The following includes the executive summary and suggestions for safety improvements to Mt. Rose Highway based on the road safety audit (RSA) conducted in July 2016.   This post is long, but I think necessary to relay all salient information contained in the Final Report. Summary of Road Safety Audit Conducted on Mt. Rose Highway – July 2018

A Community Information Meeting with NDOT will be held on Wednesday December 5 at 6 PM at the South Valleys Library.  Please plan to attend and make your voice heard.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Traffic Safety Engineering Division authorized a Road Safety Assessment (RSA) to be conducted on Mount Rose Highway State Route 431 (SR 431) from Washoe County milepost (WA MP) 18.694 to WA MP 23.050. in Washoe County, Nevada. The RSA for this section of roadway conducted a before and after comparison of crash data due to a construction project that occurred in 2014. The purpose of this RSA is to identify potential road safety issues and suggest potential countermeasures for SR 431 to mitigate those safety issues for inclusion in future projects along the corridor, as well as identifying specific short, mid, or long-term suggestions for the corridor. The RSA Team included three participants that live on the corridor and drive it daily. One of the three participants is also an agency representative.

Between WA MP 18.69 and approximately WA MP 19.00, SR 431 consists of one lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). From WA MP 19.00 traveling northwest along the study corridor through WA MP 23.05, SR 431 consists of two lanes in each direction with a center TWLTL. Three NDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count stations are located along this section of SR 431. An overall increase in AADT was observed from 2015 to 2017 along the corridor.

There was a total of 49 crashes over the three-year period (2015-2017) along SR 431, of which two were incapacitating injury crashes. Both incapacitating injury crashes were non-collision and one involved a motorcycle. There were no fatal crashes within the dataset obtained from NDOT but there was an angle fatal crash on an uncontrolled left turn that occurred at the Callahan Road intersection on May 5, 2018.

SR 431 is identified as a “Urban Minor Arterial” by the functional classification for the State of Nevada. The injury crash rate for the corridor was found to be 0.22 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) as compared to the state average of 1.27 injury crashes per MVMT for the urban minor arterial functional classification. The fatal crash rate for the corridor was 0.00 crashes per MVMT as compared to the state average of 0.01 fatal crashes per MVMT. However, considering the fatal crash that occurred in 2018, the fatal crash rate would be above the state average. The total crash rate along the corridor was lower than the statewide average for the respective functional classification.

The RSA Team evaluated the crash history and existing conditions in the field to make specific suggestions to mitigate the issues, particularly the high number of non-collision crashes and the angle crashes for uncontrolled lefts from SR 431 and/or the side streets. The RSA Team’s suggestions for mitigation focused on intersection improvements to improve safety for uncontrolled left turns, on and off side streets, which included geometric improvements, updates to signage and striping and installation of lighting at the site of the fatal crash at Callahan Road and at sites with similar conditions. Suggestions for mitigation are divided into different priorities, Priority 1 improvements are near term., Priority 2 are intermediate improvements, and Priority 3 are long term improvements.

The suggestions stated in the RSA report could be considered in future planning for this corridor and may be implemented based on funding availability. A Priority 1 suggestion that is not able to be implemented in the near term should be considered for implementation with the Priority 2 suggestions. Similarly, Priority 2 suggestions not incorporated into upcoming Priority 2 projects should be considered with Priority 3 suggestions. The issues and suggestions for SR 431 are summarized below.

SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS

A summary of all suggestions for SR 431 are numbered in the following section based on priority. Priority 1: is defined as those suggested improvements that can be done in the near future by NDOT District II agency maintenance staff during their periodic maintenance as appropriate funding is available, unless otherwise noted.

Priority 2: is defined as those suggestions that will require some engineering design or those suggestions typical to Priority 1 improvements being completed as part of future NDOT roadway projects.

Priority 3: is defined as those long-term recommendations that will require significant engineering design and/or right-of-way acquisition and are to be considered for a future NDOT roadway improvement project if funding is available.

An “A” at the end of the priority indicates that it is a suggestion for the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Washoe and a “B” at the end of the priority indicates that it is a suggestion for Washoe County.

PRIORITY 1

Suggested improvements that can be done in the near future by NDOT District II agency maintenance staff during their periodic maintenance.

Entire Corridor

Priority 1: Add additional speed limit signs after the major cross streets.

Priority 1: Add dynamic message sign (DMS) warning system package for speed and congestion warning throughout the corridor. For example, at the intersections of SR 431 and Callahan Road and SR 431 and Edmonton Drive.

SR 431 at WA MP 19.5

Priority 1: Coordinate with Washoe County to deenergize the traffic signal heads and remove or bag them. A letter was sent from NDOT District II to Washoe County Community Development on July 19, 2018.

SR 431 at Callahan Road

Priority 1: Extend the westbound to southbound left turn lane striping closer to the center of the intersection. Look at reflective posts behind the radius.

SR 431 at WA MP 21.0

Priority 1: Consult with NDOT Transportation Multimodal Planning to determine if a bike crossing should be provided at this location or in another area.

SR 431 at WA MP 22.0

Priority 1: Remove vegetation covering sidewalk.

SR 431 at Edmonton Drive

Priority 1: Install a speed limit sign for eastbound traffic west of the intersection.

SR 431 at WA MP 23.0

Priority 1: Provide directional signage in advance of Wedge Parkway, so bicyclists can choose to make the left turn and ride on the path (if desired).

PRIORITY 2

Suggested improvements that should be considered by NDOT for inclusion in upcoming projects if funding is available. Priority 1 suggestions should also be considered for implementation with Priority 2 suggestions if they have not already been implemented as a result of funding or other considerations.

Entire Corridor

Priority 2: Replace HPS lights with LED lights.

Priority 2: NDOT to coordinate with Washoe County on access management and the installation of snowplow friendly raised median islands throughout the corridor for cross roads and driveways. Consider limiting uncontrolled left turns from the side streets where feasible. If median islands are installed provide ramped median noses and yellow raised pavement markings and/or plastic delineator posts on top of the curb for the median islands per NDOT Standard Plan T-38.1.5.

Priority 2B (Washoe County): Washoe County to consider access management for developments along the corridor.

Priority 2: Consider the use of alternative pavement markings to improve delineation of the bicycle lanes near right turn lanes.

Priority 2: Restripe the bike lane through the intersection.

SR 431 at WA MP 19.5

Priority 2: Remove the emergency signal.

SR 431 at Callahan Road

Priority 2: Restripe the intersection and relocate the stop bars closer to the through lanes. Add snowplow friendly median islands and/or right turn channelizing islands, if feasible. Consider snowplows in the design.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility of extending the eastbound to southbound right turn lane.

Priority 2: Implement the results of the ICE Analysis.

Priority 2: Install two additional LED luminaires.

SR 431 at WA MP 21.0 at Fawn Lane

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the eastbound acceleration lane.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the eastbound to southbound right turn lane.

SR 431 at WA MP 21.0 at Fawn Lane

Priority 2: Install additional lighting at the intersection.

SR 431 at Thomas Creek Road

Priority 2: Provide a landing and pathway to the crosswalk on the west leg of the intersection. Review adjacent development as it was mentioned that new development could restrict pedestrian access.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound acceleration lane.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound to northbound right turn lane.

Priority 2: Consider reconstructing the curb ramps and restriping the crosswalk to move the stop bar up.

Priority 2A (RTC): Review traffic responsive timing for eastbound to northbound left turn. It was noted that the advance signal flasher for westbound through traffic impacts the traffic responsive operation. Study the intersection traffic volumes to determine if the signal can be upgraded to flashing yellow arrow by time of day. Upgrade signal heads to have retroreflective backplates.

SR 431 at Edmonton Drive

Priority 2: Restripe the intersection and relocate the stop bar closer to the through lane. Add snowplow friendly median islands, if feasible. Consider snowplows in the design.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the eastbound acceleration lane.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the eastbound to southbound right turn lane.

Priority 2: Consider. the use of High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) on the south leg of the intersection.

Priority 2: Consider the need for intersection warning signs for the eastbound approach.

Priority 2: Install additional lighting at the intersection.

SR 431 at Telluride Drive

Priority 2: Restripe the intersection and relocate the stop bar closer to the through lanes. Add snowplow friendly median islands, if feasible. Consider snowplows in the design.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound acceleration lane.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound to northbound right turn lane.

SR 431 between Edmonton Drive and Sundance Drive/De Spain Lane

Priority 2: Evaluate a HAWK or other pedestrian treatment per the NDOT Pedestrian Safety Improvement Evaluation Guidelines for Uncontrolled Crossings.

SR 431 at Sundance Drive/De Spain Lane

Priority 2: Restripe the intersection and relocate the stop bar closer to the through lanes. Add snowplow friendly median islands, if feasible. Consider snowplows in the design.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound acceleration lane.

Priority 2: Consider the feasibility to extend the westbound to northbound

PRIORITY 3

Suggested Improvements that should be considered by NDOT as those long-term recommendations which will require significant engineering design and/or right-of-way acquisition and are to be considered for a future NDOT roadway improvement project if funding is available.

Entire Corridor

Priority 3: Review the intersections along the corridor and provide additional lighting, if needed, per the NDOT Signal, Lighting, and ITS Design Guide Section 5.2.6 Safety Lighting.

Priority 3: Remove the existing rumble strips and re-install rumble strips per NDOT standard R-10.1.7.

SR 431 at WA MP 20.0 – 20.5

Priority 3: Remove the existing southbound to eastbound left turn movement at Callahan Road and provide an unsignalized High-T intersection at Callahan Road. Coordinate with Washoe County to provide access from Paris Court to Mountain Ranch Road and provide an unsignalized High-T intersection at Mountain Ranch Road to provide the ability for motorists living north of SR 431 to head east.

SR 431 at WA MP 21.0 at Fawn Lane

Priority 3: Consider the reconstruction of the intersection as an unsignalized High-T intersection.

SR 431 at Edmonton Drive

Priority 3: Coordinate with Washoe County to evaluate the feasibility of adding a fourth leg to the intersection of Thomas Creek Road and provide an access road to the intersection of Butch Cassidy Drive and Edmonton Drive to relocate turning movements to the signalized intersection and make Edmonton Drive a right-in/right-out intersection.

Priority 3: Consider cutting the slope to improve sight visibility.

Priority 3: Extend the left turn lane and remove the rumble strips that form the taper on the left turn lane.

Priority 3: Reconstruct the intersection as an unsignalized High-T intersection with channelized islands. Consider snowplows in the design. Add intersection

I attended a lovely dinner last night at the home of friend.   There was a group of around 25 people, most were District 2 residents.   After dinner I chatted with the host about the upcoming elections and asked his opinions of how things are going in Washoe County.   He is a 6^th generation Nevadan. His great grandparents settled in Dayton in the 1870s and worked in local government, so I specifically wanted his views on the changes he’s seen in Washoe County in his lifetime, and the challenges our county faces with uncontrolled growth and fiscal mismanagement.   He told me that he grew up as a neighbor of Bob Lucey’s and knew him and his family.   He didn’t give credence to Lucey’s public campaign position that as a “fifth generation Nevadan” he is best-placed and most experienced to make sound fiscal, zoning and land development decisions for Washoe County.   My friend’s comment: “Oh, really? My family and ancestors have been here just as long, and we despise what’s happening to Washoe County!   But the corruption is embedded. It’s been going on for SO long that we just feel despondent. What’s the point in trying to change this county?   It’s always been this way. Boom and bust. Budget problems, infrastructure problems and public-school problems. The local politicians have been lining their pockets for so long, that it will just be too hard to change.”

I asked him why he and his long-time Washoe friends have never tried to change the county governing system by proffering candidates with better governing and technical experience.   He said that “outsiders” never have a chance, and even if they are Washoe natives, they have to be backed by the Washoe insiders – gaming, real estate and now cannabis.   He chalked up County residents’ resignation to the boom-bust of real-estate, mining and gaming-based Washoe economy. Even the push to bring in new business comes at a huge economic cost to the county – incentivizing tax breaks that leave even larger voids in Washoe County coffers. These are then patched with higher sales taxes. This has been going on for all the “generations” that Bob Lucey and his family/ancestry have lived here.   Why should Lucey and the County Commissioners change this dynamic in this economic recovery cycle where they stand to prosper so much from real estate development?   He knows the drill.   He knows better than anyone because he’s a “fifth generation Nevadan”!   He has the privilege of CLAIMING Washoe as more his, than anyone else here?   He has more right to govern because an ancestor came here to settle?

I can’t help but think there were a lot of lawless people moving to Nevada five generations ago. So, was his great grandfather a cattle rustler, or a gun slinger, or maybe a claim jumper? Also, I highly doubt that Lucey’s father’s side, Lingenfelter, was here for 5 generations.   In fact, nowadays most people who live anywhere out west are from somewhere else!   More importantly, the trust of the people has to be earned.   Why SHOULD we think that ancestry denotes expertise?   How does ancestry in and of itself promote candidate trustworthiness?   And why should that be a qualification for office, if that very geography has a governing system that desperately needs to change?

This concept of “native privilege” got me to thinking about some of the commentary Steve Wolgast has heard during his District 2 campaign canvassing efforts.   Some have told him that they just cannot vote for him because “he is a liberal democrat from California, trying to make Reno a suburb of California”.   Um, really?   Just LOOK at what’s happening now, with a majority republican Washoe Board of County Commissioners who also have real estate and business as careers.   Washoe is well on its way to looking like the sprawl of ANY big city in the US (not just CA), certainly not the “biggest little city”!   And who’s happy with this sprawl?   Anyone making money off of it, that’s who!   And who’s trying to manage growth to a safe and sustainable pace? Currently, the only governing entity that even tries to uphold and enforce the County Codes, Area Plans and zoning are the County Planning Commission, a governing group that has more applicable career expertise than the commissioners.

With pressing growth problems facing Washoe County including infrastructure development, water supply and quality preservation, flood control, fire danger and air quality, how exactly does being a “native Nevadan” give a candidate better experience to manage these issues?   Do the commissioners have professional expertise in hydrology, civil engineering, traffic engineering, or environmental engineering?   Not a one! Lastly, honest and robust fiscal and budgetary management needs to happen in Washoe before we fall into another bust cycle.   The commissioners have so far not shown any inclination to revise Washoe’s tax revenue stream and hold developers and new big businesses to account and put some of their profits into the revenue stream.

So, unless Lucey’s ancestors were engineers, accountants or water management experts who passed along their “native” knowledge, I just can’t see how being a multi-generational Nevadan, in and of itself, gives Lucey more qualification for his position in county governance.   Let’s hope that his ancestors’ experience with bust cycles serves Lucey well when the next one hits Washoe County.

Washoe County Commissioner for District 2, Bob Lucey, has been in the news recently for his efforts toward passing the Washoe County Lands Bill (Washoe Federal Land Bill on Shaky Ground, RGJ September 13) and has spent time in Washington DC promoting this bill.   According to Lucey’s Washoe County webpage, he is involved with several Washoe and State governing groups and lists “public safety, water and regional parks & open space additional key issues”.   Arguably the most important group representing the populace that Lucey represents, the South Truckee Meadows/Washoe Valley Citizen Advisory Board (STMWV CAB), should be a priority for him, but it is not.   After he took office in January 2015, he attended the first 4 monthly meetings, then attended only 3 more meetings through January 2017.   He has not attended a STMWV CAB meeting since.

During the February 15, 2105 STMWV CAB meeting Lucey made the following statement, as excerpted from the meeting minutes: “The County Commissioners and the department heads met in a special meeting. County has a new direction with new commission. Our mentality is to be true stewards and rebrand the county as positive place to be part of. We will make more of an effort to be in attendance at meetings and public appearance with constituents and be true stewards for the constituents. We are making it a priority to do that and take your comments to heart.”

Interestingly, Lucey “missed” several contentious CAB agenda items including those considering Ascente development on Steamboat Hills, cannabis dispensary locations, Truckee Meadows Fire Department and fire safely, school overcrowding, traffic and flooding.   The last STMWV CAB meeting Lucey attended was in January 2017, with 14 meetings held since, and Lucey’s attendance record since taking office at 24%.

Bob Lucey’s membership and attendance records for the following County and State governing groups are:

• Nevada Association of Counties Board of Directors – 50% attendance
• Truckee Meadows Water Authority – 67%
• Truckee River Flood Management Authority – 37%
• Washoe County Debt Management Commission – 73%
• Washoe County School District Capital Funding Protection Committee – 40%
• Washoe County School District Oversight Panel – 40%
• Western Regional Water Commission – 65%

Lucey missed 29 meetings in 2017.   So far this year he has missed 18 out of 70 meetings for which attendance records are available.

What does this say about Lucey’s priorities?

We know Lucey has spent time out of Washoe County to promote the Washoe County Economic Development and Conservation Act, the “Lands Bill”, thereby neglecting to address his in-county responsibilities.   Now that this Bill is on shaky ground, the question for residents of District 2 is, where will Lucey devote his time for the remainder of his term?   Campaigning? Listening to District 2 residents? Attending community meetings and events to get feedback on salient issues facing District 2 residents?

Let’s look at Lucey’s community meeting and events attendance record for 2018.   County Commissioner Lucey seems to be disengaged from his constituents. He has missed community events that are important to residents in his district. He did not attend the “ACTIONN Last Resort Tour” (August 29) put on for community leaders. This tour highlighted the plight of those who struggle with housing. Nor, did he show support for the local volunteer firefighters by attending their pancake breakfast at the station in West Washoe (August 26). He was not seen at the Townhall Meeting to discuss the design of the new Arrowcreek School (August 9). He did not attend the neighborhood meeting regarding safety on Mount Rose Highway after a fatal collision (May 16). He expressed concern that the Planning Commission and South Truckee Meadows/Washoe Valley Citizen Advisory Board (STMWV CAB) were not aligned with the Board of County Commissioners (July 24 Board of County Commissioners meeting) yet did not attend the CAB meetings on July 5 and August 2, respectively. In fact, Lucey has not attended a single STMWV CAB meeting since January 25, 2017, nor has he attended any Washoe County Planning Commission meetings in 2017/18.   He can’t effectively represent District 2 if he does not attend local meetings and events where he can interact with the people who voted him into office.   His lack of meeting attendance points to only one thing – a distinct prioritization of his own agenda over that of District 2 residents.

The Washoe Board of County Commissioners voted to accept the appeal by the WCSD to approve their grading permit for the property at the corner of Arrowcreek and Thomas Creek.  The vote was 4-0: Commissioner Herman was not present.  Many parents and residents attended and many spoke.

Principal Takeaways

1. The plan is unchanged from the plan reviewed at the townhall meeting.
2. The WCSD does not have possession of the property now.  This will be required before grading begins.
3. No one from the WCSD met with neighbors to address their concerns as directed by the County Commission on August 28.
4. Commissioner Lucey did not meet with neighbors as requested in 12 letters to him.  He said he walked the property.
5. No public speaker opposed the new school.  One suggested they reconsider an alternate site that had been considered.
6. Several residents argued that having a new school would raise property values in the area.
7. Only two public speakers impugned the motives of the residents expressing concern regarding the safety issues.
8. Commissioner Lucey indicated that widening Arrowcreek Parkway so that it is all 4 lanes is in RTC’s plans for the 2022-2026 time frame.
9. Commissioner Lucey asserted that the seismology and hydrology investigations could not be done until the grading permit was approved.

Fundamental Issue: Trust

• Attendees who believe that the county engineering and WCSD contract engineering will adequately address the issues of flooding, earthquake hazard, and traffic want to see the development move forward without delay.
• Attendees who are skeptical of the assurances of the county engineering and contract engineering want to see further study of these critical issues before the construction work proceeds.

Statement of the Day

Bruce Glassman proposed that Commissioner Lucey insist that the Arrowcreek Parkway be widened by 2022 and that the WCSD buy flood insurance for the downhill neighbors.

Links

Arrowcreek Townhall Meeting

Arrowcreek Grading Appeal

Arrowcreek School Plan

The developers were right.  They would get a more favorable hearing from the Board of County Commissioners than from the Citizen’s Advisory Boards and the Planning Commission.  Those bodies are now rightfully skeptical of both the developer-funded engineering reports and the Planning Department Staff reports.

The meeting started at 10:00 AM.

ROUND-1: Homeowners vs Autumn Woods-II (duplex development on Zolezzi Lane).  Time 1:45 PM

This is an unusual development of duplexes in an area zoned for Medium Density Suburban (MDS).  There are expected problems with traffic given the Montessori School on the one side and the big apartment development a few blocks away.  The property floods frequently from Whites Creek or from a tributary.  The Planning Commission primarily denied it because it is not compatible with the neighborhood.  Commissioner Lucey asked if the developer would be willing to pave Jeppson Lane past their driveway to the length of the property.  The developer said no.

• Seventy-five residents wrote in opposition to the appeal.
• How will the detention ponds be maintained? What if the HOA fails?  There is no access road to the detention ponds that will handle heavy equipment.
• One neighbor echoed the developer’s argument that they had an “investment-backed expectation to get their way.” Don’t the homeowners and taxpayers have an “investment-backed” expectation that the character of their neighborhood be preserved?
• Appellant lawyer John Compotic (sp?) said the county staff were experts and not aligned to make it easier for developers. This was met with derision in the audience.  He went on to say the Planning Commission’s decision seemed arbitrary.
• Representatives of the Montessori school requested solid fencing or a wall so that residents would not be able to see the children.

The Planning Commission had denied 7-0 with prejudice.  They saw many unresolved issues.  The Citizen’s Advisory Board had already denied it twice.  The county commissioners accepted the appeal 4-0 (Commissioner Jung was not present).

ROUND-2: Homeowners vs Lemmon Drive Estates, 98 lots  … Time 3:15 PM

These are urban lots; some as small as 6000 sqft.  Side setbacks to be 5’ with front and back setbacks to be 10’.  It’s another plan that will contribute to flooding in a flooded area and add traffic to a distressed highway.  One egregious aspect is the major grading done by the developer without a permit and with the plan denied by the Planning Commission.  In another county, the developer would be ordered to restore the property to its earlier condition and be fined.  But there’s little appetite to enforce compliance against developers in Washoe.  He will be asked to move a couple of the large rocks so that the illegal grading doesn’t pose a new flood hazard to the neighbors.  With this issue and the developer’s travel plans, he asked for a continuance on the hearing of his appeal.  Public input included:

• “The commissioners are not fulfilling their contract of employment.”
• “The commissioners need to understand it’s an issue of integrity.”
• “The primary school is dilapidated, unsanitary with disintegrating asbestos panels.”
• “Lemmon Valley Drive is frightening to drive on.”
• “There is no police (Sheriff) presence to control speeding on the damaged road.”
• “It’s time to consider the ‘M-Word’, moratorium for North Valley development. There is no responsible way to approve new development.”

There was a lot of discussion of the problems of Lemmon Valley before the District Attorney reminded the commissioners that their only choice was to deny or accept the appeal.  They voted 4-0 to grant a continuance till their next meeting “next Tuesday”.  This is the outcome the developer wanted.  There is no future meeting on the county website calendar.

ROUND-3: Homeowners vs Prado Ranch North (Lemmon Valley Drive at Deodar) … Time 4:15 PM

It makes no more sense than the other plans to develop in a flooded area.  The arguments are both compelling and depressingly familiar.  Commissioner Herman made the point “This plan doesn’t ‘compute’ at all.”  The debate became more heated with more audience participation.  The public had largely concluded that decorum was wasted before such capricious authority.  Commissioner Hartung asked some probing questions about improving Lemmon Valley Drive and pressed whether it would be expanded to 4 lanes with a bike lane.  Commissioner Hartung also wants to see all the neighborhood roads repaired.  Engineer Dwayne Smith said this could proceed after the subgrade becomes accessible (after the flood recedes).  Raising and widening the road of course displaces more water which will end up in the yards of the flooded residents.  Here are some of the public comments.

• “Moving 248 acres of soil for the combined development risks local wells and the soil may never recover.”
• “NRS requires that appeal issues be addressed. If not, then the commission is in violation.”
• “Developers are draining their properties onto those of homeowners.”
• Again, “What about the homeowner’s investment-backed expectations?”
• Suggestion to flow the majority of the waste water effluent from the Stead Plant to the county plant. This will require a new 8” pipeline.

The proceedings reached a deadlock when no one would second Commissioner Herman’s motion to deny the appeal.  And, no one would second Commissioner Berkbigler’s motion to accept the appeal.  Counsel Liperelli explained that the commission was obliged to approve or deny the appeal now or soon.  Commissioner Lucey broke the stalemate making the argument that the county couldn’t afford to fix Lemmon Drive, and so we needed to approve development to get at least part of it fixed.  He did not emphasize the fact that the development would contribute to flooding, traffic congestion, and school overcrowding in the process.  The appeal was accepted 3-1 (Commissioner Herman was the “no”).  The developer got what he wanted.  The meeting ended at 5:50 PM.

While the North Valley’s CAB and the Planning Commission seek sensible plans considering the issues raised by residents, it appears that the county commissioners are making arbitrary and capricious judgments overturning the unanimous decisions of the subordinate bodies in order to favor developers.

Links:

Autumn Wood II … LINK LINK LINK LINK

Lemmon Drive Estates … LINK

Prado Ranch North … LINK  LINK  LINK

In a setback to the Washoe County School District, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to table the appeal by the WCSD of the Board of Adjustment decision against allowing grading to proceed on the new property.  The request to allow grading was always curious since the WCSD had not yet acquired the property they wanted to grade and they admitted that the school design was only 75% complete and subject to change.  What is the rush to grade under these circumstances?

To the benefit of homeowners and parents, the commissioners asked the school district to improve their plan to reduce the traffic impact and flood hazard to the local residents.  Also mentioned, was the requirement to rigorously identify earthquake faults on the property.

The Board of County Commissioners will take up the appeal again on September 18 and hope to see improvements in the plan to address the concerns of area residents.

Links:

Arrowcreek School Grading Tabled

Arrowcreek Middle School Townhall

Arrowcreek Middle School

I just heard yesterday: the Washoe Board of County Commissioners will hear the new Washoe County Lands Bill on September 11 (time TBD).  This bill is a travesty, and warrants the strongest possible response from the residents.  In short, it will make a deal with the Federal Government to turn over BLM land in the Truckee Meadows to Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County for development (73,000 acres).  No one supports this bill except those that will profit from it.  The cities and counties are eager for the development and for the ensuing property tax revenue.  Given the problems we have now with irresponsible development, expanding the area available for malfeasance will produce a nightmare.  Watch for the agenda with the schedule.