Sierra Colina Village
P. O. Box 129
Lake Tahoe, NV 89448

Planning for...
LEED* Green Certification
Energy Star Rating
Pedestrian & Bike Trails
All Fire Sprinklered Homes
Preserving Open Space
Moderate Income Homes

Yes, the 208 Plan allows subdivision of the Sierra Colina parcel. Several comments about the Sierra Colina Draft EIS were received that expressed concerns related to subdivision of “raw land” which has not been previously developed. No where in the TRPA Compact, Goals & Policies, Code of Ordinances or 208 Plan is the term “raw land” used.

Pursuant to Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, TRPA is responsible for developing and implementing water quality measures specified under the Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin (208 Plan). Several commenters  to the Sierra Colina Draft EIS cited portions of the 208 Plan to assert that its terms prohibit any new subdivision in the Lake Tahoe Basin.   Although the 208 Plan generally prohibits new subdivisions, it delineates seven (7) categories of new divisions of land that are in compliance with the 208 Plan and the TRPA Code of Ordinances (208 Plan at page 5.8-5). The provision applicable to the proposed project reads:

“…no new division of land shall be permitted within the Region which would create new development potential inconsistent with the Goals and Policies (Goals and Policies, p. II-9).  This policy does not consider the following divisions of land to be inconsistent when the result does not increase the development potential permitted by TRPA's Regional Plan: division of land through condominiums, community apartments, or stock cooperatives within an existing urban area in conjunction with a project involving transfer of development rights or otherwise in accordance with the Regional Plan, provided the project is approved prior to the approval of the division.” (See Master Response B at page 2-243 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS).

TRPA's intent is to avoid the impacts of new lot and block subdivisions while using mechanisms such as resubdivision to lessen the potential impacts of existing approved but unbuilt subdivisions. ( 208 Plan, Volume I at page 114). See DEIS Section 4.8, Land Use, Table 4.8-2, Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis at pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-19).

TRPA Goals and Policies, Chapter 2, Land Use similarly prohibits new divisions of land unless the same specific criteria are met. The proposed project is consistent with Goal 2, Policy 7-G which allows the same exception for a new residential subdivision as that quoted above from the  208 Plan:

“Division of land through condominiums, community apartments, or stock cooperatives within an existing urban area in conjunction with the approval of a project associated with an approved transfer of development, or otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this Plan. In order to subdivide a project under this provision, the project itself shall be approved prior to the approval of the division and in no case shall the division result in a greater amount, a different location, or a greater rate of development than otherwise permitted in this Plan (TRPA 2006).”

With regard to the “existing urban area” requirement, the Sierra Colina project area borders commercial and public service development to the south and commercial and residential development to the north. The project area is adjacent to U.S. Highway 50. TRPA Definitions (Chapter 2, TRPA Code of Ordinances) include a definition for urban areas which are defined as “those areas designated as residential, tourist, or commercial/public service by the plan area statements.” (TRPA 1994) The proposed project site is, therefore, an urban area as defined by TRPA. (See Master Response B at page 2-244 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS).

A subdivision of the project would only occur “in conjunction with the approval of a project associated with an approved transfer of development” (hence, the name, “two-step subdivision”). The proposed project will be presented to the TRPA Board of Governors for consideration and action before a subdivision of the parcel may be acted on by TRPA.

The requirements for transfer of existing development to a new multi-family project under the 208 Plan are identical to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances regarding transfer of development. The 208 Plan does not require that existing development rights or existing units of use to be transferred originate on “sensitive” land. Similarly, the TRPA Code of Ordinances requires that the project transfer 39 existing development rights and/or ERUS to the project site for the proposed 41 market units (two existing development rights are already resident on the parcel) but does not require that the existing development which is transferred to a project parcel per the TRPA Code originate on sensitive land. Nevertheless, the applicant proposes to transfer 37 ERUs from sensitive land, and one ERU and one development right from high capability land for use on high capability land on the project site (See DEIS Section 2.4.1).  The applicant’s proposed transfer of existing development to the parcel is in compliance with both the 208 Plan and Chapter 34 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (see DEIS at pages 2-9 through 2-10 and pages 2-48 through 2-50; see also Chapter 4.8, Land Use). See also Master Response B at page 2-245 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS.

The 208 Plan and the TRPA Code of Ordinances also limit approved subdivisions to those which do not create “new development potential”. The 208 Plan does not consider the enumerated “divisions of land to be inconsistent when the result does not increase the development potential permitted by TRPA’s Regional Plan,” (208 Plan at page 5.8-5).  TRPA Code section 41.2 defines “new development potential” as the regional potential for additional residential, commercial, tourist accommodation, public service, recreation and related growth, as limited by the number of existing development rights currently remaining, and the Bailey coefficients for land coverage (See also Master Response B at page 2-245 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS).

The proposed Sierra Colina project does not create “new development potential”. Of the 50 proposed units in the proposed project, nine are moderate-income homes which would receive bonus units and residential building allocations from TRPA under its Multi-Residential Incentive Program if the project is approved and the proposed PAS amendment to allow the parcel to receive bonus units for the moderate homes is also approved. Of the remaining 41 existing development rights or ERUs which are needed for the project, one residential development right resides on the parcel in accordance with the terms of the 1987 Regional Plan, one residential development right was transferred to the property in 1993, and the remaining 39 required for the project would need to be transferred to the parcel through an approved transfer of development under Chapter 34 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. 37 ERUs are currently proposed to be transferred to the parcel from existing development of a sensitive (SEZ) site that has been restored to SEZ, and two units (1 ERU and 1 development right) are proposed to be transferred from locations of high capability land.

According to Table 4.8-2 (Land Use Policy and Consistency Analysis) of the Sierra Colina DEIS at pages 4.8-14 through 4.8-15, the 208 Plan also states that TRPA’s subdivision policies should achieve the following goals, each of which is satisfied by the Sierra Colina project:

• 1.       “maintain the existing boundaries of the urban areas within the Region”: the project parcel is inside the urban boundary; is urban infill development and is located in an “urban” area as defined in Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.2;
• 2.       “result in the infill of property within land capability districts 4-7 with urban land uses”: the project parcel is an urban infill parcel; its proposed coverage is 98% located on high capability land; and is located in an “urban” area (as defined in Code Section 2.2), surrounded by urban, residential and commercial land uses”;
• 3.       be “consistent with TRPA’s plan areas statements”: Since 1992, the project parcel’s designation as Special Area #1 of PAS 073 has provided for multiple family and single family dwellings as allowable and permissible uses. Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 proposes multiple family dwellings;
• 4.       “not allow new subdivisions in undeveloped areas”: Under TRPA’s Code, the project parcel is “urban” land (as defined in Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.2), surrounded by existing residential, commercial and governmental development and uses in a developed area; and
• 5.       “not establish new street networks”: proposed project Alternatives 1 and 4 will have one, single 20 foot wide loop access roadway LPF connecting Sierra Colina to the existing Lake Village Drive in two locations; Alternative 3 will have one, single 20 foot wide access roadway LPF connecting Sierra Colina to the existing Lake Village Drive in one location; and project Alternative 2 will have one, 20 foot wide driveway connecting Sierra Colina to the existing Lake Village Drive in one location.

The approval of this project would not, therefore, create “new development potential”, (satisfying TRPA Code section 41.2); would be approved in conjunction with an approved transfer of development (satisfying TRPA Code Section 41.3.G); would be a new development (satisfying TRPA Code Section 41.3.G); and would not result in a greater amount of development than permitted in the Regional Plan (satisfying TRPA Code Section 41.3.G). The remaining criteria for two-step subdivisions in the TRPA Code of Ordinances is consistency with Chapter 43 of the Code, which is discussed in Master Response C at pages 2-245 through 2-247 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS). The proposed project is in full compliance with each of these TRPA subdivision requirements (See also Master Response B at page 2-245 of the Sierra Colina Final EIS).

*LEED is a registered trademark of the U.S. Green Building Council