Take 10 to Fight Rancho-IV

Please take 10 minutes to support your neighbors opposing this irresponsible new development on the Evans Ranch property. The Rancho-IV development was denied by the Reno Planning Commission, but it was appealed to the City Council by the developer. It will be heard on January 26, 2022. You can conveniently write your City Councilmember based on your ward, or you can write all of them since they all get a vote on the project. I would copy the City Clerk too. It is very effective to call as well. The agenda is not yet posted for this meeting to indicate the order of agenda items to know when this appeal will be considered. With the pandemic conditions changing, the meeting could be remote.

Rancho-IV concerns:

  • Road access is dangerously inadequate especially for evacuation in case of a wildfire.
  • This is a popular area for hiking and recreation.
  • This property is a wildlife corridor.
  • The property is steep: grading and filling will despoil the hillsides and the wetland area.
  • It is not consistent with the Reno master plan.

Contact your City Councilmember

Rancho IV Denied by Planning Comm.

The Rancho IV development was denied by the Reno Planning Commission on November 3, 2021. The site is north of Rancho San Rafael Park and west of Parr Blvd. in northern Reno. The developer wants to build 142 homes on the 28 acres. The development will be predominantly duplexes with some triple and quad units. No zoning amendment was requested.

Staff Presentation by Brooke Oswald

  • He concluded that the development meets all the code requirements and the staff recommends approval.

Developer Presentation by John Krmpotic

  • The key issue of concern to area residents is public access for recreation.
  • Residents are concerned about the expected loss of trees. The plan is to remove 19 mature trees and replace them with 38 new trees.
  • This project is a continuation following Rancho I, II, and III developments nearby.
  • Four parking spots will be provided at the trailhead for public use.

Public Comment contributions (The Planning Commission received 70 e-mails in opposition and several voice-mail messages)

  • Wildlife and ecological impacts would be significant. This property is a wildlife corridor.
  • The developer tree count is not representative. One resident counted 143 Jefferson Pine trees.
  • The views and vistas will be spoiled with this design. It does not meet the “viewshed” standards. It includes building on the ridgelines.
  • The Rancho-IV design violates that Reno master plan and can’t be approved as such.
  • There is no plan to accommodate wetlands on the property.
  • This is an area high in Radon which will likely be increased with the cuts and grading.
  • Traffic is already problematic accessing Virginia Street.
  • Construction litter will despoil the site and the wetlands. Some of the slopes are too steep to recover the litter.
  • Stolz Road is the main access road and it is so congested that two cars can’t pass. A fire engine couldn’t get through.
  • Hoge Road is steep and is dangerous when it gets icy.
  • Noise echoes at this site. The construction will present a problem for people who work from home.

The meeting was characterized by animosity from the residents toward the commissioners. Reno residents have watched one destructive, irresponsible development after another get approved. Trust in local officials to do the right thing is largely history.

  • One resident speaking in opposition to the development asked that his 3-minute time be extended by 30 seconds. This was denied by the chairman (Velto). There was some disturbance in the audience following the denial.
  • Velto was challenged by the next speaker to confirm with the city attorney about extending a comment time.
  • One resident made the remark “You’ve probably already made up your mind.”
  • There was clapping after each speaker despite admonishment by the commission clerk for order.
  • There were several remarks from the audience that were not made during public comment and were out of order. One resident was asked to leave.

Planning Commissioner Discussion

  • Commissioner Gower asked why there was no traffic study conducted for this development. Oswald replied that the planning staff had reviewed the proposal and concluded that no traffic study was required because the impact would not change the existing “levels of service” (aka LOS).
  • Commissioner Gower engaged with the audience and made his case that his decision needs to follow the guidelines and master plan. He is sympathetic to residents who want to preserve the character of their neighborhoods. His decision needs to be based on the formal findings.
  • Commissioner Munoz said that the presumption of bad faith on the part of the residents toward the commission was insulting to him. This project is in his ward.
  • The commissioners individually recognized the residents present for making the effort to come to the meeting to express their concerns.
  • Commissioner Johnson recognized that the master plan and other zoning and policies are sometimes in conflict or lead to ambiguous conclusions so that his role is to try to decide which regulation is most important when making a decision. The master plan is written to support growth and additional housing.
  • Commissioner Johnson has trouble making the first finding of the benefit of 142 more homes as opposed to preserving a distinct landscape. Finding #1 concerns “Consistency with the Reno Master Plan”. He is concerned that there are major cuts and fills in order to build the maximum number of homes allowed. Rancho IV is higher on the hillside and much more prominent than the earlier phases I-III.

VOTES: Gower, Velto, and Drakulich “YES”; Johnson and Munoz “NO”; Taylor and Villaneuve were absent. Approval requires four “YES” votes, so the project was not approved.

Ballardini Ranch Dev. Loses in Court

A Federal District Court judge dismissed the case brought by a developer (Evans Creek LLC of MN) and upheld Reno’s refusal to annex the 1,019 acre Ballardini Ranch property (9/14/2021).

The developer first submitted plans to develop the property near the southwest corner of McCarran Blvd in 2000. Annexation can occur by the city’s initiative within Reno’s “sphere of influence”, or it can be proposed by a developer. A property that is annexed is then the responsibility of the city to provide infrastructure and emergency services.

The developer brought a request for annexation before the Reno City Council on 5/27/2020. The annexation proposal by the developer was denied due to the following concerns.

  • It is a large area bordering the wildlands that is very fire prone. It has been burned during the Pinehaven Fires (2006, 2011) and the Caughlin Ranch fire of 2020. It is steep terrain with limited access for fire fighting.
  • It is a large property with only two roads for entry and exit. This poses a special risk for wildfire evacuation.
  • There are issues of water rights and water easements that are not resolved.
  • The developer plans are not complete. The number of homes to be built might be from 40 to 600.
  • The developer is proposing low density suburban development (5-40 acre lots). This is not a housing type that is most needed in Reno.

The developer filed suit against the city claiming that Reno had a history of annexing similar properties and that Evans Creek was being treated unfairly. Annexation is the city’s prerogative. It seems a stretch to claim that the city is legally obligated to annex a property it does not want. The judge ruled that the developer did not prove their case that they were discriminated against. It’s possible that the developer could file a similar suit in the future with better evidence. Reno has a history of submitting to most developer demands, so that such a case is plausible.

Reference: articles from ThisIsReno



Detailed ruling and analysis by casetext.com

Ascente and Silver Hills Before BCC


A request by Ascente developers to extend their final-map deadline and a request by Silver Hills to approve their tentative map both came before the Washoe Board of County Commissioners 8/24/21.

Lucey abstained due to his relationship with the developer and left the room.

Trevor Lloyd made a presentation.

Hartung made the point that the developer had 4 years to complete the final map. Only 1-1/2 was during the pandemic. He asked the rhetorical question “Why do we even have timelines? I’m vexed. It makes no sense to me why we’re granting an extension when they’ve had 4 years to do this.”

Michael Barnes (developer) claimed that there were many disruptive factors that delayed their plans including the denial of “jumbo loans”, he wanted to use the “save the map with 5 units” process. Key employees have left (hydrologist, landscaping) and they struggled to find engineers to put together the design of the 5 lots. “Our intention is to develop the property out in conjunction with Toll Brothers. Toll Brothers has informed the commissioners by e-mail (below) that they intend to be the partners and build the project out. They fully intend to come forward with final maps for all of the development. Our goal is to come through with Toll Brothers and put together a community. Even county staff has had trouble making time to meet with us due to COVID.”

Toll e-mail:

2021-08-24 Collinsworth Email

Hartung “Is this the first extension for this project or was there an earlier administrative extension?” Lloyd “This is the only extension at this time.”

Hartung “Mr. Barnes, this is not an entry level project that fills a need for affordable housing.” Barnes “That is correct. Toll Brothers is America’s #1 luxury home builder. We’re proud of that. These homes will range from $700k to above $1M.”

Hartung “Why isn’t Tolles Brothers here today giving us their word that this project is moving forward?” Barnes “I apologize that they couldn’t attend, but they did send an e-mail outlining their support for the project.”

Alexis Hill eagerly moved to grant the extension. The proposed agreement will get a second reading on September 28, 2021. There was no vote. [She had received $35,900 in campaign contributions from development interest for the 2020 election; 24% of all contributions.]

There was one e-mail in opposition. No one spoke in opposition.

Silver Hills

Lucey returned to the dais.

The issue is the appeal by the developer of the Washoe Planning Commission decision to deny the tentative map for the Silver Hills development.

Garrett Gordon (Lewis and Roca) presented the Lifestyle Homes appeal.

  • The tentative map is for 358 single family homes (Village #1) of the 1,872 homes that are included in the zoning amendment. It is 66 acres. This tentative map includes homes on 5,000 sqft lots.
  • The tentative map includes the “backbone trail map” as required in their zoning amendment.
  • This tentative map includes higher density development that is balanced by open space so as not to exceed an average of 3 units per acre.
  • Gordon claimed that the tentative map complied with the area plan (this has no basis in fact).
  • Gordon offered a couple of concessions. The houses would be wired “solar ready, electric car ready, and ready for battery hookup”. Further they are offering undefined “innovative amenities” for the common space.

The viewer can’t help but be struck by the very high density of this tentative map. It looks urban in a area zoned for Suburban Rural; 1 home per acre. The effect of their zoning amendment is dramatic.

Roger Pelham from the county planning staff made a presentation.

  • The tentative map is consistent with the area plan (not credible).
  • The designs are supposed to incorporate passive solar design. This requirement has not been met.
  • Staff concluded that the developer met all the findings for approval.
  • This is only a small fraction of the greater plan and does not show how the broader conditions will be met.

Public Comment consisted of one speaker who made the following points.

  • There are only two routes into and out of the neighborhood. A recent evacuation of the area was problematic without these new homes.
  • This project will completely destroy the rural nature of the North Valleys. It is not compatible with the rural nature of the North Valleys.
  • Red Rock Road will need to be widened to 4 lanes.
  • “The Lissner family, Lifestyle homes under different iterations, Robert Lissner, Elaine Lissner, Peter, Cassadee, have collectively bestowed a couple of hundred thousand dollars in buying the influence of the Washoe County Commission and the city councils.”

Board Discussion

Commissioner Jeanne Herman referred to a recent case where a developer sued a private person for speaking against their development causing a lot of grief for that person. She has had a number of her constituents contact her that want to speak in opposition to this project, but they are afraid that they may be sued as well. “You’re not getting the fairest meeting here. One public comment is not representative.” She also expressed concern for the lack of improvement at the Reno-Stead Wastewater Reclamation Facility limiting its ability to handle increased wastewater.

Commissioner Vaughan Hartung claimed that this was an approved use of this property. He addressed the two findings that the Planning Commission decided were not met. One was “plan consistency” and the other was “design or improvement”. He is concerned that the long straight streets will lead to speeding rather than incorporating “traffic calming” features. The county will need to come back at some time and fix this deficiency. The developer is promoting an “agrihood”. Hartung would like to see such gardens distributed around the project. There is no such feature in this first tentative map. Hartung used a term “Mr. Potato Head design”, but he did not define it clearly. Duane Smith (County Engineer) claimed that there is a rigorous process between the approval of the tentative map and the final map. “These types of things will have to be met or the final map will not be approved.” Hartung expressed frustration that these changes are not available for public review. “This is not an innovative design.” He said the parks are too small. “This is not what you told me. What are you going to change with this to make this a better neighborhood?” Gordon claimed that this village conforms to the project “handbook” and that the large 10-acre park will be built by the 500th home. Gordon has offered additional undefined “amenities” and will be happy to work with Hartung to make improvements. Hartung is not happy that the developer appears to be doing the minimum to meet their zoning. Gordon was adamant that the plan did more than meet the minimum requirements. Hartung is not concerned about water: he expects that there will be more than enough available from Honey Lake through the Vidler pipeline.

Commissioner Alexis Hill said that she did not understand the reasons for the denial of the tentative map by the planning commission. Pelham replied that there were area plan policies that were not adequately addressed by this application. Also, the zoning amendment was approved with the condition that multiple housing types were required. This piece only includes the small-lot single-family homes. There was also a condition to include some passive solar elements which are not present in this plan. The street and lot layout does not look like the plan presented for the zoning amendment proposal. Hill went ahead to repeat most of Gordon’s points saying that she doesn’t have a problem with it.

Hartung went on to praise “curb and gutter and sidewalk” features in this development citing the nuisance with maintaining the open ditches used for drainage in rural areas. He went on to praise the developer’s plan to retain water on the property in a 1:1.5 ratio of the volume of the soil brought in to the volume of soil removed.

Commissioner Kitty Jung supports curb and gutter construction and would like to consider requiring these features more broadly.

Commissioner Bob Lucey asked Mike Railey (developer engineer) about their plan to introduce traffic calming features to reduce speeding. Railey replied that such details would be worked out with staff for the final map. “What this is is nothing like what we had the initial discussion about back in October 2019. We felt compelled that this was something that was going to meet the nature of that community.” “What you’ve presented in the tentative map does not represent anything that we’d initially had this discussion about. This is frustrating to me and disappointing to me.” If the board approves this plan, these issues need to be addressed. Curb-and-gutter construction brings additional maintenance cost to the county. “I’m disappointed that we’re talking about a tentative map that doesn’t look anything like what we initially discussed.” He hopes that the developer has heard the comments and concerns with the board and will move forward effectively to implement changes.

Commissioner Hill moved to overturn the decision of the planning commission and approve the tentative map as requested by the developer. The commission voted to overturn the decision of the planning commission with Jung, Hill, Lucey, and Hartung voting in the affirmative. Commissioner Herman voted “no”.

The issue raised during public comment of the ethical compromise that the commissioners make by accepting the developer money was studiously ignored by the commissioners. There was no defense of the current practice nor any admission that it is problematic. An observer might conclude that the commission accepts that it is a corrupt body.

MEETING VIDEO (jump to item 16 for Ascente, item 17 for Silver Hills)

The War on Silver Knolls

The Silver Hills development is a development north and west of the existing Silver Knolls neighborhood. The plan changes the zoning for higher density and builds 1872 homes on 780 acres. It has the common problems of excess traffic, insufficient wildfire evacuation capacity, and school overcrowding. Beyond that, it will be served by the Reno-Stead Wastewater Reclamation Facility known to contribute to the flooding in Lemmon Valley.

  • The zoning amendment was denied unanimously by the North Valley’s Citizens Advisory Board.
  • The zoning amendment was denied unanimously by the Washoe County Planning Commission.
  • The Washoe Board of County Commissioners overturned the Planning Commission denial so that the project could go forward. Commissioners voting “yes” were Berkbigler, Hartung, Jung, and Lucey who all received campaign contributions from the developer: Lissner of Lifestyle Homes.

The Silver Knolls Community Organization (SKCO) filed a writ of mandamus challenging the decision by the County Commission (December 2019). The case was heard by Lynne Simons. Judge Simons ruled for the developer (June 2021).

This case was different. Lissner/Lifestyle then sued the neighbors claiming it was a frivolous suit and seeking compensation for legal expenses. The judge ruled for the developer granting wide latitude. The developer was granted $78k in damages against the neighbors. So, the neighbors not only paid for their attorney, but had to pay the legal expenses of the developer. The judgement was much more than the SKCO had on hand and many times their annual budget. The neighbors sought a settlement to a cost they could afford. Lissner agreed to reduce the cost to $29k with the condition that the SKCO not oppose the tentative map when it comes before the Washoe Planning Commission. The condition does not apply to individuals representing themselves. The settlement was not public, but it was not confidential either.

This is an attempt by developers to intimidate residents from seeking equal protection in the courts and to gag the neighborhood organizations. It is an escalation in the war developers are waging against residents. Peter Lissner is Lifestyle Homes. Such underhanded and vindictive practices reveal the quality of his character and his scorn for the community. Correction: it was Bob Lissner that wanted the judgement for legal expenses against the SKCO not Peter Lissner.

Remember: there is more capacity for new home construction with existing zoning than will be needed for the next 20 years. The rezoning is simply for developer profits.

The Silver Hills tentative map will come before the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday 8/24. You can contact the commissioners to express your opinion of the Silver Hills tentative map.

Ascente Requests an Extension 8/24/21

On Tuesday, Barnes and the NNV1 partners will request an extension to the deadline to submit their final map for Ascente. The statute is that the developer has 4 years from the time of tentative map approval to submit the final map for the project. The Board of County Commissioners denied the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on August 8, 2017. The final map deadline was 8/9/2021. The developer submitted a final map for 5 of the 225 homes. This final map has nonconformances that preclude its approval. The developer is requesting a two-year extension to August 9, 2023. The way to skirt the legal deadline is to form a “Joint Development Agreement” with Washoe County to retroactively extend the deadline for the final map. This is the proposal before the County Commission. Readers may recall that District 2 Commissioner Lucey recused himself from the voting on the appeal by the neighbors due to his close ties to this developer.

The Ascente developer did not meet his legal obligations under Nevada law and is seeking a retroactive extension from the County Commission. Neighbors have a chance to express their opinion about this.

The Board of County Commissioners meeting will start at 10:00 AM on 8/24/21. The Ascente agreement is item 16 on the agenda. It is not clear how early they will address this item. You can send comments to the commissioners and to the county clerk. The comment tallies and the comments themselves will become part of the record.


Bob Lucey

Vaughan Hartung

Alexis Hill

Jeanne Herman

Kitty Jung (she has no official email)

County Clerk

Vision for Mount Rose Highway 2021

Representatives from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) made a presentation to area residents on 8/10/2021 at the Tamarack Casino in South Reno. Easels were provided with graphics showing parts of the highway from Douglas Fir down to South Virginia St (Old 395). The apparent goal was to consider which vision should be selected for the long term improvements.

  1. The “Suburban Parkway” would have a sunken median of soil preserving a more natural style and use traffic circles at Callahan and possibly Edmonton. This would include a “shared use” pedestrian/bicycle path on each side of the highway.
  2. The “Urban Arterial” would have a concrete median and use signal lights at the intersections. It would have curbs and gutters and look like the city. This would include a “shared use” pedestrian/bicycle path on each side of the highway.

One possible choice would be to have the Suburban Parkway style from Bordeaux to Thomas Creek and then the Urban Arterial from Thomas Creek to South Virginia Street. This would put a traffic circle at the Callahan Road intersection and a light at the Edmonton intersection.

There was another vision that the NDOT staff abandoned early. This would flank the highway with frontage lanes so that smaller intersections would not cross the through lanes.

Jae Pullen (NDOT Project Manager) said that there are short term solutions for the Callahan and Edmonton intersections that did not need to wait for the expansive vision to be implemented.

Callahan Road would get raised traffic islands and a full length deceleration lane for downhill traffic turning right onto Callahan. The traffic islands would allow Callahan traffic to reach the edge of the intersection before making a left turn (uphill) or straight into Monte Vista. It would be a shorter distance to turn left from Callahan onto Mount Rose Highway with better visibility. A center barrier would also be provided along Mount Rose Highway in the vicinity of the intersection.

Edmonton would get a “High-T” intersection that would allow for left turns out of Edmonton onto Mount Rose Highway. This is a complicated arrangement of islands and dividers that would give left turning Edmonton traffic a protected merge lane after crossing the downhill traffic lanes. There would also be fencing to keep out deer and other wildlife from crossing the highway.

There was a lively question and answer session that brought out the following facts.

  • NDOT plans to make the new lanes narrower: 11′ wide instead of the current 12′ wide. This will discourage freeway speeds. The 12′ width is the federal standard for freeways.
  • No dates were given for any of these improvements. Some attendees speculated that NDOT was hoping to get new federal infrastructure funds.
  • NDOT is using an analytical model that extends to 2050. It presumes continued new development based on zoning that would include Terrasante and Ascente.
  • The Douglas Fir intersection to the South Virginia Street intersection is about 7.5 miles.
  • There is a problem of speeding motorists on Mount Rose Highway. NDOT does not have a plan to address this.
  • The NDOT plans presented in December 2018 included various “traffic calming” measures. This is not part of the current plan which has new staff and a new mission. The 2018 effort was just a “road safety assessment”.
  • NDOT is evaluating the circle at Veterans Parkway for ways to improve it to increase its capacity.
  • NDOT might consider a pedestrian overpass across Mount Rose Highway depending on what configuration is selected.
  • The intersection of the 580 NB offramp and Mount Rose Highway is dangerous and will need a signal light.
  • Pullen was insistent that the Callahan intersection did not meet any of the requirements to have a signal light despite the hazard there.

NDOT will have an online survey the residents can access and respond to till September 10.

Meeting Video

Daybreak Tentative-Map Appeal 7/21/21

The Reno City Council denied appeals to four tentative map approvals by the Reno Planning Commission. The Daybreak project was approved for a zoning change and a master plan amendment. This is a first step that defines the number of homes and the major characteristics of the development. These changes were challenged at the regional planning board, the city council, and went to court as well. The next step that gets public review is the tentative map approval. This is a plan in greater detail showing lots and streets and drainage easements and information on the utilities. These represent 153 homes; a small fraction of the Daybreak Project (4,000 homes). Reno City Councilmember Jenny Brekhus filed an appeal to these tentative maps that was heard by the city council on 7/21/21. Councilmember Duerr joined remotely. Councilmember Jardon was not present.

There was no public comment with one e-mail received supporting the appeal.

Angela Fuss, Reno Planning Manager, gave the planning staff presentation.

  • Discussed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for “Village Parcels” where the homebuilder creates the tentative map rather than the developer. Fuss said both “tentative map process” and “parcel map process” making her argument ambiguous.
  • Fuss claimed that the PUD handbook is specific about assigning responsibilities and that it is sufficient.


Michael Pagni (Daybreak attorney) challenged Brekhus’ standing to bring these appeals. Karl Hall (City Attorney) concluded that Brekhus did have standing to appeal.

Councilmember Brekhus made her appeals.

  • Fuss was really confusing the issue. The developer is taking a novel approach, sequential parcel-map, that lacks merit or precedent. “You can’t be doing two subdivisions on the same land at once.”
  • She used the example of the Double Diamond development where the follow up on the master developer did not occur. There were contentious issues at the end that went to court. She contrasted this with the Damonte Ranch development that had a detailed plan and consistent “build out” over many years without big issues. Ambiguities in the Daybreak plan could leave the city responsible for infrastructure improvements that should be the responsibility of the developer.
  • Brekhus played an extended portion of the Reno Planning Commission meeting. The planning commissioners were not familiar with how this should work.
  • This is similar to the questionable process that was used for the Stonegate development. At this point, Stonegate has both parcel maps and tentative maps in a way that is redundant. The Stonegate developer tried to get the Nevada law changed to allow his scheme, but he failed. Fuss’s argument that the county does sequential parcel-map process is misleading since the county does not use this for subdivisions.
  • The Daybreak developer has made their tentative map and then pulled parcels from it where their tentative map doesn’t apply. You cannot do both parcel maps and tentative maps for the same development: it’s one or the other. “This process is crazy.”
  • You have to encompass the entire property in your tentative map.
  • The Daybreak zoning-change approval stipulated that there be a detailed process to develop the tentative maps. This process has never been presented.
  • The CLOMR** is not done which reviews the flooding risk. The development may be subject to late changes depending on the flooding risk. Who will be responsible for changes that will likely be required by the CLOMR.

Public comment: two residents present supported the appeal.

Pagni gave the developer’s presentation.

  • He claimed that the PUD is compliant with code requirements and allows the “sequential parcel map” process. Multiple parcel maps are permitted. “Nothing is improper in this process.”
  • Tentative maps and parcel maps can occur simultaneously.


Council questions:

Councilmember Reese:

  • Reese asked Hall about the involvement of his office in reviewing such projects. Hall said his office reviews projects before they go to the Reno Planning Commission including this one. Hall went on to assert that the PUD handbook assigns responsibility so that the city does not end up paying for infrastructure that the developer should have built. Hall said the problems at Double Diamond had to do with maintaining drainage ditches and that the city did not end up paying for this.

Councilmember Duerr:

  • Has the 404 permit (flood suitability) been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Answer “No”.
  • What is the scale of the parcel map: is it an individual home? Fuss “A parcel map is a process that allows a parcel to be divided into up to 4 sub parcels. It can be divided repeatedly by subsequent steps, but these require public review.”
  • Why doesn’t the developer make independent tentative maps for each section that they want to sell? Pagni “We needed to make the new parcels that match the tentative maps that we want to sell to builders.”
  • Pagni claims this is a “standard” process, but the planning commissioners had to study the details to understand it.
  • Duerr is concerned that the flood control design may not be retained as the development is divided into new pieces.
  • She asked Brekhus about her concerns. Brekhus replied that the CLOMR is likely to come back with conditions that require changes that have not been anticipated. If the parcels have been divided and potentially sold, who is responsible to implement the changes required by the CLOMR? The descriptions and conditions are too broad and need to be much more specific and binding. Duerr is concerned that by separating the parcels we are losing accountability.

Councilmember Weber

  • She made the argument that the Daybreak approval process has already been going on three years. It was not a rushed process as Brekhus claimed. “Time is money” and we need to consider the expense that the process has caused the developer.

Mayor Schieve

  • To Brekhus “What is your understanding of the PUD process? It seems to be different than Pagni’s understanding of the process.” Brekhus “I don’t believe it is true that the PUD can be modified. Tentative maps are required after the parcel map division which Pagni says aren’t required. The parcel map process requires all the analysis and review that is required for tentative maps. The project should be returned to the planning commission so that the agreement can be reviewed and the developer can provide a briefing on the process that was requested by Planning Commissioner Marshall.” Pagni claimed that the developer had an informal agreement with the planning department and that this was sufficient.

The votes …

Delgado moved to deny the appeal by Brekhus for item #1, Weber, Reese, Schieve, and Delgado voted in favor, Duerr was opposed. Brekhus could not vote as the appellant.

Delgado moved to deny the appeal by Brekhus for item #2, Weber, Reese, Schieve, and Delgado voted in favor, Duerr was opposed. Brekhus could not vote as the appellant.

Delgado moved to deny the appeal by Brekhus for item #3, Weber, Reese, Schieve, and Delgado voted in favor, Duerr was opposed. Brekhus could not vote as the appellant.

Delgado moved to deny the appeal by Brekhus for item #4, Weber, Reese, Schieve, and Delgado voted in favor, Duerr was opposed. Brekhus could not vote as the appellant.

**Conditional Letter of Map Revision is a FEMA document addressing hydrologic, hydraulic, and flood issues for a proposed development.





Meeting Agenda


Creeping Ascente

There’s been no visible work on the Ascente property for the last two years, but there’s renewed activity. Rising home prices are likely making the development profitable for Symbio (Barnes and Tanguay). There is no news on their selling either lots or villages: it’s not clear who will build the new homes and who will sell them.

A final map was submitted to the Washoe County Planning Department recently. It was for only 5 home lots at the end of Brushwood Lane. This would be part of the “Sierra Village” at the end of Fawn Lane. The document package was rejected since it used Brushwood as its primary access. The tentative map approved by the county had a gated connection to Brushwood for emergency evacuation only. One might conclude that Barnes/Lumos were trying to “pull a fast one”. Given that they will not be able to use Brushwood for primary access, they may want to pick a different location. Watch for news.

As part of the Ascente final map process, J-U-B Engineers (surveying for Ascente) will do an aerial map of the property. For this purpose, they are locating marks that will be visible from the air and can be used to align the aerial images. One of their workers was caught painting a large “X” on a private driveway without asking the permission of the homeowner. This driveway had recently been resurfaced at a price of roughly $20k. The J-U-B crew was confronted by the homeowner. The supervisor claimed that he thought it was a public road and apologized for the intrusion. He further offered to paint over the mark after the aerial survey was complete. The homeowner told him he was not welcome to return. Vandalizing private property reflects the degenerate ethics of the entire Ascente operation.

If you see them in the neighborhood, you’ll know who they are and who they represent.