Traffic Increase 2011-2017

If you regularly drive Mt. Rose Highway you have probably noticed that traffic has really increased in the last four years. It feels like accidents are a threat to your daily drive, it’s not your imagination!   The table provided in this link (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14359) indicates the degree of traffic increase from 2014-17.

Road Safety Audit Summary

In response to public concerns regarding increasing accidents and near-misses, including a fatal accident on Mt. Rose Highway, NDOT Safety Engineering Division in coordination with NDOT Roadway Design, authorized a Road Safety Audit (RSA) to be conducted on Mount Rose Highway (SR 431) from milepost MP WA18.694 to MP WA 23.050 and SR 431 MP WA 0.00 TO MP WA 8.00. The RSA was conducted on July 17-18, 2018. Present for the audit included NDOT Engineering and Maintenance personnel, NHP, Deputy Washoe County Sheriff, Washoe County Traffic, Kimley-Horn Traffic Engineering Consultants, and two Callahan residents. A Traffic Control Evaluation Study is also underway for the Callahan-Mt. Rose Highway intersection.

The open forum began with observations regarding increasing traffic safety issues, particularly at certain intersections and road segments; and concerns regarding the projected increase in traffic due to several new developments along Mt. Rose Highway from Timberline to I-580 Freeway. NDOT completed a traffic volume count and corridor crash analysis (January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017) and presented the results to the group. Additional discussion and information sharing included weather-related traffic and maintenance issues and the types of traffic controls being evaluated for the intersections of concern.

The team conducted afternoon, evening and early morning observations at several intersections along Mt. Rose Highway from Incline to Wedge Parkway. Topics included:

• Current traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycle usage
• Maintenance Issues
• Safety Issues
• Possible traffic calming and highway upgrades

An audit close-out session was held to summarize findings, observations, road conditions, and possible traffic safety solutions for each intersection investigated.   Salient topics covered in the Mt. Rose RSA included:

• • Road alignment and cross section: visibility, design speed, drains, passing, shoulders
  • Auxilliary lanes: tapers, shoulders, signs and markings, and turning traffic
  • Intersections: location, visibility, signing, layout, pedestrians and bicyclists, lighting
  • Interchanges: visibility, sight distance, lanes, shoulders, pedestrians and bicyclists, lighting
  • Signs and lighting: general signs issues, sign legibility, sign supports
  • Marking and delineation: general issues, centerlines, edgelines, lane lines, guideposts, reflectors, curve warning and delineation
  • Barriers and clear zones: end treatments, crash cushions, pedestrian railing, visibility of barriers and fences.
  • Parking
  • Traffic signals
  • Bridges and culverts
  • Floodways and Causeways
  • Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and older drivers

 NDOT, NHP, Washoe County traffic engineers and the traffic consultants created a attached the summary matrix of the issues and recommendations for each segment and intersection of concern on Mt. Rose Highway. This document is too lengthy to include in this post; however the final RSA Report is anticipated to be complete in September and will be summarized in a subsequent post. Final recommendations and priorities for highway improvements will be considered by NDOT. Construction costs and schedules are outside the scope of this RSA and will be completed separately.

If you’re worried about the pace of development and the effect on our daily lives, you have good company.  The TMRPA board met yesterday at a restaurant and candidly discussed issues of concern.  The purpose was to inform a consulting company that will work on a plan proposal for the region.  The issues and situation will mostly seem familiar.

• We are at our limit for sewer capacity.  We have neither the pipes nor the treatment facilities to support expansion.
• Our roads are in rough shape.  We don’t have the funds to pay for infrastructure improvements.  Developer’s “impact fees” only cover a fraction of the cost.
• Growth proponents want to see a major expansion in the North Valleys, but persistent flooding and road conditions must be addressed first.
• Growth proponents accept that development will impact the lives of residents in the unincorporated county negatively.

It was pointed out that there are already plans for 70,000 dwelling units approved (but not built) when only 42,000 are needed by 2038.  We have approved the building of more new homes than will be needed for the next 20 years!

The “elephant in the room” which was referred to, but not discussed is the giant Stonegate development recently approved by the City of Reno.  It is a small city of 5,000 homes north of Peavine Mountain and south of Cold Springs.  The likely problems associated with this are staggering.

Detailed Notes

Here’s a summary of what was covered and what the concerns were.  It was a standing-room only crowd in the Hunsberger School auditorium.

Bill Dunkelberger (Forest Service) spoke first about the Forest Service and the Educational Land Grant Award program.  He spoke about the process and the site.

• The Forest Service sees the 93 acre lot as not in “forest character” since it is surrounded by private property in a suburban environment.  It is the kind of property they would want to get rid of.
• The comment period is open until August 31.
• Before a final decision to grant the property, the Forest Service will consider public comments, take another look at the environmental assessment, and then decide whether to approve the transfer of the property or not.
• The Forest Service reserves the right to retract the property if it is not used for the intended purpose.
• There is only one school in the current plan: there is no plan for a Pre-k or vocational school.

Traci Davis (WCSD Superintendent) introduced information about the school district.

• The District presently spends $20M on repairs and maintenance.
• The District serves 65k students.
• The WC-1 legislation authorizes the building of 3 new schools.

Adam Searcy spoke representing the capital projects department for the District.

• The Arrowcreek school is specified in the WC-1 legislation.
• Using the land provided by the Forest Service greatly reduces the cost of the school.
• The District will go “above and beyond” in an effort to be a good neighbor.
• The design is 75% done, with special attention to traffic and drainage characteristics.
• Flood risk will be addressed with a system of french drains and catch basins to reduce the runoff that is normally seen on that lot.
• Traffic will be addressed with a 2900′ private road 40′ wide which will allow parallel parking on both sides.  There will be 300 parking spaces where as Depaoli only has 186.
• There will be a separate bus loop to pick-up and drop-off.
• For large events, the Hunsberger parking lots will be available.
• There will be elevated pedestrian bridges for students to cross the private road.
• In regards to landscaping, 40% of the property will not be graded but left to natural vegetation.  They will plant 500 new trees and 2500 native shrubs so that the school will barely be visible from the street.
• The goal is to open the school to 1400 students in August 2020.

The sentiment of most attendees was that the school was needed and there was some impatience that it had taken so long to get a new school to address the elementary school overcrowding and the long trip to Pine School.  One resident asserted that the concerns expressed about the school were a disingenuous tactic to delay the build to keep the neighborhood unchanged.

Questions and concerns expressed by attendees.

1. Will the Arrowcreek Road be widened to handle the extra school traffic?  The answer is that this is not part of the plan.
2. What steps are being taken to provide security at the school?  The answer is that the school will be built to the latest design standards regarding security with a perimeter fence and a single point of entry.
3. How will the three schools on Arrowcreek be evacuated in case of fire?  There was a fire 4 years ago and the roads were jammed.  The answer is that the school will be built to incorporate extra fire-safety features so that shelter-in-place may be possible.
4. There is concern that the lot has earthquake faults close to the school.  The school will be built on sediment and fill and may be susceptible to damage.
5. If there is only the one road with an entrance on Thomas Creek and an entrance on Crossbow, how can parents come to pick up students in an emergency?
6. The Washoe County Planning Commission turned down the request to allow grading before the school plan is approved.  The District will appeal this decision to the Board of County Commissioners on August 28.
7. Flooding downhill below Thomas Creek is a problem.  The area was flooded 4 years ago.  What if a detention pond fails in a bad storm?  It poses a terrible risk to downhill homeowners.
8. Are there plans to improve Thomas Creek for the expected bicycle and pedestrian traffic expected to and from the new school?

The traffic, hydrology, and school design principals were present.  There were one or two references to the county planning staff that they could be trusted to resolve problems.  This was viewed with some skepticism.

Commissioner Bob Lucey was not seen at this event.  Steve Wolgast is a candidate for the Washoe County Commission.

Guest post by Whitney Freeman, concerned Washoe Resident

Hello Neighbors!  Below is a link to suggested content for a “fill in the blanks” letter that you can copy and paste into an email to send to each of the Board of County Commissioners (contact information attached as photo). We need as many of these as possible sent to the County Commissioners prior to the meeting (which is still TBD) at which they will either approve or deny the appeal by D.R. Horton. If you would like a hard copy (which has bolded/highlighted content) and/or would like to obtain more for neighbors and friends to submit please direct message me with your email address. If you do not wish to email the County Commissioners directly you can scan and e-mail it back to me (obtained by direct message) or drop off your letter(s) at Mountain View Montessori and the school will send them to the County Commissioners. The first round of signed letters were sent last night. This week the school is open 9 am -3 pm M-Th. Next week we start our staff training and will be open 8am – 5pm. Thank you all very much for your interest and support in this critical matter! If you have been following my other posts on this issue you know this is important for our entire county, not just neighbors near the parcels. Best, Whitney

Request to Uphold

Please use the email addresses below.  You will have to “cut and paste” the addresses.  Telephone numbers are included in the table below.

Marsha Berkbigler:   mberkbigler@washoecounty.us

Bob Lucey:  blucey@washoecounty.us

Kitty Jung:   kjung@washoecounty.us

Vaugn Hartung:  vhartung@washoecounty.us

Jeanne Herman:   jherman@washoecounty.us

There’s no big, new story this week, but there are still things to report.

Moratorium Sign 8/2/18

The property owner was told by the county that there was a complaint about the “Washoe County Development is Out Of Control!  Time for a Moratorium?” sign facing Mount Rose Highway at Thomas Creek Rd.  No ordinance was cited and no citation was issued indicating the infraction.  So far, efforts to find the justification for the complaint have been unsuccessful.  There will be more follow-up, but the motivation might be political.  We have taken the sign down.  It will likely be restored at a later date; maybe with a new message.

Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission Meeting 8/1/18

This meeting reviewed the “consensus plan” for area population growth and the expected annual water availability report.  The region’s population is expected to grow from 452,000 (2017) to 559,000 in 2036.  RWMP reported that 190,000 acre-feet of water could be sustainable consumed from existing sources.  They estimate that 100,000 acre-feet of water is needed for the expected population of 559,000.  Concern was expressed that drier weather, shorter snow seasons, and increased evaporation from Lake Tahoe will adversely affect the water availability.  There was also concern that the 190,000 af number might include water that was not available or not potable.  The reports were accepted.

Zolezzi Property Development (Autumn Wood II) 7/30/18

Residents met to learn about the Autumn Wood I and Autumn Wood II developments on Zolezzi Lane next to the Montessori School.  The plan was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission for non-compliance with the area plan.  There was substantial concern over flooding and traffic as well.  The developer plans to appeal, and the neighbors need to prepare.  The developers can expect a more favorable hearing from the County Commission.

Echevaria Ranch; Joint Meeting 7/30/18

The Echevaria Ranch property is near the Stonegate project at the foot of Peavine Mountain. The property is part of the Reno-Stead Corridor Joint Plan. Like Stonegate, it is a huge project which represents a radical extension of the city into the unincorporated county.  There is room for 67 homes based on the current rural zoning on the 559 acres.  The request for re-zoning consistent with the Re-Imagine Reno plan would allow for 3,000 homes.  Residents expressed concern about emergency services, traffic, and school overcrowding.  There were two proposals being covered.  First was a proposal to remove this property from the joint plan and cede it to the City of Reno’s jurisdiction.  This was approved releasing Washoe County’s interest in the property.  The second proposal was to approve re-zoning the property for urban-scale densities.  This proposal was denied.  It will be brought up again when there is a development plan to consider.

Reno City Council on Stonegate  7/25/18

City Councilwoman Brekhus inveighed against the earlier Stonegate approval.  She pointed out inconsistencies in the plans to build, staff, and operate the fire stations needed to protect the new development.

I would call it a coup conspiracy.  Commissioners Berkbigler, Jung, and Lucey realize that the Citizens Advisory Boards and the Planning Commission are no longer approving the non-conforming projects.  Their response is not surprising: take power from the organizations that diligently represent the residents and examine compliance with the master plan requirements.  Here’s my summary of the different commissioners’ positions.  Commissioner Hartung was absent while Commissioner Herman did not express an opinion.

Commissioner Berkbigler

• She didn’t understand the roles of the Planning Commission (PC) or the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
• She emphasizes that the County Commissioners are elected as opposed to the members of the Board of Adjustment who are appointed.
• She claims that the County Commissioners always over-rule the Board of Adjustments on appeal (not true in Colorock case).
• She worries about the cases the BOA denies that are never appealed.
• She wants the staff to “work” with the BOA on the Incline area plan.
• She’s worried about how confusing and difficult it is for developers.
• She has “huge goals that we need to meet”.

Commissioner Jung

• We could avoid extra meetings if we consolidated the superfluous quasi-municipal agencies such as regional planning, the RTC, the Flood Authority.
• She suggests that Washoe County could assume all these roles with some subject matter experts under the county manager.
• She’d really like to see if we could legally collapse all the agencies under one umbrella. She doesn’t consider collapsing the county commission.

Commissioner Lucey (It’s hard to discern his point through his “word salad”)

• He emphasizes that the County Commissioners are elected while the PC, Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), and BOA members are only appointed.  They “try to potentially do the work of commissioners”.
• He expresses a lot of concern for out-of date ordinances. It looks like he’s referring to the area plans.
• He wants to be efficient and “help the process along” for the benefit of the community.
• He thinks appointed board members may not use their positions to benefit the community but rather to advance their own agendas.
• He is committed to have Washoe be the county of “yes” to development.
• He thinks the County Commissioners should be more involved with the Planning Commission to address “challenges”.

Inferences

• Commissioners Berkbigler and Lucey are not happy that the PC, BOA and CAB’s are looking critically at the developer plans and the staff reports and acting with due diligence.
• Commissioners Berkbigler and Lucey think the solution is for the county commission to require the subservience of the PC, BOA, and CAB’s or eliminate them.
• Commissioners Jung thinks Washoe County should take control of all the regional governmental bodies. It sounds like tyranny to favor the developers.
• Commissioners Berkbigler, Jung, and Lucey all express concern about delays to  developers with no reference to addressing the concerns of residents.

Summary

It looks like a coup attempt to take over all the regional governing bodies from the regional planning board at the top, down to the CAB’s on the front lines.  No commissioner hides the pro-developer bent shared with Mayor Schieve.  None of the comments recognize the role played by the CAB’s and PC’s to deny irresponsible development.  Remember that Commissioners Berkbigler and Lucey are in real estate.

But, don’t take my word for it.  Watch the meeting video online https://www.washoecounty.us/bcc/board_committees/index.php#meetingList

or see my transcript of the discussion BCC_Quotes_re_PC_&_BOA_072418    .

MONDAY JULY 30, 2018

SOUTH VALLEYS LIBRARY

5:30 PM

Please plan to attend! Learn more about how two proposed developments at the bottom of Zolezzi (Autumn Wood I & II) are inappropriate for our area and detrimental to the rural residential character of our neighborhood. This is the second attempt by D.R. Horton to circumvent the regulations set forth in the Thomas Creek SCMA in our Master Plan as well as building codes and regulations. In the fall of 2017 we had to fight their application to amend the master plan. They did withdraw that application, and have now submitted a tentative subdivision map for Autumn Wood Phase II and a special use permit application for two detention ponds. The Planning Commission denied both submissions and D.R. Horton has filed appeals for both items. We need to make sure that the Board of County Commissioners also rejects these ludicrous plans. We have an opportunity to fight the 12 years of extensions given to the tentative subdivision map for Autumn Wood Phase I. TBD: Date of Board of County Commissioners Meeting which will review the appeals. GOAL OF THIS MEETING: Get everyone up to speed and determine next steps.

More details here: LINK

One of the primary tasks undertaken in the process of opposition research is to determine the source and amounts of the opponent’s campaign donations. This is done primarily to understand not only the business interests of the donors, but the monetary “influence” pressed upon the candidate upon accepting those donations. The larger the donation, the greater the expectation of both influence and political sway by the candidate to favor said business once he/she has taken office.

I recently undertook a review of Bob Lucey’s campaign contributions as listed on the Nevada Secretary of State Website (http://nvsos.gov/).   Lucey has received over $110,000 in campaign donations since his 2014 win, including “small” donations (under $100). I was interested in finding the business trends in his donor pool, so I collated information on all the donors/donations above $150 for 2017/18.   This donation pool totalled $97,750.   While collating these larger donations, I noted that most came from businesses and people associated with them, rather than private donors.     I researched each business and organized them into the following groups, based on business interest and specialty: developers, general business, casinos, builders and building supplies, cannabis, lobbyists, lawyers, local government entities, real estate and utilities.   The table below lists these donor groups and their total donations and percentage of Lucey’s campaign funding they’ve contributed:

Here are a few salient facts regarding some of these donors:

It’s no surprise that most of Lucey’s donations come from developers. He and the county commissioners have responded in kind by approving a record number of housing and business developments in Washoe County from 2015-18.   The developer donors include but are not limited to: Symbio LLC (Ascente), Paul Tenguay (Sybio and Ascente) and Mike Barnes (Symbio, NNV1 Partners), Bristol Land Company of CA,Toll Brothers , Lifestyle Homes TND LLC, NNV1 Partners LLC (see Mike Barnes), Park Lane Associates, Reno Land Inc., and Reno Quality Homes.

Builders and building supplies and services companies donating to Lucey include: AVK Company, Builders Association of Nevada, ERGS Inc., Granite Construction Company, Green Solutions Recycling, NV Builders LLC, NV Recycling and Salvage, Inc. and Rubbish Runners, Inc.

The cannabis industry has Lucey’s interest. Benjamin Koppel, a Chicago resident, gave Lucey $5,000 in 2017 after his second (publicly disputed) marijuana dispensary was approved by the County.  Good Chemistry NV, LLC and Washoe Dispensary also donated $1,000 each in the name of cannabis business.

Lobbyists have donated to Lucey: Capitol Partners, LLC and Olivia Sandford, a lobbyist based in D.C. Ms. Sandford is the “legislative director” (i.e. lobbyist) for Marcus G Faust, a “lobbying firm that focuses almost exclusively on counties, cities, water authorities and utility companies in Nevada and Utah” according to the Las Vegas Sun. The Las Vegas Sun also states “Faust prefers to remain behind the scenes, but his fingerprints are on landmark legislation that created the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, a national monument at Tule Springs and a payments-in-lieu of taxes program for rural Nevada counties with federal land. His customers are satisfied: A recent study on lobbyists put Faust at the top of the list for most retained clients in Washington.” On her linkedIn page, Ms Sandford claims a specialty in public lands. Hmmm? Lands Bill, anyone?

Another interesting tidbit: Lucey has received $1,500 from the Whittemore Group, Inc and Chase Whittemore. Chase is Harvey’s son, and is a lobbyist for Argentum Partners in Reno (who work for Newport Land Development, Ryder Homes, and Academica – the shady Florida charter company who also donated $1,000 to Lucey recently, as detailed further below). Harvey is listed as the current Executive Chairman of Whittemore Group. If you don’t recognize former lobbyist Harvey Whittemore: in 2014 he was sent to prison after being convicted of two counts of using employees and family to get around finance limits to contribute to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s re-election bid in 2007. He was also found guilty of causing Reid’s campaign to file a false Federal Election Commission report. At the time, he was developing a master planned community in LV through his business Wingfield Nevada Group.

The two men that own Academica NV LLC, Fernando and Ignacio Zuleta donated $1,000 to Lucey’s campaign in April. These men were caught several years back making very handsome donations to lawmakers in Florida in exchange for greasing the wheels for their business.  (By the way, they have given $27,500 to political campaigns since 2015.)  Academica cultivates links to lawmakers .9 Investigates lawmakers’ connections with charter schools

Academica was also under federal investigation in 2014.  Academica Under Federal Investigation – Cashing in on Kids

In 2017, the State of NV approved the issuance of $31,190,000 in bonds (taxpayer money) to finance the acquisition of facilities and land improvements on behalf of Academica.  http://www.nevadatreasurer.gov/uploadedFiles/nevadatreasurergov/content/Finances/Board/2017/2017-08-08_BoF_Materials.pdf   This is money that should be going to our public schools, but will it? Academica has so far made over $150 million in annual revenue.

Academica: Florida’s richest charter school management firm  2012 article states, ” And despite recent cuts in state funding for public and charter schools, Academica’s schools have prospered financially: One of its chains of nonprofit schools has assets of more than $36 million.”

Last but not least – Casinos. The casino industry in Nevada have their collective fingers in so many business pies, they need their own blog post!   We know that Hugh Hempel, a Harrahs Casino heir, is part of the Ascente development deal. Casinos donating to Lucey include Atlantis, Peppermill, Aruz Gaming America, Inc. and EE Gaming Technologies, Inc.

Do any of these businesses support us existing Washoe Residents to the degree that they support Lucey’s campaign?   In other words, will we profit as much from land development, construction, lobbyists, casinos and cannabis as these business entities will if he’s elected?   What price will we residents pay for ongoing uncontrolled land development if Lucey is elected?   Do these businesses “count” more than we, Washoe Residents who Lucey was elected to represent?   Do YOU feel adequately represented by our current County Commissioners?

The public has become increasingly skeptical of the engineering reports ordered by the developers and skeptical of the county planning staff that always recommends development approval.  To date, it seems that the Washoe Planning Commissioners have taken the staff’s word that a new development is compliant over the arguments of the residents that it is not; no more.  Here are some examples that the  staff opinions and the developer reports have lost credibility.

June 14 Citizens Advisory Board; topic Estates at Marango Springs, Toll Road

• One exasperated resident asked “Can you name a single development project for which the planning department has not recommended approval?” County planner, Roger Pelham, was physically reeling from the question and stammered “Lemmon Valley Drive”.  There is no project by that name.  The audience laughed derisively.
• The CAB found there was “a severe credibility problem”. The motion was to deny the application “lock, stock, and barrel”.  This passed unanimously.

July 3 Planning Commission Meeting; topic Prado Ranch North, Lemmon Valley

• One attendee mocked the Washoe County mission statement as being a model for western governments. She also observed that the county staff always sided with the developers.
• One resident read from the North Valleys Master Plan that “Development should minimize negative impacts.” And pointed out the hypocrisy.
• Staff asserted that the schools were under capacity. This was met with a derisive laugh from the attendees.
• Commissioner Donschick asked how soon work would be completed on Lemmon Drive. It is presently partly blocked and running at reduced speed due to roadway damage.  Staff admitted there is no schedule for these repairs in the area of the proposed development.
• The county engineer claimed that the road would be widened to 4 lanes, but then admitted that the plan was only to re-evaluate the road capacity in four years and to decide what to do then.
• Doug Smith (Mfg. home dealer) pointed out that Lemmon Valley Drive belongs to the City of Reno and that it was safe. Attendees laughed.
• Commissioner Lawson said that he did not believe the traffic report including the conclusion that traffic would still be within acceptable limits following the development.
• Commissioner Lawson said that he was not comfortable trusting staff to resolve these major issues with no public review.
• Commissioner Bruce pointed out that there is presently no good way to evacuate the area.
• Commissioner Chesney asked when the road improvements would be completed. Staff answered “within 4 years”.  He went on “I don’t want to hear that that there’ll be a study in four years and then another one in another four years.  I’m not comfortable with it.”
• Commissioner Horan asserted “The infrastructure is inadequate.”
• Donschick asserted that the sheriff and fire department response times were already unacceptable. The drainage plan depends on development features that are still in the planning phase.
• The traffic engineer pointed out that the effect of the new development on highway 395 wasn’t their problem: it’s the responsibility of NDOT.  Lawson replied that there must be systematic approach to traffic planning.
• Commissioner Chvilicek asked of the developer “Why was the project design done to the lowest possible acceptable standards?”
• The traffic engineer admitted that the traffic study was done on January 2: the day after New Years day. Hardly a day when you’d expect typical traffic.
• The plan was denied unanimously as not consistent with the master plan.

July 3,  Planning Commission; topic Autumn Wood-II on Zolezzi Lane

The preceding part of this development (Autumn Wood-I) was approved in 2010 and has been granted extensions.  It has not been started: the final map has not even been submitted.

• Commissioner Horan asked “Can you point to similar developments with duplexes built on the lot line?” Pelham replied “no”.  Commissioner Horan said “So, its not consistent with the neighborhood.” “That would be your judgement call.” Pelham answered.
• Pelham went on to make the argument that Autumn Wood-II was consistent with Autumn Wood-I. Commissioner Horan pointed out that Autumn Wood-I was just a vacant lot now.
• Commissioner Horan asked “Why is this plan consistent with the master plan?” Pelham answered “It’s allowed with a cluster plan.”
• Commissioner Chvilicek “Why not redesign Phase-I to better match Phase-II?”
• The developer’s plan was denied unanimously as “not consistent”.

Something more to celebrate.

Wherever you live in Washoe County, your Planning Commissioner defended the special nature of our communities last night … twice!  Remember that the next time the county does something infuriating: your planning commissioner sided with the residents on a tough vote when it mattered.

Prado Ranch North tentative map application denied unanimously.

Prado Ranch North      Prado Ranch  KOLO-8: Prado Ranch Denied

The house was nearly full in the big auditorium.  Consideration of Prado Ranch North started about 7:30 PM.  It was voted down at 10:35 PM.  Most of the time was consumed by residents raising concerns with clear reasoning and delivery.

• Flooding: the waste water will go to the Stead treatment plant and from there to Swan Lake raising the water level for all on its perimeter.  The area where the developer plans retention basins is already underwater.  Bringing in 1.2 million cubic feet of soil to raise the development and Lemmon Drive will displace water which will raise the level of Swan Lake.
• Traffic/Evacuation: Lemmon Drive is impassable at one point and hampered with road degradation and reduced speeds everywhere.  Residents are making detours through the  residential streets and suffering doubling commute times and worse.  Emergency vehicle response times are now exceeding 20 minutes.  The traffic study was done January 2.  What does that represent?  Road improvements are tentatively planned for 395, but there is no commitment and no schedule.
• Incompatibility with the North Valleys Plan: residents live in Lemmon Valley for the rural lifestyle.  They like to see the stars, to keep and ride horses, to keep livestock, and slower traffic.  Prado Ranch represents an urban neighborhood that would be out of place.
• Schools: they are presently overcapacity in contradiction to the information provided by the developer and by the county staff.

It was impressive.  It was a little unruly, but it was democracy in action.  Congratulations, patriots!

Autumn Woods-II tentative map application denied unanimously. 

Autumn Woods Development  Autumn Woods Blog

The auditorium was mostly empty by the time the Commission convened to consider this development at 10:55 PM.

• Flooding: the area floods routinely from Whites Creek.  One area resident pays $2500 in FEMA flood insurance indicating a high risk.  Not only does the area flood, but the developer plans to redirect drainage through a 90-degree bend.  Neither the developer nor the county staff could give a reason to be confident that flooding wouldn’t continue.
• Traffic: the property is next door to the Montessori School on Zolezzi which has 240 students that must be dropped off and picked up every day.  Traffic onto Arrow Creek Parkway is already slow in either direction with the big, new apartment complexes on Zolezzi Lane.
• Incompatibility: the development design is unusual and new to Washoe County.  Basically, the residences will be duplexes where the shared wall is also the lot boundary.  This is not compatible with the master plan and represents an increase in density.
• Expired: Autumn Wood-I has been extended 8 years from the tentative map approval.  This is highly unusual and was done during the recession, apparently as an effort to support the local economy.  The drainage from Autumn Wood-II will require a change in the design of Autumn Wood-I.  This should probably require a new tentative map submission for Autumn Wood-I.

We should anticipate that this victory for residents may not hold.  The developers can expect a more sympathetic hearing from the Board of County Commissioners should they decide to appeal.  Catch up on your sleep.  We may need to do this again.