Park Cattle project debate continues

The epic saga that is Park Cattle Co.'s proposed master plan amendment culminated Thursday night in a motion to ... continue.

Douglas County commissioners voted 3-2 to defer the item until November.

After five hours of presentations and heated public debate, commissioners Dave Brady and Doug Johnson tried unsuccessfully to deny the project. Commissioners Nancy McDermid, Kelly Kite and Jim Baushke voted for a continuance.

"I can't vote this project completely down," said McDermid. "There is a great deal of merit in it. They may have asked for the moon, but I believe we can find that constellation with a shining star."

Park Cattle's Co.'s proposed master plan amendment and specific site plan would convert about 4,500 acres of the Valley's agricultural land into a planned community.

The majority of a 3,123-acre parcel west of Highway 395 along the Carson River would be preserved as open space. A 1,372-acre parcel east of Highway 395 would be changed into receiving area for about 5,000 homes, commercial, industrial and public use developments.

Current zoning would allow Park Cattle 236 residential units, or about 600 if they utilized clustering density bonuses, which are designed to grant higher densities in exchange for preservation of open space.

On Aug. 13, the Douglas County Planning Commission voted 6-1 to deny the project. The Town of Gardnerville also denied the project, but the Town of Minden approved it by a 3-2 vote.

Minden town board member Bob Hadfield urged commissioners to follow his town's lead, arguing the project was an opportunity to plan for the future rather than continue "piecemeal" development.

"This project is large, and it scares people," he said. "But people are going to move into the Valley whether you approve it or not. This is an opportunity of a lifetime. Good planning is never premature."

Douglas County Community Development had recommended denial of the project based on findings that it was incompatible with the master plan.

"The major issues that confront the master plan amendment," principal planner Harmon Zuckerman wrote in his report, "are its inability to ensure conveyance of flood flows, its proposal to add extraordinary amounts of new housing and commercial development at a time and in an environment where there is not a demonstrable need for either, and its negative impacts on transportation infrastructure."

Project spokesmen Rob Anderson said the proposal does achieve the goals of the master plan. He pointed to what he called the hole in the doughnut, Park's east parcel located in the central portion of the Valley along Buckeye Road.

"Where do Minden and Gardnerville grow? The south side of Minden is bounded by a flood plain. The north and east sides of Gardnerville are bounded by industrial and rural residential. This is the place to grow," he said.

Anderson said Park Cattle has been responsive to community concerns. The company is considering reductions in residential densities, working with the airport to determine proper boundaries for flight paths, and dedicating lands for schools and a community/senior center.

"This is a once in a lifetime opportunity," Anderson said. "Park Cattle has been good stewards of Douglas County's land since 1860."

Many in the audience were quick to point out that Park Cattle acquired the eastern parcel in 1995 with its current agricultural zoning.

"We were told we had to keep our land in 10 acres," said rancher John Laxague. "When Bruce Park ran the company, Park Cattle was a ranch... If he still controlled Park, we would be in a different situation. This thing is way overdone."

Laxague said residential wells in East Valley are drying up. He said the Valley's aquifer would be damaged if irrigation ceases on Park Cattle's eastern parcel.

But Anderson said Park Cattle's plan would keep 27,000 acre-feet of water rights in the Valley, rather than selling them to downstream users.

"The plan commits 4,520 acre-feet of Minden water rights for beneficial use," he said.

Senior advocate Paul Lockwood supported the plan's dedication of 20 acres for public use facilities, including a site for a new senior center.

"[The dedication] is a light at the end of a long tunnel," he said. "If we have the land, we can go out and look for grants. Don't kick this gift horse. This is a great thing Park Cattle is offering us."

Gardnerville resident Jim Slade warned against being "dazzled" by "pipe-dreams."

"They are not offering to build the facilities," he said. "The enormity of the project is scary. They are asking for 21 times what is currently allowed. They have different definitions of urban sprawl, but this would be urban sprawl. It's incrementalism: Houses getting farther and farther away from the towns."

Slade accused Park Cattle of trying to maximize profit at the cost of the community.

But Genoa resident Greg Painter said it doesn't always have to be one way or the other.

"A developer can be philanthropic as well as trying to make money," he said.

Acknowledging the complex and controversial nature of the proposal, commissioners instructed Park Cattle to submit possible modifications and updated impact studies to county staff in October before returning to the board in November.

Anderson expressed urgency with the continuance, arguing the Park Cattle was eager to begin and had already invested millions in the project.

"The applicant's sense of urgency is not our problem," commissioner Brady said. "Rushing to judgment on a project of this magnitude is not how it should be done."