MAY 20, 2004, 9:20 P.M. TO 10:40 P.M.
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004, 9:20 P.M.

CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Next on the agenda is 11 (B), Tentative Subdivision Map TM02-005, Toiyabe Ranch Estates - Review and recommendations on an application to develop a 40-lot single-family subdivision on +599.61 acres of a 1,019.1 acre parcel, located south of the terminus of Ridgeview Drive, and west of the terminus of Lone Tree Lane.
Paul Kelly, will be the Staff Representative; and Tim Nelson will be the representative for the applicant. Where is Paul? Would you like to make a statement to begin with?
MR. PAUL KELLY: No, I'll turn it over to the applicant for questions.
MR. TIM NELSON: If you don't mind, I won't have a lengthy presentation. This tentative subdivision map is on roughly the south 600 acres of what is commonly known as the Ballardini Ranch, which is a little over a thousand acres fronting on McCarran Boulevard east of the Pine area of Caughlin Ranch, and west of the Lakeside area, south of McCarran.
This tentative map application was originally submitted about a year ago, and basically put on hold for some concerns regarding the plan, and ultimately picked up again and resubmitted recently.
It's now a 40-lot subdivision with lot sizes ranging from a little under six and a half acres to a little over 32 acres averaging almost 15 acres in size.
It's proposed as a rural, gated community with private roads, 40 lots, with access coming off of Lone Tree Lane, where it terminates at the point where -- I don't remember the name of the road. There's another road -- Bellhaven, coming south of Lone Tree.
The access road would actually come through another property, which the owners of the subject property have easement rights to. It's the remnant portion of the Ballardini Ranch retained by the Ballardini family, which consists of approximately 220 acres.
Apologize for the -- it's a little bit difficult to read the -- to see the fine print. But here's where Lone Tree Lane terminates, this is where the access would come through the Ballardini, Persighal property, and then this is the south border of the subject 600 acres, with the subdivision area shown here.
We met with 40 acres here, reviewed comments with County staff, and various department heads last week, received a number of comments, and the basic conclusion of that, I believe, and Paul can correct me if I'm mistaken, is the suggestion that of basically all the items being reviewed and commented on were matters that can be dealt with as conditions of a tentative map approval, and things that would need to be met by the time of final map.
There are two significant, outstanding issues, one of which is the Counties' claim that the driveway coming up to the property from Lone Tree Lane to the existing ranch house, and up to the national forest is actually a public road under the presumed public road process that the County went through.
We disagree that it is or ever was a public road. That matter is in litigation. And County staff has indicated that that can be dealt with as a condition of approval that indicates that depending on who prevails in the legal action, that would have an impact on the tentative map; that changes could be required if the County prevails on it.
Another issue of dispute is: We're proposing well and septic on these 40 lots, and we have conflicting response from County or County associated agencies; namely, the District Health Department.
On the one hand, Water Resources says because we're not within the Truckee Meadows Services Area under the Regional Plan, which was an action taken by the Regional Plan, updated process two years ago, we cannot connect community water and sewer.
On the other hand, District Health says because we're located within a certain distance of existing water -- excuse me, existing sewer in the Evans Creek area off to the northeast, we're required to connect to community water and sewer. So it's kind of: You have to, but you can't.
So that's probably going to take some legal determination on what's required there, but we're proposing well and septic, and that's what we want to do.
With that, I'll end my presentation and be happy to respond.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Could you just tell us what the basic issues were?
MR. TIM NELSON: The basic issues in the agency review?
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm trying to remember. The public-road issue; the septic versus community sewer; Park & Rec wants trails through the property to the national forest. Our legal counsel is reviewing those requirements, so we can respond to that request.
There are a number of minutiae type engineering matters that are mostly followup in the final mapping stages. I should have mentioned also, I apologize, that Tammy Zimmerman from Pezonella & Associates, our engineering consultant, is here with me tonight as well.
Paul, what am I forgetting in terms of major issues?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Those were the primary ones. Well and septic is probably the biggest issue.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Traffic was not an issue?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Not for 40 lots.
MR. TIM NELSON: If I'm not mistaken, I think the County standard is that traffic analysis is required for subdivisions of 100 lots or more?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Well, it's based on ATD [average trips per day]. If you're going to trip 750 ATD, then they require a traffic analysis. But this is way under.
MR. TIM NELSON: I should also have mentioned at the start that this proposed tentative map, tentative subdivision map, is consistent with the existing land-use designations in contrast to some of the discussion that point to the previous item. No request is being made for changing existing land-use designations.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Is that your presentation?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's it.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I will open it to the public. I have two people who said they wish to speak. The first one is a Joseph Doser, D-o-s-e-r.
MR. JOSEPH DOSER: I'm Joseph Doser, and I have a question. Has any of the Native American tribes walked the site? Any grave yards? Religious sites? Old arrow head manufacturing sites? Has the State Botanist been there? The State Zoologist? Any spotted owls? Red legged frogs? Blue butter flies? Any plants that would support the fauna in the area?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Paul, can you answer that? You did the application.
MR. PAUL KELLY: Shippo is requesting an inventory be done, which will be required. They submitted, as part of the original application, a brief inventory of wildlife, fauna, and didn't note
anything of significance.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Now did they do it themselves, or did they have somebody else do the --
MR. PAUL KELLY: Summit Engineering did it.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Is that a written report? Has anybody checked its accuracy?
MR. PAUL KELLY: It's a written report. Checking it? No.
MR. JOSEPH DOSER: I would like the State Archeologist, Botanist and Zoologist to be involved, not Summit Engineering.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: That's what I was asking about, whether you had checked it.
MR. JOSEPH DOSER: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: You were requesting the State what?
MR. JOSEPH DOSER: The State Zoologist, the State Botanist, and the State Archeologist, and the Native American Councils be involved in this site before we turn a shovel of dirt.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I got zoologist, botanist, the Native American, and what was the last one?
MR. JOSEPH DOSER: Archeologist.
Steve Walther?
MR. STEVE WALTHER: Some comments based upon a map I had from the very early applications, and I think are still the same. This is just a designation that was done by a couple of people when it was being considered at an early time when the application didn't and it was put on hold, and there are a couple of issues.
With respect to transportation, if there's 40 homes, roughly, you could assume there would be
almost, if not roughly, 400 trips a day. And I understand from staff that that's not enough to require a traffic report. But if you look at this, plus the Persighal property and the zoning that would be available there, and then look at the application that's also pending with the Landmark/Cosmos property, and the traffice you then get with those -- there are two that have applications pending right now, they would be funneled down Bellhaven and Lone Tree. If the increase zoning for the Cosmos/Landmark is approved, and this, it will have enough of an impact so that Lone Tree probably will have to be widened. And that's an impact everybody should be aware of, based upon that.
And if Persighal was to be developed, even at the current zoning, then that's an impact that to me, staff, in due diligence, regardless of the technical requirements, should take it into consideration. That's the only way you can you really make plans.
If you look at traffic from one isolated little development, and there's a little one over here and a little one over here, but they're all pending, and if they all get approved, then they do have a pretty significant impact, and that's just something to call to your attention.
This was drawn by Lyn Mundt, to draw just the critical stream zone and the sensitive stream zone, which has limits and requirements that must be complied with before it can be approved.
And if you all remember the painful process we went through with Legacy Farms, this entity and others required before going any further, that the plan show compliance with the critical stream zone and the sensitive stream zone requirements. This would appear not to comply, in some respects, and that should be addressed. And maybe the staff has already done that.
The other issue would be: Is there an exit here, if you come through Lone Tree? For example, you may recall the fire we had, it came down very quickly. If people can't get out and only
through Lone Tree and the Persighal/Ballardini property, some would be virtually trapped in here.
I live further down, and they came and told us we had to get out of our house within 15 minutes, and that was clear down at the corner of Lakeside and Holcomb when that happened a couple years ago, so that's a risk, and probably should be addressed as well.
It seems premature to approve this property, even though the density is not an issue. When you've got litigation between the County and this entity over "Is there going to be a public road to
this particular area," when there's no plan here for that public road.
This plan assumes that that litigation is going to lose. And it seems to me that it's premature
to approve it with this kind of designation, unless you know the outcome of that issue.
If you don't do it, then what it means is that all these things are going to condition it. You
can say, "Well, we can condition it." Well, once it's conditioned, it's out of the public limelight at that point. It's strictly a staff decision, who may not get input from the public, but sometimes that input does change the minds of staff. So to me it's important and premature until you have that litigation resolved.
On the water/sewer issue, I think that was probably well explained, I know you probably know it by heart, but that's still not resolved either, and may result in litigation before it's all over. So there is the potential of one existing litigation, and potential other one, that in either case it would be inappropriate to proceed with the litigation, depending on the outcome of it. And so it seems premature to approve a process when there is one existing and one potential piece of litigation, which in either instance could interfere with and prevent this project.
Also, this here has some slope requirements, which I'm not going to go through exactly, but it seems to me there are some slope requirements here of 30 percent where the pads did not comply with those. And I think they were, for example, in here, and there maybe some others, but I'm not sure if the staff dealt with that issue or not, but those are issues that should be covered, and I think certified in any plan to be in compliance before approval takes place. I will leave this up here, if you'd like.
MR. TIM NELSON: Madam Chair, would you like me to respond?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I will see if there are any other questions. Are there any other questions?
For the record, Bob Cameron.
MR. BOB CAMERON: I guess staff can answer this, if they can. Now this is going to be a gated community, if I heard correctly. What is the process, if the applicant at sometime, or the community, I will put it that way, in the future decides to do away with the gated community, for whatever reason? Is it an involved process, or do you just wait in line and that's it?
MR. PAUL KELLY: It would be up to the homeowners.
MR. BOB CAMERON: Yeah. And if they sign, then this becomes -- if the County wants to take it over, the road?
MR. PAUL KELLY: They would have to petition the County.
MR. BOB CAMERON: So the County would have a decision in that part?
MR. BOB CAMERON: I'm thinking of the 20/30, and I'm out-foxing myself, I'm afraid, almost, but I see a vagueness or a potentially vague A-route coming up again. I mean, this is where we all get snuckered as everyday citizens: We don't know what the plan is, or how the game is played, I should say. And that's what I'm getting at here.
And then my other question was going to be, but it was answered, I think, is that, if I understood the gentleman's statement, they are considering a request by the County for public trails. Is that what I heard you say?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's correct. We will review --
MR. BOB CAMERON: So it's up to you that the County could then say: Well, we want --
MR. TIM NELSON: Well, they could, yeah.
MR. BOB CAMERON: Say there must be public trails, just like in Arrow Creek?
MR. TIM NELSON: We're reviewing the County's request and the authority set forth for that
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Is there anyone else from the audience? I have two people here. The first with your hand up.
MR. HERB RUBENSTEIN: Herb Rubenstein. I'm also concerned about not understanding the process and what happens later. And if my memory is correct from reading the paper, I know this same developer in 2000 wanted to propose the thousand homes in the northern half of Ballardini, which is directly adjacent to this property. But after the zoning was rejected, that at least died for now.
But I am concerned like once, let's say, they get a tentative map -- and this is where I don't
understand the process -- what kind of time can go by, or what process has to happen? Like, for example, what if this northern half thing comes back and it goes through, and suddenly there's a thousand homes adjacent to the north, can that tentative map then be altered, and suddenly we have higher density in the south?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Paul, can you respond to that?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Not unless it's annexed by the City and the zones change.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Right now the zone says one for 40?
MR. PAUL KELLY: There are three different zones on it: NBR, LDS and GR.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: And the lady back here.
MS. KATHLEEN MILHAUF: Kathleen Milhauf. My impression was that it's a gated community, and then they have trails to the public land. Does everybody have access to those or just the people that live in the gated community? I just didn't understand how that worked.
MR. NEIL UPCHURCH: Neil Upchurch. I'd like to ask a question, first. Is this portion of the Ballardini, the portion that Washoe County Parks Department had ambitions to acquire?
MR. NEIL UPCHURCH: Have they given up that ambition?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: The latest I have heard is that they have not, but they are trying to. Mary, would you know that any better?
MS. MARY DUGAN: Well, from the way I understand it, that they are still trying to get the value of the land.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Thank you. It's in an appraisal stage, as far as I know, which would indicate to me it was still active.
MR. NEIL UPCHURCH: Having cleared that up, I would like to make a statement about it. More and more everyday I think all of us probably would agree that we're losing assets around the Truckee Meadows, natural assets, open space and so forth. You hear it all the time. I agree with it.
This is one really important open space, in my opinion, and I would hate to see this thing
developed now. I would just be against the development, period.
You know, I don't care -- I do care about the traffic and all of that, but it would only be a
way just to stop it.
I would just be interested in being able to stop this until we really can resolve the issue of
whether the public is going to be able to acquire that or not, because I'm just afraid of losing more and
more assets in Truckee Meadows. That's all the statement I have.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I have a letter here I would like to read into the record, if I may:
ìElaine Steiner, Chair and Fellow Southwest CAB Members.
Re: Public Hearing: Tentative Subdivision Map, Case Number TM02-005 (TOIYABE RANCH ESTATES.)
ìWith regard to the proposed development, the Hidden Valley Homeowners' Association stands unequivocally opposed until further studies are conducted.
ìAs we understand the situation, this particular development, along with another nearby
proposed project, (Landmark/Cosmos Property) would generate more trips along the neighborhood's roadways, thereby causing far more congestion than they can currently handle, without widening or other relief measures.
ìFurther, the question also arises with regard to its environmental impact: How will erosion
and water quality be affected for the many critical and sensitive streams throughout the area? Once
again, they are a vital part of the "green infrastructure" which provides the area with ecological respite from urban growth.
ìLastly, we also understand that this development is not within the Truckee Meadows Services
Area. How will the Health Department approve water and sewer for the area? This further complicates matters.
ìTherefore, we respectfully request that the Southwest CAB deny approval of this development until further detailed studies are conducted.
ìThe quality of life for those who reside in the Southwest Area depend on it.
Sincerely, Laura Carman, President, Hidden Valley Homeowners' Association.î
Would you like five minutes to respond?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't think I will need five minutes, but I'd be happy to respond to some of the questions and comments.
The plan shown by Mr. Walther is an old plan, it's outdated. I believe that had 43 lots on
it, and some are from over a year ago.
This plan has 40 lots. It does have an emergency access through the north part of the
property connecting to McCarran, which is an emergency access, it's not a regular access through the
property. It's required for the subdivision. Mr. Kelly can comment on the need for that, if you would
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Can you explain emergency access?
MR. TIM NELSON: Like at the north end of Anitra Drive, where there's a cul-de-sac, and then adjacent there's an emergency drive that gets into the Evans Creek neighborhood to the north there. It's for purposes of emergency for fire vehicles, etcetera.
MS. KAREN WALLACE: Evans Creek does not abut McCarran?
MR. TIM NELSON: Evans Creek abuts McCarran Avenue for several hundred feet, yes.
MS. KAREN WALLACE: Evans Creek, the creek itself?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, I'm sorry, the Evans Creek property, the property owner of Evans Creek LLC, the Ballardini Ranch fronts on McCarran across from Manzanita Lane.
The critical streams and the stream buffers are requirements known to our consultants, and that's provided for in the plan; we're aware of that.
There will be wetlands. There's potential wetlands on the property in the small areas near the
creek, or near some seasonal springs, that will be required to be delineated and reviewed, including
reviewed by the Army Corp of Engineer, if appropriate, as part of the final mapping process, as a typical part of the eventual process before final map approval.
The issues regarding slopes on the old plan have been resolved on the new plan.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: How have they been resolved?
MR. TIM NELSON: By revising the lot lines and the location of the road in relation to the slope areas, so there's plenty of building pad area on each lot.
As you can imagine on six acres, 30-acre lots, there's plenty of room, even with some steep
slopes, that create building pad area.
MS. ZENA LAMP: I didn't hear the answer to a question that was asked about access to the roads, the trails you're supposed to put in.
MR. TIM NELSON: Oh, how to gain access on the roads with trail access?
MR. TIM NELSON: Yet to be determined and worked out with County staff.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: What is the road surface --
CHAIRWOMAN STEINER: Wait. Go ahead, Faith. We're finished with the public? Then we'll bring it back to the Board.
MR. STEVE WALTHER: This revelation about the fire exit basically means that if they go to
develop the north end, and the fire exit for the north end, for whatever number they have, is going to be
right through there. And what we're really looking at is the road from McCarran to Lone Tree to feed that whole development. That's the ultimate impact of this.
And that should be recognized by staff, and stated clearly to everybody that that's a potential
implication, I think in fairness to everybody, including the Landmark/Cosmos property. I don't know to what extent the wildlife or the wetlands is an issue, but as they did with Legacy Farms, they gave enough information so we could understand exactly where those wetlands were, and the public input could be given regarding that.
So for those reasons, in addition to the others, I think it's premature to approve it at this
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Let me ask you this, Mr. Nelson: I see here that you are scheduled to go before the Washoe County Planning Commission on June 2?
MR. TIM NELSON: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Would you be willing to take that off the agenda at this time and come back and try to answer some of these -- address some of these issues that really -- nothing seems to be complete: This is pending, that's pending, something else is pending.
MR. TIM NELSON: I would disagree that nothing is complete. It's quite a complete plan here, and County staff with all their department heads thought this appropriate to proceed to Planning
Commission, and I would leave that determination up to them.
But as far as my client is concerned, we're expecting to go to the Planning Commission meeting and to meet all the requirements that are set forth.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Well, then let me ask Paul: Do you feel all right with the Health Department, Park & Recreation's concerns, traffic concerns?
MR. PAUL KELLY: The request to go June 2nd was on behalf of the applicant; he was requesting that they appear on the agenda. That's up to them, whether they want to go before the Planning Commission with these concerns outstanding or not.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Shall we bring it back to the Board? Which side wants to start?
Let's start with George, for the record.
MR. GEORGE QUEYREL: My question is: Why in the heck didn't the Ballardini family sell to the County in the first place and put us in this cotton-pickin' mess?
Now they had eight and a half million dollars, is what the offer was. And now we've got it
up -- Steve [Walther] had the funds for 19 million dollars. How much money do these damn people need?
I think it's a horrible project. It's disgusting, and it should be ripped up and torn and thrown in the trash. That's my feeling on it. Sorry.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: What is the surface of the emergency road? Is it gravel or dirt or
MR. TIM NELSON: I believe gravel, but it would be whatever the County standards require.
Paul, can you help me on that?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Engineering.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: Did you say something about Anitra. Can you tell me what you said about Anitra?
MR. TIM NELSON: I was comparing the emergency access road from on this property up to
McCarran to what exists on the north end of Anitra Drive. Where the paved cul-de-sac ends, there is a
gate-over-gravel emergency road, which extends to the next subdivision to the north, which I believe is
called Evans Creek Estates, and that's a fairly common situation through the County, where emergency access is required because of the length of the cul-de-sac, or just a desire for two access points in case of
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: On the lot sizes here -- this is just a question -- are they still in the
eight, nine, 10 acre, is that what you were saying?
MR. TIM NELSON: 6.4, up to 32. That is the range, but there are a number of them that are in the 12-, 15-, 20-acre range.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: And is this to be municipal, did you say, or potentially, or septic,
or -- Have you done perk tests?
MR. TIM NELSON: We have done perk tests, and it works for septic systems. We're proposing well and septic, that's what we want to do.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: Are the perk tests fairly standardized from lot to lot, or do they vary from lot to lot?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: They vary from lot to lot. There are some that have special rock, there are some that have clays. We do have one perk test on each lot that's suitable.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: And for the acreage, then, is determined by the success or not of the perk test; is that right?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: I don't know.
MR. TIM NELSON: It kind of comes the other way, the acreage was determined by trying to lay out the best plan, and then the perk tests are performed to verify that you can get successful percolation results on each lot.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Faith, can you answer something for me? Weren't perk tests done once before and they didn't pass?
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: Well, I know the area historically has a very very difficult perk test rate, or the success rate is very very difficult, and the lot sizes have to be dramatically increased to
accommodate perk tests.
MR. TIM NELSON: We have not found that to be the case with our perk test results. There were perk tests done by Summit a year or so ago. Some of those weren't successful, so some of those were redone, but the bottom line is: We have successful perk tests on all of the 40 proposed lots.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: Regardless of those questions, to me it is still way too nebulous. There is way too much unanswered, delineated, settled, signed, sealed. And with the lawsuits and with the expectations of the community, it seems to be the apex of arrogance for the Evans Creek, LLC, to just continue to disregard this community in their march step towards their development.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And what's your name?
MR. TIM NELSON: My name's Tim Nelson.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Where are you from?
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm from Broomfield, Colorado. I'm a consultant to the owners of the
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you represent the owners. Are you an attorney?
MS. MARY DUGAN: What are you? What is your --
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm a real estate broker and real estate consultant.
MR. GEORGE QUEYREL: I mean, it's kind of a mystery. Is it the Mafia? (Laughter.)
MR. TIM NELSON: No, it's not the Mafia, it's just an investment group who their identity isn't really pertinent to the planning application.
MR. GEORGE QUEYREL: Are they U.S. citizens?
MR. TIM NELSON: Yes, they are.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Are they from Minnesota?
MR. TIM NELSON: Yes, they are.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Well, we could go with quite a few more questions and eventually narrow it down. (Laughter.)
Are you licensed here in Nevada as a real estate agent or broker?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, I'm not, I'm licensed in Colorado and Minnesota.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Okay, I have a number of questions. The owners are Evans Creek, LLC; is that right.
TIM NELSON: Correct.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And you represent that group; right?
MS. MARY DUGAN: What are their intentions with the northern part of the property?
MR. TIM NELSON: Their intentions about the northern part of the property aren't pertinent to this discussion or this application. The application before --
MS. MARY DUGAN: Sure, they are. They touch this property. We want to know.
MR. TIM NELSON: They're not part of the application. The application is for the south 600
acres, and that's what we're here to receive your comments, questions and concerns on.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Then you refuse to answer that question?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, I gave you my answer to that question.
MS. MARY DUGAN: You didn't answer it. I asked you what their intentions were.
MR. TIM NELSON: And I told you that it's not pertinent to this discussion.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you refuse to answer the question. Okay.
MR. TIM NELSON: And besides, it's in the sphere of influence of Reno.
MS. MARY DUGAN: You said you were reviewing the request and the authority for the
request for public trails.
And I understand that to mean that Evans Creek, LLC, is reviewing whether the County has the authority or the power to require public trails; is that correct?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's part of the review, yes.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So Evans Creek, LLC, is not willing to do it unless the County requires it; is that correct?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's not necessarily the case, no.
MS. MARY DUGAN: But that's certainly one thing you're looking at?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's part of the consideration, yes.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Is whether the County can require you to have public trails; right?
MS. MARY DUGAN: Would your clients, these unidentified secret people, be willing to not make it a gated community?
We're not very interested in having gated communities in this area, especially when we're trying to preserve open space, so we're pretty much against them. They seem to be exclusive, they fence people out, they're snobby, arrogant, you know. So would your client be willing to do away with the gated aspect of the development?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't believe so. It's proposed and planned as a gated community.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Have you asked them?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't need to ask them, I know their preference. It's a matter that was
discussed at some length in the preparation of the plans for the project.
MS. MARY DUGAN: But if you conveyed to them how our community is dead set against a gated community, and that this would be a gesture of neighborliness on their part, do you think you might be able to get them to change their mind?
MR. TIM NELSON: That would be their decision. I'll certainly review the concerns, all the
concerns, from this meeting with them.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And you'll get back to us on that point?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't know that it would come back before you again.
MS. MARY DUGAN: You could call Elaine; right?
MR. TIM NELSON: I could certainly call Elaine.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Would you do that?
MS. MARY DUGAN: After you talk to your client about the gated community aspect?
MS. MARY DUGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: My phone number 775-853-4059.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Now usually we have a lot more information from people who want us to give input, or consider their requests, and we don't have that much here.
Is your plan to just sell these lots, and then people will have their own contractors build the
MR. TIM NELSON: That hasn't been determined yet. It's possible we could sell to the
builders, it's possible we will just sell to the general public. The marketing plan hasn't been determined yet.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you don't know that either?
I had a question for Tammy. Right, Tammy?
MS. MARY DUGAN: You said that one perk test per lot that is suitable. Did you get some perk tests that weren't suitable?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: There are some lots that are not suitable, and those areas would not be used for sewage.
MS. MARY DUGAN: What about the critical and sensitive stream zone requirements. Have you marked on your map the critical streams or the sensitive streams?
MR. TIM NELSON: Yes, Evans Creek, north of Evans Creek.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Do you have the sensitive stream zones marked as well?
MS. MARY DUGAN: And what are you going to do about those?
MR. TIM NELSON: Meet the requirements of the ordinances, which provide there are certain things you can do, and certain things you cannot do within the sensitive and critical stream ways.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Have you written down anywhere what it is you're going to do with that as far as: We'll have setbacks there or --
MS. MARY DUGAN: I think you have to wait until I've finished asking my question, or else the Court Reporters won't be able to get anything down.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Have you written down anything? Do you have a plan that identifies this is a critical stream zone, and here we will do this, or we won't do this? This is a sensitive stream zone, we will take care of that?
MR. TIM NELSON: The plan identifies the critical and sensitive stream instances from the
center line of the creek. I believe the County ordinances are clear on their face in terms of what can be done and what can't be done.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Do you have any grading that you plan to do in any of those areas?
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm not sure about the answer to that question as I stand before you right
Certainly we meet whatever the grading requirements are under the ordinance.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Do you know if you're going to have to have any bridges for roads across any of those areas, culverts?
MR. TIM NELSON: There is a crossing for the emergency access drive in the north part of the
property, but not within the subdivision itself.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Crossing a critical stream zone?
MR. TIM NELSON: Crossing Evans Creek, yes.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you'll have to be down in the stream disturbing it to create your bridge or whatever; is that correct?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't know if we will have to be down in the creek, but we'll be dealing
with the requirements when crossing a stream.
MS. MARY DUGAN: But you don't have a plan for how you're going to do that just yet; right?
MR. TIM NELSON: We know there are requirements; we know we will meet them.
MS. MARY DUGAN: What stage is the public road litigation at?
MR. TIM NELSON: The lawsuit was commenced about a year ago, it was put on hold by both parties while the previous tentative map application was in process. We recently requested that it be re-started and carried on.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you're at the beginning of the lawsuit, basically?
MR. TIM NELSON: We're near the beginning, but it's really -- it shouldn't be a long, complicated process, it's a basic fact and legal issue of whether there ever was a public road where the County claims.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And do you have wetlands identified on your map?
MR. TIM NELSON: Not on the map. We have wetlands -- potential wetlands identified on a
previous report that was submitted in the initial application that will be supplemented by wetland studies, as far as the final map process.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Why aren't they identified on this map?
MR. TIM NELSON: Because there wasn't a need or requirement to. They were identified in the narrative material. County staff is aware of the issue.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Were they identified in any material that was provided to this Board?
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm not aware of what the County provided to you, but they were in the County's materials.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Do you know how many acres of potential wetlands there are in that 600 acres?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't specifically, but I know there are very small areas compared to the overall 600 acres.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Do you have an estimate?
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't off the top of my head, no.
MS. MARY DUGAN: I'm going back to Tammy.
I am concerned about those perk tests. Have you actually provided to staff a report that shows that each lot has successful perk tests?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: There is a report to staff that shows that the percolation rates do meet the minimum requirements.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And you have provided that to them already?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: It has been provided to District Health.
MS. MARY DUGAN: When was that provided?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: Well, it all goes into the application, the initial application that was included with it when we did the initial -- I shouldn't say the initial -- the re-submittal that was
submitted April -- the first part of April.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So the planning staff have those perk test results?
MS. MARY DUGAN: I'm concerned about this issue between the community water and the sewer. You've got Water Resources that says what? What's their position?
MR. TIM NELSON: Water Resources says it's not within the Truckee Meadows Services Area under the Regional Plan, therefore you cannot connect to community water and sewer.
MS. MARY DUGAN: What does the District Health say?
MR. TIM NELSON: District Health says because you're within "X" distance of an existing
community sewer system, you must connect to community water and sewer.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So is that another potential avenue for litigation?
MR. TIM NELSON: It is, potentially.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So that would be your second lawsuit on this development that hasn't even started yet; is that correct?
MR. TIM NELSON: It potentially could be. If there were County and District Health standards that didn't conflict, it would not be an issue for --
MS. MARY DUGAN: Are you criticizing our regulations here? Is that what I hear from you?
MR. TIM NELSON: I guess I am.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Boy, you're really trying to make friends, aren't you? There have been some concerns about the flora and fauna in the area, and certainly the concerns about Native American artifacts, that sort of thing. What does your client intend to do to satisfy the community that any concerns they have are not well-founded?
MR. TIM NELSON: What's required in the process.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And what is that?
MR. TIM NELSON: We don't know yet. We haven't had a specific request made of County staff with respect to those issues. We've had comments from the -- forget the name of the Board -- the cultural resources, whatever it's called, suggesting some study be done.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Are you going to do a study?
MR. TIM NELSON: I expect it would be done as far as the final mapping process.
MS. MARY DUGAN: But it hasn't been done yet?
MR. TIM NELSON: Correct.
MS. MARY DUGAN: When will that study be done?
MR. TIM NELSON: When it needs to be done for the approval process.
MS. MARY DUGAN: You're from Colorado; right?
MS. MARY DUGAN: You know, I think you don't understand that we Nevadans care an awful lot about our land out here, and the people who live here, and about each other. And we have a whole slew of concerns that, as a good representative of your company, you have your client, you need to convey to them.
Because from the beginning, your client has shown an incredible disregard for the interests and
the concerns of their neighbors.
And I would think that you, as a fine, upstanding real estate broker and real estate agent from Colorado, would want to do the best for your client that you possibly could, and that would be informing your client of these concerns, so that your client can make a good impression, which it has yet to do, on its neighbors. So I wish you would address all these issues with them.
Are you Secretary of Evans Creek, LLC?
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you're the client?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, I am an office holder for the client, I am not the client.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Are you also an investor in Evans Creek, LLC?
MS. MARY DUGAN: Just the bad guy, huh? I think those are all the questions I have
right now.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Ellen Steiner. I think Mary did a pretty thorough job of asking most of the questions.
I have one question for you, Tammy. Do perk tests vary depending on the time of the year they are taken?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: The perk tests don't generally vary. The materials stay the same below the ground. The soil is still the same below the ground, and they don't generally vary from year to year.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: But doesn't the ground, if the ground is frozen, won't that affect how the water perks?
MS. TAMMY ZIMMERMAN: When you do a perk test, you would do it below the initial ground surface, so you wouldn't come into contact with the frozen ground, because you have a frost line, it would be below when you test it. You're affluent would not be in the frozen ground, anyway.
MR. TIM NELSON: You're testing below the frost line.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I guess I am just going to say that, to me, the paramount issue here is
precisely what we were talking about under the previous item, and that is the will of the community.
And I understand the property right, I understand that the land-use value is there, but
sometimes the interests of the community override all of those issues. And that, in my mind, is the issue here.
This community has said several times in different idioms, that they do not wish to see this
property developed. They have tried to work with your clients, obviously unsuccessfully to date, but the community has a will, and that will is that this area should remain open space, and they have shown their willingness to recognize the property right by offering to buy that property, and for whatever reason your clients have been unwilling to sell to the community; so therefore I feel that your clients don't deserve anything from this community as far as your property right is concerned.
And my feeling is that I, as a citizen of this community, a representative of the people of this
community, cannot in good faith approve or recommendation approval of this particular development.
That's all I have to say.
MR. STEVE COHEN: Steve Cohen. What's the rush? I mean, obviously there are a lot of things that are not complete. I hear a lot of: I don't know; we haven't done that yet. What's the rush to get this approved or -- right now?
MR. TIM NELSON: It's not a rush, it's just a normal process. We have been going through various processes for the last six years. We made an application over a year ago, we tabled it for a year
to reevaluate the plan and adjust some things, came back and did a re-submittal, and we're processing it
in the normal course.
It's not unusual -- I think Mr. Kelly would agree -- that there are open items that aren't
expected to be resolved as part of the tentative map submittal, or even approval, that are dealt with in
the final map stages. Not a single spade of dirt can turn on this property until final maps are approved. So all of the issues that you view as outstanding and unresolved or what have you, are issues that have to get resolved before final maps can get approved, and anything physical can happen on the property.
MR. STEVE COHEN: Has the State approved for well drilling in this area?
MR. TIM NELSON: There is well drilling all over this area.
MR. STEVE COHEN: I mean, what kind of water rights do you have?
MR. TIM NELSON: We have surface water rights, and we would have to acquire water rights for the well system.
MR. STEVE COHEN: The wells, some of these look like they are 20 feet from Evans Creek, and I am sure they're probably pretty shallow, so I'm just worried about end users and some of the water in the area. I think that everything has been covered. I don't know what else to say. Mary did a great job. George said things I completely agree with, and I don't know if I can add anything else at this time, so go ahead.
MS. ZENA LAMP: Zena Lamp. I have nothing to add in terms of technical questions, I just want to remind the community that there should be more of you here.
And June 2nd, I hope there's going to be a lot of you there, and we want the success stories, and that is: Get the press there. Let the rest of the people know what your concerns are, get them on your side. I mean, they have a right to want to develop this property. But you have to show what your concerns are publicly. And there should be more of you. I received this from Washoe, so I know a lot of other people received it too, and I'm wondering why they're not here, if they're concerned about it.
MS. ROBBIN PALMER: I commend Mary and Ellen on their comments and questions, and I have a question that maybe Steve [Walther] or Paul [Kelly] can answer. Commissioner Shaw last week said that there might be some community donations. I don't know, what's the status of that for buying this property, or part of it? So do you know the status of that, or what it was talking about?
MR. PAUL KELLY: I don't, no.
MR. STEVE COHEN: There are discussions about that, but that's basically where it stands at
the present time.
MS. ROBBIN PALMER: I don't have any other comments.
MS. E. J. SMITH: E. J. Smith. I think everybody on the other side of the room has really
addressed most of the concerns very well. If you guys have been working on this for six years and you know what the requirements are, even though you're working on a preliminary map -- this is kind of rhetorical, and I don't really expect an answer -- why haven't you gone ahead out of good faith and proceeded to do some of the things you need to do, that you know you're going to be asked to do?
It just seems that you're not as far along in the process for as long as you have been working on it, as you perhaps should be.
Like a lot of other people, I feel that your clients have not just disregard for us, but disdain for us. And I find that very uncomfortable for what may end up being our neighbors.
I'm just real discouraged and disappointed that you feel you have to pursue these things so prematurely before the questions of purchase and lawsuit settlements and that sort of thing are determined, so I cannot possibly support this at this time.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Did Washoe, representatives of Washoe County, tender an offer to
purchase this Evans Creek, LLC?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, at no time has the state presented any offer to purchase the property.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: They never offered you 19 million dollars for this property?
MR. TIM NELSON: No. But, again, that's -- I don't view that as germane to your review of this tentative map application; but it is a fact.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: How often have representatives of Washoe County discussed this
property with you, purchasing this property?
MR. TIM NELSON: I'm not going to respond to that, because again it's not pertinent to what you should be reviewing here tonight.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Have you ever offered to sell this property to Washoe County?
MR. TIM NELSON: I am not going to comment on that.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: I'm just depressed. You know, I'm with George, I'm just depressed at this. I think you're calling our bluff. That's it.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Mary, are you going to make comments?
MS. MARY DUGAN: I was going to make a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I was just wondering with all these great big lots, why you only have 30-foot setbacks.
MR. TIM NELSON: Thirty foot is the required setback. The actual setback is much greater than that.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Well I know what the actuals are, but it seems as on some instances you want to follow the code right down the line, and the other ones you don't care about.
MR. TIM NELSON: I don't understand your point.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I know you don't understand my point, because you haven't understood anything we have said here this evening. And I am really surprised at your arrogance. We came here with an open mind to listen to you, and you have done nothing but snub us, and I --
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I am not finished. I gave you your opportunity. You are
sitting over there with a smirk on your face, that if I had done that to my father, I would have it slapped.
I mean, I don't know what your problem is, but you come to us with a superior attitude, because you're from Colorado. And I know some nice people from Colorado. I just don't understand.
The Health Department has not really passed on you. I drove up there, as far as I could, and the
traffic is really a problem. I mean, I had trouble coming down when it was slow, and when the pavement was dry. When they have a lot more houses up there, and wet pavement, you're asking for accidents.
I don't think you really -- I don't think you want to belong to this community. I think you
want to take the money, which is fine, but I don't think you want to be part of the community.
I think if you get this passed, you will come in and take the money and leave and: Okay,
Nevada, good-bye; go onto something else.
I think the gentleman made a very good point about the State Zoologist, the State Botanist,
the Native American, and the Archeologists should be contacted. I'm surprised you have not done that on your own.
The well and septic, nothing is complete, not one thing. We have asked you nicely all these
questions, and ìI don't think this is that; I don't want to do this; I don't want to do that.î In fact: I
don't even really want to tell you my name is Tim Nelson or Jim Nelson, or whatever it is.
I mean, that's the attitude that you have left with us, and I am sorry. I am sorry you have
left that attitude. Maybe that's your personality, I don't know. But it didn't sit well with me at all.
And I am pretty open minded. I am not sure whether you have attached or attacked the potential streams. I mean, I see a black map, a white map with black print. It doesn't show me
anything; it doesn't show me a thing.
MR. TIM NELSON: It shows the sensitive streams.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: And you had your chance to point it out before.
MR. TIM NELSON: Did you not also have the plans --
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I am asking the questions; I haven't asked for any answers; I am making a statement.
And with that, I am going to close.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Are you still arresting people that walk onto that property?
MR. TIM NELSON: There has been one person arrested.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Why are you doing that?
MR. TIM NELSON: Again, it's not pertinent to this application, but --
MR. JOE BACHMAN: It absolutely is.
MR. TIM NELSON: We're protecting our private property rights.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: In the future, when this is approved and you have houses there, will you arrest people that attempt to walk across that property?
MR. TIM NELSON: When there are houses down there, that will be up to the owners of those houses.
I suspect they may not want people trespassing through their property.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: For instance, in Arrow Creek, they have a gated community with guards on the gate and you can walk through and get access to the national forest on the other side. That's not your plan?
MR. TIM NELSON: That's not part of this plan, no.
MR. TIM NELSON: Because we don't think the market for these kind of lots will appreciate that access through that neighborhood; and because there are multiple public access points existing north and south of this property to the national forest, including several hundred acres of Washoe County open space that was part of the Arrow Creek Project.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: How much open space is included in this project?
MR. TIM NELSON: It's all open spaces within the individual lots.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: So there is no --
MR. TIM NELSON: It's not dedicated open space.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: So there's no County open space?
MR. TIM NELSON: Because we think our buyers are interested in large acreage lots.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: I thought you said a marketing plan hadn't been done for this.
MR. TIM NELSON: I did. That's --
MR. JOE BACHMAN: So this obviously was a consideration in your marketing plan.
MR. TIM NELSON: A marketing plan is different from what the plan is for the type of lots
that we will be creating.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Who is your buyer?
MR. TIM NELSON: The buyer may be lot purchases, or it may be builders who want to build
custom homes.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Well you said that your buyers don't want people walking through their property. So who are these people?
MR. TIM NELSON: People who want to live on acreage lots up on this property. I don't have a specific list or specific demographic to give you, but we think it's going to be one of the preferences.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: But you think you will continue arresting people once the houses are built?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, I didn't say that at all, I said exactly the opposite. I said it would be
up to the homeowners to decide what they want to do with people who may trespass on their property.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Have you ever been arrested?
MR. TIM NELSON: I have. Have you?
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Are you through? I think Mr. Nelson has told us everything he's going to tell us.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Just one or two more questions. Are any of the other Evans Creek, LLC principals planning to move out to these lots, that you know of?
MR. TIM NELSON: Not that I know of.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And Joe was talking about Arrow Creek, and the ability for the public to gain access to the national forest. And that can be done, I believe, by going through common areas as opposed to individual's lots.
Do you have any common areas or common space through which the public could access national forest be on?
MR. TIM NELSON: No, we don't.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Have you considered doing that?
MR. TIM NELSON: We are considering that as part of the trail request of the County.
MS. MARY DUGAN: And you would only do that, though, if the County requires it; is that
MR. TIM NELSON: That's quite likely, yes.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Why wouldn't you do it otherwise, if it's just a matter of access through
roads or whatever?
MR. TIM NELSON: Again, because we think that the people who would be interested in these lots would not like that public access through their neighborhood; and because there are existing multiple access points already in Arrow Creek and the Pines in Caughlin Ranch and other locations.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So you want a gated community to protect your property from all the other people, and you want all the public to go through all the other communities to get to the mountains. You don't want them to come through yours; right?
MR. TIM NELSON: We think there is adequate public access existing already through the national forest.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Does Evans Creek, LLC, have adequate water rights already for irrigating all of those lots?
MR. TIM NELSON: For irrigating, yes. For wells, we need to assemble water rights for those.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Okay. So you don't have water rights in place for the people who live there to drink; right?
MR. TIM NELSON: Which isn't required as part of the tentative map process.
MS. MARY DUGAN: One other question. Oh, a question for our planner person. Is that Paul? Paul, have you received a report that shows each lot has suitable --
MR. PAUL KELLY: Yes, I have.
MS. MARY DUGAN: You have?
MR. PAUL KELLY: So has the Health Department. And as of two days ago, the health
department had not been called out to inspect the holes, and Brian Tyre said that he has not accepted.
MS. MARY DUGAN: I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said.
MR. PAUL KELLY: He has not accepted the report, because he has not looked at the test holes.
MS. MARY DUGAN: So he has to do that before he can accept the report?
MS. MARY DUGAN: And we don't know whether he will accept it or not yet; is that right?
MR. PAUL KELLY: CorrectPPwww.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Okay, those are all the questions I have.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: I know someone is going to love to start on a motion. Do I have a volunteer?
MS. MARY DUGAN: I have a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Now, remember, it has to be nice and slow, because we have to pick it up.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Okay. Mary Dugan. I would like to move that we recommend that this be disapproved, for the following reasons: It's premature. Currently Evans Creek,
LLC, is already involved in litigation over the nature of the road, and whether it's public.
There is no plan that's been identified with respect to how to deal with and address the
sensitive stream zones, and the critical stream zones.
There has been no identification of wetlands, although there is an acknowledgment that
there appears to be wetlands on the 600 acres.
There has been no resolution of the water and sewer services issue, which means that as of right
now Evans Creek, LLC, does not know how these people are going to drink water or exit water and get that taken care of.
There is development all around this property that's already in application.
And there has been no traffic study, which I think the County should require, because of the
impact that all these developments at once will have.
The Evans Creek, LLC, doesn't have water rights for these people yet. So, again, it's
There has been no indication of if septic is the way they go for this project, no plan for those
septic areas, vis-a-vis the creeks, the sensitive streams areas.
There has been no plan identified of how they are going to make sure that downstream users
aren't impacted.
In addition, there is a potential for litigation over the water and sewer services issue.
This community is identified as going to be a gated community, which this Southwest Truckee
Meadows areas has always been against, because it fosters exclusivity, arrogance and snobbery, and it's
out of character with our community.
There has been no study of whether significant wildlife habitats will be impacted.
There has been no study of whether there are any archeological sites that need to be addressed
or preserved.
For all these reasons, and -- oh, yeah, one other: There is no apparent plan with respect to any
public trails, which the County has requested, and it appears to be the developers' inclination not to do
that unless they absolutely have to. So that needs to be resolved.
All of these things could be addressed in a way that would be helpful to the community and
favorable to the community, and there appears to be no regard whatsoever for the community. And for all these reasons I move that we recommend disapproval of this plan.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: And George seconded it.
The only thing I see that you might have left out of your motion, and you did talk about the
archeological, but did you talk about the Native American? That could be a little bit different.
There might be some specific tribal things which are -- or the botanist, wild life. Once again, our poor
deer here don't have anyplace to go anymore, so to contact the State Zoologist -- I didn't know if you
wanted to add that to your recommendation or not.
And you did allude to the trails and stuff, but I believe Mr. Nelson was talking about the Park & Recreation Department having discussions once again with them. If you wish to put those in, fine; if you don't, that's fine.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Those are all things that support the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Would the second be willing to accept that?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Are there any other questions from anybody else? Did we leave out anything?
I want to make sure -- Okay, ready to call for the vote?
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I still think that we should put in something about the fact that the
community has expressed a desire that this remain open space, and put some money -- you know, put identified money through a bond issue to support that will.
MS. MARY DUGAN: That's true. It's my understanding 19 million dollars was at one time
available to purchase this property, and the Evans Creek, LLC, let it be known that they were not willing buyers at that time, and there's been an overwhelming interest in the community to keep this property as open space; and that too would go to denial.
The other thing I forgot to mention is that the perk tests have not been accepted yet by district
health, so we don't really know if they are any good or not.
So, again, all these things go to demonstrate that this application is premature.
I'd just like to add, that if they've been at this for six years and this community has made
known its desires and concerns for basically six years, it's astounding to me that they still haven't
dealt with these issues.
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Will the second agree to that?
CHAIRWOMAN ELAINE STEINER: Anybody else have any other questions before we vote?
All those in favor of the denial, signify by saying aye.
(They all say aye.)
It was unanimous, so we don't have to worry about it.
Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Mr. Nelson, you're going to get back to Elaine on that issue; right?
MR. TIM NELSON: Yes, I will.

(The hearing ended at 10:40 p.m.)

Back to Protect Our Washoe Home Page