This is the very temporary page for info on the proposed annexation of 7,561 acres of property by the City of Reno, submitted by Lifestyle Homes.
The page will be updated daily, if not more often, with info as it becomes available.
We live in the Cold Springs valley and chose this area, among other things, to avoid the fiscal irresponsibility of the city. We also like larger lots, minimal traffic, minimal industry, lower taxes, inexpensive water, better roads, and better and more friendly law enforcement. The proposed annexation is an affront to all we love about this area. It is also simply for the financial gain of a developer and the city and not for the best interests of the people, the city, or the county.
In June 2004, Summit Engineering, working for Lifestyle Homes, submitted an annexation proposal to the City of Reno. It is named the Granite Peterson Peavine Annexation because it extends to each of those mountains/ranges. It is a resurrection of a proposal in October 2002. It asks for 7,561 acres or 11.8 square miles of land to be taken from the unincorporated county. The land stretches from Red Rock Road and Lemmon Drive around to White Lake dry lake bed in Cold Springs and on to the California border by the pallet plant. It continues south another 2 1/2 miles from there. An equivalent area would encompass McCarran and Keystone to Oddie and 395 to Kietzke and Moana to Cashill, like this. It is a checkerboard of properties that would be advantageous to the developer. But not one property with a dwelling is included in the proposal. It is all sagebrush, jackrabbits, and coyotes. The developer cannot build on developed land and homeowners can fight for their right to remain in the county, so it is easier this way and less fuss. They can take our property later, once they have the surrounding land.
One point against is
that the proposed area is not within Reno's Sphere of Influence (SOI). This
is not a judgment call, but a legal defining through the Regional Planning Agency.
Even the city does not define it as within its SOI on their own mapping
web page as shown here and on page 1 of their
staff report here.
Update: I have found that the statutory SOI requirement does not apply,
as it was removed during arbitration unrelated to this annexation.
Another argument against is that the allowed density of housing within the city is much higher than within the county. The Regional Plan (and Settlement Agreement, I believe) does not allow housing more dense than 3 dwelling units per acre in the unincorporated regions of the county.
A voluntary annexation (which this is) involves property owned by parties who want their property to be annexed. There only has to be a corner contiguous with (touching) the existing city limits. There is only in this case. The gap is bridged by Washoe County land to the north, which fulfills the requirement by statute. An involuntary annexation is more difficult and the city can expect the affected owners to fight it. An involuntary one must have 15% contiguity with the existing city limits. Note that, although the current proposal is a voluntary annexation and would not have the required 15% to be able to be involuntarily annexed, if this annexation passes the land next to this annexation property (including the developed property that many of you live on) would be prime for involuntary annexation afterward. Bottom line: If this comes to pass, expect your homes to be annexed against your will quite soon.
The land is currently zoned as Open Space (OS), General Rural (GR), and Medium Density Suburban (MDS) per the Washoe County plan. MDS allows building residences at an average of 3 dwelling units per acre. Woodland Village seems actually more dense than this, but if the open space and greenbelt is included, it averages out to 2.3 houses per acre. The county does not allow more dense housing than 3 dwelling units per acre. It is simply not in the plan for unincorporated "rural" land. As said earlier, this is part of the reason we live here. Of course, if this were truly acceptable in the plan of Lifestyle Homes, there would be no need for annexation. They have already received the blessing to build out to the county's liking. The problem is that the land would be worth much more if they could build more on it than 3 residences per acre. Think strip malls and apartment complexes.
Lifestyle Homes (and its namesakes, such as Woodland Village North LLC) owns over 3,770 acres (49.8%) of the annexation land. As a developer, Lifestyle Homes has a lot at stake financially in this annexation. They initially proposed the annexation back in 2002, but the Regional Plan was being fought and a settlement was still in the works so they shelved it. Now that Woodland Village is partially built, they want to change the remaining part to city land. Next time you see Bob Lissner, ask him why this is good for the whole development. Sheriff's deputies patrolling one side and Reno PD patrolling the other (assuming they come all the way out here to patrol). The wonderfully painted vision he sold you being divided down the middle. For how long?
Picturing that 640 unit apartment complex north of the Woodland Village town center? Better put up a traffic light at Crystal Canyon and White Lake. A couple more at the Bordertown exit and on ramp. They say that there might be less traffic on the freeway with all the building. With another 6,860 dwellings proposed, that would take one heck of a lot of industry for all those people to work in this valley. All that residential and industry adds to the traffic, noise, ambient nighttime light, nitrates in the water, and smog. And, most importantly, more development draws off the limited water in the valley. Ready for watering only on your assigned day? Maybe wash your car if you're lucky? Water bills climbing? Those on septic being forced onto a sewer system because the fertilizer drives the nitrate levels up?
Maybe Lifestyle Homes and the other landowners just want to pay more property taxes, but not build on the land...
The actual annexation proposal folder is available to look through at the City of Reno Community Development at 450 Sinclair St, Reno, third floor. Note the fiscal analysis. As I recall, the whole thing is worth over $5.6 billion to someone over 24 years.
Bonnie Weber is our county commissioner. Not knowing her, I cannot question her support, but I do recommend you write to her to give your opinion, ask questions, and encourage her to attend the City Council meetings and voice our opposition. Write to her at bweber@mail.co.washoe.nv.us.
This annexation is on the heels of others, including Verdi. Because the City of Reno is in a massive land grab, this should be of interest to anyone within 10 miles of the city. Get this information to anyone you know who is in the county, but has not yet been annexed. They will likely be involved soon. If we all can bring this to a reasonable pace now, others will not have to fight on their own turf later.
On June 30th, I was told by the City Clerks Office that there will be no joint meeting on July 6th as stated in the RGJ. The proposal is on the City Council agenda for their meeting on July 7th. It should be brought up after 6:00pm. EVERYONE WHO CAN ATTEND SHOULD DO SO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION.
On July 5th, the RGJ reported that the joint meeting of the CC and the BCC may be held on July 12th. More details will be added here is they come about.
On July 6th, the city council
web site gives an agenda
for the July 12th joint meeting. It is open to the public.
On July 6th, I received an e-mail from Lifestyle Homes advising that the City
Council meeting on the 7th would be just for public comment, with the July 21st
meeting for first reading. Nothing on the city's agenda reflects this.
The July 7th City Council
meeting happened and there was a great turn out, but Dave Aiazzi moved it be
continued until the 21st, pending the outcome of the joint meeting on the 12th.
I don't feel it is a "play", but a reasonable action. The citizens
must stick with it, though, and show on the 21st. Encourage everyone out there
to show up.
Also on the 7th, there has been information that Bob Lissner wants to remove
the Woodland Village property from the proposal. Maybe the feedback from his
own property owners is giving him reason to think again. More to come.
The July 10th CAB meeting was very interesting. Many questions were answered that helped clear the air factually. Unfortunately, many residents left as angry or more so than when they came, due to what they percieve as no way to stop this action. Because the info is getting hard to stuff onto this page, I made a new one with a summary of facts on the entire annexation.
The July 12th Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners lasted about 3 hours and went well. A lot of questions were brought up and answered. Both city staff and county staff gave presentations with their respective points of view. The council members and commissioners asked several questions and most were pretty direct and serious about making informed decisions. In my opinion, most of the council are not totally sold on the proposal and many desire that a development plan accompany the annexation request. They don't seem confident that there is sufficient water to support the developer's desired growth, that the needs of the city are met by this annexation, or that the annexation meets any type of plan desired by anyone, but the developer and owners. As this was just a informational meeting, there was no vote. The City Council will vote on the issue on July 21st. The County Commissioners have no vote in the matter, as it is a city annexation. The meeting was on public TV and will be rebroadcast on Ch13 (SNCAT) at 10am on Thurs, July 15th.
The Nov 13th Regional Plan meeting was well attended, but I don't feel it was well planned and run by the county staff. They definitely are trying to do the right thing and want public input, but the focus of the residents right now is primarily the annexation proposal. The residents of Cold Springs need to understand more facts about this regional plan and what it means to change the zoning to allow growth. I had a lot of questions of staff and am still not entirely clear on what it would mean if the plan was changed to allow dwellings or industry that cannot be supported by the current water supply. One thing I did learn is that if we leave the plan as it is right now (Option 1), and a developer brings in more water to the basin, he would be able to request a zoning change for whatever parcel he wants to build on. If we change the plan to be a reasonable upgrade right now it is more likely that that developer would be held to the plan.
My Summary
of Facts page.
The map is here.
The county's press release about it is here.
This debunks some of the illogical explanations given by Summit and the city
staff.
The county staff report with their recommendation is here.
Note that the report on Verdi's problems with the city are part of this document.
The Washoe County
Community Development Dept has done wonderful things about this. They do
the research and reports for the commission.
The City of Reno has a
page on their site with some Q&A to try to get some good PR.
The City of Reno's staff report praising (and recommending) the annexation is
here.
The e-mail addresses for the City Council members are here.
I recommend writing to all of them.
Meetings and Important
Dates:
11/13/2004 County meeting about
updating the Cold Springs Regional Plan (Zoning) - 1pm at N. Valleys Community
Center
7/21/2004 City Council regular
meeting - initial hearing *postponed
at applicant's request*
7/12/2004 Joint meeting of
the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners - 9am at 490 S.Center
St. -
***this is open to the public and public comment***
7/10/2004 Cold Springs CAB meeting
for this issue - 3:00pm at the Community Building at the park on White Lake
Pkwy
7/07/2004 City Council regular meeting
- issue to be heard after 6:00pm
7/06/2004 Joint meeting
of the City Council and the County Commission *postponed
to July 12th*
Reno Gazette-Journal articles:
7/13/2004 Area
near Cold Springs might join city
7/10/2004 Meeting
set to discuss Cold Springs annexation
7/05/2004 Citizens
to discuss area development at council meeting
7/05/2004 City,
county postpone development meeting
6/26/2004 Public
needs its say in Cold Springs plan
6/26/2004 Judge
orders Washoe County, Reno and Sparks to rewrite their planning standards
6/23/2004 County
opposes Reno annexing Cold Springs
6/23/2004 Officials
consider questions for ballot
6/23/2004 Joint
meeting slated on annexation
6/20/2004 Reno
eyes thousands of Cold Springs acres for annexation
4/23/2004 Would-be
residents line up for new homes
1/01/2004 Residents
fear water projects could bring more growth
2/14/2003 Planners
adopt interim water policies
1/18/2003 Washoe
County officials doubt regional planning will be effective
10/15/2002 Regional
plan settlement unanimously endorsed
10/07/2002 Washoe
officials want growth to mirror water capacity
4/06/2002 Washoe
proposes compromise on Reno expansion plans
2/18/2002 Survey:
Most don't like dense housing
Other stories:
6/23/2004 KRNV news County
commissioners unanimously oppose Cold Springs annexation
6/21/2004 KRNV news Reno
eyes Cold Springs annexation
As this is our take on what is happening, we may need some help on specifics. If you have info that is not seen here or questions, please e-mail us at coldsprings@midmore.com.
©2005 Midmore
Feb 05, 2005 1:00pm
