Residents urge commission to reject Red Hawk golf-course housing plan

Residents from Wingfield Springs used the meeting’s public-comment period to press the Sparks Planning Commission to oppose a proposed redevelopment they say would replace a golf course and open space with dense housing.

Brian Moore, who said he serves on the Wingfield Springs HOA board and lives on the 10th hole at Red Hawk, asked commissioners to consider the human impacts of decisions in addition to data and studies. "I'm not a numbers guy. I'm a touchy feely guy," Moore said, asking commissioners to weigh how changes would affect families and the neighborhood.

Carol Harden Stevens urged the commission to preserve the community vision set out in the city's 1994 master plan and said opponents have gathered broad public objection. "We who reside in the Wingfield Springs, Red Hawk area request that you reject this entire proposal out of hand and in perpetuity," Stevens said, and told commissioners there are "over 4,300 verified signatures" on a petition opposing the applicant's plan.

Rochelle Dearborn, a Wingfield Springs resident and an accountant, said the commission's role is to evaluate whether proposals improve environmental quality, infrastructure and property values; she argued the change would not meet those planning criteria and should not be approved solely to address a golf-course business problem.

Longtime Sparks resident Tom Sazinski said the application could replace the Lakes Course with nearly 800 homes and called out specific planning concerns: traffic, hydrology and the loss of recreational assets. He also questioned a traffic study the applicant submitted that, he said, claims no impacts for 20 years and challenged a fiscal finding the applicant presented that projects a $5,900,000 net gain to the city over 20 years.

Those speakers asked commissioners to exhaust alternatives and said the application contradicts long-standing commitments to open space and wetlands preservation.

The public comments were taken as part of the meeting’s standard public-comment period; commissioners closed that portion of the meeting and proceeded to the agenda items.

Next steps: the comments are on the public record and will be available to commissioners as they consider any subsequent formal applications from the project applicant.