NO. TM02-005 (TOIYABE RANCH ESTATES)
WASHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
JUNE 29, 2004
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: The next item on the agenda is Item 4, Tentative Subdivision
Map Case No. TM02-005 (Toiyabe Ranch Estates) - To develop a 40-lot single-family
I want to open the public hearing with Mr. Paul Kelly.
MR. PAUL KELLY: Good evening. Paul Kelly with the Department of Community
The applicant proposes to develop the southern 600 acres of the 1,019-acre
Ballardini Ranch, to create 40 residential lots, ranging in size from
6.45 acres to 32.668 acres, with an average lot size of 14.64, and a density
of 0.07 units per acre.
The development laid out, in general, is sensitive to the site. The parcel
contains springs, possible wetlands, and stream channels that will be
required to be protected by no development strips and by designation of
building involved for each lot.
Slopes in excess of 30 percent are scattered throughout the development,
but more particularly on the perimeter lots. The majority of the interior
lots have slopes 15 percent or less. While the interior lots contain areas
of marginally developable land, the applicant has shown that sufficient
building space exists on each lot on slopes that are less than 30 percent
and outside of the environmentally sensitive areas.
There are a number of significant issues regarding water and sewer for
this development. Originally the District Health Department required that
the development hook up to community water and sewer system, as the property
is within 200 feet of existing systems, which requires mandatory hookup
with Health Department regulations.
However, under Truckee Meadows' Regional Plan, owning land within the
Truckee Meadows service area may be served with community systems.
As the land under this proposal is not included in the TMSA, the Regional
Plan would have to be amended to include this area before service is extended.
The applicant has proposed obtaining a variance to the Health Department's
regulations to serve the lots by individual wells and septic systems,
but the required data has not been submitted to the department for a determination.
An additional concern is the lack of water rights for ground water. The
applicant has service water rights, but does not have the necessary ground
water rights to dedicate to the County as required by the Department of
Another issue is access to the public U.S. Forest Service lands that are
adjacent to the parcel on the west side.
A number of elements of the comprehensive plan address this issue by requiring
the developer to provide access to these lands.
The County will require a public access easement for forest service property,
as stipulated by the comprehensive plan, the development code, and as
shown on the Parks & Recreation Department's master plan.
The easement location and dedication will be agreed to by the Parks and
the Developer as to the location.
As the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board pointed out,
there are a number of outstanding issues, some of which such as the lack
of Health Department approval of water supply and sanitary waste disposal
Staff shares these particular concerns with CAB. Many of the other concerns
of both CAB and staff, such as stream buffers, wetland protection, and
the Loan Tree Lane alignment, can be handled as conditions of approval
as is normally done with tentative map approvals.
It does appear to staff that the approval of the tentative map is premature,
and we recommend denial of the subdivision at this time.
Staff has provided motions, findings and conditions to the Planning Commission;
one for denial and one for approval, should the Planning Commission feel
that these issues can be addressed as conditions of final approval.
Should the Planning Commission feel compelled to deny the tentative map,
staff would recommend that when the issues of water supply, sanitary waste
disposal and water rights are resolved to the satisfaction of the Health
Department and the Department of Water Resources, the applicant be allowed
to come before the Planning Commission again under this application.
Staff has therefore suggested a motion, which is found at the end of the
staff report on page 9, that denies the proposal without prejudice.
Staff has received by now six letters, which you have copies of, and e-mails,
and two phone calls, all in opposition to the proposed project.
I am here to answer any questions you have.
Bryan Tyre, with the Environmental Health Section is here, and is on time
constraints. If you would have questions concerning water and sewer, I
would like to invite him up here at your discretion to answer these questions.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Mr. Salerno?
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Mr. Kelly, could you tell us just what is involved
with a submittal and tentative approval towards the TMSA, approval that's
required in order to connect to the water and sewer system?
MR. PAUL KELLY: The service boundary -- the Regional Plan would have to
be amended to extend the Truckee Meadows service area boundary to include
That is done -- Adrian, you can correct me -- at the initiation of one
of these governmental entities, to do this amendment.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: And it would have to be approved by the Regional
MR. PAUL KELLY: Right.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Could we have Bryan -- is it Byer?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Bryan Tyre, with the Environmental Health.
MR. BRYAN TYRE: My name's Bryan Tyre, and I'm here with the Health Department.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you like to go into a little more detail about the
part on here that you sent a letter in that you don't think --
MR. BRYAN TYRE: I've sent three letters over the last year and a half
or so. With regard to sewage, first of all, we have a regulation that
requires that if a property -- any part of the property is within 200
feet of a sewer, they need to go community sewer. That applies to this
We also have a variance procedure where you can vary certain regulations
in the sewage proposal regulations. We haven't had a variance applied
for or even discussed by anybody since I wrote that letter.
As opposed to the community sewer, you can also do septic systems on a
property like this. I have been up and looked at several test holes on
the property. They have 40 or so lots proposed. I've seen acceptable test
holes on approximately 20 of those. I saw another five test holes last
Friday. I haven't gotten any results of the percolation tests on those.
One was good, the other ones looked kind of marginal to me.
We also have a regulation that requires that you can't have anymore than
10 percent of the parcels in a subdivision on engineered systems.
Well, boy, the vast majority of the ones that I've seen that I've even
determined acceptable are engineered systems, so that also would have
to be varied.
Again, I haven't had any variance proposal or application from the applicants
I don't know anything about this Truckee Meadows service area thing. That's
a planning deal; the Health Department wasn't involved in that, as far
as I know, so we just go by our regulations and they are readily available
at the Health Department for anybody that wants to go review those.
With regard to water, originally I kind of jumped to the conclusion that
they would have to go to community water, because again it's right in
the street there available. That's not really the Health Department's
call. The State Engineer's Office handles water quantity issues; we handle
water quality issues. But about 20 so years ago we took on the task of
issuing well permits.
We won't issue a well permit if there is community water somewhere in
the area, not until we get a letter from the State Engineer's Office saying
that it's okay to issue a well permit and dig a well.
So they make the definition of available public water system, but that's
not as well defined as our 200 feet, for example. They kind of make that
a judgment call in each case, so they haven't made a judgment call in
this case, so I can't say that they have to go to public water.
However, our regulations, again the state regulations that we follow at
the Health Department, require that you submit samples from different
wells, is how it puts it, and not just one, but samples from different
wells, addressing the water quality with regard to the Federal water quality
standards, to make sure that the eventual buyers of the lots will be drinking
water that meets the Federal standards.
We've gotten a partial submittal on that yesterday on the well there at
the farm house, the ranch house, and we haven't had any -- it's not complete,
but I understand they're coming, results that are coming. And I don't
think there has been any attempt to sample more than one well. So that's
the situation, that's where we stand now. So if you have some questions,
I have to go at 7:30, as I have a prior commitment.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Prior
or Mr. Kelly?
MR. TYRE: Just for the record, it's Tyre, T-y-r-e.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Okay, thank you very much. I think that's all.
MR. TYRE: I'll be here until 7:30 to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Do we have the applicant's representative?
MR. PAUL KELLY: The applicant is here.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: What's his name? Sir, do you want to tell us your name,
who you represent, and also would you fill out a sheet with our lady over
MR. TOM ERWIN: My name's Tom Erwin, I'm with the law firm of Erwin &
Thompson, LLP, in Reno. I'm here accompanied by Tim Nelson, property owner
of Evans Creek, LLC; and Tammy Zimmerman, who is employed by Pezonella
& Associates, the water quality and sewer system consultant for the
applicant. Preliminarily I'd just like to request the opportunity, after
we complete our brief presentation now, to respond and rebut any comments
or other statements made by the County staff.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: We usually limit the representative to about 15 minutes.
Is that okay?
MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson will answer specific questions about the
application plan, as shown on the map. Miss Zimmerman will answer questions
about the water quality testing and the septic system.
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission, concerning
the primary issues of water and sewer, the Company has undertaken the
testing for the sewer systems, and there were some scheduling delays.
They have additional testing plans and another inspection, I believe,
planned for tomorrow at 1:00. This is stated in more detail in the letter.
I gave Mr. Kelly copies to be distributed to all of you.
It's the company's intension to continue the testing and inspections until
they do meet the requirements, as well as the other requirements of the
Concerning the water quality, they have conducted the one test. The turnaround
time for the well sampling on all the compound takes a matter of
weeks, and they are awaiting the initial test result. They will complete
the additional well testing in accordance with the code, and Pezonella
has been retained and is intending to do that.
She can answer more questions about the testing itself of both the water
quality and the septic systems.
In the letter that was submitted, the accompanying details in response
to some of the concerns Mr. Kelly raised, and were also raised by the
Committee Advisory Board during that meeting in May, and I think the letter
speaks for itself, but there are a couple of items I'd like to address
specifically. First of all, this project is approximately 600 acres, 40
lots, it's very low density, and it does conform to the surrounding areas.
In fact, some of the properties nearby are actually much higher density
subdivisions on the north and to the east and to the southeast, some distance
away. It does reduce the impact on the environment there and the way the
homes will be sited on these lots and the way the lots are laid out with
the topography and the roads, the visual impact for property of this size
and location in southwest Reno, compared to some of the other subdivisions
out there. The overall visual impact would be much less than your clients;
for example, Arrow Creek and some of the other subdivisions out there.
The Company will comply with all of the requirements of the code, and
the conditions that are recited in the report, in the portion of the report
relative to the motion for approval with conditions, including the sensitivity
to the stream buffer zones, which will comply with Article 418; the wetlands
issue will be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The Company is committed to do that, and will do that.
Concerning the -- there are a couple other items which were raised, and
they are addressed in the conditions.
One is: There is a legal action pending concerning the existence or nonexistence
of a public road through the property. It's our position that the pendency
of that litigation is not barred to consideration for the application
for the tentative map, and is certainly not grounds for denial. There
is a condition in the report, Condition Number 6, which addresses that
issue pending resolution of that legal action.
Another issue that was raised by the CAB was a proposal for a traffic
study. The standards applied to developments in Washoe County, they take
an estimate of the number of daily trips generated by a development. And
our number of daily trips is well below the threshold for a traffic study,
and we don't believe that should be a requirement under the conditions
of a tentative map approval.
One issue that Mr. Kelly noted is the Lone Tree right-of-way dedication.
That is an issue related to the public road issue. And it's our position
that the dedication in that parcel map is referred to in that report.
If you read the parcel map, it refers to two other parcels of land, Parcels
A and B, and a 5-foot dedication along the Lone Tree Lane extension. It's
not a continuation through the property itself, and we don't believe that
should be a ground for denial, or a condition of the approval of the application.
At this time I would close our request by simply stating that if the Commission
believes that the application should be denied pending completion of
the additional inspections, it should be per the suggested form of motions
without prejudice, because it is the Company's intention to complete the
that has been undertaken, and inspections are scheduled, and they will
do that until they bring the property in conformity with the requirements.
If you have any questions of me or Mr. Nelson, Miss Zimmerman, we'd be
willing to answer those.
As I said, we would like the opportunity to respond to any other comments
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Any questions from the Commissioners? I don't think we
have any. Thank you very much.
The first speaker I have on my list is a Steven Walther. Three minutes,
MR. WALTHER: I'm not familiar with the Commission. My name is Steve Walther,
I live at 8895 Lakeside Drive. I'm here on behalf of a group that identifies
itself as Protect Our Washoe, as well as myself.
We recommend denial based upon the grounds that were stated by the Advisory
Board, as well as by staff, on the basis that the application is premature
for consideration at this time.
Without reiterating a number of those, I would ask -- I think each of
you received a letter of mine yesterday, together with a copy of the transcript
of the Advisory Board, and I would ask that it be made a part of the record.
Is that satisfactory?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes.
MR. WALTHER: Thank you very much.
Briefly, some fundamental things: This application was filed, it shows
on the record, approximately two years ago. They then put it on hold for
over a year. It may have been filed more than two years ago, and I'm not
exactly sure of the exact filing date.
The problems that we're talking about today are the same problems that
we were talking about two years ago, and they're still not solved. There
is no guarantee that there can be any water to this development, unless
there is a law change, whereby the Truckee Meadows Services Area will
begin to encompass this property. Other than that, it's still pure speculation,
and what we've seen to date doesn't do it.
With respect to sewer -- and they did, as I understand it, run some test
holes, according to the staff report, but they didn't have any inspection,
as required by law. With respect to the sewer, the staff report shows
there were 40 test holes, and 20 of which were unacceptable. And still,
as was reported by Mr. Tyre, there is no basis for determining whether
or not sewer will ever be made available to this development without a
So to approve the development, two fundamental things on the basis of
water and sewer, assuming that the only way they can really ever be sure
they're going to have it is to change the law, it seems very premature,
especially when you consider the fact that this application has been pending
for 24 months and they still are now, as of today and tomorrow and the
next day, going to start doing some fundamental things to determine whether
or not it's ripe for consideration.
With respect to wildlife, the Ballardini Ranch is at the heart of the
wildlife population in difficult times. The report by Dr. Paul Tueller,
from the University of Nevada, makes it clear that this is a very sensitive
and critical area for the deer herd, but yet there's nothing really provided
upon how they are going to help preserve the deer herd.
The only thing that I've seen is to say that because the lots are large,
that helps mitigate.
But help mitigate from what percent to what percent? And they say the
fences will have to be mitigated too. So as a practical matter, there
should be some concrete information upon how to protect this regional
treasure and this deer herd, and there's nothing to that effect at this
With respect to the fire trail, they say they are going to go through
the northern 400 acres to get to McCarran, but there's really no detail
on how to hook into McCarran. It's a very costly road that they're going
to build. And when asked if the Advisory Board -- (The bell rang for the
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you. Do you have a fast conclusion?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I would like to hear the rest of his presentation,
if I might.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I'll give you one more minute, Mr. Walther.
MR. WALTHER: I can do that. When asked at the Advisory Board if they
could give any indication as to what they intended to do with the 400
acres, they refused to answer.
The one thing they did answer, though, is they may be suing appropriate
entities, over water and sewer, and they're in current litigation with
County over access.
To seal off this property, would be a travesty. And our planning regulations
require that this can be conditioned for public access, and they still
are challenging that on a legal basis. And to not provide public access
through this, would be a travesty for everyone who has enjoyed this for
I should mention the fact that they want to have a sealed, gated community.
They want to seal it off from the rest of the population, as well as for,
in my opinion, probably to a large degree, wildlife as well.
They were asked at the Advisory Board if they would reconsider not having
a gated community up there, and Mr. Nelson said no, and then
towards the end he said Okay, I will reconsider going back to the
owners and asking them if they will consider not having it gated.
And as I understand it, he subsequently advised the Advisory Board that
they must be sealed. Thank you. (The bell rang for time limit.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: The next speaker is Herbert Rubenstein?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Three minutes, Mr. Rubenstein, please.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Herbert Rubenstein, 4005 Odile Court, and I'll try to
be less than two minutes.
Here are some of the problems I have with this project: Traffic requirements
could lead to a widening of Lone Tree. That's because there are other
pending developments. There's the Landmark/Cosmos, Legacy Farms, which
also could affect Lakeside.
The sensitive stream zone of Evans Creek also may be affected. Their information
is not clear on this issue.
They have several outstanding or unsettled legal issues.
Water and sewer arrangements are incomplete. Even if drinking water was
obtained by drilling 40 wells, irrigation water could still be a problem.
I can't imagine what 40 of these large sites would look like without water
A gated community would limit public access to the adjacent foothills.
This would forever close one of the last public access points. One by
one we have seen this happen all over town.
Last month I attended the CAB hearing, and it seems as though some of
the most basic questions were just not answered.
Over and over legitimate questions were passed off in a very bureaucratic
fashion with phrases like the following, and I will just read a few:
Yet took determined.
To be worked out with County staff.
Whatever the County standards require.
Not pertinent to this application.
Has not been determined yet.
Whatever needs to be done for the final mapping.
Not pertinent to what you should be reviewing.
Not germane to review of the tentative map application.
Not pertinent to this application.
Not required as part of the tentative map process.
In summary, if this developer wants project approval, they need to dot
the I's and cross the T's like everybody else does.
They need to answer questions and settle issues first, and then come back
to the CAB and the Planning Commission with complete information in hand.
In my opinion the County staff made the correct recommendation to deny
this application. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Mr. Rubenstein. Next speaker is Mr. Romero.
Three minutes, please.
MR. ROMERO: My name is Mark Romero. I am actually speaking for my father,
Bruno Romero, who has somewhat become a celebrity in the last few months
in TV and in the papers regarding the Ballardini Ranch.
This is all about access to a property that's been special to him for
over 40 years, walking up the trails of Ballardini Ranch without interference,
and someone who actually loves the beauty of that land, who actually wishes
to be buried there, his ashes laid there when he dies.
My father has been very prominent in this community. He was a contractor.
He has a street named after him, it's called Romero Drive. He owned Vaughn
Materials, he owned Builders Mart in Elko.
And all he asks these days is he be able to walk his trails, walk his
mountains on that ranch, as he has for the last 40 years. That is not
too much to ask. We are losing a lot of precious property in this area,
and this is not too much to ask for our community, to have some open space
and open property.
So I am personally requesting a rejection of this proposal, and think
about the people whose lives are affected by the loss of this property.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I would appreciate it greatly if we would sustain from
clapping, because we have a long, long agenda, and we want to make sure
everybody gets a chance to speak.
The next speaker would be Mr. Dick Benoit. Am I pronouncing that right?
I notice you're a representative from Truckee Meadows Trails. Would five
minutes be adequate for you instead of three?
MR. BENOIT: About one and a half will work.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: One and a half? Okay, you've got it.
MR. BENOIT: My name is Dick Benoit. I live at 629 Jones Street, Reno,
Nevada, and I'm the President of the Truckee Meadows Trails Association.
And on behalf of the Board of Directors and the members of the Truckee
Meadows Trails Association, we're asking you to consider this a strong
opposition to the approval of the application of Toiyabe Ranch Estates.
We note that the Southwest Meadows, Truckee Meadows CAB, and Washoe County
Planning Staff have also both recommended denial of this application.
The Truckee Meadows Trails Association exists to advocate and build trails
within the local Reno area, and we're very concerned that the Evans Creek,
Limited, gives every appearance of going out of their way to deny all
but 40 households access to the forest service land to the west of their
They have proposed a gated community with no public access at all, and
they really go out of their way to stick it in our eye about this.
Now if you look behind you, it says: We value community. First thing,
right up there.
What they're proposing is not community. I would urge you to deny this
application, and any future ones that come back without adequate public
access, to also deny those. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Mary Winston, three minutes.
MS. WINSTON: My name is Mary Winston, and I reside at 629 Jones Street,
Reno, and I am also representing the Friends of Mt. Rose, and we -- it
seems to me that the staff has some very legitimate concerns about this
project, and it indicates to me, at least, that the fact that these concerns
have not been addressed by the LLC, indicates scant respect for the processes
of the County, and by implication the community and our standards. Thank
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FESSENDEN: Faith Fessenden. I live at 5975 Sierra Vista Way in the
neighborhood of Viewcrest and Lakeside.
I am on the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board, but tonight
I'm speaking as a homeowner and a private citizen.
1998, the year the initial application was filed by Evans Creek, LLC.
Six years. How many meetings and presentations have we listened to in
either this room or the Reno City Council Chambers? How much of your time,
and our time, has been spent here in this room? I feel like our names
are all on the chairs and we have pajamas hanging on the back wall.
1998. Six years. The applicant, Evans Creek, LLC, has in six years gone
through four sets of legal counsel, is on their third planner, they are
currently in litigation against one of the planners, are threatening litigation
over sewer, are threatening litigation over water, since 1998, six years.
You have before you six major findings by which staff recommends denial.
These requirements have not been esoteric procedures known and privy to
only a few. Evans Creek, LLC, now under the non-de-plume Toiyabe Ranch
Estates, had four lawyers who knew the requirement; two sets of planners
who knew the requirements. We can only assume their current third planner
knows the requirements.
As stated, six of those entities have been fired. Who are these people?
This is the most bogus business plan and methodology I have ever experienced.
And here we are again. Everything is incomplete.
Does Evans Creek, LLC, think we the citizens of Washoe County and Reno
City are morons that will throw our hands up and give in? That if they
just keep changing the project name and keep coming back, we will just
give into them? Six years. Come on.
I urge you to deny this application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Chair? Excuse me, but due to the fact that
Mr. Tyre has to leave at 7:30, I do have one question that I would like
to ask him before he leaves. May I do that now?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes. Mr. Tyre?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. Given the late submitted material by
the developer, and the fact that in this material it says that somebody
from the Health Department has inspected some holes, and you said that
as well, at this juncture, considering that all of this has happened at
the 11th hour, would you still recommend denial of the subdivision based
on what you know to this point in time?
MR. TYRE: Yes, two reasons: State law says that their water quality reports
have to be together from at least two different wells before the tentative
map, or as a condition of the tentative map application. That hasn't been
And the other part is that the sewage disposal, we have to sign off on
the general method of sewage disposal before the tentative map gets approved
again, and that hasn't been done either.
So, you know, both of those things are required at the tentative map stage,
and neither has been done.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next speaker I have is Mary Dugan.
MS. DUGAN: My name is Mary Dugan, and I live at 5935 Sierra Vista Way
in Reno at the Lakeside View Crest area near this property.
I am a member of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board,
but I'm here today as a homeowner and a concerned citizen.
I was at that May meeting of the CAB when Mr. Nelson presented this project
on behalf of Evans Creek, and he neglected to mention at the beginning
that he was Secretary of Evans Creek, but we eventually learned that from
him. At that time the CAB expressed its desire that this development,
if it were built, not be a gate community, which seems to foster an attitude
of exclusiveness, as opposed to an attitude of inclusiveness.
The other problem with gated communities is that it seems like people
who live in them don't want people speeding through their communities
and their neighborhoods, but they are perfectly happy to speed through
other people's neighborhoods outside the gate as soon as the gate closes
The other problem with a gated community is that it would cut off public
access to the federal land to the west. And I understand that having this
access is a requirement of the County regulations.
The reason Mr. Nelson gave at the CAB for wanting a gated community was
that Evans Creek, LLC didn't think their high-end buyers would want people
walking past their houses. Well in my neighborhood, people walk past my
house all the time. Some of them are neighbors, some are strangers, but
they are just walking down the street. They don't have cooties or anything.
Are these high-end buyers going to prevent each other from walking past
each other's homes?
It appears that Mr. Nelson and Evans Creek want people seeking access
to federal lands to walk through everybody else's neighborhoods to get
to them, and they certainly want to be able to walk through those neighborhoods
to get to federal lands, but they don't want us, the riffraff, in their
neighborhood. Just a couple more points. The staff report states that
if this project were to be approved, a condition would be that all slopes
would be required to be covered with topsoil, reseeded and irrigated to
establish growth. These are large lots, and it's not legal to irrigate
them from what are supposed to be domestic water sources.
Mr. Nelson has said that Evans Creek doesn't have ground water rights
yet, and that's in the staff report as well. So they don't even have the
water rights to enable them to do what would be required to be done to
be in compliance with the County regulations.
It's interesting to me that staff listed 46 conditions, if this application
were to be approved, before they even get to the standard conditions.
So if you look at the staff report, there are 73 conditions on this project.
That tells you, alone, that something is wrong with this project, if you
have to fix 46 things before you get to the plain old ordinary normal
This is a classic case of Evans Creek, LLC, of putting the cart before
the horse. (The bell rang for time limit.)
MS. DUGAN: I can wrap up really fast.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Go ahead.
MS. DUGAN: There is no approved method of providing culinary water and
sanitary waste disposal that's been provided. The adequacy of the wells
and the septic systems has not been determined. Evans Creek hasn't provided
any necessary access to federal lands, as required.
And it's even in litigation against the County, and trying to challenge
the County's finding that a public road, is a public road. And it doesn't
have the water rights that it needs to irrigate this property.
This application is premature, and it should be denied. And I have got
four more Dugans right here that feel the same way I do. So please deny
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you. The next request here is from Robert and Donna
Rose. They say they want the denial, they support the denial, but they
do not wish to speak, so that's on the record.
Next one I have is from a Charles Ragusa? Am I saying that right?
MR. RAGUSA: Good evening. I'm Charlie Ragusa from Reno, Nevada, and I
would like to strongly encourage this Commission to uphold staff's recommendation,
and to deny the applicant's proposal.
I feel that the Southwest CABS' use of the word premature really sums
it up. There are just too many questions yet to be answered in regards
to this issue. Not only on this project, but on this property.
I know your decision must be based on the merits of the applicant's proposal,
but an incredibly generous offer has been made by a member of our community
in regards to this property.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Sir, we aren't going to discuss that point tonight. Only
discuss what is in --
MR. RAGUSA: I understand that and I appreciate it, but I feel that some
recognition must be given to the hundreds of people who have dedicated
thousands of hours in an effort to preserve Ballardini Ranch. I also don't
feel that Evans Creek has acted in good faith with our community in this
area from the beginning.
In summary, the decision reached in regards to the Ballardini Ranch, will
leave a lasting legacy not only for our community, but for our entire
Please give us an opportunity to leave a legacy we can all be proud of.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Sheila Millian? Am I saying that right?
MS. SHEILA MEGAN: It's Megan. I don't wish to speak, but I did want you
to deny the application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next one I have is Diana Foley.
MS. DIANA FOLEY: Diana Foley, and I also do not wish to speak, but I would
like to respectfully, adamantly agree with staff's report for denial,
and ask that any of my additional time could be given for Steve Walther,
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you.
MS. KVAS: Mr. Chair, they really do have to come down, because the recorder
can't pick up these comments or their names.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you ladies mind coming down here?
MS. SHEILA MEGAN: I am Sheila Megan. I do not wish to speak, but I do
hope the Commission will deny the application by Evans, LLC. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you.
MS. DIANA FOLEY: Good evening. My name is Diana Foley, and I would like
to respectfully and adamantly agree with staff's report for denial, and
if possible donate my additional time to Mr. Steve Walther, if he would
need that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next speaker I have is Claudia Patraw.
MS. PATRAW: My name is Claudia Patraw. I live here in Reno. I just wish
that the Commission here would deny the proposal by Evans Creek, and any
additional time that I have be given to Steve Walther. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Tyre one more questions
before he leaves? I forgot to write something down.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How many test holes did you do for your perk test?
MR. TYRE: Originally, and you know, these go back quite a ways, because
there have been a couple of consultants on this thing, but I looked at
something like 50 or 60, quite a while ago, but I only saw about 20 that
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How many of them were negative?
MR. TYRE: 50 or 60, minus one. 30 or 40 were unacceptable. There were
some bad ones.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I just wanted to check. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Our next speaker is Cynthia Adams.
MS. ADAMS: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Cindy Adams, and I live
in Reno, Nevada. I would just like to ask that all the people that are
here in opposition to the Ballardini Ranch would rise for a moment. (A
large portion stood.)
I think probably that's the strongest statement I could make. Thank you
very much. I would like to also have the Commission consider that because
there is litigation currently around this property on a public road, it
seems also premature that the Commissioners could make any sort of decision
on a tentative map when it could be caught up in litigation, as well as
all the other reasons that have been mentioned before me. Thank you very
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Miss Adams.
MS. KAISER: Thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is
Susan Kaiser, I am a resident of the Chardonnay Village at 6560 Montecello
Although I have not studied the details of this proposal, I have strong
feelings about development of the Ballardini Ranch.
I am a second generation native Nevadan, and as a young girl I remember
a heated debate over setting aside land for the Rancho San Rafael Park.
Thankfully at that point in time our elected officials had the foresight
to preserve that land that is enjoyed by so many individuals today.
I am here tonight to urge you to preserve the remaining open space in
the southwest foothills to benefit the many residents of our valley over
the greed of a few out-of-state developers.
I urge you to deny this application for development of the Ballardini
Ranch. In the interest of future generations of Nevadans, my own three
children, and the four Dugans who are my students. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker is Christopher Henry. But you say you do not wish to speak?
Come down and say your name into the microphone, if you're here.
MR. HENRY: I am Christopher Henry, I live at 1450 Joanie Court. I am also
speaking for my wife tonight.
I am opposed to this proposed development. I can't really add anything
to what everybody has said, but really sounds like a bad idea. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir, appreciate that.
MR. EUGENE JEZEK: Good evening. My name is Eugene Jezek. I live at 3260
I agree with my fellow citizens here. I strongly urge that you deny this
project. And I would also like to donate any available time to Mr. Walther.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Craig Schriber?
MR. SCHRIBER: My name's Craig Schriber. I live at 2190 Dent here in Reno.
I am a professional Realtor, I deal in a number of high-end homes and
primary in Southwest Reno.
I would like to say that I really would appreciate if you would vote with
the staff recommendation against this project.
One thing I see is a number of my clients come from out of town. They
have moved to the area, moved here for certain things like quality of
life. Quality of life is defined by open space.
People who live in this community who move to that area of town, go there
for the quality of life, as well as people who want to go for walks, hikes.
I think it's essential that we do the right thing for our community. Sometimes
you just have to do the right thing, and I hope you will support the
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
MS. SMITH: My name is Catherine Smith. I live at 3565 Rosa Linda. I agree
with everything that's been said about supporting the staff recommendation.
And I would like to say that we are an area that is beset with applications
for development all over the place, and it's all you and the staff can
do to keep up, and keep up standards.
If you accept something that's as substandard as this for such a prime
piece of property, it's going to be open season; anybody can do anything.
And I know none of us wants to have that happen.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am. I have no further requests to speak.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this subject? The lady
A LADY: I have a letter from Ms. Steiner.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you identify who you are and where you're from?
You may have permission to speak.
Do you want to come down, give your name, location? You have three minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: My name's Diane Ronsheimer. I live at 6675 Evans Creek
Drive, in the Chardonnay Village.
And I agree with everything that's been said, and I am really worried
about the environmental impact that is going to happen by the building
We need to leave something to our future generations, and this is a good
place to start. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: You've already had your three minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: This is for someone that could not be here.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I'm not so sure we can do -- well, go ahead. Two minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: I am reading this for Ellen and Elaine Steiner, a member
of and current Chair, respectively, of the Southwest Truckee Meadows CAB.
This is from the two of them. They are unable to be here.
We have read the staff report. We do agree with their conclusion
that the Planning Commission should deny the application. However, the
staff report, although it discusses the CAB recommendation for denial
and the concerns which led to that recommendation, does not reflect the
tone of the presentation by the applicant at the CAB meeting.
Never in all the years we have been involved in these issues, and
that includes the City Council, have we been so outraged at the conduct
of a presenter. His arrogance was without peer. He refused to answer many
of our questions, and the information he did manage to impart was so lacking
in the usual detail that the CAB almost couldn't make any recommendation.
Also, while we agree with staff's recommendation for denial, we do not
agree with all of their report; to wit: We do not agree that the Planning
Commission should allow them to, in effect, void the regulations about
the appropriate time frames between applications, which it would be doing
were the Planning Commission to follow the suggestion of staff. If the
Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary to vote in the
affirmative, then it shouldn't vote to deny, up or down, no in between.
When conditions change, the applicant can then refile just as any
other unsuccessful applicant might, according to the time frame set out
in the regulations. There is no justification, in our mind, to do anything
else, particularly wherein the applicant has refused to work with the
relevant issues, such as the traffic and trail preservation.
And the fact that the applicant and County are engaged in a relevant
legal dispute, is even more of a reason why the County should not make
any special exception for this applicant.
But the biggest hole I see in staff's argument, and perhaps one
they felt could not address openly, but one we can, is the fact that the
citizens of this community have expressed over and over again that they
wish this land to remain in the public domain, whatever that takes.
Therefore, our elected representatives and their appointees, i.e.,
the Planning Commission, have a higher mandate than just making findings.
Although they are as important as a legal record -- (the time limit
bell is loudly ringing) -- they must carry out the wishes of the public
as expressed in the bond election wherein the public agreed to tax itself
in order to preserve this area or future generations.
There is no doubt in our mind that he necessary funds will become
available to see that the will of the people is carried out.
Respectfully, Ellen and Elaine Steiner.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Diane Ronsheimer?
MS. RONSHEIMER: I have already spoken, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Oh. Holly Coughlin.
MS. COUGHLIN: Good evening. My name is Holly Coughlin, I'm Chair of the
Great Basin Group, Sierra Club, here in Reno, Nevada.
I live at 2122 Sycamore Glen Drive in Sparks, Nevada. As a native Nevadan
of five generations, I have watched the Truckee Meadows slowly disappearing
in the name of development and growth. The Ballardini Ranch area is the
last meadow area left that retains the beauty and integrity of our area.
Over the past several years, I have led numerous hikes with hundreds of
people through the Ballardini area up into the U.S. Forest Service property
to the west.
Losing access to this area would be a loss to all Washoe County residents,
and all the voters who supported the parks and the trails bond, which
should have included this property from its inception. Access to trails
is an increasing problem throughout our area. You have the ability to
preserve this area of open space for the enjoyment of future generations.
On behalf of the Great Basin Group of the Sierra Club, who have over 2000
members in Northern Nevada, we ask you to deny the development of this
As a life-long resident of this area, I personally plead for you to leave
this area as open space.
Respectfully, Holly Coughlin.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
I have no further requests to speak. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak on this subject?
Sir? Mr. Nelson?
MR. NELSON: Tim Nelson on behalf of Evans Creek, LLC, the property owner.
Would you like me to fill out one of your cards, or give it to you after?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: She's got it over here.
MR. NELSON: I am the secretary of Evans Creek, LLC. I'm also a Consultant
to and for Evans Creek, LLC. I have been involved with these owners for
a long time.
I'd like to comment in response to some of the questions and statements
made. First, it's not a huge item, but we do have substantial water rights
to irrigate the property. There are surface water rights that are being
used to irrigate the property currently, and they are plenty ample to
allocate amongst the individual lots for future irrigation.
The gated community aspect, that's not an appropriate consideration for
review of a tentative map. I understand that some people don't like gated
communities. A lot of people do like gated communities and live in them.
There are a great number of gated communities that the Washoe County Commission
has approved in Washoe County. Virtually all of the most highly recognized
residential communities in Washoe County, Washoe Valley, have some gated
aspect to them, or are an overall gated community, including portions
of Caughlin Ranch, Arrow Creek, Del Monte Ranch, Caughlin Ranch, Bell
Sierra, right off the corner of the Ballardini Ranch, Lakeside areas just
to the east of the property, Demetra Drive, which is immediately adjacent
to the east.
And I'd also submit to you that a number of people in the Southwest Truckee
Meadows have gated properties, if they don't live in a gated community,
individual acreage properties that utilize gates for the same purpose
that a gated community does.
I find it kind of interesting that the staff report, which again we just
received on Friday of last week, talks about the application being premature
for review and approval, when at the agency review session with County
staff, where most of the County staff, department heads and County planning
members were present, there was nothing expressed at that meeting at all
about the application being premature.
In fact, virtually all of the items raised and comments regarding the
project were described by planning staff at the meeting as items that
were subject to resolution prior to the final map, which is according
to the codes and ordinances, or were items that could be resolved with
a condition of approval.
There was specific representations made about the road litigation being
appropriate for resolution by condition of approval. That's in your staff
The same thing was the case with respect to resolution of the Catch 22
that County regulations put us in on connecting to community sewer versus
private septic systems.
One of the problems in getting the inspections done on the perk tests
is the availability of District Health Department staff to come out and
inspect the sites. That wasn't our problem. We invited them out weeks
ago, and there wasn't a representative available until last Friday.
There are scheduled visits for tomorrow to review additional perk test
holes and results. And we expect that all of those matters will be resolved
to the satisfaction and approval of District Health, in addition to the
water quality testing.
I think it's also significant that no mention was made, until the last
day, of the need for additional water tests on other wells, when they
full well that the water tests that were being done, were done on the
well at the ranch house on the property.
We expect those full results to comply with all the drinking water standards,
and to support septic and individual wells on the property. I'd just like
to reemphasize that we're not seeking any rezoning, we're not seeking
any increase in density. In fact, the average density on this
project is almost 15 acres. It's probably larger than the density, if
you added up the ranchettes within a one-mile radius, I would venture
to guess that the density of this project is less than the density in
those individual properties accumulated.
Many of the items raised at the CAB meeting and by the speakers tonight,
are items that typically are dealt with prior to approval of a final map.
I believe staff would verify that, and I would ask you to consider items
that are appropriate for the tentative map, for the considerations laid
out in your ordinance and state statute to review, and to not review,
not to consider items that are not applicable to the tentative map, but
are part of the final map review process, where the County has authority
to deal with those issues.
There have been several comments made that suggest that this proposal
is attempting to cut off access to the national forest, or to stop the
public access that has allegedly been in place for many years on this
property. Nothing could be further than the truth. This property has never
been public. There has never been public access across any portion of
the property, as testified to by prior the property owners of the Ballardini
The access that is proposed by the County in terms of the presumed public
road, is not the access that Mr. Romero claims to use across the northern
part of the property. In fact where he claims to have gone isn't even
part of this tentative map application, the area of the property.
There is no historic evidence of maps or evidence in the tentative --
excuse me, the parcel map 616, that supports any claim to a public road.
That matter will be resolved in litigation, and will be resolved in favor
of the applicant that there is no public road across the property, and
that it was
incorrect to include that on the County's maps as presumed public roads
back in 1999.
It's unfortunate that the proper research wasn't done at that time, so
that we're required to bring that issue forward at this time, amidst claims
that we're trying to close off some public access and public roads that
have existed for a long period of time. That is not the case, and it will
be proven to be the case in that litigation.
Notwithstanding that, it's appropriate to approve the tentative map based
on the ability to resolve that issue in litigation. And staff's own recommendation
regarding that is that the result of that can be taken into account in
approving the tentative map.
We do request that if you decide to deny the tentative map, that you deny
it based on staff's recommendation, that it's denied without prejudice,
so we can continue to work in good faith with the District Health Department,
to show that the lots perk properly, and the septic systems work, and
the water quality support individual wells on the property.
I appreciate your time, and thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this subject tonight?
Sir, would you like to speak? Come on down. Give us your name, where you're
And also I request that you have permission to speak once you have spoken.
MR. ROBERT CAMERON: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Robert Cameron.
I live in the Mt. Rose Highway area.
I would just like to add that I was at the CAB meeting where the applicant
was stating their position on all this, and you heard different descriptions
of what went on, and I would only like to add when I asked the question,
"Will there be trails available to the forest service land?"
Now this is not verbatim, but it was in the area of, the answer was: I
don't believe our clientele would want that.
And I personally am not interested in those kind of people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak?
I have a Rose Strickland, and you have just a comment; is that correct?
MS. ROSE STRICKLAND: Thank you. My comment was really for the record.
I am not sure I can add anything to what you heard from all of these people
tonight, other than: Please deny this application and support the acquisition
of this property so we can keep it as open space, and we can keep our
access to our national forest. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Miss Strickland.
I have another one that wants to make a comment. Dennis Ghiglieri?
MR. DENNIS GHIGLIERI: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name's
Again, I would just make the comment that I would certainly hope that
we could continue to honor the voters of the County, who I believe overwhelmingly
support the acquisition of this property. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Again, is there anybody else that would like to speak?
MR. NELSON: Would you permit me --
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, if we keep doing this, we will have
contradictions and --
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I think this is the last one.
MR. NELSON: I neglected to address some of the materials that you received
that show a map of existing and proposed public access points to the public
lands in Southwest Truckee Meadows.
There is a lot of talk about that this is the only opportunity for access,
or this is the last opportunity for access.
I provided a map that shows existing legal public access in the Juniper
Hills neighborhood, by the Caughlin Ranch mini-storage, which is just
off to the northwest corner of the Ballardini Ranch; in the Quail Valley
in the Pine Subdivision; the Arrow Creek Washoe County Open Space, and
its 1400 acres; and the Cosmos/Landmark property, the developers proposing
access through open space to the County open space; the Whites Creek trailhead;
the Thomas Creek trailhead; and Galena Park. All these areas have existing,
other than the Cosmos/Landmark, which is the proposed existing legal access
to the forest, with multiple connections to the Arrow Creek open space.
We don't think there is a public need, which the ordinance requires as
a finding for public trails through the Ballardini Ranch to the forest,
and that there are multiple opportunities that simply aren't publicized
by the County, and maybe by the trails' groups, that should be. Thank
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Nelson, because you have given us a long list
of developments that have allowed public access, does that really excuse
or give you, in your mind, the right to deny access through your property
to the mountains?
MR. NELSON: Well, the examples I gave aren't all developments. In some
cases the County has acquired access rights, which they have the ability
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Regardless of how the access rights have been acquired,
should we say in just for good faith and for good neighborliness with
the land that you're talking about, why is it such an impossibility for
you to -- or your company to allow access to the open space?
MR. NELSON: Because we think there are adequate access points nearby on
both sides of the property, and that there is not a public need.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you, sir. We've sort of gone full circle,
I guess, haven't we?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to go to you again,
I am going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the Commission.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I have some questions of staff, please. I guess
this would be for Mr. Freund. I notice in the staff report that it says
that -- contained in Section 110.40.20(b), to permit development within
areas of a hillside property considered less suitable for development.
I guess my question is: Why?
MR. ADRIAN FREUND: That would be done in conjunction with basically a
common open space development, and our hillside development ordinance.
Again, the development would not occur on slopes greater than -- (The
bell loudly sounded for his time limit) -- because development on those
lands obviously is not appropriate under the regional plan or under our
comprehensive plan, that allows them to count that area, and the area
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. Could you tell me if this is an open-space
MS. SHARON KVAS: No, it is not. All of the 40 lots encompass the entire
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: So then I would expect then that this would not
MS. SHARON KVAS: At the time that he made that determination, it was a
different map than the one you're seeing tonight. And at that time they
had pads that showed that portion of the lot that would be developed.
So that was the configuration that Mr. Freund made that determination
MR. FREUND: Miss Kvas is correct, that was the map that they looked at
in 2002, late --
MS. KVAS: Late '02, early 2003.
MR. FREUND: And at that time Summit Engineering Corporation was the representative
and they were willing to tie down the building pad locations so that we
would know that none of that would occur on excessive slopes or development.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: So, Ms. Kvas, does that approval then carry forward
to this recent configuration of the lot?
MS. KVAS: There was going to be, if we had recommended approval, there
was a condition crafted that would require showing pads that would be
-- building pads that would be on the least constrained slopes. So there
was a condition, should you feel compelled to approve this.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Then I guess I have another question of staff,
and that relates to comments by Mr. Nelson, wherein he said that a tentative
map stage, there are certain things we are not supposed to be questioning
or looking at? What would he be referring to?
MR. KELLY: I would be at a loss to know. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: In other words, we can discuss critical stream,
we can discuss wetlands, we can discuss water and sewer issues. Am I leaving
something out? Or can we not discuss those things?
MR. KELLY: The Planning Commission can review and discuss a condition,
whatever it would like to discuss at this meeting; there are no limitations.
MS. KVAS: I would piggyback on that and say that there is only the limitation
that an acquisition for -- the public acquisition is not at issue tonight;
that is not part of what you're looking at. So that would be the only
thing that I would say is out of the realm of what we would be looking
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Nor was I going to entertain any conversation --
MS. KVAS: I noted that.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: That's it for staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Mr. Salerno?
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Well, it seems to me there's quite a few problems
that remain with this project, but there are two major problems, and the
problems are certainly sewer and water. And until that's solved, I think
our hands are pretty much tied, and I don't believe that we can approve
the project, as long as it's as open ended as some of the other items
that have been discussed tonight.
So, therefore, I am going to move that we deny the Tentative Subdivision
Map Case Number TM02-005 for Toiyabe Ranch Estates for 40 lots, without
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: At this time, having made six findings, in fact,
which have been stated in the staff report in accordance with Washoe County
Code Section 110.608.25, Nevada Revised Statute 278.349, and Nevada Administrative
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I'm still going. If the appropriate approvals from
the District Health Department are obtained, and evidence of ground water
availability is submitted, the tentative map may be brought back to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration under this application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Not yet. When we deny anything, it's always without
prejudice, isn't it? Or is it with prejudice? The only one that can do
anything with prejudice is the Board of County Commissioners; am I correct?
MS. KVAS: We have consistently utilized the "without prejudice"
as part of the Planning Commission's prerogative.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: May I ask our legal advisor a question, please?
COMMISSIONER BARNES: Ordinarily without prejudice with the Board of County
Commissioners, I think what's meant here is bring it back under this application,
and I see no problem with that. So I would recommend not using the term
without prejudice, and just say we bring it back under the same application.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I agree, and I'll second the motion then.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved and seconded that we deny TM02-005.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: The reason I'm seconding it, is because I agree with
Commissioner Salerno 100 percent; plus, there's a lot of other issues
that have got to be straightened out before this thing is in operation.
And I think, in my opinion, I think the Evans Creek, LLC, has got a long
ways to go to be a good neighbor on this, and also the people in the area
have got a long ways to go together. It's a give and take, it's not just
a one-way thing here.
So I think we get these things ironed out, I think it will be a good project.
But before it's ironed out, I think they have a lot of problems here that
have got to be resolved.
And I also think, the thing I have with -- you may have the water rights,
but you don't have the water, it's not there. We have had a drought for
15 years. You can have 10,000 feet of water rights, but where are you
going to get the other 9,000 feet?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that they only
have water rights for irrigation, they don't have drinking water rights.
I am not going to support the recommendation. I support the denial, but
I support it only down to the Nevada Administrative Code
If the maker of the motion would be willing to leave off the statements
about approval from District Health Department, etcetera, I would support
the motion, but I can't the way it is.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Are you saying that they would also still be able
to bring it back under the same application?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: No.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: In other words, what you're saying is straight denial
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I pondered that, but I believe in this case I've
stated what I have proposed.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved and seconded that we go along with Commissioner
Salerno's recommendation. All in favor? (Rogers, Salerno, Sullivan say
aye. Frandsen and Barnes say no.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Three ayes --
MS. KVAS: Those decisions are appealable to the Board of County Commission.
If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you want
to appeal its action, call Planning Services' staff immediately at 328-6100,
you will be informed of the appeal procedure application, and the 10 days
in which time to make an appeal.