TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
MR. WALTHER:
My name is Steve Walther. Thank you very much for coming. This is an
opportunity to talk about a development that is being proposed at the
corner of Lakeside and Holcomb, and we felt it was important for everyone
to understand what the development was about. We'll do our best to do
that this evening to the extent we have all the information.
Part of the information we do have. We did invite Legacy Farms representatives
to be here, and I am told there may be somebody here from Legacy Farms
-- you are from Legacy? [Chris Barrett holding up his hand and nodding
in the affirmative.] Will you be willing to speak and answer questions
so we can have someone [from Legacy Farms] clarify anything that may
take place with their questions or statements? [Chris Barrett nodding
in the affirmative.]
I would also like to mention a little bit with respect to the Ballardini
ranch. Let me take just a minute first on that, so that people can have
kind of an update on what is going on. As most of you know, the Ballardini
Ranch is a 1,019-acre located from McCarran Boulevard down toward ArrowCreek
in a southerly direction. It is an old time beautiful ranch. Much has
been done to preserve it. The effort started over 20 years ago to try
to preserve the Ballardini Ranch for open space.
The Ballardini Ranch is owned by Minnesota developers and they have
a limited liability company called Evans Creek, LLC. But the property
is divided half into the county, about 500 to 550 acres, and the other
half is in the sphere of influence of the city, but still located in
the county.
The Washoe County bond -- the Washoe County voters approved a bond issue
of $4 million for the Ballardini Ranch a couple years ago toward the
possible acquisition of the Ballardini Ranch.
Since that time, the federal government has approved allocation of an
additional $15 million to acquire the Ballardini Ranch for a total of
$19 million. It was acquired by the Minnesota developers in May of 1998
for approximately $8.5 million. So this is a good start, but I know
the developers will probably be asking for something more than that,
but at least it is a way to begin the process.
However, the developers in the last couple of weeks have filed an application
with the County to develop the southern portion which is in the county,
and not within the sphere of influence of the City of Reno, into lots
of approximately -- I think -- it is one per 13 acres. And Herb Rubenstein
has a copy of that. Let's put that one up now. And that will be coming
before the Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]
in February for consideration and then go through the process for a
tentative map approval.
We are sorry to see this application being made at this time, but nevertheless,
the owner certainly has a right to go ahead and do that, and we will
be there to raise any issues that may come before the Advisory Board
[Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] and the planning
groups as time goes along.
We are hopeful that the process in terms the Ballardini Ranch can take
place as soon as possible and the Minnesota developer will work with
county officials to help work out a satisfactory deal. It is truly an
extraordinary piece of property and one that would be a tremendous legacy
for the whole community.
I would add that it also links to the ArrowCreek property, and they
[ArrowCreek representatives] have indicated they would dedicate approximately
1,500 acres. So it if you take the property that is being dedicated
by ArrowCreek together with the Ballardini Ranch, you find yourself
with a swath of open space that goes nearly to the Mt. Rose Highway,
and there would be nothing greater in terms of access for the community
to the mountains and also to preserve the deer herd which probably would
never survive unless the Ballardini Ranch was acquired.
Dr. Paul Tueller, who is a biologist, has reported that, in his opinion,
with just the ArrowCreek alone, the deer herd would not survive. They
need the Ballardini Ranch in order to make it because what is the only
shelter that is really available anymore is along this side of the Foothills.
But tonight I would like to devote our attention to Legacy Farms. This
is an application to put in 13 homes at the corner of the Lakeside Drive
and Holcomb Lane. Most of you are here because you received a notice
regarding Legacy Farms. It is an LLC [Limited Liability Company] and
the BrunsonBuilt entity who builds homes in this valley is one of the
Managing Members of the LLC.
The LLC proposes to construct the lots basically in accordance with
the map that you see here. And this is the map, the most recent map
which shows the depiction of the various lots. The lots, I think all
of these are two and a half acres. The lots are each two and a half
acres per parcel at this time. Although it started off differently,
that is the configuration at this time. You can see where they are.
On this particular map that you have before you, you see three different
colors of lines and they basically align themselves along the tributary
of Dry Creek. The northern tributary of Dry Creek comes from the west
traveling in an easterly direction. Basically you can see that blue
line.
Lynn Mundt has colored the map so that you can see the depictions on
there with respect to three different sensitive areas. One is the wetlands,
which are green and dotted green. The other is pink, which is the ìsensitive
stream zoneî and the part that is darker blue is what is called
a ìcritical stream zoneî and each of those have different
requirements and, then we'll talk about those from her perspective,
too. The issue as part of this development -- and these have been handed
out to you -- there are some restrictions, declarations and restrictions
which at this time Legacy Farms proposes would be placed upon the land.
A copy has been handed out to each of you. Feel free to grab one. I
can see from the crowd you are just about the right number. So I am
sure there is a copy for everyone.
They restrict the uses of the landowners. As you can see, there are
a number of restrictions that are quite restrictive in some respects.
They limit the number of household pets. They will limit some of the
things that you can do. They would have to get permission from the developer
in order to have a 4-H animal, and that kind of thing. Generally no
outbuildings. Things that are typical rural use for most of the property
in this area.
The proposal also restricts the appearance of each of the homes. BrunsonBuilt
would propose, as I understand it, and this can be corrected, three
model homes, perhaps four model homes off the bat. And they will all
have essentially the same appearance, same color, same color roof, same
color siding, same color country look. And those will be the similar
requirement for all the rest of the Brunson and other homes landowners
build their own.
There will be, as I understand it, approval to dig 11 wells on there,
but they will also bring in a sewage Lift Station and sewage pipeline
clear down from Huffaker all the way down to Lakeside into the property
which will be eight inches in diameter perhaps more, but I think and
minimum of eight inches. As I understand it, an eight-inch pipe will
feed a development of up to 300 homes, if they are ever used. So that
penetration of the sewer line is not without significance with other
uses down the line.
The application came before the Citizens Advisory Board [Southwest Truckee
Meadows Citizens Advisory Board]. Let me mention this. There are two
applications on file currently. One is an application for approval of
a tentative map. That's what you see here. The other is an application
for a Special Use Permit for a sewage Lift Station, which we will talk
about.
Those applications were filed, but the application on the tentative
subdivision map came before the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory
Board [2002] and it was turned down. One of the chief concerns at that
time was the Advisory Board did not feel they had the information that
they needed to consider the merits and they turned it down at that time,
but asked the Legacy Farms to return with more information.
There was a number of questions which were raised at that time, and
I think if you got a copy of the notice, you will see the minutes that
were prepared by the County of that meeting which itemized a number
of questions and concerns that people voiced at that time, even though
they didn't have all of the information before them.
On January 16th, the application for the Special Use Permit for the
Lift Station came on before the Citizens Advisory Board and that was
also turned down. Once again the Advisory Board was upset because it
did not have information that it was filed January 10, I think a packet
about this thick here and they had not been given a copy of that and
did not have the information that they wanted and had a number of questions
could not be answered by the representative. Once again they turned
it down and asked Legacy Farms to return to them in February and hopefully
Legacy will return on both issues at that time.
Some of the issues that were raised at the hearing were the appearance
restrictions with respect to the basically the identical either type
of architecture, color of the buildings, this would be something new
in this particular area -- where there has been proposed a subdivision
which has such general appearance requirements in it, together with
some of the other restrictions that also occur with respect to use.
A concern was raised with respect to the intrusion of the lots and the
building pads to some degree and to some of the more regulated parts
of the area around the creek, Dry Creek, both tributaries. And concerns
were raised with respect to the location of the road on Holcomb. For
example, with respect to its close proximity to the curve is referred
to as Dead Man's Curve. It is regulated at 35 miles per hour, but people
on occasion do go faster than 35 miles per hour around that turn and
as a result that close proximity of these here seem to be perhaps seem
to be unnecessary, but more negative risk than should probably be there.
Other concerns are with respect to whether or not the Sewer Lift Station
should be located where it is, why there is a Lift Station, and basically
there was some information that just wasn't there to point out the reasons
why the Lift Station was there, and why it should be placed in such
close proximity to Dry Creek.
As we understand it, the subdivision will be enclosed by a white vinyl
fence as will each of the lots. So the various fences themselves will
be uniform in appearance.
There was some question with respect to adjacent landowners access and
whether it would intrude on that. There was some question with respect
to whether or not the traditional irrigation ditches would be interfered
with and how it would be dealt with, both inside and outside the subdivision.
There was some question with respect to whether or not ñ and
to what extent -- some of the uses should be. It says highly restricted
-- basically to eliminate many typical rural uses.
Those were some of the issues that arose. Because it is new and because
there remains a lot of questions about it, we are having the meeting
tonight to talk about it from our perspective and let people learn and
think about it and see what they want to do.
Legacy Farms is having a meeting of their own, and we have a copy of
their notice, and that is on Saturday, this coming Saturday at 10:45
at Bartley Ranch. I think all of you should try and go if you can and
hear their perspective on it. At least you will have some information
to think about it in the meantime so that you can ask the right questions
and see if the questions you have can be answered by the people that
are there.
But our concern with respect to this notice was that it didn't give
people much information about what was really going on. Hopefully, Legacy
Farms will come before the Advisory Board in February so there is not
a lot of time to learn about this.
So our thinking was if we had this hearing tonight -- and invite Legacy
Farms -- we can shed some light on this and you will be able to walk
away a little more educated about the situation. The Legacy Farms notice
didn't say anything about how many lots were being proposed, what the
restrictions were proposed to be, what some of the concerns are about
the Lift Station and streams, and what their policy is, and that sort
of thing. That is why we felt we should try and have this meeting.
In addition, the actual picture on the Legacy Farms card, giving notice
of the meeting, is not a genuine picture of the property itself. It
is just a different picture of a different property. It is not an actual
picture of the property. We just wanted to make sure that -- since Protective
Washoe has been around so long -- that we had a meeting, so that people
could be educated before the Legacy Farms and before the hearing before
the Advisory Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]
which we are hoping will take place in February.
I call on Lynn Mundt who was a member of the Southwest Truckee Citizens
Advisory Board. Lynn has also very active and one of the principal drafters
regarding Special Use Permits and Article 418 of the Development Code.
And we have copies handed out to you here. This tells about the restrictions
involved with respect to the use of the water in Dry Creek which penetrates
most all of the southwest, either through one of the two tributaries
-- where they actually merge on this particular property.
Lynn, let me call you on you first. Maybe can you have a discussion
on that issue.
MS. LYNN MUNDT: Thank you, Steve. I got involved with streams about
three or for years ago when I realized that streams were being developed
ñ that the people were building houses that backed up right to
streams and that at the same time people were planning on using water
in the streams to supply drinking water to residences.
So it seemed to me that it was very counterproductive, that we needed
to either protect our streams and the water in it, and then if we do
need to use the water for the Truckee Meadows, which I'm sure eventually
the ground water is going to run out, that we should keep it as clean
as possible and not let it get polluted.
So the Stream Ordinance has several purposes. Those purposes need to
be addressed and they are called findings when the Special Use Permit
is presented to the Planning Commission.
So just speaking now in terms of the Stream Ordinance, the types of
things that we need to protect that affect Legacy Farms, if you have
this copy of this Significant Hydrological Resources Ordinance, if you
look under the first page under ìPurposeî at the bottom
of the first paragraph it says: "The intent of these regulations
is to protect the public health safety and welfare by" -- and then
it lists A through I. Those are the findings that the developer needs
to make in order for his Special Use Permit to be granted. And they
cover things such as reducing the need for expenditure of public funds
to remedy or avoid flood hazards. In other words, if people build houses
in flood zones and then the flood comes and they get their houses wiped
out, public funds have to rebuild that house for them.
I don't know about you, but I am kind of tired of having people build
in the flood plains in the first place. This ordinance is to try to
keep people from building in the flood plains.
Ensuring the natural flood control functions of perennial streams, including
but not limited to storm water retention and slow release detention
capabilities. If planning is done properly on a stream, then you can
prevent the buildings and the roadways from adding to the flood hazard.
That is done by creating a corridor along the stream so that the water
that comes from the impervious surfaces such as roadways and building
pads doesn't just rush right down to the creek and create more flood
water, but, in fact, flows over a buffer area where it can be reabsorbed
into the earth and actually recharge the ground water.
So those of you who are on wells, this allowing the water during floods
to flow over a wider space and go back into the ground recharges your
wells. Also making sure that the storm water runoff and erosion control
techniques are utilized to stabilize existing stream banks, reduce downstream
sediment loading and ensure the safety of people and property.
If flood waters come down here too quickly and if as in this case there
is a pond right on the stream, that pond will tend to slow the water
down and allow the sediment to settle into the pond which sounds like
a good thing and it is.
And when we have a two-year flood water come down, it will go into that
pond, the settlement will settle down, and after we have a couple of
two-year floods and that pond starts to fill up with sediment and we
have a 25-year flood, that water will come down and scoop up all of
that sediment to the pond and shove it down the creek to the people
that are living downstream, down here.
So what is usually done in planning of putting a detention basin is
to take it off the creek so that when there is a flood, the water can
go into the pond and let the settlement settle out, but won't necessarily
come down and scoop all that sediment up and send it down to the downstream
homeowners.
So there are several things that I would like to see addressed before
this project is approved concerning just the stream. I have drawn on
here the green is the ìjurisdictional wetlands.î These
are wetlands that have been evaluated, they are true wetlands and they
need to be maintained. They provide a lot of the ground water resources
that you all have with your wells and for the creek and for the irrigation.
Wetlands are kind of a living thing, and to the best of my knowledge
nobody has figured them out, and the best thing to do with them is to
leave them alone.
The creek runs right through the middle here of the wetlands, the yellow,
which runs along the creek, really starts to spread out as you get towards
the end is the 100-year flood plain. And the 100-year flood plain, it
may not cover 20 feet high, but that's the area that the water will
spread out. And so if you have a house there in that area, you are going
to have flood damage.
The orange that runs right along the creek is called the ìcritical
stream zone.î That is 30 feet each side of the creek. When we
did this ordinance, that 60 feet, 30 feet each side is sort of a leave
it alone, don't touch it, because the creek needs that width just to
maintain its normal functions.
The pink on the outside is the ìSensitive Stream Zone.î
That is 150 feet each side of the creek. And this area although it is
important can have some functions. It can -- you can have a person's
yard or property in that area, but it is important that they don't fertilize
heavily or have it so whatever poisons they put on their vegetation
automatically flows right into the stream.
So when you are in this sensitive stream zone, it is important that
you are careful with what goes on, what activity goes on in that area.
Specifically on this site it seems to me as I was coloring these maps
that an area on both sides of the stream that follows the green wetlands
and the yellow flood plain would be a good corridor to keep property
lines out of.
And one of the problems with these three lots right here -- actually,
one, two, and five, and also down here, number eight, is that so much
of them is in this area, that they have had to put the building envelope
still in the sensitive stream zone, but right up by the roads, and this
one, the building envelope is actually in the sensitive stream zone.
I don't think it is possible to have -- to put somebody on two and a
half acres and tell them not to use the stream corridor. I believe in
private property rights. If you give them two and a half acres, I don't
think they should be told that they really have to stay out of the stream.
So I don't think these lots, these four here can be put there and still
maintain the functions and the uses of the stream.
So I would like you to look at these maps and see the corridor width
that we would be protecting -- I am going to try to protect -- is the
green and yellow area and that just keeps these lots out of the flood
plain and out of the wetlands.
Then out of the pink area I just hate to see building envelopes, because
if somebody puts up a cement slab in a sensitive stream zone, then they
are interfering with the ability of the stream corridor to take pollutants
out of the sediment and the runoff, storm runoff, before it gets to
the stream.
At this point I would like to see if there are any questions. One other
thing, they are going to do a crossing and have two ten-foot by four-foot
culverts so that the road, Legacy Lane can cross Dry Creek. In itself,
you have got to cross it some way. I would rather see a span bridge
there, something that is attractive and aren't just cement culverts.
I can see doing that.
The problem is that if you look at the contour lines, the grading contour
lines, they are going to be grading right in the creek and right in
the critical stream zone a tremendous amount. And I don't feel that
that is necessary. I think that the project could be designed in such
a way that they don't have to go into the creek and the wetlands and
the flood zone with bull dozers and grade cut and fill to that extent
to drop two four by ten culverts.
So I have seen other projects that have come before us on Special Use
Permits where people are doing the thing to make it a little more artistic,
to value the stream a little bit more than this, and I am very much
against the cut and fill that would go into the stream area.
Are there any questions?
MR. HERB RUBENSTEIN: Could you show where the Sewer Lift Station is
going to go that the Special Use Permit covers?
MS. MUNDT: The question was where is the Sewer Lift Station going to
go in relationship to the stream. And the Special Use Permit actually
covers two things: The Sewer Lift Station and also it has to address
the Significant Hydrological Resource part of the Development Code.
The Sewer Lift Station is right here -- which is not only in the sensitive
stream zone, but it is also in the 100-year flood plain. I know I am
not an engineer, but I do know up in Montreaux they put in a Lift Station
and it just does not seem ñ it may be different, but it does
not seem to be an appropriate place to put a sewer lift stage in a flood
plain.
So I think that that location really needs to be looked at and hopefully
the Legacy Farms people will address that. I know at the CAB [Southwest
Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board] meeting they said it is all
self-contained and I do know that they are built with redundancy if
the pump doesn't work, but I also know sewage doesn't stop when there
is a flood. So it is going to go somewhere. And I really don't want
it in the sensitive stream zone and I don't want it in the flood plain.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: What is a Sewer Lift Station?
MS. MUNDT: The question was why is it needed, why is the Sewer Lift
Station needed and what is it. It is actually a collector -- the sewer
line comes down Lakeside, which is at a higher elevation. So this Sewer
Lift Station collects all the sewage from this particular subdivision
in this little pump station and then pumps it back uphill to the sewer
line which goes back up Lakeside. That's a good question.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: That line isn't on Lakeside yet, is it?
MS. MUNDT: It isn't. I think right now it is on Huffaker and Lakeside.
They will bring it along Lakeside.
MR. ART OíCONNOR: Artie OíConnor. Why didn't they run
it by gravity down Holcomb to Diamond Jay where the sewer already is?
MS. MUNDT: I don't know, so there is the question you are going to ask
them.
MS. PALMER: Robin Palmer. So is this plan in violation of the code?
MS. MUNDT: The code that I am addressing is the Significant Hydrological
Resources and that is a good question. Because when we ñ we spent
three years a group of citizens and developer representatives and water
rights representatives hashing this out, trying to write the best ordinance
we could, and we found we had to put a lot of flexibility into it. So
the best way that we could come up with so that we weren't having to
over manage was to require a Special Use Permit. If somebody was going
to do something within this wide band here, the pink band here known
as the significant hydrologic area or sensitive stream zone.
In that Special Use Permit [application], there is nothing that says
that you can't build that. There are a few things that you absolutely
cannot put in there. We didn't think of a Sewer Lift Station. I wish
we had. It would have been in here. But we tried to make it so it would
get reviewed because we knew people were going to try to do things that
we couldn't even imagine. So this Special Use Permit is to bring it
to your attention so that we can look at it. And then some things I
don't personally object to as long as protections are put in with them.
And so I wouldn't mind some yards being in the sensitive stream zone
as long as the drainage isn't down towards the stream if they are going
to put in lawns.
The CC&R's that you have a copy of don't address anything in the
creek [Dry Creek]. And so there are no CC&R restrictions saying
don't put fertilizer so that it is going to drain into the creek, don't
set back a certain distance from the creek.
I feel again since it is individual property rights, if somebody owns
the property, I have a hard time saying don't do this. And so I would
like to see this area, the green and the yellow set aside as a common
open space, that is protected. And the best of all worlds, I would love
to see it dedicated to Washoe County parks.
It doesn't matter. If they want to put a fence here and here, but keep
that corridor clean and clear and free of pollutants and don't build
on it, that's okay, too. I do respect that they own the property, not
I. But I think the stream needs to function properly for all of us and
I think we do have a right to protect that.
MR. MIKE O'BRIEN: Mike O'Brien. The development on the corner of Huffaker,
is there any similarities with this project and that project and maybe
some mistakes that were learned from that project?
MS. MUNDT: There are. The biggest one is most of the wetlands in that
area are from ditches. This is a perennial creek. This creek has fish
and it flows, and although in Nevada a lot of times our creeks are used
for irrigation, it is actually also a creek and a perennial stream.
That is the biggest difference in this case. Our ordinance only applies
to the perennial stream. The Army Corps does regulate wetlands, but
they have different criteria for wetlands created by irrigation versus
wetlands created by creeks. This green area is an Army Corps jurisdictional
wetland. I am not sure there were any jurisdictional wetlands on the
one on Huffaker.
MR. DON BETTER: Don Better. Do you have a Corps letter that says that
is jurisdictional wetlands or is that just in your opinion?
MS. MUNDT: Good question. JBR did a wetland delineation and it is from
the developer's wetland report.
MR. BETTER: I read that report and it was .5 acres was actually the
true delineations based upon soil and plants.
MS. MUNDT: 3.17 acres. There are 17 acres of irrigation wetlands, and
unless this has changed since the one that I had, there are 17 acres
of the irrigation wetlands which are treated differently and three point
something of the jurisdictional wetlands.
MS. LAURA MEACHAM: Laura Meacham. Where is the pond?
MS. MUNDT: This is a question for the developer, too. It is written
on the map as a pond, but I also heard that they are thinking of it
being a retention basin and I don't know which. It is right before the
bridge and it also would require a great deal of excavation of cut and
fill in order to put that in. And that's right in the critical stream
zone and right in the creek.
My objection to it is the fact that it is on the creek. It could be
somewhere else where it is offset and then I would have no objection.
MS. ROBIN PALMER: Robin Palmer again. It is my understanding that lot
owners may be able to have a pond. How does that impact all of this?
MS. MUNDT: I think it said in the CC&Rís that those can be
brought back in the future. That those will be placed in the location.
And so at this point there they are not looking at that and whether
they can or can't be, I just don't know. A lot of it would depend on
water rights, which I know Jack Quade is going to talk a little bit
about.
MR. BOB MARSH: Bob Marsh. There is a wooden bridge on Timothy. It was
wood until it was going to wash away during one of the floods. What
would ensure that that wouldn't happen to the Lift Station?
MS. MUNDT: Not a thing. I think they are going to make it out of very
strong cement. However, I am still worried about the sewage that is
in there.
Thank you very much for your attention. If any of you have any questions
just on the stream and the functions and how you want to deal with it,
I would like you to give me a call. Again, my name is Lynn Mundt and
my phone number is 853-2907. I welcome it. You don't even have to be
on my side. I love to talk about the stream.
MR. WALTHER: It says here -- in this particular scenario -- there is
no reference to what they mean by lakes or piers or anything or they
could even ask for permission and, if so, where would the water come
from and how would it be dealt with and how is the irrigation going
to deal with that. So that was the reason for raising the question with
respect to that issue. This is not mentioned here, unless it is the
pond that is being referred to in the CC&Rís.
There is a neighbor, Jack Quade who lives next door to the development
who is also technically equipped to talk about some of the water issues.
So Jack, I am going to turn it over to you and maybe you can raise some
of the questions that you had about it.
MR. QUADE: My name is Jack Quade. I live at 8690 Lakeside Drive. It
is immediately adjacent to the Legacy Farms property. I have lived there
for 41 years with my family. I am familiar with Paul Elcano and the
original land and irrigation systems that were in place over the years.
Paul [Elcano], as I knew in the early days, had associated with his
deeded 134-acre feet of Truckee River water rights and was I curious
when this property came on line, and Legacy Farms first proposed their
Special Use Permits, how they were going to go about irrigating this
property.
So I read their Special Use Permit Application. And one of the things
that astounded me was in spite of the fact that they had all these water
rights and sometimes Paul had some spring rights up Dry Creek and had
some spring rights out of this. I can't say I know the numbers anymore.
He also had 50 shares of ditch rights in the canal [Steamboat Ditch
Canal]. So how are they going to go about irrigating this piece of property.
And one of the things that came to mind was -- these people have no
capacity to divert any of the water without some water rights. So I
wrote a letter to the Planning Commission [Washoe County Planning Commission]
on January the 6th [2003]. I expressed some concerns about the fact
that they weren't giving anything to these new landowners and clearly
they needed some capacity to be able to divert water.
They came back about two weeks later with an amended version of this
[their tentative maps and subdivision application]. It didn't significantly
change very much, but it did go about allocating four acre feet of Truckee
River water rights to each one of the individual parcels. That was great
for a start. The people now had a chance to do something with the water
if it came their way.
What it could do, though, is they would have to submit these four acres
feet to the canal, then in turn would ultimately put them in gates.
This is up in this direction and they would put the water rights in
the ditches and bring them down to the western boundaries of these properties.
And there are four locations, really. One cuts across my property to
the north, another comes in on the Sanford property approximately here.
And we have already talked at length about Dry Creek. And there is --
I am not sure what his water rights were -- but he had some claim to
water right up here. There is another water encroachment, but it comes
through a culvert. There are four culverts. Actually there are two culverts
going here cross Dry Creek. One is a main one and another one comes
across approximately here, wraps itself around the hill and comes into
Jim Sanford's pond just about here and comes around and fills in a low
spot in this part of the development.
At that point you might have thought -- ìWe have four supplies
of water down here, we can do something with that.î But if you
look at it and think about it, there is no way you are going to get
ditches to serve some of these pieces of property. So you have the water
rights down here, but no way to serve the 13 parcels. It is kind of
an empty hat.
But what is in place -- and let's back up a little bit. In the past
the upstream people have used their ditch rights and water rights to
bring water down from up above through individual gates, mostly Gate
44 and 45 [as designated by the Steamboat Canal Irrigation Company],
and they have been turned either to irrigate it directly from ditches
and/or brought the water into the pond and then pumped out of the pond.
But what they have not done is use subsurface water rights. They have
maintained almost religiously the idea that they ought to use the allocated
Truckee River water rights, pay for their assessment and bring it to
the land.
How are these people intending to irrigate this property? It is designated
for each parcel. It is 2.2-acre feet or 1,800-gallon a day water right
for each one of the 13 parcels. They are going to drill 11 more wells.
What those wells would do then according to their CC&R's is provide
water for each one of the buildings, water for the septic system and
it would irrigate the two and a half acre parcels. That's in the landscape
plan.
It seemed just incredible that somebody would be proposing to irrigate
two and a half acres of land using a 1,800-gallon-a-day domestic water
right. They will be exceeding the allocation. That is what is in the
CC&Rís. There is no way to get the water from here into there.
Within the eight months of completion of the main dwelling unit, each
lot on two and a half acres should be completely landscaped and goes
on to describe the plan, and then in the end it says an automatic irrigation
system must be part of the overall landscape plan.
Now, obviously it is hooked to the domestic water well. There is no
way to get the water from here into that irrigation system to pump water
for each of the two and a half acre parcels. It is not provided for
in any of the plans. They would be allowing each one of the parcels
to have a structure in a pond some place or a holding place and then
they can pump water to irrigate. That would be a network as these people
up here have always done where we are adding to the ground system rather
than subtracting from it.
I think that summarizes what we need to think about. But this case is
something that breaks all precedent. It is going to use ground water
to irrigate as opposed to using the available water and bringing water
in and adding to the ground water system.
I would be happy to entertain any questions.
MR. ROY WALKER: Roy Walker. Why don't you do something about that?
MR. QUADE: What we have done up here, Jim [Sanford] and I have done
this on our two properties, you can see we have a pond, big pond. And
what we do is we bring water either from our systems in some cases,
but surface water rights, because my water rights are in place, I bring
them down and I fill up the pond and then I back pump, but I don't irrigate
my pasture with anything that comes out of the subsurface ground water.
So here we are in a position to add to the water rather than subtract
from it.
Lynn [Mundt] certainly has an aversion to using this one, but whether
we use it here or in some other places, maybe more than one, bringing
this water that we now have available from four different avenues to
these via a ditch or whatever, a culvert and then either pump directly
from them or push from them to irrigate these parcels, we would be adding
from the ground water rather than subtract.
MR. WALKER: How would you enforce this? These guys are doing this. How
would you do it?
MR. QUADE: We are putting a plan before the Planning Commission. These
13 aren't here. They aren't violating. They are going to be here under
some kind of restrictions that are going to be part of this plan if
we get with it. I think you know it is going to happen. We need to have
it in place as part of the final plan that they are going to use this
irrigation water from the Truckee River and not the ground water.
MR. WALKER: Are they going to have wells on all 13 parcels?
MR. QUADE: Yes. One of them here and this one down here that is associated
with the old house, additional house. Then they are going to drill 11
others. Paula [Dermody] has bought sufficient ground water rights to
deliver to each of the parcels 2.2-acre feet of subsurface water rights,
which is equivalent to 1,800 gallons a day.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Before you were there, they had built a well there.
It was an Artesian well. They drained everybody up on Lone Tree Lane.
MR. QUADE: That is true. I have never used that well for irrigation.
I trickle water out of the pond that's in my front yard.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It also took away all the water from up above.
MR. QUADE: If I flowed the well it would have done that, and if I have
irrigated the property, it would have done that. But even Charlie Haas
who lived up above me, he was practically on the surface with his well.
Once it settled down, it stayed that way. And I have never used that
water right to irrigate the field and I have been there all this time.
MR. PARSONS: I was going to ask you about the 2.2-acre feet. Is that
a regulation?
MR. QUADE: Yes.
MR. PARSONS: Is that per acre or per family?
MR. QUADE: Per domestic well. Each residence. That 2.2 is you buy it,
you have -- there's the other thing. It is really tough to buy some
surface rights and they are very expensive. Young Haas across the street
paid $20,000 for the water right, 2.2-acre feet to subdivide that land.
And before you can you parcel lands, it must go along with the parcel.
You can't just go in and promise to do it at a later date. In the case
of a lot of us, we had to do this from a single source. We said to buy
it from one guy.
MR. PARSONS: I recall an Artesian well, I think had electric power service
to it that was farther north from your house, a large one and it has
a pipe that goes across the gully. Is that well the one you are talking
about?
MR. QUADE: You have seen the pipeline running across. Yeah, he drilled
that and he was irrigating some land up in here for reasons that are
better known to him than me because I always thought he had enough water
right here. Paul [Elcano] liked to use all the water he could get. These
parcels up here are practically sitting on a cliff. The building sites
are almost nonexistent.
MR. PARSONS: Who owns the water rights for that well?
MR. QUADE: When you get a right to drill the property, you buy the 2.2
acre feet and you pass the ownership to the county, utilities people
and they put it in their pocket. It is a tax for the privilege of drilling
the well.
Let's go to the other side of this argument. How much water is too much
water? Because in truth we don't have in place a system that puts a
meter on the well and measures the water or we would wish we didn't
have it on if we did.
The other side of it is there is no enforcement. I have been to the
State Water Master's office. They cannot enforce this law. It's a wink
and a nod. The honor system.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Mary Dugan. When this gentleman in the blue asked you
about what can we could do, how can we stop this and you said we were
coming up with a plan ñ it is your plan to show up at the Citizens
Advisory Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board] or
Planning Commission?
MR. QUADE: They are going to put their fingerprint on this, and if they
do it right, they are going to say we are not going to -- they are going
to put in whatever is needed to make this right in terms of not using
ground water. There are enough people on that Board [Southwest Truckee
Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] if we alert them and tell them the right
story.
MR. ROY WALKER: Roy Walker. Will we be notified about that meeting?
MR. WALTHER: I hope that Legacy Farms will bring it back before the
Advisory Board in February. I think it is the third Thursday in February
and notice will go out on that. Then if I understand it correctly, they
are going before Washoe County Planning [Commission] in March. They
don't have to go before the Advisory Board at this point. They can ignore
it. Given all that has happened, I think it will be great if they come
back in February and address these issues which are raised tonight and
which will be raised Saturday morning.
MR. QUADE: I wanted to add, my greatest claim to fame is digging ditches.
Forty-one years of digging ditches. My neighbors have joined me in the
great spirit of cooperation and I can't say enough about how that has
worked to our benefit. This is an abomination in that it doesn't stay
with the old game plan.
MR. WALTHER: I am going to mention at this time one of the lot owners
right next door is James Sanford. I am going to ask James to come up
and talk about a couple of issues that you mentioned before so that
those issues can be addressed at this time just with respect to people
who are adjacent to the property.
MR. JAMES SANFORD: I am James Sanford and my driveway access is right
here directly next to where the plan is to put the road. The entry here.
I don't want to reiterate some of the concerns that you have already
said, but I have some additional ones.
One of the things that is really troublesome for me is -- I know that
they want to be able to get as many lots out of the piece of property
that they can -- but in order to be able to do that, not only have they
used the stream, but they made some really odd shaped parcels that really
don't work to my benefit especially because the building pads have to
be so far up close to the road here. And this parcel here, it is extremely
skinny and extremely long. All that means is that in order to be able
to get the number of parcels that they want, they really haven't done
much to be able to benefit the existing people that are there.
When I built my house and bought my property it was because it was next
to 34 acres of nice rural farmland that is there. And so my other concern
is how common the houses are going to look and the same pattern of them.
And I really don't think it fits with the area out there and people
being able to have a unique type of a house, and I am personally concerned
about property values and what is going to go on with my parcel simply
because of what is being built here. I guess I have some additional
concerns. If these were going to be sold as individual lots and then
people could build the houses that they wanted to be able to build,
that would be far different than having Legacy Farms LLC, which the
Brunson people have a membership interest in. I'm concerned that the
profit aspects of this are not necessarily going to lead to potentially
the highest grade of construction. I certainly emphasized that when
I built my place. So I have some concerns about that as well.
When she was mentioning a stream, there is a tremendous amount of wildlife.
There is a family of Great Blue Herons that live down here. There are
thousands and thousands of quail and ducks and geese. So I think it
is real important for the area as a whole and the wild life that is
there to be able to maintain this.
And I agree with putting some restrictions on there. And I am very much
in favor of dedicating, I am not sure whether it is the wetland zone
or the critical zone or whatever needs to be maintained to be able to
have that creek work, but I would be very much in favor of a dedication
of that to the Homeowners Association so that there would be some responsibility
towards continuing to maintain that. As Steve mentioned, people don't
drive slow around here. My children have mentioned to me safety issues,
but their school bus stop is right here on the corner. I am personally
not all that interested in having 13 lots be serviced by this because
the majority of the people who are going to be going anywhere, they
are going to be coming here. I am thinking that rather than having a
private driveway here I am going to be seeing two or 300 cars go by
my house every day. That doesn't really excite me.
One of the other things that we have been talking about a little bit
is safety, just because as you are going around this corner and people
don't go all that slow, it is problematic having those roads there to
begin with. But when you start talking about putting building pads out
here and two story houses, there is not going to be any visibility around
these corners at all. So having the road configured like it is problematic
both for me, but I think from a safety standpoint as well.
One of the things that we talked about was potentially having -- maybe
suggesting a different approach towards the entry to the property. There
is a Council Lane up here right now and it could come to here. That
way you might be able to have one access road that could even be a little
bit further to the south that would come up this way and service these
properties and then a road that would come down here and then you would
only have to have one access out here. And it would certainly get rid
of this. To the extent that you want to get rid of this, it also provides
a little bit more flexibility with regard to the building pads that
are here.
I guess overall I would like to be able to see the area maintained in
itself rural fashion the way that it is. As was mentioned, there are
two culverts that come over here. One that comes right around here and
comes around -- Jack mentioned it is kind of like a cliff, but it comes
over here right underneath the road and it has water that flows into
it and that is what I use as my source of irrigation. So it would be
very important to me to be able to maintain that because that is what
has provided water for irrigation on my property on a historical basis.
I have some concerns with regard to doing anything to be able to put
a building envelope over the top of where that creek runs because it
really is pretty flat. That is one methodology to be able to get water,
Truckee River -- it is not Truckee River water, but it is surface water
from those creeks and it could come down here. And if you wanted to
be able to have a pond, that would be the best way to do that. It does
run you around and you could get it there if you wanted to.
I think that is about all I have. Thanks.
MS. DUGAN: Mary Dugan. I am not going to talk very long here, but I
am going to echo a little bit of what a few other people have said.
I live ñ my lot backs up onto Lakeside, just south of Windy Hill,
and safety is one of my biggest concerns. I have got four kids. We don't
get down in this area down here that much, but I know James Sanford's
kids and I am concerned about them and all the kids that are going to
live in these homes.
For those of you who don't live on this driveway, people come around
Windy Hill, and just as they turn south to go straight, they just open
it up and they go as fast as they can down here. Not everybody. Iím
sure none of you good people do that. In the summer you can hear it.
In the summer you can hear the motorcycles and the cars. And I am informed
that this is where it gets really tricky. There are some mailboxes that
regularly get taken out.
Unfortunately, this part isn't funny, a gentleman didn't make it sometime
in the last few years. So we have one death on this corner on Dead Man's
Curve already. And as James said, if you put some trees here or a nice
big house here, these people aren't going to be able to see at all.
So with this entrance here and here, I just think this is a disaster
waiting to happen.
So I think too that some consideration ought to be given to this Council
Lane extension and that might be able to do away with this. And if this
entrance were moved down here, you would increase the likelihood that
people could navigate Dead Man's Curve without adding to the hash marks
that already exist for the casualties it has taken. So I just
think that there needs to be more consideration. This isn't that big
of an area that it should require these two entrances on Lakeside and
one on Holcomb. I just think nobody is going to be happy when another
person dies on this. I would really like it if some consideration were
given to that.
My other big concern is the thing that makes this Southwest Truckee
Meadows beautiful is the character of the place. You have houses that
look all different types, you have all kind of fences, split rail, you
have got white, you have got brown painted, you have got no fences,
you have got barbless wire and barbwire and everybody thinks it is just
fine.
What I understand the plans for this to be are white vinyl fences. I
don't have anything against vinyl fences or white vinyl fences, but
if you have 13 lots on this and it is all fenced, it is going to look
like a waiting line at Southwest Airlines with those little things you
have to walk through. It is not going to be pretty at all, I don't think.
Not only that, you are going to have look-alike homes, look-alike fences,
it is going to look like you have taken a nice little sub-division built
by Lewis Homes or whoever builds lovely subdivisions and planted it
smack dab in the middle of this rural area and it is going to be as
far as I can tell, it is going to be the biggest blight. I am not sure
what could be worse. Maybe a sand pit. So I am very concerned about
that. Why would somebody want to make a subdivision that looks like
cookie cutter houses and cookie cutter fences in this beautiful rural
area. I don't get it. I can't imagine anything uglier. It is cheaper
of course.
Apparently you can have some domestic animals, maybe can you have some
goldfish as long as you don't take them for a walk. You can't have any
livestock or horses, sheep, cows, chickens and it is going to be a gated
community. What do you need the gate for if you are not going to have
any livestock? They are not trying to keep animals, they are trying
to keep us riffraff out and that is kind of not the feel we want in
that whole southwest area. We want to be inclusive, not exclusive. I
think that is how most of the people in the area feel. It is certainly
the feel we want people to have. So I am concerned about the gated aspect
of it, too. I don't see what purpose it really serves, unless it is
more city-fying it.
I guess it boils down to a homeowner in the southwest area. When he
moved in, he was buying a house, living there a long time and the fence
was painted brown. Somebody tried to tell him a lot of us have white
fences here -- I think suggesting politely that he should paint his
fence white. So he got out more brown paint and spruced it up. But it
is all individual. It is not cookie cutter and we don't want it to look
that way and I think the plan as it is right now, it might be lovely
elsewhere, but to put it right here in the country, I think is a big
mistake.
So I would encourage you all to show up at the Citizens Advisory Board
[Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] meeting, at the hearing
before the Washoe County Planning Commission, and at the meeting to
be held this Saturday morning [February 1, 2003] at Bartley Ranch. Any
time any one of these meetings comes, the POW website will tell you
when you need to show up. But show up and let your wishes be known.
It's important.
MS. KAREN COLOMBINI: My name is Karen Colombini. I live on Council Lane
and I have a big problem with them putting that road in there. Why should
they put a road through another community and include us in their community?
MS. DUGAN: That's a good point. You are going have to show up at the
meeting and express your views. I don't know. I am sure you don't want
that. I am concerned about this and your concerns are different and
they are just as valid, so you need to show up and express your views,
too.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: If they can't come, can they write letters?
MS. DUGAN: Yes. I think you can write letters to the Citizens Advisory
Board and that meets the third Thursday of every month. You can write
the same letter to the Planning Commission, just put everybody's name
on it. Thank you.
MS. DARLEEN HUFF: Darleen Huff. We have been attending meetings for
probably the last 20 years keeping developers at bay and we go get our
voices heard, but nothing seems to happen. How can we be assured that
somebody in the Planning Department and County and people who get the
final say on this actually hear what we are saying, listen to us? It
doesn't seem to make any difference.
MR. WALTHER: I think that all that happened in the last several years
-- I have been living out here since '48 -- I think a lot of good has
come from citizens' input here. When you look at all the things that
have been done to protect the area in general, I think a lot has been
done and the best thing that can be done is to be here, learn about
it and come to meetings and express those concerns. You can sign a petition.
You can come to the meetings. I do think it does make a difference,
but it takes input. If it doesn't happen, [i.e., citizens input isnít
given] the County Commissioners who ultimately who will decide this
will think ìI really don't know how people feel, -- maybe by
not being there -- probably okay.î So that is the reason Protect
Our Washoe held this meeting -- to get the notice out, let people know
what is going on, learn about it and be in a position to voice your
opinion.
As I understand it, the Advisory Board meeting is held the third Thursday
of February at 7:00.
MS. ROBIN PALMER: Robin Palmer again. It seems to me that since the
Regional Plan settlement that there has been more emphasis on what the
CAB's [Citizen Advisory Boards] are saying and the County Commission
is listening more to CAB's. But that question relates to the question
that I have, isn't settlement -- are things changing as far as code
goes and is there -- is it better if this gets through now versus six
months from now? Can someone address that?
MR. WALTHER: I am not sure who is qualified to give you the best answer
there. Maybe somebody else is. I think that it still remains to be seen,
the impact of the so-called settlement, but I do think it is not likely
that the changes in overall density by county ordinance are likely to
get more dense here, especially if we keep our eyes open.
The first Advisory Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory
Board] -- and I served on that from '81 through '83 -- but over a two-area
period, the first plan was put together for this the hallmark of this
area -- basically the hallmark was rural residential. And from that
a lot happened. Lakeside Drive was to be four lanes all the way to the
Mt. Rose Highway, Plumas Street was going to be four lanes, Thomas Creek
was going to be four lanes all the way down to the Mount Rose Highway
from McCarran. A freeway was going to be run through, and it was then
called the A-line, that freeway has been moved to the central valley
corridor as a result of the influence of the southwest. Plumas Street
has been stopped, Lakeside Drive has been stopped, Thomas Creek has
been stopped. That does allow then for permanent rural residential character.
Now, the questions come up time and time again what about cluster zoning,
why can't we put a number of houses in the corner here of this lot and
then have a lot of open space. There are pluses and minuses to that.
If you have a lot of people living in an urban environment in a pod
of highly dense areas, they are less likely to really want to live in
a rural area and have rural activities of the kind that this area always
has had. And that has been one of the chief arguments for feeling that
there should be two-and-a-half acres per residence so people who live
out there can have a rural.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could you please tell us exactly how to find the POW
website?
MR. WALTHER: Yes, it is www.protectourwashoe.org.
MR. STEVE CUNNINGHAM: Steve Cunningham. With increased density is there
a chance that the plan to make Lakeside Drive a four-lane road could
be resurrected?
MR. WALTHER: Well, we are nervous about that. But as long as the density
remains two and a half acres without peripheral increase around the
area, we should be okay. When you see the development, for example,
the Ballardini Ranch and they proposed 2,000 homes in all of Ballardini
Ranch. If that were to go, even the thousand-acre one, it would start
building real pressure on Ridgeview, Lone Tree Lane and even McCarran
to come down Lakeside. That is the thing that would change the whole
area. If you look at Ballardini Ranch alone and say they just build
those houses up there, but bear in mind that Ballardini; in the North
has been proposed for high density, very high dense development. If
that goes through and gets annexed to the city and high dense development
comes in, it will be one of the first parcels in the southwest that
have ever asked for and gotten high density development. Most everybody
down here is still two and a half acres.
Even with ArrowCreek, there was some cluster zoning approved as part
of a compromise to get 1,500 acres along the Foothills. And that was
a compromise that came with a lot of benefit with a property that big.
MR. CHRIS BARRETT: My name is Chris Barrett. It feels like coming home
in more ways than one. I see a lot of parents out there that I grew
up with your kids, Mr. Quade, ran track with Jay and Conrad. Mr. Berry,
Mr. Walther. My favorite, Mr. Beasley. I got all kinds of lectures from
Mr. Beasley, thank goodness. I say that because I am really back in
trouble again. Geez, what a crowd. I grew up out in that area, 3720
Fairview Road and had a lot of fun out there. It is a great area.
Steve, I used to cut your mom's lawn. The property that we are talking
about in all seriousness is a beautiful piece of property. And, in fact,
when the owners -- one of the developers is an adjacent property owner
[Paula Smith Dermody] and they have put a lot into this. And I can't
tell you how much they were excited about this project and I have heard
a lot of comments that we don't want the cookie cutter, et cetera and
that's why we are having a meeting on Saturday [February 1, 2003] to
explain that to you they don't want it either.
They see development heading out that way. They hear your problems.
They have experienced them out there over the years. God knows my Mom
and Dad -- and I can't tell you how much ditches I cleaned with Mr.
Berry and his son and Bob and Bob, Jr. We have faced a lot of problems
out there. A lot of the CC&R's were designed to protect that area
so it doesn't degrade any further than what we have seen. There are
no models. They are custom homes. There is no pond. I don't know where
to start. I am just going to look at a sheet that was passed out that
was sent out to the mailboxes, if I could just highlight on those. I
am not technical so that is what Saturday's meeting is about. Please
come by.
MS. JANET HUNT: Janet Hunt. If this is supposed to be rural, why aren't
they allowing animal like the rest of the community?
MR. BARRETT: They are not saying you can't have animals.
MS. HUNT: Yeah, they are.
MR. BARRETT: Again, I am not going to get technical. You are going to
have to ask the developers that on Saturday. They wanted to make sure
that the area stays as pristine as it is right now ñ including
the pump station. That pump station was designed and put in the plans
there in case the County does not approve the grinder station for each
lot to put in the sewer pipe. Their intention is not to put a pump station
down in that area. It is an alternative if the County does not approve
their intention, which is to have a grinder station pump the sewer into
the pipe so it doesn't have to go down in that pristine
area.
A grinder pump station, my understanding is rather than have 13 septic
tanks on each lot, they want to have a sewer line in there. I guess
it is like a big garage disposal that pumps the sewage into the pipe
and then it will go down to the sewer treatment. That is going to protect
the ground water there and again they design the pump station
over in the low land of the lowest part of that area in case the County
does not approve the grinder station for these home lots.
MR. HERB RUBENSTEIN: I know we have a copy of your Special Use [Permit]
Application for the ìLift Station.î Is that something different
than the ìpump stationî that you are saying that they aren't
asking for?
MR. BARRETT: Yes, it is my understanding that they put that in there
in case the County does not approve the grinder station at each home
line. So if they don't approve it they don't have to come back and go
through another delay in the process to get that approved.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: You don't really want the Lift Station?
MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding it is in there like I stated.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Because my point is when you make an application for
Special Use Permit, a whole lot of people have to study that and look
at that plan and it has to go through the CAB and everything else.
MR. BARRETT: I agree with what you are saying and I support your all
coming to the Citizens Advisory in February and the Planning Commission
and tell them approve the grinder station.
MR. HORACE COSTANZO: Horace Costanzo. What is your position in this?
Are you hired by Brunson, do you work for Summit, are you a lawyer involved?
MR. BARRETT: I am not a lawyer. I am not an engineer. I have had a lot
of meetings in the Citizens Advisory committee and the folks did hire
me to come talk to you tonight and to help smooth out the information
process so people are informed.
MR. COSTANZO: Who do you work for?
MR. BARRETT: I work for IW Strategies, a government relations firm.
Mr. Berry.
MR. ROBERT BERRY: With all due respect to you [Mr. Barrett] and your
wonderful family, I love you all, I really truly do. My covenants and
restrictions provide that I can't sell to a black person or Chinese
people can only live in a little outhouse that is 800 square feet. That
was passed in 1946.
There are some really serious problems here. Really serious water problems,
some really serious ecological problems, and I am personally disappointed
that the owners of this project are not here [note: the developers and
owners of the project did not personally appear before the Citizen Advisory
Board on November 2, 2002 or before the Citizens Advisory Board on January
16, 2003, as well as the Protect Our Washoe meeting] because it just
seems to me the Dermody's are a well-known family here in Reno. It just
seems to me that people can sit down and work these things out. Okay,
you have a problem here, let's do it this way, let's do it this way.
But this is not about CC&R's. This is about sitting down in a community,
neighbors and making something happen that makes sense for everybody.
MR. BARRETT: You are absolutely right and that is why we sent out notices
for Saturday's meeting. We just found out about this meeting yesterday
when Mr. Walther called the developers at 3:00, they have families,
they have obligations as well. I was the fortunate one, I guess the
unfortunate one that drew the short straw and was chosen to be here
tonight. Saturday's meeting, as I said, we sent out the notices way
before this came out to answer the questions that you guys have.
MR. BERRY: The point is not public meetings. The point is your owners
get together with the principal movers of POW [Protect Our Washoe] and
you negotiate something that makes sense rather than a win/lose kind
of thing.
I have been with POW since Steve Walther was a sophomore at the University
of Notre Dame in 1961. Every single time it is this win/lose, ìI
want to do this, no, I want to do this,î and POW has won every
single time. Every single time. And the time has come with descent young
people like you and with all due respect to your family, why don't you
sit down with Steve Walther and work it out?
MR. BARRETT: You are absolutely right and it was my understanding there
was a meeting with Mr. Walther and there were numerous phone calls to
Steve's office that were not returned and that is why we ended up doing
the meeting on Saturday. We have been to the CAB [Southwest Truckee
Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]. We recognize that there was a communication
problem with the information getting out and that's why we are doing
Saturday.
Again, we called Mr. Sanford, we called Mr. Walther, calls went unreturned
so we took it upon ourselves to have this meeting on Saturday, 10:45
on Saturday morning over at Bartley Ranch.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We live on Fairview Road, and we didn't get advised.
MR. BARRETT: I did not see the list. It is my understanding this went
out a half-mile radius from the corner. I apologize. I apologize right
now for that. It was a mistake. You are invited to be there Saturday
morning and I appreciate Steve for announcing that at the beginning
of the meeting and there are directions to the meeting on the table
in the back.
MR. BOB HUNT: Bob Hunt. Who will be at the meeting on Saturday? Who
would be capable of really talking about what their goal is and how
it can be adjusted to fit with the rural area. Because otherwise, the
meeting on Saturday isn't going to be any better -- or they more friendly,
if you will, than this meeting.
MR. BARRETT: The developers will be there. The owner of the property
will be there, the architect, the engineers, the hydrologist will be
there and the developers can answer those CC&R questions better
than I can. I did not draft those. Everyone who is involved in that
project will be there. I also believe that there is going to be some
County folks so they are aware of what we are doing as well.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Elaine Steiner. I would like to know what the format
will be.
MR. QUADE: We'll have pictures of the development, most important, coffee
and donuts for everybody to sit down. I am not being sarcastic. We'll
have engineers to answer questions, depending on how many people show
up, one to one, if it is more of a classroom setting like this, we can
do that as well. We want to make sure everyone has their questions answered
to their satisfaction.
So again we can do it in a form like this or we can do it one on one
and have people go to different stations and ask their questions to
appropriate people there.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You have seen the maps, has anyone in the group seen
any of these maps and thought a little bit what they might address on
Saturday ahead of time or is this all alien to you?
MR. BARRETT: No, thank you for asking that. We have gone through these
maps a number of times and we have looked at -- we did one of the first
layouts was, oh, my god, that is in the creek that is too far in there,
that lot is below two and a half acres, how can we redesign --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: But something where you are specifically addressing
some of the width issues, some of the problems with getting water to
certain properties, is somebody going to be able to talk about a long
sort of laundry list of problems?
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It appeared to me to be a sales pitch and not come
and let us know what you feel about this in your neighborhood.
MR. BARRETT: That was not the intention. There will be no salespeople
there. We are not selling lots. I think it said in the invitation it
is an informal meeting.
MR. VANCE BELL: Vance Bell. I think from our response here, notification
has been very, very poor on your Saturday meeting. Did you get an ad
in the paper or anything on this?
MR. BARRETT: No, I believe it was sent out like I said a half-mile radius
to that. Again, I apologize to the folks that did not get them.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I would like to say something about the maps because
I had a hand in putting together these maps. These maps were produced
by Summit Engineering and if you see there is a line right here. The
original maps ñ those are two sheets of paper pasted together
very painstakingly. There was no color on these maps. There was no way
to really show the impact of the plan against the stream. And what we
did was, we made copies of the maps and we pasted them together, and
we colored them so we can now see exactly what the impact is. I want
to make that clear. These maps are the actual maps from the plans from
Summit Engineering for this project. But in order to see what was going
on, we had to take two maps and put them together and color them.
MR. BERRY: The question is have you given it to the developers?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I haven't had that kind of time, Bob.
MR. BERRY: The point is why do we always get into this win/lose kind
of a thing. I think what you should do is to give that map to the developers
prior to the Saturday meeting, tell them these are the concerns that
we have, they are legitimate, they are supported by absolutely totally
credible people, so prepare yourself, because this is what we are going
to talk about. These are streams, this is all of the things that wonderful
lady [referring to Lynn Mundt] who talked earlier -- just a wonderful
presentation. Tell her where you are coming from. This is where we are
coming from.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: It is my understanding when they first drew these lots
to fit county code, there were more lots in the stream and that is why
they redid it.
MS. STEINER: My name is Ellen Steiner and I am with the CAB [Southwest
Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]. To answer your question, we
did recommend not to approve this. And in our recommendation we listed
for the developer precisely why we turned it down, what the concerns
were, and we asked the developer to meet with the neighbors and the
community to try to work out something that would be amenable for everyone
which did not get -- that was in November. At that time we were working
from a pencil drawing that identified 13 lots with no indication of
where the streams were, with no indication of where the wetlands were,
with no indication of the topography. Were it not for the knowledge
of the people on the Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory
Board] as to the particular area, we would have had very little on which
to act. So I want to make that absolutely clear -- that this is not
news to the developers, what they are hearing tonight. These are concerns
that were expressly indicated at the CAB meeting.
The second time the development came before us, it was for the Lift
Station and the developer did not return with a map that had more detail
on it, but we were able to get a map from Washoe County planning. We
did not get it from the developer. Because we did not have again for
the second time [at the meeting of the Citizen Advisory Board on January
16, 2003] sufficient information, we voted not to take a vote on the
Lift Station again because we did not have sufficient information. When
this comes before us the next time, we hope that we'll have sufficient
information from both the developer and from the people and the neighbors
who are concerned with this project. But let me point out that this
is the third time the CAB will be considering that -- considering this
particular development. We don't often consider a development more than
once because when a developer comes before us, they have the respect
for our group, they give us a complete application, and we have not
had that. So I just want to point that out.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I heard Paula Dermody wants to replicate Kentucky Horse
country and all the homes will be white with green roofs and no horses.
MR. CHRIS BARRETT: That's the first time I have heard that.
MR. MIKE O'BRIEN: Mike O'Brien again. I would just like to say given
the proximity of the Silver Circle Ranch to your project, your half-mile
radius would have succeeded in inviting nobody. Did you give any consideration
to using that as an entrance to this project from the north? Has it
been considered at all?
MR. BARRETT: I think they looked at all areas and it is my understanding
that they looked at the existing driveway which is the entrance to the
project. It has been there longer than Jack. That is not going to be
gated. It is not a gated community. If the homeowners would like to
have a gate at their driveways like many others out there do, that's
fine.
As far as the access onto Holcomb, it is my understanding that County
Code requires an entrance in and out and an emergency exit, if you will.
They way they have that designed right now that is the safest point
from that corner.
MS. PALMER: Will Saturday's meeting be used by the developer to address
the CAB's concern that input from neighbors be sought?
MR. BARRETT: The best way I can answer that is to answer all the questions
from everybody there. If that solves the questions from the CAB, we'll
do every intention to do that. But again, we'll be back in February.
MS. PALMER: But the CAB was saying that a concern was that the neighbors
have had no input on this project.
MR. BARRETT: That's Saturday's meeting, so it will be used for that
purpose.
MS. DUGAN: I just have a suggestion, and it is my own personal suggestion,
so I don't know how everybody else here feels about, but I think some
people you can tell we are a little leery about this meeting Saturday
and you have said it could take many forms, it could be a ìone-on-one
thing.î I think some of us would feel -- I am getting told this,
but what if they tell that guy, his concerns were different than mine.
I suspect we might prefer this type of format where we can all hear
the same questions.
MR. BARRETT: We'll do that. I will order some more doughnuts.
MS. KAREN BOLDI: My name is Karen Boldi, I am with Summit Engineering,
I would like to apologize to the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen
Advisory Board]. We weren't informed that we would be put back on the
agenda -- our notification of the CAB meeting was short notice as well.
It did address that the tentative map might be addressed so I was hoping
to bring back the tentative map, at least with the changes -- to show
you changes have been made. I would like to apologize on Summit's behalf.
That is normally not our style and we will be coming back this month
to the Citizens Advisory Board, so I would encourage you to attend what
meeting to see if any of the other items have been addressed.
BrunsonBuilders has been very workable with us. I know they are not
trying to evade anything, any of the items addressed. I know a lot of
the items that were brought up this evening -- as far as water rights
go and irrigation goes -- have been addressed, and I would like the
opportunity to answer those questions for you all. Specifically with
respect to water rights, they will be irrigating with the existing surface
rights on the property.
Now, it wasn't only brought to my attention tonight, the points ìwhere
that water would be attainable from?î However, the existing ground
water rights would be for domestic purposes. I would encourage you all
to attend the CAB meeting. It would be a great opportunity to bring
your input from Saturday's meeting along to the following CAB meeting
to see what progression has been made and to see how we can mitigate
certain items.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will any of this information be presented on Saturday
in the sense of the new drawings and plans.
MS. BOLDI: Definitely. They do see these maps. I apologize, our first
set of maps were on one sheet, but that was due to a county requirement
that we show a surrounding radius of 400 feet topography. That is why
the maps got separated on two sheets. Unfortunately, that had to be
painstakingly cut and pasted together. We can put this site on one sheet
which hopefully BrunsonBuilt will have for you. I am assuming they will.
I have given them my displays already. And I know they have brought
in planners from California that have a bunch of displays. Hopefully,
maybe the house designs will be better addressed for you all.
Certain issues such as the drainage crossing will be better addressed
as well. If not, I would encourage all of you to attend the CAB.
MR. BOB HUNT: Bob Hunt. You provided information -- whether they choose
on Saturday to give it out or have it available -- it is available currently
to them?
MS. BOLDI: Certainly. I don't see why they won't have the most current
information. The changes that we have made have been somewhat minor
changes that the County wanted to see and address all the citizens issues
such as lot sizes, such as other items that were addressed at the initial
CAB meeting, which I didn't personally myself present.
I did present the changes and it was brought up that the stack of information
submitted to the County was this thick. Unfortunately that was due to
our well samples -- our well samples constituted most of what was included
with the changes. They wanted to see more copies than just the Health
Department's copy of the well samples. They wouldn't choose not to disclose
any of that, it is all public knowledge and it is all available.
MS. DEE DEE SCHULA: Dee Dee Schula. If the developer's intention was
to maintain the integrity and the community of the land in the area,
then why build 13 houses, why not build six and use the land properly
and allow the streams to function properly and make it a quality area,
not a quantity area. It sounds to me like it is about money, not quality.
MR. BARRETT: The best way to answer that -- they are private property
owners and the zoning out there says two and a half acres and that's
what they are doing.
MR. WALTHER: The meeting will be Thursday, February 20th, at 7:00. When
you go to Saturday, if you do, there are some questions that you might
ask. Are you going to require the look-alike lot or are you going to
change it so that anybody can build what they basically want? Are you
going to take Dry Creek and make it open space or are you going to do
what is currently being planned? Are you going to consider moving the
road farther away from Dead Man's Curve to the easterly direction so
that it will give time and kids the chance to react?
Some of these things are I think very important in the overall look
of the area. Are you going to restrict -- are you going to have enough
acreage for people other than trampling the Dry Creek where somebody
can have a horse and have some rural activity? Can you have a barn,
store some hay? Can you do what people out there do? Ask those questions
if you will because it is really very important.
I was contacted by Paula Dermody and Brunson before the CAB meeting
[held November 21, 2002] and they suggested that -- they said they wanted
to come before them and have a plan. At that time the proposals were
for lots less than two and a half acres. I said most of the time we
really insist on two and a half acre parcels or there would be a lot
of objection to it. I did not have at that point any declarations or
CC&Rís -- I didn't get those until I went down to the County
on my own on January 14th and got those. By the time they got to the
CAB meeting, none of the developers showed -- just the people from Summit.
I am not complaining about that, but they said when they met with me
they really want to hear what the people have to say. They didn't show.
There were a lot of questions, and the Advisory Board -- and Elaine
Steiner can tell you -- did not have the information and were never
even given a map that night of what was being proposed. It was put on
an easel for the first time and shown to the Advisory Board and the
people who were there were upset. I spoke out on the behalf of Ms. Dermody
and said ìI am told she is a wonderful woman and I really don't
think she wants to not give full information in connection this and
probably most of this can be worked out.î The Advisory Board denied
it but said come back and give us more information
and talk to the people in the meantime.
I then talked to Ed McCaffrey two or three times or more than that up
until Christmas about picking a time when we could have a meeting. I
called Paula Dermody the day after the first Advisory Board meeting
on November 2nd. I called her the next morning and said, ìI am
sorry about what happenedî and she didn't -- she wasn't even informed
at that point by Summit or the others who are with Legacy Farms that
it had been denied. She said I didn't know about that -- I will have
to get back to you. We met again, talked further, but I still didn't
have any information with respect to the CC&R's or any information
about the kind of issues we are talking about here tonight -- other
than the lot size.
So we agreed that we would try to have a meeting where we could get
people together. She had indicated that she wanted to have kind of a
tea and coffee approach at her house, but I mentioned the fact that
at this point what we [Protect Our Washoe] do is invite a significant
number of people from the area and we come together like this and we
try to get everybody in the same room so people can be fully understood,
rather than walk by two or three people having coffee and never getting
the full story at one time.
There was no agreement when that might be feasible and it wasn't clear
to me if they were going to come before the Advisory Board in January
or not. We then talked about having a meeting in January, this is after
Christmas, after New Year's, and it wasn't there and it wasn't clear
before they were going to come before the Advisory Board in January
until a day before. We didn't call a meeting or propose one because
we didn't want to raise a lot of issues if they were going to be resolved.
But when it came before the Advisory Board in January, as it turned
out, the developers did not show again. They sent -- I'm sorry, I don't
remember your name from Summit and there was again a package of information
that was filed with the County Planning, thick, well information, but
the CC&Rís and some very important stuff to us the Friday
before that, but none of that was given to me and I had none of that
information at all.
We get before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board once again was
upset that they had not been given the information or the current information
to consider the ìLift Stationî issue. So they [the Advisory
Board] denied it and asked them to come back in February. Now this is
calling a number of people out a number of times with inadequate information
-- including the Advisory Board.
So after that it wasn't clear to us whether or not they were going to
come back in February. And when the notice went out by Legacy Farms,
they didn't call me in advance and say we would like to propose Saturday
for a time. The notice just went out on their own. It wasn't clear to
us who got notice and it was clear that now tonight that a lot of people
didn't get notice.
But our concern is everybody needs to have notice and fairness all the
way around. And Mr. Quade who is right here today and lived there 41
years and property never got noticed of the meeting on Saturday. Those
are the problems that we were concerned about as people who really had
a stake in it, who really understood, may not get notice.
When you look at the notice that was sent out, all it did was talk about
wonderful things happening, but it didn't say what the heck it was and
the picture on the front page of it doesn't show the actual property
in a realistic way, even if it is that. So we were concerned and called
this meeting and that is why we are here.
I just wanted to give a history. A lot of issues could have been resolved,
these questions could have been answered earlier and therefore people
can make their own judgment.
MR. MIKE SCHULA: Mike Schula. Instead of going through a lack of communication
and what didn't happen right, why can't we go to her house, have a meeting
place with Paula Dermody and the right people so that we can address
the issues that really need to be talked about. It seems to me she owns
the land, everybody should meet at her house then if she wants to have
tea. The question is who will get notice of that.
MR. WALTHER: I said if you have a two and a half acre development, you
have some zoning rights to do in connection with that density. It doesn't
mean that you can do anything.
MR. BERRY: With all due respect to you, anybody who didn't return your
telephone calls is absolutely crazy. That is all I have to say.
MR. WALTHER: This is the reason we are here tonight, so we can learn
about it. They wanted to know enough to ask the questions that need
to be asked on Saturday and the Advisory Board hearing is coming up,
the Advisory Board people need to hear from you on this issue.
(The hearing
concluded at 9:30 p.m.)
Back to Legacy Farms Index Page