FILED

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
luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com

Attorney for the Petitioner

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (“SPCA-NN”) of
Northern Nevada,

Petitioner, CASE NO:

vs. DEPT NO:

THE CITY OF RENO, a political subdivision of

the STATE OF NEVADA, and JOHN DOES I
through X, inclusive,

Respondent,
and

G.P. INDUSTRIES, d/b/a/ RENO IRON

WORKS,

Real Party in Interest.

______________________________________

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Petitioner SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS OF NORTHERN NEVADA (“SPCA-NN”), hereby files the following Petition

for Judicial Review of the May 11, 2022 decision of Respondent CITY OF RENO, a

political subdivision of the STATE OF NEVADA, (“City of Reno”) to deny an appeal of

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

Corporation, adjacent to Petitioner’s animal rehabilitation shelter.

PARTIES

2. Petitioner SPCA-NN is a Nevada non-profit corporation with its

principal place of business at 4950 Spectrum Blvd. in Reno, Nevada. SPCA-NN is

supported by individual donations, program fees, thrift store proceeds, foundation

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

a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, located in Washoe County.

4. Real Party in Interest RIW is and at all times relevant to this Petition

was a Nevada Corporation engaged in the business of metal fabrication, located in

Washoe County.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The above-captioned Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 278.3195 and NRS 278.0235.1

6. Venue is properly in the above-captioned Court because: (a) the

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

Real in Interests’ principal place of business is in Washoe County.

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

("ALDC") Section 18.08.307(j)(3)(C)(4) provides that:

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.

9. Pursuant to NRS 278.3195(4), the ALDC definition of an “aggrieved

person” applies and provides that an "aggrieved person is one whose personal right

or right of property is adversely and substantially affected by the action of a

discretionary body." ALDC Article 4.

10. SPCA-NN is aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission

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

property rights at their facility on Spectrum Blvd.

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

further described below.

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

provided in NRS 278.3195(4) and NRS 279.0235.

///

///

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

Council in accordance with ALDC subsection 18.08.307(j).

14. Petitioner SPCA-NN appeared before the Planning Commission and

objected to the Project.

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

is a final decision for the purpose of judicial review.

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

P.3d 1248 (2008).

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

18. SPCA-NN is a nonprofit animal shelter that every year saves and

improves the lives of thousands of pets in need.

19. SPCA-NN provides affordable community veterinarian services,

affordable vaccine clinics, affordable spay/neuter clinics, vet care financial

assistance. SPCA-NN has over 50 employees and has existed since 1998.

20. The core of SPCA-NN’s mission is to rescue, enrich, rehabilitate, and

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.

21. A large metal fabricating facility next to the SPCA-NN is incompatible

with SPCA-NN’s existing use of their property and will negatively impact SPCA-NN’s

ability to provide quality care and rehabilitate vulnerable pets.

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

status as an animal welfare organization will be jeopardized.

23. If SPCA-NN cannot continue its operations, the thousands of animals

in northern Nevada it rescues will die because there is nowhere else for them to go.

24. SPCA-NN’s facility at 4950 Spectrum Blvd. is located as the base of a

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

Training Center (“RPSTC”).

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

during its future daily operations as a metal fabrication facility.

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

stress-induced illnesses such as loud noises, dust (causes increased rates of

contagious Upper Respiratory Illnesses), and vibrations.

28. No matter how accommodating a shelter is made, dogs and cats in

shelters are stressed.

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

behavioral problems do not get adopted.

31. The SPCA-NN shelter only has so much space. When that space is

taken up with sick, stressed pets on long-term behavior modifications, then

SPCA-NN can’t rescue as many from our under-resourced rural communities who

are then forced to start euthanizing adoptable pets for space.

32. The SPCA-NN’s ultimate job is to provide homeless pets with

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

the sheltering system to begin with.

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

costs for SPCA-NN.

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

shelter on Spectrum Blvd.

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

to match that of the surrounding area.”

39. RIW’s application includes a Major Site Plan Review Application

Summary and Checklist at page 17, which states, “Major site plan reviews require

notice to nearby property owners and a public hearing by the Planning

Commission.”

40. There is no analysis in RIW’s application as to whether its proposed

facility is compatible with the SPCA-NN’s pre-existing use as an animal shelter and

rehabilitation facility.

41. SPCA-NN first became aware of RIW’s project in late November of

2021, via emails from RIW’s representative, Mr. John Krmpotic. Mr. Krmpotic

requested support for the project from the SPCA-NN.

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

opposition at the appropriate time and place.

43. However, SPCA-NN received no notice that proceedings at the City of

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

at which it considered RIW’s application. SPCA-NN is mentioned a single time in

the City Staff’s report provided to the Planning Commission.

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

SPCA-NN is one of only two neighboring properties to RIW’s proposed facility.

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

rehabilitation facility and its existing operations.

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

Commission’s decision to the Reno City Council.

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

Substantial Compliance Was Never Made.

52. ALDC 18.8.603(d)(4) states that an application for Major Site Plan

review is subject to the Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing requirements of

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

8-1, Summary Table of Review Procedures, and detailed in this section.”

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.”

54. Because the SPCA-NN facility is directly adjacent to RIW’s project, it is

within 750 feet of the project and should have received written notice of the project

in accordance with the requirements of ALDC 18.8.603(d)(4).

55. Under the provisions of ALDC18.08.305(f)(2), “...where questions arise

at the public hearing regarding the adequacy of notice, the decisionmaking body

shall make a formal finding as to whether there was substantial compliance

with the notice requirements of this Title.” (Emphasis added) No such formal

finding of substantial compliance was made at the March 2, 2022 Planning

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

substantial compliance was made, Respondent’s action should be reversed as a

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

ex parte communications in quasi judicial matters

58. Restrictions and the requirements for the disclosure of ex parte

communications rests upon fairness concerns flowing from the Magna Carta and

derivative American common law that requires fair procedures.

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

on SCPA’s appeal, Council member Reese stated that he consulted with an

unknown person at the “other” shelter in Reno who made statements regarding

noise compatibility and shelters.

61. Council member Reese was likely referring to the Nevada Humane

Society. Britton Griffith is on the Humane Society Board of Directors.

https://nevadahumanesociety.org/board-of-directors/. Britton Griffith is also

employed by Reno Engineer Corp., whose principal is Vince Griffith.

http://www.recnv.com/contact.html. Vince Griffith and Reno Engineering Co.

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

Engineering Co. has a vested interest in the outcome of SPCA-NN’s appeal.

62. Jill Dobbs met with Vince Griffith and Britton Griffith on May 11, 2022

before the SPCA-NN’s appeal was heard by the City Council.

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

stands to reason that it was Ms. Griffith based on the circumstances.

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

party with a vested interest in the outcome of the appeal.

65. Since Council member Reese did not disclose the details of his ex

parte contact, Respondent’s action should be remanded as a matter of law such

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

conflict of interest that such a contact may create.

The City Council failed to make the required findings under ALDC

18.08.603(e)(1) when approving RIW’s Application

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

requirements in 18.08.304(e) applicable to all land development applications.

67. ALDC 18.08.603(e)(1) requires that specific findings “shall be made

prior to granting a major site plan review permit.”

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

specific findings as to the elements required by the applicable provisions of the

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

SPCA-NN’s adjacent facility on Spectrum Blvd.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that the Court, under the provisions of NRS

278.0235 take the following actions:

(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

authorities within 40 days of the filing of this Petition;

(3) Order the City of Reno to serve and file a reply memorandum of points

and authorities within 30 days after the service of the SPCA-NN’s

memorandum of points and authorities;

(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

for hearing has been filed, deem the matter submitted;

(6) Grant the Petition;

(7) Reverse the City of Reno’s decision to approve Reno Iron Works’

project;

(8) Award Petitioner SCPA-NN reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;

(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.

DATED this Jun 6, 2022

By: __/s/_Luke Busby, Esq.______

LUKE A. BUSBY, ESQ.
SBN 10319
316 California Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
775-453-0112
luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com

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