2/19/19 (Notes by Tom Daly)

These are only selected highlights.  Emphasis added by Wolgast.

Sierra County, CA automatic aid agreement – Chief Moore has finalized the agreement as to the limited service area (not the whole county), TM units to respond to fires and the fee to be charged to Sierra County.  The agreement will now be reviewed by the District Attorney and will likely be presented to the Board for final approval in March.  This agreement is much more favorable to TMFPD than the current version.

Gerlach – A report from the District’s consultant Mike Brown will be presented in March on options to provide fire protection to this small community in northern Washoe County (not within the TMFPD).  Chief Moore indicated he is ready to take over operations (from the County) but the financials remain to be resolved as this is a County, not a TMFPD, responsibility.  The cost is about $1 million per year for staffing, supplies, equipment and station operational costs and some needed station modifications

Fleet additions –  Two new 3,000 gallon water tenders are here and being outfitted with radios and related equipment. They should be in service in early March at the latest, with one going to TM#33 Foothill.  The Board approved Chief Moore’s request for $80K for equipment (hose, ladders, tools, radios, etc. ) for the two new Type 1 structure engines due to be delivered in May.  The boards also approved $93K for two new command vehicles, typically for the two Operations Battalion Fire Chiefs.

Automatic aid – For CY2018 automatic aid from TMFPD to Sparks was at a rate of 20 times for each one time Sparks responded to TMFPD.  This imbalance is due to the poor distribution of fire resources by Sparks.  Every time a TM engine is servicing Sparks, it is not available to service taxpayers of the TMFPD.  TMFPD also responds more to Reno than Reno responds to TM.  The automatic vehicle locator (AVL) technology is in place and working for TMFPD (WCSO dispatch) and Sparks dispatch but not in Reno.  Reno refuses to provide the data base to ensure the ‘closest engine’ responds (to fires) per the existing automatic aid agreement.

Stonegate – This City development underway cannot be served by Reno Fire as they lack the staff to do so, even with the developer providing a temporary station (house) and future station (land and building but no equipment or vehicles).  As such, TMFPD will have to serve this community without getting any tax revenue or reimbursement as they TM be the ‘closest unit’ under the current automatic aid agreement.

Truckee Meadows Water Authority Meeting Highlights 2/20/19 (Bill Maggiora)

Bill Hauck discussed the current (as of 19 Feb 2019) snowpack.

• He said that it was higher than normal by 160 to 175 percent of normal, depending on the area, for 19 February.  This was still way below what we had in 2017.
• Bill also discussed water storage and Truckee River flow, which they wanted to keep below 5,000 Cubic Feet per Second.
• Apparently, the available water storage facilities are pretty full and they may need to start releasing water to avoid flooding when the snow melts.
• Bill said that we had a three-year supply of water stored in Lake Tahoe now.

—> Don’t forget to check out the In the Media page for recent articles and opinions regarding area development.

Guest post by Pamela Galloway

Agenda item D2.

The Reno City Council today advanced a new $54M bond to provide utilities to the Stonegate development at the foot of Peavine Mountain.  This will show up as $54M on Reno’s books.  The proponents expect that the cost of the bond will be more than offset by fees from developers when construction begins.  The Stonegate developer’s lobbyist said he wanted to see bonds issued in June 2019.  Deborah Louchner said the initial cost for appraisals and surveys will be borne by the developer.  The developer would reimburse expenses from a $150k account set up by the City.  This will be the cost to set up the Assessment District there and see if it’s a viable project for the City and the developer (Barnes).  This is not a recommendation for the project, but rather a recommendation to see if this is in the City’s best interest.  Ms Louchner said the developer is very motivated to move forward.  She expects issues in the process to come before the City Council maybe every other meeting.

Councilwoman Jenny Brekhus was vociferous in her opposition pointing out that the residents will be paying for the bond if the development does not come to fruition.  She pointed out examples of other bonds that ended up burdening the taxpayers.  She also made the argument that Reno has no way to extend services so far from the city center.  There is presently a single Reno police officer assigned to cover the area north of Parr Blvd.

Councilwoman Brekhus raised the following questions and made the following points.

• Does the project achieve the goals of the City of Reno?
• Do we want to set a precedent of underwriting development and the associated risk?
• The developers used to pay for roads and sidewalks.  Why should the City pay now?  Historically, the developer pays for infrastructure 99% of the time.
• We need a city policy regarding city bond financing of development.
• Has this funding process been used elsewhere successfully?
• Can you find case studies where this worked and where it didn’t?
• We should have transparency with all the related documents and communications received by the City on the City’s website.
• This is a 10,000 unit development.  We only built 2,000 units in the region this past year.  The costs of this development will reach far into the future.
• How affordable will these new homes be after the Special Assessment District costs and the Homeowners Association costs?  The master plan did not envision $700k homes here.
• She is very concerned about the black-box environment that can be created around the issuance of these bonds.
• Should the City become the financial partner of the developer?

Councilwoman Weber said she disagrees with Councilwoman Brekhus.  She thinks we should move through this process to develop the policy as we go.

Deborah Louchner, Reno Staff,  said there were case studies showing success with this approach from Clark County.

Voting “yes” to execute the agreement were Delgado, Schieve, Jardon, Duerr, and Weber.

Voting “no” was Brekhus.

Link to meeting video (5:40:00 mark)

Appeal of Stonegate approval

The Washoe Planning Commission vindicated the Warm Springs Area Plan when they unanimously denied the Marshall Ranch master plan amendment and the associated rezoning.  The meeting was February 5.

Overview (WMPA18-0006 and WRZA18-0006 Marshall Ranch – Staff Presentation)

• The property is 1088 acres zoned General Rural which allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres.  Under current zoning, this would allow a maximum of 27 homes to be built.  The number of homes will probably be reduced by acreage that is too steep (154 acres).
• The location is West of the Pyramid Highway along the Winnemucca Ranch Road north of Spanish Springs.
• The developer, Ken Krater, proposed to change the zoning to Rural Residential which would allow lot sizes of 5 acres and would permit a maximum of 187 homes to be built.
• The City of Reno declined to annex the property with a plan to build 2500 homes.  It was removed from the City’s sphere of influence in 2017.
• The developer planned to place 812 acres into a conservation easement.  It is not clear whether this will be retained given the denial of the project by the Planning Commission.  Given that 812 acres would not be available for development and 154 acres are too steep, there might be only 122 acres available to build.  This would allow a maximum of 24 homes on 5-acre lots.  By the time the conditions of acceptance are met, it will be less.
• Apparently, the developer is running a federal tax scam.  Claiming that he could build 187 homes on the property greatly increases it’s value.  The tax deduction for conserving 812 acres would be huge if the property is assessed as supporting 187 homes.

Public Concerns and Comments

• In the opening comments, two residents wanted to see the role and authority of their Citizen’s Advisory Board and all CAB’s expanded to address concerns of residents beyond just development.  The CAB’s used to have broader authority and there were also more CAB’s before recent consolidation.  The changes implemented have concentrated power in the Board of County Commissioners.
• Regarding the Marshall Ranch project, several residents made the argument that they specifically moved to a rural area to have a rural lifestyle and are willing to drive long distances to services in the process.
• Winnemucca Ranch Road is only partly paved and is not suited to handle 1800 more average daily car trips.
• There are 900 new homes approved in Spanish Springs that are not yet built.  Marshall Ranch will compound a bad traffic problem.
• There isn’t water up there.  That was part of the reason for the rural zoning.
• If the zoning is amended to allow for higher densities here, there will be a dangerous precedent to violate area plans.
• Truckee Meadows Fire has estimated that it will take 45 minutes to reach homes in the area.  The emergency services won’t support further development.
• There is only a single access road with no second evacuation route in case of a wildfire.
• One resident had the opinion that having the 812 acres preserved in perpetuity was worth the drawbacks of the added development.

Developer Presentation

• The preservation of the original Marshall Ranch buildings on 40 acres is a benefit to the area.  It will continue to be used for grazing.
• Setting aside 812 acres for conservation is a great benefit to the area.  The developer’s goal is to get a large tax deduction for this based on increasing the assessment of the property based on the value of the new homes.
• Their plan is much better than the one they pitched to the City of Reno.
• He needs 467 acre feet of water for his plan.  He has bought rights to 385 acre-feet and has plans to acquire the balance.  Up to 4 homes may be on wells.
• The site is outside TMWRF, so he would build a dedicate wastewater treatment plant.
• He would put in a “community water system” to support future development.

Staff Presentation

• Staff made no recommendation for approval or denial of the project.
• This area is a crucial winter range for antelope and is also a mule deer habitiat.  The wastewater plant would be in the habitat for the endangered Carson Wandering Skipper butterfly.
• Emergency services access would be considered in detail before the tentative map review.

Commissioner Comments

• The developer provided updated information the day of the Planning Commission meeting.  This is unacceptable.  There is no time to review this.
• There is concern over EMS access and public safety.
• It is inconsistent with the Area Plan.

Caution!

The developer is likely to appeal.  The Board of County Commissioners strongly favors developers and will not hesitate to overrule the Planning Commission.  The developer has 30 days to appeal.

This is a guest post by Mike Lawson.

This is a summary of the Washoe RTC board meeting on 1/18/19.

COUNTY COMMISSSIONER BOB LUCEY IS NEW WASHOE RTC CHAIRMAN

Among the first items of business at the January 15 Regional Transportation Commission Board meeting was the election of Washoe County Commissioner Bob Lucey as the new chairman, and the introduction of Reno City Councilman Oscar Delgado as a new Board member.  Other highlights from the monthly meeting are as follows:

• The NDOT Landscape Architecture and Esthetics Division chief made an informative  20 minute presentation on their program goals and process for implementation with a focus on the northern Nevada projects recently completed. This can be viewed on the county website https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKeK3PizyW4
• Public comment was given in support of bike lanes on Center and Sierra streets
• Commissioner Vaughn Hartung requested two consent items be removed from the “global” consent agenda and voted on separately. His concern was what he characterized as “threatening language” with respect to proposed condemnation proceedings required to obtain right of way for sidewalk construction at two locations. Ultimately the items were heard separately from the rest of the consent agenda and were passed 4-1 with Hartung opposing.
• Because the meeting was held during the government shut down the board was advised by executive director Lee Gibson that $ 2.5 million in Federal Transit Authority (FTA) grant money was delayed, and there would be at least a one month delay in the Spaghetti Bowl project due to a delay in the environmental review at the federal level.
• Also due to the federal government shutdown, the Senior transit program which is also FTA funded would continue to operate with funding provided by NDOT using State gas tax money in hopes that the State money would be federally reimbursed at some future date.
• NDOT Director Rudy Malfabon announced his retirement and was not certain who his replacement would be.
• The board accepted the 2019-2020 program of projects after a presentation on the project development process. This presentation not only explained the process for project selection, it highlighted regional projects of significance that may be of interest. The presentation can be accessed via the same link provided in the first bullet item.
• A presentation on the bike path/lane alternative under consideration for Sierra and Center streets was made and public comments was provided. It was noteworthy that the public comment was treated as perfunctorily as is public comment at other public meetings in Washoe county, and it is the principal reason citizens continue to feel they are not being heard.

I will continue to report on RTC board meetings on a monthly basis as a commitment to WRAP and our community.

Guest post by Tammy Holt-Still.

Reno Councilwoman Bonnie Weber hosted a “Coffee and Conversation” event at the Sierra Sage Golf Course on Saturday, January 19.  She hopes the residents will all work together to make the North Valleys a better place to live.  She announced that she is on the Parks Commission and is excited to improve the neglected parks in the North Valleys. She wants residents to volunteer to help keep the parks clean by having clean up party days.  Also Job Corp had adopted the park by them and she will be working with them to assist in the maintenance of that park.

Sierra Sage Golf Course is looking to expand its services to with a “civic center” on a little over 2 acres, which are not used as part of  the golf course.

Donna Clountz spoke about senior citizens’ issues and what will be coming to the north valley’s.

During the question-and-answer period, Ms. Weber repeatedly answered that she was new or that the questioner needed to talk to past councilmen.

A member of the Neighborhood Advisory Board asked her why there wasn’t better-planned development and flood mitigation as local region.  Whether it is the City or the County, we need to work together.  She replied that the City has its issues and the County has theirs.  This was not well received by the audience.

Tammy Holt-Still made a number of points to Ms. Weber.

• She explained the regional planning for the county and the flood agency as it stands now and the direction they want to take moving forward for unincorporated areas.
• She noted that the City of Reno is moving into the county areas and that it’s going to take all of us to fix the issues out here.
• She noted that Congressman Amodei has mentioned at both city and county meetings that there is federal money available for infrastructure and other improvements. We need to ask for it.  Ms. Weber agreed and said that the City Council had a recent meeting with him and is doing just that, but she could not give any details.
• She claimed that there is a lot of misinformation being disseminated by residents, but did not cite any examples. She is likely revealing her pro-development bent with this remark.

Swan Lake was brought up by several people and Ms. Weber did agree that the lake should be dry and there are issues that the City of Reno Staff are working on.

Ms. Weber did mention about how she would like to see the vacant council position filled.  It was recently vacated by David Bobzien who has been moved to a state-level role on an environmental committee.  She would like to get someone qualified to represent Lemmon Valley and the other areas better.  A resident of Ward 1 was there and suggested Tammy for the vacancy, but she does not reside in the incorporated area.

Tammy asked why the City is not doing more to get the developers to develop a more balanced area and not be putting industrial right in the middle of residential.  Councilwoman Weber agreed that industrial should not be there but then said we can’t make the developers do what the city wants. It’s driven by the market.  She is apparently loathe to put restrictions on developers.

The sign outside the county auditorium requests polite behavior.  This is consistent with Nevada’s friendly culture which allows friendships across extreme political divides and frank discussions of hot-button topics.  I find it refreshing compared to the more hardened ideological positions I saw in the Bay Area.  But, there is a time to fight.  When your planning commissioner votes to increase the traffic on your road by a factor of 5 because the developer gave him a big discount on a new home, it’s not time to be polite.  When your commissioner votes against your appeal because the developer made a big contribution to her campaign fund, it’s not time to be polite.  The planning commissioners tell you to show up at meetings and to make carefully researched and reasoned arguments, but they know that it’s just for show: “the fix was in” before the meeting started.   Making polite arguments can distract us from exercising the power we possess as voters.

Latest dirt:

During Valentines Day dinner, the Reno City Council approved the StoneGate development despite unresolved issues of traffic, water, sewage treatment, fire protection, and schools.  It’s a slow-motion train wreck like we’ve seen elsewhere, but on a huge scale. It is in character that the City would review it when the public wouldn’t be present.  To her credit, Commissioner Brekhus voted “no”.  See news coverage LINK1 LINK2 .

The Golden Valley Remediation Plan proposed by Commissioner Herman was not even put on the agenda of the County Commission.  She was voted down by the other commissioners.  But, if 50 attendees at a meeting insist on an agenda item it must be added (per Teresa Aquila).  To add insult to injury, the commissioners voted to replace Herman with Lucey on the TMWA board.  Herman voted against the change but lost 4-1.  This change will certainly not help south county residents.

Info Overload:

If you want to know what the county is doing and are ready to fill your e-mail with announcements, you can go to http://www.washoecounty.us/cmail to sign up for upcoming agenda items throughout the county.

Changing the way the Washoe Planning Commission and the County Commission operate will need to be a grassroots effort.  We need to inform and motivate people to effect the change.  Against us will be a lot of developer money producing slick ads and spreading disinformation to discredit us and our positions.  Our strength comes from the many residents who are enraged, disgusted, or disheartened by the way developments are spoiling our neighborhoods and the Truckee Meadows in general.  Part of our effort is to keep the current problems in the public eye.

• Write a letter to the Reno Gazette Journal: 160 words maximum, your name, your city, your address (not published), and your phone number (not published).  Use the form on the RGJ website or sent your letter to “letters@rgj.com”  Shorter letters are welcome: RGJ will come up with a title.
• Write a letter to This Is Reno: send it to Bob Conrad; bob@thisisreno.com .
• Post your opinions on Facebook and include a reference to washoerap.com .

Topics you might want to address:

• Development in Washoe County is out of control!  There are over 100 approved development projects that have not been built.  More are in the works.
• Why don’t the planning commissioners and county commissioners have the discipline to follow the area plans and established zoning?
• Will we have broader, regional flooding problems given the area of the Great Basin that is being paved?
• How do our development plans address the coming drought and the many drought years to come?  I have heard that the state regulators laugh at TMWA for their reckless commitments.
• Why is it OK for county commissioners to accept campaign contributions from developers and then to judge their projects?  A small amount of the contributions are idenified; the others are hidden using lawyers and lobbyists as middle-men.
• Reno was identified as one of the top 25 destinations by Outdoor Magazine.  But, we are developing the Steamboat Hills that are desirable for horseback riding and mountain biking.  If we want tourism, we need to preserve the rugged beauty of the Great Basin.
• Pell mell development is supported by the city and county partly because the tax revenues are like a ponzi scheme.  This is worsened by the unfair property tax formula that depreciates older homes of comparable value to new homes.
• We have a shortage of affordable housing, but the majority of the new homes are in the $500,000 to $1,500,000 price range.  The commissioners say “We need the housing and it’s not our problem if it’s not affordable.”
• Why isn’t there a requirement that some of the new homes are built with solar panels to power air conditioning?  This is incorporated in many new developments in California.  It’s a benefit to the buyer because the solar system cost becomes part of the mortgage and the utility savings are immediate.
• What about protecting our wildlife?  The planning commission ignores the issue of the destruction of habitat for eagles, deer and many other native species; even ones with federal protection.
• Fire services for both Reno and Truckee meadows are presently stretched scandalously thin.  How will we support additional residents?

Your letter or post will remind readers of the ongoing problems and motivate them to effect change.  As the author, you may find it cathartic to make your point and “get it out of your system”.

We tend to see “development” and “bad development” as synonymous.  This is largely a legitimate conclusion in Washoe County.  Bad development can bring bad traffic, flooding, school overcrowding, environmental degradation, water insecurity, fire hazard, and loss of outdoor recreation.  Bad development impacts the new homebuyers as well.  They may be part of the problem, but they are victims too.   The Washoe County Planning Commission (backed by the County Commission) has allowed zoning variations and permitted violations of plans and guidelines to allow the bad developments to proceed.  They have compounded this by ignoring CAB recommendations and public comment. Talking to our commissioners, I get the impression they feel obliged to guarantee the developers’ profits.  They will accept higher housing density and noncompliances to this end.  The commissioners seem to accept that development is detrimental to homeowners and that they should accept the loss.

But, it does not have to be that way.  Road improvements, flood mitigation, school development and low-impact design can result in new developments that benefit existing residents.  How about some playgrounds and bike paths and community centers?  Good development is possible, and we must insist on it.  Once the majority of the Great Basin is paved and suffering gridlock, it’s too late to enforce our standards.

We are derided as NIMBY’s (Not In My Backyard), an acronym promoted by the real estate associations.  I respond that this is not true: we want our standards enforced.

As the blog author on this site, I can see which pages are getting the most views.  I’m gratified to see it, but sometimes, I feel like my viewers are missing some of the best stuff.  I’ll take this chance to highlight a few things that I think are most informative.

There is a consolidated list of all the new developments that have been approved but not finished in Washoe County.  It includes a lot of developments in Reno.  It is sobering to think that there are over 100 developments to house 60,000 residents that are already “in the works”.  I have requested updated information because this list and map were produced in April 2017.  Look for the map on page 4.  [LINK]

You are not alone thinking that there is a lot of bad development and that housing prices are too high.  There are also others that accuse the commissioners of favoring developers and other malfeasance.  See the “In the Media” page for recent articles, opinion pieces, and letters on these topics.

How did we get here, and what were they thinking?!  After the Ascente project was approved, I scheduled meetings with each of the commissioners to plead the case that this development was problematic and bad for the neighborhood.  I didn’t change any minds, but I got an earful of the commissioners views and justifications for why things are this way.  I found it revealing. [LINK]