TRPA Phase 2 Housing Code Amendments Legal Challenge FAQs
What are the Phase 2 Housing Code Amendments?
They are policy changes intended to incentivize the development of affordable and workforce housing in the Tahoe Basin. The amendments allow for 65’-tall buildings, unlimited density, unlimited lot coverage, and no parking with a parking management plan for deed-restricted affordable, moderate, or achievable housing in the Basin’s Town Centers, including Kings Beach, Incline Village, Glenbrook, etc. They also allow for unlimited density, increased lot coverage, and reduced parking in multi-family zones outside Town Centers for the same types of projects.
Why is MAP challenging amendments to incentivize workforce housing through deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing zoning and code changes?
Here at MAP, we are ardent supporters of workforce housing and have helped bring over 700 units to Truckee Tahoe. We know that there is a serious housing shortage and that we must think creatively about addressing this critical need. These market-based incentives are not creative and will not reduce the development cost enough to make affordable, moderate or achievable housing pencil out. Future projects will still need some sort of subsidy, and subsidies come with strings attached.
Additionally, Tahoe is a unique and sensitive environment. More height, density, lot coverage, and less parking may make sense on a case-by-case basis if the appropriate analysis is completed and mitigation is in place, but these amendments need to include an adequate environmental analysis and mitigation. Unfortunately, the TRPA did not complete the legally required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Is MAP anti-workforce or affordable housing?
MAP has been advocating for workforce development since 1987. The workforce housing crisis is not new to Truckee Tahoe. In most, if not all, of MAP’s advocacy efforts, we have negotiated the development of workforce housing and helped foster the creation of units and funding mechanisms to bring meaningful, deed-restricted workforce units to life. See MAP’s housing advocacy and efforts in the region here.
Why is a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) important for the Phase 2 Housing Code Amendments?
The 2012 Regional Plan Update (RPU) focused on the redevelopment and revitalization of Town Centers. Intense land use changes, such as unlimited density, 100% coverage, and 65 ft tall building height maximums, should have been analyzed or studied. The last EIS did not analyze these new land uses. Unlimited density is an urban planning concept that does not fit Tahoe’s environment or infrastructure and needs to be analyzed. Tahoe’s conditions have changed since the last EIS was conducted in 2012, which also warrants new analysis for decision-makers and the public. Wildfire threats, evacuation analysis, water quality data with microplastics, and the need to analyze heights for maintaining scenic thresholds are apparent and substantiated on the record.
What are the environmental impacts and threats MAP is most concerned about with the new Phase 2 Housing Code Amendments?
Without current analysis of Tahoe’s existing conditions, we have many concerns regarding Tahoe’s changing climate, increased wildfire threats, lacking evacuation analysis, and environmental degradation from over-tourism. The market solutions created by consultants and the Tahoe Living Working Group are a short-sighted view that we can build our way out of our workforce housing crisis quickly, especially with construction costs at an all time high.
While TRPA will say these amendments are only for 946 bonus units, for future deed-restricted affordable, moderate, or achievable, they set a negative precedent to allow such intense uses in Tahoe to move forward with no new environmental analysis, consideration of alternatives, or new mitigation plans to address urban planning concepts in Tahoe.
What analysis and mitigation would MAP suggest to strengthen new codes and zoning for workforce housing in the basin?
Complete the required environmental analysis and develop appropriate mitigation measures. Relying on data from 2011 that is over a decade old to make decisions that will have lasting impacts on Tahoe’s future is not only legally inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but it’s also irresponsible planning that destroys community trust.
Conduct a site-specific analysis to identify opportunity sites within Town Centers that can accommodate more height, density, and lot coverage without degrading viewsheds, natural resources, and public safety. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t make sense.
Tahoe needs workforce and affordable housing, so if not these amendments, then what?
MAP and other community members proposed a variety of strategies to improve these amendments as well as other creative solutions to help address the housing crisis. These recommendations include:
Unlock existing housing units. The fastest way to get underhoused individuals into homes is to use the existing housing inventory. Mountain communities similar to Tahoe have created programs to incentivize homeowners to rent to the local workforce while reducing vacation homes and short-term rentals. We must develop policies that prioritize workers and families, not visitors.
Establish a parking minimum of 1 space per unit. Folks need reliable transportation, and the Basin doesn’t have it yet. Let’s not solve one problem by creating another.
Create an income cap for the Achievable Housing definition to remove the loophole of the future housing stock going to outside basin workers or becoming ski-leases/luxury condo development.
Include a requirement for mixed-use projects that the deed-restricted housing portion of the project must be built in phase 1. Commercial or Tourist Accommodation Units (TAUs) must be in phase 2. The community benefit needs to be provided upfront.
What was the TRPA affordable housing requirement before these code changes, and what is it now?
Prior to the approval of the Phase 2 Housing Code Amendments, TRPA required that 50% of the remaining 946 bonus units go to affordable housing projects (housing that is 80% of the average median income and below). Under the amendments, up to 25% of the available units can be developed as “achievable,” a category with a local workforce requirement but no income cap. The remaining 75% may be developed as affordable OR moderate housing. In effect, this means that no new affordable housing could be built under these amendments. This change does not satisfy Tahoe’s housing needs and is a violation of the TRPA’s own affordable housing code.
What type of housing should be prioritized in the Tahoe Basin?
According to a study conducted by the Mountain Housing Council, 55% of the housing need in Eastern Placer County is for affordable housing (80% of average median income and less). So, given that over half of the need is for affordable housing, we believe that this housing type should be the highest priority. Unfortunately, the Phase 2 Housing Amendments removed the requirement that any of the remaining bonus units be used for affordable housing. We believe that these amendments will bring achievable housing before affordable or moderate, as those are the projects that will provide the most economic benefit to developers. That said, there is no income cap on achievable housing, so who will these developments serve? Likely high-wage local workers, not the service folks who need it.
Why is MAP concerned about the achievable housing definition and criteria?
We recognize there is a need for missing middle housing or housing for higher income earners who do not qualify for affordable housing, yet without an income cap for this new definition of subsidized housing, it is likely to be taken advantage of, especially without yearly audits.
Shortfalls in enforcement provisions create situations where market-rate housing serves as additional ski leases or housing for those who can afford higher rents, which is not Tahoe’s workforce.
While having one household member work 30 hours per week in the basin is the correct criteria, there also needs to be an income limit that is appropriate for the local jurisdiction that ties to the professions in Tahoe that need to benefit from this type of subsidized housing; otherwise, it is a loophole, and there are always bad actors.
What was the public process to approve the Phase 2 Housing Amendments?
The public process for the Phase 2 Housing Amendments was a mad dash. In the spring/summer of 2023, the TRPA began presenting the proposed amendments to various advisory groups around Lake Tahoe. In September, they held a public webinar about the amendments, and the approval process began. The amendments went to the first Regional Planning Committee meeting in September, followed by an Advisory Planning Commission meeting and a second Regional Planning Committee meeting in November, with final approval by the Governing Board in December.
How many people were in opposition to the Phase 2 Housing Amendments? On the Governing Board? Why?
Approximately 60 people spoke at the final Governing Board hearing, and thousands of pages of public comments were submitted ahead of time. The vast majority of the public was opposed to the amendments. Additionally, over 400 people submitted MAP’s open letter opposing the amendments. Despite this, only one member of the Governing Board (Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar) voted against the amendments. The folks who provided comments in opposition were concerned about the lack of environmental analysis and unmitigated impacts related to traffic, wildfire evacuation, viewsheds, community character, water quality, air quality, and more.
What is the Regional Plan Update (RPU) from 2012?
In 1969, the United States Congress ratified the Bi-State Compact, which created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Under the Compact, the TRPA has the authority to set environmental standards called thresholds. The Regional Plan provides guidelines for development in the Tahoe Basin that balance the natural and built environment and regulations to achieve and maintain the thresholds.
In 2012, the Regional Plan Update (RPU) was implemented as a basinwide planning process to create new codes, policies, actions, and goals to guide development in the Tahoe Basin. The update focused on setting environmental thresholds, redevelopment of Town Centers, and creating Area Plans within local jurisdictions.
What is an Environmental Impact Statement?
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a report mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the potential impact of actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” This government-mandated document is intended to analyze and disclose environmental threats and effects that changes in the natural environment could cause due to development, land use, zoning, codes, and regulations. This requirement under NEPA does not prohibit harm to the environment but requires advanced identification and disclosure of harm for decision-makers and community leaders to be informed when making land use or policy decisions. Examples include building, clean-up, and infrastructure projects. But the NEPA mandate is broader. Development projects that constitute significant federal action, as defined by law, including those that use federal land, federal tax dollars, or are under federal agency jurisdiction, are required to assess the impact of a proposed project on the physical, cultural, and human environments affected by the proposed project.
What is an Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC)?
The Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) is utilized to consider and analyze whether a project or proposal by TRPA or developer has a potential environmental impact on natural resources, scenic resources, and public safety, along with ensuring consistency with the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances or Rules of Procedure. The IEC for the Phase 2 Housing Amendments was released in the fall of 2023, primarily determining the amendments would have a less than significant impact, except for scenic resources, which was listed as a potentially significant impact with the proposal of height increases in both Town Centers and Multi-Family zones, but the TRPA IEC deferred actual analysis.