Spring Mountain (Winnemucca Ranch) Planned Unit Development Approved

In a 4-2 vote of the Reno City Council, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan brought forth by the developers of the Spring Mountain project was approved, greenlighting the developer to further develop plans for the subdivisions that would be contained within the PUD.

During the public comment period, many residents spoke both in favor and in opposition to the project.  The City Council, as it usually does in such matters, posed the key questions and themes espoused by opponents to the Applicant, City Staff, and various other public authorities at the county level to get answers to those questions.

Based on the unique situation put into place by the settlement agreement regarding spheres of influence (SOI) and binding against the regional plan, this PUD must be approved by the City of Reno as the area in question resides within the City SOI.

Spring Mountain’s developers defended their proposal and the City of Reno defended their motives against suggestions that this development was before the City in an effort to short-circuit the standards in Washoe County’s open space and wildlife mitigation plans and to grow the size of Reno’s physical plant, respectively. 

The developer’s representative maintained that they were agnostic toward the jurisdiction in which the project would reside.  Councilwoman Jessica Sferazza, who voted no*, was concerned that this development was out of character with the area and was not comfortable with the governance issues or the developer’s ability to meet the trip capture curve requirement in the PUD plan. 

Councilman Dave Aiazzi, defending his support of the project, returned regularly to the theme and asked the opponents of the project where the additional population growth was to occur if not in this privately held land. 

Appellant Erik Holland of Citizens for Sensible Growth echoed many in opposition in calling for more concentrated growth inside the already developed area of the Truckee Meadows, but would also have been open to growth east along I-80.  In their statements, several opponents applauded the developer for the vision and foresight put into the proposal while opposing it on other grounds.

School district representatives and RTC representatives appeared before the council to provide insight as to the planning for schools and existing roadways in the new development.  Aiazzi cited a statistic that a high school would require 50 acres according to the school district.  The logical follow-on question was regarding the availability of such a parcel of land in the already developed urban area.  Holland spoke to the idea of better public transit in the urban area and expansions for the existing school facilities in the urban area to meet those needs.

When all was said and done, the vote to approve the PUD was a vote to approve a plan that had been in the works for many years and had evolved considerably since its original inception.  This new city was not being argued to be annexed into Reno.  It was approved to be planned further and eventually built out according to the existing legal statutes governing PUDs, and must be built according to City of Reno standards, and based on the models used to calculate funding and fiscal sustainability would be able to support itself if taxes were maintained at city levels, regardless of jurisdiction.

Many questions remain unanswered.  Can this development succeed in establishing a complete place with a population of 50,000 and its own economic engine that is complimentary to, and not overly dependent on, cities and towns tens of miles away?  Can it meet its goal of being fully powered by renewable energy sources?  Are the water resources established by the plan truly sustainable and for how long?  Only time will tell.

* (the lone dissenting vote; [ upated – Ed. : Erik Holland reported that Councilman Gustin also voted nay on this.  Hascheff’s vote not included in tally.  Reporter apologizes, was watching via streaming video. ] Councilman Hascheff did not vote due to conflict of interest)

Comments

[Erik Holland]

There were two dissenting votes

Dan Gustin also voted against it

Thanks

Erik Holland

[Erik Holland]

they will be at the legislature once again trying to change the law so Reno can non contiguously annex Spring Mtn--and we will be there to oppose them

Erik Holland

[Ken]

Glad you stopped by, Erik. Thank you for correcting my record. I will update the article and attribute your contribution. My apologies, I was watching via internet stream which is currently not the city's strong suit for council meetings.

What do you think about incorporation for spring mountain?

[Erik Holland]

Hi Ken

incorporation for SM is better than leapfrog annexation---but I don't think any local gov't should be encouraging this kind of sprawl

i'd rather see the focus on closer in growth--and question the forcus on massive growth as well.