Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
8. Recommendation to introduce and conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending the Washoe County Code at Chapter 110 (Development Code) to update Articles 220 Tahoe Area and 220.1 Tahoe Area Design Standards. These updates include adding a section to establish standards for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing in multifamily areas. These updates also include amending various sections to: amend references to the prior Washoe County master plan and update organizational names; clarify application requirements for amendments to Articles 220 and 220.1; update references to the TRPA's code of ordinances related to land coverage; update maximum height and minimum residential density in town centers; add standards for height, parking, density and coverage for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing in town centers; update standards for bicycle storage; provide for reductions in parking minimums for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing, and add standards for the submittal and review of the required parking analysis; modify minimum lot width and setbacks for residential and mixed use developments in preferred affordable areas; modify requirements for encroachment into front yard setbacks on corner and sloped lots; modify standards for accessory dwelling units; modify standards for temporary uses; require development within avalanche hazard areas to record a hold harmless agreement; modify explanation of use tables to clarify the meaning of "A" and add administrative review permit; modify permitting requirements for multiple family dwellings in Crystal Bay Tourist, Incline Village Tourist, and Incline Village Commercial; add Schools-Kindergarten through Secondary Schools as a special use in Incline Village Tourist; add multiple family dwellings and employee housing as allowed uses and update special policies in the Ponderosa Ranch regulatory zone; allow single family dwellings by right in the Incline Village 5, Crystal Bay, and East Shore regulatory zones, and require a hold harmless agreement for development in the Incline Village 5 and Crystal Bay regulatory zones; and update special policies for Crystal Bay; and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. And if supported, set a public hearing for the second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance for August 26, 2025. Community Services. (Commission District 1.) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION
The TAP “High-Density Walkable Town Center” concept fails the Tahoe reality test
Don’t approve five-story buildings up to 65-feet covering 100 percent of lots with no parking. TRPA mistakenly thinks people can live in the basin without vehicles.
This is highly unlikely:
Tahoe is rural and mountainous. Residents require vehicles.
• We travel outside of the basin to see medical specialists.
• Our kids compete in sports against teams often many hours distant.
• We visit relatives in Elko or Sacramento, attend county meetings, access government services, or perform jury duty in Reno.
• We shop at Costco plus big box or specialty stores.
• We drive over Mt. Rose to the airport.
The new high-density housing is ‘sold’ as more affordable yet those who work in construction, landscaping, or home trades need vehicles to carry their tools.
Snow drops by the foot. The county struggles to clear roads. Overlooked for snow removal are paths (where they exist). The likelihood of walking or riding a bike for errands is unrealistic.
Another public safety consideration: how will non-vehicle-owning residents be evacuated? Will they walk/bike out?
New residents of any new high-density building (without parking) WILL have vehicles. They are likely to add VMTs and congestion to the basin. Their vehicles will be parked somewhere though most winter street parking is illegal due to snow plowing as are businesses’ parking lots.
The TAP should start with limiting STRs. A family of four vacationing in Tahoe can choose from thousands of STRs. But a family of four seeking a long-term rental struggles for one.
The county could remedy the housing imbalance by reversing an amendment it put in place when it declared STRs “a residential use,” violating previous local residential zoning and CC&Rs.
STRs restrictions would immediately improve housing availability. South Lake's Measure T showed 10-15% of STRs were converted to long-term rentals. We could open more housing in a matter of months not years–without moving dirt, providing tax incentives or public subsidies, or requiring costly changes to infrastructure. San Francisco, Airbnb’s corporate HQ, allows permanent residents–not absentee owners--to be STR hosts. Why not Washoe-Tahoe?
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote against item 8. The proposed Washoe County Tahoe Area Plan development code changes are fundamentally flawed. Above all, these TAP code changes will adversely impact today’s most critical need: ensuring safe and timely wildfire evacuation in a region defined by constrained geography, limited infrastructure and the mass influx of visitors to the area. In short, these code proposals allowing more density and increased population in a well-known double wildfire hazard zone will negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of our communities, workers and visitors.
When TRPA first introduced these code changes they were met with widespread public concerns and disapproval and one lawsuit. They are not only unwanted by a majority of Tahoe residents—these code proposals present an untenable burden that will saddle Washoe County taxpayers with new and significant costs and liabilities.
Why? Increasing height and density doesn’t simply mean taller buildings: it means greater demands on our already stretched public resources—fire, law enforcement, schools, water, and roads. How can we be sure our under-resourced county staff can enforce developer compliance and deed restrictions? It’s questionable whether these proposed buildings can withstand growing wildfire danger. Will building and property insurance even be available?
If the Commissioners and TRPA are genuinely concerned about housing for local workers, the first place to start is amending the short-term rental ordinance, which currently favors tourism housing over homes for local employees. There's no lack of housing in Washoe Tahoe—there's a misallocation of existing housing. It's easier today for tourists to find housing in Tahoe than it is for workers. That's just wrong.
If Washoe County can offer a better set of housing solutions that truly support our community and protect Tahoe's fragile environment, it is well within your power to opt out. Please send staff to push back on the TRPA to allow Washoe County to protect the public safety of its communities. Let’s choose thoughtful, community-driven planning that reflects the unique character and limitations of Washoe Tahoe rather than bend to external pressure.
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote against the adoption of the proposed Washoe County Tahoe Area Plan Amendment, (the “proposed Amendment”), item 8 on the July 15, 2025 Agenda, and send Staff back to the to push TRPA to modify TRPA’s requirements and allow Washoe County to protect the public safety of its residents in Incline Village and Crystal Bay and along Highway 431.
TRPA is demanding without authority that Washoe County accept TRPA’s draft for Amendments which comply with California’s Senate Bills SB 9 and SB 10 that mandate all counties in California change rules to allow more affordable housing to be built in California. TRPA is telling the County that the County cannot adopt provisions that are tailored to meet the unique needs and special circumstances of IVCB and Washoe County. Under TRPA Code section 12.6.3 TRPA must allow equal or superior measures to achieve threshold results and TRPA DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE WASHOE COUNTY’S SHOWING OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCAL NEEDS.
The proposed Amendment will greatly increase the total population of Incline Village Crystal Bay (“IVCB”) residents, workers and tourists who will need to be evacuated in a disaster. There has been no analysis or planning by Washoe County or TRPA to address the increase in evacuation population from this incredible increase in housing.
B. TRPA should be made to justify refusing to allow Washoe County to consider the unique needs of Incline Village residents. Effective collaboration among jurisdictions does not require diminishing the specific needs of smaller communities like Incline Village, with its geographic isolation and smaller infrastructure capacity. TRPA’s dependency on California funding and diverse economic interests, including many California laws not passed by the Nevada legislature, is resulting in an underrepresentation of the interests of IVCB in TRPA’s regional decision-making processes, where California jurisdictions hold significant influence due to population size and funding contributions to TRPA.
Diane Becker, Incline Village resident
The TAP “High-Density Walkable Town Center” concept fails the Tahoe reality test
Don’t approve five-story buildings up to 65-feet covering 100 percent of lots with no parking. TRPA mistakenly thinks people can live in the basin without vehicles.
This is highly unlikely:
Tahoe is rural and mountainous. Residents require vehicles.
• We travel outside of the basin to see medical specialists.
• Our kids compete in sports against teams often many hours distant.
• We visit relatives in Elko or Sacramento, attend county meetings, access government services, or perform jury duty in Reno.
• We shop at Costco plus big box or specialty stores.
• We drive over Mt. Rose to the airport.
The new high-density housing is ‘sold’ as more affordable yet those who work in construction, landscaping, or home trades need vehicles to carry their tools.
Snow drops by the foot. The county struggles to clear roads. Overlooked for snow removal are paths (where they exist). The likelihood of walking or riding a bike for errands is unrealistic.
Another public safety consideration: how will non-vehicle-owning residents be evacuated? Will they walk/bike out?
New residents of any new high-density building (without parking) WILL have vehicles. They are likely to add VMTs and congestion to the basin. Their vehicles will be parked somewhere though most winter street parking is illegal due to snow plowing as are businesses’ parking lots.
The TAP should start with limiting STRs. A family of four vacationing in Tahoe can choose from thousands of STRs. But a family of four seeking a long-term rental struggles for one.
The county could remedy the housing imbalance by reversing an amendment it put in place when it declared STRs “a residential use,” violating previous local residential zoning and CC&Rs.
STRs restrictions would immediately improve housing availability. South Lake's Measure T showed 10-15% of STRs were converted to long-term rentals. We could open more housing in a matter of months not years–without moving dirt, providing tax incentives or public subsidies, or requiring costly changes to infrastructure. San Francisco, Airbnb’s corporate HQ, allows permanent residents–not absentee owners--to be STR hosts. Why not Washoe-Tahoe?
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote against item 8. The proposed Washoe County Tahoe Area Plan development code changes are fundamentally flawed. Above all, these TAP code changes will adversely impact today’s most critical need: ensuring safe and timely wildfire evacuation in a region defined by constrained geography, limited infrastructure and the mass influx of visitors to the area. In short, these code proposals allowing more density and increased population in a well-known double wildfire hazard zone will negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of our communities, workers and visitors.
When TRPA first introduced these code changes they were met with widespread public concerns and disapproval and one lawsuit. They are not only unwanted by a majority of Tahoe residents—these code proposals present an untenable burden that will saddle Washoe County taxpayers with new and significant costs and liabilities.
Why? Increasing height and density doesn’t simply mean taller buildings: it means greater demands on our already stretched public resources—fire, law enforcement, schools, water, and roads. How can we be sure our under-resourced county staff can enforce developer compliance and deed restrictions? It’s questionable whether these proposed buildings can withstand growing wildfire danger. Will building and property insurance even be available?
If the Commissioners and TRPA are genuinely concerned about housing for local workers, the first place to start is amending the short-term rental ordinance, which currently favors tourism housing over homes for local employees. There's no lack of housing in Washoe Tahoe—there's a misallocation of existing housing. It's easier today for tourists to find housing in Tahoe than it is for workers. That's just wrong.
If Washoe County can offer a better set of housing solutions that truly support our community and protect Tahoe's fragile environment, it is well within your power to opt out. Please send staff to push back on the TRPA to allow Washoe County to protect the public safety of its communities. Let’s choose thoughtful, community-driven planning that reflects the unique character and limitations of Washoe Tahoe rather than bend to external pressure.
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote against the adoption of the proposed Washoe County Tahoe Area Plan Amendment, (the “proposed Amendment”), item 8 on the July 15, 2025 Agenda, and send Staff back to the to push TRPA to modify TRPA’s requirements and allow Washoe County to protect the public safety of its residents in Incline Village and Crystal Bay and along Highway 431.
TRPA is demanding without authority that Washoe County accept TRPA’s draft for Amendments which comply with California’s Senate Bills SB 9 and SB 10 that mandate all counties in California change rules to allow more affordable housing to be built in California. TRPA is telling the County that the County cannot adopt provisions that are tailored to meet the unique needs and special circumstances of IVCB and Washoe County. Under TRPA Code section 12.6.3 TRPA must allow equal or superior measures to achieve threshold results and TRPA DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE WASHOE COUNTY’S SHOWING OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCAL NEEDS.
The proposed Amendment will greatly increase the total population of Incline Village Crystal Bay (“IVCB”) residents, workers and tourists who will need to be evacuated in a disaster. There has been no analysis or planning by Washoe County or TRPA to address the increase in evacuation population from this incredible increase in housing.
B. TRPA should be made to justify refusing to allow Washoe County to consider the unique needs of Incline Village residents. Effective collaboration among jurisdictions does not require diminishing the specific needs of smaller communities like Incline Village, with its geographic isolation and smaller infrastructure capacity. TRPA’s dependency on California funding and diverse economic interests, including many California laws not passed by the Nevada legislature, is resulting in an underrepresentation of the interests of IVCB in TRPA’s regional decision-making processes, where California jurisdictions hold significant influence due to population size and funding contributions to TRPA.
Diane Becker, Incline Village resident