Douglas County faces a tipping point on Nov. 6 when the Park Cattle Co. project goes before the county commissioners. This project is not only inappropriate in and of itself, but it would set a dangerous precedent regarding every other large land owner that might want a master plan amendment at some future time. If the commissioners approve Park, how can they deny the others? The rural character of Douglas County would be compromised forever. It is vitally important that citizens let the commissioners know how they feel on this crucial issue. Please call, fax, or e-mail the commissioners immediately. Contact the county to find out how (782-9821).
There are two issues regarding the Park project before the commissioners this week. The first is the master plan amendment (the "forest"), the second is the specific plan (the "trees"). Park wants the commissioners (and the public) to concentrate on the "trees," all the bells and whistles, the carrots with which they are trying to entice the commissioners. The real issue, however, is the master plan amendment, for which county staff has firmly recommended denial. The planning commission voted for denial 6-1.
One all-important fact to remember about the amendments is that they cannot be conditioned. Park is asking that 1,281.5 acres be changed from agricultural (a home per 19 acres, or 107 homes) to receiving area, which would allow up to 12 homes per acre, or up to 15,378 homes. If this is approved, the county cannot place any further conditions on that approval. The specific plan, that will be heard subsequently, is just part of the sales job for the amendment. Every single possible advantage to the community could be better accommodated by clustering, with its 150 percent bonus, which is not only allowed by the master plan, but encouraged by it.
No one actually expects the Park family to be the developers. They will simply take their added density and sell the entire project to the highest bidder, pocketing a huge windfall profit of many tens of millions in the process. Future developers will not be bound by any Specific Plan discussed on Thursday. In fact, there is no guarantee that the land on the west side will be preserved either. New owners could transfer development rights from other parcels to the receiving area, and still build one home per 19 acres on the west side, much of which is in the flood plain.
It is worth noting that Park bought much of this land in the 1990s, when it already had 19-acre zoning. These are not struggling family ranchers " this is a wealthy real estate development company. This is the same company that earlier this year received $165 million in a settlement with the owners of the Horizon and MontBleu casinos. Their only goal is to maximize their profits.
There are so many problems with the Park proposal, it's hard to know where to start. Let's discuss three: infrastructure, water, and rural character.
Infrastructure includes roads, schools, sewer, etc. Our roads would be overwhelmed by such a huge development. Traffic, which has obviously been getting worse and worse, would become a nightmare. Trying to solve the problem would be a gigantic expense to existing residents. Read what the county staff has to say about this issue: "The Park Ranch project would require the county to spend extraordinary amounts of money and administrative time to keep roads in Douglas County at acceptable levels of service. Approval of the project would, in effect, tie the hands of future boards of commissioners, requiring them and NDOT to spend hundreds of millions of unbudgeted dollars and to engage in eminent domain proceedings to secure right-of way."
On the issue of wastewater, Park has not done a detailed analysis of the current facilities and their capacity, nor has the Minden-Gardnerville Sanitation District committed to serve the Park project. Who do you think will be stuck with the bill if new facilities need to be built? Existing residents will.
It is a certainty that water use in Douglas County will exceed our annual recharge and begin to draw down our aquifer, leading to more and more wells going dry. The only question is when. Some wells in Ruhenstroth and Johnson Lane are already going dry. The recent groundwater study by the U.S. Geological Survey confirms that we are already dangerously close to exceeding our recharge. Adding 4,500 new homes would only accelerate the process.
Flooding would also be exacerbated by all these new homes. Not only would more groundwater be used, but less would be recharged back into the aquifer. Replacing agriculture land with thousands of homes would make the floods worse for everyone else.
Our rural character is the trait of our county that residents find most appealing. Approval of this enormous project would be the end of life as we know it here. Every other large land owner would be lining up right behind Park for their own Master Plan Amendment.
There are four required findings, all of which must be met, to approve a MPA. Community Development staff has determined that Park's application does not meet a single one of them. Staff even breaks the four required findings down into 17 sub-parts, and finds that the application does not meet the requirements in 16 of them, from flood protection, growth management, community character, and provision of public services to water, wastewater, drainage and traffic.
There is absolutely no justification for approving Park's application. I agree with previous writers that any commissioner that votes for approval should be recalled. Commissioners should uphold the staff recommendation, the vote of the planning commission, and the clear opinion of the majority of residents to deny this application.
n Jim Slade is a Foothill resident.
