Scenic Mt. Rose Corridor

LEED Neighborhood Development - Sustainability

Filed under: Uncategorized by bethhonebein ->

Why should Washoe County support cramming 632 dwelling units on a mountaintop? Why are so many new stores and businesses needed?

Community Development’s answer is that the state demographer says people are going to move here, so we must prepare a place for them. Also, the Regional Plan (Policy 1.3.1 says that Washoe County must “identify and plan for the areas in the unincorporated County that are expected to absorb their share of the planned 20 year growth.”

So the question is, what is the best way to “absorb” the “planned 20 year growth?” If Washoe County truly “Vows to be a Green Region,” (Reno Gazette Journal, April 14, 2008), we must do more than just put up solar panels and drill more geothermal wells. Our entire way of thinking about growth must evolve.

Communities across the country are realizing that the suburban sprawl that has developed over the last 50 years is not the best, most sustainable way to grow. I quote the U.S. Green Building Council, a leading sustainable development organization, who created the best known sustainable building standards, known as LEED. This organization is in the process of creating a new standard: LEED for Neighborhood Development.

LEED certified Neighborhood Development communities are:

  • locations that are closer to existing town and city centers
  • areas with good transit access
  • infill sites
  • previously developed sites
  • sites adjacent to existing development

I’ll take a moment to examine the proposed Forest Area Plan in light of these standards.

Locations that are closer to existing town and city centers

The Forest Areas fails this standard. Most people who live out here have accepted this liability and learned to consolidate trips into town. We create carpools for soccer and baseball practice. Many of us work from our homes and avoid commuting altogether.

Areas with good transit access

The Forest Area’s scores are mixed here. The freeway is not far away. Our Mt. Rose Highway is both wide and straight, and narrow and curvy. It can be icy and snow covered much of the winter. It is not friendly to bicycle traffic. There is no bus route to our area and if you want to go anywhere, you pretty much have to drive.

Infill sites

On this standard, we disagree most with Staff. Community Development sees the Matera Ridge and Galena Gateway projects as infill. We see these properties as the gateway to the beauty of Lake Tahoe and the Toiyabe National Forest. Matera Ridge is not infill; it borders US Government open space to the north, east and south. Washoe County Open Space is also on its northeastern boundary. The steep mountain slopes of the adjacent Steamboat Hills are prominently featured on the Regional Plan’s Development Constraints Area Map. Like residents all over the Truckee Meadows, we feel that steep slopes are not appropriate for dense development. In addition, the Steamboat Hills are an important recreational area for residents. Galena Gateway is not infill. It is on the border of the Truckee Meadows Service Area. It too is in close proximity to large parcels of US government owned land (8000+ acres.) These properties are gateways and buffers, not infill.

Previously developed sites

Other developers have looked at the Matera Ridge parcel and found it cost prohibitive for development. Due to its steep slopes and mountainous terrain, profitable building has not penciled out for previous owners. Regional Plan Policy 1.3.2 states: “For purposes of complying with this policy, density transfers are allowed from usable passive open space and are not allowed from any of the following areas: … 2) property in the Development Constraints Area.” Matera Ridge has approximately 171 acres of its area in the Development Constraints Area for slopes greater than 30%. Much of the rest of the property is slopes between 15% and 30%. Due to these steep slopes, it is not an appropriate site for high density development. It has not been previously developed. The Galena Gateway site does have a history of development, but mostly as low density residential property with limited commercial by Special Use Permit. It is too far from true neighborhoods to have a strong customer base. The traffic speed and amount in this narrow area of the Mt. Rose Highway makes access very difficult and dangerous.

Sites adjacent to existing development

As I mentioned, much of the land surrounding these sites is owned by the US government and is open space.

In summary, using these LEED Neighborhood Development Standards, the Forest Area is not a desirable region in which to concentrate new development. The flat, desirable land is already built out or pending development.

The Forest Area Plan is not yet ready to become part of the Washoe County Comprehensive Plan. We ask that large increases in residential density and new commercial zoning be removed from the Land Use Plan map before FAP approval. We propose Medium Density Rural zoning (MDR, 1 unit per 5 acres) for the Matera Ridge property. We propose full buildout of existing commercially zoned property before additional properties are changed to commercial zoning. We support neighborhood commercial zoning, allowing mix-use commercial/residential use for areas currently zoned commercial. We await a response to these requests from the Washoe County Community Development Department.

Community Input

Filed under: mt rose community by bethhonebein ->

Community members feel that some progress has been made on creating a Forest Area Plan that “responds to a citizen-based desire to identify, implement and preserve the community character that has evolved throughout the Forest area over time.” (Introduction – Forest Area Plan B (as of April 23, 2000.) However, we ask that the Forest Area Plan be sent back to staff for changes that will preserve the community character of the Forest Area.

I have tried hard to work with the Community Development Staff and the developer. My efforts have repeatedly been met with explanations of why what I am asking is not possible or legal. For example, my comments submitted to Staff in February requested that Policy F.2.6 state that “Street lights, security lights, and other outdoor lighting shall be powered by solar or other renewable energy sources.” The Staff note (April 1 draft) was “It is not possible at this time for Washoe County to require the use of solar power or other renewable energies.” There was no explanation of why this was not possible. Staff has since compromised by adding “Proposals to utilize traditional energy sources must explain why alternative sources are not possible.” But they still haven’t told me why it is not possible for them to required alternative energy use.

In the April 1 draft of the plan, community input and requested revisions were put in a category called “Prior Input.” In response to our recommended revisions to the Character Statement, Staff responded: “Many of the concerns and ideas expressed above could be valuable additions to the Character Statement. The Character Statement can continue to evolve as we move toward a consolidated draft for public hearing.” However, when the next version of the plan was released on April 23, our Character Statement was nowhere to be found. You can read both the April 1 draft and the April 23 draft Forest Area Plans at out Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/scfriends/files. You can also join the group and join our community effort to revise the plan in a way that benefits current residents and potential land developers.

On May 9, I sent Dr. Eric Young, Community Development staff representative, an e-mail requesting a meeting to go over areas of the plan the community wanted to revise. His response was “At this point, changes to the plan will have to be made by the PC.” (Planning Commission) (Complete text of the e-mail is at the end of this document.) Our hope is that the Planning Commission subcommittee will facilitate a dialog between the staff and the community that will result in community-sponsored changes to the plan.

On May 14, I contacted Jim Dunn of Matera Ridge LLC and asked to meet with him to discuss community concerns and get his reaction to our proposal that the Matera Ridge section be zoned MDR – 1 house per 5 acres. He was friendly and open, but when I called back the next day to finalize the time, he declined to meet saying he had been advised that meeting with me could delay approval of the Forest Area Plan. I want the Planning Commission to know that I have presented alternatives and tried to negotiate, but I can not negotiate if the other parties won’t meet with me or ignore my input.

The basic disagreement between the community and Staff over the Forest Area Plan centers around increasing residential density and adding new commercial zoning on parcels within the Forest Area. The community is extremely opposed to these increases and additions. We ask that the Planning Commission to send the Forest Area Plan back to Staff for several changes.

Text of email from Eric Young, Fri 5/9/2008 12:37 PM

I will have to be in a meeting on Wed. from 11:00 to about 1:00.

I would like our meeting to be focused on continuing to reach understanding regarding each other’s needs and issues. At this point, changes to the plan will have to be made by the PC. As we discussed last night, it is possible that staff will be able to recommend some changes. But as Mike explained it is critical that we move forward with the adoption of a plan that will be found in conformance with the regional plan.

Eric M. Young, PhD, Planner

Washoe County Community Development

1001 E. 9th Street

Reno, Nevada 89520-0027

775-328-3613

Fax: 775-328-6133

eyoung@washoecounty.us


From: beth@honebein.com [mailto:beth@honebein.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Young, Eric
Subject: RE: schedule for week of may 12

Thanks, Eric. I want Karen Mullen to join us too, so I’ve forwarded this to her. She said last night Thursday or Friday would probably be the only days she would be available. I’ll call or e-mail you Monday. I think another meeting with you, and Jim or Hugh, plus a couple of people from the neighborhood would be a good idea too. What do you think?

Beth Honebein

beth@honebein.com

(775) 849-0371

“Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” Dennis, Monty Python and the Holy Grail


From: Young, Eric [mailto:EYoung@washoecounty.us]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:34 AM
To: beth@honebein.com
Subject: schedule for week of may 12

Beth,

Monday – open in the afternoon

Tuesday – open in the afternoon

Wednesday - open all day

Thursday – open before noon

Friday – open afternoon.

Eric M. Young, PhD, Planner

Washoe County Community Development

1001 E. 9th Street

Reno, Nevada 89520-0027

775-328-3613

Fax: 775-328-6133

eyoung@washoecounty.us

Proposed whosale changes Forest area Plan

Filed under: Uncategorized by bmiland -> bmiland

Forest Area Plan detail

Map of community change

Filed under: Uncategorized by bmiland -> bmiland

Map of community change over time

Steering committee draft

Filed under: mt rose community, steering committe by bethhonebein ->

Forest Area Plan

Community Steering Committee (DRAFT 5/23/08.)

Michael Boyce – Matera Ridge neighbor, Community Representative

Dennis Callahan – Galena Gateway neighbor, Community Representative

Beth Honebein – Community Representative – Callahan Ranch, Communications

Karen Mullen – Galena Gateway neighbor, Community Representative, Government Relations, Wildlife/Open Space

Alan Stevenson - Community Representative – Galena Forest, Legal

Kent Sweet – Neighborhood Business Owner

Additional Experts:

Kathy Bowling – Research, Callahan Communications

Tom Carpenter – Hydrogeology, Water issues

Jeff Church – Matera Ridge neighbor, Research

Wayne Lowman – BLM land use planning

Brad Lyles – Matera Ridge neighbor, Hydrogeology, Water issues

Leslie Lyles – Landscaping, Drought tolerant design

Jim McGlothlin - BLM land use planning

Bob Parker - Fire

Julie Etra – Erosion Control Specialist

Communications/Community Relations

Jeff Church – Website

Ruth Hagan

Beth Honebein

Ginny McLaughlin

Judy Rounds?

Marian Samuelson

Technology

Oliver Chen

Jeff Church – Website

Beth Honebein – Google Group

My thoughts on the Forest Area Plan update

Filed under: Planning Commission Meetings by bmiland -> bmiland

Tuesday night May 20th I attended a meeting of the planning commission along with at least a couple hundred of my neighbors to speak out about the proposed “wholesale update of the Forest Area Plan”. The first I had heard of this plan was May 16, just before the weekend and knew nothing of the details. After learning more about it at a neighborhood meeting, I became angry not only about the plan but about the tactics of the staff planners. It seems they ignored input by the CAB, chose not to show up at meetings where they were scheduled to speak, making a 90 page document available for review just days before a commission meeting for approval. In general they ignored and deliberately bypassed state mandates stating such plans must be community driven. It appeared to me that this plan was instead developer driven. (more…)

Mt. Rose Scenic Corridor not for Sale

Filed under: Uncategorized by yoda -> yoda

This site is powered by WordPress & TriFive-Webdesigns Copyright © 2007 Scenic Mt. Rose Corridor