Ongoing discussions regarding a development agreement in south Reno unraveled on Wednesday after the applicant appeared to have walked back what they agreed to prior to the meeting.
The project is spearheaded by Virginia 40s, a development company led by the Dolan family, which owns local car dealerships. The Canyon Edge project was originally proposed and approved in 2021 as 81 acres with 71 single-family homes. In 2022 the project expanded to 161 acres with 79 homes. It also includes five “villages” with site-specific standards and an open space area.
Now, the applicant is proposing to amend the project to include just two “villages” and increase density from 81 units to a possible 126. To achieve that number, at least 16 homes will need to be attached units. The developer also plans to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) along with a density bonus to provide a mix of housing types.
Current plans allow for 42 developable acres, and 119 open space acres, which would not change with the plan amendment. The new plan also includes a trailhead and two park areas.
Brook Oswald, a former City of Reno planner now working for the Dolans on the project, said the change is prompted by market conditions. “We’re in a very different place than we were three or four years ago when this started,” he said, citing higher interest rates, labor costs and inflation.
However, the increased housing density or open space designations didn’t take up most of the discussion. Instead, the management—or lack thereof—of the local wild horse population took center stage.
Development impacts horses
Council member Naomi Duerr has long been an advocate for horses in the area, which lies within her ward 2. She has worked with several state agencies and nonprofits to find solutions to help mitigate issues between the Virginia Range band of feral/estray horses and development.
Earlier this summer, Duerr secured $315,000 for emergency fencing in the area to protect motorists from horses, and vice versa, since people in vehicles and horses die when they collide. She has also met with Virginia 40s and Wild Horse Connection representatives to find solutions that might benefit residents, developers and the horses.
Part of the new proposed Canyons project would involve moving the wild horses in the area further up the hill. In 2022, the last time the Canyons project came before the council, Virginia 40s representative Jim Dolan verbally committed to working with the wild horse advocates to provide access for diversionary feeding and the creation of a new water source east of the development. The goal was to move the horses east from their current water source and away from homes and roads.
Two days after that meeting Dolan signed an agreement with Tracy Wilson of Wild Horse Connection stating the same. Duerr brought up that contract, saying the developer said they would provide a water source and trail for wildlife in the area—including horses.
Oswald, however, said he wasn’t sure if that contract was even legal, and argued that horses “don’t count as wildlife.” The state considers them feral livestock since they do not reside within federal government boundaries. Wild horses under the Bureau of Land Management comprise most of the state’s horse population.
Horses under state ag department jurisdiction
The feral/estray horses on the Virginia Range fall under the Nevada Department of Agriculture’s (NDA) jurisdiction as abandoned livestock. The BLM declared the Virginia Range free of wild horses in 1986, thereby abandoning responsibility for them.
The state, however, has agreements with nonprofits to manage the horse population. Wild Horse Connection has been working to reduce their numbers.
Council member Meghan Ebert asked what the expectations were for moving the horses where there is no water source. She noted the city recently had to pay a large amount of money to put up a fence to deter horses because of liability issues.
“So I’m concerned about these horses trying to get through fences, injuring themselves or residents, to get to water,” she said. “I just can’t imagine they’d be okay with going up to an area with no water and just dying of thirst. Something is going to happen.”
“I just can’t imagine they’d be okay with going up to an area with no water and just dying of thirst. Something is going to happen.”
Oswald said he wasn’t sure, but said his team would need to discuss the issue further with the NDA. “Well, we don’t know of a water source right now,” he said. “There are a lot of challenges on how to do this.”
Throughout discussions, Oswald repeatedly said he would work with NDA to follow laws regarding the horses, and even suggested using funds Duerr asked to be set aside for wild horse advocates to be sent instead to NDA.
However, NDA and wild horse advocates have butted heads on how to best manage the regional herds. Earlier this month, wild horse advocates protested NDA’s handling of a round-up of south Reno horses that they described as “beyond cruel and completely unnecessary.”
NDA gathered two dozen Virginia Range horses for the sake of residential development, the nearby Sunny Hills Ranchos. NDA Executive Director J.J. Goicoechea said the removal shouldn’t have come as a surprise since it followed the rules of the agreement the agency has with Wild Horse Connection. The construction was creating safety issues for the horses, Goicoechea said.
Oswald said they’re hesitant to agree to any more conditions with the horses until they fully understand the legal ramifications. “I don’t know where they’re currently getting water,” he repeated. He said that the NDA said not to provide water on the site through troughs. There are contrary opinions over whether providing water to wild horses violates state law.
Oswald added that the NDA and other departments are working to fence areas of Washoe Valley and could build more fencing north toward Geiger Grade and beyond. He said he believes, “there could be additional funds to support these areas that need to be fenced.”
However, in discussions with trying to get emergency fencing up in south Reno, the city found NDA reluctant to help, and had to fund the projects themselves. “What happens is just, ‘not it,’” Ebert said. “It’s not the private property owner’s [responsibility], it falls on the city of Reno.”
Council member Kathleen Taylor said that while she appreciated Duerr’s work, she’s not comfortable involving the city in managing wild horses, especially because Oswald had just sent the council a letter from NDA cautioning them on conditions relating to wild horses.
“It is not our purview,” Taylor said. “It’s not that I don’t like horses or I don’t want people to be safe, but we received a letter that reads, ‘The NDA has significant concerns over watering and establishing a horse trail.’ This is not our jurisdiction at the city of Reno. I understand there’s safety concerns … but when I get a letter that basically says ‘stay out of our business, we’ll handle it,’ I have to respect that to a certain degree.”
Angela Fuss, assistant development services director, said there are some things the city can do, and some things it shouldn’t, like managing and watering horses. “We shouldn’t be dictating who is watering them and how they’re watered,” she said. “What we can do is: How can we keep horses out of private properties as we’re trying to protect our residents and our streets?”
Nevada is considered a “fence-out” state, which means property owners are responsible for building fences to prevent animals, such as livestock or horses, from entering their property.
Ebert said she agreed that the council members are not experts, but they’re voting on something that will impact wildlife in the area, and they will have to deal with the fallout if they do something wrong.
“We’ve had to do the expense of the fall out within the last six months,” Ebert said, referring to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fencing recently approved. “I’m apprehensive about it.”
Duerr said she would be okay removing the horse provisions from the development agreement as she is proposing a horse mitigation fund separate from the item entirely.
In lieu of the agreement that the developer provide a horse trail and water, Duerr suggested a new proposal that would require the developer to contribute $500 per home toward wild horse mitigation. Based on development plans, that would add up to around $50,000. In addition, she suggested expanding the space between the canyon where the horses travel and the development.
Oswald said Virginia 40s is not opposed to providing contributions for specific causes, though they have concerns over being required to provide to a specific charity. They have also proposed giving $1,000 for affordable housing and $250 per house to go toward habitat mitigation.
Taylor said that while it’s great that they’re willing to provide contributions for affordable housing, such requirements also raise the prices of the houses themselves. “It’s not like somebody isn’t paying this. The person buying the house is paying this,” she said. “It’s not doing anything for affordable housing.”
Mayor Hillary Schieve said that no matter what the proposal is when it comes to development, there is “always going to be someone who opposes it.”
Agreements shifted from specific to vague
As Duerr continued to push for some form of support for wild horse mitigation, Oswald argued at one point that the wildlife plan the developer had agreed to does not apply to horses, as the horses are not categorized as “wild” but rather are either feral/estray.
Duerr said the city does not distinguish between types of animals. “As long as you understand that the wildlife language that you say doesn’t apply to horses—any living thing that is not a human being, it applies,” she said. “Whether it’s a fish, a bird, any kind of animal, we don’t distinguish here in our master plan.”
Oswald said if the agreement ends up being in conflict with state law, they will not be able to uphold what they’ve agreed to. He added that when they get to the point of the tentative map, they will work with the state on proper mitigation for moving horses around the new properties.
The applicant also agreed to provide an eagle conservation management plan—there are at least six nesting eagles in the area, according to Duerr—but that was later revised by Oswald to a general wildlife management plan. Oswald then said they would provide a wildlife management plan during the tentative map phase “if directed to by state agencies who deem it to be necessary.”
Tense discussion
While Duerr and Oswald worked through what they would and wouldn’t agree to, Schieve told Duerr to “calm down” because she “sensed angst” coming from the board member. Duerr continued to attempt to make a motion but was repeatedly stopped by Oswald, who revised or added to what they had agreed to, causing Duerr to become visibly frustrated.
Schieve also interrupted Duerr and repeatedly told her to “take a deep breath” while also telling her to “hurry up and move on.” In the middle of the motion, Duerr was attempting to make for the second time–at Schieve’s request–interrupted the process. Schieve invited Oswald to confirm whether the developer would agree to stipulations within Duerr’s motion.
Schieve: Maybe I try to make a motion.
Duerr: No. I’d like to finish if I could.
Schieve: No. You’re gonna hold on a second. Calm down.
Duerr: I am calm.
Schieve: I’m sensing anxiety.
Duerr: I don’t want to have to say it four times. It’s on the record, it’s on the tape. I don’t know how many more times I need to say it. That’s all.
Schieve: It’s not like you. I want to see the good Naomi. Go ahead, and if you can’t get there, I’m gonna make a motion. We’ve gotta move on because I’ve given you almost 15 minutes, so let’s move forward.
Requirements watered down
Oswald said he would agree to giving $100 per house to the NDA or the state so they can use it for wild horse management as they see fit.
Duerr said she was not comfortable with the money going to the state and would prefer it go to a nonprofit that deals specifically with wild horse management. Oswald argued it should go through a governing agency, and then to a nonprofit. City staff said there was no process for the city to collect the funds and distribute them. Taylor then suggested nixing the requirement to provide funding in its entirety.
“Then I guess we’ll just drop it,” Duerr said. Despite agreeing to it only a few minutes before, Oswald then argued against the necessity for horse guards to be placed on the interiors of fencing, which will be required by city code. In the end, Duerr made a motion with the vast majority of her proposed conditions shot down.
The final conditions included: updating the feral horse language, submitting a wildlife plan, 100% EV chargers for all homes and neutral colors for all home exteriors. However, the signed agreement that the applicant made regarding the necessity to provide a trail and water source for wildlife is still on the table, and Duerr said the applicant would need to deal with it at some point.
The motion passed, with Ebert voting against it.
