Regional Planning Governing Board Minutes

Regional Planning Governing Board
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 10, 2000, 2:00 p.m.
Washoe County Commission Chambers
1001 East Ninth Street
Reno, NV 89512

Chairperson Pierre Hascheff convened the meeting at 2:05 p.m. The Regional Planning Governing Board members present at the meeting were Council Members Dave Aiazzi, Sherrie Doyle, Pierre Hascheff, Geno Martini, Phil Salerno and Mike Carrigan; Commissioners Joanne Bond, Jim Galloway and Ted Short; Mayor Jeff Griffin. Tony Armstrong was absent from the meeting.

Mayor Jeff Griffin led the Board members in saluting the flag and the pledge of allegiance.

Emily Braswell noted the request to postpone Item VI involved a presentation by the Desert Research Institute. This item would be brought back at the March 9th meeting.

Jim Galloway asked if there was sufficient time, could this item still be heard today. Emily responded this was not possible for today's meeting.

Dave Aiazzi questioned Item VIII-2 & 3, and suggested these items be taken before item 1. He felt item 2 & 3 would go more quickly than item 1. Chairman Hascheff noted this would be considered when the meeting had progressed to that point. Chairman Hascheff reminded those in attendance about the process of filling out Comment Cards if they desired to speak on an item.



1. Minutes of the November 12, 1999 RPGB meeting



Howard Lambert, Spanish Springs resident, commented on a high voltage transmission line proposed by SPPCO to run from Tracy into the valley to a proposed substation called Sugarloaf. At a later date it would possibly run to Stead substation. He noted he was having a difficult time with this. The main problem seemed to be that SPPCO was apparently avoiding any kind of a real analysis of true alternatives for the route that would have less impact and cost less. He noted one example of a statement made by a lawyer representing SPPCO when he said this was not of regional significance. Mr. Lambert felt they were specifically trying to avoid the Regional Utility Corridor Report. He questioned why this was the case.

Sherrie Doyle requested that a Fire Advisory Board be scheduled as soon as possible. She stated, according to Mattie Shipman, the Fire Advisory Board has not been properly formed. With everything going on with fire consolidation, it is vital that such a board meets with all the information shared. The meeting should take place within the next seven days. She noted that if it could not be done as an advisory board, she suggested a meeting of the City Council along with Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District. She commented on all of the hard work put into the Fire Contract, which must now move forward to completion.

Chairman Hascheff directed Emily to work with the City Manager and County Manager for scheduling.


This Item was deferred for consideration at the next scheduled Governing Board meeting on March 9th.

1. RPGB-1 Spanish Springs Rural Community (TMRPA 99-030)

Scott Nebesky explained this 1999 amendment had gone through the full cycle and was now back for possible adoption. He noted this issue had gone to the RPC and the JAS members for consideration. Based on this review, both the JAS and RPC recommended this to be a major amendment, and therefore it should be forwarded and considered in the 2001 Regional Plan Amendment process. Staff made their recommendation in concurrence with this suggestion, in view of their findings. Scott noted this did not necessarily mean the continuance of sponsorship. It would in effect bring closure to this, sending it back to Washoe County to go through the CAB, the RPC and eventually on to the BCC.

Jim Galloway asked for clarification on such action that would bring closure. In the event it is not sponsored, then it would be treated as a new submittal through the normal process in the subsequent year. Scott stated if the Boardís action was NOT to amend the Regional Plan, then this file would be closed and a new process could start immediately through the applicant. Staff was suggesting that the RPGB would not continue to be the sponsor, but that the RPGB refer it back to Washoe County. Washoe County would then become the sponsor if they so desire.

Joanne Bond inquired how much public input was provided along the way on this project. Scott noted that public noticing was one of the challenges present whenever the RPGB sponsors an item. It does not necessarily go through local review first. In this case, the public hearings consisted of those at the RPGB level, and it was also referred back to the RPC and the JAS committee. This was never sent to the CAB, the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. If such direction was given, it would be redirected back, requiring notice to all the property owners.

Sherrie Doyle inquired if this was forwarded for consideration at the 2001 update, could Golden Valley also come up with their request for a similar designation. Scott noted this was a possibility. Depending on their action on the Spanish Springs issue, the outcome could very well affect other similar requests.
Discussion followed that putting off this issue until 2001 would allow time for the communities to develop "ground rules" for the definition of a rural community, also getting the buy-in of most of the neighbors.

Chairman Hascheff asked Emily to summarize the related action that was taken by the Joint Annexation Subcommittee on this specific issue.

Emily reviewed the history behind consideration of this issue. The RPC felt the JAS should discuss and make a recommendation on this issue. The JAS recommended that any amendment that changed, established or terminated a suburban or rural community boundary in any way should only be considered as major during the five-year updates. Because this particular amendment came through in 1999, and part of the amendment process includes a decision on whether it is major or minor, the RPC went ahead and made the decision that this is a major amendment and should be moved forward to 2001. Regarding Golden Valley, it has come forward through the County process for this year's amendment, which would be affected by the RPC's adoption of the JAS recommendation.

Sherrie Doyle questioned the time involved and if Spanish Springs had a comfort level to wait until 2001.

Emily stated she did not want to speak for the proponents, however it was her impression they liked the surety of review only coming every five years.

Joanne Bond commented that when she originally endorsed the sponsorship of this amendment, it was prior to the creation of the JAS with all the issues related to it. She felt there was probably not appropriate public noticing on this issue. Despite their feeling of being under the gun because of the power line, she was unsure that such a rural designation would solve the issues. In order to be consistent in sponsorship, now was the place to start.


Jim Galloway noted his support of the motion, but also commented on the implications this would have on Golden Valley, along with the items discussed in Item VIII of this agenda. A consistent view would require hearing comments before make a decision.

Chairman Hascheff opened public comment.

Howard Lambert, Spanish Springs resident, commented that this was not motivated by the power lines, although these were one of the factors. The request was motivated to preserve the rural lifestyle, which was the reason he moved to the area. He felt the designations are important and should be clearly stated to avoid misunderstandings. There should also be some flexibility to allow for change as needed or desired.

Gail Townsend, Spanish Springs resident, noted that she had come to this board in April 1999 to request this designation. She stated their motivation to receive recognition of what exists and has existed in their area for the past 20 years. Road through the community, power lines and high density communities asking to annexed into Sparks are all major considerations and concerns to those who live on the large parcels. That's what they bought and thatís what they want to maintain. She stated her understanding of a possible delay in order to be consistent, noting her willingness to work with other communities in preserving the rural areas. She did not consider this as a major change in the plan since the area has always been rural and they simply want to preserve it, not change it.

Lois Avery, President of Spanish Springs Valley Ranches Property Owners Association, stated her appreciation of the time the various committees had spent in consideration of this issue. She noted the power lines and an area of Lewis Homes south of La Posada that had a Sparks SOI change, which caused many concerns for their lifestyle. She noted the purpose behind the Regional Plan to allow visioning of what occurs in the various communities. It seemed a good time to state their desire to maintain the rural lifestyle. She noted that even the ten-acre parcels are currently zoned as general rural so no change would come in the zoning with this request. She agreed that the issue of major or minor determination to be very important. She felt the change of influence to sparks should have been considered major. She like the idea of considering the issue as major which would allow consideration of changes only during the five-year cycle. However, changing SOIís should also be considered major to be consistent.

Joanne Bond confirmed these were the reasons for forming the JAS group, to form criteria and process that is meaningful and consistent. Clarification of the major / minor issue should come out of that joint committee so that when people try to get something done, they can know how and why, along with assurance that it will stay in place for a certain period of time.

Lois stated that this issue did go through the CAB twice, but the individual property owners were not notified.

Joanne Bond repeated that she was asking this board not to sponsor the amendment at this point, but she assured Lois that she would introduce it at the Board of County Commission levels to get them started on the process for 2001.

Jim Galloway stated he was in favor of a five-year cycle consideration of sphere amendments. If it applies to any change for suburban or rural communities, he felt it should also apply to sphere amendments. He inquired if Emily had any comments on the status of this issue being considered by the JAS.

Emily noted that the JAS had directed staff to work with the Planning Directors from Washoe County, Sparks and Reno to develop a process to establish criteria and a process for setting SOI lines, as well as community, rural, suburban or any other kind of community boundary. She noted they had held one meeting where a four-step process had been outlined as a draft. A future meeting is scheduled to test this process. Emily felt they were close to agreeing on the steps, but the testing was still in process.

Geno Martini requested verification on the motion made by Joanne Bond. He asked if this should not be sponsored, without prejudice. Chairman Hascheff asked Emily to clarify whether this involved sponsorship or just referral.

Emily stated the actual action on this item was different than the other items on the agenda. This was already sponsored by the Governing Board in 1999, then it went to the RPC, with a whole series of things happening to develop the recommendation. The item before the board at this meeting is an action to accept the recommendation from the RPC that this is a major amendment and it should be addressed in the five-year update, or they can choose not to accept it.

Joanne Bond stated her intent HAD BEEN to accept the rpc recommendation in making the motion, which was again seconded by Ted Short.

Closed public hearing.

Chairman Hascheff repeated the motion to accept the RPC's recommendation and asked for discussion from the board members.

Sherrie Doyle stated her support of the motion, however, she noted future instances where the rules would require bending. If more immediate issues came up which meant Spanish Springs could not wait until 2001, she suggested bringing it back and moving it forward.

Phil Salerno inquired if the motion should include the three findings listed in the staff report.

Joanne Bond stated that she did wish the three findings to be included.



Chairman Hascheff stated he would be giving openings comments regarding the process to be followed, then staff would address key issues, along with legal council, then possible discussion at the Governing Board level regarding what options are available to them. He asked for comments from the Board members regarding Dave Aiazzi's suggestion that items 2 and 3 be considered first.

Dave Aiazzi stated he did not have any preference, but he was asked by one of the applicants who did not feel their item would not be a major issue, in the interest of time. Chairman Hascheff noted that the decision made on the Ballardini Ranch would have impact on items 2 and 3. He preferred to stay with the agenda as listed.

Ted Short noted that Mr. Alt had requested to be considered before Ballardini.

Jim Galloway noted that the decision on Spanish Springs had bearing on items 2 and 3 and these should be considered while the action was still fresh in their minds.

Sherrie Doyle stated her disagreement with Jim Galloway, noted she would like to consider the items in the order shown. She felt that any decision on Ballardini Ranch would have a significant affect on item 2.

Chairman Hascheff determined the agenda would be considered in the original order. He then reviewed the process, noting the opening of public hearing, written correspondence and the staff report. Questions and comments from the Board Members will be heard, then the proponent will be allowed to speak, along with the opportunity for opponents to speak. Chairman Hascheff noted his telephone conversation with Mr. Codega along with Mr. Walther, allowing these individuals up to five minutes for their comments. The general public would be allowed up to three minutes for their individual comments. After the public comment period is closed, it is strictly time for the Board to consider and ultimately come to a decision.
With respect to this item, Chairman Hascheff informed the audience of the issues before them for consideration. These included sponsorship, not adopting a plan amendment. He noted the high number of phone calls he and other board members had received where people had mistakenly thought this to be the case. These applications deserved to be considered for sponsorship, which would simply start the first step in public process. Because only sponsorship is the only item at issue here, the staff report states an admonition that the actual merits cannot be considered for the project at this time, to avoid pre-determination issues. Merits are considered during the lengthy public process and then brought back before the Governing Board. He stated he would stop any public comments that involved the merit of the project to avoid improper consideration.

Scott Nebesky explained those items that should be considered in deciding whether to sponsor these items. He referred to policy 35k of the Regional Plan, which gave six factors covering areas that should not be considered at this type of hearing. He noted their need to consider the overall characteristics and the timing as it relates to the local master plans and the schedule adopted by RPGB and RPC.

At a later date, the following items should be considered such as growth projects, issues related to existing and planned land uses, the planned public service capacities and service area boundaries, natural resources, fiscal impacts and other regional planning goals related to the quality of life. These are prescribed for consideration after the item has been sponsored and has come back for review of the actual amendment.

Chairman Hascheff also stated his understanding that during this hearing, the board would not be making a determination of major or minor. Scott confirmed this, noting policy 35g where it shows that the RPC is responsible for making that determination, not the RPGB. Part of that determination would include whether there is a significant regional impact on those factors described in policy 35k. Therefore, at this time, there is not even enough information to present for any deliberation to take place.

1. Ballardini Ranch (TMRPA 00-006)

Scott Nebesky noted this as a Regional Plan Amendment request by the property owner, from rural to suburban on a 425-acre portion of a 1019-acre project in southwest Reno. The remainder of the project, 594 acres outside of the Reno SOI will be addressed at a future date according to the applicant. Scott noted that the RPC, RPGB or the local agencies have the option of submitting a regional plan amendment. The consideration before the RPGB regarding sponsorship does not necessarily mean endorsement or approval. It means there is merit and that the item is consistent with actions done before. It allows more review of additional issues such as 35k, allowing greater depth. Scott then referred to the map to show the location and the current designations.

Scott noted in 1996, as part of that five year update, the City of Reno sponsored a similar amendment and it was sent forward to the RPC for consideration. Before it went into extensive discussion or public hearings, it was withdrawn by the applicant. Again, in 1997 a similar request for amendment was submitted to the City of Reno, but that never was actually submitted to the RPC or RPGB for consideration. Regarding procedures, Scott noted it was a bit unusual that the RPGB would be considering the sponsorship of an amendment of this character. In the past, amendments of land use and changes to community boundaries have been started at the local level, usually sponsored by the local jurisdictions. He noted that there are no particular procedures or criteria in the regional plan on how the RPGB should evaluate whether to sponsor or not.

Common practice has been that the land uses and community boundary changes have been sponsored through local jurisdictions which affords them the opportunity to go into depth to discuss the merits and substance of the projects, which is not allowed by the RPGB. Staff suggests that the RPGB consider the timing and the general character of the proposed amendment. The character was suggested to include items like circumstances that would have prevented submission under the normal schedule adopted by RPGB in October 1999, requiring that local jurisdictions sponsor amendments and submit them by December 30th. That schedule also allows consideration of amendments at this meeting. He also suggested looking at characteristics regional in nature. As an example, he noted that two types of amendments have been chosen for sponsorship in the past, those having to do with the Reno Stead Airport submitted by the Airport Authority and the Double Diamond Ranch which had implications of two governments working together for a solution.

Scott reviewed the staff conclusions and possible options shown in the staff report. In order to pass, this would require a simple majority vote of those members present. Scott also asked that clear direction be given to staff and the applicant on the intent of the motion. If the desire was to have this reviewed under certain circumstances, either under this amendment cycle or the next amendment cycle, this should be made clear.
Also, Scott noted that findings would have to be established in making their final action.

The four options were reviewed from page 28 of the information packets. When discussing option 1, Scott explained that the Regional Plan requires a recommendation to adopt from a local government, causing this item to go back to the City of Reno who would then have to make a recommendation to adopt this amendment. Then public participation would be needed, with this board having the ability to say to what extent that participation would be required. If the character of this amendment requires that public participation go beyond the City of Reno jurisdiction, the board could request involvement of Washoe County, the southwest CABs and the Board of County Commissions, if the board chooses to sponsor this.
Scott explained option 2 and the term "without prejudice" meaning their decision of not sponsoring the item was made without basing it on any evaluation of the merits, deficiencies or benefits of the proposed amendment. Any further deliberation or review of such amendment would require re-submittal during the next year's cycle.

Option 3 would basically mean taking this proposal back to the City of Reno. Scott noted this was problematic in that referring it back to the City of Reno would be implying sponsorship, because the window of opportunity would be extended by such referral.

Option 4 was reviewed, along with the possibility of referring this back to the RPC to have them make the determination of major or minor, then bringing it back to the RPGB, including this information as part of the RPGB's consideration of sponsorship.

Chairman Hascheff questioned Option 3 and asked if they would have the option of not sponsoring the item and referring it back the RPC to give them the opportunity for sponsorship. Option 3 seems to assumes the City would sponsor this. Scott noted the schedule adopted by RPGB, stating that January 26th was the last date that the RPC could consider sponsoring any amendments. This schedule is not by state law, it does however, try to comply with the annual review of the Regional Plan. Scott noted this schedule could be amended if they desired.

Mike Carrigan inquired what was the exceptional circumstance that brought this item to the RPGB as opposed to the City of Reno. Scott stated this should be asked of the applicant as to why they did not first go through the City of Reno.

Dave Aiazzi commented on the previous application submitted in 1996. He noted that he had read that it was not withdrawn, but merely tabled. He asked if there was specific information showing that it was formally withdrawn. Scott explained he had researched the records. He had not found a letter from the applicant, City of Reno, that they officially withdrew, however, according to the meeting minutes of the RPC and RPGB, there are references and itemized lists of amendments stated by Dave Ziegler, specifically identifying this one as being withdrawn. Scott also noted a member from Randy Baxley from City of Reno that characterizes a withdrawal of the amendment. It doesnít actually or officially say it was withdrawn. It was assumed that the 1996 request was withdrawn because of the new application submitted in 1997, which started a new process.

Dave Aiazzi inquired if there was a new property owner involved, would that require a new application?

Paul Lipparelli commented that the most critical aspect would be what happened to that application that was submitted, rather than who owned the property. He assumed that in purchasing the property, all rights titles and interests would go along with that purchase, along with pending applications.

Jim Galloway commented on option 2, referring to no prejudice against the merits, however it seemed it would be with prejudice in the usual sense that it could not come back to RPGB if that is the decision.
Scott stated his interpretation was that option 2 would mean the prejudice was not based upon the merits, it would be based upon the characteristics of it and the timing. The same application could come back at any time in the future. It would have to be part of the RPGB's specific direction not to allow the application to came back to them, by perhaps referring them to the City to go through the local process first.

Chairman Hascheff invited Paul Lipparelli to comment. Paul concurred with the comments made by Scott Nebesky regarding the procedures and actions before the board on this item. He added that the Plan itself does not contain criteria that must be used to make the decision about sponsorship, nor does the State Law contain criteria. In order for the record of this meeting to be sound and indicate the basis for the Boardís decision, he suggested when a motion is made, it should contain findings along the lines they are all familiar with in making land use decisions. This would allow any court who might review this decision or people who want to pick up the record of this meeting months from now could understand the basis upon which the decision was made. Ordinarily, such care may not be required because the criteria may be spelled out in the plan or statutes. In this instance, there is no criteria, so he suggested the motion contain findings.

Emily Braswell stated that two pieces of written correspondence had been received, one from Velma York and Phil & Helga Miller, dated 2/3 and 2/7/00 in opposition of sponsorship on this item. She also noted twelve telephone calls received in opposition of sponsorship from Sue Ellinconopik, Mrs. Ousterman, Connie Staphus, Floyd Lander, Susan Walsh, Steve Tillman, Chris Miller, Martha Hasbrow, Francis Harrington, Elisabeth Cally, Martin Gallantomini and Catherine Kershaw.

Emily acknowledged that she would obtain all written correspondence received by individual RPGB members would be taken account of an entered into the record of this meeting. The clerk collected the letters from the board members, each stating that they had received approximately 60 to 100 letters, most of which were in opposition to this sponsorship.

Jim Galloway noted that Pete Sferraza also wanted to convey his opposition to this sponsorship. Jim also made public disclosure that he had a meeting with Mr. Walther who represents a group, with Mr. Walther expressing his opposition to sponsorship. Ted Short thanked the people for their letters, noting only one out of 250 had been in favor of the item. He noted that sorting them by zip codes showed that twice as many people in the incorporated areas were against this as those in unincorporated area. Geno Martini noted receiving several letters along with 10-15 calls all against. Sherrie Doyle noted she had also received approximately 200 letters against this, along with several calls. She stated she had not brought the letters with her and would keep them for response. Sherrie said she had met with Mr. Codega and his group, Mr. Walther concerning this project. Dave Aiazzi stated he had received letters, calls and e-mails. He stated he had received more letters on this in two days than he had for 3-1/2 years regarding the Mapes. Joanne Bond disclosed that she too had had discussion with Mr. Codega and she had met with Steve Walther. Ted Short, Geno Martini, Jeff Griffin, Mike Carrigan and Phil Salerno disclosed that they had individually had met and/or had conversations with Mr. Codega and with Mr. Walther.

Chairman Hascheff disclosed that he had met with Mr. Walther, and spoken with Mr. Codega over the phone, also received several faxes and telephone messages regarding opposition to sponsorship of this amendment. He reminded all those who were about to give public comment that the Board could not listen to comments about the merit, only comments on the issue of sponsorship. If someone else has already covered their thought, they were welcome to simply state their agreement.

Open Public Hearing

Richmond Breen was called, however, Mr. Walther came to the podium and questioned who should be allowed to speak first, inquiring if the applicant should be first. Chairman Hascheff responded that this would be acceptable and called Jeff Codega up as the applicant. Mr. Walther continued his comments questioning the issue of process on this instance. He felt that many would disagree with the manner and procedure. Chairman Hascheff stated that Mr. Codega would be allowed to speak first for the allotted five minutes, then Mr. Walther would also be allowed the same time, at which time he could make his objections in regard to process. Mr. Walther asked if the process issue could be made separate from the other information since this would have a direct affect on the presentation to be made.

Jeff Codega and Councilman Dave Rigdon approached the podium. Dave stated he had asked Jeff to speak first since Dave had initiated this process. He felt he could answer the questions about why this venue was chosen. When he campaigned for his position, he did so on the basis of running government in an efficient and business like manner. This meant looking at use of means other than taxpayer dollars to accomplish goals as a region. The taxpayers have made it clear that they do not wish to be the first place we look for funds for such purposes as acquiring open space and building roads. Instead they have requested that we exhaust any and every other option before coming to them. What is before the board today is a private property owner who is coming to the various board members with an offer to build much needed infrastructure at no cost to the tax payers. In addition, they are offering to give one half of their land to set aside for public use, free of cost, including trail head and wild life improvements. He stated he did not know at this point if this offer was good, and felt no one else knew either since the process has not yet been initiated for the review process through CAB and NABs. All that is being asked is to initiate that public process so the determinations can be made, whether the offer has any merit. Not considering such an offer would go against the principal of running government in an efficient manner. Dave believed it would be a breech of their responsibility to the taxpayers.

Sherrie Doyle asked Dave's opinion of option 3 where RPGB would not sponsor the amendment but it would be referred to the City of Reno for review and recommendation, also putting in conditions requiring going through NAB's, and making it a joint planning area with the Southwest Truckee Meadows NAB/CAB. This would allow going through the City process, also talking about issues of suburban vs. rural, infrastructure and parks.

Dave Rigdon noted this was the main reason he brought to the RPGB instead of the City of Reno. He commented to Dave Aiazzi, Jeff Griffin and Pierre Hascheff that his group was constantly criticized that the City of Reno does not include the County, or the Regional players when they consider plans. They are accused of only including the City level where they are only beholden to incorporated residents of the City and not to the unincorporated residents. This was his effort to avoid such accusation by bringing this to the RPGB to start the process, along with the RPC to look at the issue to solve the regional parts of this issue. Then it could be directed back to the local government entity for actual individual planning involved, NAB, CAB process. He felt there were several regional issues involved such as open space and itís cost, traffic, regional form, and he felt these should be heard at this board where all entities are represented.

Ted Short was concerned that if all development come first to the Governing Board, before going through local process, it would cause problems. This board was not built for such consideration, did not have enough staff to perform investigation or research. The RPGB is simply not equipped for such a function. He noted he had heard several comments regarding the Ridgeview Road becoming the main entrance to this proposal. The RTC must look at these types of issues. Ted stated he would feel more comfortable to leave it to the local level as it should be.

Dave Rigdon responded that he did not want the RPGB or RPC to become the planning commission for the area and this was not his intent. However, he stated these issues do start at the broad level with regional land use designations. Then they are implemented on a local process through master plan amendments and actual zone changes, etc. Then they often come back as a project of regional significance once these other issues are gone through. Dave felt it was common for things to start at this level, dealing with broad regional issues, go to the local level, and then come back to the RPGB for final review.

Chairman Hascheff suggested hearing from Mr. Codega, Mr. Walther, then public comment before coming back to the board for further comment.

Jeff Codega, Planning Design, representing the property owner, stated it was not their intent to turn the Truckee Meadows upside down. From their perspective they felt there was a great need for planning in this area to address the issues. The concerns expressed by the public show the need for such addressing of the issues. The applicant felt the process itself was very confining from a time perspective, causing less than perfect communication. Jeff noted over the history of the amendment process that it has never been the same. He stated that every year, this body had extended the time frame, causing an ever-changing process. The owner of this property intends to move to the community in approximately one to two years. He desires to be a solid citizen and not ruin the property values, etc. The primary objective of this process is not so much get sponsorship, but to obtain specific direction. This could be referral to local jurisdiction, which would probably be City of Reno and Washoe County due to joint issues. Jeff noted the applicant did not necessarily feel this process had to be rushed and is willing to allow time for resolution of issues. He does not want to it to drag on and continue arguments. He is interested in establishing constructive dialogue to resolve the issues. The only option they did not support was option 2, which would give no direction to any other level.

Steven Walther, Protect our Washoe, respectfully disagreed on some issues. He noted that the board was being asked to sponsor an amendment. He noted that sponsorship required that certain things take place, quoting the rules that the RPGB may submit or sponsor proposed regional amendment. The next sentence showed that the submittal shall include a copy of the proposed amendment, a recommendation to adopt, which Mr. Walther assumed meant an informed judgment based on facts. Regarding evidence of public participation, he noted that no advisory boards or CAB or NAB had been noticed or given hearing. Sufficient supporting information to enable the RPGB or the RPC to make informed judgment had not been supplied.

Mr. Walther stated that the normal procedure had been obviated to bring it straight to this board who is not typically set up to deal with such a procedure. He again respectfully disagreed with staff's comments about the requirement to avoid hearing the merits. He inquired how the board could come up with some kind of criteria or pass judgment without hearing merits. He stated his feeling that this body should either dismiss this matter, taking it back without direction, or open it up for a full hearing on the merits, including whether or not this is major. Councilman Rigdon stated his reasons for coming before the RPGB because the issue had major regional impacts. It seemed contradictory that this fact could not be taken into consideration in their review. With this in mind, it seemed this process could not be carried out in fairness or in view of good planning. He suggested that another option was available to dismiss this, with prejudice, which meant that they would have to wait until any other major item would be considered during the five-year update.

Mr. Walther referred to policy 35g stating that the RPGB cannot make an amendment to the Regional Plan if it has a significant regional impact. He stated this applicant was proposing 1000 homes, but not stating what they planned for the other part of the property. This represented 10,000 trips per day on McCarran and Ridgeview. He felt it was being presented in this way by Councilman Rigdon, was to give some exit for the Ridgeview people, but instead it will 10,000 trips per day on a new four-lane road. They will not get a secondary access. He requested that this body dismiss this with prejudice as to this body, or go back, or hear in based on its merits including the major issue.

Mr. Walther summarized some of the history, stating that since 1983 Washoe County has worked with those citizens to protect major significant fragile parts of the area. They have adopted a fragile road system, the one regional plan of the County that has withstood the test of time. The County has followed this almost to the letter with some modifications after much work with the Citizens. There are two major properties involved, one being the Redfield property of approximately 4000 acres. Working with that developer, they have negotiated giving 1,500 acres to the County for open space to protect the foothills from the Mt. Rose Highway to McCarran. He questioned whether the city will allow that to take place with the Ballardini Ranch. He then referred to the map for clarification of the open space area. If the countyís plan remains in tact, this will touch Ballardini and Ballardini would provide a deer refuge along with an open area and access to the citizens of Reno forever. If the City or County decides they will abrogate what has been done thus far since 1983, then the whole plan will be lost, and this is the final piece of the puzzle. He asked that the report done by B. Kell, the Traffic Consultant for Protect our Washoe group. He stated that traffic report decimates the application before the board in terms of traffic impact. It states that road must be four lanes, it will advance the time for capital improvements for McCarran from the timetable. There is no traffic analysis to support the applicant's proposal and in fact it is so inconsistent, it should not be considered.

Chairman Hascheff reminded Mr. Walther that when he started talking about traffic issues, this was considered a point involving the merits of the proposal and could not be considered. Mr. Walther responded that he simply wished to point out that when something this broad is brought for consideration, the people should be given full ability to be heard, even before sponsorship takes place. To say something should be sponsored, trigger a process into motion, without hearing the basic merits does not make sense. He felt this would place the RPGB in a unique situation, since all the other bodies require such merit review. There is no good planning reason why the RPGB should initiate and start an expensive time consuming process that typically always takes place before the city or county.

The audience conveyed their support of Mr. Walther's presentation by loud applause. He asked those in the audience who opposed the sponsorship to stand up, with most in attendance doing so.

Chairman Hascheff acknowledged the sentiment of the audience in attendance. He referred to legal council in regard to running afoul of the rules, because ultimately whatever decision came about at this meeting could conversely come back to this RPGB. He did not want this board or a new board to face a determination issue if it does come back to the Governing Board as a plan amendment.

Paul Lipparelli agreed this was the essence of the advice being given by staff. The Governing Board is in a unique situation of potentially being the ultimate decision-maker on a plan amendment like this one might be. Because of that it would be inappropriate for RPGB to take a full position endorsing the project itself before the hearing processes have happened and all the input has been provided. It would not be consistent with his understanding of due process to have the RPGB decide on the project in the very beginning and then send it through the process and have the ultimate opportunity to make the decision on the amendment itself. He felt that the staff was trying counsel them again holding a full blown hearing about issues that are detailed such as traffic impact, environmental and regional impacts. Staff has been trying to suggest that in the absence of a clear set of criteria about how to make a decision on sponsorship, the board ought to confine themselves to deciding whether it is sensible to send this project forth outside of the ordinary time frames that the RPGB set up by adopting the schedule.

Jim Galloway inquired if there was in fact some substance to what Mr. Walther had stated. Recommendation to support is part of the criteria, possibly it is not intended to hold a full-blown hearing on the merits, but you find that there is sufficient information, sufficient potential merit in the project to support the sponsorship of the amendment at that point. Would that allow a limited touching on the merits, from the point of view of saying, why shouldn't this have gone through the normal process for which the deadlines have been missed.

Paul Lipparelli stated it would be rare when he would be counseling them to not take input to use in the decision making process. Whatever the Chairman and the rest of the RPGB feels is appropriate is what they ought to do. He noted they were merely suggesting that a hearing involving the actual merits of whether the plan amendment ought to be made, is in their opinion, inappropriate at this stage of the process. This is an opportunity for the Governing Board to decide whether to initiate the plan amendment process, putting it into the pipeline.

Joanne Bond stated her desire to see the Board make a decision whether they would be sponsoring amendments to the regional plan. If they decide to go ahead and sponsor, then perhaps they could consider some of the merits of the project. But first they must decide the sponsorship issue. She felt that any sponsorship carried a certain amount of endorsement. She was not willing to do so and she felt the board should not be sponsoring such amendments.

Mike Carrigan inquired of Councilman Rigdon and Jeff Codega, what exceptional circumstance brought them to the RPGB instead of going through local sponsorship.

Councilman Rigdon stated the exception circumstance included his feeling that this was a regional issue, not a local issue. He felt this was the place to bring such regional issues. He felt it was vital to at least initiate a process so they could begin discussing the issues. That was his main goal.

Mike Carrigan brought up the example of the D'Andrea Ranch in Sparks, he noted that Sparks sponsored that and the public hearings were held, before it was brought before the RPGB. He felt this was the proper process to follow in this case. Dave stated that if that was the correct process, then the policies in the Regional Plan should be changed to say this is the correct process as well. He stated he was simply following what was in the Regional Plan, stating that both the RPC and RPGB are bodies that can sponsor amendments.

Jeff Codega added that Reno did not have a sponsorship process this year because they had no applications. The Regional Plan has provided this as an opportunity to deal with sponsorships and he referred to the Double Diamond issue. In regard to D'Andrea he stated this body had decided to extend the time frame because they could not get it done by the end of the year for public process reasons. He stated they were comfortable in not having the sponsorship of the RPGB on this amendment, but they wanted some specific direction to get the process going.

Jeff Griffin commented on what the actual wishes of the RPGB members was on this issue. If there was no appetite for sponsorship, and to simply turn it down, it would save time to get this done. He stated it was not his intent to suggest one alternative over another, but he felt that each member had not yet made their own view known so that some guidance could be given to the public, the applicant, as well as Mr. Walther. He wished to continue the discussion among board members to get their views on possible action.

Chairman Hascheff explained this was built into the process, bringing it back to the table for member discussion. Potentially, if the decision is made not to sponsor, then give direction to staff . Then at that point, presumably, the board would not hear from the public. Jeff Griffin stated his feeling of why put the public through this if there is already a sentiment one way or another. He felt that knowing the sentiment up front would be helpful in their consideration. It might also have an impact on the number of people who felt compelled to speak.

Chairman Hascheff stated he would hear from each one of the board members. If there is a sentiment to actually sponsor, then they would hear from the public. If there is no sentiment to sponsor, he assumed that most people in the audience did not want sponsorship, then they could make that decision at the table.

Jim Galloway felt this was a good suggestion. If the public knew what kind of board they were dealing with, it may affect how much or little input they would like to give. He commented that the first thing he noticed about the previous times this board sponsored amendments there appeared to be a prior agreement between governments involved as to what should be done. So far as he knew, there was no such prior agreement in this case. He stated he had no knowledge of consensus on this and he had assumed that the County plan for this area was going to be pursued as described by Mr. Walthers. He felt that the original deadlines could have been met. Therefore, with the information he had at this time, he was strongly inclined to dismiss this or to adopt option 2.

Ted Short stated his feeling that this would set a precedent in sponsoring, which could have a devastating effect on the planning process. He firmly believed that a full public input at all levels, allowing all opinions to be heard. He noted Washoe County contemplating a bond issue for open space, and this would be considered if they could go forward with it. There is also some BLM money coming available in July, so he said he would be comfortable not sponsoring this amendment, letting it go back to the normal process.

Dave Aiazzi noted his observations that the developers in all cases deserve the right to know what the expectations are in the end, which seems to be what Mr. Codega is requesting. This would be a fair process, helping to avoid unnecessary languishing of a project for two or three years. Even if they are waiting for a bond issue or something else, at least there is a direction and future end to the process. Dave stated if this was sponsored or not, he felt there should be an end date specified by the RPGB, so they could know when it would be coming back through at some point in time. Dave felt this was an appropriate means for bringing some sorts of regional plan amendments to come forward through, and that is why it is in the policies. He did not feel this amendment should have been submitted in this manner. He reminded everyone that the area in question is in the Reno SOI already so sometime in the past, an entity did determine this was an appropriate part of the City. He also commented on Mr. Waltherís discussion about open space and Arrow Creek & Redfield properties. Dave stated that discussion only occurred after the developer came in and started developing the property, which should be kept in mind. To the County Commissioners, he noted that if the bond issue was to include this property, he suggested they contact the property owner to see if he is even willing to sell in the first place.

Chairman Hascheff reminded the board members the issue of whether to sponsor or not sponsor was the key point to consider. He encouraged comments on that subject specifically. He confirmed that Dave Aiazzi did not think this should be sponsored.

Sherrie Doyle stated her support of option 3, not sponsoring the amendment, but referring it City of Reno, extending that further to include Washoe County Planning Commission. Start it at ground zero and put it through the people directly involved. She noted part of the property is in Washoe County. Referring to the retreat held for the RPC and RPGB, they found that joint planning was desirable, and perhaps this could be a future joint planning area to allow consideration of issues, with or without a bond issue. A long-term plan could help secure that area for 20 years plus. She stated her agreement with Dave Aiazzi in setting a time limit. If it is determined to need a joint plan, it should come back to this board no later than January 2001, with a total plan picture.

Geno Martini felt they should not sponsor, and it should go back through the normal process, starting through a local entity and coming up through the process. This would allow plenty of time and information and the project could be reasonably reviewed. He stated his agreement with Mr. Codega's comments, this board needs to do something to get this process back where it should be.

Jim Galloway stated there was already a normal process, and counsel had already cautioned the board that if it is referred back to local governments, it may be continuing this matter, essentially so that it comes back in a subsequent year, but under the old rules. If anything changes in the Regional Plan, then it would not affect this. Jim did not feel this was appropriate. He also did not feel the County should be put into a position where it is almost directed to sponsor something they may not want to. They should use the process in place to submit a proposal, or to submit a joint planning proposal. Jim stated that the RPGB should not be mandating that process.

Jeff Griffin commented on what was considered a "normal" process. He stated that the Regional Plan, as pointed out by Councilman Rigdon, does allow the RPGB to sponsor, but it does not compel. He did not feel it should be described in some sinister way. The RPGB makes the decisions with the public observing through public meetings. Merely asking for consideration does not mean they are entitled to it or that they will get it. He commented on past conversations with Mr. Walthers and stated his own personal support of creating open space throughout the community, support past bond issues. However, he was dismayed that they were considering this area for open space, when the owner had not even been consulted yet. If a process is discussed, the absolute first step should be to talk to the property owner. He felt this was being avoided, although the community has resisted development of this area since 1988. At some time, the fighting must stop and planning must start. As a community dedicated to creation of open space, then the opportunity will come in the public arena, to put it on the ballot in November. He stated his support of open space, but he was not in support of sponsoring this amendment. He did support sending it back through the process that he hoped would include a discussion with the property owner, with subsequent input by CAB/NAB's etc. Then the RPGB would have the opportunity to consider something that has been through a complete process that has embraced the community as a whole. He noted his desire to adopt option 3, not sponsor the amendment and give clear staff direction as to what should happen while concurrently others work on getting the bond issue passed.

Joanne Bond felt that the board needed to designate their intent as to whether or not this would be considered under the existing 1996 Regional Plan, or if it would come in under the 2001 Plan. When the motion is made, she felt this should be specified.

Mike Carrigan stated he did not feel there was any exceptional circumstance shown as to why this was brought to the RPGB. He did not want to sponsor this amendment, he felt it should be sent back to Reno and Washoe County for their process.

Phil Salerno stated he did not agree with the process, which brought this directly to the RPGB. With the testimony and information provided to him, he did not feel he could support sponsorship of this amendment.

Emily Braswell requested clarification of the term being used "normal process". She wanted to confirm that they meant the local government process, and the members agreed.

Jim Galloway stated he meant the process by which this Board simply says yes or no to sponsorship. If this board says no, then further submittal would come through the next cycle through a local government. It is up to that local government to make that submittal.

Chairman Hascheff stated he understood the board members had no appetite to sponsor this amendment. The next issue to decide was to give staff direction. If the vote was not to sponsor, without prejudice, then it would go back through the planning process and would be part of the 2001 update. The other option would be not to sponsor and refer it to the City of Reno with some clear direction on whether it would be under the 1996 plan or part of the 2001 update.

Scott Nebesky stated the first option of not sponsoring, and it implication of what plan under which to review it, could be addressed by legal council. The question came up of whether they could not sponsor the amendment and yet still give it direction and keep it active, being reviewed under the current plan, or bringing it to complete closure, having it resubmitted and reviewed under 2001 update Scott cautioned that with the new update coming forward, staff and board members would have a difficult time evaluating this project at the same time evaluating a new regional plan. This project may or may not conflict with the existing plan, but it may conflict with some of the new policies being proposed. It would be very difficult to debate under the overlapping of the plan and proposed update.

Paul Lipparelli stated he did not know of a way that the board could decline to sponsor this amendment and still have this process go forward under the 1996 plan. The time frame is expired for the 2000 plan amendments, therefore, by definition, it will be in 2001. This will be a time, by statute, when the board will be updating the plan. No one knows what the update will consist of, and there would certainly be challenges involved in evaluating a project at the same time the plan is being updated.

Chairman Hascheff inquired if the board desired to hear from Mr. Walthers or Mr. Codega again. The board members declined to hear any further comments.


Chairman Hascheff clarified that this was not a judgment of the merits of the case, it was simply a motion not to sponsor at this time and send it through the local process. It would be considered under the 2001 update.

Jim Galloway asked that the following findings be added to the motion, that there was no prior agreement between local governments concerned regarding this request, and that there was opportunity for this submittal to be property made under the deadlines now expired.

Sherrie Doyle stated she would be much more comfortable if the motion was option 3 which would not sponsor the amendment, but would refer it back to the City of Reno and Washoe County, to let the two planning commissions and staff make a start at getting CAB/NABs involved and get started on a joint planning area. She wanted to see it come in under the 2001 update but she was not happy with option 2. She felt it was vital to have both planning commissions involved.

Dave Aiazzi inquired if there something so wrong with the current plan that this could not be considered under it. He was getting the impression that it was fouled up and had to be fixed in 2001. He understood the rest of the motion, but he had not heard anyone discussing any major problems in the current plan. This related back to the original point of consistency heard from the staff, stating it would be difficult to evaluate anything in this time frame while they are going through the process of the 2001 update. If there are no major addition or change to made to that, we donít know if it will be for the better.

Joanne Bond stated that it was likely that the rest of these amendments would be asked to come back under the 2001 plan, and she could not make an exception.

Emily Braswell commented for clarification, that in facing the 2001 update, which begins July 1, 2000. The process requires that the entire plan is revisited. It was only brought as a matter of clarification that it be clear to the board that if it is not heard as part of this cycle, if the RPGB does not sponsor it, if it must go back through the local government process, then it will by definition come under the 2001 update because that will be the plan in effect when it comes forward. Staff wanted the board to understand this point. It is not an indication of the value toward the current plan, only a timing issue which affects this item.

Dave Aiazzi asked what time frame someone could expect if they put a plan forward for the 2001 update, in view of the process to get approvals of the plan. Emily noted the intention would be to have the new plan adopted by July of 2001. Normally, the process involved the local government require any submittal of amendment to them be made in September, the RPC sets a deadline for local government sponsorships of December 31st, with a schedule set to end by May. It may be longer than that, but the summer is the target.
Dave Aiazzi then stated these could be on parallel tracks, but how could they be evaluated on the merits of a plan that hasn't been adopted. Emily noted they would bring forward any changes in a two-tiered process by which they would bring forward the plan itself, then the implications of each amendment. Emily reminded them that she had brought forward in the form of a draft, a concept of how the new plan will be done. That plan would include a five-year annual update methodology, an annual reporting methodology and an amendment methodology to clean up some of the process problems experienced in the past. She noted the work already started on the individual elements of the plan. Working with staff and the JAS group in testing that part of the element, if it works, it would become an element of the new plan.

Chairman Hascheff intervened, stating that if the applicant has to go through the local process into the update, they would probably be back before the RPGB in the Summer 2001.

Jeff Griffin restated that he would support option 3, not sponsoring the amendment. He noted their experience during the 1996 update, and that none of these amendments would have been addressed for a period of two years. He noted that deadlines are routinely extended. He felt it would a couple of years time and he did not think this was desirable for any of the issues.

Joanne Bond asked if some kind of compromise could be done legally, whenever the projects come to RPGB after they've gone through the local process, if the 2001 plan is not in place, the evaluation would be done under the existing plan. She felt this was fair for everyone.

Jim Galloway felt this was not the issue before the board and it would have far reaching implications. This particular proposal, had it come in under the deadlines already expired, would have been clearly under the 1996 plan. There has already been a compromise.

Chairman Hascheff asked staff to respond to Joanne Bond's question.

Paul Lipparelli commented on the item on the Agenda under Item VIII-4, Other Amendments, which was an opportunity for the RPGB to identify any other amendments desired. He felt this might be a place to suggest that be done and brought back on a future agenda, called "extension of deadlines for project submittal in an interim situation". He did not feel it would be appropriate to take action on today's agenda on the ultimate question of how to handle this gap period.

Chairman Hascheff wanted clarification that if the board took the compromise approach, that it should be deferred. Paul explained no, not the item itself, but under Item VIII.-4, if it is the will of the RPGB, have a motion made that says at the next meeting of the RPGB, an item be on the agenda which would authorize the agency to process plan amendments for that time period being discussed, in effect extending the deadline as has been the custom in the past.

Emily stated her preference, that if the board wanted staff to schedule a parallel process so that amendments that are begun in the fall of 2000 fall under the 1996 plan, while the new plan is developed, she wanted to bring that forward as part of the schedule for the new plan update and for the next year's schedule. She would bring this back the RPGB as a schedule showing those amendments that would be considered 2001,
2002 amendments.

Regarding the procedural issues, Chairman Hascheff inquired if in order to accomplish the compromise, would this issue have to be tabled. Emily stated she was being directed to have the next yearís amendments under the 1996 plan and that they wanted at the same time to develop the 2001 update, that it would not be in affect and would not impact anything that came in during the fall of 2000.

Jim Galloway stated he had no objection to putting that suggestion on the next agenda. By that time it would allow for consultation with planning staff and consider implications. He interpreted this that if the board decides to do this later, it should be done for all amendments. It would apply to a re-submittal of this amendment. But he did not want to decide it at this time.


Jeff Griffin asked if the motion was to support option 2, not sponsoring the amendment. He asked if it was the intention of this board to bring this back under Item VIII-4, stating the board would like it handled in the fashion described by Emily. Ted Short stated that was not part of this motion. Discussion followed regarding some confusion about the motion.

Chairman Hascheff stated his understanding of the motion was not to sponsor, with the findings stated, and for it to be considered under the 2001 update.

Emily restated her understanding that they did not want this considered under the 2001, therefore she would draft that the 1999/2000 amendments, the schedule currently under consideration, would be under the 1996 plan. Amendments coming in the fall as part of the 2000/2001 cycle could also be heard under the 1996 plan. Amendments submitted for the following year 2001/2002 would be heard under the 2001 update.

Dave Aiazzi stated his understanding of the motion, to accept option 2. The other issue would be brought up later, to allow a developer or anyone else to make a plan amendment, extend the deadline and get into the 1996 plan amendments. The motion at this time was just to refuse sponsorship.

Sherrie Doyle stated she would not support this motion. If it was refused outright, then it doesnít go in the right direction. She felt it needed a clearer direction to go from this point.


Chairman Hascheff called a recess at 4:10 p.m. Chairman Hascheff reconvened the meeting at 4:25 p.m.


2. Alt Property (TMRPA 00-007)

Scott Nebesky noted that many of the issues already discussed and decided upon were relative to this issue. This was a smaller amount of land, but it had some unique circumstances. He noted the property owner, Joseph Alt, has submitted application for an amendment to the community boundaries to expand the SOI on a ten-acre parcel in Golden Valley. Scott showed the parcel on the map. Then showed the area already proposed for a rural community, proposed by Washoe County so there is a clear contradiction in what this property owner is trying to achieve. He also pointed out the location of the McMullen properties and Beckworth Drive areas for orientation. The Golden Valley area included many areas involved in proposed amendments. Scott noted the applicant was not asking for any change in the land use, which was identified as suburban, he is only asking for a change in the boundary which would give him the opportunity to hook up to municipal water/sewer. He is also reacting to the proposal by Washoe County. This is also a submittal for sponsorship, like the previous items.

Sherrie Doyle noted previous requests for bigger picture map of Golden Valley. She also commented on considerations of the sewer interceptor proposed for that area. She again requested such a map for future meetings. She felt uncomfortable sponsoring this small sliver of land, because more would certainly be coming through, such as the Tobler property and School issues. She asked for a timeline showing every issue coming up such as annexations, SOI's, etc.

Scott stated there were many issues involved in the whole Golden Valley area He suggested the board giving direction to staff to look at the big picture comprehensively. He noted the example of the Reno Stead Joint Corridor plan, created specifically because of the incremental changes into the SOI and land uses. He suggested looking at all the properties on the east side of US395 in the Golden Valley area, considering all the proposed amendments comprehensively, along with any other items that might precipitate out of the public review process. Regarding Tobler or the School, Scott stated no contact had been made to the TMRPA on these issues as of this date.

Ted Short asked the status of the Golden Valley Rural community. Scott noted this had been submitted by Washoe County. A schedule to review all the amendments, for review all together, was underway. He noted they were waiting for some conclusions from the Joint Annexation Subcommittee. Upon these conclusions, there should be additional criteria on how to evaluate all the proposed amendments. The issue has been sponsored by Washoe County so it is in the ìhopperî, it has to go through the RPC and the RPGB. Scott noted is was submitted toward the end of December 1999.

Dave Aiazzi acknowledged that these items were considered in the right order due to their impact on each other. He confirmed that the property owner was not asking for any changes in the land use. He commented that perhaps extenuating circumstances were involved in this case. Mr. Altís request was apparently being submitted at this time in response to the County's proposal for a rural community, which was already in process. This person wanted protection from the Countyís request for rural community status. Dave felt this was a good example why the rule existed, allowing the RPGB to sponsor amendments in this situation. He felt that things had happened beyond Mr. Altís control so he was asking the RPGB to sponsor. Dave then asked what difference such an SOI change would make to either the city or the County and why would it be denied?

[Geno Martini left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.]

Scott noted that anyone has the opportunity and right to submit a regional plan amendment. Whether it's an appropriate amendment that should be sponsored by a local government, the RPC or the RPGB, or whether it should ultimately be adopted, should be evaluated in context with the bigger picture. This is a reaction to the Countyís submitted proposal, so perhaps the whole picture and process should be looked at comprehensively.

Jim Galloway commented on the JAS recommendation that any establishment, change or termination of suburban or rural communities be treated within the five-year cycle, and considered major amendments. Out of consideration of that, he had suggested not to support item VII-1 with the expectation that the board could be consistent. He stated his intention to decline sponsorship on this amendment, only so it can also go through the five-year cycle, which would be consistent.

Joanne Bond noted that part of the issue was notification of property owners that would be impacted by a specific designation. She acknowledged that Mr. Alt had been en route moving from one place to another so he did not know about any of the meetings. Aside from that he has indicated a desire to be annexed to the City of Reno, which is what generated the concern about having a rural community designation. She agreed that several properties would be impacted by any decision that is made to designate a rural community. Perhaps a joint planning effort would be the best way to proceed. She felt the JAS committee should look at this issue and determine how it can be best dealt with.

Sherrie Doyle requested that this be continued until the next meeting, when perhaps they could have the map showing all the properties and issues coming up. She suggested talking with Joanne Bond, herself and
Pete Sferrazza about what is real, perceived and rumored to be coming to the Golden Valley area. This would allowed a firmer handle on the entire group of issues.

Scott noted a challenge for staff would be the timing, and having this information available within one month. All property owners should be afforded notification, as an opportunity to come forward to identify their interest, if any.

Sherrie Doyle commented that this was discussed at the Counsel level, but it was apparent it had not made it through the proper communications 3-4 weeks earlier. She noted the subject of the sewer interceptor coming before them on the 15th. She noted they held off on this because they wanted to see the whole picture, also because that sewer interceptor was going into that proposed rural designation, which was a concern. She noted the sewer issue could be deferred again, but she did not feel comfortable say yes or no to the Alt proposal until she saw all the issues in Golden Valley.

Chairman Hascheff noted that John Hester had such a map. He noted that they could ask John to show the map to help with any decisions.

Jeff Griffin asked if this would be handled the same way as Ballardini, perhaps reintroducing the Spanish Springs Rural Community proposal. He asked if this could be done, to give them time. Scott Nebesky stated, for consistency, they could take the same approach. Jeff suggested bringing it back under VIII-4, handling it under the 1996 guidelines, as long as they come in by Fall 2000. He commented that he felt differently about the small Alt property, in comparison to the big issues of Golden Valley and the large subdivisions. His property would not make any profound affect on the other property.

Scott reminded them that, according to their direction in the Ballardini issue, staff would come back to them with a schedule and process to address their concerns of how to handle these proposed amendments that are under the old plan or the new plan, and what that time frame is between. This would be consistent.

Ted Short stated his agreement with Jeff Griffin. He stated the need for consistency. Not sponsoring this would be no reflection on Mr. Alt, with whom Ted had a conversation with that day. He has other options such as going to the city for annexation.

Chairman Hascheff commented on making sure of consistency with all of these requests for sponsorship by the RPGB. Ultimately, staff would be directed to come back at the next agenda with some kind of plan to deal with these proposed amendments that are in the pipeline and the timing process. Scott noted this would incorporate their concern that the local review process is where things should start.


Jim Galloway noted that this would then have to be submitted under the next cycle. The rules of that cycle may be decided at a later time. He seconded the motion on this basis. He asked Joanne if she would accept the findings that this is a potential impact on an area proposed to be a rural community and that there was an opportunity for this proposal to be brought forward earlier.

Chairman Hascheff did not have a speaker card, but he asked Mr. Alt if he wanted to speak at this point.

Joe Alt, property owner, noted his concerns had been represented. He questioned the State Law about being contiguous to the City of Reno, which would allow going into the City. He had heard many different opinions and wanted to have this dealt with so the confusions could be cleared.

Paul Lipparelli commented that the question was whether the alternative annexation statute is an alternative to the entire rest of the chapter on annexation regardless of whether itís a County who has an annexation program designated or not. Unfortunately for Mr. Alt, it is not appropriate for the public lawyer to be counseling a private citizen on whether he has a legal right or not. All he could tell him was that in conversation with the Joint Annexation Subcommittee, the subject of that statute and what it applies to, has come up. It was his opinion that there is a potential that it is available to a property owner, but he was not advising Mr. Alt that this was a right that he had. This interpretation of the statute may be argued.

Jeff Griffin stated it seemed straightforward, that if the land was contiguous, then the SOI must be approved, then annexation could go forward. He was going through the steps in the proper order.

Mr. Alt noted having several conversations with various individuals, noting their comments that if the land was contiguous, perhaps the SOI was not at issue, but annexation could be accomplished.

Dave Aiazzi commented on the JAS discussions, that state law has been interpreted by some people, that if the land is contiguous to the City, the whole process could be bypassed, going to State courts to get what is desired. Legal counsel was trying to explain the language in the law exists, but it is not clear cut and could be argued as it applies to Washoe County, Reno and Sparks. He suggested Mr. Alt talking to his own attorney about that option.

Chairman Hascheff asked if anyone else in the public wished to speak on the Alt Property issue.

Gail Townsend stated her concerns how all the amendments affect everyone. She commented that when her area first requested rural designation for Spanish Springs, they were unsure how to proceed. Her concern was if they considered rural communities, they should all be considered at one time, along with SOI changes. The same rules should apply to everyone. Just because Spanish Springs was first on the agenda, she did not want to be last in consideration. It seemed very simple in the beginning, but is now shown to be very complex in the public airing process. She wanted to be sure that Spanish Springs didnít lose out on any kind of exception or changes, with consistent consideration.

Chairman Hascheff stated that this was the concern of all the board members as well, to provide equal treatment.

Sherrie Doyle stated the priorities of Golden Valley out-weighed those of Spanish Springs at this time. Urbanization seemed to be breathing down Golden Valley's neck and Mr. Alt's request was the first indication of this. She requested that either JAS or RPGB should view the Golden Valley, and try to make logical decisions when the Sphere and annexation plans come in.

Closed Public Hearing

Chairman Hascheff reminded the board that the motion under consideration was not to sponsor the amendment, seconded by Jim Galloway with the findings.


3. Verdi/Mogul Suburban Community (TMRPA 00-008)

Scott Nebesky summarized this proposal for amendment to expand the boundaries. The specifics on those boundaries or where they would extend to was not available. The property owners had not yet been notified since this was merely the opportunity to sponsor. He gave general orientation on the map. He referred to Joanne Bond for further explanation of the proposed changes.

Joanne Bond stated this was very premature, with no specific boundary change information available, and no public notification.


Chairman Hascheff opened public comment, noting the owner as Harry Bennett. Scott noted that Mr. Bennet was only one of the property owners, but was concerned about this item on the agenda. Chairman Hascheff read the message from Mr. Bennett taken at the TMRPA office. He had called on 2/10/00 to express the following statements related to the Verdi/Mogul Suburban Community proposal: (1) Property could be served by community sewer and water via the Sunset project and (2) Property supports and is compatible with the higher density. Chairman Hascheff noted Mr. Bennett's comments would be included in the record.
Jim Galloway asked if Joanne Bond would include in her motion the findings that the JAS had recommended that the establishment or expansions of these communities be considered under the five-year cycle. Discussion followed regarding the need to include findings with each motion per legal counsel's suggestion.


4. Other Amendments

Scott Nebesky stated this item was requested by the City of Reno to give the opportunity to identify some other amendments not yet defined.

John Hester, City of Reno, noted at their council meeting they considered sewer connection into the city for a 74-unit subdivision, which was located within the area proposed to become the Golden Valley Rural community. Sherrie Doyle correctly pointed out the issues involved, with this applicant agreeing to annex to the city and support a sphere amendment that was in direct conflict with the proposed rural community. The discussion then led to the need for a comprehensive map of the all of these areas outside the Reno sphere where that kind of sewer service exists. In the last 18 months they asked for a waiver protest of annexation as well as an agreement to a sphere amendment. Reno staff's analysis at this time is that the Golden Valley site represents two conflicting issues which must both move forward for consideration to resolve the issues. He requested that this be put on the agenda in the future for sponsorship. They would work with TMRPA to give more information.

Joanne Bond asked why this was not going through the local process. John stated this request came through only one month ago asking for sewer service. This was not noted as extraordinary circumstances.
Sherrie Doyle noted that the interceptor would not just service 74 homes, it would also probably serve the future high school and many other properties such as the McMullen, Alt, and Tobler, which would include commercial and urban housing. Tobler had not specifically proposed anything to the city.

John Hester noted this was discovered when they were getting ready to go into a sewer agreement. Joanne Bond acknowledged the need for the sewer additions, but she did not understand the need for the RPGB to sponsor this item. John explained that the applicant had a tentative map approved by the County, which was about to expire because he did not have sewer service. He then came to Reno and asked for sewer service which was then put on their agenda for consideration. John stated he had received direction two weeks ago to compile information to bring this forward to RPGB to request the item be put on a future agenda for consideration of sponsorship. They did not expect action today since it was not a specific part of today's agenda.

Jim Galloway commented that they did not have the authority to keep someone from putting an item on a future agenda, however in view of the day's actions and discussion, he asked that this not be put on the agenda. Jim did ask that a future agenda item be included which would cover submittals of the next cycle being judged against the 1996 plan or the 2001 plan. He suggested this pattern be discouraged.

Jeff Griffin desired to put it to a vote, deciding whether to put it on the agenda for discussion. He felt they were discussing merits again.


Emily Braswell requested clarification since there had been discussion about a joint planning area, grouping this concern with other concerns. Jeff Griffin noted his motion was strictly for the parcel pointed out by John Hester. Chairman Hascheff noted this would give TMRPA staff time to address the issues such as joint planning which would help the board decided the issue of sponsorship.

Sherrie Doyle stated her desire to see definitive answers of what impact this project would have on a designated rural community. Will the lines have to be pushed back? John Hester noted these types of questions would be better answered after sponsorship had been established. Then both the City and County Staff, along with TMRPA staff could put together a information packet.

Bob Sellman, Washoe County, stated his concerns that there is a process to submit these before the Counsel, which includes the appropriate jurisdiction to give sponsorship. If it is an annexation issue, the jurisdiction looking at the annexation should be the traditional sponsor. That process is in place and should be followed. One deadline is closed and the next cycle has begun. A future discussion will be how to judge those future amendments, and staff was asking that they followed the process. An inherent problem with this jurisdiction sponsoring these amendments now, is that there are many people we tell the schedule. They may be turned way many times so it is a fundamental issue of due process and fairness.

Ted Short agreed with Bob Sellmen on using the existing process. He did not feel comfortable making so many exceptions and making this the court of last resort for those wanting to get in under the wire. He again stated that previous amendments sponsored by the RPGB involved joint agreements, which none of the amendments presented at this meeting had. There was not basis for sponsorship in that perspective.

Dave Aiazzi also stated the process in place should be used. RPGB should only deal with exceptions. He felt these were coming forward in reaction to the County proposal for a rural community and these property owners did not want to be part of that. Dave did not agree that they were no following procedure and that some corners were being skirted. He did not feel it was an exception to make them come to this board, they were simply using allowances in the rules. So far they were being turned away, but that did not mean this was not a feasible process they were following.

Mike Carrigan observed that the exception being used continually dealt with time. All of these amendments did not make a time frame, which was not a good enough reason for an exception. Dave commented that these seemed to be more of a response issue. Mr. Alt was responding to a rural designation. If he had know sooner, the time would not be an issue.

Sherrie Doyle commented that back in April no one knew where the high school was to be placed, along with developers and sewer placement waiting to see where things would be placed. When the school was approved, all the back-burner issues came forward with everyone trying to get their requests approved.

Jeff Griffin noted that the Master Plan update would push these things out so they are clearly trying to beat that issue. He asked Scott what the normal time for the cutoff for submissions. Scott stated it was December 30th. He noted that this had been met by local jurisdictions. Some of the amendments have not be complete and required additional planning process such as Somerset. It was submitted with a number of issues identified which required extension of review in 1996. Scott noted in his memory, most of them have been accepted and processed within the schedule. For the most part, the amendments were adopted between May and July. Scott noted the local governments have until December 30th, then the RPC has the opportunity to review those amendments and identify if there are any other regional issues that need to be addressed during this amendment cycle, on January 26th. The RPGB has that same opportunity today to look at the landscape of all the amendments and the current conditions of the region to see if any other regional issues that need to be addressed through the amendment process.

Jeff Griffin asked if it would fair to characterize it as being at the discretion of the RPGB to entertain any amendments. This would be the sponsorship issue.

Chairman Hascheff offered his comments regarding VIII-4, that this was an example of someone coming to the RPGB, saying here is an item they wanted to have sponsored. Because the item is not specifically identified, the RPGB could not sponsor it today. It must be put on the next agenda for consideration of sponsorship by the RPGB. He felt if such an item is on today's agenda, then anyone who requested future placement of their request on the next agenda would be granted that consideration. At that time of a future agenda, then the reasons for or against may be heard in detail. Just putting in on a future agenda does not mean it will be sponsored.

Jim Galloway stated that time could be saved by Reno just putting this on the next agenda instead of having this discussion. Scott noted this item was to cover the possibility of anyone having an item they wished to bring on the next agenda, not just Reno.

Emily noted that it did require being brought up at this meeting, with direction to staff to consider for sponsorship or not. Today is the last day shown on their schedule that they could choose to consider sponsorship. The question is if the board wants to consider sponsorship of this amendment. Unless the schedule is changed, no one can bring any more amendments forward this year. Jim Galloway still felt it should not be put on the next agenda.

Joanne Bond stated her concern that it would appear that they were asking communities wait until the JAS committee comes forth with some priorities and process and such, but individuals are going to have consideration by this board on whether or not to sponsor their amendment. She stated on the other three items that she did not want to sponsor those amendments at this time until the JAS committee could review and give guidelines. Now individuals that have a steak in the matter in terms of annexation or access to sewer, etc., and we seem to be giving them more consideration. This was not consistent.

Emily noted the motion under consideration was to bring this item back as an agenda item on March 9th to consider sponsorship.


Jeff Griffin asked to consider Ballardini Ranch under item VIII-4 also. Jim Galloway commented that when and if that was brought back with a re-submittal, the question brought up was what plan under which it might be considered, 1996 or 2001.

Emily noted that an amendment was not needed, they simply needed to direct staff to bring back a proposal for the 2001 update and the 2000-2001 amendment cycle.

Jeff Griffin requested an item be placed on the next agenda of the RPGB regarding sponsorship of an amendment to include the Damonte Ranch within the Reno SOI. This would not include land use changes of the land use or regional public facilities, it would only put consideration on the next agenda.


Chairman Hascheff asked to hear from staff members and any public input.

Ted Short read a letter from Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, concerning Item VIII-4, Nevada Tri Partners/Damonte Ranch. The letter expressed the strong objection by Washoe County to consideration of any application for Regional Plan Amendment allowing for subsequent annexation of the Damonte Ranch particularly outside the normal process. 1) Neither the Reno adopted SOI nor adopted annexation program includes the Damonte Ranch property. 2) A three year public planning process with the people of the south Truckee meadows area, the developer and the County, led to the adopted plan which was found in conformance with the Regional Plan by the RPGB in December 1997. The citizens deserve to have the adopted plan implemented as is currently underway. 3) The interlocal agreement recently signed July 1999 by the City of Reno and Washoe County regarding which water treatment service specifies that in any future annexation, the City would pay to the County the difference between the County and the City sewer service rates paid by the customers. The difference comes because the municipal sewer was largely paid for with federal money, Washoe County sewer being paid for with taxpayer money. At the buildout, this would cost Reno an additional and unnecessary $600,000 per year, for the Damonte Ranch. As a property owner in the City of Reno, Ted noted he did not want to subsidize this cost. 4) Changing the City of Reno SOI and the annexation program would provide no added benefit to the citizens and would negatively impact revenues to Washoe County by reducing consolidated taxes that are provided for in the approved plan. This negative impact would further be compounded over time. 5) Because the County has implemented both impact fees for flood control and drainage in the Southeast Truckee Meadows area, and is in the process of implementing operation and maintenance fees for the same, there would have to be agreements entered into between the County and Reno to address flood control and drainage issues. Certainly discussion on this issue should proceed any application on an action for an amendment to the Regional Plan.

Ted Short stated there was absolutely no evidence of circumstance that prohibited the compliance with the usual process. This was never a regional project jointly planned or sponsored. It was done by the citizens, the community development and the developer in that area. If this board goes ahead with this, it would negate the whole purpose of the Regional Plan. The above letter would be entered into the letter.

Sherrie Doyle restated that this motion would bring the item onto the next agenda, at which time any discussion for or against could take place. This would hopefully include people from the area saying if they do or do not want to come into the City of Reno. She noted this was not the result of baiting that area to come into Reno and hearing the item would be fair for the Damonte Ranch people.

Dave Aiazzi commented on Katy's letter, particularly item 4 which stated it would not provide any added benefit to the citizens. This was incorrect in Dave's opinion. Because this is being dealt with in the Fiscal Equity Study, and because citizens in both Cities pay for people in the unincorporated areas, then here is an opportunity for a large development in an unincorporated area who wants to come to the City, and start paying city taxes to pay for the impacts of their existence. He stated there were 28,000 approved and un-built homes in the unincorporated counties. Reno and Sparks have less than 12,000 together. This is a big part of the problem. Reno and Sparks will be paying impacts for those residents coming in, which is a major reason why this should be considered on the next agenda.

Mike Carrigan again asked why this case was exceptional and why it did not come through with Reno as the sponsor.

Emily noted that because of the timing, only the RPGB could sponsor this at this time. The local sponsorship process closed in December. Dave Aiazzi noted the only reason it was exceptional was due to the property owner coming forward between December and this date to come into the city. Dave asked why it was such an issue when someone wanted to come into the City. Mike Carrigan responded it was a matter of abiding by the time frame like everyone else must do. He gave the example of applying for college entrance. If your application is late, you must try again next year.

Discussion followed regarding extenuating circumstances coming up during times like this when the local process has already closed. This rule gives the option for the request to be at least heard.

Chairman Hascheff stated this would just get the item on the agenda so that at that time the merits could be discussed. Mike did not feel there was any exceptional circumstance given. Pierre noted such exceptional circumstances could be explained when the item appears on the agenda.

Jim Galloway commented if there was even a plausible circumstance in this case. He commented on what the JAS considered, and the bill stating that sphere amendments could only go through on the five year cycle. If that bill had passed, this proposal would not be able to come forward now. They put that bill aside, on ice, an issue that the JAS is working on to address the issue of predictability. He noted putting this on the next agenda would run it through this cycle instead of waiting for the five year update. Other items were put on hold to wait for the JAS direction. He did not feel there was plausible grounds to put it on a future agenda.

Bob Sellman, Washoe County, felt this was a matter of reasonableness in terms of what the current process entails. There is a process in place, due process implies this process should be followed. It allows public input and allows the City to sponsor it at the appropriate time in the process. If there is then a desire to bring it forward, then it will be brought forward. He felt there is a difference due to psychological momentum. When the top decision makers come forward and say they have sponsored an amendment, it does give a taint to the record. It is a challenge to be aware of. It is cleaner to go through the local process.

Chairman Hascheff stated this was only a request to put it on the agenda which gives the public the opportunity to speak. It does give some precedence on similar items. Bob Sellman still felt that whole process could still begin at the local level in considering sponsorship. It should all occur before any of these types of decisions are required by the RPGB. The public process should have the opportunity to develop and mature before there is a record by the decision making body of sponsorship.

Ted Short stated if this logic was followed and this item was put on the agenda, he felt that the issue of Ballardini and the others back on also. The message was intended to say there is a procedure in existence which should be followed. Again, he stated there was no joint planning or agreements on this amendment, nor did he see any evidence of circumstances that prevented their compliance with the usual process, in the interest of consistency.

Chairman Hascheff re-stated the motion was simply to put the item onto the next agenda.


1. At Will Doctrine
Cooperative for Human Resources Management
[Continued to next meeting.]

1. TMRPA Human Resources and Reorganization update
2. Update on Environmental Land Use Summit Meeting
3. Accept and file annual independent audit report for the TMRPA period ending 6/30/99
4. Status report and possible action on lease agreement for office space.

Regarding the items IX and X on the agenda, it was asked if any of them involved statutory requirements for consideration. Chairman Hascheff asked if these items could be deferred. Emily did request to introduce individuals who had waited through the meeting, and informed the board that on March 9th, they would need to take final action on the budget and work program. She would bring this information back to them for questions.

Emily introduced Wayne Carlson, Executive Director of Nevada Public Agency Pool and Susan Johnson, with Larry Bellar & Associates, Contractors to the Nevada Public Agency Pool. They would be doing some training for them in the future and have proven to be a great asset. She also introduced Mary McKee who had helped Emily to develop a budget format that will allow three year projections.

Chairman Hascheff expressed his appreciation that these individuals had waited, and requested their future presentations be put to the front of the next agenda.



Emily Braswell commented that Elisa Maser has been their coordinator for the Northern Nevada Complete Count Census Committee. She, along with Bob Harmon, have worked with Southern Nevada, and have successfully obtained a $788,000 advertising contract to promote the census. $150,000 of this is for Northern Nevada which is significant. She commended those involved in the effort.

Sherrie Doyle stated her understanding that Sparks and Washoe County had signed an MOU on flood control and participating in a comprehensive flood plain planning. She requested the same thing from Washoe County on behalf of the City of Reno to keep in mind statistics that Reno also had severe flood damage and two NAB's very much interested in this issue. She requested an official signing ceremony between the two entities where both make the commitment to make a flood control project work.

Ted Short noted efforts were underway to get the County Manager and Reno City Manager together. The invitation has been available, and Ted stated he would have information sent to Sherrie on when these meetings were and who attended.

Joanne Bond commented that she wished to have the JAS committee go on the fast track so that these areas that want the rural designations are not languishing out there while everything in their peripheral view goes sideways.

The next JAS meeting was confirmed to be scheduled on 3/24/00, to include a report from the Planning Directors on how this could be done. The JAS recommendation will go forward at the March RPC meeting.

It was noted that all written correspondence had already been introduced under previous agenda items.



Reviewed by: Emily Braswell, Director

Approved by: Pierre Hascheff, Chairperson

Regional Planning Governing Board Minutes
February 10, 2000


Protect Our Washoe
P. O. Box 20397
Reno, NV 89515

You may send your contribution to help fund the fight to the above address. Thank you.


Site designed and maintained by Deciding Factors
Direct comments and suggestions to webmaster