we on 10 ut 12 1B 14) 15 16 7 18 19 a 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 FILED Electronical Cvi18-0202 2018-10-05 02:11:27 PM Jacqueiine Bryant \s3550 ‘Clerk of the Court “Transaction # 6914183 : yi Kerry S. Doyle, Esq. [Nevada Bar No, 10866 [DOYLE LAW OFFICE, PLLC. 14600 Kietzke Lane, Suite 1-207 Reno, Nevada 89502 775) 525-0889 775) 229-4443 (Fax) kerry@rdoylelaw.com |Attorneys for Petitioner IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF "THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR WASHOE, COUNTY [TAMMY HOUT-STTLL; LEMMON VALLEY ISWAN LAKE RECOVERY COMMITTEE; Case No: Petitioner, vs. Dept WASHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Respondents LANSING-ARCUS, LLC; Real Pasty in Interest | aa! PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. Petitioners, Tammy Holt-Still as an individual and on behalf of the Lemmon Valley Swan} Lake Recovery Committee (hereinafter “Petitiones”), petitions this Court for judicial review of the| findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision of the Washoe County Board of Commissionen case number WIM18-002 pursuant to NRS 233B.130, NRS 278.0235, and NRS 278.5195. 1, This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to NRS 233B.130, INRS 278.0235, and NRS 278.3195. Awe oD a uw 2 13 14) 15 16) 17) 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 7 28 2 On September 11, 2018, the Washoe County Board of Commissioners (“Board of JCommissioners”) voted to reverse the decision of the Washoe County Planning Comrnission| (Planning Commission”), which denied the approval of a teniniive map for a development that will limpact the level of Swan Lake, inctease the area of impervious surface in the basin, and increase the| sisk of fatute flooding in the entire Swan Lake Basin, 3. Petitionet was not setved with the notice of final decision, but believes and thereot alleges that it was filed no eater than September 12, 2018. 4. This petition is filed within twenty-five days of the filing of the notice of final decision and is therefore timely filed. NRS 278.0235. 5. Petitioner appeated before the Planning Commission and the Board of |Commissioness to object to the approval of the tentative map and is an aggrieved party for pusposcs of this petition, pursuant to NRS 233B.130(1)(b) and NRS 278.3195. 6. The Second Judicit! District is the proper venue because Petitioner resides inl |Washoe County and the proceeding occurred within Washoe County. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. On July 3, 2018, the Planning Commission held 2 public hearing on the approval ofa tentative subdivision map for the Prado Ranch North project, a proposal to build a 490-Iot subdivision with lots ranging in size from 6,000 to 24,058 square feet on approximately 154 acres. 8, The master plan for Prado Ranch includes not only the 490-Lot subdivision, but also 32 acres of multi-family sesidential, 195 acres of industrial park, and 22 acres of commercial |property. Ser http:/ /pradoranchfacts.com/. 9. Petitioner appeared at thae hearing and opposed the development, slong with ov. forty of her neighbors. 10. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the approval of a tentative map. 11. Reviewing the stamtory requirements for approval of a tentative map enacted in| INRS 278.349(3), The Planning Commission determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to} make five of the ten required findings, including that the proposed inap was not consistent with the Master Plan, the requited variances for the design were inconsistent with the Master Plan, the|ce aan eon proposed development did not mect the requirements for availability of services, the proposed| limprovement would “cause significant pablic health problems” until the flooding of Swan Lake| from 2017 is resolved, and that the proposal failed to provide the necessary access to surroundin, Hands. 12. The applicant, Lansing-Arcus, LLC (“Lansing”) appealed the Planning Commission’ denial. 13. The Board of Commissioners heard the appeal on September 11, 2018. 14, Petitioner appeared at that hearing and offered evidence against the approval of th tentative map. 15, Despite significant questions as to the proptiety of the project or the applicants Jevidence supporting the ten findings required by NRS 278.349 to approve a teatative map, thi [Board of Commissioners voted to teverse the Planning Commission’s denial FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF JUDICIAL REVIEW 16, Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs. 17, Petitioner has standing to challenge the approval of the tentative map because she is Ja person who may suffer a substantial injury to her personal of real property sights if the| development is allowed to proceed. Sav WCC § 110.910.02 (defining “aggrieved person’) 18. Petitioner represents the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recover Committee, whic] consists of property owners in the Swan Lake Basin who may suffer a substantial injury to theit personal or teal property tights if the development is allowed to proceed. 19. The Board of Commissioners’ decision to reverse the Planning Commission"s denial lof the tentative map is not based on substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, and was| Jerroneous as a matter of law in that the Board of Commissioners applied an incasrect standard o review by failing to “presume that the Plsnning Commission decision was] reasonable and lawful.” 20, Petitioner is therefore entitled to a reversal of the Board of Commissioners’ reversal lof the Board of Commissioners’ approval of the tentative map. /i7