SPCA Lawsuit Against City of Reno, Reno Iron Works
SPCA Lawsuit Against City of Reno, Reno Iron Works
Electronically
LUKE A. BUSBY, ESQ. CV22-00897
2022-06-06 05:02:06 PM
SBN 10319 Alicia L. Lerud
316 California Ave. Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 9085384 : csulezic
Reno, Nevada 89509
775-453-0112
[email protected]
Respondent,
and
for Judicial Review of the May 11, 2022 decision of Respondent CITY OF RENO, a
the Reno Planning Commission's March 2, 2022 decision to permit the construction
1
and operation of a metal fabrication facility (the “Project”) by Real Party in Interest
G.P. INDUSTRIES, d/b/a/ RENO IRON WORKS Reno Iron Works (“RIW”), a Nevada
PARTIES
grants, and special events. SPCA-NN receives no funding from any government
entities.
3. Respondent City of Reno is and at all times relevant to this Petition was
4. Real Party in Interest RIW is and at all times relevant to this Petition
Washoe County.
property in question is located in Washoe County; (b) the transactions related to the
same occurred in Washoe County; (c) the events and omissions giving rise to the
claims for relief detailed herein below occurred in Washoe County; (d) Petitioner is a
resident of Washoe County; (e) Respondent is located in Washoe County; (f) the
STANDING
1
NRS 278.0235 was amended during the 2021 Legislative Session under AB 333, which
established certain procedural requirements for judicial review of land use planning
decisions of a governing body:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7859/Text
2
7. The Annexation and Land Development Code of the City of Reno
Any aggrieved person who has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission, Board of Appeal, or Hearing Examiner to the City
Council, and who is aggrieved by the decision of the City Council, may
appeal the City Council's decision by filing a petition for judicial review
with the District Court within 25 days after the date of filing of City
Council's decision with the City Clerk’s office, as set forth in NRS
Section 278.3195(4).
8. The population of Washoe County, where the Reno City Council sits, is
below 700,000.
person” applies and provides that an "aggrieved person is one whose personal right
and the Reno City Council to approve RIW’s project and deny SPCA-NN’s appeal
because the construction and operation of the RIW’s project will adversely and
substantially affect SPCA-NN’s use and enjoyment of their personal and real
11. Specifically, the RIW facility will substantially interfere with the use of
the SPCA-NN property for its existing purpose, i.e. the rehabilitation of homeless
animals such that they may become suitable and adoptable household pets, as
12. The City Clerk of the City of Reno issued the Decision Letter on May
13, 2022, and as such, this Petition is timely as it is filed within the 25 day deadline
///
///
3
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
13. Section 18.08.603(6) of the ALDC states that the decision of the
Planning Commission on a Major Site Plan Review may be appealed to the City
15. After the Planning Commission approved the Project, the SPCA-NN
appealed the approval to the Reno City Council on March 14, 2022.
16. The appeal was heard and decided by the Reno City Council on May
11, 2022. ALDC 18.08.307(j)(3)(b)(3) states that such a decision of the City Council
17. Thus, SPCA-NN has exhausted its administrative remedies under NRS
278.3195(4). Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 124 Nev. 1092, 194
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
18. SPCA-NN is a nonprofit animal shelter that every year saves and
assistance. SPCA-NN has over 50 employees and has existed since 1998.
adopt at-risk, vulnerable animals—many of whom have experienced trauma and are
on a variety of behavior modification programs to get them ready for adoption into
loving homes.
with SPCA-NN’s existing use of their property and will negatively impact SPCA-NN’s
4
22. If the SPCA-NN cannot succeed in its work, then SPCA-NN will not
continue to receive critical funding for its continued operations and sustainability; its
in northern Nevada it rescues will die because there is nowhere else for them to go.
large hill south of RIW’s proposed facility. RIW is proposing to cut down
approximately 62 feet of the existing hill and push that dirt into the natural drainage
topography north of the hill towards the property line with the Regional Public Safety
25. The RIW project would damage SPCA-NN existing operations because
it is an indoor and outdoor animal adoption center that shelters vulnerable, highly
sensitive dogs and cats waiting to be adopted. Dogs and cats are highly sensitive to
the type of nuisances the RIW project would create during construction, as well as
26. SPCA-NN’s cats reside in indoor enclosures (cat colonies and condos)
on the north side of the SPCA-NN facility only about 150 feet from where RIW is
proposing to cut down approximately 62 feet of the existing hill and push that dirt
into the natural drainage topography north of the hill towards the property line with
RPSTC.
27. Cats have sensitive immune systems that are highly susceptible to
29. The longer the animals stay in a shelter the more stressed they can
become.
5
30. Stressed dogs and cats are very susceptible to stress-induced
illnesses and longer shelter stays can cause behavioral problems. Sick pets with
31. The SPCA-NN shelter only has so much space. When that space is
SPCA-NN can’t rescue as many from our under-resourced rural communities who
everything they need to get quickly adopted and to provide our community with the
financial and program resources they need to keep pets in their homes and out of
33. Dogs and cats’ hearing is highly superior to that of humans. Sudden,
loud noises are scary and stressful for dogs and cats.
34. Stressed animals get and spread upper respiratory illnesses, which are
further exacerbated by excess dirt and dust such as the kind created with significant
earth moving.
35. The SPCA-NN’s HVAC system is similar to a hospital’s and has full air
exchange every hour. This German made system is sensitive and expensive to
repair. Excess construction debris and dust will cause increased HVAC operating
36. Fearful, stressed animals are harder to adopt. Dogs and cats on
behavior modification programs who are overly stressed and scared shut down and
become much harder to train and rehabilitate. It is harder for them to trust humans.
37. On October 11, 2021, RIW submitted an Application to the City of Reno
for a Major Site Plan Review of its proposed building of a 40,000 square-foot steel
fabrication factory (Phase 1) and large pad for future expansion or other use (Phase
6
2) on 11.88 acres directly adjacent to and north of the SPCA-NN rehabilitation
38. RIW’s application states that the zoning for the factory is “Suburban
Mixed-Use,” and that the Suburban Mixed-Use zoning was established, “to support
lower to moderate density commercial development with size and use that can vary
Summary and Checklist at page 17, which states, “Major site plan reviews require
Commission.”
facility is compatible with the SPCA-NN’s pre-existing use as an animal shelter and
rehabilitation facility.
2021, via emails from RIW’s representative, Mr. John Krmpotic. Mr. Krmpotic
42. The SPCA-NN was opposed to the project, but expected to receive
notification of proceedings related to the project such that it could express its
Reno related to RIW’s project were to commence or occur, and argued at length
before the Planning Commission and the Reno City Council about the lack of notice
and the impacts that RIW’s facility would have on the SPCA-NN’s existing use of its
adjacent property.
44. On March 2, 2022, the Reno City Planning Commision held a meeting
7
45. No analysis of what the SPCA-NN does or the impacts on its
operations and property is provided in the City Staff’s report, despite the fact that
46. At the March 2, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission approved the
master site plan request with a vote of two opposed, and three in favor.
47. Planning Commissioner Vice Chair, Alex Velto, voted to deny the
master site review permit because SPCA-NN did not receive notice and because he
could not make a finding of compatibility of the Project with the SPCA-NN
48. Planning Commissioner Ms. Villenueva voted to deny the master site
review permit because of the extreme grading, public and traffic safety issues.
49. On March 14, 2022, the SPCA-NN timely appealed the Planning
50. On April 13, 2022, the Reno City Council held a meeting and
considered SPCA-NN’s appeal, but did not reach a decision. Rather, the matter
was continued to May 11, 2022 and, in recognition of the incompatibility issue, the
council directed RIW and SPCA-NN to pursue whether there was an alternative site
at which the RIW facility could be located that would avoid the impacts on the
SPCA-NN.
51. On May 11, 2022, the Reno City Council again heard the matter of
SPCA-NN’s appeal, but voted to deny the appeal. Mayor Schieve and Council
members Brekhus and Duerr voted to grant SPCA-NN’s appeal, while council
members Delgado, Weber, Reese, and Jardon voted to deny the appeal.
///
///
///
///
8
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
SPCA-NN Failed to Receive Timely Notice and the Required Formal Finding of
52. ALDC 18.8.603(d)(4) states that an application for Major Site Plan
ALDC Section 18.08.305. ALDC Section 18.08.305(b)(1) provides that , “All public
hearings required by this Title shall be preceded by the notices identified in Table
53. Table 8-1 of the ALDC requires that notice of a Major Site Plan Review
be published and that written notice be provided to property owners within 750 feet
of the project. ALDC Section 18.08.305(b)(2) provides that, “The City shall be
responsible for the preparation of and proper publication and mailing of notice of the
public hearing.”
within 750 feet of the project and should have received written notice of the project
at the public hearing regarding the adequacy of notice, the decisionmaking body
with the notice requirements of this Title.” (Emphasis added) No such formal
Commission hearing, nor at the April 13, 2022 or May 11, 2022 hearings on
SPCA-NN’s appeal. Since the SPCA-NN did not receive notice and no finding of
matter of law.
///
///
9
The City Council Failed To Disclose Ex Parte Contacts
56. Notice and hearing as to the possible effect of a land use decision
upon property rights is required where the action of a city council becomes “quasi
judicial” in character, “and the statutory notice and hearing then becomes necessary
in order to satisfy the requirements of due process and may not be dispensed with.”
Garvin v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 749, 758, 59 P.3d 1180, 1186 (2002).
57. Rule 8.3 of the Rules of the Reno City Council requires disclosure of all
communications rests upon fairness concerns flowing from the Magna Carta and
59. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments embody these concepts and
provide that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.” A fair trial before a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due
process. In re Murchison 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955); Withrow v. Larkin 421 U.S. 35,
46 (1975).
60. At the May 11, 2022 hearing of the City Council, during deliberations
unknown person at the “other” shelter in Reno who made statements regarding
61. Council member Reese was likely referring to the Nevada Humane
represented RIW in the matter before the City Council. Britton Griffith, therefore, has
10
a vested interest in the outcome of SPCA-NN’s appeal because RIW and Reno
62. Jill Dobbs met with Vince Griffith and Britton Griffith on May 11, 2022
63. Because Councilman Reese did not disclose with whom he spoke at
the Humane Society, the SPCA-NN cannot be certain that it was Ms. Griffith, but it
64. The SPCA-NN, the public, and fellow council members were entitled to
know whether the information provided to Council member Reese came from a
65. Since Council member Reese did not disclose the details of his ex
that the remainder of the City Council may consider SPCA-NN’s appeal and the
facts presented by Council member Reese in light of the ex parte contact and the
The City Council failed to make the required findings under ALDC
66. In order to approve RIW’s Application, the Reno City Council was
required to make the findings under ALDC 18.08.603(e), in addition to the general
68. These findings were not adequate for a number of reasons, including
but not limited to: (1) the City limited the scope of its analysis and in doing so,
ignored the actual use of the SPCA-NN facility; (2) the City did not make any
ALDC in approving the project; (3) there was no substantial evidence to support the
11
City’s finding that RIW’s use is compatible with nearby existing uses, including the
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that the Court, under the provisions of NRS
(1) Order Respondent City of Reno to lodge its administrative record for
City of Reno Case No. LDC 22-00019 within 10 days of the filing of this
Petition;
(2) Order the SPCA-NN to file and serve a memorandum of points and
(3) Order the City of Reno to serve and file a reply memorandum of points
(4) Order that the SPCA-NN may serve and file a reply memorandum of
points and authorities within 30 days after service of the reply memorandum;
(5) Within 7 days after the expiration of the time within which the SPCA-NN
is required to reply, permit any party to request a hearing, and unless a request
(7) Reverse the City of Reno’s decision to approve Reno Iron Works’
project;
(9) Order any other relief the Court deems lawful and appropriate under the
circumstances.
///
///
///
///
12
NRS 239B.030(4) AFFIRMATION
I certify that the attached filing includes no social security numbers or other
personal information.
13
Exhibit List
1. May 13, 2022 Decision Letter in City of Reno Case No. LDC 22-00019
14
FILED
Electronically
CV22-00897
2022-06-06 05:02:06 PM
Exhibit 1
Alicia L. Lerud
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 9085384 : csulezic
Exhibit 1