1200+ new homes, commercial development, and a hotel, slated for Galena!

It is worse then we thought! This informational letter concerns the proposal for Matera Ridge (MR) www.materaridge.com in upper Galena, Washoe County, NV. If there are any corrections to be made please let me know.

As presented by Mr. Hugh Hempell on October 11, 2007 at the Galena Community Advisory Board (CAB), this is not only a plan for 1200 new homes, condos, townhomes but also a hotel, commercial, a private recreational center, etc. At one point he asked if we would accept it if he took out the condos.

The only good news I heard was the project would be on sewer and county water not wells and septic but I’ll believe that when I see it in writing. County water still means a big well sucking up our water. Numerous wells have gone dry in our area.

Matera Ridge stinks but where to begin? OK first I want everyone to mail me $100- do it now. OK, just give me $50 each and I’ll call it even except for a select group of you it’s only $25 but don’t tell the others. 

Now take this concept to Matera Ridge. We don’t owe them anything. There is no need to negotiate and accept only some clustered homes. They don’t own the land, they only own about 635 acres and the rest is private and mostly Forest Service (about 375 acres). That is our land as taxpayers! There are already approved zoning for the Matera Ridge land they own. We are not being NIMBY, we accept current zoning and plans- stick with it. The existing Matera Ridge apparently does allow some clustered homes- no more!

I don’t understand how MR can show plans on land they don’t own and that the land owners have not agreed to sell. I spoke with Mr. Scott Spittler recently. He owns 52 of these acres and said he has had no contact let alone agreement with Matera Ridge. Further, I believe his 3 parcels are zoned one home per parcel for 3 not 52.

Next to him is the Olson property on 40 acres. There is a court recognized agreement limiting that sloped property at 7 homes. So about 100 acres are currently zoned or approved for only 10 homes. 425 acres is unzoned Forest Service. Other lots in the design are zoned from 1 home per acre and up to (I think) 1 home per 40 acres or more. Much of the land is too sloped to build on.

How do you negotiate with someone about land that they don’t own? (I do have a bridge in London for sale by the way.)  

As for the 625 acres they do own, some one in our group did some checking as while it is confusing, just because they own 625 acres doesn’t mean they can build 625 homes. Here is tentatively what he found:

It is divided into 7 lots:

  • Four smaller lots, each just slightly less than 40 acres, on the north end of the section.
  • Two 80 acre lots, south of the four smaller lots.
  • And one lot which would be 320 acres, except that it has the water tank in the middle of it so it is really less than 320 acres, at the south end of the section.

According to some of your neighbors, each of these parcels (the seven) has slightly different restrictions are zoned differently (I have, for example, heard comments about additional restrictions on the 80 acre parcels).  According to the county map, the parcels along the top (north are zoned parks and recreation, open space, and general rural. The rest of the parcels are zoned general rural, high density rural, or open space, and the high density and general rural parts seem to follow the topography of the property.

Remember too that clustered homes would allow the potential of City of Reno annexation. We need to keep it a maximum of LDS (Low Density Suburban) or better which is one home per acre with zoning that allows small farm animals and horses. This helps keep the City of Reno at bay.

The proposal for clustered homes would kill the character of the area. Drive around Fawn Lane and Callahan Ranch and take a look.

Be warned too, as in the case of Fallen Leaf, when they put restrictions in CC&R’s that means little. CC&Rs can be changed. The Fallen Leaf example available upon request. Example might not be the best word but the best word can’t be used here.

Be warned too when listening to their proposal, watch those soft words of “should, minimize, to the maximum extent possible.” We need ‘will’ and measurable goals for what they do with their land. They talk about solar and low carbon but need to meet specific standards, I think called ‘LEED’.

There is one other issue that raises questions of fairness. At the October meeting, Mr. Hempell stated that he had been in contact with Washoe County for quite a while (I think maybe a year) about the project. These were behind closed doors meetings so we don’t know what was said. What we do know is that this area is covered by a master plan called the Forest Area Plan. We had one in 1991 that was re-done after 12 years in 2003. That plan would not allow this development and had strong words about ‘extreme fire danger’, earthquake faults, soil problems. These were all taken out of the new Forest Area Plan proposal. I have to be concerned about these back room dealings, why we have a new Forest Plan after only 4 years, why the strong wording was taken out, etc. Please look at the current Washoe County overall vision and mission statement and the Forest Area Plan vision statement and see how this plan directly contradicts the proposal.  

One other issue is promises. Be strongly warned, and I have proof from other developments, that promises made by the developer and county can and at times are broken. They can lie more than my first wife, Estelle. Nothing said at the CABs or even Planning Commission is binding in the long term unless they show up as a condition. Then conditions can be changed. When a developer agrees to put something in the CC&R’s, remember that CC&Rs can be changed.

To be fair, we have asked the MR folks for a copy of the Power Point presentation that they did and/or to submit information on their proposal to this website.

Remember too that this is not the only building proposed in the Mt Rose Scenic Corridor area. Callamont and the Estates at Mt Rose are alive. These projects call for hundreds of new homes. Numerous small homes and groups may be built. Other big proposals may be lingering out there. There is a ‘for sale’ sign up for lots near Mt Rose where the road narrows on the right (northwest). There are vacant lots in Callahan Ranch, St James, Montreux, Arrowcreek, etc. Fawn lane has numerous USFS parcels that they want to dispose of. A subdivision has been approved on the Olson property on Fawn Lane and Mr. Spittler, owner of 52 acres just split his parcel into three. When will it stop? The answer is "never!" We as neighbors need to stand up and be watchful to see that plans are consistent with the character of the neighborhood and meet existing zoning. This may require effort and vigilance on our part. 

If you talk to them ask specific questions about what land they own, how they would obtain the USFS land, if they own any land now to do a USFS exchange, schools (no elementary planned for this area per WCSD), water,  fire hydrants, solar standards, etc. 

Here are some comments by an attendee based on what he thought he heard (absent the power point as requested or website):

  1. The developers confirmed that no traffic analysis whatever has been done, contradicting statements made previously by both them and the county.
  2. They showed a slide that had "apartments", "town homes" "condominiums", a "boutique hotel", a fitness facility, an "auditorium like Bartley" and "an office park" (all things that had been rumored but not confirmed). They made it clear that the boutique hotel would be done by someone else, as would the fitness facility and the auditorium.
  3. They showed a slide which had 1200 residential units, and more than 400 other "units", which presumably include the commercial and office parks.
  4. They stated that they would not do all 36 acres of the commercial development, but "probably" only 9 or 10, and that the rest would be apartments, condos, and offices.
  5. They stated that the County (Community Development) wants them to include "affordable housing" in the plan.
  6. They  stated that the "clustering" was insisted on by the County (Community Development).
  7. They defended solar and geothermal power, stating that it was not true that it was not feasible, but only addressed geothermal, and finally stated that it would take "a lot of money" to figure out if it could be done there.
  8. They stated that they would not actually build the project. Their plan is to "bring in someone else when we go vertical". They dodged the question of whether they had ever built a project themselves, and dodged the question of whether they would sell when they got the entitlement.
  9. They promised to put material on a web site, but then stated that the site was not up and running.

There are also questions raised about the company- Tierra Development Group. Who are they, what is their track record, have they ever really built anything, are they licensed (real estate, business, etc) what is the status of the Fernley project reflected on their website, have they been involved in civil litigation and if so what was the status of that?

If anything like this were to come true, they should be required to inform people that this is considered an extreme fire danger area and that there are mapped and likely unmapped earthquake faults in the area.

Homes should be required to as fire resistant/ non combustible as reasonably possible.

If the USFS wants to get rid of the land let’s band together to keep it as a nature conservancy or as county property in perpetuity for use as a park, hiking trails, scenic view lookout center, community center, community recreation center, south Reno government complex, Sheriff and Fire stations, etc.

This is true to the best of my knowledge but I will correct any information if needed and others are welcome to contribute comments for possible posting. Likewise a section of the website is dedicated to comments from Washoe County.

Remember, keep our rural character. We are not NIMBY, we accept current zoning and plans. We oppose giving this Forest Service land to private developers, it is our land as taxpayers. Protect against City encroachment. Consider the fire, earthquake and soils issues. Do not compromise on the minimum LDS, one home per acre, no cluster homes. There is no need to compromise from existing zoning. If you do believe in compromise when there is no need, I would like $100 but will accept $50.