The petition for judicial review regarding the County Commission’s decision to overturn the Washoe Planning Commission’s decision got its first day in court Thursday 1/17/19.    The Washoe Planning Commission had denied approval of the developer’s plan and the developer appealed to the County Commission.  The County Commission voted to overturn the Washoe Planning Commission decision by a 3-1 vote favoring the developer.  The petition is filed by Tammy Holt-Still and the Lemmon Valley/Swan Lake Recovery Committee.  This initial hearing was to hear a “motion to dismiss” filed by the developer claiming that she didn’t have “standing” to file the petition.

The petition for judicial review represents a step across the divide separating the political (county commission) and the legal (district courts).  It can be thought of as an interface between two very different systems.  It turns out that this interface is not logical, well defined, or fair.  So, the question about what the law demands seems to get more obscure as it is examined in detail.  The Washoe County code indicates that anyone can petition for judicial review, while the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) are more specific but do not make sense.

Under NRS, Tammy would have had to appeal both the Planning Commission decision (which went in her favor) and the County Commission decision which went against her.  This makes no sense!  Why would you appeal a decision that went in your favor?!  But, the attorneys and the judge agreed that this is what the NRS indicates.  While acknowledging the absurdity of this requirement, the judge was loath to try to interpret the intent of the legislature that passed the law.  He did not want to engage in “judicial activism”.

The same does not apply to the developer.  He can appeal under different statutes within NRS that allow him to appeal with only the County Commission decision going against him.  It is patently unfair.  The judge agreed with this perception.  It looks like Nevada law is written specifically to favor developers.

Cast of characters:

• Judge Elliott Sattler (ES), Tenth District of Nevada
• Kerry Doyle (KD), attorney for Lemmon Valley residents
• Tammy Holt-Still, petitioner
• Nate Edwards (NE), representing Washoe County
• Doug Thornley (DT), representing Lansing-Arkus (developer)

Miscellaneous assertions:

NE: The Lemmon Valley petitioner has no standing and is harming the property interests of the developer.

KD: The county is seeming to imply that the property interests of the developer outweighs those of the homeowners who have a long term investment.

KD: There is no “stay” to prevent the developer from proceeding with his work.

KD: This is a unique situation.  The legislature’s intent was to give people more access to legal remedies not less.

KD: The flood mitigation plan for Prado North depends on features of the Prado (South) development which was just denied in the Reno Planning Commission.

What’s next:

The judge will consider the arguments and issue a ruling at a later date.  There may be an appeal in any case.  There is also a possibility that the developer may revise the tentative map for Prado (South) to get it through the Reno Planning Commission to bolster their argument for Prado North.  Kerry suggested to the Lemmon Valley petitioners that they contact their state representatives to get the NRS statute 278-3195 amended to be clear and logical so that residents would know their rights and have the ability to seek relief in the courts.

It looks a little like the Wild West in terms of the law.  There are few precedents that apply to this case which appears fairly routine to a layman.  How could this be “unique”?  It is the logical step to seek legal relief from a county decision.  The Lemmon Valley neighbors may be breaking new ground here.

Prado North Link

The Reno Planning Commission unanimously denied an application for a Master Plan Amendment and a Planned Unit Development to the Prado Ranch developer.  This is not to be confused with the Prado Ranch North development that was approved by Washoe County on an adjacent property.  This consideration had been “continued” from December 19 when the meeting was ended at 11:00 PM without deliberations and a vote.  The Planning Commission allowed for an update by planning staff and a statement by the developer and public comment despite the fact that this had been covered on December 19.  Little had changed.  The planner reported that they had done some additional review but that there was no change to their conclusion that this development was not compatible with the land use plan.  The developer claimed that they had addressed all the concerns that were raised, but there were no apparent design changes to their plan.  The public comments mostly echoed the points made exhaustively at the December meeting.

• The development is designed to prevent flooding on the development.  It is not designed to protect existing residents from flooding.
• The surface of Swan Lake has risen 3″ in only the last two days.  The coming storm is expected to raise it another 3-6″.
• Semi trucks will be introduced with the industrial part of the new development.  There’s no regular semi traffic at this time.
• The warehouses will be far from the freeway so that they must drive through neighborhoods and past a school to access the freeway.
• Warehouse workers won’t be able to afford these new homes.  The industrial and residential mix does not constitute a live-work opportunity.
• Traffic is reduced to speeds of 10 and 20 miles an hour as it is.  The Hesco flood barriers are disintegrating.
• The traffic study was done on a school holiday when parts of Lemmon Drive were closed.  It could not be representative.
• In some locations, the water table is only 32′ below the surface.  There is an increased risk of bacteria infiltrating neighborhood wells when there is less than 60′ of filtering depth.
• Re-imagine Reno specifies that “non-structural” solutions to flooding are preferred over detention ponds.  The 100-year flood plain should be preserved.
• The Prado Ranch plan will add 700 homes, but the waste water treatment plant only has enough capacity for 400 additional homes.
• One resident was concerned that the wording in the development plan might allow for billboards or large electronic signage.

One resident, Tammy Holt-Still, had presented the planning commissioners with a presentation (prado ranch) of the required findings with an explanation of why the Prado Ranch plan did not meet the findings.

The land owner claimed that he had made every effort to notify the neighbors of the project and that he had made multiple attempts to meet with neighbors.  This was vehemently refuted by residents who were present.

Reno Planning Commissioners Weiske, Hawkins, Gower, Johnson, and Marshall all voted to deny the Master Plan Amendment and the Planned Unit Development application with no discussion.

This is a guest post by Pamela Galloway in the form of a letter to John Slaughter (county manager) regarding the proposal for a new $50M bond to improve and expand sewer infrastructure in Pleasant Valley.  AGENDA (see item 13)  MAP

The Reno City Council denied Councilwoman Jenny Brekhus’ appeal to the Stonegate development between Reno and Cold Springs.  This is a giant development (5,000 homes) with all the typical problems on a larger scale.  The issues of traffic, sewer capacity, flood mitigation, and emergency service coverage were not credibly addressed when the development was approved by the Reno Planning Commission.  This appeal offered the City Council an opportunity to stop or delay what will almost surely be a regional-scale debacle.  Mayor Schieve, Councilman Bobzien, Councilwomen Jardon, Duerr, and Weber all voted with the developer (Barnes) and against the appeal.  Councilman Delgato was absent, and Councilman Brekhus could not vote on her own appeal.

The appeal had two assertions.  First, the developer plans to use a “super pad” scheme that allows the developer to sell neighborhood-sized properties to builders in a single transaction.  Later, the “super pad” will be subdivided into individual home lots.  This is new and will set a problematic precedent which is neither compliant with the defined “subdivision process” nor the “parcel map process”.  The developer is not proposing tentative maps nor final maps for the “super pad” division.  Greg Salter (deputy city attorney) and Heather Manzo (city planner) claimed that this scheme was allowed, but both are invested in this decision.  Councilwoman Brekhus suggested that the Attorney General be asked to review the scheme.  Second, the developer plans to grade hundreds of acres at a time in anticipation of selling the “super pads” to builders.  This is risky since the property may remain denuded for an extended time producing dust, run-off, and erosion.  There is a bond for re-vegetation if the developer declares bankruptcy or abandons the project, but there is no time limit for development or re-vegetation if the developer is simply waiting for a good offer.

Public comment included the following concerns.

• The development will contribute run-off and waste water to White Lake which is at historically high levels. At this time the lake shore is not far from the highway.
• Currently Stead has only a single police officer. Reno cannot adequately support this development.
• If the large-scale grading is permitted and the housing market suffers a downturn, we are stuck with a giant scar on the landscape for years or decades.
• The hydrological characteristics of this area have not been adequately studied. Expert analysis shows that the planned mitigation is inadequate to protect White Lake from runoff.
• Reno has adopted a measure that no development be allowed that has an impact to a closed basin. Stonegate will violate this tenet.

Too bad.  It looks like the City is barreling toward a record new debacle in the North Valleys.

The Reno Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a request for a plan amendment (Planned Unit Development amendment) for the Bella Vista Ranch Phase II development in the Damonte Ranch area.  It is at the eastern end of South Meadows Parkway.  This is a 77 acre site with maximum home density of 30 dwelling units per acre for a total of 575 dwelling units as defined by the PUD.  It presently includes 16 acres zoned commercial.  The developer requested an amendment to eliminate the commercial area and change it to residential adding 137 more dwelling units to make 712 dwelling units.  Commissioners expressed several concerns.  Losing the commercial element would reduce the “walkability” and “viability” of the neighborhood.  They also considered that preserving areas for commercial and industrial is a priority under the master plan.  There was also concern that this change would increase peak traffic since the commercial elements would not contribute much to commute traffic.  There was no detailed study to show the effects of the proposed amendment on traffic.  There was concern that wild horses would not be ensured access to water.   The commissioners could not “find” that the amendment would comply with various criteria that structure their decision making.  This went against the recommendation for approval by the Reno planning staff.

It was refreshing to see a reasoned discussion about what would be the best plan rather than a charged exchange about how to avoid a terrible plan.  It looked like the commissioners had the letter and spirit of the new Reno master plan in mind as they considered the change.  Decisions they make now will likely affect residents’ lives a century from now.  Now is the time to uphold high standards.

LINK: staff-report_bella-vista_amendment_010319

LINK: Meeting Video

Last night’s Washoe County Planning Commission meeting had the agenda gutted when the principal topic, the giant Winnemucca Ranch development (aka Warm Springs), was dropped because the notification to the neighbors was given too late.  This looks like a problematic development, but it’s a topic for another day.  Other business seemed relatively minor with changes to wording in codes and some special exceptions for non-conforming lots.

Near the end of the meeting, there is an agenda section for requests for information from the county planning staff.  Planning Commissioner Lawson requested that the staff make a presentation detailing how they review developer-commissioned engineering reports.  Lawson has had informal discussions with the Planning Department principals and has not received satisfactory answers on the staff’s capability and process for reviewing these reports.  In his words “What is the process to insure the legitimacy of the applicant reports?”  He has been alarmed on several occasions by such reports that appear to be misleading in ways that favor the developer.  There are examples of traffic studies that are conducted when school is not in session or hydrology reports that do not consider flood hazard to existing residents.  These engineering reports are the foundation for planning decisions at the Citizens Advisory Board, the Planning Commission, and the County Commission.  Misleading reports enable development that profits the developer while burdening residents with excessive traffic, flooding, and other woes.  Even worse, there is no administrative process to challenge an erroneous report or to even challenge it in court.   This means that the foundation for evaluating a new development is suspect from the outset.

The Planning Commission exhibits a healthy skepticism of such reports.  This has resulted in their denial of several recent projects where the engineering reports were shown to be inadequate when scrutinized in detail.  The first step toward fixing the problem of bad decisions based on misleading reports is to understand the process.  If the process is flawed or inadequate, it needs to be exposed before it can be fixed.

• Who (in staff) reviews these reports?  What are their qualifications?
• How does the staff address questions to the developer or their engineer?
• What does staff do if they lack specific expertise?
• What are the steps for approval?  Who “signs off” on the reports?
• What records are available of these reviews?

Lawson’s request represents an escalation.  He has been frustrated with the answers he could get informally, so now it needs to be done in public.  Planning Commissioner Lawson was promptly supported in his request by Planning Commissioners Horan and Chesney.

The proposal to amend the zoning and allow a PUD for the Prado Ranch development in Lemmon Valley has been “continued” to the next available meeting of the Reno Planning Commission on 1/16/19 at 6:00 PM.  It will be the first item on the agenda.  The decision to continue consideration of the proposal was due to the late hour of the meeting on 12/19/18.

The Prado Ranch development plan has gone through a number of  iterations.  The latest is to zone a substantial part of the property as industrial.  There is also a large portion that is to be zoned Open Space which borders Swan Lake and is mostly under water.  The property includes the intersection of Lemmon Drive and Deodar.

The proposed plan includes:

• A total of 729 acres in 14 parcels.
• 176 single family homes on 44 acres.
• 529 multifamily dwellings on 32 acres.
• 195 acres of industrial
• 10 acres of commercial
• 446 acres of Open Space

Impacts:

• 187,500 gallons per day of wastewater generation
• 15,000 additional vehicle trips a day
• Consume 625 acre feet of water per year

Reno Staff recommends against this proposal.  They are unable to determine that the proposal meets the applicable statutory and code requirements.

The applicant claims that the improvements to Lemmon Drive and Lear will offset the traffic congestion.  They further claim that the retention ponds in the plan will more than offset the additional flood risk.

Concerns expressed by the public:

• The development does not match the Master Plan and is incompatible with the character of the area.
• North Valleys High School is already over capacity.  Plan depends on school capacity at the Stonegate school which is only on paper at this time.
• Dangerous traffic congestion near the existing school with large trucks.
• Poor emergency response times due to traffic congestion.
• Ground water contamination from the retention ponds with the water table only 55′ below the surface.
• Developer’s hydrology report is suspect.
• Flooding of existing residents that are downstream.
• Reno can’t afford to man another fire station even if the developer provides the station and the equipment.
• Current flooding needs to be addressed before more development proceeds.

Links:

Detailed meeting notes: Reno Planning Commission_121918

Residents’ Presentation: PRADO RANCH MP and PUD ZM LDC16-00026 AND LDC17-00019

Developer’s Presentation: Wood-Rogers_Prado-Ranch_121918

Reno Planning Staff Presentation: Staff-Presentation_Prado-Ranch_121918

My typo.  The Reno Planning Commission review of the Prado Ranch (South) development will be December 19, not March 19.

The Prado Ranch (South)

This development plan will be reviewed by the Reno Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 19 at 6 PM at the Reno City Council Chambers at One East First Street, Reno (the dark tower).  There is free parking in the parking structure.  This is the “sister” project to the Prado Ranch North development that was unanimously denied by the Washoe County Planning Commission and approved by the Washoe Board of County Commissioners by a bare majority.  It is now undergoing judicial review.

• It is like the Prado Ranch North project in that it is practically adjacent.  It is also sited on a property that has been partly submerged for the last two years.
• It is unlike the Prado Ranch North project in that it will be annexed by the City of Reno so that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Reno Planning Commission rather than the Washoe County Planning Commission.

Please plan to attend if at all possible.  This is another scandalous project that will worsen the Lemmon Valley flooding for existing residents.

Regional Planning Survey

Express yourself!  The Truckee Regional Planning Authority is looking for residents to participate in a survey on how residents want to see the area develop.  While the survey is not binding on the County or the cities, it will help bolster the argument for reasonable growth in the area.  Don’t miss this opportunity to make your opinions known!  Click HERE to participate.

The new Washoe Citizens Action Network held it’s first meeting last night.  It was attended by about 60 area activists who seemed well informed about many aspects of the City and County issues.

Brandon Camp introduced the new organization and the vision he has for moving forward.  He is hoping to involve residents from all over the county to fight the destructive development.  The group might turn its attention to other issues over time.

Bill Johnson (Commissioner candidate) asserted that the Truckee Meadows was being offered as a fire sale to developers.  He favors responsible development, but not the recent development.  He mocked developers who claim they will offer “open space”.

Tammy Holt-Still (Lemmon Valley/Swan Lake Recovery Committee) made the point that the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Authority has the responsibility to oppose much of the problematic development.  She has met with Mayor Schieve and Councilwoman Duerr to describe the inadequacies of flood insurance as applicable to the Daybreak Development.

Jeanne Herman (County Commissioner) wants to see the return of the Citizens Advisory Boards broader role and extensive coverage.  This is the citizen’s voice.  She says the developers are running the government.  She wants to see the area plans updated.

Carly Borchard (Verdi Community Council) discussed her community’s efforts fighting the big West Meadows development, and how the plan was reduced from 600 homes to 300 homes due to citizen involvement.

Steve Wolgast (Commissioner candidate) described his experience with the county regarding a development and how this inspired him to help found the WRAP group.  It further inspired him to run for county commissioner against Bob Lucey.

Mike Lawson (Planning Commissioner) could not be present, so Steve presented his principal concerns.  The first is the use of misleading engineering reports paid for by the developers and treated as authoritative by the county planners and county commissioners.  These are consistently biased to support the developer’s plans.  The second is the existence of “zombie” projects.  These are projects that were approved, but never built.  These have received special extensions by the county.  If they hadn’t, the approvals would have expired long ago.  No one knows the fate of these projects.  There are developments totaling 68,000 dwelling units in this category when only 42,000 are expected to be needed by 2038.  This is a big issue that tilts any planning effort.

The audience contributed during a Q & A session.

• They want plans and calls to action,  not just discussion.
• The county isn’t following proper procedures and endangering federal funding.
• The county is vulnerable due to violations of the Open Meeting Law.

Brandon closed the meeting with an emphasis on working together across the county and across political and other differences.  He plans to call another public meeting in January.

See more detailed notes here: WashoeCAN_Meeting-Notes_121118