Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here's this. Okay, I will call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order. I would like to say that commissioners Klutz and Lyall are absent and commissioner St. John is joining us on Zoom. I also want to congratulate commissioners Walder and Mccelip on the reappoints and ask Jim to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

You all join me in pledging our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It is now time for opening public comment. Public comment is limited to 3 minutes per speaker over matters on which the planning commission has jurisdiction. The planning commission wants to encourage expression of all views by members of the public. However, if content is disruptive, irrelevant, willfully misleading, or disrespectful to the public, the PC or staff, the individual will be told to stop speaking. Public comment will also be taken on agenda items that are identified for possible action, and there will be closing public comment. I will now open public comment. Please sign the roster. Say your name for the record into the microphone. Uh good afternoon and happy new year. Um today I'm here to strongly urge you as planning commissioners to start attending Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Advisory Planning Commission meetings to see how their planning commission differs from ours. You'll get to hear from different uh local jurisdictions planners. Um we have a planner that also attended attends and we have a lay person that um has been assigned. Um I'd also think you might uh find governing board meetings and other committee meetings that directly relate to the Tahoe Township interesting as well on Tahoe specific Douglas projects. January 28th, we'll kick off TRPA's phase three housing notice of preparation for an environmental impact study. And then February 11th, the advisory planning commission will also hear a presentation. Phase 2 housing for a affordable moderate workforce, whatever term suits the proposed project was

incorporated into the Douglas County Southshore area plan by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency staff as required by their code of ordinances, which is chapter 13 area plans. As Douglas County chose not to provide substitute equivalent standards unique to Douglas County as a township, other local jurisdictions have. Phase two will also be incorporated into the Tahoe Douglas area plan when it goes through its approval cycle. Fast forward to phase three housing proposed amendments will probably not be completed until 2027 where those new standards and ordinances also will be incorporated into both of our area plans. I will be happy to send agendas for all these different kinds of committee meetings and issues uh related to Tahoe to staff to submit to all the planning commissioners. Furthermore, I believe it's important to attend Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority board meetings and event center stakeholder meetings, also trans Tahoe transportation meetings where you get a better education of how these boards work and how they relate to Douglas County. Thank you for your consideration and possible participation in the future.

Thank you, Ellie. Jim Slade, there are two different processes utilized by the county, specifically by community development on which I would like to comment. The first of these is the use of consultants. This common knowledge has been verified in many studies showing that consultants tend to come up with recommendations that are in keeping with the desires of whoever is paying them. When it comes to issues around growth and development, community development has consistently shown that they develop they value development over community. One lead looked no further than their support for Park Ranch moving receiving area to the heart of the Carson Valley, which will result in over 2200 homes where only 68 were previously allowed. This was the county's worst decision this century and was done despite public opposition running more than 50 to1 against it. And let's not pretend that that same type of bias is not still happening. One lead look looked no further than the recent emails between staff and Barton regarding the development plans at the lake overtly supporting a developer while denigrating the public and being dismissive of public concerns. It is clear that the well- paid consultants in nearly every case are striving principally to please the clear desires of those who are paying them. County government. My second concern is with the so-called stakeholders, which is just a convenient term for those who have a financial interest in the recommendations often put forward by those consultants. Most

often the state stakeholders include developers with their obvious profit motive and frequently include ranchers who understandably want to get the highest value for selling land to those same developers. It also may include community development and other county staff supporting those moneyed interests. These are always backroom meetings with no transparency and no public input. The true stakeholders in Douglas County are our residents, but they are routinely ignored. In most cases, the public is not even aware of who is participating in the stakeholder meetings. Our residents deserve more. More transparency, more concern for the public welfare, and more attention to the clear public desires for sustainable growth and development to pay for itself. Yet the county continues to allow more and more development in nonville flood planes then plans to impose fees really taxes to pay for the incredibly expensive $140 million storm water projects. The towns of Minon and Gardnerville in their plan for prosperity bared not to not to expand their town boundaries or urban service areas until the towns were 85% built out. Yet they had no problem in ignoring those promises for the Buckeye Farms development. As usual, the powers that be have sided with the moneyed interests to the detriment of the general public. The public interest should always be foremost. They are the real stakeholders in decisions that affect our quality of life, our rural lifestyle, and our water.

Thank you. Any others? Seeing no one rise, I'll close public comment. agenda. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion? I would move to approve the agenda. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion by Jim, second by Paul. All those in favor?

I. Motion passes unanimously. An approval of the minutes for the meeting of December 9th. I have one correction. And it seems that board chairwoman Hailes made another appearance at our meeting on the top of page 8. And other than that, the minutes looked perfect. Does anyone else have any changes? Seeing no one make any, do we have a motion? I would move to approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion by Jim, a second by Kirk. All those in favor? I.

Motion passes unanimous. And now we move to our agenda for possible action. Discussion of the election of the chair and vice chair in compliance with chapter 2.06 of the Douglas County Code and section 2.1 of the planning commission bylaws. I want to start by saying it's been a wonderful year serving as chair and I know I'm eligible for another term, but I think it's time to pass the torch and put some new blood in this seat. We're doing title 20 this year, and while I would love to sit here, I think it may be a contentious year, and I'd rather not shed my blood. So, I'd like to make a nomination this time around for Paul Bruno to be planning commission chair for 2026.

I would second that. We have a motion in a second. Is there any discussion? Public comment action item. Well, should we have discussion first and then public comment? Okay. Is there any discussion since we have a motion and a second? Kirk. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to congratulate you for an outstanding year of service. You are fair, you are uh wellprepared and you uh make our job a lot easier. And in abstentia, I'd like to thank Vice Chair Klutz. He has been a very reliable member of the planning commission and we appreciate uh all the good work he has done. So thank you for your service and your willingness to pass the torch.

Any other comments? I would also just to thank you for a great year. It's my first year on this board and uh you were standing. You made it very easy for us to uh do our business. Thank you very much for your your work. If I might speak, if I might speak, uh I also want to congratulate you for an excellent year. Uh chair and Paul. Paul I think would be a great choice. And James, congratulation on your reappoint. Thank you, Dan Paul.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I, um, am honored and privileged to be nominated, and I want to tell you that I am prepared, having given blood just two weeks ago. I'll be prepared to shed more as the year goes on. I will open this for public comment. Mr. Slade, Jim Slade, I just want to also thank Chairman Casey for always doing a great job in her several terms as chairwoman and uh have no objection. Mr. Bruno being chairman, good luck.

Thank you, Jim. Anyone else? Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment. We have a motion and a second on the floor to elect Paul Bruno as chair of the planning commission. There's no further discussion. We can vote. All those in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Congratulations, Paul. Now we will take nominations for vice chair. Are there any? I would nominate Kirk Walder for vice chair. Is there a second?

Madam Chair, with all due respect and appreciation for the nomination, but I think uh I'd be willing to step aside if uh Moren would like to be uh vice chair. Uh she's got great experience and great leadership, and I'd be happy to uh have her in the position rather than myself. Um Can I change my motion then? I would nominate Moren Casey as vice chair and I agree on her experience and I think either one of you would be a great vice chair, but if you want to pass the baton, I think Moren would be a great vice chair. I second the nomination of Moren Casey for vice chair.

We have a motion by Jim and a second by Kirk. Is there any discussion? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I think both um candidates, yourself and uh and Kirk are outstanding uh and uh I will value your guidance as I begin my first uh term as uh chair uh to the extent that you are elected in about 30 seconds.

I will sharpen my stick to make sure you shed lots of blood. Dan, do you have anything to say? No, but I will support the U motion. I think it's a great choice. I will open this for public comment. Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I I motion passes and Morin Casey will be vice chair for 2026. And that was easy. We will take a 5m minute break while we play musical chairs.

Let's uh begin uh first with a couple of comments. As I indicated, it's both an honor and a privilege to take the reigns as uh planning commission chair for what would be a full year because it's January and we haven't had a an election in January in some time. Uh and uh I ask from staff and the public uh a little bit of uh slack because this will be a uh inaugural position for me. And uh please have the patience uh that I know you will with respect to things that I do and the way that I do them. There will be mistakes. I assure you uh that is the one thing that you can be certain and I will be the one making those mistakes. So uh please as we proceed in this uh upcoming year that uh that you will assist and uh we'll stay on the right road. We will both uh be fair and we will be educated with respect to all of the issues unbiased and reviewed uh in in a fashion that are good for all of the individuals within the county. Uh those words are uh very very important uh to me as we go forward. And also the character uh of all of the neighborhoods and of Douglas County uh is very important uh to be mindful as we proceed which we shall. And the first uh item after the elections, it will be number two on our agenda uh is uh the presentation on transfer uh development rights, TDRs. Uh and uh from uh Wood Rogers, Inc. Uh Derek Kirkland, I think, will be the first speaker. And uh everyone should have hopefully been available uh with a set of slides that

we just received uh at the beginning of our meeting. It is for possible action the presentation and discussion on the transfer development rights study that commenced in September of 2023. Wood Rogers will present findings from the study, discuss collaboration utilized during the study, and make recommendations to future pathways and changes for the TDR program. Uh, Mr. Kirkland, Chairman Bruno, if I may, Cape O'Neal. No problem. There's my first mistake, ma'am.

No, no, I'm not on there, so that's okay. Um, congratulations by the way, uh, Chairman Bruno. I think you'll do a f fantastic job. And thank you to Chairwoman, previous chairwoman Casey, um, for all your hard work and dedication. And to all of you, it was a, it was a great year, a daunting year. Um, but, uh, we appreciate um, all that you do and your dedication and service. Um, I would like to introduce uh, Derek and Melissa from Wood Rogers. They'll be doing the presentation today. Um it this has been a lot of work, a lot of collaboration. Wood Rogers has done a fantastic job of um number one just trying to grasp our TDR existing TDR program, what has been done in the past, you know, trying to compile 25 plus years of transfer development rights and uh it's it's been a lot of work. So, we appreciate everything they've done and we look forward to uh sharing this report and PowerPoint with you. So, at this time, if uh Derek and Melissa, you could come up and we'll go from there.

If they if I could trouble you before you begin, is there a signup sheet on the podium? If you two could sign in so that uh as this is being recorded and will be reduced to minutes, we'll be able to say who's talking and when All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Derek Kirkland with Wood Rogers. So, we were um hired, as Kate mentioned, um to help with the TDR study. Um a lot of lot of research, a lot of working with stakeholders. Um, and we also had a couple other consultants that were part of our team that not here today, but uh, Leland Consulting Group, um, helped us do a lot of the background information, uh, a lot of the case study research, and we also had the FCS group, um, who was on to help us do some financial analysis. Um, we also, uh, collaborated with the University of Nevada, um, who helped us with some of the data collection as well.

[clears throat]

There we go. Um, so just to a a brief history of the process. Um, obviously we kicked off in 2023. Um, did a bunch of background information, uh, a lot of research. Um, and then in April and of 2024, uh, we initiated the technical advisory committee which included, um, county commissioners, planning commissioners, um, members of different elements of the community, community members. some it was a really robust group and a lot of good dialogue and discussion that took place. Um and then throughout 2024 we also met with um we did individual uh stakeholder interviews with some of those people as well as some additional members um that were recommended to us that we talked to um at the TAC. Um and then we moved on to kind of the expert case studies where we reached out and obviously um as we know Douglas County is very unique in terms of the transfer of development rights program. There's not a whole lot of them in the country. Um but we did find uh a handful of other ones that are out there and we did some case studies. Um and that information is uh documented in this report as well. Uh and then the beginning of 2025 uh FCS group completed their financial analysis basically looking at um the cost of a TDR and its impact on development and just kind of a whole analysis and obviously um hard that was a snapshot in time and all obviously those things change but it did give us um some information in terms of of how that works and how that could impact um the TDR pro program going forward. Um and then we came out with some initial recommendations uh about a year ago, April of 2025. Um and then we convened a second TAC meeting um where we went over those recommendations um and had a lot of discussion about some options. um those those recommendations um were updated and we actually held a planning uh planning commission workshop with this group um back in August um where we got a ton of of great feedback

from the planning commissioners and members um that were there for that that public workshop um and we've spent since a uh last August we've basically been working on kind of incorporating a lot of those comments updating updating our recommendations um and where we're at today is basically um we have this this uh final draft report um that we're bringing back uh in front of you to get some final input uh and then that recommendation will um basically go on uh we'll make any changes and then that that document will be carried forward to um the board of county commissioners. Um just to recap the planning commission workshop. Um obviously there was a a lot of discussion there. Um but the main themes that came out out of that is I think everyone was in agreement that we need to keep the TDR program. Uh started in 1996 and has been successful preserving over 4600 acres. Um but there's you know could there be some improvements to it? Yes. And so that was uh one of the directions we received was to explore some of those improvements. Um, and then I think the other one that came out of that was everyone really like the fact that it's market based rather than a lot of some of the other case studies we uh found they they're not market based. Some of them were controlled by the governments. And so um I think the general consensus between this body and the technical advisory committee was to keep keep recommendations market- based. Um obviously Douglas County is a is a wonderful place. Um and part of that is because [music] is because of the community character um the a land and so protecting that um is is a is a key especially the flood plane areas. Um in terms of improving the program uh there was a lot of discussion about the administration transparency a lot of questions about data keeping and recordkeeping and I think everyone kind of agreed that there's definitely some room there to um implement some better processes. So you'll see that in our recommendations today. um sustainability

and growth pressures. Obviously, Douglas County is a nice area and people um want to be here. Um they're exploring options to to move here and so um updating receiving areas to better align with infrastructure. Um there was a lot of discussion about TDRs and and where they're generated versus where they're used. Um and then obviously the long-term resiliency in terms of balancing uh the ranching needs um and the the rest of the community needs as well is something we heard there and just really um under kind of understanding more of the the growth pressures and keeping the program um modernized and up to date with uh where that's taking place. Um obviously we talked a lot about getting creative. Um you'll see today we've got some recommendations in terms of coming up with some some overlay zones and some other tools that are out there. Um and then obviously the one of the biggest reasons um why we're here is really the the private market and the economic realities that land values are high today and the t the demand for TDRs is generally low. And so what are some incentives? What are some things and part of getting creative to maybe uh maybe flip that message a little bit? um as we move through the program and kind of looking at that, there's obviously um goals in the master plan, goals in the development code that we definitely continued to look back at. Um and a lot of those are related to the community character. Um putting growth where growth needs to be um and creating that that balance um and but just really preserving that a land and and land preservation. Um a couple of the key milestones in the program um obviously as noted uh the program began in 1996. Um and in 2001 the program was actually went through some updates um to fix some loopholes. There was def there's some density bonuses that were added in

there. Um some incentives then um and then uh the some of the calculations were updated and 2002 through 2009 was really the highest uh highest use of the program uh mainly from about 2002 to 2007 and I think there was some additional bonus uh for the flood preservation in there during that time. Um and all one of the things that did come up uh so the 2007 growth uh ordinance was passed um in 2007 and so we saw that uh come into play during that time frame as well. Um and then al obviously we know that the the great recession was 2009 and obviously when there's low demand for growth there's low demand for TDR. So that there was a lot of impacts during that time frame on the TDR program. Um, in 2011, um, there was some more updates, um, where TDRs were transferred between, uh, Topaz and Carson Valley. Um, and basically the market uh, was expanded. Um, and then in 2020, Douglas County went through the most recent master plan update. Um, not a a huge impact on the TDR program with that. Um, uh, and mainly that was focused on the, uh, text amendments. Um and then the map on the right basically shows a snapshot of um the receiving areas and kind of the program um as it exists today in terms of receiving TDR certified parcels. Um and then during the last planning commission workshop, there's a lot of questions about um stats of the program. And I think that's one of the the areas that we really focused on with staff um is trying to better I understand um the moving pieces to that. And I think one of our recommendations is to continue um to refine some of that so that the record keeping um moving forward continues to um be a little bit better. So on the TDR supply side, um when you

look at all the sending areas, overall we have about 169,000 acres that are zoned for receiving areas A19 and F FR19. About 50% of that um is privatelyowned parcels. And so that equates to generally 62,500 acres that could potentially um generate TDRs. Um when you look at the the zoning for that, so under current zoning, uh that would allow a if you develop that, that would allow about 3,000 units. Um hypothetically, if somebody were to come forward and try to change the zoning on some of that land, um to subdivide it, um obviously that would require a lot of approvals, and again, this is hypothetical, but uh you could see that generate as as [music] much as 12,000 units at just 5 acre lots. And so that gives you kind of a range of of how many units are sitting out there that if you didn't have the TDR program, somebody could come forward and try to subdivide and generate units in in that area. Um, when we look at the TDR demand, uh, we have 7,350 acres of receiving areas, uh, which about 500 acres, um, has been developed so far. um which leaves about 6,800 acres for development potential. Um of the TDR program, uh there's been uh 7,572 current TDRs that have been certified. Um and of those 7,500, 933 TDRs have been sold and assigned, meaning that they've been assigned to a project and have been used. And then there's 2,8 roughly about 2,800 TDRs that have been sold and are out there sitting uh setting us set aside for a pro uh future planned project. Um which leaves about 3,700 TDRs that are available that somebody could go purchase and utilize

uh in a receiving area today. So there is a surplus of TDRs right now. Um, and when we look at the residential potential of the 7,300 acres, [clears throat]

um, at an average of three units per acre, and in some cases that that could be high, it could be low. Um, but at an average of three units per acre, and again, hypothetical to generate some sort of unit count, um, the receiving areas today could generate potentially 20,000 units. And obviously, the TDR program's not going to be used overnight. And so it's something that's, you know, a long-term uh um it's over the long term. Um seems like seems like a lot, but at the end of the day, there's there's basically what we're showing is that there is plenty of supply out there for TDRs. Um while we do have a surplus, there's plenty of units remaining in in the receiving areas that that could easily suck up those 3,700 units going forward in in the the next 20 plus years probably. Um, so some of the key findings, uh, again, we kind of went over these last time, so I'll be brief. Um, but some of the benefits of the TDR program and why we want to keep it, uh, was really the liquidity, uh, that gives a property owner the ability to generate some revenue, but still maintain and still ranch uh, have their ranching activities, which also helps with tax uh, planning. I think everybody really liked the market-based transactions and and keeping it market-based. Um, and then obviously just the preservation um, aspect of it. And we've already preserved 4,600 acres, so it's been successful. Maybe we've had a slowdown, but we definitely anticipated [music] being successful moving forward. Um, and obviously the density bonuses were a benefit. Um, some of the challenges, transparency, um, there was a lot of uncertainty, people not understanding where to go to get TDRs if they were interested in developing in a receiving area. Um, access to information, just being able to see um, what's out there. Um, I think there's, um, some expertise as things change as staff leaves. Um, just having some ways to make sure that, uh, people understand kind of the history and how the program was

developed and why. Um, high land values is obviously having having a big impact. Um, could you sell your land for more value than you can sell a TDR for? Um, obviously incentivizing working land. Um, not just preserving it, but making sure it's it's maintained and keeping that community character. Um there's some inconsistencies. Uh there was a lot of discussion about infrastructure issues and could the infrastructure be slowing down some of the receiving areas. Um there's questions about the future of sending and receiving areas. Should some of those be modified going forward? Um and obviously um kind of back to the streamlining is just the process and um getting through that process. Uh on some of the market based studies that we did um simplicity and transparency. So part of that's you'll see in some of our recommendations is really trying to make a predictable supply marketing and education and and really giving people tools to to know where the TD TDRs are um and where they can go to purchase those trying to make that a little bit more easy um and also just marketing the program in general. Um just the uh some of the other things that came up is the political will. Obviously the um the politics play a big role in these types of programs. Um, in some some case studies we saw is, you know, the states ran them and the states actually generated funds so that they could actually acquire some of the TDRs and sell them for less. And so obviously every community was different in every case study. Um, Douglas County being market based, uh, there was still a lot of discussion about um, consistencies in administering the code um, and making sure that um, the political will is kind of behind it, which it seems like it is for here. um centralized administration and I think kind of goes back to uh some of the administration pieces of it in terms of um visibility of the program um and how we're tracking things and how

that information is is distributed um and just having clear goals which for Douglas County most of it um it was pretty clear goals in terms of of what Douglas County is trying to accomplish with the program um and obviously just alignment with local conditions, market conditions, and also just making sure that the TDR programs continue to align with uh land use and zoning goals. Um, looking at the private market, um, obviously there's there's some changes and some of these changes are out out of our control, but just a snapshot of of some potential impacts on the program. uh when we look at changes in agriculture uh the top top part of the slide there uh one of some of the trends that we see is that there's definitely uh when you look at the acreage of farms in Douglas County it's definitely a trend that's going downwards um but we're also seeing the number of farms increase. So what really is that that's telling us is that people are still interested in farming but maybe they don't want to farm uh a large property like they once held. And so what the risk to the TDR program or the benefit to the TDR program depending how you look at it um could be that is they try to sell off some of that land that's where the TDR program comes in so that we can conserve some of that land rather than them selling it off for potential future development. Um the other thing going back to the value um we also see that uh in the latest Nevada department of agriculture report that the um the value of farmland has definitely um increased um over the last 20 years. And so it that's part of the reason is making it more valuable for people to want to sell um versus generate TDR. So it's just something to to keep continue to monitor but also something that's impacted the TDR program. Um and then when we looked we looked at kind of the the chart there in the middle is

basically shows uh an overview of when the TDRs were created generated um and when they were assigned. Um and one of the the trends there is is you know the TDRs when they get created kind of bounces up and down although in 2020 those were mainly uh large land holdings um rather than multiple uh land owners. Um, but then when we look at the assigned TDRs, we see those continually going down, which is not a great sign for us right now. Um, and so really trying to find ways to kind of bring the TDR program kind of back to the forefront there. Um, and then obviously with with homes homes built that you look at the TDRs when they're generated, when they're assigned and kind of average homes that were built um kind of follow suit with that is that as we see the building drop off, we also see kind of the TDR demand dropping off. I will say that the average homes built per year 2008 to 2023, we were kind of discussing that earlier. um that 28 is probably inaccurate and we're going to go back and kind of look closer to that. But looking at some of the data from our existing conditions report, that's probably um closer to 150 um in that range and not the 28. But well, I think generally what we're seeing is from 20207 homes were built. Uh there was a lot more demand for home building than we saw um over this last 15 years. And so I think that's kind of the takeaway from there, but we will be updating that table to make sure that data is correct. Um, and I think it's really just when we look at the market, it's it really comes down to the balance. It's a balance of uh the value of the land versus the value of a TDR. And obviously, there's a lot of market uh a lot of market in there in terms of uh how much a a developer can afford to pay for permits. and you add the TDR to that that cost and it starts to you know obviously makes their their projects more

expensive which also has an impact on what they have to sell those houses for. Um but on the other side for the the land owner um if a developer is not willing to pay a fair enough value for the TDR then it might make more sense for them to to sell [music] that land. And so you're really trying to strike a balance and you'll see some of our recommendations um to try to you know market based but still try to help create some additional incentives there. Um so summary of the findings um obviously a tracking process um certification process we'll have some some recommendations behind that market misalignment we just kind of talked about that a little bit is as the the demand for TDRs goes down so does the opportunity to preserve land and so we really need to look at ways to um try to encourage people to utilize the TDR program. Um, and then looking at code, uh, a lot of clarity and consistency, um, in ways that we can make it easier for people to understand and utilize the program. Um, and then obviously looking at infrastructure constraints and receiving areas and maybe trying to better align some of the receiving areas with uh, future infrastructure. Um, so moving on to some of our recommendations. So we we broke our recommendations into phases uh, into basically four phases. Um phase one would be something that you could probably implement in the the more immediate future um in the next couple of years. Um those include setting up an internal database uh that's unique uh that has unique tracking IDs and and most of the case studies that we found had almost every single one of them had some sort of system set up like that. Um, probably the most relevant one that everyone can understand that's uh related to Douglas County is TRPA has a very similar system. Um, and there might actually be some opportunity talking

with TRPA where you wouldn't be part of their system, but you could use the framework of their system through that company that helped them set that up. Uh, that they could build you your own system, but at least you wouldn't have to start from scratch. Um, but really that unique ID for tracking TDRs. Once a TDR is generated, it would get a unique ID um that would have a database associated and then depending the TDR could be sold a million times. At the end of the the day, it's going to have that unique tracking ID that will help a lot of the data collection issues. Um obviously, we talked a lot about an online TDR registry. So there's a lot of cases where um looking at the case studies where they'll have an online registry where the land owners can go on and they can uh they can utilize the registry to post that they have TDRs. Developers could go to the registry to find out where they can acquire those and who they could contact. Um, and it kind of keeps Douglas County out of the middle of that that transaction and gives almost like a marketplace for th for land owners and developers to um, see what's out there. Um, and then providing a TDR program website, something that um, has more information about the program um, and becomes more of an educational tool. And so that was kind of our phase one recommendation. Um, and I think the tracking IDs is probably one of the more important elements there. Um and then phase two uh recommendations is where we got into this gets into a little bit. It's some of these could be near-term, some of these could be a little bit longer term. Um but generally our recommendation here was to start with some zoning code updates. Um clarify, you know, how some of the things work in code in terms of how you generate uh or how the TDRs are generated, the process, and just really uh kind of clarifying some of those things. Um, and then obviously if there's other recommendations uh that come forward that we're going to talk about here in a

second, um those would obviously have to go back uh and get code amendments. And obviously any of these recommendations we're going to share um going forward at this point would come back um and require an actual code amendment and would have more formal um public hearings as part of that as well. Um so so the first one I'll get into here is um TDR zones. And so this recommendation largely came from the discussion about should TDRs uh from one area be able to be utilized generated in one area and used in another. Um and so to keep things market based we came up with and again this is just a concept. Um but one of the the concept that we came up with was basically creating TDR overlay zones. And so with the TDR overlay zone uh the benefits of those is they stay market driven. So, we're not precluding anyone from preserving land or generating a TDR. Um, really what the way this would work is that we would create three zones. So, zone uh zone three would be your highest priority preservation area. So, that's your um basic land within the Carson Valley and within within a flood plan. And so, that's that's the highest priority um in terms of looking back at the master plan and the goals. Um, and so the incentive there, so that if you were a land owner, the way this would work is that if you had land in a flood plane, you could generate you would generate the TDRs just as you would generate the TDRs under the current program, that current framework. And then the difference would be is that now if you're in a overlay zone of three, you would basically be able to uh um sell you could you could theoretically sell that TDR for a little bit of a higher price because the developer who's going to purchase that there's an incentive for the developer to purchase a zone three because now they can utilize they would basically get three

units for that one TDR and so they they would get more bang bang for their buck in terms of of um how to acquire TDRs. So, if I'm a developer coming to town looking for TDRs, I want to make this as easy as possible for myself. There's a huge incentive for me to go try to find uh TDRs in a zone 3, even if I have to pay a little bit more for that TDR in a zone 3 versus a TDR in zone one. Um, and again, the zone one TDRs would basically be no change to the program as it exists today. So, if I'm if I have a TDR, uh, if I have land in a zone one and I want to create a TDR, I can still create the TDR. I can still um preserve that land and I I would just basically sell it at a one:1 just as it as it exists today. So there's no in there's no real additional incentive for a developer to come in and purchase a zone one compared to a zone 3 unless the zone 3 land owner puts a really high price tag on it and I can't make that pencil. I can still go get TDRs from someone in zone one that's maybe selling them for a little bit cheaper. So there's it's basically trying to come up with a way that we can create an incentive um to protect the highest priority a land um or the highest priority areas and provide an incentive for both the land owner and the developer. And so and obviously with zone two that would be the A19 land within the Carson city but out of the flood plane. And so that would be in our concept here it would be 2 to one. Um now this is just a concept. So, how we create that incentive, um, there needs to be a little bit more research and a little more work behind that, probably some more, um, workshops in terms of of how we would craft that. But this is just one example of how we could try to create some balance and and address the comments that we heard about, um, uh, TDRs generated in one area versus another. So, Tom, I don't know if you

want me to hand it over to you to add to that.

Yeah, thank you, Derek. Uh Tom Deair for the record. Um the GIS department has really been very helpful in in identifying these properties. So this this took a little bit of effort. What h how we identified the zones one and zone 2 was really identifying for zone 2 all of the A19 lands and then underlaying the uh flood plane for zone 3. So if the parcel uh that exists today uh is zoned A19 and has um a flood plane on it then it is on this map identified as uh zone 3. And I know the flood plane's a little difficult. This was an 8 [music] and 1 half x 11 in the whole county. It's difficult to see anything on an 8 and a half by 11 map, but it's basically this is in a viewer now and we can we can get this out there if if the public wants to look at it further. Um with in addition to that um we've done a lot of research on on where the TDRs went and and so trying to keep this um this this viewer up to date is going to be is going to be a priority for the department moving forward. and um and that all that information would be in this in this viewer. But what we wanted to show today was this concept uh with the zones 1 2 and three. Um so you can you can kind of see down in the lower area in the down by Topaz, you can see how it's kind of a shaded where the flood plane is at coming from basically around TR and then goes down to the Walker River. And you can kind of see how that little gray area um is is around the Walker River, which is the flood plane. Um we we focused on the Carson Valley specifically where the A19 uh zones are located and um and we made those the zone two and then the zone three of course is where the flood planes are at. And the blue um is it the

I think it's red actually. The red areas are the are the zone three areas where the A19 zoned parcels have a flood plane under them. So that's kind of explaining how this map um looks and and the the thought behind the concept was it would not preclude anyone from anyone that's had a TDR that's been generated. If the program does not it does not change the way the program works. So basically just adds an overlay zone going forward from you know again this would have to come back for a formal zoning code amendment. Um but from that day forward there would be these overlay zones and that's where kind of going back to the phase one with the tracking IDs all this would be associated with that tracking IDs which would help staff be able to understand where the TDR was generated which overlay zone it was generated which would then when somebody comes in to use that tracking ID they would they would know staff would easily be able to calculate how many additional incentive units they get because of the type of TDR that they purchased but wouldn't preclude anyone from um that's generated TDR. So the 3,700 TDRs that are out there remaining today, it would not preclude them from any new program regulations. They're still it's how TDRs are gener generated would all still be the same. This is Tom again. Uh we could also reertify some of those older TDRs um if if the owner wanted if this program gets implemented. we could reertify them into this program so that we have an that unique identifier assigned to the TDR which would which would be extremely helpful because um right now the TDRs is based on the year they were issued. Um there might be 3,000 of them in one year. So uh it's it's basically just the it's very difficult to track like

[music] um Paul ended up buying TDR's number one through 50 and Moren bought 51 through 70. we wouldn't we wouldn't we wouldn't really have an opportunity to track that in the sales deed whereas the sales deed would specifically show the permit number and the certificate number with which TDR number it was. So literally on the deed it would show 1 [music] through 50 and 51 through 60. So uh tracking those individually is going to be important moving forward uh especially if we are going to apply them in this fashion.

Mr. Mr. Kirkland, would it be inconvenient if I allowed the planning commission commissioners to ask clarification questions during your presentation or a short question having to do with the topic that you are covering currently? No, I if there's questions now, I think now would be an appropriate time. Okay. Because otherwise I would hold them till the end. I didn't want to disrupt your flow. Yeah, I appreciate it. No, it's it's it's a very con complex topic. So, I think a asking questions and having a dialogue now would probably be best, honestly. All right, Commissioner.

So, kind of two issues that are going on at the same time. And one is we're talking about a storm water utility. So, say an area that's in the flood plane now that isn't in the flood plane 10 years from now or five years from now because of infrastructure. uh how would that affect the value? Would that be reclassified or whatever it is at the time of the sale be how was classified forever? I'll let it's a great question. I'll let Tom [laughter] on that one.

Well, the the storm water program is really focusing on the areas coming out of uh right now we're focusing on uh the Pine Nut Mountain Range. So the there are a few parcels um that is in A19 basically from Orchard Road towards the highway and then up towards Stephanie that would be affected mainly that big area there in blue which um we are showing as a zone two already uh in that area. So, if we were to build a large basin, uh, let's say in the pine nut, um, there isn't there isn't a whole lot of parcels that are would [snorts] be affected by that. And we're not going to be able to build a basin large enough to hold the flows from the Carson River. So, those those will only get worse as FEMA continues to keep adding regulations. um you know, they're talking about adding like a thousand-year event um map, so it it could just get worse so in the future.

Thank you. Uh one moment. Go ahead. U vice chair

question about morning Casey for the record about zone one. My concern is because the TDRs in zone one would be a lot cheaper that we should discourage TDRs from zone one unless they have a quantified value that they're in a viewhed or they are draining into a watershed. Otherwise, we could end up with TDRs coming from the hinterlands that have no value whatsoever, but one landowner owns them and they want to transfer for some development that they want to do, say, out in Fish Springs. and that because of that I'm really concerned about us allowing TDRs from zone one at all. And I don't know if that you find that to be unreasonable, but unless we have something to really present evidence that they are of any value to the program. Do you have something that

you can justify why we should include zone one at all?

I can I can. This is Tom. Um I I think it's a little deceiving um Miss Casey that that zone one here is also showing all the public lands. Um we do have two watersheds or three watersheds actually in the map. There's a few more actually Eagle. I think there's five in Douglas County in all um including the Tahoe basin, but there the Carson River one is the one we really focused on with the zones [music] uh two and three. Zones one is the program that's how the program was initiated in 96. It allowed any land in Douglas County to be conserved. So, we couldn't we didn't feel like we could change that process um today. Uh if that's something that the commission wants to do, then we'll have to figure that out. Uh but we didn't feel like um we could [music] actually Yeah, I think Bentley has identified a number of of lands up in the Pine Nut Mountain Range uh that have been stripped for TDRs, which is which he dedicated the land to the the the um wild horses that that outfit. you know, I think they actually own the lands now. And um and those TDRs are around where that zone one is labeled today. And um we can show, you know, on the viewer, it would show where those are at. I think there was a I have a map in the in our conference room that has all the open space in the whole county on it and uh you can see those there. But but those but those areas like where the wild horses are at that in that land would would drain either to the Buckeye uh wash or to the Pineut wash eventually back to the Carson River. So they're in the Carson River basin uh one south of um where TR is at and going into the Walker Basin. If that's what you're

referring to, then it would add a little bit another layer of complexity if we are going to start separating um hydraulic basins and drainage.

I think it's worth going through that complexity because we may never get another shot at this app. We're all going to be gone by the time this gets reviewed again. And I think if we're going to codify this or codify it, however the words pronounced, we need to get this right and have a program that we can pass on to the next group, be it 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now, that actually works and we don't end up with something that we had prior to this effort. that allows for the transfer of development rights from one zone to another that have no value whatsoever to the program. And it h it doesn't fulfill the intent, the original intent, which is to save important lands, and it's someone just gaming the system.

Um, I understand what the vice chairman has indicated. uh particularly on the slide at the bottom, marketdriven is a good thing and it incentivizes a high priority preservation area. But what she has articulated uh works against precisely against that concept. In other words, that you take uh properties that have very little value with respect to either view viewshed or development or uh preservation for for the ecology of the place and and you you're taking the the development rights and you're putting them uh elsewhere where in reality the gaming of the system it turns it on its head. Those are the kinds of things I do wish to um maybe have considered or reconsidered with respect to these uh areas. I I realize what our director has indicated. Um but I can see as time goes on when I listen to the comments of the commissioners, this may not be optimum for the program. Sorry about the interruptions, but chair chairman, if I might jump in. Um, this is Dan St. John. I uh I thought we were asking questions and it seems like we're getting into a discussion, but I had I I had a question about the first couple of slides relative to what's on the table. Now I I believe in one the first slide that discussed t uh tdrs indicated that there was 3744 unused tdrs. Uh the the next slide that had information on available tdrs indicated

that there was 7572 created tdrs with 993 assigned tdrs. I can't reconcile those two [music] uh slides. Is there are there more assigned TDRs than would would be indicated on that second slide with the table? You understand my question? I do. Let's see if uh Derek, do you understand his question?

Uh yeah, Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers. Let's see if I can help clarify that. So, um, on the the slide that had the private market, so basically the the created TDRs in total from 1996, there's been 7,572 TDRs created of this the 7,500 TDRs that have been created, 993 of them have actually basically been assigned. So, they've been tied to a project, they were used, they're no longer available. And then there's another 2800 TDRs, which is the first slide that talked about it. And th that 28 those 2,800 TDRs have basically been created and set aside. There's they're tied to some sort of project. They just have not been used yet. And so we're taking the future. Okay. So that's that's the uh discrepancy that I'm looking for. Correct. So, right now there are uh there's some that have been tied to future projects. There's some that have been assigned and used. And if you net net out that from what was created, you've got almost 4,000 unused TDRs that can go to future projects that we may not know about at this time. Is is that a simple way of putting it?

Yes, that's that's correct. it and okayist that for me thank you it's consistent with your comment that right now we have a surplus of TDRs yes understood now I apologize that was a hell of a long interruption please continue

oh it's uh great questions and and as we we noted obviously you know this was just a a concept and so we'll definitely go back and consider the comments and um go from there. Um so the other kind of recommendation for phase two um obviously when we look at the when we look at 2007 and we look at the TDR start to fall off obviously it's you know appears that it's it's probably more of a coincidence that the growth management ordinance took effect and then the TDRs also dropped off which followed the kind of the building permits at the time. Um, but at the same time, TDRs, right? If there's there's a low demand for building permits, we would assume that there's a low demand for TDRs. So, one of the things that uh just kind of doing doing some research and kind of looking at the program overall is that there could be some sort of relationship between the TDRs and and the growth management ordinance. Um, obviously this slide here shows and if there's questions I think Tom can kind of run through it, but generally what the slide shows is that uh we don't believe as of today that the growth management ordinance has a negative impact on the TDR program. It was more related to what we believe is the great recession just building fell off in 2009 which was a coincidence when the growth management ordinance took place in 2007 and things just haven't come back to that that level that they were pre um the growth management ordinance. Um, however, we do feel like if you look at the overall projection of where building permits are headed and the growth management line, which is basically the green kind of that green and red there, is that there could be theoretically a time in the future. We don't we don't obviously have a crystal ball and can't tell you when that will happen, but we feel like we it's something that should be monitored because what we don't want to happen is that the growth management

ordinance has a negative impact on TDRs, which would then also have a negative impact on preserving land. So, uh, one of the recommendations was if at some point that the growth management and ordinance does start to have an impact, meaning the capacity in building permits, um, is lower than the demand for building in the receiving areas and acquiring TDRs is that maybe there could be some additional incentive that we need to look at to keep the demand in the receiving areas going so that the demand for preserving a land continues to follow it. And you know, honestly, our recommendation right now is, and we've talked a lot about with Tom and his team, is really just to monitor it. Just keep keep updating um the sale of TDRs, where we're at with the capacity. Um and as we get closer, we can be more proactive of is there something we need to do to make sure that the TDR program is not being negatively impacted by the growth management ordinance? Tom, I don't know if you want to add. Uh Tom Delair. Thank you, Derek. I I don't know if you guys had any questions on this slide and it we've we've consolidated this. You guys have seen this before. Uh down to just the I just wanted to go and make sure you guys understand and the public understands what this slide represents is the distributed allocations per the growth management ordinance. Um and then the green line is including the vested. So that's that's the main line that [music] um that was established in the main table that was established in code and then the black line is what allocations have been issued and we have gone back and and tracked all the vested projects and so uh that's what this chart has is showing is both the the black line is the vested in the individual and the project allocations that were issued by year. And so we update this um um this

graph probably three times a year. And then that's the chart that Colleen issues and sends out to all the commissioners and I and I think you guys get copy of it as well. Um that uh you know she's going through and updating those now uh for the year. So I'll get this thing updated for the for actual December. These numbers are through uh November. [music] Uh, and so we'll have one more month of data to add to this chart um when it's finalized and before it goes to the commissioners.

Can I ask a question because I don't fully understand that graph. So the black line needs to stay below or at the green line which extends into the mob line. That's the growth management ordinance [music] uh trajectory. Is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah. Dan, this is Tom. Um that is that is correct. That's the total number of allocations uh distributed. And then what happens with the growth management ordinance is you have [music] the vested subtraction the 47% of those allocations uh get subtracted for the mauve line that color that lower that lower chart on the the consistent basically like a little curve. And then in 2031, uh the allocations for the vested goes um the tracking portion of it goes away and it and then it jumps back up to um it's that 25-y year period since the the the growth management ordinance was in instituted. And so it goes back to the full number. So it'll I think in 2031 um have the that chart here it was going to go to 510 allocations um issued in 2031 whereas today it's for 2025 it was uh 453 allocations issued total and 2026 it's 462. So,

so that tells me as of today we have room to allocate [music] an additional 30 or so units. That's correct. And we have almost 4,000 TDRs available. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Well, why is the red line, the dash line cross the growth management ordinance line?

It's um it's the trend that basically a trend line that was added uh to this chart. Just shows that that's you know potential a potential in the future. We'll see what happens with the growth. Uh that's why we need to continue to track it. Okay. I'm not understanding that but very good. I don't want to delay.

Yeah, this is Derek Woodro. So I I think generally and obviously that that line is just it's hypothetical just showing the point that if building permits at some point exceed what what the if the demand to build in a receiving area requiring TDRs actually starts to exceed what the building permit capacity is bu the growth management or would then start to basically say well yeah there's TDRs available but you can't you can't go buy TDRs because there's no room left in our growth cap and so that would have a negative impact on preserving land because then then theoretically people would be not wanting to buy TDRs and not being able to use them because that's a cost that they have to carry uh without being able to build a home. So, it's just it's something that there's there's room. There's, you know, there's capacity to continue um without monitoring, but for the future, we need to monitor that and make sure that we're not creating the growth management ordinance isn't creating some negative impact on the TDR program that we need to counteract.

And just one more one more point, Dan, and maybe this is confusion in the board here in the public, but uh the vested is accounted for over a 25. The vested projects are accounted for over a 25-y year period. Theoretically, if it was possible and feasible, um, you know, a vested project could come in and build a 100 homes tomorrow and they could do [music] it. I mean, they were they were exempt from the growth management ordinance and it would actually extend us up over the over that green line. I just want to make sure that that's clear. uh I don't think that the market um can would drive that kind of development but it is theoretically possible.

I think that is known to the commission um director because uh there was a long discussion about there is no time limitation with respect to those uh rights and entitlements and uh some of us were surprised. Yeah.

Uh I just have uh one comment but basically if say interest rates were to drop significantly that would create demand. So there'd be other factors that could create the demand which would affect ultimately the growth management ordinance just observation. Well, I think that just corroborates what we have been told that we need to have a monitor. We need to continue to monitor to stay ahead of the curve. I don't mean to use that hackne phrase and pardon the uh use of it, but that's really what you're you're telling us. It's just we really started looking at it when we you look at the history and you look at the TDR demand really start to fall after the growth management ordinance came on. We started researching it. It seems like it's a coincidence that it's there's other market things that have have caused that. But at some point, you know, the growth man that we don't want the growth management ordinance to have a negative impact on preserving a land. And so it's just something, you know, and then at that point if it starts to get closer and it's like, hey, this could be an impact, if you if you're monitoring it, you'd have enough time to come up with maybe some code changes or something to counteract that. So we're still preserving the a land because that is our number one goal.

Hold on just a moment, sir.

Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah.

All right. Uh phase so phase three, this was really um more of the master plan. Um obviously is as we look at the master plan, that's something that's more longterm. Um obviously there's updates that happen within 5 years. Um and so one of the things that is has come up um is obviously the receiving areas and infrastructure and the flood plane. And so our recommendations really is to when the master plan comes up is look at the receiving areas um and try to um maybe look at maybe some potential changes to the receiving areas in terms of infrastructure. What's what's reality? Obviously we have a lot of receiving area out there. Um is there any changes we want to make to those receiving areas? And so that that would be something that typically would come with a master plan update or a master plan amendment because that would require um would require some area plans and some different things that you know are are are a heavy lift and would require public hearings and um so that's why that's more in our medium term. Um just something to look at as we're updating master plans. Um and obviously there was a lot of discussion about protecting water resources and the flood plane. Um and so also looking at some other potential code changes um in terms of of the flood plan and different things that you can do um there obviously again um could come with opposition and so those are things that would be done typically um through a m a big master plan process. Uh any questions on phase three? Uh, James McKel, um, did you I know you could, it was talked about on the workshops and we broke into groups and everyone kind of in the group I was in and the group next to me thought about some way of of requiring TDRs for all developments. And my thought would be you would exempt maybe somebody buying a lot to build

their own home but developments would all require TDRs so the people couldn't simply avoid receiving areas and at the same time I think it would create more demand for which would help the value of TDRs for the ranchers and that was my thought. How much did you consider that and what you did

uh Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers? So, we there's a section in the the report that talks about that and we did spend quite a bit of time um with our consultant team um and with staff kind of looking at what that would mean. I think the the long and the short is is that we did not recommend that. Um mainly because it it would essentially do away with with the receiving areas. Um and at that point, anybody could just go do you if I'm a a developer, I don't have to necessarily look at the receiving areas. I could just go to any place in the county, find the cheapest land I can get, find the cheapest TDRs I can get, and then now all of a sudden you're just encouraging sprawl. Yeah, you've you've generated a TDR, but the TDR is no longer being used in an area that is appropriate for growth. Um, and then the other the other piece to that was uh if you're generating a if every everybody has if you're having to generate these TDRs. So even for depending on the project um it could actually uh create an an issue for people trying to sell sell their it could create an issue where um it makes it so complicated to sell things that it actually has an a negative impact on people's land values.

I will say that you have uh explained this in some depth and detail in the report. So let's continue forward so we can get uh through this section. I did just want to follow up. Um, we had people come here when we had the workshop here and talk about why they thought the program didn't work and the the the commissioners um approved a lot of development that was outside of receiving areas in the first place. So, we start receiving areas lally not being built and other areas that were being built weren't receiving areas. And that's really why I brought that up. Okay. Uh, Chairman Bruno, I have I have a quick question.

Uh, go ahead, sir. Any It's my understanding that all TDRs are equal once they're created, whether they're come from uh, Topaz Ranch or they come from the flood plane in uh, in Carson Valley or or where [music] wherever the sending area is. Once the TDR is created, it can be used anywhere on any receiving area. Is that that's the current code as I understand it? This is Tom for the record. Yes, that is that is accurate, Dan.

Thank you. Any other No, go ahead. Let's go. Okay.

Uh and then lastly, our phase four recommendations um were largely around uh infrastructure. I think this is obviously a longer term um infrastructure plans are pretty big deals and obviously if the uh county were to go look for grant funds, all those types of things take quite a bit of time um and obviously take quite a bit of money. Um, but if you wanted to try to accelerate the use of TDRs, if there was if there was some incentives or if a developer knew that there was some grant project coming in for a large infrastructure project or there was more information in terms of receiving areas around certain infrastructure um or impact fees for infrastructure, then uh you could theoretically entice somebody to come in and build a development knowing that that infrastructure is going to be coming. um which would then uh hopefully generate a higher demand for TDRs for that receiving area. And so um that's why this recommendations here um is really just planning for growth and trying to incentivize developers to look at the receiving areas and maybe speed up kind of the demand for TDRs there. Um but again, uh pretty complex topic and could have a fairly high price tag.

Chairman Bruno, I have a question on that. Go ahead, sir.

A quick one. I'm sorry. Um, it sounds like you're inferring that the county would be building the necessary infrastructure to support a new development in a receiving area. My understanding is that the developer would be responsible for building the infrastructure necessary to support the new development and therefore this discussion about high uh cost really isn't germanine to the county. What am I missing?

Uh this is Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers. Uh to answer your question, I would say uh yes and no. Um yes, in terms of there are grants out there and there are, you know, especially for economic development, there's different things where communities can work with the state and the federal side to go after large grants that could put in infrastructure that might be an impediment to developing in a certain receiving area, which would entice a development or development to come to those areas that you want them to be. um and then in turn would accelerate them going to get TDRs and would accelerate that that land acquisition uh or the land preservation. My answer of no would be that in some cases you could also create incentives where if a developer comes in and puts in a sewer line, you could create some incentive where um they get credits or there's some sort of impact fee that other developments in the area come um could then come pay them back. So, I think there's a lot of different different topics here. The cost that we've that we're proposing here is not necessarily the county coming in and paying for an infrastructure project, but just the time it takes to go get a grant and the environmental process you have to go through or the amount of work it would take the county to set up an impact fee with credit system. Um, or just even doing the the necessary infrastructure assessment and really diving deep into that. All that is probably um you know definitely is going to come with some some higher price tags.

Understood. You regardless of where the funds ultimately are going to come from. Correct. Understood. Go ahead, sir.

Um and then lastly, the other thing we got asked was, you know, what about other tools? Um and there's definitely other tools out there. Um our main goal with this project was to look at the TDR program, um and come up with recommendations for the TDR program. And I think it's pretty clear that nobody wants to get rid of the TDR program. It has had successes uh with preserving over 4,600 acres uh as of today. Um and there's still TDRs out there. There's still land to be preserved. However, um there are other tools um in the toolbox that you could utilize to preserve land. Um PUDS are are one of them. if a if a land owner wanted to sell um and they weren't interested in the TDR program, uh PUDS are tools that basically a developer land owner could come forward with and work with the county as you know there's some incentives for them to build the project, but there's also some um on the other side of that, there's some incentives for the county um to approve the PUD, which could include land preservation or I think we talked about uh last time like some some development projects that may include an agriculture component. So all that could be done through a planned unit development. Um so that that would be a tool to be that could be used if you knew that the TDR program wasn't being utilized for certain land. Um zoning overlays or area plans or specific plans are basically things that are are initiated by the county. Um and those are tools that are similar to a PUD where you could work with a group of land owners to negotiate different things within there. Um the zoning overlay we also looked at um in the case of the the basically the TDR zones um creating some incentives. Um development agreements are another tool typically come handinhand with PUDS. Um but again a negotiation tool where you could get some land preservation back in exchange for development. Um and then obviously there's land donations, conservation easements which Douglas County has been successful at so far and continuing

that. Um obviously zoning code updates. We talked about the flood plane and there are tools that you could limit development in some of those but obviously come with a lot of opposition in certain cases. Um and then one of the tools that we saw that was utilized in a lot of the other case studies we looked at was actually a county or in some cases a state sponsored land purchase program. Um, I think there was a discussion about creating an impact fee where maybe there's a development impact fee that was created and then that the funds from that program are available for the county to use to actually either purchase TDRs or the county could purchase land and lease it back out. So, there are there are tools like that. I know that's not something that was a big desire um when we last met at the planning commission workshop and just keeping that market-based theme, but that is an option that has been successfully used mainly at state levels because the state has much better tools for that type of thing. But it's something that um could be looked at in the future.

Chairman Bruno, quick question. Uh go ahead, sir. I think we're just about to the last slide. Okay, I'll I'll make it quick. Um it's my understanding that uh local government has a program like Carson City for purchase of conservation lands and it's not state but it was an initiative taken by the board of supervisors. Did you look at that?

Uh this is Derek Kirkland of Wood Rogers. Um, I did not look specifically at theirs, but I know there is there there are examples around the state of Nevada where local governments have um done that, especially for some open space programs. Um, and it kind of goes back to the political will. It would just depend on, you know, it would have to be a program that the board of county commissioners would have to set up and adopt. Understood. So, it is a tool. Go ahead, sir.

Um, all right. All right. So, just to kind of recap um the constraints, recordkeeping, transparency, outreach, we talked about that with the um some of the administrative stuff that could be done um in the near term. Um code clarity and consistency that could be done with some code updates. Um and then obviously the market low demand for TDRs um generating in higher priority or generating TDRs in in high priority areas. We talked about the incentive zones and there were some comments back that about that. So, we'll go back and kind of look at that. Um we talked about continuing monitoring uh the growth management ordinance um outdated receiving areas. I think with the next master plan update um or thereafter is really looking closer at infrastructure in the receiving areas and and determine if there's ways to update those um protecting the flood plane. We we believe that the TDR zones that we that we that um the program that we kind of outlaid there would definitely help prioritize some of that. Um but there's other tools out there for doing that as well. Um and then the infrastructure is just the needs assessment and just trying to find ways to um incentivize developers to build in the receiving areas.

Thank you very much. Um ma'am, do you have something that you'd like to present? No, I'm just taking notes. Okay. All right. And that concludes your presentation. Yes. Thank you. Very good. I'm going to now allow the board to ask questions um of the presenter if there are any leftover. Uh Chairman Bruno, I have one quick question. I I'm not forgetting about you. Go ahead.

I know you're not. And and I'm sorry I'm so inquisitive. Um, why would the county buy TDRs as opposed to just purchasing an easement or a conservation easement outright? Once the TDR is is created, it's accomplished the goal of preserving the land. So, I don't see a reason why the county would would be interested in purchasing a TDR. What am I missing?

Uh, Mr. Chair, would you like me to address it? Uh, Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. Uh, so basically the the case study that we saw that where they did that, a couple of them, was so that they could better control the cost of a TDR. So they would basically generate sort of another market for TDRs so that as the county's getting these easements, the county can then sell the TDRs and recoup some of the cost back, but also control and make sure that the TDRs are within an affordable range. Obviously a very complex program that you'd have to set up. But that that was generally why some of the and a lot of them were states where they created a bank that the the state owned. Um and you can go to the state directly to buy those TDRs at a lower cost than buying them on the private market.

Anything further, Dan, because I'm going to allow uh commissioners present to ask the questions. Thank you. Anything further, sir? Dan. Oh, thank you. No, I I have comments when we get into discussion, but I I think understood questions. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I do have some uh questions and then some observations that I'd like to highlight and Derek, you can comment on uh the individual ones that uh that I make either individually or at the end. Uh first of all uh you work for Wood Rogers and uh you're consultants for many government entities I take it. Yes. Okay. Are you ever told what recommendations to make?

Uh Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers. Uh it's we we work with a lot of jurisdictions and there's a lot I guess every project's different. So there are some projects where um it's a team effort and I think that there's there's a lot of suggestions and a lot of different things that come up and I think in especially cases of like the TDR program where they're very specific to a specific area and there's people that have a lot of history um I think this is is a sort of a unique project compared to most where there has been a lot of back and forth and learning involved.

Okay. Thank you. And uh on this report that you uh uh made in presenting to us today, were you uh uh told what to put in the report or given editorial changes by Douglas County staff uh in any significant way? Uh this is Derek Kirkland. No. So we drafted the whole report. Um, all the research was done by the consultants and then we provided a draft to Douglas County to look at and honestly even with the the zone map was probably where we kind of work closely together and just mainly our research and understanding from them what what the best approach and especially with the mapping might look like.

Thank you. And at this point, can the planning staff uh our community development staff or any member of the public uh disagree or oppose your recommendations? Uh 100% they can. Thank you. And Tom, uh Andrea Kate, uh Kate, uh do you intend to review this report and freely disagree if warranted? If warranted. Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. Um okay, a num a number of things that I uh thought deserve to be highlighted [clears throat] in uh your report, a couple of them that have questions, but uh I'll run through these quickly. Uh first of all you will put in the report Douglas County has had annual population growth of about 6/10en of a percent from 2010 compared to about 1.3% for uh the entire per year for the entire state. So that's our growth. Uh number two, our demographics combined with the housing imbalance causes quote a pattern of economic displacement. This is on page 72 of our packet. Could you just comment a little bit further on what you mean by a pattern of economic displacement?

Uh yeah, Derek Kirkland, can you read the first part again for me?

The the section on page 72 is is a lot of information on demographics. We talk about age population. We talk about migration. and you talk about a number of different other things um that are not directly related to TDR program but are important because I think the whole thrust of this is how do we make the TDR program fit what the needs of Douglas County are. So you you say our demographics combined [music] I'm kind of paraphrasing our demographics combined with the housing imbalance causes a pattern of economic displacement. So I and I would have to go back. So Leland um is not here today. Um and I think that I think you're referring to the existing conditions reported in appendix A. Um and so I'd have to kind of go back to them and ask exactly what they meant in terms of that.

That that's fine. We can do that. I think a lot of it was related to like the a lot of it's related to lack of new housing which generally pays a higher tax rate. Thank you. Yeah. if you can get elaboration from them. I I take that to mean that we got rich people moving in, we got the middle class moving out. That's too

um point number three. Uh um and I'm quoting from page 72. Without demand from developers, the TDR program can't function. Um number four, uh and this is another quote on page 72. The financial analysis identified that rising TDR costs in combination with other requirements like water rights, impact fees, higher land costs, the growth management ordinance and permitting timelines together decreased the feasibility for entry level and mid-priced [music] homes. [snorts] Um point number five uh table one and you you discussed this in uh in your slide presentation so we don't need to to uh spend a lot of time on this but table one shows the average homes built per year from 20 2000 to 2007 was 243 while the average homes built per year from 2008 to 2023 was 28. Now you amended that in your opening comments to say maybe more [music] around 150. So, I'd like to have a little more precision in that. Um, there's no question in my mind that the average homes built per year has decreased uh not increased or stayed the same. Uh, some of those years were the great recession. So, we can obviously attribute that to outside factors, but uh I think that's an important uh thing to note and uh I hope to uh to get some sort of a written response that we can have uh at some point for uh for the analysis there. And Tom, uh, we discussed this again, uh, uh, just a little bit before the meeting. I think it might be helpful when you go to the board of county commissioners that you have good data on building permits, and on finished houses, certificates, and of occupancy because we really have a a three-level process. You have the allocations, you have the building permits, and then you have the houses that get built and

people live in. And they're very very different in the numbers. You can say, "Oh, we got 6,000 homes out there." Well, we don't have 6,000 homes. It's we're the homes are are homes only when they're built. Um, next observation. Uh, between 2012 and 2022, Douglas County permitted 2,140 new housing units, but we only added a net total of just 808 new housing units. The vacancy rate is 1.5%. well below what would be considered a healthy housing market. And then finally, um between 2020 and 2023, Douglas County saw a net loss of 117 residents due to the fact that we have a significantly higher death rate than birth rate. And that's on page 114 of your uh report. So, I wanted to highlight all of those things because I think they fit into the narrative that yes, TDRs are important. Yes, we need to to to start reforming the process um because they all contribute to uh what I think is a a very very pressing problem in Douglas County. So, those are my questions and my observations and I thank the chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Walder. Is uh do you have any further questions? Okay. James McCall. Um, I really liked a lot of things in the report. The zones I think is just amazing. I think that'd be great. So that I think it encourages the uh the TDRs in critical areas. So I'm really supportive of that. Um, and I said it before and I guess I'll I'll say it. Oh, I have one other question. Uh, and I think I know the answer, but when you have a land, they have uh both surface water and groundwater rights that stays with the land. Is that correct? Doesn't go with the TDR. It stays with the land itself. Or [music] am I wrong?

Uh, Tom, I'll let you. Yeah, this is Tom Tom Deair. Um, it it does stay with the land. It's the zone that the land and the TDRs are coming from.

That's what I thought. Okay. Um my my concern is as I've stated uh that I'm worried about the demand. I want to keep open land and there has to be incentive for ranchers to want to do this. If they don't want to do it, then none of this is going to happen. I realize that conservation of land is more than just a TDR program. We have conservies in our county. We have other tools as you said. So, we're not I'm not thinking the TDR program has to solely do this, but I'm concerned about the incentive and I think that we have to find a way that, you know, without bankrupting anybody, but that we maintain or increase the value of the TDRs in the uh in the sending areas and and I also agree with your comment that when we do the master plan, there are irrelevant areas that are receiving areas. The Bing pit is a receiving area. That's a perfect example of if you know what the bing pit is, the absurdity of that particular receiving area. Um, so maybe we need to overall increase if we don't make everyone do a TDR in a plan development, then maybe we ought to have more receiving area so that we capture more um areas where uh we can predict people will want to build. That's just my thought on that. But I think we have to do something that helps the value of the TDRs. Thank you.

There is an answer uh and I'm answering for you so you can tell me that I'm misreading your report because I just read the report. There are protections that the county has. And one of those protections is to not allow a large parcel to have uh to be subdivided into a number of smaller parcels such that it increases the potential for development without regard to planning the development just for example and that it's in your report. So there are tools beyond what's the list that the county can implement and community development can imp implement that makes a TDR more attractive.

Correct. Okay. I didn't misread the report. Just double checking with you. Ma'am, I'll wait till after public comment. Any further questions then? Dan, I I've got um kind of my my closing comments. Are you Are you ready? No, not comments yet. We're going to get uh comments from the public.

Okay. And then uh maybe I've got uh two quick questions. Uh getting back, if I may, uh getting back to the available TDRs, did I am I remembering this correct? I don't have the report open, but I believe it said that basically there are two entities, two families that control almost all of the available TDRs. Is that correct? This is Yes, the Parks family and the Bentley family.

Yes, Dan, you're correct. Okay. So, uh we talk about a market program, but basically there's two people in the market. It sounds like right now. Um you you made a comment about the public ind that everybody wants to keep the TDR program, but we did receive comments um [clears throat] you know prior to the meeting from from members of the public that indicate that there is some opposition and some people would like to see the program sunset. I just wanted to point that out. Um, and I know we'll we'll get into our discussion here in a little bit, but thank you.

Thanks, Dan. Actually, I did have a question. Chair's prerogative to be last, I guess, and the one thing I didn't see, and I apologize if I overlooked it. um with respect to the recommendations that you make and and there are very good recommendations with respect to continuing a TDR program such as um getting a template from the TRPA which you spoke of, getting a program in place that would track uh the number of uh uh existing and potential um getting um using staff for better recordkeeping and better transparency. My question because I did not see the answer in the three examples that you gave which were of areas that used t uh tdrs successfully but rather slightly different from the one that is currently before us. How did they pay for that? How did they pay for that process? Do you follow what I'm trying to say? Is not the not the actual development rights, but how do they pay for the process to be able to do all of the recommendations that you suggested?

Yeah. So, you're asking uh sorry, Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. So, you're asking like the potential funding mechanisms to fund some of these recommendations. Yes. I can't just look at uh our director and say I need a staff person which he doesn't have to do something you know he would look at me a scance and and probably I'd suffer bleeding which we talked about earlier is

yeah I guess we didn't really get into funding recommenda like funding mechanisms just because they are so complex um typically like phase one would be done through uh would have to be budgeted through existing allocations and that's why a lot of it was you know uh trying to piggy back on another system so you have lower expenses but generally it would come out of your operating or your general fund or however your funds are set up for that staff allocation. Um the other phases in terms of like zoning code updates would be similar. Um but it's all part of like the countywide budgeting process that that' have to fit into. There's not I mean there there could be grants for like some of the like infrastructure master plan some of those there are grants out there that are available to help offset that but most of it would basically come from kind of general operating funds.

All right. Thank you. That's that's why I didn't see it there that they probably handled it the same way the examples that you've given us. I appreciate that very much. I'm now going to open uh uh to the public for comment on uh what you've heard with respect to the drawing rights and the discussion we've had in the report. If anyone has a comment, please come up to the uh podium, write your name down, uh say your name, and uh and then uh commence with your commentary. You have three minutes. It's not because I am a ogre, although I have been called that. Uh, but uh it's really to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the commission, my name is Jacqu Ketuyan and I have had the great honor and pleasure of conserving about 40,000 acres between Wo County and Euseite National Park and some of that as well in in Douglas County. And the last time we we gathered uh I think we're at the senior center. I know I articulated my thoughts very poorly uh especially related to my concept of one rooftop one TDR required. And uh we have to keep in context that we're dealing in a world now when we adopted the TDR program 30 years ago uh you could buy any 20acre parcel in Carson Valley for between 50 and $100,000. Now you better have about $800,000 to a million dollars in your pocket. So things have shifted a lot and we're going to have to be aggressive to have any hope. Whoops. Anyway, uh we at that meeting we didn't no one that I heard proposed a zone change whatsoever. And the one thing I've learned in Nevada politics and especially Douglas County politics over the years is uh zone changes. The only thing they hatch usually is a lawsuit. Uh so no one that I heard proposed any zone change whatsoever. Every house and commercial building in our county taps into an underground aquifer. Everyone that precious water is mostly replenished by artificial recharge provided by our ranching community [snorts] uh as a ecosystem priceless ecosystem service. Again, I go back to one rooftop, one TDR. If you tap the water in Carson Valley in Douglas County, you should have to buy a TDR and that's sustainable forever. Uh, I love the recommendations about transparency, simplicity, let's make it better. Uh, again, let's not over complicate it. If you're going to tap the water in Douglas County, I think you should have to buy a TDR. And I know

Chairman Gardner and I at that meeting articulated exactly that. And I'll be reminding him of that soon. Thanks very much. Now take your time because your time doesn't really start until you start speaking. So it's not a race to write your name.

Um Ellie Waller, I'll be all over the place because three minutes is kind of a constraint. Um just as an administrative thing for future presentations from anybody that comes here, they need to be dated. They need to say if they've been updated and acronyms need to be spelled out. I do this all the time. The 2025 financial analysis would have been helpful if it was part of our packet. Uh at least to a lot of members of the public and possibly you folks. Um my comments related to the necessity of the other projects um on the staff's tables for master planning title 20 all need to be done and I don't know how we tie the TDR uh zoning changes as proposed in one to three years if all those other things need to be done. that is just a process thing and I'm all about process issues. Um I don't believe there should be any updates until all of these things all come into play and you look at five plus years at getting a lot of this done. So I understand that baseline. Um it was mentioned uh about the budget and we need to really understand when we do budget meetings annually in March um how many of these suggestions go into the budget meetings who provides those suggestions so we do have a fluidity of getting a process to a stage that this can be implemented. Of course, the elephant in the room in my opinion was the park transfer from their own uh Topaz Ranch area to uh their current agood proposal. How is this accounted

for as a success to the program? Um uh I believe if a developer can't spend a majority um of the dollars for their proposals, their their project need to be made smaller and they need to contribute to the infrastructure so we avoid another molar parkway issue. Um accountability of these systems. TRPA uses this system also for tourist accommodation units. It's only as good as the information put into the database. It has to be accurate. It is imperative that accuracy happens with this process. Um there should be a cap somehow implemented on how many TR TDRs are needed, how many are wanted and of course transparency of the stakeholder group information. The community plans need to be updated. This is a dead horse. I beat every chance. I'm finishing my last sentence. the community members need and should be included in their community's future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Further public comment. Thank you. For the record, David Husman, I'm a fan of the TDR program. I'd like to see it continue. I think it's strictly driven by demand. And as far as what a board like this or the county commissioners can do to

increase that demand, we need to prioritize the receiving areas. will make the assumption that the receiving areas are picked there because that's the best place for the growth to go. Maybe that's true in all cases, maybe not. We need to approach it from that perspective, I think. So in order to do that, need to make it easier to develop in the receiving area rather than another piece of property that requires a master plan amendment to increase the density. If that's the easy part, then the TDR program will fail. So if we can incentivize developers to say yes, this is I'll go get those development rights and let's keep in mind that buying or selling a development right is like buying or selling a house. They're a real estate transaction. You need a willing seller and a motivated buyer. And I think not granting more zone changes, giving away zoning is probably the best way to do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Further public comment. Uh for the record, Mark Nitri, I was hopeful that the consultant would come up with a silver bullet. Just like Mr. McCallip has repeated time and time again, we need to come up with some way

to create a demand. I haven't heard that in this room. And you know, I do like his idea about prioritizing different areas to have better TDRs or more desirable TDRs. But even if you do that, the simple math is then you got to divide by 10 or 20. I mean without doing that right now based off of the numbers they provided there are 7572 TDRs 998 of them have been assigned or maybe it was 995 I don't know anyway that live leaves over 6500 TDRs out there granted the growth of 28 is probably wrong of you know houses per year that we permit But even if we went back to the previous uh seven or eight years when it was uh 243, we still have 27 years worth of TDRs on the books today. Um so yes, we need to create demand and yes, we probably need to shrink TDR the number the total number if it's going to work at all. And uh I I don't know how to do that, but uh I wish I did and I wish you came up with the silver bullet, but I don't have anything for you guys. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mark. Uh for the public, uh Mr. Netup was a planning commissioner and in fact is probably one of the authorities on TDRs in this county. Further public comment. Jim Slade is not the surprising that the consultants throughout this agenda packet refer to the desire their desire to encourage development since that is what those paying for the study have implied that they want. They recommend changing the TDR program and even the growth management ordinance in order to improve the profits of developers. There is no real consideration of what the public wants, which is sustainable growth and for development to pay for itself. The consultants repeated claims that the 2000 growth management ordinance is one of the reasons for the lack of TDRs is dishonest. The great recession and CO 19 were the clearly the primary reasons for slow growth in that period. So far, the growth management ordinant has had no effect whatsoever. There should be no increased benefits for TDRs except what is provided by supply and demand. Instead, the consulting knowing this is what the staff wants has suggested artificially raising the value of TDRs to help encourage development. The consultant states page 52 that quote new development needs to be guided towards areas with existing infrastructure while not acknowledging that that dictate is already in our master plan but regularly ignored by the county in their desire to facilitate growth with Buckeye Farms being the worst recent example. The consultant addresses the stakeholders concerns for

three full pages which are all related to how they can best maximize their profits. Do they re reveal to the public or the planning commission who those stakeholders are? Of course not. No openc, no transparency. On page 53, they suggested TDRs all will reduce public costs for roads and utilities without noting that the county got further and further behind on road maintenance during the building booms prior to 2008 and utility keeps costs keep going up and will continue to do so. They somehow claim that TDRs to encourage growth will somehow protect our water resources, which is patently untrue. Don't they realize that our aquifer is dropping due to growth? The public doesn't want to encourage growth. They want to limit it in order to preserve our quality of life, our rural character, and our most important resource, our groundwater. We already have over 6,800 homes planned or in development. Page 73. No more are needed for quite a while. Here are my suggestions. One, no more master plan amendments to create receiving areas until 85% of those nearly 7,000 homes are built or under construction. Two, the board should approve the quarter cent sales tax to purchase development rights. They're willing to impose fees taxes for $140 million in storm water infrastructure without a vote of the people. They can do the same to preserve open space. and three, utilize clustering as the master plan recommends. This is good planning and preserves open space. In my opinion, this study has been contrary to the public interest. But I do kind of like Jock's idea. I think that's worth pursuing. [clears throat] Thank you very much.

I didn't uh Dan Ainsworth I didn't prepare any notes for this um but I really want to comment on the aspect of monitoring of the growth management ordinance. Um Jim's exactly right. The growth management ordinance hasn't managed anything yet. Um but I've been monitoring this for a while. And in 2021, I sat down with Tom Delair and Sam Booth after I had made a projection on the growth here in Douglas County in the Carson Valley. Um none of my exact u assumptions uh were true or came out to be true, but the bottom line did. And what it said was that in about two years, 24 months from now, um the line's going to cross over. The pool for the project uh allocation pool will be gone and the GMO will actually start restricting the number of allocations that Tom can distribute on the project side. There's still a ton left on the individual side, but projects will be restricted, which I think um indirectly affects the TDR projections and possibilities. And I also think it's going to put the county commission, maybe you uh as a commission too, in an interesting position. Then um as has been stated, we have 67,000 uh homes approved in specific plans and agreements. Um it's going to put um developers in a really interesting spot. They just may come to the county and say, "Hey, you guys need to do something about this." I think the county can and probably will be forced to do that. They can't change the total line curve. They can't change the 2%, but they could certainly consider putting some individual allocations over on the project side of the fence. And I'm going to make another prediction. I bet that

happens within another 18 months or so. The consideration for doing that. I'm not recommending that. I'm not a high growth guy. I don't think any of us are uh anything but u people that want to keep our county rural. But we've set ourselves up um to put the developers in a very very interesting u position and the county as well. Um those are my comments, not recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh further comment from the public. I see no one standing. So I will close public public comment. I will bring the issues back to the commission for commentary. But before I do that, I want to compliment uh Wood Rogers and Leland who's not here. But uh it's a very comprehensive, extensive, and uh cogent report that raises a number of issues that provides a number of solutions, but we really have to work further than now that you've given us this template. There's no two ways about it. Second, the comments from the public have been particularly succinct and cogent and directed uh by uh uh by each speaker and very much appreciated. They're very very good and considerate and very thoughtful and those are the kinds of things that I really seek uh with respect to council if we have to make a decision. With those comments, I bring it back to the commission and um and may I start with Dan who's in the ephemeral. Is that all right? Uh Mr. Welder.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Can I uh inquire of the chair or uh the uh deputy district attorney? Uh it appears that on page 46, our recommended motion is just to recommend [music] future pathways and changes for the TDR program to the board of county commissioners. So, uh, with your blessing or with AJ's recommendations, perhaps, uh, people if they would like to after the meeting put their recommendations in writing or if we can have this phase of the, uh, the discussion be focused on our recommendations individually since we won't have any votes technically on each individual recommendation, our recommendations individually for uh, for the board of county commissioners. That would be my suggestion or inquiry of of councel. No, that's I have read the uh uh what our action plan was as a commission and uh I read it to be passing up the report with our uh commentary just as you've indicated and I think that we could easily talk about these things uh agree uh get a consensus hopefully with respect to those comments that should be considered along with the uh report and then send it up to the board of uh county commissioners. Now, you you I apologize, sir. I am addressing uh I'm addressing you uh the presenter. Did you want us to give you the recommendations to put as an addendum or are you okay with what we've just talked about? uh Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. I I'll actually defer to staff because it then we're going to do whatever basically staff directs us to do. So, however you guys,

then I'll turn uh to Mr. Delair, what's your what's your pleasure? and uh our district attorney uh if we can do it in that fashion process-wise. Well, what we've talked This is Tom Deair. Uh what we've talked about to date uh is is being recorded and we will have a transcription of it here shortly. So, I mean, I think it would be a a good like a a checklist if you identified those now or um or we can go back and and make a list u based on the recording um of this meeting. Either way, it may be easier,

sorry, it may be easier uh that we identify our uh requested or considered changes. I think that would be much more helpful for everyone when they look at this at a later date. Agreed. So, I agree with you. Uh, Director Deer, may I ask AJ, is that an all right process to go forward on this matter?

AJ Hayes, for the record, yeah, you can uh you can take whatever procedural route you you think [clears throat] is best. Ultimately, the goal should be to try to provide guidance to the board. This is a recommendation uh that the consultants have put together. It's going to go to the board. The board's going to want input from the planning commission as to what you liked, didn't like. So, whatever way you deem best uh that will allow you to provide that guidance to the board, I think would but but how you do that is up to you.

Very good. I didn't realize I had so much power. I now feel a lot better about accepting this position. uh I'd like everyone uh on the planning commission to give us their comments and then say my recommendations are to the extent that they you have a recommendation and that way we can keep the discussion organized. Uh Dan, I apologize up in the uh ephemeral regions of Zoom. Uh I'm going to put you first on the list uh to speak both comments and recommendations.

Thank you, Chairman. you're doing a great job. I'm glad we elected you. Um I have a few comments and u I'd like to share them. First of all, I really do echo what you said about the public comment. I I think I heard some recurring themes there. Some of those I had in my own notes and I'll start with my first comment which is the current TDR program appears to be defying the laws of economics and that is with respect to supply and demand. There appears to be ample supply of approved and undesated TDRs for one commenter said 20 plus years. My estimate was probably 5 to 10 years. Um albeit most of those TDRs are in the hands of two entities which in a marketdriven system could lead to some e some control of the market which which is a concern. Um there doesn't appear to be a lot of demand for new TDRs be beyond what's currently available. The speakers and my notes indicate that I feel the problem is on the demand side. Uh we have too much supply, not enough demand. Um, furthermore, the Wood Rogers report explains why it's not economically prudent anymore for a land owner to generate TDRs since it is much more economically advantageous to that land owner to just sell the land. And as we heard from uh the first speaker, um that's because conditions have changed

since the program was was started and and prices have gone up on land. Um so I I really am opposed to additional incentives. I think all that will do is add more supply which exacerbates the problem. I I do like the suggestion of how do we increase demand? Well, we can increase demand by uh what Mr. Eden mentioned which is one TDR, one rooftop [music] that will increase demand. Uh earlier in the discussion, I believe I heard uh vice chairman uh Casey indicate I hope I understood you right that maybe part of the problem is to decrease supply and one easy way of decreasing supply is to remove certain sending areas and I believe uh the Topez Ranch estates area might have been one of the areas that could be uh eliminated as a sending area. Again, these measures will help offset the imbalance between supply and demand. Um my second comment has to do with the accuracy of the data and we did hear one of our commenters talk about how important it is to have good analysis, good data uh in order to move forward. And my concern is do we really know what the future demand of TDRs is? We we saw a graph earlier which indicates to me that there really isn't that great a demand for TDRs. Uh we we also heard in

the report that um you know theoretically there's a demand for 7350 acres of about 20,000 units. Well 20,000 units of current occupancy is over 40,000 people. Well that would almost double the population of Douglas County. And as we heard from uh an earlier speaker, it the county doesn't want that kind of growth. So I'm very concerned about uh the accuracy and our understanding of what potential demand is. Um again, if we could increase demand as as suggested by one of the commenters, that would help with that problem. Um, furthermore, when you try to determine what the demand is, there should be some understanding of how really is how much is that going to put a dent in our open space and flood plane preservation goals. My concern is it may not it may not put as much a dent in those goals as we'd think. Uh, and certainly not in the near term. So I I have a real problem with that economic balance. Um we all agree that that we're we're trying to meet an admirable goal of [music] pres preserving open space and flood plane. Uh there were some suggestions made. Um, we heard from the presenter and also from one of the commenters that zoning op zoning options appear to be a non-starter because as the report says there might be opposition. The commenter said there will be opposition. So that that

probably isn't a real way of doing it. Um there's I recognize now that it was beyond Wood Rogers scope to really get into alternatives to meet our primary goal. Why are we here? Because we want to do open space and flood plane conservation. Well, I think we need to spend a little bit more effort on that. I I did, you know, there were some ideas thrown out, but they really weren't flushed out because it wasn't really part of the study to flush them out. Um, you know, whether we have a funding initiative similar to other local communities, u somebody mentioned a quarter cent sales tax, um, which is certainly an option that was tried previously and perhaps should be tried again. uh the continued use of snipo funds, although that may be unlikely unlikely with current federal administration. Uh the the report seems to conclude, although this is maybe my interpretation, that the only significant way to solve the open space and flood [music] plane conundrum is through continued tweaking of the TDR program. Um I think we need to give fair considerations of other viable options. Uh Truckucky Meadows Flood Management District has implemented flood plane management policies which have helped preserve flood plane in that county. That's Wo County. Uh I believe Carson City has a funding mechanism for open space. These are neighbors. We we should we should learn what they are doing and see if they're appropriate for us. Um, and I suppose my last comment has to do with a broader issue uh that I did read in some of the the written comments and

I think I heard in in the spoken comments is that we are we are a county that is currently struggling to adequ adequately fund other key priorities such as local road maintenance and flood uh storm water management. Uh and there are other needs that require citizen support in this county, including our schools, our parks, the airport, other things. Uh you know, trying to uh uh you know, trying to just prop up the TDR system as well, not the only way, but it seems to be that that's the main way. It may not be the best use of our staff and budget at this time and certainly without adequate information and analysis about the supply and demand issues that that have been brought up. Again, the goals of the program are very important, but I'm thinking we may be barking up the wrong tree. Maybe this is not the time to take this on. Uh I do like the idea of increasing demand through one rooftop, one uh TDR. I think that's that's something that we should look at. Um I think we could reduce supply by eliminating some of the sending areas. I don't think we need to increase supply by by creating more incentives. Um, but it's a great discussion and and thank you for asking for my opinion.

Thanks, Dan. Um, I'm going to try to distill this down and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. With respect to recommendations, I'm not going to condense all of your comments, but with respect to recommendations, uh, you would like to increase the demand for TDRs. Um, eliminate the area around Topaz as a sending area and consider one rooftop, one TDR as a standard. In addition, your recommendation is to consider other solutions outside of TDRs, uh, such as funding for open space and take another crack at taxes. Do I have your recommendations accurate?

That is a good summary. Thank you, chairman. Um, okay. Thanks, Dan. Commissioner McCullum.

Thank you, James McCall. um really got a lot out of the public comment as kind of a because some of the the presenters on public uh comment were people have been around the county a long time and they've seen the progress of the TDR program. Um I think uh part of why it hasn't worked as well and I loved um I think Mr. husband called it giveaway zoning. Master plan amendments I think have caused the uh problem the program to not be successful because it seemed to encourage and incentifies not building in areas that don't require TDRs which reduce the demand and did not incentivize the ranchers. So um that is a concern. I think u I like some of the ideas presented in the report. I think I like the three zones to incentivize areas that are more critical to be preserved. I particularly like that. Um in uh without I think ultimately we can look at other things that reduce for example why is the uh the growth management ordinance not come to effect? I think COVID was one reason. I certainly think current interest rates are reasoned. It's it's hard time to build considering what the interest rates are. So I think that's part of the problem. But the the the commanding comment is um Mr. Goyan, one rooftop, one TDR, every rooftop is is affecting our aquifer obviously in a lot of areas. Uh the ranchos completed a great study on on uh on water in that area and determined that really

you know there was room for about 800 more homes under the the aquifer and um and then they said well that's good for 20 years. I think we want to think in our county about longer than 20 years for anything in terms of making improvements. Um, again, I would encourage the the um I would encourage the three zones. I think that's excellent. I think that really does prioritize the um what needs to be preserved the most, what we what we care the most about. I think um I think ultimately we have to require more TDRs and uh whether we do it uh one rooftop for one TDR or if we do it in effect of saying for developments all developments require TDRs I think creating the demand will incentivize the ranchers. Obviously a rancher who wants to get the most money for his land is just going to sell it and we can't be competitive with TDRs against people who just want to sell it. But I think when we look at ranchers who want to keep it that we can help them and that in that way preserving our open space. So I would uh recommend uh program in which we require more TDRs and I would at least be the point of every development requiring a TDR. I think we would exclude places intended for lowincome housing, places intended for other purposes required by the state. I think certainly for developments, every development should require TDRs, increase the demand. Hopefully that's good for the ranchers and preserves our open space. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner. If I may, uh, summarize and please do tell me if I have it wrong. uh number one uh you endorse the three zones that are in the report uh as a recommendation. Two, you endorse one rooftop one TDR concept to preserve resources particularly water. That is your second recommendation. The third would be to supply more TDRs to accomplish your one and two. And in doing that, you will satisfy ranchers that wish to keep their properties and yet provide income. That's basically it. And and the other thing that was in the report that I also want to endorse is the um the transparency

that we identify these TDRs, make sure the same ones are being sold twice. that I know that's that puts, you know, pressure on staff at a time when things are tight in the county, but I think it's essential if you're going to have the program, you have to administer it properly. Thank you. Thanks very much, Commissioner Waldrup.

Thank you very much, Chair. And uh I echo the comments that you're doing a remarkable job for your first uh time chairing this this esteemed body. Uh I have my recommendations in writing, so I'll hand them to you so you don't even need to take notes. Um, number one, I think uh we should review the growth management ordinance to eliminate disincentives to needed housing growth. This is on page 51 of the packet. Number two, I think we should explore reducing the minimum parcel size for participation in the TDR program. I think that's just a minor thing, but I think that bears merit. Number three, I agree with all recommendations on pages 76 and 77 of the packet and all of the recommendations on pages 78 through 87 except number five dealing with the overlay zones which I believe adds too much complexity and I particularly support recommendation number seven concerning the growth man management ordinance. Uh I agree and recommend all of the best practices on pages 129 and 30. Uh, I support creating more incentives to promote land conservation and guiding development to areas with existing infrastructure to preserve a lands and natural resources. This was page 52. And lastly, I don't favor a TDR impact fee or countywide TDR requirements. This is on page 67 and 6 through 69. Nor do I support restricting TDRs to hydraologic basins. I do not support the one rooftop, one TDR and I believe each of these things that I don't support would add too much complexity and costs for the county and those in the private sector.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, and thank you for the written list. I appreciate that very much. Although I was uh writing diligently, I need not repeat that because it was very concise and cogent. Thank you. Thank you. Uh my vice chair, please Derek.

Thank you. It's wonderful report and I think you captured a lot of what was said, actually most of what was said during the advisory committee meetings. I have a couple things that I disagree with. On page 18, you speak of universal TDR conflict that removal of receiving areas and utilizing a TDR for all new uses will encourage development to follow the cheapest or most desirable location opposed to the most appropriate leading to unmanaged growth and development and not preserving agriculture in sensitive areas. And I disagree with that because I I think if we have strong urban growth boundaries and strong policies regarding providing urban services, we can cut that off. I believe that the towns Minden and Gardnerville have their services and their lines where they will not extend services. And the county has their areas where they talk about growth where they don't want to put it. However, we do allow not developments per se, but single family houses. And with the storm water programs and the amount of flooding we've had, I think there is the potential for moratorum to come in to slow that growth down until we have some type of flood mitigation in place. And I think along with that with the master [music] plan update, we have the potential to review removing receiving areas, especially over in the

Johnson and Stephanie areas because why allow growth in those areas that are prone to excessive flooding and gravel deposits that wash out our ditches and impact all the housing that is there. I think that the board of commissioners should consider consider a growth moratorum in the east valley. I really think they do. And with the master plan update coming up, I think that we should consider not only the receiving area but a potential of looking at reszoning if we can. Of course, there are other impacts we have to look at. you know, lawsuits and other things, but that's politics and the planning commission doesn't deal with politics. That's for the board of commissioners, but that's something we can look at. And also, I support Jacques wholeheartedly. And this is something that Mark Neden Rip brought up several years ago, one TDR per rooftop. And I think the larger the rooftop, the more TDR should be required. I think it's a great problem in the flood plane where you get a 5,000 square foot home and a 10,000 square foot barn and other out buildings. I think we need to tap a TDR for on every one of those rooftops because the downstream flooding that occurs every time you damage the flood plane is incredible and people don't look at that. And it's the same in the East Valley. Every rooftop you put in increases the flow downstream. And we've seen we saw that in Ruin Straw and we've seen that all along the East Valley. And we need to

disincentize lot splitting and other in other impacts that are going on around the county. So those are my comments and again I think it was a a very good report. My recommendation would be to bring this back after the uh recommendations that we have made to bring it back to the planning commission and give the opportunity to those absent to comment. I would like to see the changes in the report and I would hope that the other planning commissioners that have made comments today would like to see the changes, the changes in the zoning map to the U TDR zones and other comments that have been made today. So, I'd like to see it brought back to us before it goes to the board of commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, if I may summarize and of course I Okay, I will not

tools other tools. I just saw and this may be off the wall, but when Courtney Walker was making a presentation to the board of commissioners with regards to the storm water project, she was talking about other tools with regards to getting properties to help with flooding. And what came to mind, it was one of those light bulb moments, [snorts] a land swap for TDRs. I don't know how much land the county owns that they're not going to use, but they have land, bits of land here and there, and I don't know how much is buildable or how much are just little pieces. But I think that an inventory should be made. And Tom's probably going to pull his hair out after this. An inventory should be made and perhaps there is viable land that we could trade for development rights for I don't know where in the county. And it would be clean if the county is not going to utilize land for something, but it could be something that say a rancher has development rights and it could be a one for one. It's commercially viable. They could hold on to it. They could build on it or they could sell it. But it's it's something and I think we need to be creative. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, our vice chair, if I may summarize, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, I've tried to glean out elements, okay, which I hope that's that that's the way you can make someone listen to you very carefully. Tell me if you don't correct me, then I'm going to assume I'm right. Number one, um, we you want No, no, no, no, no. I'm just uh um correct terminology. the the the serving areas need to be removed in certain areas uh and not consider um sending areas not consider certain sending areas. That's number one. Um, you need a moratorum number two on areas that are subject to flood mitigation. So, you don't have development on those parcels. That's just what I heard. You can correct me. Three, uh, remove certain receiving areas by virtue of the master plan update that's coming in general. Okay. No designation. And four, uh, you support the one, uh, TDR per rooftop idea with more for larger.

And most important, I think for our purposes, your recommendation is to bring this back to planning after all of these recommendations have either been compiled or incorporated into a report. Yes.

Okay. Um, you've all been very diligent listening to this and you have not yet heard where I come out. Uh the first thing I will tell you is that it looks like a um 3 to one vote on the idea of one uh TDR per rooftop. So I would say that is a recommendation uh that is supported by the the uh majority. I have read through uh Kirk's and I've gone through as you know everyone else's uh considerations and they do not conflict but for one which I will now ask the commission to rule upon my notion was to put initial notion was to put all of the recommendations and [snorts] send them forward along with uh the report to the board of commissioners. That was what I had discussed with everyone. However, there is a contrary view which deserves consideration which is that it comes back to us with all the recommendations as either an addendum or a separate document. So, is there a motion with respect to it would be a continuence of this matter for a second review? I'm sorry. Uh, I didn't mean to pop that on you, AJ.

AJ HS from the DA's office. for the record. It would be I mean you would be taking action to request that modifications be made and then an additional presentation be made to the planning commission. So it wouldn't be per se a continuence. It would be a it would be like a almost as if this was like a development application it would be a almost like an an approve with conditions. They would have to meet those conditions, come back prior to going to the board. At least that would be your your recommendation. I don't I don't know that you control the consultants. So, no, we do not. It would be a staff issue. So, Mr. Delair, Kate, everybody on this side of the table, uh, their knives are out. Uh, and they're aimed at me. So, uh, [laughter]

we don't know if this is going to if this vote is going to be successful, but, uh, that's what would be necessary. It would essentially, I think, act as a recommendation to staff that they work with the consultants to bring it to make revisions and bring it back. And I think the revisions have uh been articulated clearly at least from a personal view. So I'm happy to participate in that exercise, but I don't know which direction the commission desires. Is there a motion?

I'll defer on making a motion. My comments are we've spent a considerable amount of time on this today. I think everybody's expressed themselves. I agree 100% with Moren that I wish our two absent members would have been here and I think they should be opported the opportunity to make their comments. Uh perhaps they can make their comments in writing in the period of the next uh one or two weeks. Uh and uh I'm always uh cognizant of the amount of time that staff prepares and spends uh on all of the things that we ask them to do. So u I I'd be reluctant to uh ask them to prepare so many so much more materials uh just for us and repeat uh this discussion. I would prefer they would spend their time on preparing good recommendations uh and submitting to the board. So that that always my my preference is to alleviate the uh the time and the effort on the staff. But I recognize Moren's very very good comments. comment.

Chairman Bruno, I I might comment. Go ahead. Uh Dan,

I don't feel a sense of urgency on this matter, particularly uh given Vice Chairman Casey's concern and also what we heard from the commenter regarding better information, more accurate information. uh and certainly my concern about reconciling the demand side a little bit more clearly. So I would support uh Vice Chair Casey in this [music] and I do like your uh the chairman's comment about [music] allowing the other two uh commissioners to weigh in on this on this topic. Um the one just to be clear though are are you saying that the five of us have a consensus on the um on the proposed uh zone incentives because I heard a number of us say we don't like it. I heard at least one say that they that he that Mr. McCullik does like it. Uh that seems like a fairly important matter to be clear on

that. Uh there was consensus that it it waits because they're going to be further iterations with respect to zoning. Uh so we are not making a decision one way or another with respect to changes in zoning and neither was there a recommendation to that effect. All of the recommendations, Dan, were uh not um they were all consistent except for one which was the TDR's one TDR, one roof, and that's the that there's a consensus majority, but not unanimous. What? My question was specifically on the overlay proposal, the zone 123 overlay proposal. [music] I heard I I'm not in favor of it. I I I thought I heard others who weren't in favor of it. Is there a consens consensus on that matter?

We can see now. You are not in favor and Kirk is not in favor. Okay. Jim is in favor. And uh Moren's in favor. And so it's a consensus on that one, too. It's a majority in favor of of the overlays. Yes, sir. Okay. So, you're in favor? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

May may uh may I ask for a motion so that the recommendations be placed in a separate document? And I think I've articulated them hopefully clear enough with respect to each of the commissioner's positions. And that motion not only has staff put put those together the way we've articulated but also uh circulates that to the absent members so it comes back to us at our next meeting and then we could hear from them. Yeah. as an attachment to the report because our attorney general is correct. DA is correct that we cannot direct the consultant.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AJ HS for the record. Just another uh I have promoted you, you notice, to attorney general. I am now the attorney general. Uh sorry, Commissioner Taranian. I job's taken. I um just want to make sure that the board is aware that it wouldn't be proper for our members who are not present today to submit written comment to the other members of the board as that would be a a violation of the open meeting law.

Right? They could submit written comment to county staff who could then include those comments in a subsequent [music] packet which could be presented to the the board and the public at the same time. But there wouldn't be there couldn't be any opportunity to have them submit their comments outside of a meeting. Correct. They must do that within the the confines. I'm following you and I agree with you 100%. My comment was that we give them our recommendations. Do you follow me? The recommendations we've come up with here.

Yeah. I think staff could provide them a copy of the My concern would be that if you prepared some kind of report and then submitted it to them, it would it would be the same problem that it would be they would generate something back to us. No, I I did not want that to happen until we had the further public hearing. I think what staff could do is provide the minutes to those board members that are not present.

Yes, that's fine. I think I've summarized the position of everyone. Now, is there an objection to not putting this forward to the board of commissioners? I I heard uh our commissioner Dan uh and he he's probably right that this is not something that is so urgent uh as you recall the song by Foreigner that it needs to go forward immediately. You guys don't even remember Foreigner.

Go ahead, sir. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh no I would prefer that we go directly to uh submitting this to the board. I think it's a uh it's a question of the efficiency and use of staff resources. So I would be opposed to coming back to this the planning commission again and I would agree with that. um the members who aren't here can express themselves to the BOCC having reviewed what we've done and and offer their own as anybody can make public comment to the board to the commissioners but I would move with I would agree that we should move this forward

I don't want to spend any more of Tom's I withdraw my recommendation. Okay. Then may I have a motion that uh the recommendations be put in a in an addendum and the report go that we send the report up to uh the board of county commissioners with our uh recommendations. So moved. Do I have a second?

Uh Mr. Chair, I would second that uh with the the additional uh with the consent of the maker of the motion that the the consultant and the staff provide answers to the uh questions that we ask and uh submit that also to the board of county commissioners as part of their All right. It's been moved and seconded that uh Dan, did you hear?

Yes, I did, sir. It's been moved and seconded that uh the recommendations be placed as an addendum that have been discussed and reviewed by this uh commission today and they go with the report to the uh county commissioners uh along with uh the report as it exists and that um staff or our consultant address some of the issues in their presentation to the board of commissioners. All right. Uh, no further discussion. I think we've beaten this one. Um, may I have all in favor? I I

I All opposed. It uh passes unanimously. Thank you. Uh, let's take a break. Probably uh less than 10 minutes. That way if you're not here in 10 minutes, we start in 10

Oh, good.

[clears throat] may I have uh everyone uh take their seats, please? Dan, you with us? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm uh calling the meeting back to order after our recess. [snorts] We have two more items on the agenda. uh one of which we saw on December 9 and discussed in some detail and that is our next agenda item three for possible action is a discussion of ordinance 20125-1661 a zoning text amendment amending the Douglas County code title 20 by revising chapters 20.650 20.658 20.660 20.662 20.664 20.666 and 20.668 668 in order to implement the requirements of Assembly Bill 241 passed by the Nevada State Legislature during the 2025 legislative session by allowing mixeduse residential in commercial zones. The applicant is Douglas County. affected properties are those within the commercial zoning districts outside the Tahoe basin. Before we go any further, uh I'd like to say Miss O'Neal, you did a great presentation last time and I apologize you have to do it again.

Pardon me. AJ.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to point out a difference in the action title um and the ordinance title. So the ordinance title only refers to chapters 2658, 662, 664, 666, and 668. Our item title refers to chapters also 650 and 660. It's fine for purposes of noticing. Um the presentation will include a brief explanation as to why those chapters 650 and 660 are no longer part of the ordinance that you'll find in your packet. Uh but basically you're welcome to discuss all of the chapters. They're listed and any other issues related to uh implementation of Assembly Bill 241.

Thank you uh very much. and it makes good sense because uh it was noticed for all of those sections. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Chairman Bruno, and good afternoon, um, to all of you today and everyone into attendance. Um, and I'm I appreciate also that you granted this continuence. Um, it enabled staff to um, kind of dig into this deeper. Again, if you remember, the reason we asked for the continuence was we had um gone to the town of Gardennerville, the town of Genanoa, and the town of Minden um at for our proposed um implementation of AB241. What we learned at those meetings and a a general consensus or a common um consensus with the towns was their own plans for prosperity. um all of which entailed, you know, maps of their commercial zoning districts. Um and the the important thing was is we were proposing that staff was proposing that in neighborhood commercial and office commercial, you could actually do a multi-family residential development on its own and would just that with no commercial component. and the towns felt like that's not what they wanted because with their plans of prosperity they really targeted the the different um areas of where they wanted to see commercial uses. So that is why we asked for the continuence. Um and after further uh research um looking at our you different uses within our title 20 code it was determined that we we changed our proposal um and what you're looking at today and I'll go through the PowerPoint here in a second. Um but we concurred with the towns and now we are proposing and bringing forward that multifamily a multifamily project per the

implementation of AB241 would be allowed in all commercial zoning districts but all commercial zoning districts must have a commercial component. So we've we flipped that. So when you know again neighborhood commercial and office commercial we were proposing you didn't have to have a commercial component if you brought forward a a multifamily project. Now we're proposing no you would have to still do a commercial component in all of the commercial zoning districts that is general commercial tourist commercial neighborhood commercial and office commercial. In addition, the mixeduse commercial zoning district, we were actually going to get rid of that zoning district in our code. Hence, because we felt we didn't need it anymore since we were implementing uh the the the z the allowed multifamily in the commercial zoning districts, but we found different uses. And let me give you an example. In mixeduse commercial, a gun range is not allowed. In neighborhood commercial, you could do a gun range. So, we didn't feel changing a mixeduse paral to neighborhood commercial was our best step forward because that's not what the towns had planned for that particular parcel. Right. So, and and the other reason too is we in in going back and going over this really looking at all the different uses, those haven't been updated in a long time and they need to be updated. Some uses are either outdated um and they just need to be revised. We don't have events. We don't address events well in our in our uses and I touched on that at the last meeting. So we are

going to continue with to to keep our mixeduse commercial zoning district within our title 20. So we are not um proposing a zoning map amendment any longer. Um that would refer to and the mixeduse zoning which are associated with those previous chapters the 20 um 650 and the 20.660. I crossed them out already already, but I think I got those chapters correct. So, that is why those two chapters are no longer relevant again because we're keeping mixeduse commercial within um the title 20 code. Any any clarifications before I know it gets a little confusing before I start the PowerPoint? Yes.

I apologize. After reading through the former uh ordinance and being present

uh on 9 December, listening to Mr. Nilson, I hope I pronounced his name correctly, the Gardnerville city manager. Uh I understood he and others did not want to create um basically little enclaves of below market housing isolated to the extent they were in either buildings or developments that uh could otherwise have been the way we initially wrote it. his desire and the city's desire and as I listened to the commentary was that the mixed use uh be more of a vision of retail on the bottom with uh residential mixed uh uh residential on the top multif family residential on the top. I thought that was a terrific idea and as I read through the current iteration that was created by staff I want to compliment you that it allows permissively the um multifamily residential but requires that element of commercial. So, I thought you did a masterful job in preventing a potential um consequence of a state imposing on uh an ordinance statewide without regard to the local character of each city and county. So, my compliments.

Thank you, Chairman Bruno. I appreciate that. Um again as a project moves forward you know there's only so much you know we can we can give our suggestions and we do have our development standards of what we would like the project to look like. Um that is definitely something we would encourage um that type of you know uh building um within within the town boundaries and and what we're we're looking for as far as character. Again, it sometimes we hear comments about planners. We really don't have the control everyone thinks we do. We're we have to abide by title 20 and ensure that developers are abiding by the code. And it really ends there. You know, we can have our own personal, you know, we're we're not robots. We can have our own personal opinion about a project, but it doesn't mean we can do, you know, for or against, you know, if a development came in this multifamily or commercial, that's what I'd want to see from a personal level. It doesn't mean a developer couldn't come in with a different look of the project and they're two separate buildings. I don't have control of that, even though that's what I would personally like to see. So a lot of times we hear comments that we have all this control and we listen to developers and we do that's just not the case. It's a misnomer. We really do not have the capability to do that. But we aren't robots. So we can have our own personal opinion. It doesn't mean we can be for or against. I I'm a from a from a project from a planning perspective. Maverick south of town was my project personally. I live here. I live in ruin straw. I personally didn't want to see that. But guess what? Maverick is there. I didn't get to say that I didn't want it. So, I think that's really important. As much as I share your sentiments, I

don't have control of what a developer brings in. I just have to ensure they abide by our Title 20 development code. And I was complimenting staff, everyone that rather than impose have imposed upon us by the state something that may have adverse consequences with regard to the neighborhood character, the western character, the small town character. I could go on and on of what makes this place special. It doesn't necessarily have to be violated. We're not we're not building Cababrini green.

Thank you, Chairman Bruno. Agree with you 100%. Any other questions before I move forward on with the PowerPoint.

Okay. So, we can go through this pretty clear um quickly. This is the the statute, the actual assembly bill. Again, just requiring that we adopt an ordinance that authorizes by right a multifamily housing development or mixeduse development that includes residential use on property zoned for commercial uses. Uh I I included this last time too and I think it's important. I mean I commend those that were involved in the master plan because they were forward thinkers. Um because the uh part of our um part of our goals in priorities is to amend the master plan land use designation table to allow multifamily residential zoning in the commercial land use category. And here's the actual zoning tax amendment. Uh again it just is going to amend those particular chapter those five chapters um 20.658 658, 662, 664, 666, and 668. Um, allowing mixeduse and multifamily residential development in commercial zones. The development will be allowed in all all commercial zones and again the mixeduse commercial design standards will remain in code um and will be required in all commercial zoning districts. just [music] what um Chairman Bruno and I were discussing as far as what would be required uh within uh any type of development that moves forward. Again, this is going to include all the commercial zoning districts, the general commercial, tourist commercial, office commercial, and um neighborhood commercial uh developments. And this is another thing I think that's important is although a multifamily um development um is allowed in commercial zoning districts, it does not

mean that if you are let's say zone general commercial, you can still do a 100% commercial project on your commercial property zone. So you don't have to have a multifamily. So I just want to make sure that's clear. You can do a multifamily project. If you do, it has to have a commercial component. If you choose to do a commercial project, you don't have to have MFR. Just to clarify. Um if with that, if there's any questions, otherwise um I've included the recommended motion.

Uh first, any questions from the commissioners? Dan, no questions. Chairman,

thank you sir. Uh I want to reiterate that uh this will allow the integration also of uh multif family uh assuming lower cost multif family housing such that there are no islands, there are no two-story Cabrini Greens which we don't want to see. By the way, Cababrini Green is torn down. It was outside Chicago. I don't know if you guys all remember that place. It was miserable, dismal. But um I now open the uh the this matter to public comment. Jim Slade. Uh, I honestly didn't pay any attention to this item until after the last one was done. That's why I was scribbling away over here. Um, this law, like all laws passed in Nevada, requires support from lawmakers in Las Vegas. Many laws, including, I expect, this one, are brought forward specifically by and for Las Vegas. It's unfortunate that every county has to deal with it. I appreciate Chairman Bruno's comments that we must do the best we can to retain our rural character, our small town flavor, and our open space. And also appreciate the county's plan to only allow multifamily residential where there is uh mixeduse commercial probably on the ground floor. Um, there doesn't seem to be, in my brief glance at the law, doesn't seem to be

any state requirement as to the number of mixeduse residentials that must be allowed in uh, mixeduse commercial parcels or those utilized that way. So, I would encourage the county to try to keep those numbers as low as possible and to remind you that there's a uh which I'm sure I don't need to remind you there's a 30 foot 5-ft building height limit and there should be no variances to that to accommodate this. Um, also I'm I'm quite sure that each unit in a condo project requires one building allocation from the growth management ordinance and I'm guessing that the same is true of an apartment complex. Um, perhaps Mr. Deair or Deputy DA HS can address that question. Thank you.

Um, Mr. legislate ordinarily. uh it's not our province and we do not comment on comments from the public but you are absolutely correct in the town of Los Gatos in California and and equally problematical Carmel by the sea a 126year-old municipality on the ocean in Monterey County has been given a mandate from the state in terms of a large number of below market housing that must be built within the city limits. So, this is I just see the genius behind the ordinance the way it's written and uh if I could give you a hug, Kate and Tom, uh I would do so. Uh it's it's just it's brilliant. That's my opinion. Sorry. Comments. Oh, sorry. Any further public comment? I'll close public. answer.

Yeah, Tom Delair for the record. Uh yes, building allocations are issued for each individual unit. Uh in an apartment complex, um even those multif family units that have uh individual APNs like they're building up in North Valley, there's three per structure. uh three allocations have to be obtained uh and tracked in our tracker and um against the growth management ordinance. So it applies to both apartments and um and it would also apply to these commercial developments that would be proposed in the future.

Thank you director. Uh I close uh public comment having no one else raise to uh comment and bring it back to the commission. James McCl, for the record, uh, I commented last month that you had a really hard task to make everyone happy. I got to say, I think this is about as much as you can do to make everybody happy. And like you made that comment that uh, the people seem to think that you could just dictate what goes where. And obviously can't people bring a project to you and you make sure it conforms. But um this is a history of this what the legislature did and I believe I made this comment last month was that they were looking at Vegas and it was only Vegas and they were looking at basically strip malls that had lost their appeal and were old and they were zoned commercial and and they needed residential. and why they didn't just make an ordinance in Las Vegas and leave the rest of us alone. We could only guess. Um, my compliments on this though, I think you did a great job of of taking account what the towns were telling you and um I'm I'm happy with this.

Thank you. You worked on this a long time, Tom Kate. You were on top of it from the beginning and I appreciate you. very much. If there are no other comments, I'd like to make the motion. Uh Dan, comments, you okay, chairman? I am just fine. All right. I'd like to recommend that the board of county comm recommend to the board of county commissioners that they approve ordinance 2025-661 as presented because the required findings for the zoning text amendment are met. Is there a second? I second that.

Commissioner McCullik has seconded the motion of uh Vice Chair Casey. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Dan, no questions. All right. Uh let's uh take a vote on this. All those in favor? I I

uh it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. The last item we have uh on the agenda as for possible action is to discuss and review and accept planning commission activities report for calendar year 2025. Kate, I believe you're up on this one as well.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Bruno. [clears throat] Um yeah, I as I stated earlier, I appreciate all of your your hard work because these uh applications are never easy. It doesn't matter what it is. Um we had a pretty eventful year. Um I I want to at this time, you know, commend um the planning staff. We we are a a small but mighty group. um Lucille, Linda, Colleen, uh my immediate staff, the counter staff who supports um so many so many of the planning questions. Um we I I just did some some how how many I don't attend to the planning inbox or the um which includes emails and phone calls. And there's there's roughly 2600 that my staff handles. And that doesn't count them going to the counter, the public counter to support. and and and then all of these applications both that come to planning commission meetings um or you know the tenative parcel map applications and so on and so forth. So um I stick up for my staff. It's always frustrating when you hear negative things or things that we are doing when when the reality is that we're not doing those things. We really, my staff works so hard and and with a smile on their face because it it can usually be a pretty thankless job. So, thank all of you because I know you're very supportive of staff. Um, I look forward to this year. We have a lot of I'm I'm forewarning you. Um, my knives are going out to all of you because you're we're going to be bringing you uh a lot of stuff. We have the Taho Douglas area

plan. We have the title 20 update. Um, obviously more TDR work to do. Um, but it's also exciting things. I think it's things that that staff has really enjoyed kind of digging their teeth into. Um, I think Title 20 is is I'm most excited about and I would I feel like um Tom and Andrea would would [music] u agree with me that that I think is going to be the a really um great for everybody, community members um because it it's it's time and it really needs to be updated and I appreciate all the input that we've received and um so I I look forward to this year and I do appreciate uh all your dedication. I know you do this, you know, it's you do this for the love of the community and it doesn't go unrecognized. So, thank you to all of you. Dan, I know you're not here, but this includes you and and Lori and uh Bryce. So, very much appreciate all your hard work.

Thank you for the kind words, Kate. All right, that uh that's the presentation on four, [laughter] item four. And uh do I have a motion? Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead.

We I just found one small typo on the page packet page 184 of the meeting of December 9th, item two. We've just got a couple of extra letters in there on the seconder, Mr. McCallip. So, if that can be cleaned up before presentation to the board, we will have a perfect report. And I echo Kate's comments about the excellent work of staff throughout the year. They are overwhelmed, but they perform effectively and diligently. And I we appreciate you.

Thank you, Member Walder. And I would be remissed if I forgot to say this, AJ HS, I don't know where we would be without him. He truly has he helps us. like you're giving me kudos for this zoning tax amendment, but I'm I'm gonna defer to AJ because he always makes sure we stays we stay in our lane and we're doing the right thing. And so, thank you AJ for everything you do. He's he's I I just want to make sure we recognize AJ. If he ran for attorney general, I'd vote for him. Yeah, I think I uh promoted him

already in in this meeting. Uh any any motion? Oh, sorry. I'm going to close uh the public hearing on item four and bring it back to the commission. Go ahead, sir.

Um I also want to thank I've been in several boards and the attorney keeps you on track and I really appreciate AJ Haynes [music] and all of the community development staff. I did a remodel of my house I don't know three or four years ago and uh everybody told me what a nightmare it would be to go to the county. I find the opposite that the counter staff was amazing changes were sent to my architect very timely manner got back got the permits everything went great. So, um I appreciate all the tell the truth. I think we have a great county as far as the employees and how they serve you and all my interactions, but but especially with uh community development staff and now being on the planning commission, they uh Tom Deair, all the staff, everybody, you're I think did a great job on this and you've been great to work with. Thank you and happy new year everybody. Any further comment on item four? May I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move to that we accept the planning commission activities report for calendar year 2025 and submit it to [music] the board of commissioners. I will second that. It's been moved uh by uh Commissioner Walder, seconded by Mr. uh Commissioner McKelp. Uh I don't think there's any discussion necessary, but I open it to discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Uh I do have one comment before I go to uh closing comments from the public. and that is if I may impose on our planning staff to get a copy of the bylaws for the planning commission to each of the planning commissioners uh and agendaize a discussion no action but a discussion uh on our ne for our next meeting. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I now open um for closing comments from the public. Jim Slate, I just have a mix of things to mention. Uh, one, I would um encourage you when you turn your head to speak to each other, um, you and the deputy district attorney that you should either speak louder or more directly into the microphone because it was very hard to hear. Um, the handout, oh, I forgot to bring that up. Um, the handout with the map that was hard to read. Mr. Delair said it was probably hard to read on an 8 by11 printout, but what we, the public, got was on half of an 8 by 11. It was about 4 in by 6 and 1/2, and it was impossible to read. I don't know why they put two horizontal pages on one vertical page. I mean, was that to save money? you make it. There were parts I have excellent vision. Even with my glasses on, I couldn't read a lot of that stuff. Um, as someone else mentioned, don't put, you shouldn't allow the consultants or anybody to put acronyms out in their reports and talk about them without identifying what they are. I still don't

know what TAC is. Um the consultant also suggested that there would be you know three acres three units per acre in a receiving area. Not sure where he got that idea. You know it it's allows up to 16. I know it's I don't think it's ever gone to that but it's a lot higher than three. Um I'm sure I don't need to remind you people that if anyone tries to alter the growth management ordinance, it has to go back to a vote of the people. Uh Kirkland suggested that the GMO growth ordinance might negatively impact TDRs. The most way most people would look at it is that the GMO might have a negative effect on development and that that is exactly what the GMO is designed for. Uh the county can require that a developer puts in all or most of the infrastructure as part of the negotiation to get approval of his development. Um and that is many times in the past developers have been required to put in roads and water and sewers and that cost should not go to the taxpayers. That should go to the developers who are generally making millions and millions of dollars on their projects and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that. um the 6851 homes planned or in development even with the higher average homes per year from 2000 to 2007 in the presentation that was 243. I think Mr. Walder mentioned that it would still it would take even [music] at that much higher rate than the 28 uh it would take over 28 years to build all the homes currently approved. Um Mr. Kirkland ended with this comment that to me was very telling. He said, "I'm going to do exactly what staff

directs us to do." That seems to be the case always. And my last point, one rooftop, one TDR. That sounds about as simple as it can be. One for one. Yet somehow Mr. Walder thought that was too complicated. I think it deserves serious consideration and is perhaps a very good solution to create added demand for TDRs. And I think you should uh have that on future agenda item. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments from the public? Seeing no one rise. [laughter] Uh thank you very much. It's 4:30 and this meeting is adjourned.