Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2024

Some counterclaims tossed in fight against housing development near Red Rock Canyon

Four of nine counterclaims filed by Save Red Rock to squash plans for a housing development near Red Rock Canyon were dismissed by a District Court judge this morning. But the lawyer for the nonprofit group is confident in the remaining five claims.

Among the counterclaims allowed to move forward in the lawsuit are those regarding an allegation that Clark County violated open meeting laws during a County Commission meeting in February and a question of the validity of a concept plan approved in 2011 and once considered expired.

The four counterclaims dismissed by District Court Judge Jerry Weiss were all related to a 2016 concept plan submitted by Gypsum Resources to develop a 5,000-unit housing development on Blue Diamond Hill, located miles away from Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. That 2016 concept plan was scheduled to be voted on by county commissioners on Feb. 22 but was instead withdrawn.

Weiss ruled that this made those counterclaims “futile.”

Justin Jones, the attorney for Save Red Rock, agreed with the dismissal of two of those counterclaims but had hoped for a broader interpretation of the other two. Still, he said, he believes his client has a solid case.

Save Red Rock is asking Weiss to rule on the validity of a 2011 concept plan, which it argues the county considered expired until “overwhelming public outcry” against the development inspired a quiet reversal. The group cites county documents that describe the 2011 plan as expired and a failure to follow proper procedures to keep the plan active.

Also still up for consideration is whether Clark County violated open meeting laws by discussing that 2011 plan at a commission meeting on Feb. 22. The agenda item for that meeting said the commissioners would be considering a new 2016 concept plan. After hours of public comment — largely against the development — the commissioners instead asked the developer to withdraw its 2016 plan with the understanding that the 2011 plan had not actually expired.

Jones and Save Red Rock President Heather Fisher have characterized that meeting as a “bait-and-switch” and a violation of the state’s open meeting laws, which require public entities to post at least three days in advance “clear and complete” notices of any topics to be discussed.

Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak during the Feb. 22 meeting acknowledged that the validity of the 2011 plan would likely be challenged in court. Prior to that, county lawyers had preemptively asked Weiss to rule on the validity of the 2011 plan, but the court demurred, saying more information was needed.

Save Red Rock is expected to file an amended version of its five counterclaims within a week. Clark County and Gypsum Resources will then have 20 days to file any related motions. A lawyer for the latter suggested during the court hearing that they would take issue with one of the counterclaims, which focuses on the use of Highway 159.

The discovery phase of the lawsuit could take about six months, according to Jones.

Fisher said that, in the meantime, Save Red Rock will continue its public campaign to “keep Red Rock rural” and watch for any news from the developer.