TRPA building allocation policy confounds board
By Kathryn Reed
INCLINE VILLAGE – It was obvious during a lengthy and at times heated discussion Wednesday that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board does not fully understand the building allocation policy. And they are the policymakers.
After last month’s meeting where staff enlightened the board about how 86 of a possible 130 allocations would be doled out, there was a bit of an outcry by local jurisdictions and contractors.
What was introduced at the May 22 meeting was a plan to distribute the remaining 44 allocations. Seventy-five percent will be given to South Lake Tahoe and the four counties at the lake (Douglas, Placer, Washoe and El Dorado) where building takes place. (Carson is also in the basin, but it’s all forest.) The remaining 25 percent, or 11 allocations, will be used for sensitive lot retirement and development right transfer programs that TRPA staff will be in charge of.
While this scenario was created in a month, associate planner Patrick Dobbs and other staff members told the board there isn’t enough time to alter plans for 2014 because there are more pressing matters to be dealt with. He didn’t say what those are.
At one point board member Steve Robinson said, “It’s complex. We are asking the public to jump through hoops when we don’t understand it. If we have to throw it out and start over, then do so.”
Member Nancy McDermid said, “This decreases the ability of local jurisdictions and their residents to have options.”
Elizabeth Carmel, who was at her first board meeting, thought the 25 percent figure could be increased because those allocations would better serve the environment.
The point of having allocations is to limit development in the basin. Before the updated Regional Plan was passed last year, 300 residences could be built each year. Executive Director Joanne Marchetta said it was in the 1980s that all 300 were last used.
In 1987, when the previous Regional Plan was adopted, 6,000 allocations were created for the more than 17,000 vacant parcels in the basin. The 2012 plan has 2,600 allocations available for about 4,700 vacant parcels. This comes to the 130 a year. (Government agencies own more parcels today than in 1987.)
Part of the allocation decision process is that jurisdictions get a set number based on a formula that deals with how well they met TRPA mandated environment improvement goals.
Board member Hal Cole has a huge issue with this criterion because he believes it punishes residents who want to build a house on land they own, but are not able to get an allocation based on things that are beyond their control. Instead of a city being punished for not meeting its environmental goals, individuals are hurt based on the jurisdiction not receiving its full allotment of allocations. Cole keeps saying this is unfair and wants staff to change it.
While economics are now supposed to be a factor in decision-making by the board, the lone contractor who spoke Wednesday believes the board is thwarting economic growth. John Adamski said his math shows the reduction of allocations from 300 to 130 year will impact the Lake Tahoe Basin by millions of dollars.
Jennifer Merchant with Placer County told the board that local jurisdictions have been talking since the April meeting, with the consensus being that all potential allocations should be distributed. She also enlightened the board that staff already takes 10 percent of the allotted allocations for the same pool where the newly created 25 percent of the leftovers will go for sensitive lot transfers. Staff never mentioned this in their spiel.
Merchant said a sensitive lot has not been retired in exchange for an allocation since 2005, so she questions the need to build up that supply.
McDermid said if the 11 allocations are not used this year, then a new system needs to be created.
By the end, the board said the way staff wants to give out the remaining 44 is fine. The Advisory Planning Commission will look at what is proposed and then the Governing Board will vote on it in June.
The board said flexibility needs to be incorporated into future policies
After the meeting, TRPA spokesman Jeff Cowen told Lake Tahoe News, “Too much development too fast slams the system and does not allow enough time for mitigation strategies like stormwater and transportation improvements to catch up and then keep up.”
But it was said by board members that development on vacant lots is good for the environment because it means people are putting in erosion control measures instead of allowing all of those dirt lots to send sediment into Lake Tahoe. It’s fine sediment that TRPA and others say is the biggest contributor to the decline of Lake Tahoe’s clarity.
“Board member Hal Cole has a huge issue with this criterion because he believes it punishes residents who want to build a house on land they own for nothing that did.”
Can someone please explain that sentence to me?
Sorry about that. See if this makes more sense:
Board member Hal Cole has a huge issue with this criterion because he believes it punishes residents who want to build a house on land they own, but are not able to get an allocation based on things that are beyond their control. Instead of a city being punished for not meeting its environmental goals, individuals are hurt based on the jurisdiction not receiving its full allotment of allocations. Cole keeps saying this is unfair and wants staff to change it.
LTN staff
“But it was said by board members that development on vacant lots is good for the environment because it means people are putting in erosion control measures instead of allowing all of those dirt lots to send sediment into Lake Tahoe. It’s fine sediment that TRPA and others say is the biggest contributor to the decline of Lake Tahoe’s clarity”
Let’s just develop the entire basin, cover every piece of dirt there is, that ought to clear up the lake in no time. Idiots, how did the lake stay clear in the past when there was very limited development, like 100 years ago.
To follow off of Steven’s last comment – most undeveloped lots in Tahoe are not just dirt lots contributing significant amounts of fine sediments to the Lake. They are typically vegetated,which means there is less soil compaction then a dirt driveway. Therefore, these lots are actually helping to protect water quality.
Instead of arguing that all the undeveloped lots should be developed and have proper BMPs on them how about the TRPA staff and Board make sure that all the existing built lots and commercial parcels have their BMPs installed and maintained. There are a lot more of these lots in the Basin then undeveloped. I can see where we can get the biggest impact to improve water quality, can they?
And the contractor comment about inhibiting economic development by not given out the full amount allocations; what a bunch of bull! Due to the limited number of undeveloped lots available to build (i.e. build-out limits) most local contractors make the majority of their business on remodels and add-on residential projects. Plenty of residential projects today, just tear down a small cabin and build a larger modern house in it’s place. Of course, all of this is going to depend on the economy and what potential property owners/sellers have to spend on these projects, but it seems to be getting better every year now since the market crashed back in 2007/2008.
Maybe the jurisdictions could start enforcing residential BMP certifications to increase their scores towards getting more allocations.
Interesting …… all this squabbling over a tiny sector of development that represents insignificant pollution in comparison to other development TRPA has on it’s plate. This residential development cutback is as unnecessary as it is completely unfounded. Yesterday’s meeting again depicted a board completely misguided by TRPA staff purposely complicating a system to make it impossible for jurisdictions to receive allocations. And again, all this fussing over a tiny sector of development that is a drop in the bucket compared to other pollution factors ? Residential development with strict BMP enforcement does not create any significant pollution in comparison to many other major contributors. TRPA has purposely lumped residential development into combined urban run-off with commercial, highways, and casinos etc. It becomes obvious this agency and board have taken sides with their friends who lobbied them to shut down residential development permanently. These people who want home construction shut down had over 30 years to buy these remaining vacant lots to declare them open space. This is an agency and board that seemingly is cold and indifferent to the economic hardship it creates for their own local communities.
I have conservatively estimated this cutback will realize Tahoe communities over $100 million dollars in lost revenue and income for each year on. So when some of you wave to your neighbors please smile because you just caused them to lose their jobs. Once again residential development becomes the “scapegoat” for all development around the lake.
Regarding LTN admin says; What Mr Cole was referring to is that TRPA has recently either strictly enforced or complicated the points system for jurisdictions to receive their full allotment of allocations. While TRPA Staff claims the system hasn’t been changed recently – it has become obvious that jurisdictions find it impossible to receive the new maximum allocations allowed with unmet points tied to environmental projects they simply have no ties to.
So, simply put – either the points system has been changed – or it needs to be revamped because it’s totally unfair. Further complicating the issue is what percentage of transferable allocations are allowed with each year’s allotment. My apology to Mr. Cole if my representation of this issue isn’t entirely correct.
My own opinion is that this just further enhances the difficulty in receiving the new dramatically reduced number of allocations we are in desperate need of with a slowly recovering demand.
The issue of remodeling is in itself a very valid arena: the U.S. Green Building Council (LEED) estimates that renovation will be the strongest area for at least the next 15 years . . . if TRPA is serious about near-shore issues, then overcoming Tahoe’s “my-Uncle-Fred-built-my-house-over-112-weekends-in-the-50’s” syndrome will need to be paramount [poor materials on-the-cheap, questionable construction, etc., etc.] as that affects everything from energy efficiency to what’s expired into the air & water. . .
Still existing are houses in Al Tahoe (and of course elsewhere) that were never designed or built to be lived in at all in the winter, yet remain rentals for those in the service industry who have to have multiple roommates to ‘make it’ here. . .
These points can be, in my opinion, the makings of a robust & renewed economy, the basis of which is now to be a bargaining chip in the ‘pullback’ of both states rescinding their respective legislations.
The idea that the construction industry needs to keep building McMansions to survive is ludicrous, satisfying only those who usually have other primary residences (and few family members) – the real need is for healthful (for their residents & the Lake, too) buildings, neighborhoods, and communities.
That the TRPA, their Board, and their staff is misguided merely reflects the fact that they really have little to no experience with socioeconomic issues (above & beyond their sacred thresholds), having been pulled ‘kicking & screaming’ to the table over the years whenever it’s brought up. . .
Now, they’re experts ?
“Including the economy” in the state pull-back will involve way more than including it on their Board agenda, as we are now seeing. . .’pulling the wool over someone’s eyes’ takes on a whole new meaning now.