THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

TRPA allocations quashing residential building


image_pdfimage_print

By Anne Knowles

Now that the economy is picking up, local jurisdictions and the building industry are counting on the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to revamp its controversial system for doling out residential building allocations.

Architects and builders says business is beginning to rebound, and local officials say demand for the allocations needed to build on vacant lots is back after languishing for the last four or five years.

At the same time, though, TRPA has cut its maximum allotment of allocations by more than half as part of the many changes made in the Regional Plan update last year.

The contentious topic will get another airing next week when the agency’s Governing Board takes it up again at a public meeting in the Chateau at Incline Village.

One of El Dorado County's biggest building seasons was just after the 2007 Angora Fire. Photo/LTN file

One of El Dorado County’s biggest building seasons was just after the 2007 Angora Fire. Photo/LTN file

“That May 22 meeting is pretty important,” said Pat Davison, executive director of the Contractors Association of Tahoe Truckee in Truckee.

Davison and others hope to convince the TRPA that tests used to determine how many allocations the five counties and city of South Lake Tahoe receive is unfair and is keeping the area from getting the economic shot in the arm it needs.

“The frustration is the economy is showing signs of recovery,” Davison told Lake Tahoe News. “The building industry was hit so hard and not to see the full release (of allocations) was surprising and disappointing.”

Last month the board approved the 2013 allocations; the first set since the RPU became official in December. Previously, the TRPA gave out a maximum of 300 annual allocations to the jurisdictions, but this year that was cut by 55 percent to 130.

And the TRPA ended up releasing only 86 of those 130 based on the same system of environmental benchmarks it has used in the past.

“We didn’t get any allocations on our EIP (environmental improvement program) compliance or transit level of service. It’s very difficult to increase that number,” Mimi Moss, community development director for Douglas County, told Lake Tahoe News. “The TRPA needs to revisit the allocation process. We’ve all done so much over the year and we’re still penalized.”

The jurisdictions are scored by the TRPA based on four criteria: permit issuance and compliance, best management practices retrofit, EIP implementation and increase in transit level of service.

Douglas County, for example, has a base allocation of five and can receive as many as nine by earning up to four additional enhancement allocations by scoring well on the four criteria. For 2013, the county received six allocations, garnering just one extra for permit compliance.

Douglas isn’t alone, though. All the jurisdictions exceeded their base allocations through permit compliance, but only Washoe County earned allocations in another category, BMP retrofit. None received bonuses for EIP or local transit improvements.

Douglas County’s Moss would like to see the counties and city assessed based on other measurements.

“If the jurisdiction is meeting the total daily maximum load, then we should be getting credit of lake clarity,” she said.

Davison, the builders’ representative, is hoping to convince the board to release all of the allocations and even to consider an advance on next year’s pool.

Jeff Cowen, TRPA public information officer, said under the RPU, “We are still on an annual cycle of allocation distribution and do not have any rules that we could distribute in larger amounts or periods.”

The performance review system is likely to be re-evaluated next year.

The TRPA, which is dealing with a number of other matters including a lawsuit filed over the RPU, has a long to-do list.

“I know how the bureaucracy works,” said Roger Trout, development services division director with El Dorado County. “I’m all behind getting the process updated to be, I wouldn’t call it more fair, but maybe more streamlined.”

Trout said El Dorado County probably has as many people waiting for allocations as the county received, which is 32. But he, like others, said demand is starting to tick up.

“The economy is changing so I’m sure that list will get longer,” he said.

Douglas County in the early 2000s issued an average of 500 building permits a year countywide, said Moss. That dropped dramatically during the recession, and was down to two or three allocation applications at the lake for the last few years. Last year, 40 permits were issued for the entire county, she said, and 48 have been given out this year, with another six weeks left in its fiscal year.

Moss said there are 57 people on the waiting list for lake allocations.

South Lake Tahoe, which received 13 allocations out of a possible 21, did not respond to a request for a comment. But at last week’s City Council meeting, Nancy Kerry, city manager, said there was a waiting list of about 100 for the allocations.

“A couple of years ago you could not give them away,” she said.

Demand won’t be letting up if architects are a harbinger. Dan Munsterman, with the Munsterman Group LLC in Tahoe Vista, said work is definitely returning, mostly on higher-end, lakefront properties, but it is starting to trickle down, too.

“The jobs I’m getting are tear downs. I don’t have one single job on a vacant lot,” said Munsterman. “I’m busier than I’ve been in eight to 10 years.”

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (16)
  1. John says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Let the gentrification begin…

  2. reza says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Nice for Tahoe Vista that they have tear downs. Haven’t seen one on South Shore. Hmmmm. Wonder why?

  3. Jenny says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    I like the quote at the end of this article:
    “The jobs I’m getting are tear downs. I don’t have one single job on a vacant lot,” said Munsterman. “I’m busier than I’ve been in eight to 10 years.”

  4. A.B. says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    There is little reason to build on a vacant lot with so many dilapidated properties in the basin.

    I had a neighbor who sold their old home a couple of years back, the new buyer tore it down leaving one wall standing for tax purposes, and paid far less in fees than they would have had they built on vacant land.

    The government actually takes the financial hit on these teardowns. But any time you skate past the tax collector it’s a win.

  5. Dogula says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Not much gentrification of South Lake’s old, run-down houses. South Shore has long been considered the red-headed step child of Lake Tahoe. It’s a real, working-class town, with all the wrinkles and warts that entails. It doesn’t have the cache that the rest of the lake’s towns do, so it’ll take awhile for us to get prettied up. Our 4-lane highway is a mixed blessing. Makes it WAY easier to get around than, say, Tahoe City on a busy weekend, but at the same time, it gives us an urban feel that the big money from the cities doesn’t find aesthetically pleasing in terms of building a weekend retreat house.
    South Shore is where real, working people live. And most of us are not yet feeling the recovery, in spite of what the officials might tell us.

  6. orale says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Agree with you Jenny! TRPA allocations are not quashing residential building – the headline is misleading.

  7. Paul says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    And the Sierra Club is suing TRPA because it claims the new Regional plan unleashes a torrent of new development in the Basin. Sometimes you just can’t win around here…

  8. tahoe Pizza Eater says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    I believe that I was the first to say this, weeks ago. The contractors have to shift their work to the run down homes in our neighborhoods. Instead of moving to build new homes they need to refurbish the old run down houses. There are plenty of these kinds of homes that they can buy cheep, repair, then sell at a profit. A shift towards this kind of work would be great for the community too. Contractors stop your whining. Adapt to this situation.

  9. dryclean says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Amen Tahoe Pizza Eater. Could not agree more.

    Maybe the TRPA could incentivize remodelers to tear down two houses adjacent to each other and rebuild one nice one.

  10. Dogula says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    Dryclean, that’s a nice idea, but somewhat cost prohibitive. Have you ever tried to change one lot into two, or two lots into one? Layer upon layer of government beaurocracy. In addition, the complications that those building departments throw at you, even for remodels, are ridiculously expensive to navigate for any but the wealthiest and best connected. New building codes, with the structural engineering required, the indoor sprinkler systems, and all the rest of it, have pretty much demolished your hopes for anything resembling ‘affordable’ housing.

  11. 'HangUpsFromWayBack' says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    THINK IS LOOKS WORSE,ODD, WITH ALL THE MAIN HOUSES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD THAT STYLE AND THEN SOME MEGA SECOND HOME WANTS A MAC-MASIONS.
    The remodels should fit the area.

  12. Steven says - Posted: May 15, 2013

    “The jobs I’m getting are tear downs. I don’t have one single job on a vacant lot,” said Munsterman. “I’m busier than I’ve been in eight to 10 years.”

    That’s the way it should be. Stop building on open land, we don’t need Tahoe to look like Sacramento. Save open space.

  13. County Gal says - Posted: May 16, 2013

    Who do you think lives in those “run down” houses and who do you think own them. Should we take the South Shore and turn all the residential homes into new $250k-350k homes tell me where will our worker bees live.
    The way I see it, we need to replace those homes with multi family units inorder to keep our worker bees and make a profit for the land owner.
    Catch 22?

  14. John A says - Posted: May 16, 2013

    This allocation cutback is as unjustified as it is a “sacrificial lamb”. TRPA is playing God with ethics overstepping its charter to protect Tahoe by stretching the build-out. This is a smoke screen for this agency to accomodated huge recreation development for a select few out of town corporations. It only serves enhance the urban blight and unemployent this region already suffers from. Thumbs down TRPA – you’ve knocked us back 55% to the stone age of moratoriums and lotttery systems.
    Good Job TRPA – You’ve once again sold local communities out to big business.

  15. dryclean says - Posted: May 16, 2013

    County Gal, multi family units are fine as long as they still tear down the garbage and build new, safer, prettier homes or units.

  16. Atomic says - Posted: May 17, 2013

    No more multi family units in amongst our city neighborhoods!

    I just drove around town today and we need to stop our whining and complaining about our town. We have TONS of cool little summer homes in areas like Al Tahoe, Bijou and Ski Run area. Street after street has these neat little cabins….then WHAM, the Blight of four plexes, duplexes, multi family junk, some nice but many not….then back to the nice little homes, owned by people who still care.

    The multi family junk has caused these original summer neighborhoods to have junky spaces.

    Yeah we need cheap housing, just a damn shame it has compromised our nice in town neighborhoods, but they are still mostly good quality areas.

    I’m not buying any in-town lots to build on because I can’t get an allocation in my lifetime, so I’m buying fixers……