The Reno City Council approved modifications to the controversial Daybreak housing project in southeast Reno on Monday, avoiding a potentially costly legal battle but also raising questions about the precedent it sets for projects that are rejected in the future.

Council members voted 4-3 to approve the project as part of a court-approved remand negotiated by both parties. The vote tally mirrored the Sept. 11 council vote, with Mayor Hillary Schieve and Councilwomen Naomi Duerr and Jenny Brekhus voting against the Daybreak project.

The vote was welcomed by Daybreak developer Newport Pacific Land.

“I think the Reno City Council made a very wise and well-informed decision today,” said Newport’s Executive Vice President Chris Bley. “I couldn’t be happier with the outcome.”

A 4-3 vote

Council members voted on the project as part of a court-approved remand negotiated by both parties. The remand allowed Newport to present its modified project once again to the city of Reno without having to reapply. The city of Reno rejected Daybreak’s application for a 4,700-unit development at the former Butler Ranch site on Nov. 28. Monday's vote approves a 3,995-unit development instead.

The rejection has since been followed by legal maneuverings between the Newport Beach, California-based developer and the city. Newport Pacific Land filed a lawsuit against the city on Feb. 15. The city of Reno responded with a motion to dismiss the case the following month. The first hearing on the city’s motion was scheduled for Sept. 27 at Washoe County District Court.

Prior to the Monday vote, Newport offered several modifications to their original plan. These included a 25% increase in flood mitigation as well as a reduction in density to help address traffic concerns. Instead of 4,700 units as originally proposed, development was reduced by 15% to 3,995 units. To address concerns about mercury contamination, Newport says it will excavate two feet of soil in problem areas, which will then be buried under two feet of clean soil. No homes will be built in such areas.

Safety vs. NIMBY debate

Despite the modifications proposed, public comment continued to be overwhelmingly against the Daybreak project. Of the 318 letters and comments submitted, 226 were against the project while 87 were in favor. The remaining five did not state a position but expressed concern about Daybreak.

Supporters of the project claimed that critics don’t speak for the entire community.

“While there’s a loud NIMBY voice and they can control certain sections of social media, I don’t think that they’re representative of the 298,000 residents (of the Reno area),” said Don Tatro, CEO of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada.

Critics argued that there are legitimate concerns behind their opposition to the project. Reno resident Kent Cheatham, who lives in a neighborhood close to the proposed Daybreak site, wondered what would happen to the water diverted from the former Butler Ranch location when it floods.

“They’re going to push that my way,” Cheatham said. “(Flooding) will come, you know it does every seven to 15 years.”

'I don’t want to put people in harm’s way'

Newport’s Bley says he knows that flooding is scary and that he understands the concerns expressed by residents about it. Bley said his company is sensitive to the concerns of residents who live near the planned community.

“I don’t know how else I can ease their concerns except to say that we’re talking to experts and we’re doing everything in our power to make sure we’re leaving the land in a better place,” Bley said.

Duerr, who voted against the project, shared the concerns mentioned about flooding. Duerr asked what would happen should a nearby dam that is used to store effluent suffer a catastrophic failure. Project Planner Andrew Durling of Wood Rogers responded that they are aware of that particular dam.

“All dams need to have an (emergency action plan); by no means does it prohibit development below the dam,” Durling said. “It is a high hazard dam … so the burden of maintaining it goes to the dam owner, Washoe County.”

Duerr expressed concern that the developer was only ensuring the safety of Daybreak's residents but not the safety of those living around the project site. She then noted how a canal broke in Fernley in 2007. The incident flooded about 580 homes, according to Duerr.

“I don’t want to put people in harm’s way,” Duerr said.

'This isn't easy'

Councilman Oscar Delgado, who represents the district where Daybreak will be located, pushed back against Duerr’s repeated comments about putting people in harm's way and how it could be interpreted. Delgado previously voted against the Daybreak project last year before voting yes to approve the modified plans on Monday.

“(The safety of my constituents) is always a big part of why I’m even here,” Delgado said.

“It may not be a popular vote, it’s going to be a tough vote to go out and continue to talk to my constituents about what this was and what it wasn’t. This isn’t easy.”

Duerr responded that it was not her intent to make it seem like council members who voted for the project are not thinking about their constituents’ safety.

The approval of the Daybreak plan effectively puts the legal battle between the developer and the city to rest. Even with the reduction of planned housing from 4,700 units down to 3,995, Bley says he's satisfied with the end result.

"It is what it is," Bley said. "Development is about give-and-take and I'm totally happy with where we ended up."

Jason Hidalgo covers business and technology for the Reno Gazette Journal, and also reviews video games as part of his Technobubble features. Follow him on Twitter @jasonhidalgo. Like this content? Support local journalism with an RGJ digital subscription.