TRPA & Lake Tahoe

Table of Contents

TRPA Has Lost Its Way

Reno Gazette Journal Article: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2024/08/14/trpa-employs-fire-aim-ready-approach-to-managing-tahoe-say-critics/74797855007/

• TRPA spent more on transportation and development than lake clarity.
• Pushing large developments and increasing population density.
• When the fire comes, how will we all get out? Remember Paradise and Lahaina?

History

From 2014-2016 thirty-five community members worked for two years to craft the Tahoe Basin Area Plan (TBAP) approved by Placer County and TRPA in 2016, with a full Environmental Impact Report. (EIR). The TBAP dictates the density, setbacks, height, etc. to guide growth and planning policy for our Town Centers (Tahoe City and Kings Beach) and all other communities on the North and West shore. (Land coverage is dictated by the TRPA). The list of members is attached and represents a good cross section of the Northshore community,

During covid the County met with seven members of the Resort Association and developers etc. who requested the County change the TBAP to allow developer incentives such as 72 feet of height and 500 feet of length. (one and a half football fields), to facilitate the 39 North project in Kings Beach. Note: The land was purchased for $10,000,000 by Placer County and is in escrow with the third developer for $3,000,000. The County just extended escrow for two more years.

39 North project proposed for Kings Beach

Wally is the engineer on this project for the past eight years thru the previous owners, and Cindy is on the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the chair of the TRPA Governing Board.

Placer County held one public meeting regarding the 72 feet of height and football lengths for buildings and got zero support. People said hell no. Subsequently, the County took out the height and the length and changed the TBAP for other amendments such as allowing by right 15 and fewer multiple family projects without public review, allowing building on 3,000 sf lots, reducing, and eliminating setbacks, reducing, and eliminating parking standards etc. Height is allowed at 56 feet. These amendments were passed October 31, 2023, with Cindy voting as a BOS for these amendments. The County amendments have not received TRPA approval yet.

Three conservation organizations are suing TRPA and Placer County (Note: The lawsuit has since been settled, click here for more info.), saying that a new EIR is needed based on wildfire concerns, traffic VMT under new thresholds as well as changes since 2016 including growth outside the basin and the pending Palisades expansion. The County used a checklist saying No Significant affect tiering off the 2016 EIR. (article Sierra Sun and Writ of Mandate)

Meanwhile, during covid TRPA was also crafting new code changes for Affordable/“Achievable” Housing. The Tahoe Working Living Group who informed these changes is heavily weighted with builders, housing contractors, Prosperity Center, resort associations, real estate, etc. with only one conservation member Gavin Fieger of the League to Save Lake Tahoe (not familiar with the northshore and always outvoted) Again, not one member of the original TBAP Plan Team was contacted or is a member of this group.

Cindy sits on the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) that this group reports to and as a board member ultimately approves the codes. Vince Hoenigman, appointed to the Governing Board by Governor Newsom is a bulldog in his quest to push the amendments and convince the public of their merits. He has not been around long enough to see the abuses and loopholes of poorly written codes.

The TRPA code changes passed December 13th, 2023, with only one NO vote from the Secretary of the State of NEVADA (Francisco Aguilar) “concerned about the impact to the community on the northshore as a result of the huge changes”. Note the irony- State of Nevada.

(The 39 North project needs the code amendments for the achievable housing portion of the project). The project proposes 74 achievable units on the parcel of land opposite Brockway Springs entrance.

TRPA Code Changes

Town Centers (Incline, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach)

• Unlimited Density from 25 units per acre
• Height to 65 feet- five stories from 56 feet
• No parking minimum- developer to decide.
• Up to 100% land coverage with requirement to have BMP’s maintained by a public entity.
• Deed restricted achievable housing can be on top floor of a mixed use. i.e. commercial on the ground floor.

Transition Areas (½ mile in both directions from Town Center boundaries)

• Unlimited Density from 15 units per acre
• Heights to 53 feet
• Up to 70% land coverage from 30 percent
• .75/ parking spaces per unit for parking

*Deferred to Phase Three as of 12/13/2023

Multiple Family Zoned Areas Thousands of parcels from Incline Village to Tahoma

• Refer to TRPA GIS
• Unlimited Density
• Up to 70% land coverage from 30%
• Height to 42 feet from 36 feet
• Parking .75 spaces per unit

*Land coverage to remain at 30% unless a public maintained storm water system) as of 12/13/2023.

Issues

• TRPA code changes are for “achievable housing” which is not to be confused with “affordable housing.” TRPA’s housing consultant Cascadia says for the “achievable projects” to offer a 12% rate of return to the developer they must be five stories, unlimited density, 100 percent land coverage, and .75 parking spaces per unit. Evaluated was a 12,000-sf lot fitting 24 units.
• The rent for a 640-sf apt would be $3,000 to $3,300 but with modular construction which is cracking in Truckee due to the cold, could be reduced to $2,430/month but probably still would need subsidies. (Source Karen Fink Housing presentation to Incline Village Advisory Board May 2023 and info on TRPA website). There are no rent controls as rents are left up to the developer.
• The requirement to rent these achievable units is only having to work 30 hours a week under someone with a business license. But not remotely (No loopholes there). J1’s and H2B seasonal workers can only afford $200/week for housing so live with 10 other people.
• The “one size fits all” code changes are the same basin wide and do not address changes to land use patterns, or account for the differences between the north and south shores of Lake Tahoe or each of our community’s unique character. The codes were written specifically for developers, to be able to build “achievable housing,” which nears market rate prices. The South shore is VERY different than the Northshore.
• “Unlimited density” is non sensical, it does not exist in any other resort community I could find in my research except for Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 16 other metropolitan cities in California with an 80% affordable “low and very low” housing requirements, a 15-minute headway transit system, or light rail and buildings no farther than a ¼ mile distance from the transit, with supporting dense population with millions of people and no snow.
• The environmental analysis for the TRPA code changes is a checklist stating NO IMPACT for every resource topic and is the fourth major plan revision to the TRPA codes since 2012, all changes based on a checklist tiering off the 2012 EIS.

• This is 6731 North Lake, a 20-unit duplex project on six acres being developed under current rules. i.e. 30% coverage and 15 unit per acre density. The developer did a bait and switch by clear cutting when the site plan shown to the public had saved specimen trees up to 72 inches. He changed his workforce housing requirement to achievable which is not affordable to the work force. TRPA rules do not protect the community, or the environment. Can you imagine unlimited density and excessive land coverage for every zoned multiple project on the northshore?
• There is no cumulative impacts analysis of projects or changes from outside influences specifically the 25,000,000 million annual visitors (Source NDT) that impact the basin carrying capacity during peak seasons resulting in traffic gridlock and a lake that is polluted with plastic, lead, snails, and other invasive species. (Source Fodors- Why not visit Lake Tahoe, and What has changed since 2012- Pamela Tsigdinos December 2023 article).
• The code amendments do not concentrate development in Town Centers but promote sprawl with the inclusion of multiple family zoned properties outside of Town Centers, and Transition Areas ½ mile in each direction from the Town Center boundaries. On the Northshore this includes a large portion of Incline Village, Kings Beach, the Kings Beach Grid, two miles of Tahoe Vista, Carnelian Bay Gateway, Lake Forest, Dollar Hill, parcels around the Tahoe City Golf Course, River Road, Sunnyside, Homewood, Tahoma residential, and Tahoma. (Source: GIS.TRPA.org/housing/Placer County TBAP).
• Expansion outside the Town Center boundaries is in direct conflict with policies in the TBAP EIR, and 2021 TRPA Regional Plan goals and policies, 2012 EIS and land use policies that craft the documents.

Goal 3.3 of the TRPA Goals and Policies document

• “DEVELOPMENT IS PREFERRED IN AND DIRECTED TOWARD CENTERS, AS IDENTIFIED ON THE REGIONAL LAND USE MAP.” DEVELOPMENT IN TOWN CENTERS SHOULD BE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.
• Seth Gollub, an affordable housing builder from Seattle says even with the new TRPA codes that these “achievable projects” will need subsidies. In Seattle his projects have no snow, are seven stories, parking is on the street, and they have major tax incentives not allowed in California saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
• TRPA board member Vince Hoenigman says no subsidies are needed; TRPA’s own reports say they do. Housing developers say they do. So, if they are needed, then the codes as proposed won’t work.

Othello Seattle affordable 150- 275 sf units on a 12,000 sf parcel with 85 units

• A priority should be incentivizing existing blight and boarded up structures like the Garni (Tahoe Inn), Norfolk Woods Inn, and adjacent three properties, Falcon etc. to redevelop as they already have the infrastructure and parking.

Garni (Tahoe Inn Brockway)

(TRPA says its up to the developer to repurpose a building, but the County can force either tear downs or redevelopment like they do in Portugal of long time boarded up buildings).

• TRPA staff ran a campaign called Height for Housing which lacked transparency and was disingenuous. Hundreds of Flash vote comments prompted by TRPA, and comments from community and the five environmental groups representing thousands of people have raised consistent messages regarding their concerns with these proposed amendments. Consistent themes are issues with lack of Cumulative Environmental analysis since 2012, addressing the real Need in Workforce Housing (Affordable vs Achievable), Increased Density impacts, Decreased Parking requirements vs reality of the need for an auto, (96% of basin residents have cars. 66% have one or two cars. (Source: TRPA). Height changing character of Communities, and Fire Evacuation. The public preferred smaller multiple family projects and concentration of development into Town Centers.

TRPA was deceptive. They showed 36-foot-tall triplex building exhibits and changed the height based on the audience they showed them to. They never showed the public a 65-foot-tall building. TRPA did not represent the results of the flash vote study to the board as stated above.

TRPA says they want to encourage the smaller under 10-unit multiple family projects and duplex and triplex projects, but their codes do not specify this.

• If the Short-Term Rentals were reduced, that could open approx. 10% of the housing for long-term families. (Source Harvard business studies). Eastern Placer County at the lake has four times the amount of STR’s than any other jurisdiction at 3,900 permits. (Used is about 3,300). Truckee has 1,550 permits. The city of South Lake has 800. Placer Co allows as many cars as fit in the driveway instead of policies to limit cars regardless of driveway size or number of bedrooms.

Summary

It is frustrating to attend meetings, point out loopholes or inconsistencies, ask the same unanswered questions, and request clarifying language of the code changes in three-minute speeches when staff and the board have unlimited time to banter back and forth. The public does not believe these short speeches are effective. It is obvious that the boards have their minds made up and are annoyed, the public is even there to prolong their day. Trust of the agencies is at an all-time low.

TRPA/Placer County does nothing to mitigate or fix the existing problems. Placer County let Palisades expand the first time in 2000 with no affordable housing requirement. They have 3,000 employees and 38 on site beds. They have a vacant parcel of land to build 300 units but are holding it hostage for a potential water park and 950 more units. So, they buy hotels and cram employees in them which eliminate paying TOT taxes which go to new affordable projects.

TRPA states these amendments are for 940 bonus unit’s basins wide SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL and that half of them are committed to projects already.

The big deal is that a Phase Three Code package is in the works. Phase Three intends to add more development rights to the basin carrying capacity. Who knows if these code amendments will start applying to market rate developments as was the wish of some of the group. This is piecemeal planning and an EIS is needed to evaluate the recently passed codes and phase three concurrently. Unlimited density proposals are reckless.

TRPA has done nothing to regulate the continued approvals for luxury condos and Mega Mansions. The state of Nevada has no policies for affordable housing, so they do not propose any, TRPA needs to grow some hair and have an equitable policy between the two states.

TRPA needs to propose rules to preserve community character or projects such as these will ruin beautiful Meeks Bay with continued removal of the iconic cabins that are there.

TRPA Land Use Goal LU-3.4 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE OF CENTERS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED WITH NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.

Meeks Bay proposed 14,000 sf residence with two STR permits

There is so much more but trying to boil 41 pages down is not easy. Please read and if you have questions, I am glad to answer. My paper has 34 suggestions. Perhaps the most important would be to select a few candidate sites. Do a go slow approach and see the outcomes and progress towards achieving the thresholds. Pass policies that incentivize removal of boarded up structures. Encourage ADU’s, duplex, triplex and small multiple family projects, and understand your target market of who we are providing housing for.

Require realistic parking. People have cars and we have snow.

Southwood parking in Incline Village - Year-round overflow

Winter conditions in Kings Beach - Need a place to put the snow

Leah Kaufman

Land Use Planner-45 Years