New arguments surface about Spring Valley casino

Monday, Feb. 28, 2000 | 10:51 a.m.

Two new twists and a barrage of previous arguments over a proposed Spring Valley casino were aired Friday before members of the Gaming Policy Committee's review panel.

Now it's up to the members of committee to sort out the disagreements and make a decision on the neighborhood casino proposal by March 17.

The panel is weighing evidence on the Clark County Commission's approval of rezoning to allow the Triple Five Nevada Development casino to be built near the Las Vegas Beltway in the southeastern part of the valley off Flamingo Road. The casino and 300-room hotel would be the heart of a much larger shopping mall.

The approval in January sparked an appeal from residents living near the proposed casino who argue that the approval violated a new state law, Senate Bill 208, designed to limit the spread of so-called neighborhood casinos. Their appeal of the county decision triggered the formation of an appeal panel, which can substitute its judgment for the County Commission's.

Casino opponents held signs outside the State Office Building on Washington Avenue to urge the panel to say no to the proposal. About 60 Spring Valley residents competed for seats with lawyers from various factions at the Friday morning panel meeting.

Triple Five's attorneys had the first and last opportunities to speak during oral arguments. Attorney Mark Fiorentino said the developer met all the legal requirements for the casino approval, including submission of studies showing minimal impact on county services and the surrounding community.

He said residents opposed to the casino had ample time to protest before the commissioners approved the zoning request, a point rejected by those opposed to the project, many of whom said they didn't know a casino was coming into the area until newspaper accounts were printed in January.

Fiorentino's ally in the argument was county deputy district attorney Rob Warhola. Warhola challenged the constitutional right of the panel to even review the County Commission's decision.

"One branch of government cannot substitute its judgment for another branch," Warhola said.

Panel Chairman Brian Sandoval said members weren't going to argue the constitutionality of the review process, which is set by state law. That would be for the courts to decide, he told Warhola several times.

"The statute says what it says," Sandoval said, and that means the panel has to weigh the evidence and decide whether the Spring Valley casino approval is merited.

Opponents of the casino also tossed a new issue into the legal salad: Citizens of Spring Valley attorney Garry Hayes argued that the casino rezoning should be thrown out because the developer failed to follow SB208. The law requires an area that is rezoned for unrestricted gambling to have already received a master-plan designation of such from the county.

That didn't happen in January, when the commissioners effectively modified the master plan and the rezoning to gaming-enterprise district simultaneously.

Several points were argued without resolution: One centered on where the property line for the project would be, an important issue because the developer would have had to inform some residents of the upcoming rezoning petition.

Opponents argue that the line should be drawn from the outside of the 110-acre shopping mall; advocates argue that the line should be from the outside of the far smaller casino area within the planned mall.

Warhola and Fiorentino argued that the panel should not consider the arguments from nearby residents, since their arguments against the casino were not based on fact-based research but opinion.

Hayes and attorney Ron Madson, also representing the Spring Valley residents, argued that the opinions and experience of people living in the nearby areas should be part of the review process.

Another issue that came up -- as it has before -- is over the definition of "clear and convincing." Under SB208, the county commissioners must make a finding that there is "clear and convincing" evidence that the county can provide necessary services and that rezoning for gambling will not affect the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.

The panel did not indicate which way the final vote will go. The panel will accept written arguments from the parties on or before March 8; the panel has said it will announce its decision March 17.

Based on the questions asked by the panel members at the meeting, Cheralin Zaugg, one of the organizers of the casino opposition, said she was cautiously optimistic of the outcome of the process.

She said the questions brought by the panel showed the members had carefully read SB208 and the record of the County Commission decision.

Launce Rake covers growth issues for the Sun. He can be reached at (702) 259-4127 or by e-mail at lrake@lasvegassun.com.