A project design and potential layout of Andersen Ranch West by Lumos & Associates during a cycle of public hearings in 2023.
In dismissing a lawsuit against Carson City and the Board of Supervisors, First Judicial District Court Department 2 Judge Kristin Luis effectively upheld supervisors’ prior denial of the residential project in west Carson known as Andersen Ranch West.
Andersen-Colard Ranch Enterprises LLC (ACRE) filed a complaint and petition for judicial review on June 26, 2023, following supervisors’ unanimous June 1 denial of the company’s tentative subdivision map. The proposal for 61 lots west of Ormsby Boulevard was a different project than the Andersen Ranch development east of Ormsby Boulevard.
A Dec. 19, 2024, court order signed by Luis dismissed from all claims, in their individual capacities, Mayor Lori Bagwell and Supervisors Lisa Schuette, Maurice White, Curtis Horton and Stacey Giomi. The order denied the petition for judicial review and dismissed five other claims for relief “as civil actions not properly brought with a petition for judicial review.”
“The court concludes that the findings made by the mayor and supervisors were based on substantial evidence, as stated on the record at the administrative hearings, and the Board of Supervisors’ decision denying ACRE’s Feb. 7 (2023) application was not an abuse of discretion,” the order said.
The tentative subdivision map for Andersen Ranch West proposed 61 single-family residential lots on the north end of approximately 80 acres and a roughly 50-acre remainder parcel to the south. Zoned single-family 1 acre on the north parcel and a mix of single family 12,000 and single family 1 acre on the south parcel, the entire site could have seen 132 lots with the zoning at the time.
However, only the northern parcel was sought for development under Carson City Municipal Code 17.10. That chapter of code governing common open space development was officially repealed by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2023, but the Andersen West project was considered under the old code because the application had been filed before the repeal.
The Carson City Planning Commission had recommended denial of the project twice: in a 6-1 vote on Sept. 28, 2022, and by a unanimous vote April 26, 2023. Between those two Planning Commission hearings, supervisors reviewed the project (Nov. 3, 2022), expressed concerns and agreed with the applicant to have it resubmitted to the Planning Commission.
At the June 1, 2023, hearing, supervisors voted unanimously to deny the tentative map, maintaining it did not meet the purpose of the old code.
“The mayor commented that asking the Board of Supervisors to consider the project on the northern 30-acre parcel, which relied on utilizing the density of the southern 50-acre parcel, without addressing what would happen on the southern 50-acre parcel or what the benefit was to Carson City did not comply with CCMC 17.10,” reads the court order.
Numerous residents had been vocal in opposing the project, which is noted in the judicial order. The complaint and petition filed by ACRE as represented by attorney Mark Forsberg argued that public opposition to the “code- and Master Plan-compliant proposed tentative map does not constitute substantial evidence upon which the board’s decision can rely.”
The lawsuit called supervisors’ decision arbitrary and capricious and further claimed the city and supervisors violated ACRE’s constitutional rights including due process and equal protection under the law.
“The record below reflects that Carson City approved at least two developments, including residential development in close proximity to the ACRE property, and they were brought under CCMC 17.07 and 17.10,” reads the lawsuit’s sixth claim for relief. “By approving other developments in flood plains while denying ACRE approval of its tentative map application without a compelling basis for doing so has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Luis’ order, however, dismisses the constitutional claims:
“The court finds that the pleading is a petition of judicial review of the Board of Supervisors’ administrative land use decision. As such, remaining declaratory relief and constitutional claims are improperly brought with the petition for judicial review.”
On the petition for judicial review itself, the order dismisses it “for failure to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities” and on its merits as well. The memorandum of points and authorities was due Aug. 7, 2023, according to the order. ACRE maintained they had good cause for the delay (it wasn’t filed until Dec 21, 2023) “because ACRE was exploring alternatives for the development of the land underlying the project,” according to the order.
On the merits of the petition and whether supervisors abused their discretion, the order states: “In ACRE’s revised project and resubmitted Feb. 7 (2023) application, ACRE addressed traffic- and fire-related concerns but, despite the concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, it left the proposal for the southern 50-acre parcel fundamentally unchanged; it was still proposed to remain undeveloped and continue to be operated as a ranch ‘until the time when the Andersen/Colard family decides to discontinue ranching on this property.’”
Luis found that the findings of supervisors and planning commissioners were “based on substantial evidence, the Feb. 7 application itself and comments at the meetings from ACRE that ACRE would not develop the southern 50-acre parcel, and that ACRE received explicit notice of what the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors believed the problems with the project to be,” according to the order.
Forsberg, representing the petitioner, could not be reached for comment.