Douglas County is completing a 10-year update of its master plan. The Douglas County Planning Commission will continue, and possibly complete, its review on Dec. 12, and county commission hearings will follow, probably in January.
Some good work has been done, but the draft under review does not address the major growth issues that so divide Douglas County. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First, we've made little progress on the substance of those issues. Second, yet another opportunity to have a real dialog in this community on the issues that divide us has been lost.
What are the issues? They can be summarized in simple terms as how big will we grow, how fast will we grow and how well we will grow?
Following is my take on each of those based on information in the 2006 Master Plan Annual Report and in the master plan itself. I hope this helps you understand what is in store for your community. Make up your own mind about whether it is good or bad. Then please participate in the master plan hearings and let your opinions be known. You don't need to be an "expert." Just tell our officials how you feel and what you want. It's their job to figure it out from there.
How big will we grow? Douglas County currently has a population of 48,562 (average of federal and state estimates, MPAR p. 19) in 21,591 dwelling units (MPAR p. 16). That's 2.25 persons per unit. Under the current plan and using the low estimate from the (MPAR p. 17) we could see up to 24,563 additional units here. At 2.25 persons per unit that would mean an additional 55,267 persons, a 114 percent increase, to a total population of about 103,829.
Where would that growth go? Much of it (up to 10,826 units); 24,356 people; (MPAR p. 17) would go into transfer of development rights receiving areas on the periphery of our existing communities in Carson Valley and at Topaz. Based on land use maps in the master plan, the 5,131 units in the Valley (MPAR p. 17) would go into receiving areas northeast of the airport, east of Minden and Gardnerville and southeast of the Ranchos. The other 5,695 units would be in a receiving area southeast of highways 395 and 208 in Topaz.
The growth outside of the receiving areas (up to 9,084 units; 20,439 people; MPAR p. 17) would be divided among our existing communities (8,259 units) and the open space areas around them (825 units).
Finally, we have a category that includes both receiving areas and non-receiving areas. This consists of projects that have in some way been approved but not yet built. They add 4,653 units and 10,469 people to the total (MPAR p. 17).
So Douglas County housing and population could more than double under our master plan, to over 100,000 people. Personally I question how a county that is having trouble managing our current population will be able to deal with twice as many people and I've told the Commission how I think that might be reduced. But make up your own mind and let your officials know what you think.
How fast will we grow? Well, there is much debate about that. What I do know is that since 1990 we've issued an average of 584 residential permits per year (MPAR p. 11), but the overall trend has been upward.
The average over the past five years has been 649 (MPAR p. 11). Using the latter number it would take 38 years to add the 24,563 units discussed above. Sounds reasonable. But some would argue that at the current rate the County has had difficulty keeping up with growth. So the master plan discusses a rate of growth between 2 percent and 3.5 percent. There is a big difference between those two. A 2 percent compound growth rate applied to our current population of 48,562 over 20 years equals a potential population of 72,161. A 3.5 percent rate leads to 96,628, 34 percent more.
As a point of comparison, the 650 units added annually over the past five years equals 3 percent of our current total dwelling units.
So, how fast should we grow? The discussion is ranging between 2 percent and 3.5 percent and we've recently been at about 3 percent. I personally think Douglas County has been struggling to keep up at 3 percent and so I think something much closer to 2 percent is in order. But again, make up your own mind and let your officials know.
How well will we grow? To me, this is the most important question. I encourage each resident to think about Douglas County with twice the current population, whether we want that and how it might be accommodated. Currently, most growth is occurring in large suburban style subdivision tracts on the periphery of our communities. I see little in our plans that would change that. So unless we do something, I think it will be more of the same in the locations discussed above.
One thing that everyone here values is our open space and our daily experience of the mountains, so let me focus on that. How well are we protecting those qualities? The TDR program is good in concept but I've explained here before that I think it is flawed. Simply put, the cost/benefit ratio isn't good. We build 1.3 houses for each acre "preserved" (MPAR p. 34). That might sound OK, but what we're really doing is preventing homes from being built in the sending area. A little math shows that we build 25 homes with all their impacts in or near our neighborhoods to prevent one home "out there" in the sending area. The TDR program should be reformed to strike a better balance between growth and its impacts and the protection of open space.
But there might be a better way altogether. One of the good suggestions from the master plan consultants is an ag open space mitigation fee. Instead of developers purchasing development rights directly from land owners, they would pay a similar amount into a fund established by the county. No cost difference to them. That fund would be used to purchase development rights where that has the most open space benefit instead of where developers happen to purchase them. The fee could be applied to all new residential development instead of just development in receiving areas. Open space preservation would be spread over a larger base and would no longer be entirely dependent on relatively intense development of receiving areas. We might then be able to reexamine our land use policy to get different outcomes in receiving areas without diminishing our open space preservation efforts.
There are other factors affecting how well we grow, of course. I've suggested to the county commission that we make our daily experience of the mountains here our litmus test for all new plans and projects.
How do they affect that? Over time, do we have more of a "city" experience or do we still feel surrounded by and in touch with the mountains? How does the style and design of new development fit in with our mountain and valley setting? Does it enhance that or does it feel like just other suburb?
How well we grow also has to do with our ability to provide the infrastructure and services we need. Do you feel that we're keeping up or falling behind as growth proceeds? Does more growth help or hinder our efforts to keep up? What about the type of growth? What does that imply for our future and for our public policy?
I encourage you to think about these issues and to let officials know what you value here and how you want growth managed. We're often told that our hands are tied, that the die has been cast and there isn't much to be done. All I can say from 30 years in land use planning is nothing could be further from the truth. Communities all over the U.S. have taken command of their futures and changed course to get the results they want. I've given the County Commission my thoughts.
Please think about the Douglas County you want and give them yours. You won't get what you don't ask for.
More information on the master plan update, hearing schedules, etc. can be obtained by calling the planning department at (775) 782-6210.
n Terry Burnes is a Gardnerville resident and former Bay area planner.
