Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, June 21, 2022 (part 4 of 7)

The City augmented Table 4-46 to prioritize the contributing factors. (See pages 4-104 through 4-107)
Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must add or modify programs based on a complete analysis, including metrics and milestones as appropriate. In addition, while many of the programs in the element include metrics, some programs should be revised to explicitly AFFH by targeting appropriate areas. For example, Programs 2-1 (Pursue State and Federal Funds), 2-2 (Partnerships for Workforce Housing) and 2-6 (Assist Nonprofit Housing Developers) could target areas or neighborhoods of higher need and higher resource areas. Other examples include Programs 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loans), 3-5 (Preservation of Housing Conditions) and 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation). Finally, Program 5-1 (Fair Housing) should be revised with metrics.

The City added targeted affirmatively furthering fair housing language to the Programs 2-1 (Pursue State and Federal Funds), 2-2 (Partnerships for Workforce Housing), 2-6 (Assist Nonprofit Housing Developers), 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loans), 3-5 (Preservation of Housing Conditions), 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation), 4-3 (Special Needs Housing), and 5-1 (Fair Housing). The City also revised Program 5-1 (Fair Housing) to include metrics.

1. The City added clarifying text to the Sites Inventory noting that for parcels with a higher number of units than the identified developable acreage (given realistic capacity assumptions) have active development applications under review by the City at those identified unit counts.

2. The City rounds the number of units allowed per site down to the nearest whole number unless the parcel would allow zero units if 603
Page | 4
HCD Comment Response
In addition, the sites analysis states that the number of units allowed per site are rounded down to the nearest whole number while the calculation in the sites inventory rounds up to the nearest whole number. The element must be revised to address these discrepancies related to unit capacity.

Lastly, the element must clarify whether the identified developable acreage accounts for 30 percent lot coverage while calculating unit capacity of sites zoned for moderate income.
rounded down. Those sites are rounded up to allow one unit per parcel. City staff have examined these “rounded up” sites and confirmed they are still developable with one unit given each site’s conditions. The City has added language under the “Realistic Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Sites” heading to clarify the rounding methodology.

3. The moderate-income sites in the Sites Inventory either have 30 percent or 70 percent lot coverage requirements, depending on their land use designation and zoning. The lot coverage requirement for each site is factored into developable acreage assumptions when calculating unit capacity on each site. The City has added text under the “Realistic Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Sites” heading to include this information and clarify that the identified developable acreage accounts for lot coverage allowances. (See pages 4-122 through 4-125)
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides some description of realistic capacity assumptions, it must describe the realistic capacity assumptions for units allocated toward meeting the moderate income RHNA. The element must clarify whether the realistic capacity analysis for sites outside of the community plans apply to all income groups.

While the element includes Table 4-48 with representative projects, many of the projects listed have lower buildout than what is assumed in the realistic capacity analysis, especially the projects that included units for lower-income households. The element must add additional projects to support realistic capacity assumptions or revise assumptions to meet recent development examples.

In addition, the element includes sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses and indicates some residential projects have been built in these zones, but is should also evaluate the likelihood for residential uses. To demonstrate the likelihood for residential development in nonresidential zones, the element could describe any performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential and any factors increasing the potential for residential development such as incentives for residential use, and residential development trends in the same nonresidential zoning districts.

1. The City revised text and added new language under the “Realistic Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Sites” heading to clarify that realistic capacity assumptions do not change by the site’s income level but rather by each site’s land use designation and zoning, which determine the lot coverage requirements. Lot coverage requirements are therefore used to determine realistic capacity assumptions. The City also revised Table 4-48 (now numbered Table 4-49) to include new rows that summarize the average density of lower-income sites and all sites on representative projects to demonstrate that development trends have a higher average density than the assumed development realistic capacity. (See pages 4-122 through 4-125)

2. The City added language to under the “Realistic Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Sites” heading to clarify that the TCAP and TVAP areas allow 100 percent residential
development and described the incentives in place to encourage residential development in those two areas. The City also added a column in Table 4-49 to indicate which representative projects developed in zones that allow 100 percent non-residential development. (See pages 4-123 through 4-125)
604
Page | 5
HCD Comment Response
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element lists one site as underutilized but should also describe the use sufficiently to facilitate analysis and demonstrate redevelopment potential in the planning period based on factors such as indicators of use turnover (e.g., expiring lease, interest in development, age and condition of structure, allowable versus existing floor area ratio(FAR)).

The City had incorrectly listed a site that is vacant as underutilized, and that has now been corrected in the text under the “Analysis of Above ModerateIncome Housing Opportunities on Vacant or Underutilized Land” heading and in the Sites Inventory. (See page 4-128) The City also revised the Sites Inventory to clarify that the underutilized site in the lower-income category has a parking lot on part of the site. This information was already included in the Housing Element. (See page 4-129)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s.

However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, prescribing junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) have to be a conversion of a bedroom, JADU deed restrictions, and limiting the number of bedrooms, among others. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover.

As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with State law.

The City has adopted an ADU ordinance that is in compliance with State law and is able to issue ministerial permits for ADUs. However, in order for a property owner to construct an ADU they must also obtain a TRPA permit, and the TRPA regulations are more restrictive than State law allows.

The City does not have the regulatory jurisdiction to require that TRPA update their ADU regulations to comply with State law because TRPA is the regulatory agency for ADUs in the Tahoe Region. TRPA is not held to State law requirements, which is described in Section 4.4.1.1, Background and Regional Authority – The Bi-State Compact. Therefore, TRPA may have ADU regulations that conflict with State regulations, and the City does not solely dictate changes to TRPA’s regulations. The City revised Program 2-8 (Mitigation of TRPA Regulations) to clarify how they will work with TRPA to update ADU regulations to comply with State law.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The housing element must demonstrate the permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In addition, emergency shelters must only be subject to the same development and management standards applicable to residential or commercial development within the same zone except for those standards prescribed by statute. The element must list out the findings and standards for emergency shelters and describe whether it complies with the parking requirements in AB 139. The element must analyze these requirements for constraints and add a program as appropriate.

The City added clarifying text under Section 4.4.2.7, Emergency Shelter, clarifying the definition for emergency shelters under TRPA regulations.

The City also added information clarifying that neither TRPA nor local City law have adopted objective design and operational standards for emergency shelters. Program 2-8 (Mitigation of TRPA Regulations) has been augmented to require the City to work with TRPA to include the term and definition for “emergency shelter” in the City’s Zoning Code. The City also revised Program 2-8 (Mitigation of TRPA Regulations) to clarify how they will work with TRPA to update emergency shelter regulations to comply with State law.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) 605
Page | 6
HCD Comment Response
Fees and Exactions: The element concluded that the total fees required for development are high, it must identify programs and actions to help mitigate the identified constraint. In addition, the element must describe the approval process and requirements for fee waivers for nonprofit developers.

1. The Housing Element determined that the City’s fees for development are not high. However, the Housing Element
concluded that the total fees for development are high due to TRPA’s application fees. The City revised Program 2-8 (Mitigation of TRPA Regulations) to clarify how they will work with TRPA to reduce barriers to housing development.

2. The Housing Element explains that the City is allowed to waive TRPA and City planning fees for nonprofit developers to develop affordable housing. There are no requirements for fee waivers for non-profit housing developers other than that they propose affordable housing, which is disclosed in Sections 4.4.1.14, Fees and Other Exactions, and 4.4.2.17, City Fees and Other Exactions (See pages 4-165 through 4-190). The City added information in Program 1-7 to clarify that the City will waive fees for affordable housing. (See page HE-6)
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the processing and permit procedures for both the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the City, it should clarify whether approval of an “S” permit is required from both the City and TRPA. In addition, it should clarify whether the process of approval is separate and whether there are different requirements.

The element must also describe whether there is other process or permit procedures that are required by the City in addition to the TRPA requirements. The element should describe the process to approve allowed and special uses. In addition, the element should describe the approval process for multifamily developments of more than four units including the review findings and procedures.

Lastly, the element should estimate the time for typical single- and multifamily developments, including all steps listed in the element (neighbor notifications, public hearings, and issuing of permits). It should also clarify whether the estimated timing is for both single family and multifamily developments.

1. The City has further clarified processing and permit procedures for both TRPA and the City under Section 4.3.1.1, South Lake Tahoe’s Setting, Zoning, and Development Procedures, to address this comment. (See pages 4-109 through 4-114)

2. The City has added text under Section 4.4.1.15, Project Processing and Permit Procedures, to add information about typical turnaround time between granting planning entitlements and the receipt of a building permit application. This section was also expanded to include information about the typical project timing for larger multi-family projects. (See page 4-167)
Design Review and Site Plans: The element must describe and analyze the design review and site plan guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as The City added text under Section 4.3.1.1, South Lake Tahoe’s Setting, Zoning, and Development Procedures, and Section (See pages 4-110 through 4-111) and Section 4.4.1.9, Design Standards (See pages 4-159 606
Page | 7
HCD Comment Response
potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate. In addition, the element must clarify whether by-right uses require TRPA approval and design review.
through 4-161) to describe and analyze the design review and site plan guidelines and process for constraints on housing supply and affordability.

In the same sections, the City added text to clarify that TRPA does not have by-right uses and include the required findings for design review.

On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify curbing requirements and circulation improvements and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

The City added information about on- and off-sites requirements for housing in Section 4.4.2.13, On-/Off-Site Improvements. (See page 4-184) Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. For example, the analysis must describe any zoning code definitions of family and any spacing or concentration requirements for housing for persons with disabilities.

The City added text in Section 4.4.2.19, Development, Maintenance, and Improvement of Housing for Persons with Disabilities, to define family and clarify that neither the City nor TRPA have adopted standards to regulate housing for persons with disabilities. The City added Program 4-5 (Definition of Family) to update the City’s definition of family to be compliant with State law. The City also augmented Program 4-3 (Special Needs Housing) to support services for persons with disabilities. The City also clarified in Program 4-1 (Reasonable Accommodation and Land Coverage how they will work with TRPA to update reasonable accommodation procedures to comply with State law.(See pages 4-191 and HE-24 through HE-27)

4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

In Section 4.4.1.7, Density, the City added text analyzing the typical development densities in South Lake Tahoe. In Section 4.4.1.15, Project Processing and Permit Procedures, the City added to information about typical turnaround time between granting planning entitlements and the receipt of a building permit application. (See pages 4-158 and 4-167) 607
Page | 8
HCD Comment Response
B. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs should have specific commitment and discrete timelines for implementation. Program that must be revised include:

The City added specific commitments and discrete timelines for all programs listed here to comply with HCD comments while acknowledging the City’s limitations to require changes given TRPA’s jurisdiction. Refer to pages HE-3 through HE-30.

Program 1-1 (Mixed-Use Development) should be revised with a discrete timeline for creating additional incentives.
608
Page | 9
HCD Comment Response
Program 1-2 (Development of Substandard/Underutilized Sites) should be revised with annual updates.

Program 1-4 (Using Local Incentives) should be revised to include annual outreach to developers and provide timing of when basin wide regulations will be amended.

Program 1-6 (Clarify How Residential-Care Facilities are Allowed Under State Law) should revise the timing of implementation to occur earlier in the planning period.

Program 1-7 (Small Lot Consolidation) should include proactive outreach to developers as well as describe which incentives will be approved.

Program 2-3 (Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation for Housing) should commit to implement strategies with discrete timing based on the results from the interjurisdictional meetings and coordination.

Program 2-4 (Analysis of Federal and State Lands) should be revised to include timing and outreach and coordination with federal and state agencies.

Program 2-5 should explicitly commit to make appropriate adjustment to implement provisions consistent with State Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code, § 65915.) as noted on page 4-167.

Program 2-7 (Homebuyer Assistance Program Administration Partnering) should take steps beyond “initiate” and commit to establish a program to provide homebuyer assistance.

Program 2-8 (Mitigate of TRPA Regulations) should include discrete timing (e.g., by 2024) to complete amendments instead of “the goal of achieving some of them every year”.

Program 2-12 (Inter-Agency Housing Program Coordination): The Program should include proactive outreach to developers once sites are identified.

Program 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration Partnering) must clarify the specific timing of implementation after the program is established and consider higher numerical targets.
609
Page | 10
HCD Comment Response
Program 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program) must provide a specific implementation date of when the program will be established.

Program 4-1 (Reasonable Accommodation and Land Coverage) should include timing earlier in the planning period as it is a carryover program from the last housing element.

Program 4-2 (Family Housing) should include proactive outreach with discrete timing (e.g., annually).

Program 4-3 (Employee Housing Act Compliance) must be revised to move up the timing of the program as it is a carryover program from the last housing element cycle.

Program 4-4 (Special Needs Housing) should include proactive outreach with developers and service providers to identify and pursue development opportunities with discrete timing (e.g., annually).

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.

Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

The City determined that additional revisions to sites were not needed to address all comments in this letter.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Findings A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints.

Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise Additional revisions to Constraints-related programs were made as noted earlier in this matrix to address all comments in this letter. 610
Page | 11
HCD Comment Response
or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs as appropriate.

Additional revisions to AFFH-related programs were made as noted earlier in this matrix to address all comments in this letter.

C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element.

In addition, HCD understands the City made the element available to the public concurrent with its submittal to HCD. By not providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission, the City has not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in the course of its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public

1. The City added text to Section 4.1.6, Public Participation, to explain the diligent efforts made to engage all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. (See pages 4-9 through 4-11)

2. In future submittals to HCD, the City will make revised drafts available for public review ahead of submittal to HCD.
611
Page | 12
HCD Comment Response
comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter. 612
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 18, 2022
Hilary Roverud, Director
Development Services Department
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Hilary Roverud:

RE: City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle (2022-2027) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of South Lake Tahoe’s (City) draft housing element received for review on December 23, 2022, along with revisions received on February 7, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on February 4, 2022 with yourself, Zachary Thomas, and consultants Jennifer Gastelum and Amy Sinsheimer. In addition, HCD considered comments from David M. Jinkens pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (June 30, 2022), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. 613
Hilary Roverud, Director

Page 2 ends

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication of yourself, Zachary Thomas, and consultants Jennifer Gastelum and Amy Sinsheimer during the review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Hillary Prasad, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
614
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 February 18, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element includes some data on disparities in access to opportunity, it must provide additional information. Specifically, the element must analyze education access and whether there are policies, practices, or investments to promote access to proficient schools. For example, the element could evaluate educational opportunities relative to other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, disproportionate housing needs).

Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: While the element provides some data on disproportionate need, additional analysis is needed. The element must include a local analysis on how overcrowding in the City is related to the other components of the assessment of fair housing. In addition, the element should include a regional analysis on overcrowding and substandard housing. The element could also tie data from the housing conditions survey, housing issues hotline and SRO and multifamily inspections to the analysis on housing conditions. The element should also include an analysis on how the need of persons experiencing homelessness relates to other affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) findings and analyze the effect on protected groups. Furthermore, the element should include an analysis of displacement relative to the region and describe where existing affordable units are located within the City. The element should also describe whether there is disinvestment in areas identified as lower income and segregated. Lastly, the element should examine displacement relative to disaster and impacts on protected groups (e.g., fire and flooding).

Sites Inventory: While the element includes some discussion of sites by income group and area, it should include additional discussion to better formulate policies and programs. For 615
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 February 18, 2022
example, the element could address the lack of sites identified to accommodate housing for lower-income households in the central area. Also, the element should address the impact of identified sites on existing patterns such as examining sites relative to existing affordable housing developments. The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will promote more inclusive communities such as identifying new opportunities (regardless of regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)) for housing affordable to lower-income households in higher income areas.

Contributing Factors: While table 4-46 lists contributing factors based on the AFFH analysis, it should prioritize the contributing factors.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must add or modify programs based on a complete analysis, including metrics and milestones as appropriate. In addition, while many of the programs in the element include metrics, some programs should be revised to explicitly AFFH by targeting appropriate areas. For example, Programs 2-1 (Pursue State and Federal Funds), 2-2 (Partnerships for Workforce Housing) and 2-6 (Assist Nonprofit Housing Developers) could target areas or neighborhoods of higher need and higher resource areas. Other examples include Programs 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loans), 3-5 (Preservation of Housing Conditions) and 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation). Finally, Program 5-1 (Fair Housing) should be revised with metrics.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Sites Inventory: In Appendix A, parcels 023-231-003, 023-381-001, and 031-290-12 list a higher number of units than the identified developable acreage would allow given the realistic capacity assumptions. The element must revise or clarify the calculation of unit capacity on the identified sites. In addition, the sites analysis states that the number of units allowed per site are rounded down to the nearest whole number while the calculation in the sites inventory rounds up to the nearest whole number. The element must be revised to address these discrepancies related to unit capacity. Lastly, the element must clarify whether the identified developable acreage accounts for 30 percent lot coverage while calculating unit capacity of sites zoned for moderate income.

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides some description of realistic capacity assumptions, it must describe the realistic capacity assumptions for units allocated toward meeting the moderate income RHNA. The element must clarify whether the realistic capacity analysis for sites outside of the community plans apply to all income groups.

While the element includes Table 4-48 with representative projects, many of the projects listed have lower buildout than what is assumed in the realistic capacity analysis, 616
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 February 18, 2022
especially the projects that included units for lower-income households. The element must add additional projects to support realistic capacity assumptions or revise assumptions to meet recent development examples.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element lists one site as underutilized but should also describe the use sufficiently to facilitate analysis and demonstrate redevelopment potential in the planning period based on factors such as indicators of use turnover (e.g., expiring lease, interest in development, age and condition of structure, allowable versus existing floor area ratio(FAR)).

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law.

This includes, but is not limited to, prescribing junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) have to be a conversion of a bedroom, JADU deed restrictions, and limiting the number of bedrooms, among others. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with State law.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
617
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 February 18, 2022
Fees and Exaction: The element concluded that the total fees required for development are high, it must identify programs and actions to help mitigate the identified constraint. In addition, the element must describe the approval process and requirements for fee waivers for nonprofit developers.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the processing and permit procedures for both the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the City, it should clarify whether approval of an “S” permit is required from both the City and TRPA.

In addition, it should clarify whether the process of approval is separate and whether there are different requirements. The element must also describe whether there is other process or permit procedures that are required by the City in addition to the TRPA requirements.

The element should describe the process to approve allowed and special uses. In addition, the element should describe the approval process for multifamily developments of more than four units including the review findings and procedures. Lastly, the element should estimate the time for typical single- and multi-family developments, including all steps listed in the element (neighbor notifications, public hearings, and issuing of permits).

It should also clarify whether the estimated timing is for both single family and multifamily developments.

Design Review and Site Plans: The element must describe and analyze the design review and site plan guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate. In addition, the element must clarify whether by-right uses require TRPA approval and design review.

On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify curbing requirements and circulation improvements and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. For example, the analysis must describe any zoning code definitions of family and any spacing or concentration requirements for housing for persons with disabilities.

4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) 618
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 February 18, 2022
Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

B. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs should have specific commitment and discrete timelines for implementation. Program that must be revised include
• Program 1-1 (Mixed-Use Development) should be revised with a discrete timeline for creating additional incentives.
• Program 1-2 (Development of Substandard/Underutilized Sites) should be revised with annual updates.
• Program 1-4 (Using Local Incentives) should be revised to include annual outreach to developers and provide timing of when basin wide regulations will be amended. • Program 1-6 (Clarify How Residential-Care Facilities are Allowed Under State Law) should revise the timing of implementation to occur earlier in the planning period. • Program 1-7 (Small Lot Consolidation) should include proactive outreach to developers as well as describe which incentives will be approved. • Program 2-3 (Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation for Housing) should commit to implement strategies with discrete timing based on the results from the interjurisdictional meetings and coordination.
• Program 2-4 (Analysis of Federal and State Lands) should be revised to include timing and outreach and coordination with federal and state agencies. • Program 2-5 should explicitly commit to make appropriate adjustment to implement provisions consistent with State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.) as noted on page 4-167.
619
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 February 18, 2022
• Program 2-7 (Homebuyer Assistance Program Administration Partnering) should take steps beyond “initiate” and commit to establish a program to provide homebuyer assistance.
• Program 2-8 (Mitigate of TRPA Regulations) should include discrete timing (e.g., by 2024) to complete amendments instead of “the goal of achieving some of them every year”.
• Program 2-12 (Inter-Agency Housing Program Coordination): The Program should include proactive outreach to developers once sites are identified. • Program 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration Partnering) must clarify the specific timing of implementation after the program is established and consider higher numerical targets.
• Program 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program) must provide a specific implementation date of when the program will be established. • Program 4-1 (Reasonable Accommodation and Land Coverage) should include timing earlier in the planning period as it is a carryover program from the last housing element.
• Program 4-2 (Family Housing) should include proactive outreach with discrete timing (e.g., annually).
• Program 4-3 (Employee Housing Act Compliance) must be revised to move up the timing of the program as it is a carryover program from the last housing element cycle.
• Program 4-4 (Special Needs Housing) should include proactive outreach with developers and service providers to identify and pursue development opportunities with discrete timing (e.g., annually).

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for 620
City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 February 18, 2022
housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Findings A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs as appropriate.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 23, 2022
Hilary Roverud, Director
Development Services Department
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Hilary Roverud:

RE: City of South Lake Tahoe’s 6th Cycle (2022-2027) Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of South Lake Tahoe’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on March 24, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by conversations on May 4 and 11, 2022 with yourself, Zachary Thomas, and consultants Amy Sinsheimer and Lindsey Klein. In addition, HCD considered comments from David M. Jinkens pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, the following revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: To affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), programs should be revised, as follows:
• Program 1-4 (Using Local Incentives) should consider a higher numerical target for the planning period.
622
Hilary Roverud, Director

Page 2 ends

• Program 2-11 (Local Funding and Linkage) should consider a higher numerical target for the planning period and geographic targeting such as focusing funds in areas of higher need and higher opportunity. • Program 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loan) should consider a higher numerical target for the planning period.
• Program 3-2 (Multiple-Family and Single Room Maintenance) should specifically commit to how the City will facilitate rehabilitation and where resources will be focused (e.g., geographic targeting). • Program 3-5 (Preservation of Housing Conditions) should be revised with discrete timing, geographic targeting and higher numerical targets in the planning period.
• Program 3-8 (Multifamily Acquisition and Rehabilitation) should consider targeting areas of higher need (e.g., lower-income, overcrowding, etc.), more discrete timing and higher numerical targets in the planning period. • Program 3-9 (Landlord/Tenant Matching) should consider targeting higher opportunity areas, discrete timing and numerical targets. • Program 5-1 (Fair Housing) should incorporate metrics or numerical outcomes and target geographic areas (e.g., higher opportunity or higher need areas).

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level... …Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Sites Inventory: While the element was revised to address most of the previous finding regarding realistic capacity and lot coverage, it must revise or clarify the calculation of unit capacity. The element must address discrepancies related to unit capacity on the following parcels: 027-072-32, 023-241-42, 031-284-004, 031-132-003, 031-092-004, and 026-104-005 for above moderate-income units and the five pioneer road parcels for the lower-income regional housing need allocation (RHNA).

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element did not address this requirement.

Please see HCD’s prior review.
623
Hilary Roverud, Director

Page 3 ends

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): While the element was revised to add the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) definition for social service organizations, the element must describe whether it complies with the parking requirements in AB 139 or add or modify programs as appropriate.

Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.

3. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs should have specific commitment and discrete timelines for implementation. Programs that must be revised include:
• Program 1-1 (Mixed-Use Development) was revised to review additional incentives annually, but it should include a timeframe for when the incentives will be adopted.
• Program 2-3 (Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation for Housing) was revised to report on potential actions, but it should also include discrete timing to implement the results. In addition, the program should state a timeframe of how often the City will apply to the grant opportunities. • Program 2-8 (Mitigate TRPA Regulations) was revised, but it should include discrete timing with specific timing to implement each step early in the planning period as well as back-up actions if TRPA does not adopt the actions listed in the program.
• Program 3-1 (Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration Partnering) should include a back-up action if the funding for the program is not secured in 2023 (e.g., annually explore and apply for funding) as well as consider higher numerical targets.
• Program 4-2 (Family Housing) was removed from this draft. The element should either demonstrate a lack of need for larger housing types (e.g., 3 to 4 bedrooms) or add back the prior program with proactive outreach and discrete timing (e.g., annually).
624
Hilary Roverud, Director

Page 4 ends

The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the RHNA, including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication of the City during the course of our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Hillary Prasad, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
625

CITY OF
SOUTH

LAKE TAHOE
2022-2027

HOUSING

ELEMENT
Adoption Draft
June 2022
626
627
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
2022-2027 HOUSING ELEMENT
Adoption Draft | June 2022
for the City of South Lake Tahoe
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 112
Folsom, California 95630
t 916.245.7500
628
629
PART I

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
630
631

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 OVERVIEW OF STATE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT CONSISTENCY .....................................................................4-3

4.1.3 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY OVERVIEW..............................................................................4-3

4.1.4 CONSISTENCY WITH SOUTH LAKE TAHOE’S REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.....................4-4

4.1.5 NOTIFICATION TO RETAIL WATER/SEWER PROVIDERS ........................................................................4-4

4.1.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................................4-5

4.1.6.1 Stakeholder Input .........................................................................................................................4-8

4.1.6.2 Community/Stakeholder Input .....................................................................................................4-9

4.1.6.3 Public Draft Housing Element .....................................................................................................4-9

4.1.6.4 Response to Input Received .......................................................................................................4-11

4.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................................................4-13

4.2.1 HOUSING STOCK AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE..................................................................................4-13

4.2.2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS ................................................4-13

4.2.2.1 Local Housing Needs in the Context of the Lake Tahoe Basin..................................................4-13

4.2.2.2 Population ..................................................................................................................................4-16

4.2.2.3 Age Distribution.........................................................................................................................4-18

4.2.2.4 Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................................................4-19

4.2.2.5 Household Characteristics..........................................................................................................4-19

4.2.2.6 Tenure ........................................................................................................................................4-19

4.2.2.7 Household Income .....................................................................................................................4-21

4.2.2.8 Existing and Projected Employment ..........................................................................................4-22

4.2.2.9 School Enrollment......................................................................................................................4-26

4.2.3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS ........................................................................................4-26

4.2.3.1 Housing Inventory/Supply .........................................................................................................4-26

4.2.3.2 Vacancy Rates and Rental Housing ...........................................................................................4-28

4.2.3.3 Overcrowded Housing................................................................................................................4-29

4.2.3.4 Household Size...........................................................................................................................4-30

4.2.4 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .....................................................................................................................4-31

4.2.4.1 Housing Conditions....................................................................................................................4-31

4.2.4.2 2019 Housing Conditions Survey...............................................................................................4-32

4.2.4.3 Housing Affordability ................................................................................................................4-35

4.2.4.4 Housing Cost Burdens................................................................................................................4-36

4.2.4.5 Ability to Pay for Housing .........................................................................................................4-38

4.2.4.6 Housing Costs ............................................................................................................................4-42

4.2.4.7 Existing Housing Needs.............................................................................................................4-45

4.2.5 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS...................................................................................................................4-64

4.2.5.1 Regional Fair-Share Allocation..................................................................................................4-64

4.2.6 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING.........................................................................................................4-65

4.2.6.1 Outreach .....................................................................................................................................4-66

4.2.6.2 Fair Housing Issues....................................................................................................................4-67

4.2.6.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity........................................................................................4-100 632

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-ii BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022

4.2.6.4 Sites Inventory Analysis...........................................................................................................4-101

4.2.6.5 Contributing Factors.................................................................................................................4-106

4.3 RESOURCE INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................4-111

4.3.1 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES...........................................................................................4-111

4.3.1.1 South Lake Tahoe’s Setting, Zoning, and Development Procedures.......................................4-111

4.3.2 INVENTORY OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL HOUSING AND FINANCING PROGRAMS ....................4-140

4.3.2.1 Current City Programs .............................................................................................................4-140

4.3.2.2 Current El Dorado County Programs.......................................................................................4-142

4.3.2.3 Private, State, and Federal Funding Programs .........................................................................4-142

4.3.3 PRESERVING AT-RISK UNITS ...........................................................................................................4-146

4.3.3.1 Federal Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units............................................................................4-147

4.3.3.2 State Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units................................................................................4-148

4.3.3.3. Local Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units ..............................................................................4-148

4.3.4 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................4-149

4.4 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS...........................................................................................4-152

4.4.1 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 4-152

4.4.1.1 Background and Regional Authority – The Bi-State Compact ................................................4-152

4.4.1.2 Housing Goals and Policies of the Existing Regional Plan......................................................4-153

4.4.1.3 Zoning ......................................................................................................................................4-154

4.4.1.4 Growth Controls.......................................................................................................................4-156

4.4.1.5 Land Coverage Limitations......................................................................................................4-159

4.4.1.6 Water Quality Requirements....................................................................................................4-161

4.4.1.7 Density .....................................................................................................................................4-162

4.4.1.8 Height Standards......................................................................................................................4-164

4.4.1.9 Design Standards......................................................................................................................4-164

4.4.1.10 Building Season Limitations/Grading Requirements...............................................................4-167

4.4.1.11 Impediments to Housing for Persons with Disabilities ............................................................4-167

4.4.1.12 Employee Housing ...................................................................................................................4-168

4.4.1.13 Subdivision and Condominium Requirements.........................................................................4-169

4.4.1.14 Fees and Other Exactions.........................................................................................................4-169

4.4.1.15 Project Processing and Permit Procedures...............................................................................4-172

4.4.1.16 TRPA Preemption of State Housing Law ................................................................................4-173

4.4.2 CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS...............4-176

4.4.2.1 Land Use Controls....................................................................................................................4-176

4.4.2.2 Airport Safety Areas.................................................................................................................4-176

4.4.2.3 Annexation Restrictions...........................................................................................................4-178

4.4.2.4 Mobile Homes/Mobile Home Parks.........................................................................................4-178

4.4.2.5 Motel Conversion Regulations.................................................................................................4-180

4.4.2.6 Transitional and Supportive Housing.......................................................................................4-181

4.4.2.7 Emergency Shelter ...................................................................................................................4-182

4.4.2.8 Vacation Rental Regulations....................................................................................................4-183

4.4.2.9 “Illegal Unit” Program .............................................................................................................4-183

4.4.2.10 Building Height, Setback, and Minimum Lot Size Requirements ...........................................4-184

4.4.2.11 Condominium Regulations.......................................................................................................4-187 633

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-iii

4.4.2.12 Building Codes and Their Enforcement...................................................................................4-189

4.4.2.13 On-/Off-Site Improvements .....................................................................................................4-190

4.4.2.14 Parking Standards.....................................................................................................................4-191

4.4.2.15 Streets.......................................................................................................................................4-192

4.4.2.16 Other Improvements.................................................................................................................4-193

4.4.2.17 City Fees and Other Exactions.................................................................................................4-193

4.4.2.18 Density Bonus..........................................................................................................................4-197

4.4.2.19 Development, Maintenance, and Improvement of Housing for Persons with Disabilities.......4-198

4.4.2.20 Buy-Out Programs....................................................................................................................4-199

4.4.2.21 Article 34..................................................................................................................................4-199

4.4.3 POTENTIAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ...........................................................................4-200

4.4.3.1 Land Costs................................................................................................................................4-200

4.4.3.2 Availability of Financing and Insurance ..................................................................................4-200

4.4.3.3 Development Costs ..................................................................................................................4-201

4.4.3.4 Environmental Constraints.......................................................................................................4-201

4.4.3.5 Prevailing Wage .......................................................................................................................4-202

4.4.3.6 Developer Trends.....................................................................................................................4-202

4.5 EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................4-204

4.5.1 2014 TO 2021 ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..................................................................................................4-204

4.5.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT .......................................................................................4-204 Appendices
APPENDIX A - SITES INVENTORY............................................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B - HOUSING ELEMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................................... B-1 List of Tables
TABLE 4-1 PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF DOUGLAS COUNTY AND SOUTH LAKE TAHOE EMPLOYEES................................................................................................................................. 4-14 TABLE 4-2 PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS...................................................... 4-15 TABLE 4-3 POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, HOUSING SIZE, AND HOUSING UNITS ................................ 4-17 TABLE 4-4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS......................................................................................................... 4-18 TABLE 4-5 POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY AGE.......................................................................................... 4-18 TABLE 4-6 POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY ....................................................... 4-19 TABLE 4-7 VACANT UNITS BY TYPE OF VACANCY.................................................................................... 4-20 TABLE 4-8 HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................... 4-21 TABLE 4-9 LARGE EMPLOYERS....................................................................................................................... 4-23 TABLE 4-10 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 4-24 TABLE 4-11 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION AND WAGE................................................. 4-25 TABLE 4-12 HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE.......................................................................................................... 4-27 TABLE 4-13 HOUSING-JOBS RATIO ................................................................................................................. 4-28 TABLE 4-14 HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS.................................................................................................... 4-28 TABLE 4-15 OVERCROWDED HOUSING ......................................................................................................... 4-30 TABLE 4-16 HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE.................................................................................................. 4-31 TABLE 4-17 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK & HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS.............................................. 4-32 TABLE 4-18 OVERALL STRUCTURAL SCORE................................................................................................ 4-34 TABLE 4-19 HOUSING CONDITIONS BY STRUCTURAL ISSUE .................................................................. 4-34 634

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-iv BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-20 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE........................................................ 4-36 TABLE 4-21 HOUSING COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION........................... 4-37 TABLE 4-22 HOUSING PROBLEMS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION.................................. 4-38 TABLE 4-23 HCD INCOME LIMITS BASED ON PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD........................................... 4-39 TABLE 4-24 ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING BASED ON HCD INCOME LIMITS ................................... 4-40 TABLE 4-25 HUD FAIR MARKET RENT ........................................................................................................... 4-41 TABLE 4-26 MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT AND MEDIAN GROSS RENT...................................................... 4-42 TABLE 4-27 AVERAGE RENTS .......................................................................................................................... 4-43 TABLE 4-28 MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ............................................................. 4-44 TABLE 4-29 MEDIAN LISTING PRICE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS......................................................... 4-45 TABLE 4-30 MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ............................................................. 4-45 TABLE 4-31 HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................................ 4-47 TABLE 4-32 HOMELESS FACILITIES................................................................................................................ 4-48 TABLE 4-33 FARMWORKERS ............................................................................................................................ 4-50 TABLE 4-34 PERSONS WITH DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS.................................................... 4-52 TABLE 4-35 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY DISABILITY TYPE........................................................... 4-53 TABLE 4-36 POPULATION WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY........................................................ 4-54 TABLE 4-37 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS BY RESIDENCE TYPE................................ 4-55 TABLE 4-38 SENIOR POPULATIONS AND HOUSEHOLDS ........................................................................... 4-57 TABLE 4-39 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP............................................................................ 4-58 TABLE 4-41 FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS.............................................................................................. 4-60 TABLE 4-42 EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................ 4-61 TABLE 4-43 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION BY INCOME .................................................... 4-65 TABLE 4-44 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORES, 2018................................................................................... 4-81 TABLE 4-45 INCREASES IN RENTAL RATES, 2015-2021............................................................................... 4-97 TABLE 4-46 UNITS BY RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION ......................................................................... 4-104 TABLE 4-47 FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES IN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE... 4-107 TABLE 4-48 PLAN AREA STATEMENTS AND COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 4-118 TABLE 4-49 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS................................................................................................... 4-128 TABLE 4-50 ADDRESSING THE 6TH CYCLE RHNA ...................................................................................... 4-137 TABLE 4-51 FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 4-143 TABLE 4-52 ASSISTED HOUSING STOCK...................................................................................................... 4-147 TABLE 4-53 CONVERSION EXCHANGE RATES........................................................................................... 4-158 TABLE 4-54 TRPA DENSITY LIMITATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.................................................... 4-162 TABLE 4-55 TRPA BASE FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 4-170 TABLE 4-56 TRPA FEE MULTIPLIERS............................................................................................................ 4-170 TABLE 4-57 OTHER TRPA FEES ...................................................................................................................... 4-171 TABLE 4-58 CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS......................................................................................... 4-186 TABLE 4-59 SETBACK EXCEPTIONS.............................................................................................................. 4-187 TABLE 4-60 PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES ................................................................ 4-191 TABLE 4-61 PLANNING APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE............................................................................ 4-195 TABLE 4-62 TOTAL PROCESSING AND IMPACT FEES FOR SINGLE- AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS... 4-196 TABLE 4-63 PROGRESS DURING PREVIOUS PLANNING PERIOD ........................................................... 4-204 TABLE 4-64 EVALUATION OF 2014–2022 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS. 4-206 635

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-v
List of Figures
FIGURE 4-1: OWNER-OCCUPIED AND RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, 2019............................ 4-20 FIGURE 4-2: EMPLOYEES BY MAJOR INDUSTRY....................................................................................... 4-22 FIGURE 4-3: HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 4-27 FIGURE 4-4A:TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, REGION ................................................... 4-69 FIGURE 4-4B: TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, LOCAL..................................................... 4-70 FIGURE 4-5: MEDIAN INCOME ....................................................................................................................... 4-71 FIGURE 4-6: POVERTY STATUS...................................................................................................................... 4-73 FIGURE 4-7: PREDOMINANT POPULATIONS............................................................................................... 4-74 FIGURE 4-8: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................... 4-75 FIGURE 4-9: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX .......................................................................................................... 4-80 FIGURE 4-10: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES ........................................................................ 4-86 FIGURE 4-11: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS.............................................................................................. 4-87 FIGURE 4-12: HOMEOWNERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING ..................................................................... 4-91 FIGURE 4-13: RENTERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING................................................................................ 4-92 FIGURE 4-14: LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING................................................................................ 4-95 FIGURE 4-15: UNIT DISTIRUBTION BY POVERTY RATE........................................................................... 4-103 FIGURE 4-16: UNIT DISTIRUBTION BY RATE OF OVERCROWDING ...................................................... 4-103 FIGURE 4-17: PREFERRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AREA...................................................................... 4-122 FIGURE 4-18: MULTI-RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE AREAS .......................................................................... 4-123 FIGURE 4-19: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY .......................................................................................... 4-130 FIGURE 4-20: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY INSIDE THE TOURIST CORE AREA........................... 4-135 FIGURE 4-21: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY INSIDE THE TAHOE VALLEY AREA......................... 4-136 636

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-vi BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
637

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-1

4.1 Introduction
State housing element law (California Government Code Section 65580) mandates that local governments must adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This section provides current information on household characteristics, housing needs, housing supply, land inventory for new development, housing programs, constraints, and incentives for new housing development. It also evaluates progress made since the last Housing Element was adopted in 2014.

The housing element is one of eight state-mandated elements that every general plan must contain.

Although the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the housing element has several state-mandated requirements that distinguish it from other general plan elements. Whereas the state allows local governments the ability to decide when to update their general plan, state law sets the schedule for periodic update (five- or eight-year time frame) of the housing element. Local governments are also required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for state law compliance review. This review ensures that the housing element meets the various state mandates. Should the city satisfy these requirements, the state will “certify” that the element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with state law could result in potentially serious consequences, such as reduced access to infrastructure, transportation, and housing funding and vulnerability to lawsuits.

The current (2022–2027) Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 2014 Housing Element. The planning period is for June 30, 2022, through June 30, 2027. The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) last updated its Housing Element in May 2014. That Housing Element had a planning period from June 15, 2014, to June 15, 2022. Prior to the 2014 Housing Element, the City adopted a 2008 Housing Element.

4.1.1 Overview of State Requirements
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. The law acknowledges that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans, local housing elements in particular.

The purpose of the housing element is to identify the community’s housing needs, to state the community’s goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements.

The official definition of these needs is provided by HCD for each city and county within its geographic jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing element must also address specialneeds groups, such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons.

State housing law (California Government Code Section 65580) requires an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs. The assessment and inventory must include all of the following:
638

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-2 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
 Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need.  Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.  Analysis of fair housing trends including areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity (i.e., living-wage jobs and high-quality schools), and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.  An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and City services to these sites.
 The identification of a zone or zones where farmworker housing, residential care facilities, transitional housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, and low-barrier navigation centers are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.  Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.
 Analysis of local efforts to remove governmental constraints.  Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.  Analysis of any special-housing needs for the elderly; persons with disabilities, including those with developmental disabilities; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.  Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development.  Analysis of “at-risk” assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses within 10 years of the beginning of the housing element planning period.

The Housing Element Background Report identifies the nature and extent of the city’s housing needs, which in turn provides the basis for the City’s response to those needs in the Housing Element Policy Document. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information on the setting in which the needs occur, which provides a better understanding of the community and facilitates planning for housing.

The Background Report satisfies state requirements and provides the foundation for the goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives. The Background Report draws on a broad range of informational sources. Information on population, housing stock, and economics comes primarily from the data sets prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) with sources from the 639

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-3
2010 US Census, American Community Survey, California Department of Finance, and regional sources.

In addition to the SACOG packet, data was drawn from the California Employment Development Department, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA, Agency), City of South Lake Tahoe records, and the 2019 South Shore Region Reports. Information on available services for housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production and past and current housing efforts in South Lake Tahoe comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a number of private sources.

4.1.2 General Plan and Housing Element Consistency
This Housing Element is a component of the General Plan, which provides guiding policy for all growth and development within South Lake Tahoe. The General Plan consists of nine elements that address both state‐mandated planning issues plus optional subjects that are of particular concern within South Lake Tahoe. These elements are:
 Land Use and Community Character Element
 Economic Development Element
 Transportation and Circulation Element
 Housing Element
 Natural and Cultural Resources Element
 Public/Quasi‐Public Facilities and Services Element
 Recreation and Open Space Element
 Health and Safety Element
 Noise Element
State law requires consistency among elements of the general plan. As such, goals and policies contained within the Housing Element have been developed to be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2011 General Plan. The City will continue to assess consistency between the Housing Element and other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements. If it becomes apparent that, over time, changes to any element are needed for internal consistency, such changes will be proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

4.1.3 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Overview
Lake Tahoe was designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water under the Clean Water Act. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between Nevada and California. TRPA’s mission is to preserve, restore, and enhance the Lake Tahoe Basin (Basin, Tahoe Basin). TRPA’s Regional Plan is the long-term plan for the development of the Basin. In some cases, regulations that further the realization of the Regional Plan can preempt California and Nevada state law. One of TRPA’s main tools for protecting the environment is growth-control regulations, which limit the amount of development that can occur in the Basin. While TRPA employs some measures to promote affordable housing in the Basin, many of the environmental regulations limit 640

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-4 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
the feasibility of affordable housing projects for lower-income (those who are included in the extremely low, very low or low-income income categories) residents.

TRPA completed a comprehensive update to its Regional Plan and its associated Code of Ordinances in December 2012. The Regional Plan update process involved a collaboration between TRPA, the US Forest Service, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to update their 20-year planning documents. The intent of the Regional Plan update was for these agencies to work together to streamline regulations and create common goals for protecting Lake Tahoe. The City of South Lake Tahoe, along with other local jurisdictions, was involved throughout the process. The City continuously voiced the need to balance the housing needs of local residents with the need to protect and improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe. The Regional Plan was most recently amended in September 2021.

The Regional Plan includes some regulations that affect affordable housing in the Basin. TRPA has altered some regulations to promote affordable housing opportunities, including allowing mixed-use development, 70-percent coverage in town and regional centers, additional height with adoption of an area plan, income-restricted housing up to 160 percent of Area Median Income (termed the “achievable” income category), conversion of commercial and tourist-serving development rights to residential development rights, and transfer bonuses for residential unit transfers into town or regional centers. These changes allow denser development in town and regional centers, including housing development. The Regional Plan also allows local jurisdictions within TRPA to develop area plans to replace existing community plans and plan area statements. The City adopted the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) in 2013 and the Tahoe Valley Area Plan in 2014 for this purpose. However, many of the existing regulations that act as constraints to the production of affordable housing remain. The City continues to seek creative solutions to provide affordable housing opportunities that work within the framework of TRPA regulations and is part of the current TRPA process to provide recommendations on potential changes to TRPA affordable housing policies to address these constraints.

4.1.4 Consistency with South Lake Tahoe’s Redevelopment Implementation Plan Per AB X1 26, the South Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on June 27, 2011. This dissolution action eliminated the primary funding mechanism by which the redevelopment agency funded affordable housing and infrastructure development. The City continues to fulfill grant reporting, loan servicing, and administration requirements of programs previously operated by the Redevelopment Agency. There will be no future funds available for affordable housing or infrastructure via the former redevelopment agency.

4.1.5 Notification to Retail Water/Sewer Providers
In compliance with California Government Code Section 65589.7, upon adoption of the 2022–2027 Housing Element, the City of South Lake Tahoe will distribute a copy of the element to local water and sewer providers. The City will contact the following service providers:
 South Tahoe Public Utility District (1275 Meadowcrest, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150)  Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. (2031 West Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150)  Lakeside Park Water District (4077 Pine Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150)  Tahoe Keys Water Company (356 Ala Wai Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150) 641

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-5

4.1.6 Public Participation
As part of the Housing Element process, the City implemented the state’s public participation requirements in housing element law, indicated in California Government Code Section 65583 (c)(6)(B), that jurisdictions “shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community.” City staff and consultants solicited input from individuals and organizations in the community, including local residents, housing developers, nonprofit housing development, management, and advocacy organizations, social service providers, the local community college, medical providers, major employers, transportation agencies, and conservation groups. The City distributed announcements of the community workshop to a mailing list that includes the stakeholder groups listed below.

The City advertised the community/stakeholder workshop in English and Spanish using a variety of methods, including an advertisement in the local newspaper, emails to stakeholders and community leaders, social media posts, and fliers posted on the City website. In addition, the City placed a meeting announcement on the City website.

Invitations were also sent to the following stakeholders:
 Karen Fink, TRPA
 El Dorado County, Brendan Ferry
 Tahoe Transportation District Board
 Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, California Tahoe Conservancy  St. Joseph Community Land Trust, Jean M. Diaz
 Lake Tahoe Community College, Jeff Defranco
 El Dorado County Housing Authority, Paula Lamden
 Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless, Cheyenne Purrington  El Dorado Community Foundation, William Roby
 South Tahoe Chamber, Amanda Adams
 Tahoe Chamber
 League to Save Lake Tahoe
 Family Resource Center, Bill Martinez
 Tahoe Prosperity Center, Heidi Hill Drum
 South Shore Region Housing Advisory Group
 Accessible Space Inc., Ken Berry
 Related California, Meea Kang
642

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-6 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
 Heavenly Ski Resort
 South Lake Tahoe Live Violence Free Sheltering Program, Chelsee Thomas  Tahoe Community Church
 Christmas Cheer
 Bread & Broth/St. Theresa Catholic Church, Myee Costanzo  El Dorado County Food Bank
 Tahoe Home Connection, Shannon Witt
 Barton Hospital, Chris Proctor
 Realtors Association, Sharon Kerrigan
As outlined here, the City’s public outreach program is designed to obtain input from residents representing all income groups, nonprofit and for-profit residential developers, and businesses.

Date Nature of Meeting
10/12/21 Community Workshop #1—The City hosted a virtual meeting on Zoom, an online video/audio conference platform, due to COVID-19 pandemic health concerns. The meeting began with a presentation to the general public and local stakeholders, giving them an overview of the update process, outlining state housing law, and describing the required components of the Housing Element Background Report and Policy Document. During and after the presentation, meeting facilitators gave the public and stakeholders an opportunity to identify key housing issues and concerns in the city. About 18 community members joined, including representatives from the California Tahoe Conservancy, Tahoe Prosperity Center, Lake Tahoe Community College, TRPA, Barton Hospital, and St. Joseph Community Land Trust.

Input received from the public included an interest in tiny homes and artists’ lofts that offer small-scale, and affordable housing for smaller households. The public also expressed concern in the large proportion of above-moderate income units in the RHNA allocation, noting that many residents need housing in the other income categories. In response, City staff noted that the RHNA is calculated by the State and does not reflect the needs expressed by the community. One attendee recommended that affordable housing be electrified to reduce variable energy costs for occupants, and another encouraged the City to prioritize development that includes child care services to support working residents. The public largely agreed that major employers should have a role in addressing housing and affordability. Several commenters encouraged the City to focus on improving the condition of the existing housing stock, especially affordable rental housing units.
10/14/21 Joint Planning Commission Meeting/Community Workshop #2—The City and consultant provided a presentation to update the Planning Commission and the public in attendance on the Housing Element Update. Topics of presentation included the functions of housing elements, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, State housing laws, fair housing, and a discussion of next steps. 643

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-7
Members of the public were encouraged to participate via public comment, and one public comment was made. The commenter was concerned about the large RHNA allocation for above-moderate income units in comparison to lower-income categories. The Planning Commissioners had questions about how HCD is supporting local jurisdictions to make affordable development attractive to developers and also recommended that grants, linkage fees, a vacancy tax, a real estate transfer tax, or financial incentives be sought out. The Commissioners recognized that the city has a large need for workforce housing and a variety of housing types and affordability levels. They noted that many residents need smaller, onebedroom units, and there is a missing market to house these smaller households. One commissioner observed that the cost of housing is increasing due to vacant owners and was interested in incentivizing occupancy on those properties while preserving ownership rights. The Commissioners agreed that the City should rehabilitate and maintain the existing housing stock to create affordable housing while also focusing on new affordable housing construction in Town Centers. The Planning Commissioners echoed a sentiment heard at a previous meeting that tiny homes and mobile tiny homes are an attractive solution to address some housing concerns in the region. There was no action required on the Housing Element Update at this study session.
11/16/21 Housing Subcommittee Meeting—On November 16, 2021, the City held a study session at a regularly-scheduled Housing Subcommittee meeting. The Housing Subcommittee is an ad hoc group comprised of a subset of city councilmembers and planning commissioners. City staff and the consultants provided a presentation to update the Housing Subcommittee on the Housing Element Update. Topics of discussion included:
 The ability to meet the moderate-income RHNA with new TRPA incentives for achievableincome housing.  The types of housing that help meet the RHNA.
 Various housing opportunities:
 A City-administered moderate-income homebuyer program.  Rehabilitation and conversion of older multi-family units to deed-restricted affordable housing.
 Linkage fees as a funding source for workforce housing.  The new Landing Locals program, which links vacant second homes with the local workforce seeking rental housing.
 The Chamber of Commerce’s interest in supporting housing for the local workforce.  The role employers should play in housing.
 The impacts of second homeownership on the existing housing stock supply and prices.

There was no action required on the Housing Element Update at this study session. 644

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-8 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.1.6.1 Stakeholder Input
In June through December 2021, six consultations were conducted with stakeholders to offer opportunities to provide one-on-one input. Representatives from the following stakeholders were interviewed:
 Family Resources Center on June 15, 2021
 El Dorado County Housing Authority Section 8 on June 18, 2021  El Dorado County Fair Housing on June 18, 2021
 St. Joseph Community Land Trust on June 23, 2021
 Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless on June 29, 2021
 Housing Issues Hotline on December 15, 2021
In each of the consultations, the stakeholders were asked some or all of the following questions, depending on the type of organization interviewed:
 What services do you currently provide?
 What are your organization’s funding sources (federal funds, EDHSA funds, grants from foundations, donations, etc.)?
 What are the three top opportunities you see for the future of housing in this jurisdiction? What are your three top concerns for the future of housing in this jurisdiction?  What types of housing types do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in the community? Are there opportunities for home ownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
 What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? What are the unmet housing needs in this jurisdiction?
 How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in this jurisdiction? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the future?  How many homeless individuals are in the jurisdiction? Is the point-in-time count accurate?  What factors limit or deny civil rights, fair housing choice, or equitable access to opportunity? What actions can be taken to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity (without displacement)? What actions can be taken to make living patterns more integrated and balanced?
 How has COVID affected the housing situation?
645

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-9
Through these interviews, the stakeholders expressed concerns over current challenges and barriers to housing in the city. These included local low wages for the service industry, the high cost of living outpacing local salaries across various industries, aging housing stock, and limited availability of rental housing, including accessible units, affordable units, and workforce housing. The few existing affordable housing complexes have two-year waitlists. Furthermore, tenants don’t have the funds needed for first and last months’ rent and a security deposit. Stakeholders have also observed that there is limited City staff capacity to partner with local organizations on big projects. The housing stock in the city is aging, and the Housing Issues Hotline receives complaints related to mold, no heat, pest infestation, no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, water intrusion, and electrical issues. In addition, stakeholders noted that high rental unit application fees and heightened demand for the limited rental housing stock results in housing choice voucher discrimination among landlords. However, the stakeholders also identified several opportunities to address these concerns moving forward. The stakeholders discussed the additional housing vouchers allocated to El Dorado County in the past year, and opportunities for collaborative partnerships with multiple agencies and non-profit organizations. Stakeholders recommended providing incentives to property owners to rehabilitate older housing stock, streamlining approval of new unit production to incentivize development, and engaging landlords to eliminate voucher discrimination. Stakeholders recommended that the City prioritize production of duplexes and triplexes with two- and three-bedroom units, as opposed to single-family units. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholders identified a trend of Bay Area residents moving to the Tahoe area, driving up housing prices. Increased housing prices have spurred homeowners to sell rental units that previously would have been available to long term renters, which may have been housing choice voucher holders. Stakeholders also observed that the pandemic made it difficult for property owners and managers unable to provide ongoing property maintenance, and there are more civil issues reported between landlords and tenants. It also highlighted the needs of the local homeless community due to their clear inability to “shelter-in-place” and generally vulnerable condition.

4.1.6.2 Community/Stakeholder Input
Based on community and stakeholder input gathered during the public participation process, the consultants identified the following issues as being of the greatest importance to the participants. These issues are addressed in this Housing Element update:
 Affordability of housing for the workforce
 Unsafe and unsanitary conditions of long term rentals  Funding of housing projects
 Alternative housing options, such as tiny homes, to address unmet housing needs

4.1.6.3 Public Draft Housing Element
The public draft Housing Element was released on December 23, 2021. The City specifically notified stakeholders listed earlier in this section who represent all economic segments of the community, those who participated in outreach on the project so far, and other interested persons. The draft was posted on the City’s website. and the availability of the draft was advertised on social media, through English and Spanish advertisements in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and South Tahoe Now. 646

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-10 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
The public draft Housing Element was revised to incorporate HCD comments and public comments, and the City posted the revised public draft on its website and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the City’s Housing Element on March 16, 2022, seven days before submitting the subsequent draft to HCD for review. 2/7/22 Community Workshop #3—The City hosted a virtual meeting on Zoom, an online video/audio conference platform, due to COVID-19 pandemic health concerns. The meeting began with a presentation to the general public and local stakeholders, giving them an overview of the update process, outlining the regional housing need and sites inventory, and describing the Housing Element Programs and major findings presented in the Housing Element Background Report. During and after the presentation, meeting facilitators gave the public and stakeholders an opportunity to identify programs missing from the Housing Element, programs that should be removed from the Housing Element, and programs that should be prioritized for implementation timing. The facilitators also asked meeting attendees to voice any questions or concerns about the Public Draft Housing Element. About 11 community members joined, including representatives from the Tahoe Prosperity Center, TRPA, Barton Hospital, the Sierra Nevada Alliance, the Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless and the South Tahoe Public Utility District.

Input received from the public included support for a vacancy tax to incentivize homeowners to rent their units long-term, implementation of the fair housing programs in the Housing Element, programs to support affordable housing creation, and stricter code enforcement and enforcement for illegal vacation home rentals. In addition, one attendee recommended that vacation home rentals be defined as rentals that are leased for up to six months rather than 30 days. Attendees requested additional focus on how rehabilitation programs could be implemented, with one attendee recommending the City institute a rental housing inspection program for all rental housing, not just multi-family projects of six or more units and SROs. Attendees also supported partnerships with large employers to address barriers to employee housing and offered ideas including property management company partnerships and prioritizing homebuyer programs for local workers. They also thought employers could provide rental assistance to employees relocating to the town. Another workshop attendee noted that school enrollment and the number of registered voters in the city has declined in recent years. Members of the public voiced concerns about renter displacement, noting that renters are afraid to report housing condition issues due to landlord retaliation. Another commenter wanted enhanced fire safety policies listed in the Housing Element, rather than the Safety Element.
2/10/22 Joint Planning Commission Meeting/Community Workshop #4—The City and consultant provided a presentation to update the Planning Commission and the public in attendance on the Housing Element Update. Topics of presentation included the functions of housing elements, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the sites inventory, Housing Element programs, and major findings presented in the Housing Element. During the presentation, the Planning Commission gave the public and commissioners an opportunity to identify programs missing from the Housing Element, programs that should be removed from the Housing Element, and programs that should be prioritized for implementation timing. The Planning Commission Chairperson also asked meeting attendees to voice any questions or concerns about the Public Draft Housing Element. 647

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-11
Members of the public were encouraged to participate via public comment, and three verbal public comments were provided. The commenters supported programs that monitor illegal vacation home rentals, provide incentives for developers to construct housing on high-density parcels, encourage tiny homes and ADUs, and continue the City’s involvement within the TRPA Working Group. One commenter requested that the City increase the emphasis on the relationship between housing and transit, and another commenter noted that TRPA policies need to conform with State law. The Planning Commission voiced support for assisting nonprofit housing developers, a local funding source feasibility study and linkage program, housing rehabilitation and conservation programs, and energy conservation opportunities. One Planning Commissioner requested that the City augment an energy conservation program to evaluate opportunities for additional green build incentives. The Planning Commissioners requested additional language in the Housing Element to assist renters in securing housing, similar to the homebuyer program for ownership options. One Planning Commissioner recommended that the City remove minimum parking requirements to encourage affordable housing and augment strategies to create partnerships for workforce housing. A Planning Commissioner requested that the City evaluate the feasibility of an inclusionary housing ordinance and that the City staff schedule a meeting to discuss the Housing Element annually. Written comments that has been previously submitted to City staff were also submitted to the Planning Commission.

4.1.6.4 Response to Input Received
The City of South Lake Tahoe compiled all public comments received in response to the Public Draft Housing Element into a matrix. The matrix lists all public comments and explains how each comment was addressed in the revised Housing Element. That matrix is included as Appendix B of this Housing Element Update.
648

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-12 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
649

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-13

4.2 Needs Assessment
This section describes housing and demographic characteristics of the current population and discusses the existing housing needs of the residents of South Lake Tahoe based on these characteristics. The section also includes a description of the city’s future housing needs based on the Regional Fair Share Allocation and an assessment of fair housing in the city.

4.2.1 Housing Stock and Demographic Profile
The purpose of this section is to establish “baseline” population, employment, and housing characteristics for the City of South Lake Tahoe. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) compiled data to analyze housing needs in the greater Sacramento region, including South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. This data packet has been pre-approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as the best data to use for those subject areas. The US Census Bureau is the main source of information for the assessment of housing needs. Other available data and reports, including the California Department of Finance (DOF) housing and population estimates, were used to supplement the US Decennial Census 2010 and American Community Survey (ACS) data.

Data for the city is presented wherever possible alongside comparable data for El Dorado County. This facilitates an understanding of the city’s characteristics by illustrating how the city is similar to, or differs from, the county in various aspects related to demographic, employment, and housing characteristics and needs. Trends between 2010 and the most recent available data are also discussed.

4.2.2 Demographic and Employment Characteristics and Trends

4.2.2.1 Local Housing Needs in the Context of the Lake Tahoe Basin South Lake Tahoe is in the Lake Tahoe Basin and surrounded by a variety of jurisdictions on the local and state level. Placer and El Dorado Counties comprise the California portion of the Tahoe Basin, and Douglas and Washoe Counties make up the Nevada side. South Lake Tahoe is the only incorporated city in the Lake Tahoe Basin and is an important center for housing and services in the region. Carson City, close to the Nevada portion of the Basin, is another significant population center in the area and is not part of Washoe or Douglas County.

Two-thirds of the Basin lies in California and one-third in the state of Nevada. In Nevada, the hourly minimum wage is $9.75 (for employees who are not offered qualifying health benefits; it is $8.75 for those offered qualifying health benefits), and in California, it is $14.00 for employers with 26 or more employees, it is $13.00 for employers with 25 or fewer employees). Housing law requirements also differ between the two states.

Lake Tahoe Basin’s housing markets operate across jurisdictional lines. In recognition of the inextricable links between South Tahoe Basin communities, in 2019 the City participated along with TRPA, El Dorado County, and Douglas County in a collaborative effort led by the Tahoe Prosperity Center, to prepare a report titled “South Shore Region Housing Needs and Opportunities Report” (SSRHNO Report). The purpose of the report was to assist the South Tahoe Basin communities in assessing their affordable housing needs in the context of the Lake Tahoe Basin and attributing responsibility for that need. The report indicates that the decreasing ability to house local residents and employees can be attributed primarily to the loss of resident-occupied homes because residents cannot compete for homes as 650

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-14 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
strongly as wealthy second homeowners. The inability to compete is due to the high price point of new development, the loss of existing local resident housing units inducing a relative housing shortage, growth caps, reduced incentives for rental property maintenance due to a captive market reliant upon a limited number of competitive rental suppliers, shifting demographics, and other factors. The report helps the community establish housing strategies and policies that will provide more opportunities for local employees to live in the South Tahoe Basin area and help support the local community character and economy. The report recognizes that these goals require coordination on a common vision for meeting housing needs and on priorities and strategies to get there.

The state line between South Lake Tahoe and neighboring communities in Douglas County, Nevada, is a political boundary across which many residents travel daily for jobs, shopping, and housing. Table 4-1 shows travel patterns in the area, which serves as an indicator of jobs/housing balance. Communities with extended commute distances generally have poor jobs/housing balances, while those with short average commutes tend to have a strong jobs/housing balance. The burden of the additional costs associated with extended commuting disproportionately affects lower-income households, who must spend a larger portion of their overall income on fuel.

The SSRHNO Report indicates that 25 to 31 percent of employees commute into the South Shore Region for work. This reflects average year-round commuting, meaning it includes employees filling year-round and seasonal jobs. This equates to between 4,480 and 5,555 workers traveling into the South Shore Region for work, with Carson City as the most common residence of in-commuters. The report found that over the course of a year, employees commuting into the South Shore Region will travel 10,000 miles more than resident South Shore Region employees. About 40 percent of in-commuters would prefer to move to the South Shore Region if suitable affordable housing was available.

Table 4-1 indicates that a little more than half (53.2 percent) of South Lake Tahoe residents work in the city. Almost one fourth (24.6 percent) of South Lake Tahoe residents work outside California, further indicating that many travel over the state line for work. This is substantially higher than the 10.2 percent of Douglas County residents who work outside Nevada. Of Douglas County’s 20,908 residents, 45.9 percent work in unincorporated Douglas County, and another 25.4 percent work outside the county.

About 12 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s residents work in El Dorado County outside the city limits.

TABLE 4-1

PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF DOUGLAS COUNTY AND SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

EMPLOYEES
2019
Place of Work
Residents of
Douglas County
Residents of
South Lake Tahoe
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Working in South Lake Tahoe -- -- 6,127 53.2%
Working in unincorporated county of residence1 9,597 45.9% 1,428 12.4% Working outside county of residence 5,311 25.4% 1,117 9.7% Working outside state of residence 2,133 10.2% 2,833 24.6% TOTAL2 20,908 -- 11,516 --
Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimate. 1 There are no incorporated cities in Douglas County. 651

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-15
2 These totals may not equal the sum of employed residents due to other places of work not included in this list.

This analysis indicates that a majority of the jobs are within 20 miles of the city. However, travel through 20 miles of harsh weather conditions, commonplace in South Lake Tahoe during the winter months, is more difficult than similar travel distances in good weather conditions. In 2019, the SSRHNO Report observed that many South Lake Tahoe employees, especially the workforce, choose housing outside of the Basin. This choice appears based on either the desire to obtain the least expensive housing, a desire to live where there is less snow, or an opportunity to obtain larger and newer housing for their housing dollar as compared to living inside the Basin. For the people who make this choice, the half-hour commute is an acceptable trade-off. For many who live “off the hill,” it is a lifestyle choice, especially if they have had the opportunity to profit from their equity of past home ownership due to the escalation in Tahoe Basin housing prices in recent decades. For others, it is a choice borne out of necessity because housing prices in the Tahoe Basin skyrocketed upon recovery from the 2008 recession. However, for the lowest-income people, or those without reliable transportation, a commuter lifestyle is not an option.

The data presented in Table 4-2 validates, to some extent, that South Lake Tahoe is bearing the brunt of housing other jurisdictions’ low-income employees. However, the data also indicates that much of South Lake Tahoe’s housing burden is being created by the lack of employment opportunities within the city.

Specifically, over 30 percent of residents in El Dorado County earn less than $49,000 annually, which falls into the lower-income category for a family of four, while over half (50.7 percent) of residents in South Lake Tahoe earn less than $49,000. An annual income of $49,000 is far below the threshold for lower-income households in El Dorado County, which is $72,500 based on the 2021 HCD Income Limits.

The data shows that South Lake Tahoe has a higher percentage of residents working in low-paying jobs.

TABLE 4-2

PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS
El Dorado County and South Lake Tahoe
2019
Residents of El Dorado County Residents of South Lake Tahoe Earning Less than $49,000 Annually 21,505 4,529
Percentage of Workforce 30.3% 50.7%
TOTAL WORKFORCE 70,974 8,932
Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

This housing “shortage,” in spite of a high number of vacant units in the communities, is partly caused by the Tahoe area’s resort atmosphere and particularly its predominance of second home ownership. The high cost of housing in many of California’s urban areas may make housing costs in South Lake Tahoe seem relatively less expensive and more attractive to owners of second homes—and sometimes first homes for those who are out-priced in the area where they reside. In addition, more new residents have moved to South Lake Tahoe during the COVID-19 pandemic with the ability of some people to work remotely and the desire to relocate to a less dense area for social distancing reasons.

The Tahoe Basin’s supply of housing stock is used inefficiently. Many workers, particularly seasonal workers, reside in older motel rooms that are less appealing to visitors and were never intended for permanent occupancy. While some people allege that vacation home rentals “cut into” the demand and 652

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-16 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
market for motel rooms, others observe that many of the motels providing housing for some area residents would not appeal to the visitor market without substantial rehabilitation/investment.

Increasing the supply of housing in this type of environment does not necessarily correlate with ensuring that housing will be available for local residents of all income levels to purchase or rent. Consequently, to provide housing for residents of all income levels, special requirements, such as affordable deed restrictions, may be necessary when the housing is developed. Efforts to designate certain unit pools or allocations has helped prioritize affordable housing and other specific housing types.

An additional factor related to the regional context in which South Lake Tahoe is located is that land and housing prices are lower in South Lake Tahoe compared to elsewhere in the Tahoe Basin. While the North Lake Tahoe Area median sales price for single-family homes was $818,250 in 2021, the median sales price in South Lake Tahoe was $620,000.1 Further, according to the SSRHNO Report, the California side of the south shore (South Lake Tahoe and unincorporated portions of El Dorado County) has greater amounts of vacant private land than the Nevada side of the South Shore Region.

Consequently, developers in neighboring Douglas County often seek to construct higher-end housing or tourist accommodation projects there, sometimes on existing developed land. The least expensive developed land sometimes contains the most inexpensive, market-rate rental housing serving the community. In some instances, such developers and large-scale Nevada-side employers are working with realtors to secure properties in South Lake Tahoe to satisfy housing mitigation or employee housing needs. South Lake Tahoe properties, at least in the short term, will be consistently less expensive than the Nevada portion of the Tahoe Basin. Population/Demographic Trends and Employment Characteristics and Trends

4.2.2.2 Population
Table 4-3 shows population, households, average household size, and housing units for South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County for 2000, 2010, and 2019. The table also shows 2000-2010 and 2010–2019 average annual growth rates (AAGR).

Since 2010, South Lake Tahoe’s population has grown at a slightly faster rate than that of El Dorado County. As shown in Table 4-3, the AAGR for South Lake Tahoe’s population between 2010 and 2019 was 6.5 percent compared to 6.0 percent for El Dorado County. 1 Tahoe Realty, North Tahoe, https://www.tahoerealty.com/market-report/North-Lake-Tahoe-Homes/, March 2021. 653

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-17
TABLE 4-3

POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, HOUSING SIZE, AND HOUSING UNITS South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2000, 2010, and 2019
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
2000 2010 2019 2000 2010 2019
Population
Number 23,609 21,403 22,800 156,299 181,058 191,848
Growth from Previous Period − -2,206 1,397 − 24,759 10,790 % AAGR from Previous Period − -9.3% 6.5% − 15.8% 6.0%
Households
Number 9,410 8,918 8,880 58,939 70,223 70,050
Growth from Previous Period − -492 -38 − 11,284 -173
% AAGR from Previous Period − -5.2% -0.4% − 19.1% -0.2% Average Household Size 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7
Housing Units
Number 14,050 15,087 15,831 71,278 88,159 91,987
Growth from Previous Period − 1,037 744 − 16,881 3,828
% AAGR from Previous Period − 7.4% 4.9% − 23.7% 4.3%
Source: 2019 DOF estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020); South Shore Housing Needs Report, 2020.

South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock showed little growth between 2010 and 2019, with an increase of 0.55 percent. Comparatively, El Dorado County’s housing stock, as a whole, at a similar rate of 0.48 percent from 2010 to 2019. The city’s slow rate of housing unit production is due, in part, to strict TRPA growth regulations that limit housing construction. While the housing statistics do not show a large net increase in housing units, the city saw a steady amount of residential development through 2008. The rate of development slowed from 2009 to 2012 due to the economic downturn but has exceeded pre-2009 levels in 2019.

As shown in Table 4-4, the Tahoe Region is predicted to grow by about 12.4 percent between 2018 and 2045 according to TRPA 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. Population growth statistics were not available for individual jurisdictions, so the Tahoe Region growth rate has been applied to the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. This results in an increase of 131 people in the City of South Lake Tahoe and 1,125 people in El Dorado County through 2045. However, it is expected that some areas in the Tahoe Region will accommodate more growth and some areas will experience less growth than the average 12.4 percent anticipated for the whole region.
654

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-18 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-4

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2018-2045
Jurisdiction 2018 2045
South Lake Tahoe1 1,057 1,189
El Dorado County2 9,048 10,172
Tahoe Region3 51,624 58,041
Source: 2020 TRPA Regional Transportation Plan; 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 1 Data for South Lake Tahoe was extrapolated from projections for the TRPA region. 2 Data for El Dorado County was extrapolated from projections for the TRPA region. 3 Tahoe Region consists of El Dorado, Placer, Douglas, and Washoe Counties.

4.2.2.3 Age Distribution
South Lake Tahoe has a relatively young population. Table 4-5 shows the age breakdown of the city’s population in 2010 and 2017. In 2017, children under 18 made up 16.79 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population, a decrease from 20.62 percent in 2010. This proportion was relatively the same as the proportion of children under 18 in El Dorado County in 2017 (20.63 percent). Over two-thirds of South Lake Tahoe’s population (67.76 percent) was between ages 18 and 64 in 2019, a slight decrease for this group from 68.87 percent in 2010.

Seniors over age 65 made up 15.5 percent of the city’s population in 2017, compared to 18.9 percent of El Dorado County’s population. This represents a significant increase since 2010, when the senior population made up 10.5 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population. The increasing senior population is because of a combination of aging residents and migration, with about 25 percent of buyers identified as retirees interested in moving to the South Lake Tahoe Basin. 2 TABLE 4-5

POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY AGE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
Age
Distribution
2010 2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County Number % of
Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Under 5 1,570 7.1% 9,848 5.5% 1,164 5.4% 8,571 4.6%
Age 5 to 17 2,985 13.5% 32,230 18.0% 2,477 11.4% 29,592 16.0% Age 18 to 34 6,479 29.3% 29,902 16.7% 6,181 28.5% 32,432 17.5% Age 35 to 64 8,735 39.5% 82,364 46.1% 8,509 39.3% 79,470 43.0% Over 64 2,322 10.5% 24,530 13.7% 3,349 15.5% 34,950 18.9% TOTAL 22,091 00.0% 178,874 100.0% 21,680 100.0% 185,015 100.0% Median Age 35.6 − 42.6 − 38.0 − 45.5 −
Source: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year estimate
2 South Shore Regional Housing Needs and Opportunities, October 2019, page 4. 655

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-19

4.2.2.4 Race/Ethnicity
Table 4-6 summarizes South Lake Tahoe’s population by race and ethnicity. In 2019, over 84 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population was white. This percentage is lower than that of El Dorado County.

About 31 percent of the city’s population was of Hispanic origin, and 8.1 percent were Asian. Less than 2 percent of the city’s population was either American Indian or Alaska Native or Black or African American, and less than half of 1 percent of residents were Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Over 7 percent of the population identified as some “Other” race.

TABLE 4-6

POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2019
Racial/Ethnic Category
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number % of Total Number % of Total
White 18,450 84.1% 173,397 89.9%
Black or African American 431 2.0% 2,781 1.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native 413 1.9% 4,517 2.3%
Asian 1,786 8.1% 12,722 6.6%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 102 0.5% 681 0.4%
Other 1,611 7.3% 6,009 3.1%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 6,693 30.5% 25,378 13.2% TOTAL1 21,939 100.0% 192,843 100.0%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimate
1 The total many not equal the sum of each category because some people may identify as more than one race or ethnicity.

4.2.2.5 Household Characteristics
A household consists of all persons who occupy a housing unit and share household functions. This definition includes families (related individuals living together), unrelated individuals living together, and individuals living alone. Family households, as defined by the US Census Bureau, comprise two or more individuals who live together and are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Unmarried or domestic partners are not counted by the US Census Bureau as related individuals for the purpose of reporting on the number and characteristics of family households. The 2017 ACS counted 8,882 households in the City of South Lake Tahoe. About 52.9 percent (4,702) of the households were family households.

4.2.2.6 Tenure
South Lake Tahoe has a high proportion of renter-occupied housing units. Of the 8,882 occupied housing units counted during the 2015-2019 ACS, 5,270 units (59.0 percent) were rental units, while only 3,662 units (41.0 percent) were owner-occupied units. As shown in Figure 4-1, homeownership in South Lake Tahoe is much lower than in El Dorado County, where 75.73 percent of occupied housing units were owner-occupied.
656

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-20 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Since the ACS is collected from January through June in the Tahoe Basin, it can be assumed that the occupied housing units represent the housing stock occupied by year-round residents. As shown in Table 4-7, in 2017, there were 8,832 vacant units in South Lake Tahoe. Over 84 percent (7,435) of the housing units were considered for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. This means 49.9 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock is seasonal or occasional use housing. The proportion of vacant seasonal or occasional use units decreased slightly from 54.5 percent in 2010.

TABLE 4-7

VACANT UNITS BY TYPE OF VACANCY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017
Vacancy Status
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
For rent 383 4.3% 903 4.3%
For sale only 99 1.1% 691 3.3%
Rented or sold; not occupied 87 1.0% 413 2.0%
For seasonal; recreational; or occasional use 7,435 84.2% 16,858 79.5% Other vacant 828 9.4% 2,337 11.0%
TOTAL VACANT UNITS 8,832 100.0% 21,202 100.0%
Source: ACS 2013-2017 Tables B25002 and B25004 (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

FIGURE 4-1: OWNER-OCCUPIED AND RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, 2019 Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5 Year Estimates
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Owner-Occupied 41% 76%
Renter-Occupied 59% 24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
657

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-21

4.2.2.7 Household Income
Table 4-8 shows median income and the distribution of household income for South Lake Tahoe based on data from the 2015–2019 ACS. The median household income in South Lake Tahoe in 2019 was $49,390, which was lower than the median income for El Dorado County ($83,377), as listed in the 2019 ACS. Just over 18.5 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe earned under $20,000 in 2019, compared to 10.9 percent in the county. A much higher percentage of renter households earn less than $50,000 (60.6 percent), compared to owners (36.6 percent), which is typical in resort areas. At the other end of the income spectrum, only 9.2 percent of households in South Lake Tahoe earned over $150,000, compared to 23.0 percent in El Dorado County. Many of the city’s year-round residents that live and work in the city find it difficult to afford housing due to the high cost and low incomes.

TABLE 4-8

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
South Lake Tahoe
2019
Income Category
South Lake Tahoe
Number Percentage of Total
Renter-Occupied
Less than $20,000 1,247 23.7%
$20,000 to $34,999 1,213 23.0%
$35,000 to $49,999 734 13.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 898 17.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 565 10.7%
$100,000 to $149,999 404 7.7%
$150,000 or more 209 4.0%
TOTAL 5,270 100.0%
Owner-Occupied
Less than $20,000 409 11.2%
$20,000 to $34,999 471 12.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 462 12.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 560 15.3%
$75,000 to $99,999 482 13.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 665 18.2%
$150,000 or more 613 16.7%
TOTAL 3,662 100.0%
Median Income $49,390 −
Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
658

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-22 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.2.8 Existing and Projected Employment
South Lake Tahoe is primarily a tourism-based economy. The city’s proximity to the larger Bay Area, Sacramento, and Reno population centers makes Lake Tahoe an attractive place for day trippers or weekenders seeking to escape the summertime heat or spend a day on the ski slopes. This situation creates a low-paid, seasonal workforce. Jobs paying minimum wage plus tips are not uncommon.

As is typical in destination resort areas, the economy tends to be seasonal in nature, climate-dependent, and trending toward instability. Between Labor Day and ski season and in the spring, hours of employment tend to be cut back, and in some cases, full season layoffs occur. Some people work “dual” seasonal employment, such as Forest Service firefighting in the summer and ski patrolling in the winter.

While South Lake Tahoe’s year-round resident population is growing slowly, the city continues to be a popular resort destination, and tourist-based employment will continue to grow. Figure 4-2 shows the number of employees by major industry in South Lake Tahoe. Lower-wage service industry jobs create a need for affordable low-income housing. At the same time, the City recognizes the need to diversify its economy. To create opportunities for non-service sector employees, there is also a need to provide quality, moderate-income housing for year-round residents.

FIGURE 4-2: EMPLOYEES BY MAJOR INDUSTRY
Source: 2017 ACS, 5-Year Estimates (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020) Agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting, and
mining, 2%
Construction, 7%
Manufacturing, 3%
Wholesale trade, 1%
Retail trade, 12%
Transportation and
warehousing, and
utilities, 3%
Information, 1%
Finance and
insurance, and real
estate and rental and
leasing, 5%
Professional, scientific,
and management, and
administrative and waste
management services, 10%
Educational services,
and health care and
social assistance, 16%
Arts, entertainment,
and recreation, and
accommodation and
food services, 34%
Other services, except
public administration,
4%
Public administration,
3%
659

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-23
The top employers in the city by number of employees are shown in Table 4-9. In both fiscal years (FY) 2010–2011 and 2019–2020, Barton Memorial Hospital was the city’s largest employer with 4.7 percent of total employees in FY 2010–2011 and 7.5 percent of employees in FY 2019–2020. The total number of jobs in South Lake Tahoe decreased from 15,247 in FY 2010–2011 to 11,706 in FY 2019-2020, an indicator of the slow economy during the last decade.

TABLE 4-9

LARGE EMPLOYERS
South Lake Tahoe
2010–2020
2010-2011 2019-2020
Number Percentage of
Workforce Number Percentage of Workforce
Barton Memorial Hospital 720 4.7% 875 7.5%
Lake Tahoe Unified School District 352 2.3% 407 3.5%
El Dorado County 247 1.6% 254 2.2%
United States Forest Service 240 1.6% 112 1.0%
Heavenly Mountain Resort 239 1.6% 0.0%
Lake Tahoe Community College 221 1.4% 232 2.0%
Marriott Corporation 195 1.3% 189 1.6%
City of South Lake Tahoe 189 1.2% 200 1.7%
Raley's Supermarket 164 1.1% 114 1.0%
South Tahoe Public Utility District 113 0.7% 118 1.0%
Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel - - 142 1.2%
All Other Employers 12,567 82.4% 9,063 77.4%
Total Workforce 15,247 100.0% 11,706 100.0%
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2020.

Table 4-10 shows the SSRHNO Report job forecasts for the South Shore Region in 2026 compared to the 2019 baseline job estimates. Employment projections were not available for individual cities. From 2019 to 2026, the South Shore Region is expected to add 2,230 jobs, a 1.1-percent increase per year. El Dorado County will have a similar annual growth rate of 1.2 percent, or approximately 6,790 jobs are forecast to be added from 2019 to 2026. Overall, it is expected that some areas in the South Shore Region will accommodate more job growth and some areas will experience less job growth than the average annual growth rate anticipated for the whole region.
660

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-24 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-10

EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
El Dorado County, Douglas County, and South Shore Region1 2019-2026
Jurisdiction 2019 2026 Annual Growth Rate
El Dorado County 79,820 86,610 1.2%
Douglas County 28,680 30,880 1.1%
South Shore Region 26,880 29,110 1.1%
Source: 2020 TRPA Regional Transportation Plan; 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 1 The South Shore Region includes the Tahoe regions of Douglas County, the City of South Lake Tahoe, and unincorporated areas of El Dorado County, including Tahoma, in the South Tahoe area.

As shown in Table 4-11, the State Economic Development Department (EDD) produces yearly occupational employment and wage data by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) that reports employment projections out to 2028 related to job growth for the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA, which includes the El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. During the 10-year period (2018–2028), new employment in the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA is expected in a variety of occupations. The three occupation groups expected to have the most growth are personal care and service, healthcare support, and healthcare practitioners and technical occupations. When comparing annual incomes to the median El Dorado County income in 2021 for a family of four of $91,100 (see Table 4- 20), only five of the occupational groups in Table 4-11 offer mean salaries above this median income.

Of the 22 occupational groups, the highest mean annual salaries are in the management occupations and legal occupations at $121,473 and $119,663, respectively. The lowest annual salary is in the food preparation and serving-related occupations at $29,635. 661

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-25
TABLE 4-11

PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION AND WAGE
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area 2020
Occupations of Residents
Mean
Hourly
Wage
Mean
Annual
Salary
Estimated
Employment
2018
Projected
Employment
2028
Percentage
Change
Management Occupations $58.40 $121,473 68,940 74,250 7.7% Business and Financial Operations
Occupations
$37.93 $78,885 86,760 93,410 7.7%
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $47.24 $98,253 33,650 35,790 6.4% Architecture and Engineering Occupations $49.15 $102,227 19,670 20,820 5.8% Life, Physical, and Social Science
Occupations
$38.62 $80,337 15,250 16,630 9.0%
Community and Social Service
Occupations
$29.07 $60,460 18,810 20,750 10.3%
Legal Occupations $57.53 $119,663 10,230 10,670 4.3%
Educational Instruction and Library
Occupations
$31.43 $65,373 64,400 68,270 6.0%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and
Media Occupations
$29.77 $61,910 16,230 17,250 6.3%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
$53.73 $111,757 52,030 60,990 17.2%
Healthcare Support Occupations $16.52 $34,373 23,510 27,930 18.8% Protective Service Occupations $30.16 $62,731 23,280 24,230 4.1% Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
$14.25 $29,635 90,660 104,000 14.7%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance Occupations
$17.75 $36,907 35,430 38,940 9.9%
Personal Care and Service Occupations $16.21 $33,724 71,020 86,920 22.4% Sales and Related Occupations $22.20 $46,183 97,630 98,710 1.1% Office and Administrative Support
Occupations
$21.80 $45,344 154,060 153,050 -0.7%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $14.93 $31,059 7,480 7,370 -1.5% Construction and Extraction Occupations $28.74 $59,779 59,640 65,990 10.6% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
$26.82 $55,794 34,360 36,700 6.8%
Production Occupations $21.02 $43,710 32,070 32,820 2.3% Transportation and Material Moving
Occupations
$18.79 $39,072 65,170 75,090 15.2%
Source: EDD, 2021.
662

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-26 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.2.9 School Enrollment
South Lake Tahoe is served by three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school as part of the Lake Tahoe Unified School District. In addition, the district introduced an alternative online learning option for students in Fall 2020. Enrollment in the school district has decreased by approximately six percent since 2016 as shown below:
 School Year (SY) 2016-17: 3,951 students
 SY 2017-18: 3,906 students
 SY 2018-19: 3,872 students
 SY 2019-20: 3,905 students
 SY 2020-21: 3,725 students
If the trend in decreasing school enrollment continues, family housing will decrease in demand in relation to other types of housing in South Lake Tahoe.

4.2.3 Housing Characteristics and Trends

4.2.3.1 Housing Inventory/Supply
Table 4-12 and Figure 4-3 present comparative data on the housing stock in the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. The table summarizes the total housing stock according to the type of housing structure.

As shown in Table 4-12, single-family detached housing units account for the majority of housing in the city and county. The city has a significantly smaller proportion of single-family detached homes compared to El Dorado County. In 2019, 60.32 percent of the city’s housing stock was single-family detached compared to 81.78 percent for the county. The majority of this difference between the city and county is made up by multifamily developments. South Lake Tahoe had a total of 33.57 percent of its housing in multifamily developments in 2019, whereas the county had only 12.22 percent of its housing in this type.
663

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-27
FIGURE 4-3: HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Source: 2019 DOF estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

TABLE 4-12

HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010 and 2019
Year Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Mobile
Detached Attached Homes 2 to 4 5 plus
City of South Lake Tahoe
2010
# 15,087 9,476 376 2,454 2,218 563
% 100.00% 62.81% 2.49% 16.27% 14.70% 3.73%
2019
# 15,831 9,550 404 2,454 2,860 563
% 100.00% 60.32% 2.55% 15.50% 18.07% 3.56%
El Dorado County
2010
# 88,159 72,312 1,322 4,862 5,585 4,078
% 100.00% 82.02% 1.50% 5.52% 6.34% 4.63%
2019
# 91,987 75,227 1,393 4,870 6,372 4,125
% 100.00% 81.78% 1.51% 5.29% 6.93% 4.48%
Source: 2019 DOF estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Homes
South Lake Tahoe 62.88% 33.57% 3.56%
El Dorado County 83.29% 12.22% 4.48%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Percent of Occupied Units
664

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-28 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Table 4-13 shows the number of housing units and employed residents in the city and county in 2010 and 2019. The ratio of these figures is known as the housing-jobs ratio and can be used to evaluate the balance between job opportunities and housing availability in the city. In 2019, the housing-jobs ratio was 0.7 in the city and 0.9 in the county. This indicates that there are slightly fewer jobs than homes in the city and the county, and residents may need to commute outside their local jurisdiction to find employment.

Keeping housing and jobs in balance and near each other helps to reduce energy used for commuting.

TABLE 4-13

HOUSING-JOBS RATIO
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010 and 2019
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
2010 2019 2010 2019
Housing Units 15,087 15,831 88,159 91,987
Employed Residents 12,223 11,800 84,829 85,101
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.9
Source: 2019 DOF estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020); 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates TRPA housing unit projections for 2045, published in 2020, updated projections for population, households, and jobs for 2045 using 2018 as the baseline for comparison. Table 4-14 reports the growth as a 9.7-percent increase in housing units in the Tahoe Basin, from 47,655 housing units in 2018 to 52,273 units in 2045. It is expected that some areas in the Tahoe Region will accommodate more housing unit growth and some areas will experience less housing unit growth than the average 9.6 percent anticipated for the whole region. The growth rate in South Lake Tahoe is slightly higher at 14.2-percent from 2018 to 2045.

TABLE 4-14

HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Basin
2018-2045
Jurisdiction 2018 2045
South Lake Tahoe 15,684 17,914
Tahoe Region1 15,684 17,914
Source: TRPA Project Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2021; 2020 RTP Projected Development Data, 2020.1 Tahoe Region consists of El Dorado, Placer, Douglas, and Washoe Counties.

4.2.3.2 Vacancy Rates and Rental Housing
The vacancy rate is an important factor in the availability of housing. Where vacancy rates are high, housing prices and rents tend to be lower. A vacancy rate of 5 percent or lower for rental housing and 2 percent or lower for ownership housing indicates a “tight housing market,” meaning that it is harder to find available units in any particular area or price range. In 2019, DOF reported the South Lake Tahoe homeowner vacancy rate to be 2.4 percent, with a rental vacancy rate of 7.3 percent. 665

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-29
The local tourist economy creates an attractive market for buying houses as second homes. Tourists come to the city and infuse substantial amounts of disposable income into the local economy, which has positive aspects for South Lake Tahoe. The city benefits from the generation of transient occupancy taxes from the local motels, hotels, and vacation rental units.

There are several concerns associated with the high percentage of seasonal and tourist units. In 2019, 49.9 percent of housing units in South Lake Tahoe were considered “vacant” according to the Census. Of these vacant units, 84.2 percent were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, as shown previously in Table 4-7. Vacant units that were available for rent in 2017 constituted 4.3 percent of vacancies.

The use of housing as vacation rentals may reduce the number of available rental units for the local workforce; however, Measure T went into effect in January 2022, and vacation rentals are only permitted in commercial areas of the city. These homes would not likely be available as full-time rentals if they were not used as vacation rentals, as they are located in non-residential areas. While the second home market in South Lake Tahoe increases competition for homebuyers and is a force that drives up prices, Measure T has curbed this type of competition in residential areas.

As mentioned previously, some individuals and families resort to renting motel rooms rather than renting residential units when they cannot save enough money for refundable security deposits (typically two months’ rent for damages or unpaid rent), or if they have a poor rental history and are unable to compete for a rental. At weekly room rental rates ranging between $322 and $3,493 per week (or $1,288 to $13,972 monthly) depending on the season and motel, the motel rate can cost more than an equivalent market-rate studio residential unit, making it difficult to save the money needed to break out of the motelroom cycle. Units are sometimes overcrowded, either with families or sometimes with seasonal workers stretching their housing dollars by “hot bedding” (the practice of sharing a unit with others who work opposite shifts such that there is always someone sleeping in the bed).

However, for many motel residents, motel living is a lifestyle choice. These residents may prefer to live in motels because of amenities such as maid service and the ease of paying a single bill each month. Others may be mentally or physically disabled and prefer a less independent style of living offered at motels with cleaning services and other basic amenities. Also, some of the residents live and work at the same motel.

4.2.3.3 Overcrowded Housing
Overcrowding is a measure of the capacity of the housing stock to adequately accommodate residents.

Too many individuals living in a housing unit with inadequate space and number of rooms can result in unhealthy living arrangements, as well as accelerated deterioration of the housing stock. The concept of overcrowding is partly determined by cultural preferences. In the United States, housing providers typically consider a household as overcrowded if there is more than one person per room or two persons per bedroom. When calculating the number of people per room, bathrooms and kitchens are excluded. “Extreme overcrowding” is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. This definition of overcrowding does not consider the size of a dwelling unit or bedroom or the practice of extended family living that is common in some cultures.
666

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-30 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Overcrowding can result when the cost of available housing with a sufficient number of bedrooms for larger families exceeds the family’s ability to afford such housing, or when unrelated individuals share dwelling units due to high housing costs. Table 4-15 shows the number of persons per room for renterand owner-occupied housing units in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. Of the city’s occupied housing units in 2017, approximately 1.1 percent were extremely overcrowded, compared to 0.5 percent in El Dorado County. Extreme overcrowding occurred slightly more in owner-occupied housing than rental housing in South Lake Tahoe, while it was more common in rental housing in El Dorado County.

Overall, there was a 6.4-percentage point decrease in extreme overcrowding from 2010, when 7.5 percent of the city’s households were extremely overcrowded. The City has observed an increase in overcrowding as housing prices rose during the COVID-19 pandemic.

TABLE 4-15

OVERCROWDED HOUSING
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010 and 2017
Persons per
Room
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Rental Units Owner Units Rental Units Owner Units
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 2010
1 or less 3,876 85.7% 3,698 95.0% 15,057 92.7% 50,913 98.2%

1.01 to 1.50 412 9.1% 104 2.7% 869 5.4% 779 1.5%

1.51 or more 233 5.2% 90 2.3% 320 2.0% 180 0.4%
TOTAL 4,521 100.0% 3,892 100.0% 16,246 100.0% 51,872 100.0% 2017
1 or less 4,425 92.3% 4,015 98.3% 15,386 95.4% 51,239 98.6%

1.01 to 1.50 322 6.7% 26 0.6% 589 3.7% 544 1.1%

1.51 or more 49 1.0% 45 1.1% 161 1.0% 165 0.3%
TOTAL 4,796 100.0% 4,086 100.0% 16,136 100.0% 51,948 100.0% Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020); 2008–2010 Census ACS.

4.2.3.4 Household Size
Table 4-16 summarizes average household size and number of persons per housing unit for South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County in 2017. According to the ACS, the proportion of households occupied by one person in South Lake Tahoe (36.6 percent) was larger than the proportions of one-person households in El Dorado County (23.6 percent). Households with two to four people made up 57.3 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe in 2017. This proportion was lower in the city than in El Dorado County (68.5 percent). Renter-occupied households had a slightly higher proportion of one-person households (41.6 percent) and households with five or more people (6.3 percent) than owner-occupied households (30.9 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively). Owner-occupied households had a higher proportion of households with two to four people (63.4 percent) than renter households (52.2 percent). 667

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-31
TABLE 4-16

HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Owner-Occupied
1 Person 1,261 30.9% 10,636 20.5%
2-4 People 2,589 63.4% 37,421 72.0%
5 + Persons 236 5.8% 3,891 7.5%
TOTAL 4,086 100.0% 51,948 100.0%
Renter-Occupied
1 Person 1,993 41.6% 5,412 33.5%
2-4 People 2,501 52.2% 9,227 57.2%
5 + Persons 302 6.3% 1,497 9.3%
TOTAL 4,796 100.0% 16,136 100.0%
Total Households
1 Person 3,254 36.6% 16,048 23.6%
2-4 People 5,090 57.3% 46,648 68.5%
5 + Persons 538 6.1% 5,388 7.9%
TOTAL 8,882 100.0% 68,084 100.0%
Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

4.2.4 Development Trends
As the next section describes, housing prices have increased significantly in the last few decades, and it is true that people are no longer building 860-square-foot “Tahoe cabins.” Developers find higher profitability in the upper-end ownership market than in first-time homebuyer market and rental market, causing builders to focus on that market in their speculative development.

However, the City’s method of distributing 30 percent of the limited market-rate residential allocations it receives from TRPA to new multifamily units ensures that multifamily housing is also constructed. In the past, these units have tended to be used for smaller multifamily rental housing (typically four units or fewer with two bedrooms per unit) or small individual ownership condominiums that can benefit the firsttime homebuyer. This new construction adds diversity to what would likely otherwise be aging multifamily rental housing stock. Since TRPA began offering bonus units for low, moderate, and achievable-income units, the City has seen an increase ranging from 15 to 30 achievable-income units per multi-family project.

4.2.4.1 Housing Conditions
The US Census provides limited data that can be used to make inferences about the condition of South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock. For example, the ACS reports on whether housing units have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Since less than one percent of all housing units in South Lake Tahoe were 668

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-32 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
lacking either complete plumbing facilities or complete kitchen facilities in 2017 (see Table 4-17), these indicators do not reveal much about overall housing conditions.

Housing stock age and condition are generally correlated, so one variable in the ACS that provides an indication of housing conditions is the age of a community’s housing stock. Table 4-17 shows the median year built and the decade built for owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County in 2017. As shown in the table, South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock is older than El Dorado County housing stock. Over 79 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s housing units were built before 1980, compared to 48 percent for El Dorado County. With Tahoe’s winter climate, older houses require more investment to keep them properly maintained.

TABLE 4-17

AGE OF HOUSING STOCK & HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2013–2017 Estimate
Total Occupied Housing Units
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Built 2014 or later 54 0.30% 425 0.48%
Built 2010 to 2013 82 0.46% 773 0.87%
Built 2000 to 2009 1,004 5.67% 14,343 16.06%
Built 1990 to 1999 1,170 6.60% 14,635 16.39%
Built 1980 to 1989 1,381 7.80% 16,253 18.20%
Built 1970 to 1979 5,080 28.68% 20,654 23.13%
Built 1960 to 1969 4,828 27.26% 10,362 11.61%
Built 1950 to 1959 2,893 16.33% 6,617 7.41%
Built 1940 to 1949 843 4.76% 2,714 3.04%
Built 1939 or earlier 379 2.14% 2,510 2.81%
TOTAL 17,714 100.00% 89,286 100.00%
Median Year Built 1971 - 1982 -
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 12 0.13% 151 0.21% Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 46 0.52% 347 0.49% Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

4.2.4.2 2019 Housing Conditions Survey
In 2019, the City of South Lake Tahoe contracted with Michael Baker International to evaluate the amount of existing housing stock needing rehabilitation and replacement. The housing conditions survey was modeled after the HCD Sample Housing Survey3 with additional features such as fire safety defensible space and drainage. The survey included 4,009 units, compared to 5,166 units surveyed in 3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/housing-stockcharacteristics/docs/samplehousingconditionsurvey.pdf 669

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-33
2002. The survey findings present a snapshot of all the neighborhoods across the city surveyed; these samples are not necessarily representative of each sub-area or of the city as a whole.

4.2.4.2.1 Survey Methodology
The 2019 Housing Conditions Survey used the DOF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities (January 2019), and it was determined that South Lake Tahoe had a total of 15,831 housing units. The survey sample size was at least 25 percent of the total housing stock in each neighborhood. Of the 4,009 units surveyed, 75 percent were single-family units, 13 percent were multifamily housing units, 4 percent were condominiums, 5 percent were mobile homes, 4 percent were Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units, and less than 1 percent were “other” types of housing, including senior housing and multiple residences on one property. While neighborhoods were identified prior to field surveys, no individual housing structures were specifically targeted to ensure that no bias was involved in the final count. The only exception to this were SROs that City staff had indicated a need to observe all SROs within South Lake Tahoe. Housing units in all six census tracts in South Lake Tahoe were surveyed and each neighborhood contributed between 10 and 26 percent of the total units surveyed.

Information on housing conditions was conducted on a parcel-by-parcel basis and in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65583.4 Data was collected through a “windshield survey,” a drive-by assessment of exterior housing conditions. While a drive-by inspection can determine if a housing unit needs a new foundation, roof, or paint, it cannot identify substandard interior conditions, such as faulty plumbing or wiring. By assessing the condition of the exterior electrical box, however, a correlation between substandard interior conditions and a damaged or faulty electrical box can be made.

Housing units that require exterior rehabilitation often require interior rehabilitation as well.

The survey noted the following housing characteristics: address, address visibility, appearance of vacancy, structure type, construction type, frontage improvements, curbs, roof gutters, sidewalks, driveway, adequate site drainage, garage, garage type, defensible space, types of defensible space issues, type of siding, foundation, roofing, side condition, windows, landscaping, and condition of driveway.

Housing conditions were evaluated based on a point rating system devised by HCD. Each unit was rated with a numbered assessment based on the condition of six exterior conditions (foundation, windows, roofing, siding, landscaping, and condition of driveway). “Electrical” from the HCD survey was removed from the final survey as it was determined to be difficult to accurately score electrical boxes/conditions from the road during a windshield survey. The total point score for the six rated conditions comprises the total rating for each housing unit. Based on the total point score, each unit was categorized as sound; needing minor rehabilitation, moderate rehabilitation, or substantial rehabilitation; or dilapidated (infeasible to rehabilitate).

4.2.4.2.2 Survey Results
Of the six Census tracts surveyed, Tract 303.01 (primarily consisting of the Tahoe Sierra neighborhood) was found to have the highest incidence (0.5 percent of all units surveyed within the same tract) of units in need of moderate or substantial repairs and/or dilapidated homes. Tract 304.02 (which includes the Bonanza, Barron, and Gardener Mountain neighborhoods) and Tract 304.01 (which includes the Tahoe 4 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=3. &article=10.6.
670

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-34 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Keys and the Tahoe Island neighborhoods) each had 0.1 percent units in need of moderate or substantial repairs and/or dilapidated homes of all units surveyed within the same tract. Table 4-18 summarizes the overall structural score for all housing units surveyed in South Lake Tahoe as of the 2019 Housing Conditions Survey and Table 4-19 lists housing conditions by structural issues.

TABLE 4-18

OVERALL STRUCTURAL SCORE
South Lake Tahoe
2019
Score Total Units Percentage
Sound 3,809 95.0%
Minor Repairs Needed 151 3.8%
Moderate Repairs Needed 44 1.1%
Substantial Repairs Needed 3 0.1%
Dilapidated 2 0.1%
TOTAL 4,009 100%
Source: 2019 Housing Conditions Survey, Michael Baker International.

TABLE 4-19

HOUSING CONDITIONS BY STRUCTURAL ISSUE
South Lake Tahoe
2019
Structural Issue Units Percentage
Driveway fair, poor, or needs replacement 1,754 48.0%
Siding needing paint, repair, or replacement 391 10.0%
Landscaping with weeds, trash, poorly maintained or needs replacement 286 7.0% Roof needing repair or replacement 193 5.0%
Foundation needing repair or installation 65 2.0%
Windows needing repair or replacement 22 0.1%
TOTAL 2,711 --
Source: 2019 Housing Conditions Survey, Michael Baker International.

Note: % of total is based on the total number of homes surveyed that has that type of structure. The % of total is based on the total repairs or replacement needed.

Foundation Condition
The building foundation bears the load of the building, isolates it from ground moisture, and anchors the structure to ensure safety during earthquakes. Of the units surveyed, three structures had no foundation, and six structures had a partial foundation. In addition, 65 housing units (2 percent of the units surveyed) had foundation issues. Mobile homes were excluded from scoring in this category since they typically don’t have foundations.
671

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-35
Roofing Condition
Damaged roofs contribute to the deterioration of the interior and exterior of a housing unit, and 193 units (5 percent) of all units surveyed needed roof repairs. The most common issue was missing shingles.

Seven units needed roof replacement, while 40 units needed re-roofing. Of the roofs in need of replacement, the large majority had wood-shingle roofs.

Siding Condition
The most common siding type is wood, or a combination of wood and another siding type. The most common issues found with siding was the need to repaint the exterior, which correlates to the wood siding type due to the cold climate conditions in South Lake Tahoe. Of the housing units surveyed, 391 units (10 percent) have siding repairs needed, of those, 24 units (0.6 percent) needed siding replaced entirely. The 24 housing units that needed replacement and painting of their siding spanned most housing types, excluding condominiums because they typically have Homeowners Association (HOAs) that maintain elements such as siding. The largest percentage (32 percent) of housing units that need siding replacement and painting are in Tract 303.01.

Window Condition
Only 1 percent (22 units) of all housing units surveyed had any issues with windows. Of those, only three needed windows replaced.

Landscaping Condition
While landscaping was not part of the HCD Sample Survey, the City reviewed landscaping conditions as another component that can affect housing conditions. Many of the housing units surveyed in South Lake Tahoe opted to keep their landscaping natural (i.e., pine trees, indigenous brush), which is categorized as “maintained/natural landscaping.” An overgrowth of weeds, or combustible material/vegetation within 10 feet of the structure is categorized as “poorly maintained/weeds/trash.” Overall, 7 percent of the housing units surveyed had landscaping issues, with 1.4 percent that were poorly maintained or needed replacement. The bulk of these housing units were almost evenly divided between Tract 303.01 (23 housing units) and Tract 304.02 (22 housing units).

Driveway Condition
Weather plays a large part in a housing unit’s driveway conditions. Extreme cold weather can accelerate erosion of materials, such as asphalt, cement, and brick. Of all the scored conditions of the housing units surveyed, driveways had the highest occurrence of issues. Of the 4,009 housing units surveyed, 3,630 (91 percent) had paved driveways. There were 1,754 (48 percent) units whose driveways had issues - either some cracks, large cracks, or major repairs needed.

4.2.4.3 Housing Affordability
For the purpose of evaluating housing affordability, housing need, and eligibility for housing assistance, income levels are defined by guidelines adopted each year by HCD. Table 4-20 shows the median household income for various sized households in the county in 2021. A four-person household in El Dorado County had a median annual income of $91,100. Overall, the median household income in South Lake Tahoe was $44,217 and $70,000 in the county.
672

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-36 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-20

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
El Dorado County
2021
El Dorado County
Median Income
1-Person Household $63,750
2-Person Household $72,900
3-Person Household $82,000
4-Person Household $91,100
5-Person Household $98,400
6-Person Household $105,700
7+ Person Household $112,950
Source: HCD 2021 Income Limits

4.2.4.4 Housing Cost Burdens
HCD calls for an analysis of the proportion of “lower-income” households “overpaying for housing.” Lower-income households are defined as those that earn 80 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). This is a share of income approach to measure housing affordability in terms of the percentage of income that a household spends on its housing.

An assessment of housing cost burdens requires that information about household size be combined with information on household income for each household individually. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) creates a special Census tabulation for use in Consolidated Plans.5 The data in this section uses this Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from HUD’s State of the Cities Data Systems website.

A “moderate cost burden” is defined by HUD as gross housing costs between 31 and 50 percent of gross income. A “severe cost burden” is defined as gross housing costs exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

For renters, gross housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. 5 The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data file is a detailed tabulation of the decennial Census sponsored by HUD. It includes extensive data on a variety of physical and financial housing characteristics and needs categorized by HUD-defined income limits (30, 50, and 80 percent of area median income) and HUD-specified household types. As with the long form in the decennial Census, CHAS indicators are estimates based on a sample of households. These special tabulation data are used by local governments for housing planning as part of the Consolidated Planning process and by HUD for various allocation formulas to distribute funds to localities. 673

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-37
Income groups are shown in the CHAS tabulation based on the HUD-adjusted area median family income. The area median family income is based on the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area, encompassing El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. In 1974, Congress defined “low income” and “very low income” for HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 50 percent, respectively, of the area median family income, as adjusted by HUD.6 Table 4-21 shows the CHAS special tabulation data from the 2012–2016 Census ACS regarding the percentage of lower-income households with a housing cost burden greater than 30 percent and greater than 50 percent by tenure and for extremely low-income households with a cost burden greater than 50 percent in South Lake Tahoe.

TABLE 4-21

HOUSING COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION
South Lake Tahoe
2016
South Lake Tahoe
Owners Renters Total
Household Income ≤ 30% MFI (Extremely Low Income [ELI]) Total households in jurisdiction 375 1,065 1,440
Number of ELI households w/ cost burden > 50% 310 730 1,040 Percentage w/ cost burden > 50% 82.7% 68.5% 72.2%
Household Income < 80% MFI (Lower Income)
Total households in jurisdiction 1,590 3,190 4,780
Number of lower-income households w/ cost burden > 30% 1,080 2,105 3,185 Percentage w/ cost burden > 30% 67.9% 65.99% 66.6%
Number of lower-income households w/ cost burden > 50% 730 1,050 1,780 Percentage w/ cost burden > 50% 45.9% 32.9% 37.2%
Total Lower-Income Households with Cost Burden 1,560 2,180 3,740 Percentage of Total Lower-Income Households with Cost Burden 98.1% 68.3% 78.2% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Data (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Approximately 72.2 percent of extremely low-income households had a housing cost burden greater than 50 percent in 2016. In all three of the lower-income categories (extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households), 66.6 percent had a cost burden greater than 30 percent and 37.2 percent had a cost burden greater than 50 percent. The percentage of owners with this cost burden was higher than renters in both categories (extremely low-income and lower incomes combined). Cost burdens affect a large number of South Lake Tahoe residents. Of all city households, 44.5 percent were cost burdened in 2016.
6 Statutory adjustments now include upper and lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and, for each non-metropolitan county, a lower cap equal to its state’s non-metropolitan average. Estimates of the median family income and the official income cutoffs for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county are based on the most recent decennial Census results and are updated each year by HUD. Each base income cutoff is assumed to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by household size: one person, 70 percent of base; two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent; five persons, 108 percent; six persons, 116 percent; etc. 674

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-38 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Table 4-22 shows the number of households by tenure that has any housing problems according to the 2013-2017 ACS-based CHAS database. A housing problem includes conditions such as lack of kitchen or plumbing, more than one person per room, or a cost burden greater than 30 percent of the AMI by income category. As shown in Table 4-22, housing problems are experienced by the majority of extremely lowand very low-income households. Overall, 2,565 households (79.4 percent) of the total very low- and extremely low-income households reported having any of the housing problems. Of extremely low- and very low-income owners, 78.9 percent reported having any housing problem, and 79.7 percent of renteroccupied households also experienced any of the housing problems.

TABLE 4-22

HOUSING PROBLEMS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION
South Lake Tahoe
2017
South Lake Tahoe
Owners Renters Total
Household income ≤ 30% AMI with any housing problem 375 830 1,205 Household income > 30% ≤ 50% AMI with any housing problem 445 915 1,360 Percentage of households (≤50% AMI) with any housing problem 78.9% 79.7% 79.4% Source: 2013-2017 CHAS.

4.2.4.5 Ability to Pay for Housing
The following section compares 2013 income levels and ability to pay for housing with actual housing costs. Housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent (including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). Since above moderateincome households do not generally have problems locating affordable units, affordable housing is usually defined as units that are reasonably priced for low- and moderate-income households. The list below shows the definition of housing income limits as they are applied to housing units in South Lake Tahoe.
 Extremely Low-Income Unit: Affordable to households whose combined income is between the floor set at the minimum Supplemental Security Income and 30 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD (using El Dorado County statistics).  Very Low-Income Unit: Affordable to households whose combined income is at or lower than 50 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD.  Low-Income Unit: Affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 51 and 80 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD.  Median-Income Unit: Affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 81 and 100 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD. Note that HCD defines the median income as 100-percent AMI.
675

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-39
 Moderate-Income Unit: Affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 81 and 120 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD.  Above Moderate-Income Unit: Affordable to a household whose combined income is above 120 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD.

According to HCD, the median family income for a four-person household in El Dorado County was $91,100 in 2021. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a HUD formula. The income limits are shown in Table 4-23.

TABLE 4-23

HCD INCOME LIMITS BASED ON PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD
El Dorado County
2021
Income Categories
Persons per Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low Income $19,050 $21,800 $24,500 $27,200 $31,040 Very Low Income $31,750 $36,250 $40,800 $45,300 $48,950 Low Income $50,750 $58,000 $65,250 $72,500 $78,300
Median Income $63,750 $72,900 $82,000 $91,100 $98,400
Moderate Income $76,500 $87,450 $98,350 $109,300 $118,050 Source: HCD FY 2021 El Dorado County Income Limits
The HCD income limits for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households are used to determine if households qualify for certain housing programs, including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. It is important to note that the median income in South Lake Tahoe is significantly lower than the income used to establish the income limits applied by HCD. At the time of the 2015-2019 Census ACS, South Lake Tahoe’s median family income was $49,390 compared to $83,377 for El Dorado County.
7 Table 4-24 shows the 2021 HCD household income limits for El Dorado County by the number of persons in the household for the lower four income categories discussed previously. The table also shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a three-person household was classified as low-income (80 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $65,250 in 2021. A household with this income could afford to pay a monthly gross rent (including utilities) of up to $1,631 or to purchase a house priced at or below $308,000. 7 The 2015-2019 ACS estimate of median family income is $83,377 and the 2021 HCD Income Limit estimate of median household income for a family of four is $91,100. For the sake of the analysis in this section, a comparison between the City and County data from the same source (2015-2019 ACS) is more accurate. However, the State has approved the 2021 HCD Income Limits, so that data source is used as the primary estimate of median household income in this Housing Element. 676

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-40 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-24

ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING BASED ON HCD INCOME LIMITS
El Dorado County
2021
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2021 Median Family Income Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $19,050 $21,800 $24,500 $27,200 $31,040 $35,580 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $476 $545 $613 $680 $776 $890
Max. Purchase Price2 $89,900 $102,900 $115,600 $128,400 $146,500 $167,900 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2021 Median Family Income Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $31,750 $36,250 $40,800 $45,300 $48,950 $52,550 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $794 $906 $1,020 $1,133 $1,224 $1,314 Max. Purchase Price2 $149,900 $171,100 $192,600 $213,800 $231,000 $248,000 Low-Income Households at 80% of 2021 Median Family Income Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $50,750 $58,000 $65,250 $72,500 $78,300 $84,100 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,269 $1,450 $1,631 $1,813 $1,958 $2,103 Max. Purchase Price2 $239,500 $273,700 $308,000 $342,200 $369,600 $396,900 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2021 Median Family Income Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $76,500 $87,450 $98,350 $109,300 $118,050 $126,800 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,913 $2,186 $2,459 $2,733 $2,951 $3,170 Max. Purchase Price2 $361,100 $412,700 $464,200 $515,900 $557,200 $598,500 Sources: HCD FY 2021 El Dorado County Income Limits; PlaceWorks, 2021. 1 Assumes that 30% of income is available for either monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance.
2 Maximum housing purchase prices are based on the following assumed variables: a down payment that is 10% of the total cost, 1.2% annual property taxes, and 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 4.00% annual interest rate. 677

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-41
Table 4-25 shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for El Dorado County in 2021. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities.8
HUD uses FMRs for a variety of purposes: FMRs determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program; Section 8 Rental Certificate program participants cannot rent units whose rents exceed the FMRs; and FMRs also serve as the payment standard used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program.

As stated previously, a three-person household classified as low income (80 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $65,250 could afford to pay $1,631 monthly gross rent (including utilities). The 2021 FMR for a two-bedroom unit in El Dorado County was $1,330. Therefore, a low-income household at the top of the income range could afford to rent a unit at the FMR level, assuming that such a unit is available for rent.

However, a three-person household classified as very low income (50 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $40,800 could afford to pay only $1,020 for monthly gross rent. This household could not afford the FMR of $1,330 for a two-bedroom unit nor the FMR of $1,060 for a one-bedroom unit.

Households with incomes below 50 percent of the median would have even less income to spend on rent.

As previously stated, given the disparity between the median incomes of El Dorado County and South Lake Tahoe, the HUD-defined income limits and FMR for the county are not entirely accurate indicators of the rents that low-income residents in South Lake Tahoe can afford.

TABLE 4-25

HUD FAIR MARKET RENT
El Dorado County
2021
Bedrooms in Unit Fair Market Rent (FMR)
Studio $940
1 Bedroom $1,060
2 Bedrooms $1,330
3 Bedrooms $1,900
4 Bedrooms $2,300
Source: HUD User Data Sets: 2021 FY FMR
8 According to HUD, “the level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standard-quality rental housing units. The current definition used is the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which 40 percent of the standard-quality rental housing units are rented. The 40th percentile rent is drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by recent movers (renter households who moved to their present residence within the past 15 months). Public housing units and units less than 2 years old are excluded.” 678

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-42 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.4.6 Housing Costs

4.2.4.6.1 Average Monthly Rents
Typical rents in South Lake Tahoe have been increasing. The seasonal nature of the Lake Tahoe workforce leads to considerable turnover of housing units in the city. With frequent turnover in units, landlords are able to raise rents more easily and more often than if the residents stayed for longer periods.

This pattern of “unit hopping,” combined with the lack of new rental unit development, has allowed the cost of rental housing to increase much faster than local workers’ incomes.

Table 4-26 shows the median contract rents and median gross rents for households in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County at the time of the 2015-2019 Census ACS. The split between gross rent (which includes all utilities payments) and contract rent (the amount paid to the property manager) can differ among areas not just because of different utility prices, but also because contract rents may or may not include utilities, while gross rents always do. For most housing analysis, comparing gross rents rather than contract rents is a better choice since gross rents are a more comprehensive measure of renters’ costs and using it ensures that the same housing cost components are included for all renters.

The median gross rent in 2019 for South Lake Tahoe was $1,020. As shown in Table 4-26, the median contract rent in South Lake Tahoe in 2019 ($931) was lower than El Dorado County ($1,114). The median gross rent in South Lake Tahoe in 2019 ($1,020) was also lower than the county ($1,260). While rents were slightly more affordable in South Lake Tahoe, median incomes in the city were significantly lower than incomes in El Dorado County, as discussed previously.

TABLE 4-26

MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT AND MEDIAN GROSS RENT
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2019
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Median contract rent $931 $1,114
Median gross rent $1,020 $1,260
Source: US Census 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates
It should be noted that South Lake Tahoe’s median rent levels shown in Table 4-26 are not influenced by the large number of seasonal homes, some of which are vacation rentals. While some data sources, such as the American Housing Survey, estimate the contract rents of vacant units, rents on vacant units from the Census are unavailable and are therefore excluded.

Table 4-27 shows the average monthly rents for 2021 for apartments and homes in South Lake Tahoe.

These current average rents were estimated based on rental listings in May 2021. The majority of rents do not include utility costs. Average monthly rents for all size units are lower than the HUD FMR figures shown in Table 4-25. At these rent levels, an average one-bedroom rental ($1,510 monthly rent) would likely be affordable (depending on utility costs) to a two-person moderate-income household (can afford $1,823 monthly rent and utilities).
679

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-43
Unlike the cost of homeownership in South Lake Tahoe, rents are more affordable to households with median and low incomes; however, market rents are still out of reach to individuals and families with very low incomes. As shown in Table 4-24, an extremely low-income family of four can afford to spend a maximum of $680 for monthly rent and utilities. The average rent for a three-bedroom apartment or house ($3,800) is over five times the affordable price limit for an extremely low-income family.

TABLE 4-27

AVERAGE RENTS
South Lake Tahoe
2021
Number of Bedrooms Average Rent Range Number of Listings Studio $1,098 $1,000 to $1,195 2
1 Bedroom $1,510 $1,200 to $2,000 11
2 Bedrooms $2,581 $1,499 to $4,000 14
3 Bedrooms $3,800 $2,000 to $8,000 9
4 Bedrooms $4,150 $2,750 to $6,500 3
5 Bedrooms $3,350 $3,200 to $3,500 2
Source: Craigslist.com, Listings for South Lake Tahoe, May 1 through July 1, 2021

4.2.4.6.2 Value of Homes Sold
Table 4-28 summarizes the median sales prices for single-family homes sold in South Lake Tahoe each year between 2008 and 2021. Home prices decreased by $190,750 between 2008 and 2013, a 44.6-percent decrease. Since 2013, housing prices have more than doubled, and the average home price in 2021 was $620,000. The significant annual percent change in median sales prices between 2020 and 2021 can be attributed to housing market volatility during the COVID-19 pandemic. 680

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-44 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-28

MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
South Lake Tahoe
2008–2021
Year Median Sales Price % Change1
2008 $428,000 −
2009 $395,000 -7.71%
2010 $318,500 -19.37%
2011 $308,000 -3.30%
2012 $237,250 -22.97%
2013 $267,500 12.75%
2014 $331,500 23.93%
2015 $355,000 7.09%
2016 $379,500 6.90%
2017 $425,000 11.99%
2018 $450,000 5.88%
2019 $480,000 6.67%
2020 $470,000 -2.08%
2021 $620,000 31.91%
Source: South Tahoe Association of REALTORS® Multiple Listing Service Note:
1 Percent change is over a 12-month period.

Table 4-29 shows the median listing prices by number of bedrooms for single-family homes on the market in May 2021. The majority of single-family homes on the market during this time period had between two and four bedrooms. The median listing price for two-bedroom single-family homes in May 2021 was $457,500. The median listing price for three-bedroom homes was $646,300 and $1,224,500 for four-bedroom homes in May 2021.

While some of the two-bedroom homes listed in South Lake Tahoe in 2021 may be affordable to a moderate-income three-person household in South Lake Tahoe that can afford $448,803, these homes are older and likely need substantial rehabilitation. The majority of these homes were out of the price range of what moderate-income families in South Lake Tahoe can afford. Larger homes of four or more bedrooms were out of the price range of many larger families in South Lake Tahoe as well. For example, a lowincome family of five could afford a maximum purchase price of $356,874, and a moderate-income family of five could afford a maximum purchase price of $546,367. 681

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-45
TABLE 4-29

MEDIAN LISTING PRICE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
South Lake Tahoe
2021
Number of Bedrooms Median Listing Price Number of Listings Studio $42,000 1
1 $329,000 7
2 $457,500 24
3 $646,300 40
4 $1,224,500 22
5 $1,374,000 14
6+ $2,744,000 8
Source: Realtor.com. Search of homes listed in South Lake Tahoe, May 19, 2021.

Table 4-30 shows the median sales price of single-family homes in the Lake Tahoe area from November 2020 to May 2021. As shown in Table 4-28, the median sale price in South Lake Tahoe in that time frame was $620,000. Prices in the northern Lake Tahoe area were nearly 32 percent greater than those in South Lake Tahoe, with a median sale price of $818,250. El Dorado County median home prices were slightly lower than South Lake Tahoe at $597,500.

TABLE 4-30

MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
Lake Tahoe Area
2021
Area Median Sales Price % Difference from
South Lake Tahoe
South Lake Tahoe $620,000 --
Northern Lake Tahoe Area $818,250 31.98%
El Dorado County $597,500 -3.63%
California $654,290 5.53%
Source: South Tahoe Association of REALTORS® Multiple Listing Service, CoreLogic

4.2.4.7 Existing Housing Needs
Under state housing element requirements, housing needs are defined in three categories: existing needs, needs of special groups within the community, and projected needs over the next eight-year housing element planning period. Projected housing needs are the total additional housing units required to adequately house a jurisdiction’s projected population over the housing element planning period in units that are affordable, in standard condition, and not overcrowded. These needs, therefore, include those of the existing population, as well as the needs of the additional population projected to reside in the jurisdiction.
682

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-46 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.4.7.1 Special Housing Needs
Within the general population, there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections discuss these special housing needs of six groups identified in state housing element law (California Government Code, Section 65583(a)(6): “elderly, persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities), large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of household, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.” In addition to these six groups, the section also discusses the needs of students and seasonal employees. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in South Lake Tahoe falling into each group are shown. When such information is unavailable for South Lake Tahoe, estimates for El Dorado County are shown.

4.2.4.7.2 Homeless Persons
Those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless have varying housing needs. Some require emergency shelter, while others require other assistance to enable them to become productive members of society. Some are just passing through, while others are long-time residents. Often, there is crossover between one “special-needs” population group and another. For example, the seasonal and transient nature of much of the workforce may contribute to the potential for homelessness. Female heads of household may become homeless due to domestic violence. In each instance, the point of contact for addressing their homelessness is the problem that made them homeless.

Homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment and the inability to find a job because of the need for retraining leads to the loss of housing for some individuals and families. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, or drug and alcohol addictions, along with an inability to access the services and long-term support needed to address these conditions.

The housing needs of homeless persons are more difficult to measure and assess than those of any other population subgroup. Since these individuals have no permanent address, they are less likely to be counted in the Census. They are also unlikely to have stable employment, which makes housing opportunities limited. There are currently no homeless shelters in South Lake Tahoe, but the Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless purchased three properties through HomeKey in 2020, of which two properties are being utilized for permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness.

Most of the current homeless population often uses motel rooms or camping for their permanent residence.

In January 2020, El Dorado County conducted a “head count” of homeless people seen sleeping in public places. This is the most recent point-in-time count that results are available from. As shown in Table 4-31, this point-in-time count revealed 490 homeless individuals and 66 homeless people in families in the county. The Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless (TCH) reports that about 51 percent of all homeless individuals in El Dorado County reside in the Tahoe Basin as of 2021, and less than 1 percent divides their time evenly between the Tahoe Basin and Western Slope throughout the year. Due to the inclement winter weather in South Lake Tahoe, it is conceivable that the city’s summertime population of homeless residents is higher, but the wintertime count is the only available data. In 2021, HUD gave communities the option to cancel or modify the unsheltered survey portion of their counts based on the potential risk of 683

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-47
COVID-19 transmission associated with conducting an in -person survey. Therefore, 2020 data was used for this report.

TABLE 4-31

HOMELESSNESS
El Dorado County1
2020
Individual Persons in Families Total Homeless
(all ages)
2011 2020 % Change 2011 2020 %
Change 2011 2020
Total Homeless 107 490 357.9% 63 66 4.8% 170 556
Total Sheltered 76 87 14.5% 57 34 -40.4% 133 121
Total Unsheltered 31 403 1200.0% 6 32 433.3% 37 435
Total Chronically
Homeless
16 107 568.8% 0 0 0.0% 16 107
Total Chronically
Sheltered
9 2 -77.8% 0 0 0.0% 9 2
Total Chronically
Unsheltered
7 105 1400.0% 0 0 0.0% 7 105
Source: Continuum of Care or HUD, 2021. 1 Numbers are provided for the El Dorado County Continuum of Care.

All governmental services for homeless individuals or families in South Lake Tahoe are provided by El Dorado County. However, the City applied for and was awarded $505,632 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2020 to assist TCH with rehabilitation of the Bears Den Inn, one of the HomeKey properties that provides permanent supportive housing to people experiencing homelessness. In the past, the City has considered providing Section 8 rental assistance services (which is available to all lower income residents, not just people experiencing homelessness); however, after consultation with El Dorado County staff, the City and County concluded that it was best for the County to continue administering the program. City-provided services would not lead to any increase in assistance available in the community and would create a duplication of administrative efforts to implement the program separately for the City.

TCH previously provided an overnight winter emergency shelter in South Lake Tahoe, which was closed because of state restrictions on congregate spaces related to COVID-19. In response to the closure, TCH obtained CARE and HomeKey funds to purchase three motels in South Lake Tahoe to offer a noncongregate option, and the 59 beds within the three motels effectively serve as permanent supportive housing as of 2021. As shown in Table 4-32, there are 270 non-seasonal beds available in El Dorado County. The nearest year-round homeless shelter in El Dorado County—operated by Only Kindness during the winter months—is about 60 miles away in Placerville. El Dorado County contracts with TCH to give vouchers for limited stays at local motels (averaging two to three vouchers each week). Limited vouchers for showers (such as for someone who is camping) are provided by TCH at the Red Lodge motel by appointment, and food vouchers (such as a voucher for McDonald’s) can also be supplied. TCH is sometimes able to make referrals to shelters or assistance programs, such as Salvation Army in Carson 684

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-48 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
City or Reno. These referrals serve people who are not California residents (with identification from another state).

TABLE 4-32

HOMELESS FACILITIES
El Dorado County1
2017
Facility Type Family
Units
Family
Beds
Adult Only
Beds Seasonal Total Beds (excluding Seasonal)
Emergency Shelter 8 34 0 40 34
Transitional Housing 14 36 83 0 119
Rapid Re-Housing 7 25 15 n/a 40
Other Permanent Housing 24 75 2 n/a 77
Total 53 170 100 40 270
Source: Continuum of Care or HUD (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020). 1 Numbers are provided for the El Dorado County Continuum of Care.

The Permanent Supportive Housing Project, administered by El Dorado County Behavioral Health, is a grant-funded program that provides eligible individuals with affordable housing assistance coupled with supportive services to ensure successful integration into the community. Residents are expected to pay a portion of their income toward rent and utilities, and for those in the County’s Transitions Treatment Program, participate in house meetings to assign chores, discuss housing issues, create goals, and maintain their housing. Eligible individuals are also offered supportive services provided through Behavioral Health or a contracted provider. The supportive services may include, but are not limited to, mental health assessments, linkage to mental health/physical health/substance use disorder providers, outreach, crisis intervention, forensic support, training and teaching on life skills, transportation, and supports for landlords or contractors who are collaborating with El Dorado County to provide housing.

This also may include funds to purchase housing units to provide permanent supportive housing to seriously mentally ill homeless individuals.

El Dorado County Behavioral Health also administers the Goods and Services to Promote Positive Mental Health and Reduce Mental Health Risk Factors Project: a grant-funded program focused on providing goods and services that will aid in preventing serious mental illness/emotional disturbance by promoting mental health, reducing mental health risk factors, and intervening in the early stages of mental illness.

Goods and services can include transportation assistance, motel/hotel/rent payments, emergency food purchases, and more. This project serves to reduce the negative outcomes of untreated mental illness, including homelessness.

El Dorado County Human Services can also provide some assistance to homeless families, but not to individuals. Programs specific to women are addressed under the Single Female-Headed Households section of this document.
685

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-49
Several social service organizations provide services to the residents of South Lake Tahoe. Local churches, in particular, have led the effort to ensure that all residents in the South Lake Tahoe community can have enough to eat through their weekly food programs. Other agencies that provide services to the homeless in South Lake Tahoe are:
 Meals on Wheels. The City of South Lake Tahoe Senior Center operates the Meals on Wheels program for senior nutrition services. As of June 2021, all congregate meal sites are closed due to COVID-19. Those 60 and older can either order a hot meal for delivery or stop by the center on weekdays to receive the hot meal for a $3 suggested donation. In 2020, the Meals on Wheels program served about 80 seniors with hot meals delivered Monday through Friday.  Christmas Cheer. Christmas Cheer provides food to those in need, at 1120 Third Street on Tuesday through Thursday. It receives donations from local supermarkets, including Raley’s Supermarket, Whole Foods, and Grocery Outlet, and the community. Because many of Christmas Cheer’s clients are homeless or living in campgrounds or motels, the types of foods distributed are limited to those that can be cooked without kitchen facilities.  Bread & Broth. Bread & Broth is operated by the parish of St. Theresa’s. The program does not receive public funds, and all funding is from the parishioners. Bread & Broth serves a hot meal every Monday and Friday in the evening and is sometimes able to give out canned food. St.

Theresa’s also offers a Bread & Broth 4 Kids program, which provides bags of food for schoolaged children to be distributed at school bus stops and South Tahoe Middle School in coordination with the Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) lunch program and bus distribution. Bags are also provided at various childcare centers and Choices for Children. It does not generally help with shelter; however, it can assist with clothing vouchers from The Attic (thrift shop for Barton Hospital) and gas vouchers or bus tokens.  Barton Hospital. TCH and Barton Hospital work together to refer homeless individuals with health issues to medical services. In 2021, Barton Hospital and TCH partnered with Blue Cross Blue Shield to set up homeless people with primary care doctors to receive annual care and access to medical services. Barton Hospital also provides The Attic Thrift Store, which offers winter clothing and boots, first-aid kits, masks, hand sanitizer, toiletries, and other necessities to support homeless people.
 Welfare to Work. The Welfare to Work program is operated by the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program. It is an employment and training program, and it has a housing component; however, it is difficult to get into the program.  Other Programs. Other organizations and programs that serve the homeless population of South Lake Tahoe include the El Dorado County Food Bank and Tahoe Youth & Family Services. The El Dorado County Food Bank is a nonprofit organization formed in August 2000. In an average year, El Dorado County Food Bank procures and distributes over 3 million dollars of emergency food assistance to communities through the county. Tahoe Youth & Family Services provides temporary shelter care for runaway/homeless youth.
686

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-50 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
While there are a number of services available to homeless residents of South Lake Tahoe, there is a lack of year-round emergency housing. The three hotels provide permanent supportive housing, but there are more homeless people in South Lake Tahoe than the 59 beds can serve at any one time. Motel vouchers may provide some relief for homeless residents seeking shelter from harsh winter weather; however, based on conversations with local volunteer service providers, there is a need for an emergency shelter in, or near, the city. During warmer summer months, many of the city’s homeless residents camp on Tahoe Conservancy and U.S. Forest Service land, despite continuous efforts from TCH and the Conservancy to relocate and house these residents, increasing the threat of wildfires and damages to the natural environment.

4.2.4.7.3 Farmworkers
Farmworkers tend to have lower incomes because of their lower-paying nature of work. Specific data on the number of farmworkers in a community is not systematically collected; as a result, it is difficult to assess the precise needs of this group. According to the 2017 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture, 1,386 persons were employed in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations in El Dorado County. Because there is no commercial agricultural activity within South Lake Tahoe or its surroundings, South Lake Tahoe’s “farmworkers” are likely people who own or work fishing charters, have tree removal businesses, or are employed by the Forest Service, California Division of Forestry, or California Conservation Corps.

As shown in Table 4-33, the 2017 Census of Agriculture reported 457 farmworkers who worked more than 150 days annually in El Dorado County. Approximately 929 farmworkers worked less than 150 days annually in El Dorado County. Although there is no real estimate of the number of farmworkers in South Lake Tahoe, due to the dominant local industries and weather and climate conditions, it is likely that there are not many living in the city, and therefore the city does not have a need for farmworker housing.

TABLE 4-33

FARMWORKERS
El Dorado County and California
2017
El Dorado County California
Hired farm labor (farms) 277 30,421
Hired farm labor (workers) 1,386 377,593
Workers by days worked - 150 days or more 457 187,875
Workers by days worked - Less than 150 days 929 189,718 Source: 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, Table 7 (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Farmworkers have special housing problems due to seasonal income fluctuations, very low incomes, and substandard housing conditions. Housing that is targeted to very low-income households serves seasonal farmworkers. Seasonal farmworkers as well as other immigrant service workers are less likely to have their families with them, although some migrant workers come with their families if they feel they can locate suitable housing. Many workers are Latino immigrants. Due to border security with Mexico, it is believed that more immigrant workers are remaining in the area year-round with their families, since it is more difficult to travel across the border in both directions. 687

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-51
Housing for farmworkers should be affordable and flexible. Bunk-style housing with bathrooms and kitchens is adequate, particularly if it is built so that if a family needs to stay in group quarters, there is a way to provide privacy. For seasonal farmworkers, housing needs to be affordable at extremely low incomes and provide large units to accommodate larger families. Therefore, the type of housing needed for seasonal farmworkers and other immigrant service workers does not differ from the type of housing needed by other very low-income households. Program 4-2 commits the City to amend the zoning code, if needed, to comply with the state Employee Housing Act addressing farmworker and other employee housing.

4.2.4.7.4 Persons with Disabilities
This special-needs group includes individuals that have mobility impairments, self-care limitations, or other conditions that may require special housing accommodations or financial assistance. Such individuals can have a number of special needs that distinguish them from the population at large:
 Individuals with mobility difficulties (such as those who use wheelchairs) may require special accommodations or modifications to their homes to allow for continued independent living. Such modifications are often called “handicapped access.”
 Individuals with disabilities that prevent them from operating a vehicle may require proximity to services and access to public transportation.
 Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties) may require residential environments that include in-home or on-site support services, ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy, daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.
 Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and mental conditions that prevent them from functioning independently may require assisted care or group home environments.  Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs because typically a higher percentage are low income compared to the population at large, and their special housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing. Many live on Supplemental Security Income, which is currently (2021) $794/month for those living independently. Further, there is an even greater scarcity of low-income housing that is barrierfree. Newer Tahoe housing tends to construct larger homes within regional land coverage limitations, making stairs and multiple levels commonplace, rather than implementing universal design concepts.

Social Security Income (SSI) is a needs-based program that pays monthly benefits to persons who are 65 or older, blind, or have a disability. Seniors who have never worked or have insufficient work credits to qualify for Social Security Old Age, Survivors, or Disability Insurance often receive SSI benefits. In fact, SSI is the only source of income for a number of low-income seniors. With the maximum monthly benefit of $794 as of 2021, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty finding housing that fits within their budgets.
688

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-52 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Some people with mobility and/or self-care limitations are able to live with their families, who can assist in meeting housing and daily living needs. In South Lake Tahoe, the majority of clients of the Alta California Regional Center (for persons with developmental disabilities) fit into this category. A segment of the disabled population, particularly low-income and retired individuals, may not have the financial capacity to pay for needed accommodations or modifications to their homes. In addition, even those able to pay for special housing accommodations may find limited availability in the city.

As shown in Table 4-34, in 2017 there were approximately 3,486 persons, or 16.1 percent of the total population, living with a disability in South Lake Tahoe. Of the disabled population, about 38.2 percent were over the age of 65. There were also 932 disabled persons aged 18 to 64 who were employed, while 1,165 disabled persons in the same age range were unemployed. According to the SSRHNO Report, in 2019, about 23 percent of people with disabilities lived in housing that does not accommodate that disability. This included 27 percent of renters and 19 percent of owners.

TABLE 4-34

PERSONS WITH DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Age 18-64, Employed Persons with a Disability 932 4.3% 3,823 2.1% Age 18-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability 1,165 5.4% 7,564 4.1% Persons Aged 65 Plus with a Disability 1,332 6.1% 11,627 6.3% TOTAL PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY 3,486 16.1% 24,285 13.1% TOTAL POPULATION (CIVILIAN, NONINSTITUTIONAL) 21,680 100.0% 185,015 100.0% Source: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020). 1 Note that the total persons with a disability is not a sum of the categories in this table because there are people under 18 not included in this table.

Senate Bill (SB) 812 requires the City to include the needs of individuals with a developmental disability within the community in the special housing needs analysis. According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a developmental disability means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

Table 4-35 shows information from the 2013-2017 ACS on the types of disabilities by age group in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. As shown in the table, there were 6,088 disabilities reported for South Lake Tahoe residents, and 42,626 for El Dorado County residents. Some residents may have more than 689

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-53
one disability, so those numbers are not representative of the total people with disabilities. For both South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County, the most common disability for people under 65 years old was cognitive difficulty and the most common disability for people 65 years old or above was ambulatory difficulty.

TABLE 4-35

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY DISABILITY TYPE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Total Disabilities 3,486 100.0% 24,285 100.0%
Total Disabilities for Ages 0-64 2,154 61.8% 12,658 52.1% Hearing Difficulty 381 17.7% 2,709 21.4%
Vision Difficulty 436 20.2% 1,573 12.4%
Cognitive Difficulty 1,171 54.4% 5,754 45.5%
Ambulatory Difficulty 937 43.5% 5,718 45.2%
Self-Care Difficulty 352 16.3% 2,509 19.8%
Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and Over 1,332 38.2% 11,627 47.9% Hearing Difficulty 578 43.4% 5,357 46.1%
Vision Difficulty 403 30.3% 2,009 17.3%
Cognitive Difficulty 168 12.6% 2,980 25.6%
Ambulatory Difficulty 871 65.4% 6,810 58.6%
Self-Care Difficulty 264 19.8% 2,516 21.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 527 39.6% 4,691 40.3%
Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Several facilities in El Dorado County assist persons with disabilities. The Alta California Regional Center, with a field office in South Lake Tahoe, is a coordinating agency for group homes assisting the developmentally disabled population. As of May 2021, the State Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to approximately 352,381 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, 4 developmental centers, and 2 community-based facilities. The Alta California Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in the State of California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, nonprofit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. The regional center supervises a network of 21 residential-care facilities in northern and central California, and in December 2020 served an estimated 23,231 persons, with less than 1 percent of those clients (at least 123 persons) served in South Lake Tahoe. Program 4-3 commits the City to working with housing providers to address the housing needs for special-needs groups, including those with developmental disabilities.

Eight adult residential care facilities are in El Dorado County, and one, Sky Forest Acres, is within South Lake Tahoe. Adult residential care facilities, a type of community care facility, typically provide 24-hour nonmedical care for persons aged 18 to 59 who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. Located 690

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-54 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
close to public transportation, shopping, restaurants and other amenities, Sky Forest Acres provides 18 wheelchair accessible one and two-bedroom units for adults with disabilities. Adults may be physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, or mentally disabled. In addition, El Dorado County contains two facilities for adult day care, neither of which are located in South Lake Tahoe. Adult day care facilities typically provide programs for frail seniors, developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled clients.

Table 4-36 shows the number of residents by age group in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County who have a developmental disability. In total, less than 180 people had a developmental disability in South Lake Tahoe in 2020. This population makes up 0.8 percent of the total population. El Dorado County had a similar percentage of population with a developmental disability at 0.8 percent. The largest age group in South Lake Tahoe was 17 years or younger with 59.4 percent of the developmentally disabled population.

TABLE 4-36

POPULATION WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2020
Age
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percent Number Percent
17 years or younger <107 0.5% <732 0.4%
18+ years <73 0.3% <778 0.4%
Total Developmental Disability Population <180 0.8% <1,510 0.8% Total Population 21,414 100.0% 183,777 100.0%
Source: Department of Developmental Services (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently in a typical housing arrangement. Severely developmentally disabled persons may require a group living situation with supervision on-site. Table 4-37 shows the population in unincorporated South Lake Tahoe with developmental disabilities, as reported by SACOG. As identified in Table 4-37, a majority of the County’s population with developmental disabilities lives in the areas associated with the 96150 and 96151 zip codes, which have populations of at least 109 and 14 persons, respectively. Table 4-37 provides information about developmentally disabled persons’ places of residence and where they are in South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding area. The predominant residence type is the home of a parent or guardian.
691

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-55
TABLE 4-37

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS BY RESIDENCE TYPE
South Lake Tahoe
2020
Zip
Code
Home of Parent/
Family/Guardian
Independent /
Supported
Living
Community
Care
Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster /
Family
Home
Other Total
96150 94 15 - - <1 <11 >109
96151 14 <11 - - - - >14
96155 <11 - - - - - >0
96156 <11 - - - - - >0
96158 <11 - - - - - >0
Source: Department of Developmental Services (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Disabled persons often require special housing features to accommodate physical limitations. Some disabled persons may experience financial difficulty in locating suitable housing due to the cost of modifications to meet their daily living needs or may have difficulty in finding appropriate housing near places of employment. Although the California Administrative Code (Title 24) requires that all public buildings be accessible to the public through architectural standards such as ramps, large doors, and restroom modifications to enable handicap access, not all available housing units have these features.

There are additional types of physical and design modifications that may be necessary to accommodate various types of disabilities.

Nationally, a growing number of architects and developers are integrating universal design principles into their buildings to increase the accessibility of the built environment. The intent of universal design is to simplify design and construction by making products, communications, and the built environment usable by as many people as possible without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The City adopted the Residential Development and Design Standards in 2021, which clearly and precisely establishes the basic objective site and structure regulations that apply to all housing developments. All projects must meet the standards listed in the Residential Development and Design Standards and the standards in the Citywide Design Standards and the Parking, Driveway, and Loading Space Standards in Chapters 6.10 and 6.55 of the City Code and the Sign Standards in Chapter 6.40 of the City Code. Land coverage limitations encourage builders to build multiple-story homes to reduce the building footprint. Applying the principles of universal design to new construction in South Lake Tahoe, in addition to the regulations specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will increase the opportunities in housing and employment for everyone. Policy 4-5 calls for the City to incorporate universal design standards for new construction and rehabilitation projects. Furthermore, studies have shown the access features integrated into the design of new facilities in the early conceptual stages increase costs less than 1/2 of 1 percent in most developments.
692

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-56 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
The following are the seven principles of universal design, as outlined by the Center for Universal Design:
 Equitable Use - The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.  Flexibility in Use - The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
 Simple and Intuitive - Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.  Perceptible Information - The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.  Tolerance for Error - The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended action.
 Low Physical Effort - The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with minimum fatigue.
 Size and Space for Approach and Use - Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

The Aspens project, a 48-unit housing project targeted specifically for very low-income households, was completed in 2014. The project, which incorporates many universal design elements, was a joint effort between the City and Pacific West Communities. One unit is a moderate-income manager’s unit. There are also six Mental Health Services Act units within the project. The other 47 one-, two-, and threebedroom units are close to a bus stop, amenities, and open space and have access to an on-site computer center. This housing opportunity assisted in addressing an unmet need for the lower-income population in South Lake Tahoe.

4.2.4.7.5 Senior Households
Seniors are defined as person 65 years and older, and senior households are those households headed by a person 65 years and older. In general, seniors face special housing challenges related to physical (i.e., declining mobility and self-care capabilities) and financial conditions. Some of these challenges are compounded by Tahoe’s mountain environment, where snow shoveling or winter driving is dangerous for many seniors. Many older adults, even those owning their own homes, face financial challenges due to limited incomes from Social Security and other retirement benefits. These older adults may benefit from assistance related to:
 Repair and maintenance of owned dwellings units.
 Modifications to existing homes to better meet mobility and self-care limitations.  Additional subsidized housing, as the waiting list for the Tahoe Senior Plaza has been up to five years and the waiting list for Kelly Ridge (Tahoe Senior Plaza II) is up to two years.  Financial assistance to meet rising rental housing costs for those who do not own.  Supportive services to meet daily needs, such as those provided at assisted care residences. 693

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-57
Table 4-38 shows information on the number of seniors, the number of senior households, and senior households by housing tenure in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County in 2010 and 2017. As discussed earlier (and shown previously in Table 4-5, Population Breakdown by Age), the proportion of South Lake Tahoe’s senior population is relatively smaller compared to El Dorado County. In 2017, senior households represented 24.2 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe compared to 30.4 percent in El Dorado County. Both the city and county’s 2017 numbers represent an increase of more than six percentage points from the number of senior households in 2010.

Tenure is also important when analyzing the needs of seniors. Older adults typically have the highest rates of homeownership of any age group, and senior households in South Lake Tahoe are no exception, where

67.5 percent of senior households owned their homes in 2017, compared to 38.9 percent of all households.

TABLE 4-38

SENIOR POPULATIONS AND HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010 2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Population
TOTAL
POPULATION 21,403 100.0% 181,058 100.0% 21,680 100.0% 185,015 100.0% Number of
Persons 65 years
and older
2,096 9.8% 26,524 14.7% 3,349 15.5% 34,950 18.9%
Households
TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS 8,918 100.0% 70,223 100.0% 8,882 100.0% 68,084 100.0% Senior HeadedHouseholds 1,386 15.5% 16,640 23.7% 2,151 24.2% 20,676 30.4% Owner 927 10.4% 14,208 20.2% 1452 16.4% 17,717 26.0%
Renter 459 5.2% 2,432 3.5% 699 7.9% 2,959 4.4%
Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020); 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimate.

As shown in Table 4-39, most senior households fall within low-income groups. Over 76 percent of senior households earn less than $74,999 and most households in this category are considered lowincome; nearly 32 percent of senior households are considered extremely low income, earning up to $24,999 annually.
694

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-58 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-39

SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP
South Lake Tahoe
2019
Household Income Groups Number Percentage
Extremely Low ($0 to $24,999) 693 31.77%
Very Low ($25,000 to $44,999) 623 28.56%
Low Income ($45,000 to $74,999) 355 16.28%
Moderate and Above Moderate ($75,000 or more) 510 23.38% Total 2,181 100.00%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimate.

4.2.4.7.6 Large Families/Households
Large families, defined as family households with five or more persons, can have difficulty securing adequate housing because of the need for a larger number of bedrooms (three or more) to avoid overcrowding. Overcrowding is typically defined as more than one person per room or two persons per bedroom, excluding uninhabitable space, such as bathrooms and hallways. Typical problems encountered by large families in El Dorado County include:
 Low-income large families typically need financial assistance to secure affordable housing that meets their space needs.
 It is difficult to find adequate rentals within budget because rentals typically have fewer bedrooms than ownership housing.
 Large families tend to have higher rates of overcrowding and overpaying for housing (housing costs that exceed 30 percent of a household’s income).
 Many large families are composed of immigrants and/or minorities whose cultural norms include extended families living under one roof. They may face additional housing challenges because of discrimination or limited language proficiency.

In general, housing for families should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should have convenient access to schools and childcare facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses, as apartments and condominium units are most often developed with childless, smaller households in mind. Therefore, for the large families that are unable to rent single-family houses, it is likely that these large renter households are overcrowded in smaller units. When planning for new multifamily housing developments, the provision of three- and four-bedroom units is an important consideration because of the likely demand for affordable, larger multifamily rental units.
695

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-59
As shown previously in Table 4-16, 6.1 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe had five or more persons in 2017. Of the large households, 236 were owner-occupied households and 302 were renteroccupied households. The percentage of large households in South Lake Tahoe was slightly smaller than the percentage of large households in El Dorado County (6.1 and 7.9 percent, respectively). As shown in Table 4-16 (see previous) and Table 4-40 below, there are significantly more large ownership housing units (757 units with four or more bedrooms) than large ownership households (236 large households), but there are fewer larger renter housing units (120 units) than large renter households (302). Program 1- 4 will incentivize the construction of new large rental housing units, and Program 3-9 will provide opportunities for residents to rent larger units currently used as second homes. Therefore, the city will have sufficient housing stock to meet the needs of larger families and households.

Table 4-40

HOUSING UNIT SIZES
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2019
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Renters Owners Renters Owners
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

TOTAL OCCUPIED
UNITS 5,270 100.0% 3,662 100.0% 17,224 100.0% 53,750 100.0% No bedrooms 431 8.2% 0 0.0% 826 4.8% 245 0.5%
1 bedroom 1,394 26.5% 116 3.2% 3,280 19.0% 1,088 2.0%
2 to 3 bedrooms 3,325 63.1% 2,789 76.2% 11,945 69.4% 35,187 65.5% 4 or more bedrooms 120 2.3% 757 20.7% 1,173 6.8% 17,230 32.1% Source: Census 2015-2019 ACS Table S2504).

4.2.4.7.7 Single Female-Headed Households
According to the US Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one dependent, which could include a child, an elderly parent, or non-related child. Most female-headed households are either single women over the age of 65 or single women with children (mothers or other female relatives caring for children).

Due to generally lower incomes, single female-headed households often have more difficulties finding adequate affordable housing than do families with two adults or male-headed households. Also, femaleheaded households with small children may need to pay for childcare, which further reduces disposable income. This special-needs group will benefit generally from expanded affordable housing opportunities.

More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes it important that housing for female-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth services, medical facilities, and senior services.

Table 4-41 shows female-headed households in South Lake Tahoe. Of the 4,702 family households in the city in 2017, 711 were female-headed households, or 15.1 percent of the family households in South Lake Tahoe compared with 11.1 percent in El Dorado County. Of the female-headed households in the city, 696

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-60 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
381 had children under 18 (8.1 percent of all family households); in the County, there were 3,144 femaleheaded households (6.5 percent of all family households) with children under 18.

TABLE 4-41

FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percent Number Percent
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 4,702 100.0% 48,175 100.0%
Female-Headed Households with Children 381 8.1% 3,144 6.5% Female-Headed Households with no Children 330 7.0% 2,184 4.5% TOTAL FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS 711 15.1% 5,328 11.1%
Source: Census 2013-2017 ACS (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

South Lake Tahoe Live Violence Free Sheltering Program includes a recently remodeled 12-bed emergency shelter that provides a temporary safe haven for women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence may stay at the emergency shelter for up to 90 days.

Clients who successfully complete the emergency shelter program may qualify for transitional housing.

The program provides contacts and advocacy to local rental agencies, property managers, and incomebased housing options, provides safe housing, and takes care of the client’s expenses while they focus on learning new skills and building long-term stability. Housing advocates teach life skills like budgeting, reducing bills, finding job opportunities, grocery shopping/meal prep, and creating cleaning schedules.

The needs of the community are unique, so each family is approached with their needs in mind. Some clients only need one-time assistance where others need assistance over the course of a year or two. The goal of Live Violence Free is to transition participants to make long-term change, paying full rent and addressing underlying issues preventing financial stability. Transitioning has become increasingly difficult, however, as jobs are not paying enough to afford market rents in South Lake Tahoe. It is becoming more common to relocate participants out of the area to communities with lower housing costs unless there are strong ties to the South Lake Tahoe community. In addition, the Housing First program is offered through Live Violence Free and aids qualifying community members with rental assistance, costs associated with moving into a new home, utility assistance, furniture costs, and childcare, while teaching budgeting, meal planning, and cleaning standards and practices. Clients receive survivor-driven, trauma-informed peer counseling, guidance, and accompanying resources before, during, and after graduating the program. In all of the Live Violence Free programs, clients receive intensive, individualized services, including counseling, legal services, and life skills training with the end goal of achieving permanent housing and a violence-free lifestyle.

4.2.4.7.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Extremely low-income households are defined as those households making under 30 percent of the AMI.

Extremely low-income households typically consist of minimum-wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, the disabled, and farmworkers. This income group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions.
697

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-61
According to HCD, more than 24 percent of households in South Lake Tahoe were in the extremely lowincome category in 2021. As seen in Table 4-42, over 82 percent of extremely low-income renter households and over 93 percent of extremely low-income ownership households spend more than 30 percent of their income on their housing costs. Table 4-21 also details cost burdens for extremely lowincome households in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. Because of these cost burdens, extremely low-income households may require specific housing solutions, including subsidies, housing with supportive services, SRO units, shared housing, and other solutions. Programs 3-2 and 4-5 are proposed to address the needs of extremely low-income households and residents.

TABLE 4-42

EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe
2016
Extremely Low-Income
Households
Renters Owners
Count Percentage Count Percentage
Percentage with cost burden > 30% 875 82.2% 350 93.3%
Percentage with cost burden > 50% 730 68.5% 310 82.7%
Total 1,065 100.0% 375 100.0%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

In January 2007, AB 2634 took effect, which requires housing elements to include an analysis of extremely low-income needs and address those needs in proposed programs. According to California Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), the City may “presume that 50 percent of the very low-income households qualify as extremely low-income households.” For this reason, the number of very lowincome units provided in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number has been split equally between these two income categories; HCD projects the need for 35 extremely low incomerestricted housing units.

4.2.4.7.9 Seasonal Employees and Students
South Lake Tahoe’s recreation and tourist-based industries rely on a seasonal workforce often comprising college-aged workers. In addition, the local Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) serves approximately 2,577 students. The college has 670 full-time students and 1,907 part-time students, primarily either local residents or residents from adjacent communities. While many of these students grew up in Lake Tahoe and still live with their families, the remaining students that are new to the area must compete for housing in the local housing market. The college provides minimal housing for its students. In 2019, LTCC executed a five-year lease for 30 beds of student housing (plus a resident advisor unit) on a property about one mile from campus.

The younger, seasonal workforce may have a higher tolerance—or may sometimes even favor—more crowded households or SRO dwellings. The “party” atmosphere and easy opportunities for companionship, a ride to the ski hill, and information sharing may make their time at South Lake Tahoe more fun and rewarding. The overcrowding of these housing units takes a toll on the city’s housing stock. 698

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-62 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Because full-time community college students sometimes do not work, work at lower paying-jobs, or work less than full-time, their ability to compete for housing can be compromised by the lack of income and credit when they go through traditional credit checks at property management companies. Seasonal employees are similarly less competitive for housing units in the local market, as they are unable to commit to longer-term leases. Property owners and managers making a rational decision based on the applicant pool might choose a more stable, long-term renter with a steady source of income. To further complicate matters, these renters are often part of larger non-family households to be able to afford rental housing. Sometimes the members of the household fluctuate. Landlords may prefer a more stable group of renters, such as a traditional family, and may be concerned about wear and tear on their property or may be fearful of it becoming the neighborhood’s “party house.” Consequently, students and seasonal employees sometimes find that the most willing landlords own the most substandard housing, or they resort to motel room living.

LTCC completed a study in 2019 to evaluate the feasibility of developing student housing at the college to help LTCC move forward in addressing student housing needs, however several challenges were identified including the financial attractiveness to a developer, the potentially high rents needed for the market rate units analyzed and the uncertainty of student demand for student housing analyzed in the study. Although the campus does not provide significant student housing, LTCC also established a partnership with International Student Placements in 2019 to provide home-stay locations for students in South Lake Tahoe. The college is also exploring conceptual site and floor plans for an on-campus tiny home village concept as an intermediate housing solution. The LTCC 2020-2030 Campus Master Plan includes potential sites for residential student living and mixed residential living and LTCC has conducted more detailed analysis of options to finance the development of student and workforce housing in the Due Diligence and Concept Development of P3 Opportunities for Residential Student Living. The City will continue to work with LTCC to explore student and faculty housing needs and options for meeting those needs.

4.2.4.7.10 Tourist-Based Employee Housing Needs
Unlike in many other communities, the primary backbone of South Lake Tahoe’s economy is the touristbased service industry. Casino workers, ski instructors, hotel employees, and restaurant workers play an essential role in the Tahoe Basin’s resort economy. Many of these service industry employees earn low wages, and may require rental housing, both year-round and seasonal.

A limited number of employers offer housing for their seasonal employees. The units provided are few compared to the number of employees hired. Heavenly Ski Resort and several other large employers in the area provide housing for their workforce. Workers that are not provided a bed in the workforce housing units must find alternative lodging during their stay in Lake Tahoe.

Interestingly, many large employers (on both the California and Nevada sides) have taken to recruiting employees from outside the United States (e.g., Australia, Eastern Europe, Latin America) to make up their seasonal workforce. In general, these people must pay for their own visas and find and pay for their own housing. They often find a disparity between the costs of rent compared to the wages they receive. 699

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-63
In addition, Sierra-at-Tahoe and Kirkwood ski resorts are both outside of the Tahoe Basin, in Alpine and unincorporated El Dorado Counties, respectively, within 45 minutes of South Lake Tahoe. Neither resort has a bed base that fully supports their employee requirements. Consequently, South Lake Tahoe is also providing housing for many of these seasonal employees.

In addition to working with the larger ski resort employers (e.g., Kirkwood, Heavenly Mountain Resort, and Sierra-at-Tahoe), the City could work with larger casinos (e.g., Harvey’s and Harrah’s), and hotels located within the city and just across the Nevada border, to create affordable employee housing for fulltime city residents and seasonal employees working in tourist-based industries.

4.2.4.7.11 Workforce Housing Needs
There is another backbone to the South Lake Tahoe community that is lacking housing opportunities in the city. As in any community, police officers, teachers, firefighters, and nurses—referred to as “hero workers”—are key members of the workforce. Nationwide, these workers are having difficulty finding safe, affordable homes in the communities that they serve. The housing needed for these workers is most likely for-purchase attached and detached single-family homes and condominiums. A police officer in South Lake Tahoe earning around $100,730 can afford to spend approximately $460,535 to purchase a home. With a 2021 median home sales price of $620,000, a police officer would have difficulty purchasing a home. In South Lake Tahoe, the homes that these workers can afford are often substandard and do not meet their expectations. Many of these middle-income workers commute more than an hour each way from communities outside of the Basin where they can find higher-quality affordable homes.

These commutes, especially during the harsh Tahoe winters, are not only long but dangerous as well.

During emergency situations, firefighters, police officers, and other emergency response workers living off the mountain have difficulty responding to emergencies in the Tahoe communities that they serve.

Teacher turnover is increasing as long commutes encourage teachers to find jobs closer to home.

In South Lake Tahoe, there is a recognized need for workforce housing, which refers to housing that is affordable to working households that do not qualify for publicly subsidized housing and cannot afford market-rate housing in their own community. The General Plan defines workforce housing as “Housing that is affordable to working households that do not qualify for publicly subsidized housing, and cannot afford market‐rate housing in their own community. Ideally, workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe will satisfy the housing needs of family households earning between 60 and 180 percent of the median‐ household income [AMI].” Depending on local market conditions, the upper-income cap may need to be adjusted. AMI for El Dorado County in 2021 is $91,100.

One way to establish the upper-income cap for workforce housing is to calculate the annual income that would be required to afford a median-priced home in the community. In South Lake Tahoe, the median home sales price in 2021 was $620,000. Assuming a loan that is 10 percent of the total sales price and a mortgage interest rate of 4 percent, the annual income required to purchase a $620,000 home is $131,500.

This is almost 45 percent more than the 2021 AMI. Ideally, workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe will satisfy the housing needs of family households earning between 60 and 180 percent of the median household income.
700

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-64 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.5 Future Housing Needs

4.2.5.1 Regional Fair-Share Allocation
In December 2019, HCD notified the City of South Lake Tahoe of its allocation of regional housing needs for December 31, 2021, through June 30, 2027. Required by state law, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNP) is part of a statewide statutory mandate to address housing issues that are related to future growth. The RHNP allocates to cities and counties each jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group over the upcoming housing element planning period.

The housing element planning period for TRPA jurisdictions, including South Lake Tahoe, is June 30, 2022, through June 30, 2027.

The core of the RHNP is a series of tables that indicate for each jurisdiction the distribution of housing needs for each of the four household income groups. The tables also indicate the projected new housing unit targets by income group for the ending date of the plan. These measures of units define the basic new construction that needs to be addressed by individual city and county housing elements. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements as the basis for ensuring that adequate sites and zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of units allocated.

HCD applied a different housing element planning period for jurisdictions in the Tahoe Basin than that used for other nearby jurisdictions. This changed TRPA’s designation from a non-attainment Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPO) to an attainment MPO. California Government Code Section 65588(e)(3) specifies that attainment MPOs without a four-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) election must have a housing element update schedule at five-year intervals. For South Lake Tahoe to return to an eight-year cycle in the future, the MPO must adopt the RTP on a four-year schedule. TRPA has notified HCD that the local RTP will be adopted on four-year cycles in the future, which will position South Lake Tahoe for an eight-year cycle in the future.

The 2019 South Shore Region Housing Needs and Opportunities Report assessed housing needs by income category for South Lake Tahoe by reviewing the income distribution of in-commuters looking to move to the Region and current residents searching for homes, as determined from the 2019 Household and Employee Survey. This report presents a different regional housing need than the one identified in the RHNP. The 2019 South Shore Region Housing Needs and Opportunities Report was conducted locally and tailored to South Lake Tahoe conditions, so the RHNP allocation is not an accurate assessment of the actual needs of the city’s residents by income group. Table 4-43 shows the RHNP allocation for South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County as a whole, and the SACOG region. As shown in the table, the RHNP allocated 289 new housing units to South Lake Tahoe for the planning period. Of 289 housing units, 162 units are to be affordable to moderate-income households and below, including 35 extremely low-income units, 35 very low-income units, 50 low-income units, and 42 moderate-income units. 701

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-65
TABLE 4-43

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION BY INCOME
South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, and SACOG Region
2022–2027
TOTAL Extremely
Low1 Very Low1 Low Moderate Above Moderate
South Lake Tahoe
RHNP Allocation 289 35 35 50 42 127
Percentage of Total 100.00% 12.1% 12.1% 17.3% 14.5% 44.0% El Dorado County, Unincorporated Tahoe Basin
RHNP Allocation 359 45 46 55 63 150
Percentage of Total 100.00% 12.5% 12.8% 15.3% 17.5% 41.8% SACOG Region
RHNP Allocation 153,512 19,500 19,500 23,503 26,993 64,017 Percentage of Total 100.00% 12.7% 12.7% 15.3% 17.6% 41.7% Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Plan 2021–2029 (March 2020). 1 It is assumed that 50% of very low income is extremely low.

As previously stated, the median income for a family in South Lake Tahoe at the time of the 2015-2019 Census ACS was $49,390 and $83,377 for El Dorado County. South Lake Tahoe’s median family income was lower than the County median income, suggesting that the city’s actual housing need for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households greatly exceeds the projected housing need assigned by SACOG.

The City recognizes that the RHNP allocation underestimates the actual needs of city residents. The City will strive to create opportunities above and beyond what is required by housing element law.

4.2.6 Assessment of Fair Housing
AB 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under state law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” To comply with AB 686, the City has completed the following outreach and analysis. 702

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-66 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022

4.2.6.1 Outreach
As discussed in the Public Participation section of the Housing Element, the City hosted two community workshops (one virtual and one in-person) to which they invited community members, stakeholders, planning commissioners, and other interested parties. In an effort to reach all segments of the community for these workshops, the City advertised the events in the local newspaper, follow-up emails with stakeholders and community leaders, fliers posted at various public facilities, Facebook posts, Twitter feeds, and Newsflash broadcasting on the City’s website and emailed to subscribers. Flyers were distributed in English and Spanish to increase accessibility for all residents. The workshop was also offered in English and Spanish and the presentation was posted on the City’s website. At each workshop, the City provided an overview of the Housing Element update and solicited public input on the element and process. Comments emphasized a need for smaller, more affordable housing units and prioritizing maintaining workforce housing rates at an affordable level rather than supporting construction of more housing for above moderate-income households. The City provides all public meeting advertisements, City Council agendas, and Planning Commission agendas in both English and Spanish. The City has included Program 5-1 to conduct targeted outreach to underrepresented and underserved populations to encourage them to participate in the planning process and apply to committees, as they are formed.

The City also conducted one-on-one consultation meetings with housing advocates, housing and service providers, and community organizations who serve the general public and special-needs groups. As with the workshops, the purpose of these consultations was to solicit direct feedback on housing needs, barriers to fair and affordable housing, and opportunities for development from all community groups, not just those who are able to attend the study session and public hearings. The primary concerns that stakeholders raised related to fair housing included:
 A severe shortage of rental housing affordable to the workforce;  Low service industry wages that have not kept pace with increasing home prices; and  Rising home prices that result in a declining rental stock.

The issues raised by stakeholders identified barriers to fair housing in the form of housing mobility opportunities and market trends that lead to displacement of low- and moderate-income households. The collection process for this qualitative data is described in greater detail in the Public Participation section of this Housing Element.

El Dorado County Fair Housing does not track fair housing complaints overall due to staffing and funding shortages, but the fair housing provider still provides the opportunity for the public to submit their complaint before referring them to the Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Services of Northern California or to El Dorado County Senior Legal Services. When the City receives calls on the Housing Hotline related to fair housing issues they refer the callers to Legal Services of Northern California to address the complaints.

The primary fair housing issues identified by El Dorado County Fair Housing were poor housing conditions, particularly for lower-income units, and rent increases that force displacement of occupants.

El Dorado County Fair Housing noted that they receive very few discriminatory fair housing complaints; however, housing condition and displacement due to rent prices present barriers to safe and equal housing 703

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-67
opportunities. The City will continue to operate the Multiple-Family Dwelling Inspection and Maintenance Program, and will enforce City codes to combat substandard housing conditions, improve fire resiliency, and promote energy efficiency upgrades (Programs 3-2 and 3-5).

The local data and knowledge gathered during the workshops and consultations was used to inform this assessment of fair housing issues, reveal barriers to fair housing, and identify factors that contribute to these issues (Table 4-47). In an effort to gather ongoing local input and data and to encourage all residents to participate in planning processes, the City has included Program 5-1 to meet annually with fair housing providers to discuss local fair housing issues and concerns, offer translation services to improve accessibility for all residents, conduct targeted outreach to underrepresented groups, and meet with service providers for special needs and underrepresented groups.

4.2.6.2 Fair Housing Issues
California Government Code Section 65583(10)(A)(ii) requires the City of South Lake Tahoe to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. According to the 2021 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD Opportunity Maps, South Lake Tahoe does not include any areas of high segregation or poverty, or areas of low access to resources (Figures 4-4A and 4-4B). TCAC identifies areas within the city limits of South Lake Tahoe as primarily “Moderate Resource” and “Moderate (Rapidly Changing) Resource;” however, census tracts that are largely outside of city limit and are designated as “High Resource” do overlap with South Tahoe High School and small areas of Conservation and Recreation along city boundaries. The remainder of these “High Resource” tracts are national forest land outside of the city limit. While the moderate resource designations may reflect the level of access to opportunity in South Lake Tahoe compared to other jurisdictions, the high resource designation outside of the city limit does not accurately reflect this area. Some of the indicators included in TCAC and HCD’s methodology to determine the final resource designation include high levels of employment and close proximity to jobs, access to effective educational opportunities for both children and adults, low concentration of poverty, and low levels of environmental pollutants, among others. These indicator scores decrease as the level of designation decreases until “Low Resource” areas, which typically have limited access to education and employment opportunities and may have poor environmental quality. However, while the 2015-2019 ACS reports a higher median income in areas outside of the city, this is likely due to a higher number of seasonal residents and retirees occupying second homes than in the city limit. Outside of the city limit is largely uninhabited forestland. For example, Washoe Meadows State Park is designated as high resource; however, this area has no housing, jobs, or other resources that should qualify it as high resource. After careful review, the City has confirmed that while there may be varying degrees of access to resources within the city (see Sites Inventory Analysis), all areas within the city limit have greater access to employment and educational resources than outside of the city limit.

In addition to the sites analysis, the City also individually analyzed several factors, described below, to assess patterns that may further fair housing issues independently of resource area categorization and has identified actions to combat these. “High opportunity areas” as described throughout this assessment and its associated programs (see Table 4-47) are those that have one or more of the following conditions: a concentration of employment opportunities, strong public transit or pedestrian infrastructure, access to high performing educational facilities, positive environmental conditions, generally good housing conditions, or low rates of overpayment and overcrowding compared to other areas of the city. The 704

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-68 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
indicators that contribute to high opportunity areas are those that are discussed in Section 4.2.7.2.2 Access to Opportunity and Section 4.2.7.2.3 Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk. In contrast, the indicators analyzed in Section 4.2.7.2.1 Patterns of Integration and Segregation identify existing conditions and historic trends as they relate to socioeconomic status.

The following maps and analysis rely on data provided at the Census Tract and Block Group levels by various state and federal agencies, including the TCAC and HCD,9 2010 Census,10 2010-201411 and 2015-201912 ACS, 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD),13 and the California Health and Human Services Agency.14 It is worth noting that all of the data presented visually and analyzed quantitatively is only available at the Census Tract and Block Group levels and, therefore, may not necessarily apply to all neighborhoods within the tract or block. All data presented in the maps included in this assessment was collected through the AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool, a tool developed and approved by HCD for use in assessment of fair housing analyses as the most current and accurate data available.15 This approach was developed in consultation with HCD and in conjunction with efforts to develop standardized state-wide datasets for fair housing analyses.

4.2.6.2.1 Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Income
Since 2014, the percentage of South Lake Tahoe residents who earn an income below the federal poverty line has decreased throughout most of the city, with the exception of the area east of Ski Run Boulevard.

In this area, the percentage of the population below the poverty line remained relatively stable, but saw a notable decrease in other neighborhoods. Despite the appearance of more stable incomes, South Lake Tahoe remains unaffordable for many residents, as described throughout this assessment. The concentration of poverty east of Ski Run Boulevard corresponds with a larger percentage of non-White residents and renters, likely many of those who are employed in the commercial area east of Ski Run Boulevard South Lake Tahoe and in Stateline, Nevada. Further west, the Tahoe Keys neighborhood and areas adjacent to the Lake Tahoe Golf Course have significantly higher median incomes. In Tahoe Keys, the median income in 2019 according to ACS ranged from $89,148 to $93,261, compared to $30,435 to $42,679 east of Ski Run Boulevard (see Figure 4-5). TCAC has designated the western portion of South Lake Tahoe, which includes Tahoe Keys, as “moderate, rapidly changing,” which may be a result of the decreasing poverty rates and increasing median income in this area. The trends in the last decade indicate growing income gaps between the area east of Ski Run Boulevard and other South Lake Tahoe neighborhoods, which may have additional impacts on overpayment, overcrowding, and other fair housing issues.
9 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Housing and Community Development Department, 2020. 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/tcac-opportunity-map-2020. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. 2010 Decennial Census. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. 2010-2014 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 12 U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. 2015-2019 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/. 14 California Health & Human Services Agency, October 2020. Percent of Household Overcrowding (> 1.0 persons per room) and Severe Overcrowding (> 1.5 persons per room). https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/housing-crowding. 15 California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources. https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. 705

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-69
FIGURE 4-4A: TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, REGION Source: TCAC 2021, census tracts
706

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-70 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-4B: TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, LOCAL Source: TCAC 2021, census tracts
707

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-71
FIGURE 4-5: MEDIAN INCOME
Source: ACS 2015-2019, census tracts
708

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-72 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
As discussed in the Housing Characteristics and Trends section, the median income in South Lake Tahoe is significantly lower than in El Dorado County and has increased at a slightly slower rate. The median income in South Lake Tahoe increased an annual average of 1.3 percent between 2010 and 2019, compared to an annual average increase of 2.1 percent across El Dorado County. The median income in South Lake Tahoe in 2019 was $49,390 according to ACS, compared to $83,377 in El Dorado County.

The discrepancy in income levels and rate of increase suggest that housing is unaffordable, and becoming more unaffordable, for residents of South Lake Tahoe. Given the differences in median income between neighborhoods in the city, it is likely that the economic burden is concentrated in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, though not exclusively.

In the California portion of the TRPA region the area east of Ski Run Boulevard neighborhood of South Lake Tahoe has a higher rate of poverty than all communities and jurisdictions, with the exception of the area between Homewood and Tahoma (see Figure 4-6). The Homewood-Tahoma area saw a significant increase in poverty rates from 10 percent of the population in 2014 to nearly 34 percent in 2019. The area east of Ski Run Boulevard has seen a more stable poverty level, even experiencing a slight drop from 22 to 21 percent in this timeframe. The TRPA region is home to a large seasonal workforce and second homes that create a disconnect between wages and affordable housing, which South Lake Tahoe has experienced as well. The trends of income segregation as a result of where seasonable jobs, and affordable housing, are located in the TRPA region reflect the trends in South Lake Tahoe. Where there are more short-term rentals and second homes, incomes tend to be higher throughout the region. In contrast, where more long-term rentals are available, the median income is lower. Lower-income persons and households may be priced out of their neighborhoods because of the cost of housing.

Several programs have been identified in Table 4-47 to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing in the city and facilitate integration of a variety of units to promote mixed-income neighborhoods.

Race and Ethnicity
As presented in Table 4-6, approximately 84 percent of residents in South Lake Tahoe identify as White and approximately 70 percent of residents identify as non-Hispanic or Latino, this is reflected in Figure 4-

7. There is a concentration of residents that identify as Hispanic or Latino in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard and west in the Bijou Acres area, where this population is the majority. In line with this, the diversity index in South Lake Tahoe is highest in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, with a score greater than 85 (with 100 being perfect diversity) and a greater share of the population that is non-White (see Figure 4-8). In the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, approximately 37 percent of the population was Hispanic or Latino in 2018 according to Esri estimates with ACS data. This area also has the highest concentration of poverty in the city, with 21 percent of the population earning an income below the federal poverty line. A racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty (R/ECAP) is defined by HUD as an area in which 50 percent or more of the population identifies as non-white and 40 percent or more of households are earning an income below the federal poverty line. Therefore, while this area is not a R/ECAP by definition, it is an area with a concentration of Hispanic and Latino residents, a high rate of poverty and overcrowding, and significant rates of overpayment. 709

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-73
FIGURE 4-6: POVERTY STATUS
Source: ACS 2015-2019, block groups
710

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-74 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-7: PREDOMINANT POPULATIONS
Source: ACS 2015-2019, block groups
711

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-75
FIGURE 4-8: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Source: ACS 2015-2019, block groups
712

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-76 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
In contrast to the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, the lowest diversity index is in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood, where nearly 82 percent of residents identify as White. However, despite this concentration of residents that identify as White, this area does not meet the definition of a racially or concentrated area of affluence (RCAA). An RCAA is defined as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income greater than $125,000 annually. While more than 80 percent of the population in Tahoe Keys is White, the median income was $89,148 in 2019.

However, according to the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey results, this is a significant increase (59.6 percent) in median income since 2014, which, if the trend continues, may result in an RCAA in this neighborhood. Additionally, the area immediately south of the Heavenly Valley neighborhood meets the definition of an RCAA, though this area is outside of the city limit. While the City does not directly plan for this neighborhood, it is close enough to influence, and be influenced by, planning decisions in South Lake Tahoe. The City will combat this possible segregation and affirmatively further fair housing by facilitating the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and deed restricted affordable housing to increase the supply of more affordable housing types throughout the city and promote a mixed-income neighborhood (Program 2-9 and 3-2).

Familial Status
Female-headed households are identified as a special-needs group due to the challenges of working fulltime as a single parent. However, in South Lake Tahoe, the highest concentration of female-headed, single-parent households is in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood, where the median income is also higher than any neighborhood within the city limit. In contrast, in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, where the poverty rate is approximately 21 percent, over 80 percent of children live in a married-couple household.

However, in both of these neighborhoods, approximately 40 to 60 percent of households are occupied by single adults living with a spouse. While no neighborhoods are occupied by a majority of one family type, concentrations are present. Families are located in the area of the city with the highest percentage of renters, high rates of poverty, and overcrowding. This suggests that the area east of Ski Run Boulevard has the most affordable housing options but may not meet the living condition needs of some occupants.

To address this, the City will work with homeowners with second homes and spare rooms in the city to identify opportunities to, and promote, conversion of single-family homes in the residential portions of the area east of Ski Run Boulevard long term rentals that would to accommodate lower-income and moderate-income households who wish to stay in their neighborhood, as well as promote conversion of second homes throughout the city to provide mobility opportunities (Program 3-9).

Familial trends mirror the TRPA region closely, with higher rates of families with children near places of employment, such as the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, Homewood, and Tahoe City and a similar distribution of adults living alone and adults living with spouses. However, South Lake Tahoe has the only concentration of female-headed households in the region. This may be due to availability of services, proximity to transit, or employers who provide childcare assistance, among other factors. To assist all families with children to access jobs, the City will provide incentives for the conversion of second homes in high-opportunity areas and near job centers (Program 3-9) to long term rental units. 713

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-77
Disability
As shown in Table 4-34, approximately 16 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s noninstitutionalized population in 2017 had at least one disability, and 38 percent of those individuals were seniors, who are more likely to have an ambulatory, visual, or hearing disability. Since 2014, the percentage of the population with a disability has increased slightly across the city, but still reflects the SACOG and TRPA regions and there are no high concentrations of persons with disabilities within the city. The City supports facilities and transit services for persons with disabilities, as described in the Access to Opportunity section that follows. The City will work with TRPA to amend the City and TRPA zoning regulations to specify that residential care facilities (group homes) of all sizes are allowed by right in all residential districts (Program 1-6).

4.2.6.2.2 Access to Opportunity
Mobility
This assessment analyzes two types of mobility – transit and housing. Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the city and region on a daily basis to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit. Housing mobility refers to an individual’s or household’s ability to secure affordable housing in areas of high opportunity, move between neighborhoods, and purchase a home if they so choose. Indicators of housing mobility include distribution of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), availability of rental and ownership opportunities throughout the city, and vacancy rates.

South Lake Tahoe residents are served by two transit routes operated by the Tahoe Transportation District and the South Tahoe Airporter. Routes 50 and 55 operated by the Tahoe Transportation District run from the South Y Transit Center in South Lake Tahoe to the Stateline Transit Center and Kingsbury Transit Center, respectively. Route 50 offers 20- to 40-minute headways, and Route 55 offers one-hour headways. Both Tahoe Transportation District routes operate seven days per week and the South Lake Tahoe Airporter, which connects residents to the Reno airport, operates three times per day. With these transit opportunities, transit mobility is not considered a barrier to fair housing in the city. However, according to All Transit, a data tool that measures access to transit, connectivity, and service availability, South Lake Tahoe has a transit performance score of 2.9, compared to 1.3 for El Dorado County and 3.9 for the SACOG region as a whole. This suggests that while South Lake Tahoe may have better transit opportunities than the immediate vicinity, there are stronger transit options elsewhere in the region.

Therefore, the City will meet biannually with the Tahoe Transportation District to assess if any new unmet transit needs have developed and, if so, will provide technical assistance in applying for state and federal funding for expansions (Program 5-2). Additionally, the City will ensure that projects needed to develop infrastructure improvements to support housing and residents without vehicles will continue to be included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. (Program 5-1) In addition to Program 5-1 in the Housing Element, the City has identified the following strategy in the City’s Strategic Plan 2021-2026 to promote alternative modes of transportation and connectivity:
 Strategy 2.3: Connectivity. Enhance the connectivity of the community for those on foot and bike, while promoting a car free culture.
714

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-78 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
This strategy includes action items to develop a comprehensive way-finding signage plan to aid in navigation of the city; determine appropriate locations for bike repair stations, charging stations, and bike racks; develop a community strategy to promote biking; and develop a program to provide assistance to people who need a bike to travel to get one.

As discussed in the Tenure section of the Needs Assessment, approximately 59.0 percent of households are renters. The rental vacancy rate in South Lake Tahoe is 4.3 percent, while the ownership unit vacancy rate is 1.1 percent (see Table 4-7). This indicates there is a shortage of affordable ownership units for renters that may be seeking this economic opportunity. Additionally, while renters are the dominant tenure in South Lake Tahoe and are distributed across the city, HCV holders are concentrated primarily in the Bijou and airport neighborhoods. Beginning January 1, 2020, under California Government Code Section12927(i), landlords must accept HCVs as an acceptable source of income for tenants. Therefore, the concentration of voucher recipients may be due to the availability of housing that is affordable with a voucher, meets the condition requirements of the voucher, or that landlords in other areas of the city are unaware of the requirement to accept vouchers. As shown in Table 4-27, the average rent in South Lake Tahoe ranges from $1,510 for a one-bedroom unit to $4,150 for a four-bedroom unit. All of these average rents are $500 to nearly $1,000 more than HUD’s established fair-market rent for El Dorado County as part of the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade Metro Area, indicating that even with healthy vacancy rates for rental units, many units are unattainable to lower-income households without Section 8 assistance. To improve housing mobility for residents, the City will initiate discussions with other agencies and organizations to identify one who can administer a first-time homebuyers to aid eligible lower-income households in locating housing opportunities (Program 2-7), encourage lot consolidation to facilitate the development of affordable housing with an emphasis on high opportunity areas (Program 1- 7), promote the construction of a variety of housing options throughout the city, emphasizing typically more affordable units such as ADUs (Programs 2-9), and educate landlords on the benefits on advertising their units to Section 8 voucher holders (Program 5-1).

Employment Opportunities
As shown in Figure 4-9, HUD has identified most of South Lake Tahoe as being located far from jobs. As identified in Table 4-10, TRPA estimates that there were 26,880 jobs in the South Shore Region in 2019 and projects just a 1.1-percent increase in this total to 29,110 jobs in 2026. While this appears to be sufficient jobs for South Lake Tahoe residents, the South Shore Region includes Douglas County (Nevada), South Lake Tahoe, and unincorporated El Dorado County. While this would be a sufficient supply of jobs for South Lake Tahoe residents, the jobs are not all located close to the city and also available to residents of Douglas and El Dorado Counties. Given the shortage of jobs for the population of the entire South Shore Region, there is likely a jobs-housing imbalance in South Lake Tahoe. This can be partially explained by the number of second homes and retirees in South Lake Tahoe as well as a seasonal job industry that results in surges of temporary jobs. However, the Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data reported by the U.S.

Census indicates that nearly 63 percent of employed residents in South Lake Tahoe work within 10 miles of home, suggesting that they must work either within the city, in Stateline, Nevada, or in other nearby employment centers. LODES also indicates that nearly 22 percent of residents travel more than 50 miles southwest to their place of employment, likely in the Sacramento area, suggesting that not all employment needs are met in close proximity to the city. The highest concentration of jobs in South Lake Tahoe are in the commercial portion of the area east of Ski Run Boulevard and in the South Y Shopping Center and Tahoe Keys Marina & Yacht Club. During peak tourism seasons, the number of job opportunities may 715

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-79
increase to meet demand, but there is still a pressing need for workforce housing and jobs to meet the need of the existing population.

While jobs and housing are imbalanced throughout El Dorado County and the TRPA region, South Lake Tahoe has a more significant imbalance than areas such as Tahoe City and the Town of Truckee. El Dorado County and TRPA have both identified the dominance of short-term rental units and second homes as skewing the availability of housing for the workforce as well as inflating the population in comparison to the number of available jobs. This has been a growing issue in the region as tourism continues to be a dominant industry at Lake Tahoe and in surrounding national forest land. However, in 2018, South Lake Tahoe voters approved Measure T to place a moratorium on the conversion of housing in residential areas to Vacation Home Rentals (VHRs) in an effort to preserve the housing stock for longterm rental needs. As this moratorium is relatively new, the City will monitor its impact on the cost of housing to determine whether it is an effective approach to preserving or increasing the rental stock (Program 3-7).
716

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-80 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-9: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX
Source: HUD 2014-2017, block group
717

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-81
Educational Opportunities
Each year, the California Department of Education (DOE) publishes performance metrics for each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state on meeting grade-level standards. South Lake Tahoe and surrounding areas have six schools reported on by the DOE, including three elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation school. Scores are not reported for Mt. Tallac High, the continuation school. In 2018, Mt. Tallac High had 15 enrolled students, 87 percent of whom were socioeconomically disadvantaged and 47 percent are English learners. Lake Tahoe Unified School District provides bus routes for students from all neighborhoods in South Lake Tahoe to schools. As shown in Table 4-44, only one school scored moderately high in mathematics (Sierra House Elementary). The shortage of highperforming schools is further supported by TCAC/HCD’s educational score, an attribute of the opportunity area maps, which identifies all of South Lake Tahoe in the 25th to 50th percentile for anticipated positive educational outcomes. The status of school performance is reflective of El Dorado County overall outside of El Dorado Hills but is notably lower than expected educational outcomes in the Tahoma neighborhood, Tahoe City, and other areas in the northern portion of the TRPA region. Tahoma scores in the 56th percentile, while Tahoe City and the surrounding area score in the 76th percentile.

Throughout the TRPA and SACOG regions, higher educational outcomes are often expected in areas with higher median incomes, though not exclusively.

TABLE 4-44
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORES, 2018
School English Language
Arts Score
Mathematics
Score
Bijou Community Elementary
South Lake Middle
Sierra House Elementary
Tahoe Valley Elementary
South Tahoe High
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021
Highest Performing Lowest Performing
Access to proficient schools begins with improving school performance throughout the City. Given the high cost of housing in the Tahoe Basin, it is difficult for teachers and other school faculty to secure housing, therefore limiting the ability for teachers to serve the schools of South Lake Tahoe. To address poor performance that may result from a teacher shortages or turnover, the City has included Program 2-2 to work with Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe Unified School District to develop new affordable housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income persons, including teachers, as well as develop programs to remove barriers to accessing housing such as first month’s rent and deposits. The three elementary schools that currently serve South Lake Tahoe students are distributed across the city, 718

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-82 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
with Bijou Community Elementary in the eastern area, Sierra House Elementary in the central area, and Tahoe Valley Elementary in the western area. With this distribution, and with similar performance scores at each of the schools, elementary-aged students have equal access to educational opportunities. In the area with the highest risk of displacement due to overcrowding and overpayment, in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, students have access to Bijou Community Elementary, and therefore similar education opportunities as students of other neighborhoods, regardless of socioeconomic status. With available bussing, all students have access to South Lake Middle School. However, while bussing is also available for high school students, the location of South Tahoe High on the far western side of the City, presents a greater barrier to access for students that reside in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, where there are higher rates of poverty, overpayment, and other indicators of disproportionate housing need. For normal school hours, students are able to get to school via available transit and school bus systems, but access may be more limited for activities and study hours outside of standard school hours, which provide additional educational opportunities for teenagers. To improve access to high school opportunities for students of households that face disproportionate housing needs, the City has identified capacity for 248 lower-income units approximately a half-mile walk from South Tahoe High School. Additionally, the City has included Program 5-1 to meet with Lake Tahoe Unified School District to identify barriers to high performing schools and support and assist the District in addressing barriers through a variety of strategies, which may include identifying sites for housing affordable on a teacher’s salary, expanding bussing for students, supporting training programs for classroom aides, and more.

In addition to Program 5-1, the following policies have been identified in the Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan to collaborate with educational providers to enhance access for students and community members:
 Policy PQP-7.2: Schools as Community Focal Points. The City shall encourage schools to become social focal points within community and neighborhood centers that provide a range of services.
 Policy PQP-7.3: School Accessibility to Residential Uses. The City shall coordinate planning efforts with the Lake Tahoe Unified School District and Lake Tahoe Community College to ensure that schools are easily accessible to residential neighborhoods, and that they enhance neighborhoods, minimize transportation requirements and costs, and minimize safety problems.  Policy PQP-7.6: Expansion of Lake Tahoe Community College. The City shall support the expansion of curriculum, enrollment, and facilities at the Lake Tahoe Community College (e.g., four‐year degree program, fire academy).

Environmental Health
In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores. A community within the 75th percentile or above, is one with higher levels of pollution and other negative environmental indicators and is considered a disadvantaged community. There are no disadvantaged communities in South Lake Tahoe; however, the area east of Ski Run Boulevard falls into the 40th percentile and the area near the airport falls into the 42nd percentile (see Figure 4-10). The decreased environmental conditions in these areas are likely due to a concentration of traffic in commercial areas and proximity to the airport. Despite these slightly lower environmental conditions, all residents of South Lake Tahoe have similar access to healthy 719

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-83
environmental conditions, likely stemming from the prominence of open space in the semi-rural community on Lake Tahoe and recreational and park opportunities. South Lake Tahoe has a similar environmental score as the cities of Placerville and Auburn, which are comparable in size and development.

Disability Services
While there are no licensed assisted living facilities for the elderly or adult residential care facilities in South Lake Tahoe, according to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), there are four assisted living facilities and three support and in-home assistance organizations. Kelly Ridge and Tahoe Senior Plaza are both residential care facilities for low-income persons aged 62 and over, Sky Forest Acres is a residential care facility for adults with disabilities, and Barton Skilled Nursing Facility provides 48 long-term care beds for any resident who needs their services as well as in-home care. A Hand at Home provides caregivers for in-home care to support seniors who want to remain in their home and Elder Options, Inc. provides a variety of services for seniors, including home care, respite care, and assisted living care coordination. Choices Person Centered Services provides supported living services, independent living services, and day services to adults with developmental disabilities. In addition to these facilities, the Tahoe Transportation District operates a free paratransit service for residents within one mile of fixed routes on a reservation basis from origin to destination. The City also requires new developments to comply with Title 24 of the 2019 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is accessible for all residents regardless of disability. Additionally, the City ensures that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can be adapted as needed by amending the City’s reasonable accommodation procedure (Program 4-1), discussed in the Constraints section of this Housing Element, and by administering the Rehabilitation Loan Program for both single-family and multifamily units (Program 3-1).

Public Infrastructure and Facilities
In addition to the opportunities analyzed above, the City of South Lake Tahoe has a variety of public services, facilities, and infrastructure in place to serve residents. These include libraries, internet, pedestrian facilities, and parks or other outdoor recreation facilities.

The South Lake Tahoe Library is a branch of the El Dorado County Library system and serves not only as a receptacle of books, but also an important community gathering place for social and cultural events.

While there is only one library located within the City, it is currently of sufficient size to serve the population of South Lake Tahoe, is centrally located along Lake Tahoe Boulevard and has an adjacent bus stop for convenient access via public transit. In order to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the community, the following policy have been identified in the Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan:
 Policy PQP-7.5: Public Library Expansion. The City shall coordinate with El Dorado County to expand public library facilities in South Lake Tahoe.

Internet connectivity is also becoming a more and more integral part of connectivity and is a vital component of public infrastructure. Currently, residents of South Lake Tahoe have internet access through AT&T, Spectrum, EarthLink, Oasis Broadband, and Viasat. High speed reliable internet and affordable rates is becoming increasingly necessary for schoolwork, employment, and other purposes. 720

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-84 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Therefore, the City has identified Strategy 1.1: Broadband For All in the City’s Strategic Plan 2021-2026.

This strategy intends to connect the community via high-speed internet to serve the needs of local businesses, residents, and attract remote workers to the region and includes action items to work with local, regional, state, and private partners to extend Digital 395 broadband, explore “locally owned” broadband infrastructure, work with utility providers and telecom companies for streamline implementation, and seek funding opportunities to support expansions.

While Environmental Health is analyzed as an individual factor relating to fair housing, the distribution of and types of parks and recreation facilities are an important component of public infrastructure. As discussed previously, South Lake Tahoe’s location in the Tahoe Basin provides all residents access to trails, forests, lakes, and other natural amenities in the Tahoe National Forest. Within city limits, however, there are also a range of public recreational facilities to promote healthy lifestyles for residents and visitors. These include Bijou Community Park, City of Lake Tahoe Campground, City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation & Swim Complex, El Dorado Beach, and Lakeside Beach, among others. These facilities, as well as pedestrian and bike paths and routes, are available throughout the city. To further enhance the quality of life for all residents through recreational facilities, the City has identified the following strategies in the City’s Strategic Plan 2021-2026:
 Strategy 2.1: Parks and Recreation Master Planning. Enhance the quality and quantity of Parks and Recreation opportunities for residents and visitors.

This strategy includes action items to prepare for the opening of the new Recreation and Swim Complex, establish a recreation priority list, implement the Regan Beach Master Plan improvements, update the Master Plan for Bijou Park, and explore alternative uses for Bijou Golf Course for maximum community benefit.
 Strategy 2.2: Equitable Access. Promote equitable access for underserved and under resources populations by implementing recreation programs for inclusion. Support active and healthy lifestyles and strive to develop parks in every neighborhood.

This strategy includes action items to create low-to-no cost recreation programs and access to recreation gear for income-qualified residents, evaluate options to develop a park or community garden in every neighborhood, and evaluate opportunities to expand partnerships with community organizations and agencies to promote health and wellness.

4.2.6.2.3 Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk Overcrowding
As shown in Table 4-15, overcrowding is a more significant problem among renters than owners in South Lake Tahoe, despite a decline in this housing issue since 2010. In 2017, 7.7 percent of renters and 1.7 percent of owners living in overcrowded situations, compared to 14.3 and 5.0 percent, respectively, in 2010. Additionally, according to California Health and Human Services (CHHS), the rate of overcrowding is significantly higher in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard (23.9 percent of households), followed by the Bijou neighborhood (15.7 percent of households) than other areas of the city (Figure 4- 11). The commercial portion of the Tourist Core Area Plan has a significant number of service industry positions, which are typically low wage, and may employ residents from the residential areas east of Ski Run Boulevard. The concentration of low-wage jobs has likely resulted in the need for residents to 721

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-85
“double up” with other families or live in units too small to comfortably fit their household to afford rent.

Overcrowding typically means that either appropriately sized housing is unaffordable or unavailable to current residents. In either case, this results in an increased risk of displacement for households living in unit types that do not meet their needs.

While the rate of overcrowding is low in other areas of South Lake Tahoe, there is a disconnect between housing unit size and family size in the residential portion of the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, likely tied to affordability. The area east of Ski Run Boulevard and Bijou have more high-density residential and smaller housing units, on average, than other neighborhoods in South Lake Tahoe, such as Tahoe Keys and Al Tahoe. The area east of Ski Run Boulevard also has the highest rate of children in married couple households and the highest rate of renter-occupied households in the city, which may contribute to overcrowding, particularly in smaller dwelling units. Further, with the highest rates of poverty and nonWhite residents, this area indicates patterns of concentration of minority and low-income households facing displacement risk due to a variety of fair housing concerns. While overpayment rates are higher elsewhere in the city, many residents here are still cost burdened, compounding the displacement risk presented by overcrowding.
722

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-86 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-10: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES
Source: CalEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2021, census tracts 723

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-87
FIGURE 4-11: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS
Source: California Health and Human Services 2020, census tracts 724

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-88 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
While overcrowding exists throughout the Tahoe and El Dorado County regions, it is largely concentrated in South Lake Tahoe. On the Western Slope, rates of overcrowding range from less than one percent of households to approximately six percent of households, with significantly lower rates found in communities along the Highway 50 corridor toward Sacramento than in South Lake Tahoe. West of the City of South Lake Tahoe limit, CHHS reports than no units are overcrowded, likely due to the increased number of short- term rental units and larger housing units in general. Throughout the SACOG region, overcrowding rates have stayed relatively stable and low since 2010, though South Lake Tahoe, and El Dorado County overall, are the only areas in which both renter and owner overcrowding have decreased since 2010. To continue to reduce incidence of overcrowding and reduce displacement risk as a result of overcrowding, the City will continue facilitating the construction of ADUs (Program 2-8), provide incentives for conversion of second homes to affordable units (Program 3-9), and will provide information to landlords on the benefits of advertising their units to Section 8 voucher holders and avoiding discrimination based on income (Program 5-1).

Overpayment
A household is considered to be “overpaying” when they are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. This increases the risk of displacing residents who are no longer able to afford their housing costs. Several stakeholders identified rising rent prices as a fair-housing concern that contributes to an increase in overpayment among renters. As shown in Figures 4-12 and 4-13, overpayment is a widespread issue throughout South Lake Tahoe. According to CHAS, in 2017, approximately 43.6 percent of all households were paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing, and of these, 50 percent were severely overpaying (paying more than 50 percent of their income). Throughout the city, 47.2 percent of renters and 39.2 percent of owners are overpaying for housing. While this presents a citywide barrier to fair housing, Figure 4-12 demonstrates that overpayment among owners is particularly significant in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, where poverty rates are higher, and a majority of the population identifies as non-White. This is a shift from 2014 when overpayment among owners was concentrated in the Al Tahoe neighborhood. While there is a current high rate of overpayment in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, City staff report that the Tahoe Meadows neighborhood likely has a lower rate of overpayment despite its location within this tract, as this area has a higher median income than other portions of the tract. In contrast to the geographic shift seen for owner overpayment, renters shifted from a concentration of overpayment in Bijou to an even, but significant, distribution of overpayment throughout the city (see Figure 4-13). While concentrations of overpayment have moved over time, overpayment is still a pressing issue in South Lake Tahoe, particularly among the workforce, as was identified by stakeholders in community workshops and consultations.

Throughout the TRPA and SACOG regions, overpayment is prevalent among both renter and owner households, though has been an increasing problem for renters in the last decade. Overpayment in the TRPA region is more significant in areas of concentrated tourism where the service industry is a major employer, as is the case in South Lake Tahoe. Low wages and seasonal jobs have expanded the issue over time throughout the region. While overpayment is slightly lower outside of tourism centers, this is likely because of a shortage of rental housing and distance from jobs rather than the presence of more affordable housing options.

To address displacement risks from overpayment, the City has included several programs to increase the supply of affordable housing (see Table 4-47).
725

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-89
Substandard Housing
In addition to extensive overpayment, approximately 87 percent of the housing stock in South Lake Tahoe is older than 30 years and may need repairs. As discussed previously, the City conducted a housing condition survey in 2019 and found that approximately 3.8 percent of the housing stock needs minor repairs, and 1.2 percent need moderate to substantial repairs. Just 0.1 percent were considered dilapidated.

The most common structural issue (48 percent) was the poor condition of driveways; only 17 percent of structural issues were regarding habitability issues (e.g., siding, roof, foundation, and windows). The Tahoe Sierra neighborhood was found to have the highest incidence of homes needing repair or rehabilitation, though this was just 0.5 percent of surveyed units. This indicates that the need for repairs is relatively evenly distributed across the city, with no significant concentrations of rehabilitation need that would indicate a disproportionate displacement risk.

However, El Dorado County Fair Housing reported in their consultation with the City that one of the primary complaints that they receive are regarding poor home condition, typically from deferred maintenance on older homes or absentee owners that are resistant to making repairs. This feedback is consistent with issues raised in the City’s Housing Hotline and Multi-family Inspection Programs. The Housing Division receives approximately 700 calls annually through the Housing Hotline. A substantial number of these calls are referred to other agencies for assistance such as Legal Services, El Dorado County Environment Management and Behavioral Health, City Code Enforcement, and the California Apartment Association. Additionally, a large number of complaints are resolved through mediation conducted by Housing Staff without escalated enforcement. However, approximately 20 complaints a year do require escalated and prolonged enforcement, the process of which can extend for a series of months. In December 2021, the Housing Hotline reported that the primary complaints received regarding substandard housing conditions were related to mold, lack of heating, pest infestations, lack of smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, water intrusion, and electrical issues. Representatives from the Hotline reported that the age of the housing stock in South Lake Tahoe, paired with extreme weather, has resulted in deterioration in many structures, though not all. In an effort to address concerns of substandard housing conditions, the City operates the Multi-family Inspection Program for all developments with 6 or more units and has successfully improved the overall quality of the housing stock. Units in the city are selected at random for inspection. As part of this program, 123 properties were inspected in 2021 and 225 units were certified. When a unit fails an inspection, an inspection report is provided to the owner with a deadline to comply. Coordination between the Housing Hotline and Multi-family Inspection Program results in timely resolution of many substandard housing issues.

Due to the scarcity of affordable housing, some tenants may be hesitant to submit maintenance requests to their landlord or property manager for fear of retaliation, such as unjust eviction or rent increases, and therefore cases may be underreported to El Dorado County Fair Housing. Lower-income renters are particularly at risk of displacement as a result of poor housing conditions if retaliation occurs, as there are limited alternative housing options. The City is aware of this concern residents may have and aims to proactively address substandard housing conditions through the Multi-Family Inspection Program, which result in the City requiring maintenance by the home or property owner rather than a request from the tenant.

For those homes that do need moderate to substantial repairs, the cost of repairs can be prohibitive, resulting in the owner or renter living in substandard housing conditions or being displaced if the house is 726

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-90 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
designated as uninhabitable or during rehabilitation. To prevent displacement of these occupants, the City will develop a program to provide financial assistance for residential rehabilitation (Program 3-1) and will proactively inspect multifamily housing projects for rehabilitation need (Program 3-2), and will partner with organizations, employers, and non-profits to establish a multifamily acquisition and rehabilitation program (Program 3-8).

Across El Dorado County, nearly three-quarters of the housing stock is older than 30-years. This percent includes the relatively new communities of Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills, where winter weather is also milder. North of the suburban communities that largely serve the Sacramento region, such as Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills, the housing stock in El Dorado County is aging. While CHAS data on substandard housing is incomplete in El Dorado County, it can be assumed that South Lake Tahoe’s housing rehabilitation need is similar to, or lower, than most communities within the Tahoe Basin part of the El Dorado County region due to a relatively high median income, meaning many homeowners can afford repairs.
727

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-91
FIGURE 4-12: HOMEOWNERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING
Source: ACS 2015-2019, census tracts
728

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-92 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-13: RENTERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING
Source: ACS 2015-2019, census tracts
729

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-93
Homelessness/At-Risk Housing Units
As discussed in the Special Housing Needs section of the Assessment of Fair Housing section, there are approximately 435 unsheltered homeless persons living in El Dorado County according to a 2020 pointin-time count of the homeless population (see Table 4-1). This count was conducted in January when it is expected that the city’s homeless population is at its lowest, compared to summer months when the population increases. While the point-in-time does not identify the homeless population specific to the City of South Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless reports that slightly less than half of the homeless population in El Dorado County resides on the Western Slope. However, the homeless population is relatively transient based on weather, and as such demographic characteristics for the entire population may represent those that reside in South Lake Tahoe on any given day.

According to the El Dorado County Continuum of Care, in 2020, approximately 25.8 percent of the total homeless population in El Dorado County identified as Hispanic or Latino, 9.0 percent identified as a race other than White, 13.6 percent were severely mentally ill, and 6.9 percent were veterans. While homeless persons did not identify as other protected classes, minority populations are not disproportionately represented in the homeless population compared to the total population of South Lake Tahoe, though persons with cognitive disabilities are disproportionately represented, indicating a need for targeted assistance and outreach for this population. As such, the City has identified Program 4-3 to work with at least one organization that provides services to persons with developmental disabilities and/or the Alta California Regional Center to identify specific strategies to address displacement risk and homeless services for persons with developmental disabilities.

Currently, services for homeless persons are limited in South Lake Tahoe. There are no shelters in the city and most persons experiencing homelessness rely on motels and camping for places to stay. The Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless (TCH) estimates that slightly more than half of the homeless population in El Dorado County resides in the Tahoe Basin; while this is not exclusively South Lake Tahoe, it indicates that the homeless population is likely larger in South Lake Tahoe than in other unincorporated communities and cities in the county. However, the point-in-time homeless estimate collected by HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports for South Lake Tahoe is significantly smaller than the homeless estimate on the western slope of the county. Regardless, to compensate for the lack of emergency shelters, in 2021, TCH obtained CARE and HomeKey funds to purchase three motels in South Lake Tahoe to offer a non-congregate option, and the 59 beds within the three motels effectively serve as permanent supportive housing.

The City has committed to increasing the availability of services for those experiencing homeless by working with jurisdictions to address the needs of homeless residents and identify potential sites for an emergency shelter (Program 4-3).

Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when a household is no longer able to remain in their home for any number of reasons. There are several indicators of displacement risk that include overcrowding, overpayment, and substandard housing conditions. Other key indicators include an increase in home prices and rents, low vacancy rates, and wage increases that are less than home price increases. Displacement can result in the loss of home, or the loss of community if there are no alternative housing options. 730

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-94 BACKGROUND REPORT - JUNE 2022
Availability and Location of Housing
Shortage of affordable housing units can also increase displacement risk as households seek units that align more closely with available income. The shortage of vacant and affordable units creates barriers to housing mobility opportunities. As discussed previously, while the 2013-2017 American Community Survey reports stable vacancy rates in South Lake Tahoe, nearly half of the units identified as vacant are seasonal homes or short-term rentals for tourists. This inflated vacancy rate makes it appear that housing should be available for all permanent residents, while this may not actually be the case. A low vacancy rate may result in households that are currently living in overcrowded situations, substandard housing conditions, or overpaying for housing to be unable to move to a more suitable location due to lack of availability. This barrier to mobility can result in households being at an increased risk of displacement from their home or community because of lack of housing options.

Figure 4-14 identifies the locations of existing deed-restricted affordable housing in the city, as well as the sites identified in this Housing Element to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA. The areas where lower income sites are located, both current and projected, are close to amenities and transit and in the most walkable areas of the community, deemed Town Centers. The Tourist Core Area Plan and Tahoe Valley Area Plan identify Town Centers in the City. The City has multiple programs in place to incentivize development in these areas due to their proximity to services and amenities, as well as due to the appropriate zoning to allow for higher density development, which is more financially feasible for affordable housing development. While the sites for deed-restricted affordable housing are primarily located in two areas of the city, lower-income housing will also be promoted throughout the City through promotion of ADUs (Program 2-9), incentives to provide long-term rentals of second homes and spare rooms to low- and moderate-income households (Program 3-9), and encouraging property managers and landlords of existing rental units to advertise them to Section 8 Voucher holders (Program 5-1). Through the sites identified for new lower-income development and these programs, the City has adequate sites to accommodate lower income development across the city in a manner that will promote access to services and resources as well as increase mobility opportunities and reduce displacement risk from each resident’s chosen community within South Lake Tahoe.
731

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-95
FIGURE 4-14: LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2022
732

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-96 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
Investment Patterns
Investment can be for routine maintenance of public infrastructure, such as roadways, as well as larger projects that address public need, such as parks and recreation facilities, office buildings, and more.

Historically, investment in the City of South Lake Tahoe has been prioritized based on need, which has prevented disinvestment in any particular area of the city.

Priority maintenance of roadways is determined by the City’s Public Works Department, using a Pavement Management System that is a database of existing conditions of the roadway structure. A field inspection of the roadway provides an assessment of the pavement distress. Distresses are then quantified by segment and a score is assigned. This system allows the Department to analyze roadway maintenance and rehabilitation needs at proper intervals. A similar process is used for other maintenance projects which ensures that public infrastructure remains in similar condition throughout the City.

Public and private investment in larger projects, such as a new park or community facility, also occurs throughout the City. This investment is based on public demand and benefits all residents. Recent and ongoing projects that invest in the community include:
 Lake Tahoe Boulevard Bike Trail: Construction of a class 1 bike trail, ADA compliant ramps, and streetlights near the South Y Shopping Center. This improves multi-modal access to services, amenities, and employment opportunities located at the intersection of Highways 89 and 50, and reduced vehicle reliance adjacent to sites where affordable housing is located.  Sierra Boulevard Streetscape: Rehabilitation of a stretch of Sierra Boulevard, including redesign of the roadway, bike lanes, paths, pedestrian infrastructure and other streetscape improvements.

The project is intended to result in a complete street that provides a connection between a future Greenway Bike Trail and Lake Tahoe Bikeway, improving accessibility through the city and recreational amenities for all residents to use.
 Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Upgrades: Construction of 1.25 miles of sidewalks along both sides of Pioneer Trail between U.S. Highway 50 and Pioneer Trail. Includes installation of lighting, transit stop improvements, and class II bike lanes. The pedestrian improvements provide increased walkability between adjacent neighborhoods and employment centers in the Tourist Core Town Center.

These projects, among others, improve connections between neighborhoods, to necessary services, and improve environmental health through reduced reliance on vehicular transportation and improved water quality through erosion control. The City will continue public investment throughout the city, and will encourage the same from private investment, so all residents have access to improved transportation, safer streets, additional recreational amenities, and other outcomes of public and private investment. In instances where infrastructure improvements are required to support housing and residents without vehicles, the City will ensure these projects are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (Program 5-1).
733

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-97
Housing Costs
Since 2015, Zumper, a rental research tool, found that there have been significant annual increases in rent prices in South Lake Tahoe (see Table 4-45). Similarly, Zillow found that there has been an annual average increase in home prices of 14.7 percent, increasing from $278,000 in August 2012 to $646,000 in July 2021. In contrast to this rapid increase in the cost of housing, wages have increased by just 1.3 percent annually since 2010. In 2019, the median income in South Lake Tahoe was $49,390, according to ACS. At this income, a household could afford a monthly rent of $1,235 or to purchase a home valued at $308,284. In 2019, an affordable rental unit for this household would have been a one-bedroom unit. This demonstrates the discrepancy between income and the cost of living, which increases displacement risk from overcrowding and overpayment as rents and home prices continue to increase while wages lag behind.

TABLE 4-45
INCREASES IN RENTAL RATES, 2015-2021
Unit Type Average Annual Increase
Studio 2.5%
1 Bedroom 15.9%
2 Bedroom 15.3%
3 Bedroom 138.6%
Source: Zumper.com, 2021
Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each of these presents barriers to stable housing for the occupants. In South Lake Tahoe, overpayment rates are higher in areas with a lower median income, as identified in the analysis of overcrowding. As discussed under Patterns of Integration and Segregation, there are higher rates of poverty in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, adjacent to the California-Nevada border where there are increased rates of overpayment (see Figures 4-6, 4-12, and 4-13). As a result, displacement risk from overpayment for low-income renter households is notably higher in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard. The City has included Program 2-7 to work with local agencies and organizations to administer a first-time homebuyer program to connect lower-income households with mobility opportunities that reduce cases of overcrowding and provides lower-income homeownership opportunities in high resource areas.

In the Tahoe Region, housing costs have increasingly become prohibitive to lower- and moderate-income households. For example, approximately 28 percent of households in unincorporated El Dorado County, 31 percent in the Town of Truckee, and 53 percent in the community of Tahoe Vista are overpaying for housing according to the 2014-2018 ACS. While cost burden varies slightly between communities in the Tahoe Region and greater SACOG region, housing prices have increased rapidly, pricing out many workforce households. The discrepancy between housing costs and wages that has increased displacement risk in South Lake Tahoe can be found throughout the region.

Environmental Disasters
734

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-98 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
Almost all of the City of South Lake Tahoe is considered a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to CalFire, due to its location at the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Those areas that have not been identified as a VHFHSZ are Tahoe Keys, a waterfront community, and the Truckee Marsh, both of which have been identified as regulatory floodways by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, the Tahoe Keys community, built in the 1960s, was constructed with flood prevention standards for home protection and to reduce flood risk, and the Truckee Marsh is an undevelopable wetland habitat. To protect further development from flood risk, the City adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance in 2001. The ordinance provides direction for new and existing developments located within special flood hazard areas and is compliant with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) standards. DWR most recently reviewed and approved the ordinance in 2021.

Additional, more restrictive, floodplain development standards in the Regional Plan for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Lahontan Basin Plan are also referenced in the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance. Although localized flooding in areas of poor drainage may occur, given that current residential development in the floodplain has protections in place, and future development is required to follow DWR-compliant development standards, flooding associated with identified floodways does not present a large-scale risk for residents of South Lake Tahoe.

Wildfires, however, present a significant threat to infrastructure and housing in the City, influencing development capacity due to the boundaries of the Tahoe National Forest, and affordability as homeowners face increasing fire insurance rates. Displacement risk as a result of fires affects all households, but particularly those at the edges of the City and for those unable to afford the cost of fire insurance. Lower-income households are disproportionately burdened by the cost of insurance, which may result in these households being unable to afford homeownership or being displaced from the City outright. While disasters are outside of the City’s control, the City will continue to implement the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Wildfire Prevention Strategy, and has included an action in Program 5-1 to promote organizations and programs that assist landowners to protect their home from fires such as the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA program and CalFire’s Landowners Assistance and wildfire preparedness informational tools. Further, the City will enforce vegetation management risk of fires moving from wildland areas to developed properties and reduce property loss during fire events.

In the SACOG region, there are many areas that have been designated by CalFire as High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. In August 2019, the Sacramento Business Journal surveyed rural homeowners in Placer County and reported that 42 percent have experienced an increase of 25 percent to 50 percent in the cost of their fire insurance rates, with another 20 percent saying their rates had more than doubled. In many cases throughout the SACOG region, homeowners have been dropped from their fire insurance plans only to find that new plans are more than twice the cost. The cost of fire insurance, as well as the threat of destruction due to fire, presents a significant displacement risk for homeowners throughout the SACOG region, including the City of South Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Basin MultiJurisdictional Wildfire Prevention Strategy and actions identified in Program 5-1 are steps the City intends to take to help reduce the threat of home loss due to environmental disasters. 735

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-99

4.2.6.2.4 Other Relevant Factors
History of TRPA and Development
South Lake Tahoe is within the Tahoe Basin and has a unique regulatory system enforced by both TRPA and the City. The city’s location within a high tourism area has resulted in many fair housing issues identified in this assessment, including:
 Seasonal employment peaks tied with a shortage of workforce and affordable housing;  Dominance of short-term rentals and seasonal homes depleting the housing stock; and  Concentrations of low wage service industry jobs that have not kept pace with rising housing costs.

Many of these issues likely stem from the history of tourism in the Tahoe Basin, including South Lake Tahoe. South Lake Tahoe saw its first significant wave of growth in the 1960s when several motels were constructed to serve as lodging for the 1960 Olympics in Squaw Valley. Following this event, tourism continued to grow in the city as skiing became a popular winter recreational activity and people began to retreat to Lake Tahoe for other recreational opportunities. Given this history, historic public investment was largely focused on maintaining quality infrastructure to support the tourism industry. However, while tourism has supported ongoing public investment prioritized based on need throughout the community, vacation home rentals (VHRs) in addition to second homes also became a dominant force that influenced access to housing for permanent and seasonal residents.

VHRs have always been a part of the tourism industry but there was a notable increase in the supply of these units in the 2000s with the boom of online short-term rental platforms such as VRBO and AirBnB, among others. As managing VHRs became a more streamlined process for homeowners, the supply increased. Other factors that further increased the presence of second homes (some of which were VHRs) in the rental market included the economic downturn of the mid- to late-2000s, during which housing prices dropped and some homeowners were able to purchase second homes for personal or rental purposes. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a more recent spike in demand for rental units in the Tahoe Basin as schools moved to remote learning and more jobs allowed employees to work remotely, allowing households to move out of urban areas into more rural communities.

To address the constraints on the housing market due to the presence of VHRs, the voters passed Measure T in 2018, which effectively bans vacation home rentals in residentially zoned areas within the city limit following December 31, 2021. The intent of this measure is to reverse the trend of converting seasonal homes and other housing units to short-term rentals that could otherwise be used to house permanent residents and seasonal workers. This is an effort to combat fair housing issues stemming from a housing shortage and a lack of long-term rental units. In addition to Measure T, the City has adopted policy to distribute one third of its residential allocations provided by TRPA to the development of new multifamily units. Residential allocations are a component of TRPA’s growth management policies that limit the number of residential units that may be built in each jurisdiction in the Tahoe Basin, including South Lake Tahoe. In 2020, the City was allocated 33 new market-rate units, with 11 of those going to multifamily units. TRPA also distributes residential bonus units for development of new residential units restricted to low-income, moderate-income or achievable income residents. These processes ensure that 736

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-100 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
multifamily units are added to the housing stock and incentivize development dedicated to residents with qualifying incomes.

While historic development and market trends have resulted in a dominance of lower-density unaffordable housing, the objective of actions such as Measure T and new unit allocation policies is to move in the direction of reversing these impacts and promoting the development of much-needed workforce housing.

Discriminatory Lending
Data related to home loan applications is made available annually through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provides mortgage data specific to census tracts as opposed to jurisdiction boundaries, so data for South Lake Tahoe includes small portions of unincorporated El Dorado County in tracts that expand beyond the city limit.

In 2020, White applicants accounted for 38 percent of all mortgage loan applications for home purchase and 59 percent of all originated loans in South Lake Tahoe. While Hispanic residents make up approximately 30 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s ethnic composition, Hispanic and Latino applicants made up approximately 2 percent of loan applications and 3 percent of originated loans. Black applicants represented less than 1 percent of both loan applications and originated loans and Asian applicants represented approximately 4 percent of loan applications and 6 percent of originated loans, and other applicants represented the remainder of loan applications and originated loans (approximately 55 and 31 percent, respectively), reflecting a higher representation than in South Lake Tahoe’s population.

In 2020, applicants applied for three types of loans for home purchase: conventional, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Veterans Administration (VA) loans. For conventional loans, the denial rate was approximately 7 percent for White applicants, 13 percent for Hispanic and Latino applicants, 0 percent for Black applicants, and 9 percent for Asian applicants. No applicants were denied for FHA loans and VA loans only had White applicants, none of whom were denied. Denial rates indicate that Hispanic or Latino residents may have had greater challenges securing loans than other racial and ethnic groups. However, the low participation rate by residents of minority groups may suggest difficulty building capital necessary to pursue home ownership presenting a greater barrier to economic mobility.

To address the disparities in access to financial resources for underrepresented populations, the City will coordinate with employers, service providers, and legal service providers to educate residents on rehabilitation and homeownership assistance programs, as well as other programs, to assist in financial independence (Programs 2-2, 2-7, 3-1, 3-2, and 5-1).

4.2.6.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a twofold process: review of City policies and code for compliance with state law and referring fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies.

Any updates or revisions to the City Zoning Ordinance that are needed to comply with fair housing laws have been identified in the Housing Element programs. The City will continue to regularly review land 737

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-101
use policies, permitting practices, and building codes for compliance with state and federal fair-housing laws.

In addition to assessing fair housing issues related to development standards, fair housing issues can include disproportionate loan rates by race, housing design that is a barrier to individuals with a disability, discrimination against race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, or sex when renting or selling a housing unit, and more. The City ensures dissemination of fair housing information and available services through the City’s Housing website. The City will continue to make fair housing information available, updating annually or as needed, on the City’s website and through annual distribution of printed materials at City buildings and making materials available at community meetings. (Program 5-1).

Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) is another resource available to low-income and senior residents of El Dorado County, including South Lake Tahoe. LSNC provides services for many civil cases, including fair housing cases. LSNC staff asserted that the lack of affordable housing is one of the greatest problems their clients face, often resulting in segregation based on income in housing. They identify that the most significant barriers to fair housing include equal access to services in all communities, supply of affordable housing, and diversity in affordable housing to meet all needs.

Housing supply and segregation are furthered by the presence of single-family zoning and cumbersome permitting procedures. These issues are not unique to South Lake Tahoe, but LSNC expressed the need to address these issues by affirmatively furthering fair housing in this RHNA planning period.

In their 2019 Annual Report, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) reported that they received just three housing complaints from residents of El Dorado County, less than 1 percent of the total number of cases in the state that year (934). As part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), DFEH dual-files fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD FHEO reported that six cases were filed by residents of South Lake Tahoe between January 1, 2013, and April 25, 2021. Of these six cases, four resulted in a no-cause determination and two were closed through conciliation or settlement. Five cases alleged discrimination based on disability, two alleged discriminations due to retaliation, one alleged discrimination based on race, one based on religion, one based on sex, and one based on familial status. Four of the six cases alleged discrimination on more than one protected class, resulting in more alleged cases than total number of individual cases. In addition to these cases, 14 inquiries about discrimination were sent to HUD to determine whether a case would be valid. Ten of these inquiries did not report which protected class the discriminatory behavior was against, three identified discriminations based on disability, and one based on race. Of these inquiries, five inquirers failed to respond to HUD’s follow-up and nine resulted in a finding that there was no valid basis or issue. No inquiries or cases were made against the City or public housing authority.

As a result of a lack of specific origin data for the cases filed at each fair housing organization or agency, the City was unable to conduct a spatial analysis of fair housing cases to identify any patterns or concentrations of fair housing issues in the city.

4.2.6.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity to foster inclusive communities where all residents have access to 738

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-102 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. As stated above, TCAC and HCD have designated most of South Lake Tahoe as moderate resource, with an area of moderate resource, rapidly changing in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood. However, as discussed in this assessment, high opportunity areas generally correspond with the Town Center General Plan designation and the Tourist area east of Ski Run Boulevard. While the area east of Ski Run Boulevard has many of the characteristics of a R/ECAP, it also is walkable, has a large commercial area that offers jobs, and has other services that many residents need and has therefore been identified as an area to promote development of workforce housing and facilitate place-based revitalization.

4.2.6.4.1 Potential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation The sites identified to accommodate the lower-income housing need are located along Ski Run Boulevard and behind South Y Center. As discussed previously in the analysis of displacement risk, these sites are close to amenities and transit and in the most walkable areas of the community. However, as shown in Figure 4-14, existing affordable housing in the City is also located in close proximity to the Town Centers, potentially concentrating lower-income households. However, high density development is the most likely to result in deed-restricted affordable housing, a housing type that is sorely needed in South Lake Tahoe and proximity to Town Centers provides the opportunity for residents to have reduced transportation costs associated with access to employment centers and daily amenities.

While the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, is considered a moderate resource area in South Lake Tahoe by TCAC and HCD, it has high rates of poverty and overcrowding that result in high demand for additional affordable housing in this area. The sites identified on Ski Run Boulevard will facilitate construction of new lower-income units to increase housing mobility opportunities that may alleviate pressure on the existing housing stock that has resulted in overcrowding and low vacancy rates and will aid in preventing displacement of residents from the community. The sites for lower-income housing identified behind the South Y Center are located in a moderate resource area within the city, thus encouraging mixed-income neighborhoods and facilitating housing mobility opportunities in higher resource areas for lower-income households. By identifying sites to meet the lower-income RHNA across the community, the City aims to combat potential income segregation spurred by available housing that may have resulted in existing patterns of poverty concentration.

As shown in Figure 4-15, the City has identified slightly greater capacity for lower-income units in areas with high poverty rates, compared to moderate- and above moderate-income capacity. However, this distribution is intended to reduce displacement risk in the areas of greatest need for affordable housing and prevent gentrification that may occur if a larger share of above moderate-income units were sited here.
739

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-103 0% 74% 26% 0% 40% 56% 4% 0% 21% 66% 12% 0% 16% 67% 16% 0% 60% 22% 17% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
<10% 10-19% 20-29% ≥30%
Lower-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above Moderate-Income Units % of RHNA Units % of City Acreage 74% 0%0%
0%
26%
68%
0%0%
28%
4%
81%
0%0%
6%
12%
75%
0%0%
8%
16%
71%
0%0%
18%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
<8.2% 8.3 - 12% 12.01% - 15% 15.01% - 20% >20%
Lower-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above Moderate-Income Units % of RHNA Units % of City Acreage
FIGURE 4-15: UNIT DISTIRUBTION BY POVERTY RATE
Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021
Additionally, the location of sites to meet the lower-income RHNA will directly address overcrowding that may be occurring as a result of doubling up or roommate situations to meet housing costs (Figure 4- 16). Overcrowding in the City is highest where there are high rates of poverty and overpayment, particularly east of Ski Run Boulevard. The location of 26 percent of lower-income units in areas with more than 20 percent of households living in overcrowded situations will help to alleviate the shortage of affordable options which may be a cause of overcrowding.

FIGURE 4-16: UNIT DISTRIBUTION BY RATE OF OVERCROWDING
Source: CHHS, 2020; City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021
740

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-104 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
Table 4-46 contains a breakdown of anticipated realistic capacity of sites and affordability levels by geographic area. The western portion of the city has fewer jobs but a higher median income and access to schools, resulting in possibly better access to opportunity than the eastern portion of the city, adjacent to Stateline, where there are more jobs but also more fair housing concerns. The sites identified to meet the lower- through above moderate-income unit allocation will combat existing patterns of segregation by alleviating cost burden in areas of concentrated poverty and expanding housing mobility opportunities for low-income households and will facilitate integration through development of mixed-income communities by encouraging above moderate-income housing and lower-income housing throughout the city. Beyond these sites, the City has included Program 2-9 to encourage the construction of ADUs in residential areas to further promote housing mobility opportunities.

TABLE 4-46

UNITS BY RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION
Income Category
Geographic Area of the City
Eastern1 Central2 Western3
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Lower-Income 92 74.2% 0 0.0% 248 45.8%
Moderate-Income 6 4.8% 19 51.4% 115 21.2%
Above Moderate-Income 26 21.0% 18 48.6% 179 33.0%
Total 124 100% 37 100% 542 100%
1 The eastern portion of the city, for purposes of this Assessment of Fair Housing, is considered areas east of Ski Run Boulevard.
2 The central portion of the city, for purposes of this Assessment of Fair Housing, is considered the area bounded by Ski Run Boulevard to the east and El Dorado Avenue/Al Tahoe Boulevard to the west. 3 The western portion of the city, for the purposes of this Assessment of Fair Housing, is considered the area west of El Dorado Avenue/Al Tahoe Boulevard.

As discussed, the location of the sites to meet the lower-income RHNA will help to address a range of fair housing concerns in the areas with greatest need. However, to address the potential for concentration of lower-income households that results from these sites, and to facilitate additional housing opportunities for those households that do not need housing in the most walkable parts of the City, several programs have been included in this Housing Element. These include:
 Program 2-9: Promotion of ADUs throughout the City to create housing opportunities in mixedincome neighborhoods;  Program 3-9: Incentives to provide long-term rentals of second homes and spare rooms to lowand moderate-income households to address the current shortage while integrating lower- and moderate-income opportunities in all residential areas; and  Program 5-1: Encouraging property managers and landlords of existing rental units to advertise them to Section 8 Voucher holders.

Programs such as these will supplement the sites inventory by encouraging mixed-income communities, even in neighborhoods that are largely built-out already. The sites for dedicated, high density affordable housing will promote access to services and reduce displacement risk for lower-income households while 741

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-105
additional programs will encourage mobility to other neighborhoods in the City and areas of concentrated affluence.

4.2.6.4.2 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity
While the area east of Ski Run Boulevard has the highest concentration of jobs in the city, many of these are in the service industry and some may be seasonal. This suggests that there may be a concentration of lower-income households either living in this area or commuting here. The commercial portion of this area offers access to economic opportunities for lower-income households, largely within walking distance of the residential neighborhood. In an effort to provide access to resources available elsewhere in the City, however, sites for lower-income units have also been identified in the western portion of the City, where there are additional employment opportunities, educational facilities, and services available.

While the western portion of the City is not as walkable as the eastern portion, the sites identified in this area are in close proximity to the South Y Shopping Center and South Tahoe High School.

Moderate- and above moderate-income sites have been identified throughout the City, as shown in Figure 4-16, including the area east of Ski Run Boulevard that has a higher rate of poverty than other areas of the City. This distribution of moderate- and above moderate-income households will help to facilitate mixedincome communities and ensure equitable access for lower- and higher-income households to access economic, educational, and recreational opportunities. However, in an effort to ensure the incorporation of these higher-income housing units do not displace current residents in lower-income areas, the City has included Programs 3-4 and 3-8 in this Housing Element to provide assistance with acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units and Program 7-1 to work with community groups to maintain neighborhood character and accessible housing options for lower-income households. These programs are intended to preserve and expand affordable housing while also investing in place-based revitalization of lower-income areas.

In order to improve access to resources throughout the city and encourage economic mobility for all residents, the City has included Programs 3-1 and 3-2 to assist with rehabilitation and repair of housing for low-income households and Program 1-7 to facilitate lot consolidation for affordable housing development. Additionally, the City will work with transit agencies to assess demand to expand their routes to connect residents to resources (Program 5-2).

4.2.6.4.3 Potential Effect on Displacement Risk
As discussed in the assessment of disproportionate housing need, overpayment is a significant issue for nearly half of South Lake Tahoe residents. Residents in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, who are predominantly renters, face the highest rate of overpayment in the city, likely a result of the cost of housing paired with high poverty rates. The area east of Ski Run Boulevard currently has the largest stock of workforce-accessible housing; however, by identifying site capacity for lower-income housing in other areas of the city, the sites inventory could help to alleviate the concentration of overpayment through additional affordable housing opportunities throughout the city. The addition of new lower-income households will also expand the housing stock and may reduce overcrowding rates in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard by increasing the supply of available housing for these households. Additionally, Program 2-9 is aimed at facilitating the construction of ADUs in South Lake Tahoe, which may further address demand for affordable housing opportunities, thus decreasing displacement risk as a result of housing 742

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-106 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
shortage, overpayment, and overcrowding. The City will also implement Measure T to ban vacation home rentals and preserve the rental stock for long-term occupants.

4.2.6.5 Contributing Factors
Through discussions with stakeholders, fair housing advocates, and the assessment of fair housing issues, the City identified several factors that contribute to fair housing issues in South Lake Tahoe, as shown in Table 4-47. However, the priority area identified through this assessment of fair housing is the area east of Ski Run Boulevard to the California-Nevada border. This area has the highest rate of poverty in the city, one of the highest in the TRPA area and has a concentration of Hispanic and Latino residents with a large percentage of residents living in this area living in overcrowded situations and overpaying for housing. This culmination of fair housing issues has made this a focus area for the City to target fair housing programs identified in Table 4-47. The priority contributing factors that have resulted in this concentration of fair housing issues are listed in bold and associated priority actions are shown in bold and italics.
743

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-107
TABLE 4-47

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES IN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE AFH Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Displacement risk due to
economic burden
Concentration of overcrowded households the
area east of Ski Run Boulevard.

Low vacancy rates that reduce housing
options.

Rising cost of rents and home prices that
outpaces wage increases.

Shortage of jobs for total population.

Promote density incentives for affordable and workforce housing (Program 1-4).

Work with large employers to develop workforce housing (Program 2-2).

Develop a program with employers to provide deposit and first-month’s rent assistance to employees (Program 2-2).

Assess potential of developing workforce housing on federal and state lands (Program 2-4).

Provide technical and financial support to affordable housing providers to increase supply (Program 2-6).

Develop a linkage program to connect new development to housing demand (Program 2-11).

Continue to incentivize long-term rental of second homes and spare rooms to low-income and moderate-income households (Program 3-9).
744

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-108 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-47

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES IN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE AFH Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Limited housing mobility
opportunities for lowerincome households.

Shortage of affordable housing.

Low vacancy rates.

High cost of ownership units.

Dominance of vacation home rentals.

Incentivize development housing in mixed use projects (Program 1-1).

Support lot consolidation to increase the availability of suitable land for affordable multi-family housing (Program 1-7).

Work with local agencies and organizations to initiate a first-time and/or moderate-income homebuyer program (Program 2-7).

Promote ADUs throughout the City to facilitate housing mobility opportunities and mixed-income neighborhoods (Program 2-9).

Require mitigation of housing loss for mobile home park conversions and/or demolitions (Program 3-3).

Continue to incentivize long-term rental of second homes and spare rooms to low-income and moderate-income households (Program 3-9).

Educate property managers and landlords on avoiding income discrimination and the benefits of advertising units to Section 8 voucher holders (Program 5-1). 745

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-109
TABLE 4-47

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES IN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE AFH Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Displacement risk due to
overcrowding and
overpayment, particularly in
the area east of Ski Run
Boulevard.

Concentration of workforce housing.

Concentration of overcrowded households.

Low vacancy rates that reduce housing
options.

Rising cost of rents and home prices that
outpaces wage increases.

Shortage of jobs for total population (jobshousing imbalance).

Proximity to typically low-wage service
industry jobs.

Concentration of poverty.

Shortage of affordable rental units.

Promote density incentives for affordable and workforce housing (Program 1-4).

Work with large employers to develop workforce housing (Program 2-2).

Assess potential of developing workforce housing on federal and state lands (Program 2-4).

Provide technical and financial support to affordable housing providers to increase supply (Program 2-6).

Promote ADUs throughout the City to facilitate housing mobility opportunities and mixed-income neighborhoods (Program 2-9).

Develop a linkage program to connect new development to housing demand (Program 2-11).

Continue to incentivize long-term rental of second homes and spare rooms to low-income and moderate-income households (Program 3-9).

Displacement due to
substandard housing
conditions.

Deferred maintenance on older housing units.

Cost of repairs and rehabilitation.

Absentee landlords.

Provide information on substandard parcels in an online GIS database (Program 1-2).

Develop a housing rehabilitation program (Program 3-1).

Proactively inspect multi-family housing projects to identify, and assist with, rehabilitation needs (Program 3-2).

Enforce City codes to improve the condition of the existing housing stock (Program 3-5).

Establish multifamily acquisition and rehabilitation program (Program 3-8).

Shortage of services for
homeless and extremely
low-income residents.

No emergency shelters in the city limit.

Preserve multi-family units and SROs (Program 3-2).

Work with neighboring jurisdictions to identify potential sites for an emergency shelter and other needs of homeless residents (Program 4-3).

Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021
746

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-110 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
747

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-111

4.3 Resource Inventory
This section assesses the availability of land and services to meet the needs documented in the previous section. This section inventories South Lake Tahoe’s available residentially designated land and reviews the adequacy of services to support future housing development.

4.3.1 Availability of Land and Services
Consistent with California Government Code Section 65583(a)(3), the purpose of this section is to identify specific sites suitable for residential development to compare the city’s new construction need by affordability category with the total capacity for residential development. A land inventory was conducted to enable the City to determine whether additional actions are needed to provide an adequate amount of suitable sites to support needed housing development.

Land suitable for residential development includes characteristics appropriate for housing construction.

These include desirable physical features, as well as locations close to transit, job centers, and public services. Additional required analysis includes assessing the suitable sites for the realistic number of dwelling units that could be constructed and the areas that can accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels.

4.3.1.1 South Lake Tahoe’s Setting, Zoning, and Development Procedures South Lake Tahoe is geographically bounded by mountains, Lake Tahoe, and the Nevada border. The City has few options to significantly increase the acreage of vacant land for affordable housing, as much of the upland area of the city is protected as part of the National Forest system and TRPA prohibits development outside of the urban boundaries in the Basin. The unincorporated portion of El Dorado County within the city’s urban services boundary may provide a potential area for future annexation however is almost exclusively available for single-family residential development.

Section 4.4, Potential Housing Constraints, of this Housing Element discusses specifics of local and regional development standards and how these requirements contribute to the economic feasibility of producing housing in South Lake Tahoe. It also briefly describes the nontraditional “zoning mechanism” used by the City.

Concurrent with its 1999 General Plan update, the City adopted TRPA’s system of Plan Area Statements (PAS) and Community Plans (CPs) in lieu of its previous, traditional zoning. This change was made to eliminate inconsistencies between the City’s zoning and TRPA’s system of permissible uses, provide clarity for project applicants, and to streamline regulatory processes. Previously, in some cases, the two systems were contradictory and the most restrictive prevailed. This potential inconsistency was often a source of confusion to project applicants. Since the 2012 TRPA Regional Plan update, local jurisdictions within TRPA may develop area plans to replace existing CPs and PAS to implement the TRPA Regional Plan. The City adopted the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) in 2013 and later adopted the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP) for this purpose in 2015.
748

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-112 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
Each parcel of land within the city is geographically assigned to a PAS, Area Plan (AP), or CP (see Table 4-48), which effectively serve as the “zoning” mechanism for TRPA and the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Each of these documents defines the “permissible uses” for any given area and describes how that area should be used to achieve regional and local environmental and land use objectives. They describe:
 The primary land use classification and zoning designation of the area (such as residential).  The environmental management strategy.
 Special designations (such as a receiving area for transfer of development rights or multiresidential incentives program).  A statement of the overall land use/environmental management policy for the area.  A description of planning considerations related to the environment and existing permissible uses.  Permissible uses within defined sub-areas.
 General development standards, such as for maximum density and noise.

However, a proposed project that is a permissible use (or “A” use in Table 4-48) may still require several approvals. While the City may allow by-right residential development through a ministerial objective design review process, TRPA does not technically have by-right zoning because all development will require TRPA project review. If a proposed project is new construction or an addition to an existing building and does not meet the City’s objective development and design standards, it requires both City Design Review and TRPA approval. For City Design Review, the application may be considered minor or major depending on the extent of the project and whether new coverage is proposed. For single-family, duplex, triplex and multi-family residential projects that are designed in one of three architectural styles pre-approved by the City, City Design Review is not required and the project can be approved through ministerial review for project compliance with the objective Residential Development and Design Standards.

The City has attempted to streamline dual review by consolidating the review process into one City-led review for projects that meet the standards outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). If it is a smaller project (as listed in the MOU with TRPA and described in Section 4.4.1.3, Zoning), the City can review the project on behalf of TRPA. This means that City staff applies the requirements of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and TRPA Policies and Procedures in the project review as well as the City Code.

Although City Code may allow for a ministerial review, any discretionary review required by TRPA is conducted by City staff. Applicants may appeal the City’s ruling on the TRPA application to the TRPA governing board. Although city and TRPA processes may be different, to date TRPA has not denied a permit that the City approved. Once City and TRPA review are complete, the project may be submitted to the City Building Division for a Building Permit application.

If the project does not fall under the MOU, then the applicant must submit separate applications to the City and TRPA and they are reviewed by each agency separately. 749

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-113
In contrast, an “S” permit (as listed in Table 4-48) requires both a Special Use Permit from TRPA and a Special Use Permit from the City. Special use permits require discretionary review by both the City and TRPA. In order for TPRA to approve a Special Use Permit, TRPA must conduct a public hearing and make the following findings, pursuant to section 21.2.2 of the Code of Ordinances:
 The project to which the use pertains is of such a nature, scale, density, intensity, and type to be an appropriate use for the parcel on which and surrounding area in which it will be located;  The project to which the use pertains will not be injurious or disturbing to the health, safety, enjoyment of property, or general welfare of persons or property in the neighborhood, or general welfare of the region, and the applicant has taken reasonable steps to protect against any such injury and to protect the land, water, and air resources of both the applicant's property and that of surrounding property owners; and
 The project to which the use pertains will not change the character of the neighborhood, or detrimentally affect or alter the purpose of the applicable local plan, and specific or master plan, as the case may be.

The City of South Lake Tahoe regulates the approval of a Special Use Permit in Section 6.55.620 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission may approve a Special Use Permit in a public hearing if findings are made that the use applied for is:
 Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel;
 Not injurious to the neighborhood;
 Consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Code; and  Consistent with the permitted uses in the plan area.

Amendments to the AP, PAS, or CP require approval by both the City Council and TRPA Governing Board. The PAS method of zoning tailors uses to what is appropriate for the area, thus various residential (or other) uses are often permissible without requiring such amendments (rezoning).

There are eight categories of potentially permissible residential uses:
 Employee Housing: Residential units owned and maintained by public or private entities for purposes of housing employees of said public or private entity. (Measured in persons per acre.

For uses that denote density by “persons per acre,” one residential unit is required for every 2.5 people accommodated.)
 Mobile Home Dwelling: A home built entirely in the factory on a non-removable steel chassis that is transported to the building site on its own wheels and was installed prior to June 15, 1976, when the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (commonly known as the HUD Code) went into effect. (Measured in units per acre. Mobile homes are different from recreational vehicles.)
750

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-114 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
 Multi-Person Dwelling: A building designed primarily for permanent occupancy by individuals unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption in other than single-family dwelling units or transient dwelling units. A multi-person dwelling includes, but is not limited to, facilities such as dormitories and boarding houses, but not such facilities as hotels, motels, and apartment houses. (Measured in persons per acre. For uses that denote density by “persons per acre,” one residential unit is required for every 2.5 people accommodated.)
 Multiple-Family Dwelling: More than one residential unit located on a parcel. Multiple-family dwellings may be contained in separate buildings, such as two or more detached houses on a single parcel, or in a larger building on a parcel such as a duplex, a triplex, or an apartment building. One detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is included under ADU. 16 (Measured in
units per acre.)
 Nursing and Personal Care: Residential establishments providing nursing and health-related care as a principal use with in-patient beds such as skilled nursing care facilities, extended care facilities, convalescent and rest homes, and board and care facilities. (Measured in persons per acre. For uses that denote density by “persons per acre,” one residential unit is required for every

2.5 people accommodated.)
 Residential Care: Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of residential social and personal care for children, the aged, and special categories of persons with some limits on ability for self-care, but where medical care is not a major element. Including, but not limited to, children’s homes, halfway houses, orphanages, rehabilitation centers, and self-help group homes.

Note: The City and TRPA treat group homes of six or fewer clients residing in a residence as a “family,” not as a residential-care facility. They are authorized wherever single-family homes are authorized. (Measured in persons per acre. For uses that denote density by “persons per acre,” one residential unit is required for every 2.5 people accommodated.)  Single-Family Dwelling: One residential unit located on a parcel. A single-family dwelling unit may be contained in a detached building, such as a single-family house, or in a subdivided building containing two or more parcels, such as a townhouse condominium. A caretaker residence is included under ADU.
 Summer Home: A cabin-type single-family house intended primarily for intermittent vacation use and located in United States Forest Service summer home tracts or other remote recreation sites.

Such structures are generally located in areas of restricted winter access. Affordable Housing is defined by Chapter 90 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances as:

Residential housing, deed restricted to be used exclusively for lower-income households (income not in excess of 80 percent of the respective county’s median income) and for very low-income households (not to exceed 50 percent of the respective county’s median income).

Such housing units shall be made available for rental or sale at a cost that does not exceed the recommended state and federal standards. Each county’s median income will be determined according to the income limits published annually by the US Department of 16 TRPA uses the term “secondary residence” for accessory dwelling units. 751

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-115
Housing and Urban Development and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Moderate-Income Housing is defined by Chapter 90 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances as:

Residential housing, deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by permanent residents with an income not in excess of 120 percent of the respective county’s median income. Such housing units shall be made available for rental or sale at a cost that does not exceed the recommended state and federal standards. Each county's median income will be determined according to the income limits published annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and, if applicable, the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Achievable Housing is defined by Chapter 90 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances as:

Single or multi-family residential development to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by permanent residents with an income not in excess of the respective county’s achievable area median income (AMI) percentage, using the following methodology:

1. Determine the county’s median income where the housing development will be located using income limits for a family of three published annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and, if applicable, the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

2. Determine the county’s median single or multi-family housing price, as applicable, where the housing development will be located using median housing prices published annually by the TRPA.

3. Divide the median single or multi-family housing price, as applicable, (determine in Step 2) by 3.79 (buying power) to determine the annual income needed to afford an achievable housing unit.

4. Divide the annual income needed (calculated in Step 3) by the median income (determined in Step 1) to determine the achievable AMI percentage.

This calculation may be periodically adjusted to reflect changes in the affordability gap between median income and median home price within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Maximum AMI per county per household to be eligible for an achievable bonus unit will be available upon request from TRPA. Achievable housing units shall meet the criteria and restrictions in accordance to Chapter 52: Bonus Unit Incentive Program.

Some PAS, AP, or CP districts, or portions thereof, are designated Preferred Affordable Housing Areas.

Plan areas with the preferred affordable housing area designation are preferred locations for affordable housing and are eligible for special incentives and exemptions found in the TRPA Code of Ordinances pursuant to Chapters 50 (e.g., allocation exemption) and 52 (e.g., bonus-unit assignment). Figure 4-6 shows the Preferred Affordable Housing Areas in South Lake Tahoe. Some plan areas are designated as eligible for the Multi-Residential Incentive Programs. Plan areas with this designation are eligible for the multi-residential incentive program pursuant to Chapter 52 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which 752

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-116 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
essentially allows “bonus units” to be substituted for needed development rights for multifamily housing.

Figure 4-15 shows the areas of South Lake Tahoe that are designated as eligible for the Multi-Residential Incentive Program.

Single-family and multifamily housing that is deed-restricted for affordable, moderate, or achievable income households may obtain “bonus units” to substitute for their needed development rights and are exempt from the need for an allocation. To receive bonus units, the affordable, moderate, or achievable income project must meet the following criteria:
 Prohibit the unit from being used as a second home or vacation rental through deed restriction.  Limit the unit for which the bonus unit was awarded to the approved use and restrict the occupants’ household income to affordable, moderate, or achievable housing limits.  Agree to submit an annual compliance report to TRPA annually during operation.  Locate the housing project within one half mile of existing transit stops or a transit stop that will be existing concurrent with the completion of the project.

Projects that meet this criterion and proposed within a CP area or provide affordable employee housing are prioritized for bonus units. The bonus unit(s) may also be used as an ADU. The 2019 South Shore Region Housing Needs and Opportunities Report indicated that 859 of the 1,452 remaining residential bonus units from the TRPA pool are reserved for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing units and an additional 260 residential bonus units must be used for affordable, moderate, or achievable housing units in Town Centers; the remaining 333 residential bonus units from the TRPA pool are available for above-moderate units. In addition, Chapter 50.5.1 of the TRPA Code provides an exemption from the need for an allocation for residential development for all affordable, moderate, or achievable income housing units approved after January 1, 1986.

Table 4-48 is a summary table of the PAS/CP districts in the city. Each parcel in South Lake Tahoe is located in a PAS, CP, or AP district. The table describes whether the residential-use categories are permissible and if any special designations apply. It indicates the total number of acres in each area and the maximum density for each permissible use. Uses marked with an “A” are allowable if they meet local and regional standards; uses marked with an “S” require a use permit from both the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA. As shown in Table 4-48, most permittable housing types are allowed and do not require an “S” permit.
753

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-117
This page intentionally left blank.
754

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-118 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-48

PLAN AREA STATEMENTS AND COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS South Lake Tahoe
2021

PAS/CP DESIGNATIONS TDR RECEIVING

AREA PERMISSIBLE USE BY RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORY
Name
PAS/CP
Sub-Unit or
District
(if any)
Acres Land Use
Pref.

AH
Area?
Multi-Res.

Incentive
Program?
Bonus
Units for
AH?
Existing
Development?
MultiRes.? SF
MF
(units/
acre)
MultiPers.
(pers/
acre)
Employee
Housing
(units/
acre)
Mobile
Homes
(units/
acre)
Res. Care < 6
persons
(pers/acre)
Res. Care >
6 persons
(pers/acre)
Nurs./ Pers.

Care
(pers/ acre)
ADU Emergency
Shelter**
Singleroom
Occupancy
Unit*
Transitional
Housing.

Supportive
Housing
Lakeview
Heights
#085
Total 558.32
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 517.27 No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 41.06 No No No No Yes A A, 15 No No No S, 25 No No A(3) No Yes No No Heavenly
Valley CA
#087
− 2,367.10 Recreation No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lakeside
Park
#089
− 47.00 Residential No No No No Yes A S, 15 No No No No No No A(3) A Yes No No Tahoe
Meadows
#090
− 104.69 Residential No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Pioneer/
Ski Run
#092
− 179.90 Residential Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 15 S,25 S, 15 No No No No A(3) No No No No Bijou
#093
Total 166.23
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 111.52 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 15 S, 25 S, 15 No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 54.71 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Glenwood
#094
Total 301.80
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 295.17 No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 6.63 No No No No No A No No No A, 8 No No No A(3) No No No No Trout/
Cold Creek
#95
− 8,884.35 Conservation No No No No No S No No S, 15 No No No No No No No No No Pioneer
Village
#096
− 29.17 Residential No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Bijou Pines
#097
Total 91.20
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 84.49 No No No No Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 6.71 No No No No Yes A A, 15 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Al Tahoe
#099
Total 322.5
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 174.05 Yes No No Yes Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 148.45 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No A, 15 A, 25 No No No No No A(3) No Yes No No 755

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-119
TABLE 4-48

PLAN AREA STATEMENTS AND COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS South Lake Tahoe
2021

PAS/CP DESIGNATIONS TDR RECEIVING

AREA PERMISSIBLE USE BY RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORY
Name
PAS/CP
Sub-Unit or
District
(if any)
Acres Land Use
Pref.

AH
Area?
Multi-Res.

Care
(pers/ acre)
ADU Emergency
Shelter**
Singleroom
Occupancy
Unit*
Transitional
Housing.

Supportive
Housing
Truckee
Marsh
#100
1083.01 Conservation No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Bijou
Meadow
#101
Total 520.86
Recreation
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 486.38 No No No No No S No No No No No No No No No No No No SA #1 34.48 No No No No No S No No No No No No No No No No No No Tahoe Keys
#102
Total 494.91
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 401.29 No No Yes Yes Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) S No No No SA #1 43.4 No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S No No No SA #2 50.22 No No Yes Yes Yes A A, 15 No No No No No No A(3) S No No No Sierra Tract
Commercial
#103

67.26 Commercial/
Public
Service
No No No Yes No S S, 15 No S, 15 S, 8 S, 25 No S, 25 No A Yes No No Highland
Woods
#104
Total 107.47
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 261.94 No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 193.88 No No No No No A A, 12 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Sierra Tract
#105
Total 68.06
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 25.09 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 494.91 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 12 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Winnemucca
#108
401.29 Residential No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No So. “Y”
#110 See Tahoe Valley Area Plan
Tahoe Island
#111
Total 524.72
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SAs 431.58 Yes Yes No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 14.63 Yes Yes No Yes No A A, 8 No No No No No No A(3) No Yes No No SA #2 78.51 Yes Yes No Yes Yes A A, 8 No No No S, 25 No S, 25 A(3) No Yes No No Gardner
Mountain
#112
Total 328.48
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SAs 317.72 No No No No No A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 10.76 No No No No No A A, 8 No No No S, 25 No S, 25 A(3) No No No No Bonanza
#114
Total 254.66
Residential
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 124.93 Yes No No No Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA #1 68.29 Yes Yes Yes No Yes A A, 15 No No S, 8 A, 25 No A, 25 A(3) S Yes No No 756

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-120 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-48

PLAN AREA STATEMENTS AND COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS South Lake Tahoe
2021

PAS/CP DESIGNATIONS TDR RECEIVING

AREA PERMISSIBLE USE BY RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORY
Name
PAS/CP
Sub-Unit or
District
(if any)
Acres Land Use
Pref.

AH
Area?
Multi-Res.

Care
(pers/ acre)
ADU Emergency
Shelter**
Singleroom
Occupancy
Unit*
Transitional
Housing.

Supportive
Housing
SA #2 52.26 Yes No Yes No Yes A S, 15 No No A, 8 No No No A(3) No Yes No No SA #3 9.18 Yes No Yes No Yes A A, 8 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Airport
#116
− 344.38
Commercial/
Public
Service
No No No Yes No No S, 15 No S, 15 No No No No No S Yes No No Industrial CP − 67.05
Commercial/
Public
Service
No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Bijou/Al
Tahoe CP
Total 371.78
Commercial/
Public
Service
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
1 34.48 No Yes No Yes Yes S S, 15 S, 25 S(1), 15 No No No No No S No No No 2 9.64 No Yes No Yes Yes S S, 15 No S(1), 15 No No No No No S No No No 3 19.14 No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S No No No 4 286.42 No Yes No Yes Yes No A(1/5), 15 No S(1), 15 No A (1/5) No No A(3) A No No No Tourist Core
Area Plan
Total 303.91
Tourist
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
TSC-C 64.73 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A,25 S S No No No No A(3) No No No No TSC-MU 104.83 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 S S No No No No A(3) No No No No TSC-MUC 42.04 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 S A No No No No A(3) A No No No TSC-NMX 2.89 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 S S No No No No A(3) No No No No TSC-G 67.39 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 S S No No No No A(3) A No No No REC 5.57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S(2) No No A No No No No No No No No No OS 16.46 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Tahoe Valley
Area Plan
Total 336.52
Residential/T
ourist/Comm
ercial/Public
Service/Recr
eation/Conser
vation
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
TC-C 54.54 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 No A, 25 No No No No A(3) No A No No TC-MUC 78.55 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 No A, 25 No No No No A(3) A A No No TC-G 58.37 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 No No S, 8 No No No A(3) A A No No TC-NP 32.88 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(4) A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 S, 8 A(5), 25 A(5), 25 A(5), 25 A(3) A A No No TC-HC 30.15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 S A(5), 25 A(5), 25 A(5), 25 A(3) No S No No CMX-S 61.84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S(3) S(3), 25 S, 25 S, 25 S, 8 No No No S(3, 8) A No No No OS 20.19 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No 757

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-121
TABLE 4-48

PLAN AREA STATEMENTS AND COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS South Lake Tahoe
2021

PAS/CP DESIGNATIONS TDR RECEIVING

AREA PERMISSIBLE USE BY RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORY
Name
PAS/CP
Sub-Unit or
District
(if any)
Acres Land Use
Pref.

AH
Area?
Multi-Res.

Care
(pers/ acre)
ADU Emergency
Shelter**
Singleroom
Occupancy
Unit*
Transitional
Housing.

Supportive
Housing
Sources: TRPA Plan Area Statements; Tourist Core Area Plan; Tahoe Valley Area Plan; Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan; City of South Lake Tahoe 2021.

Notes: CP = Community Plan
AH = Affordable Housing
A = Allowed Use
S = Special Use
SA = Special Area
(1) = Allowed with CSLT and TRPA Design Review (Bijou/Al Tahoe CP) (1/5) = Allowed with CSLT Design Review on Specific Parcels Only (2) = For condominiums only
(3) = As of August 2021, up to two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can be developed on each residential parcel (to accommodate one detached ADU and one attached ADU), subject to local jurisdiction rules and regulations, including existing coverage regulations and development right requirements..

If the parcel is within a half-mile of an existing transit stop, half- mile from a Town Center, or within an area zoned for multifamily housing, the property owner is eligible to receive a bonus unit at no cost to construct the ADU. (4) =ADUs require CSLT Design Review
(5) = Portions of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan lie within the safety zones established by the Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Uses within these zones may be further restricted by the CLUP. Users of this Area Plan should refer to the CLUP to determine if additional restrictions are applicable to the property they are interested in or consult with the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division (6) = Special Use with CSLT and TRPA Design Review
(7) = Caretaker residence only
(8)
= Allowed as part of a mixed-use project only
* Single-room Occupancy Units are allowed in any zone that permits Tourist Accommodations. ** Emergency shelters are called “Social Service Organizations” in the City of South Lake Tahoe and TPRA documents. 758

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-122 BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-17: PREFERRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AREA
759

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-123
FIGURE 4-18: MULTI-RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE AREAS
760

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-124

4.3.1.1.1 Survey of Available Land
Description of Criteria for Identifying Housing Sites
Housing Element law requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development to meet the RHNA (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(3)). HCD provided a RHNA unit count to the City of South Lake Tahoe, divided by affordability tiers. An important purpose of this inventory is to determine whether a jurisdiction has allocated sufficient land for the development of housing to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need, including housing to accommodate the needs of all household income levels.

In assessing the potential for achieving the development of housing consistent with regional and local needs, some assumptions were made:
 Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income Target:
 Based on construction and land development costs in South Lake Tahoe, it is assumed that new construction housing affordable to very low- and low-income households will primarily be deed-restricted multifamily attached housing constructed using bonus units.  Moderate-Income Target:
 With rising housing costs, it is assumed that moderate-income ownership (likely condominiums) and rental housing (e.g., small multifamily, such as duplexes and triplexes) will be provided through development of vacant lots using multifamily residential allocations (and a few of the single-family allocations) obtained through the allocation list and rehabilitation of the limited existing, moderately priced housing stock.  Above Moderate-Income Target:
 It is assumed that new above-moderate housing will be constructed on vacant parcels using residential single-family allocations, multifamily allocations set aside by the City, bonus units for deed restricted achievable housing, and/or allocations transferred from retired environmentally sensitive parcels.

In addition, ADUs are expected to address housing needs in all of the income categories. In conducting an evaluation of specific potential sites, two categories of sites with affordable housing development potential were identified. Given the diminishing availability of developable land, the City identified specific housing opportunity sites, incentives, and other advantages that could facilitate affordable housing development:
 Vacant parcels
 Sites with parcel consolidation potential
The following considerations were used as “screening criteria” in evaluating potential sites:
 Suitability of parcel for the construction of affordable housing because of location, development standards, and site accessibility with respect to transportation and services. 761

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-125
 Availability or potential availability of infrastructure and public services.  Environmental conditions affecting development capability of the land.  Current ownership.

Realistic Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Sites The assumed realistic capacity for housing development for all parcels in the land inventory is a proportional share of the maximum densities allowed. Realistic units are rounded down to the next lowest whole number. However, all of the parcels in the land inventory can accommodate at least one unit per parcel, so parcels that would round down to zero units are instead rounded up to allow one unit on the parcel.

A parcel’s lot coverage standards are dictated by its TRPA defined Land Capability or Individual Parcel Evaluation Systems and zoning district. The identified developable acres for parcels account for lot coverage of either 70-percent in community or area plan areas (which are the TCAP and TVAP areas) or 30-percent in areas outside the community or area plan areas. Lower-income, moderate-income, and above-moderate income sites may occur within or outside community plan areas, so sites within each income category may vary in terms of lot coverage maximums.

Realistic Capacity of Sites Outside Community Plans
A very substantial majority of parcels outside community plan areas are listed to accommodate one unit per parcel. On parcels outside the community plan areas that could accommodate more than one unit per parcel, realistic capacity is determined by the allowable lot coverage outside the community plan areas, which is 30-percent. Therefore, realistic capacity is 30-percent of the maximum allowed density.

Incorporating these lot coverage variations is required in order to present a realistic interpretation of the development likely to occur on these sites. This is a conservative assumption based on the development standards and historic development trends on vacant sites in these zoning districts. Appendix A displays each parcel’s CP designation, maximum allowed capacity, and realistic development capacity when the parcel’s lot coverage requirement is included in the unit estimate calculation.

Realistic Capacity of Sites Inside Community Plans
Realistic capacity varies by parcel and the maximum presented for the TCAP and TVAP parcels is 70 percent of maximum allowed density due to 70-percent land coverage allowances in the community and area plan areas. In accordance with AB 1397, the site-specific details in Appendix A and the following discussion are included to demonstrate the feasibility of private sector development of sites addressing the lower-income RHNA allocation with new multifamily homes. All lower-income sites in Appendix A are located in area plan areas.

Both mixed-use and 100-percent residential development are allowed on all of the parcels in the TCAP and TVAP areas. While it isn’t realistic to assume all sites in the TCAP and TVAP areas would develop as 100-percent residential, the number of parcels included in this inventory is a small subset of the properties included in the TCAP and TVAP areas. The TCAP and TVAP areas allow greater building heights and greater land coverage than have historically been allowed in other areas of the city. Based on the analysis in this Housing Element, realistic development capacity on the TCAP and TVAP sites may be up to the maximum density within the allowed land coverage. Densities of up to 25 units per acre at 762

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-126 BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022
100 percent of maximum density are allowed on these sites. Based on City staff and consultant analysis, these parcels have the highest potential suitability for multifamily development. This analysis was conducted parcel by parcel and considered the allowed coverage, environmental constraints, and development standards. The City considered and evaluated the implementation of its current multifamily development standards and on-site improvement requirements (e.g., setbacks, building height, parking, and open space requirements) to determine approximate density and unit capacity.

The city continues to build residential units, and demand and prices remained high in 2021. Multiple residential or mixed-use projects have been developed in the city since 2005 (see Table 4-49 for representative projects). The average percent of maximum allowed density of all projects listed in Table 4-49 is 71 percent, and the average percent of maximum allowed density for the projects with affordable units in the table is 74 percent. The realistic capacity assumption of 70 percent on the parcels inside of community plans is more conservative than these development trends.

More than half of the projects in Table 4-49 were developed on sites that were consolidated from smaller parcels. Based on these trends, the City has included two parcels smaller than 0.5 acres in the list of sites suitable for lower-income RHNA. These types of sites have multiple parcels with the same owner so there is a strong likelihood that the group of parcels will develop together. Examples of recently approved or constructed residential projects on sites consolidated from smaller parcels include Evergreen Apartments, Sky Forest Acres, and The Aspens. Additional information on sites that would need to be consolidated that are proposed to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA can be found in Appendix A.

Two of the projects in Table 4-49 were approved/built in Stateline/ Ski Run zone, which is now the TCAP area that allows 100-percent residential, mixed use, and 100-percent nonresidential development. In addition, the TCAP and TVAP areas include the following incentives to encourage residential development:
 It is designated as a Preferred Affordable Housing Area, which makes projects eligible for special incentives and exemptions found in the TRPA Code of Ordinances pursuant to Chapters 50 (e.g., allocation exemption) and 52 (e.g., bonus-unit assignment).  It is part of the area eligible for the Multi-Residential Incentive Program, which allows “bonus units” to be substituted for needed development rights for multifamily housing, pursuant to Chapter 52 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
 Of the bonus unit allocations available in the TRPA pool, 60 percent are reserved for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing units and an additional 30 percent of that subset must be used in the Town Centers (which includes the TCAP and TVAP areas). The remaining 333 residential bonus units from the TRPA pool must be made available for above-moderate units.  The City has not established a cap on the number of residential allocations that can be used in the TCAP and TVAP areas.
 The City sets aside allocations for housing development specifically within the TCAP and TVAP areas in order to prioritize development in Town Centers. 763

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-127
 The TRPA Code of Ordinances allows discretionary increases to building heights in the TCAP and TVAP areas of up to 56 feet or 95 feet, depending on the parcel’s location within the area plan area.
 Property owners in the TCAP and TVAP areas are eligible to receive a bonus unit at no cost to construct an affordable or achievable income ADU.
 The developer can forgo TRPA project review and rely solely on City staff review if the residential project is proposed in the TCAP and TVAP areas and meets the size requirements listed in Section 4.4.1.3, Zoning, of this Housing Element.

Given these incentives, which are discussed in more detail throughout this Housing Element, residential projects are encouraged and incentivized in the TCAP and TVAP areas. 764

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-128 BACKGROUND REPORT–PUBLIC DRAFT - JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-49

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
South Lake Tahoe
Project
Name
Acres/
Developable
Acres
Address Small Site? Plan Area/
Zone
Previous
Use
Project
Description
Total
Dwelling
Units
Lower
Income
Units
Project
Density
(DU/
acre)
%
Allowed
Density
Similar
Sites in
Appendix
A
Zone Allows
100% NonResidential
Uses?
Evergreen
Apartments 2.6 1342 Melba Drive
Consolidated
from multiple
smaller sites
Bonanza
(Residential) Vacant
Apartment
complex for very
low- and lowincome
households
26 26 10 66%
LowerIncome
Sites
No
Sky Forest
Acres 3.0 750 Emerald
Bay Road
Consolidated
from multiple
smaller sites
Gardner
Mountain
(Residential)
Vacant
Affordable units
for very lowincome persons
with disabilities
17 17 5.6 70%
LowerIncome
Sites
No
Kelly
Ridge 3.2 1447 Herbert
Avenue No Glenwood
(Residential) Vacant
Affordable units
for very lowand low-income
seniors
33 33 10.3 94%
LowerIncome
Sites
No
Tahoe
Woods 1.9 3987 Manzanita Avenue No
Stateline/
Ski Run
(Residential)
Mobile
home park
Market-rate
condominium,
garages, and
common area1
28 0 14.7 100%
Above
ModerateIncome
Sites
Yes
The Aspens 4.9 3521 and 3541
Pioneer Trail
Consolidated
from multiple
smaller sites
Stateline/
Ski Run
(Residential)
Vacant
Affordable units
for very lowand low-income
households
48 47 9.8 64%
LowerIncome
Sites
Yes
Wildwood
Commons 5.0 1201 Wildwood Avenue No
Pioneer/
Ski Run and
Lakeview
Heights
3 existing
residential
units
Market rate
condominium 23 0 4.6 30%
Above
ModerateIncome
Sites
No
Average for Lower-Income Sites 74%
Average for All Sites 71%
1 Parcels with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers through 029-631-029 are part of a deed-restricted "project area." These parcels are permanently deed restricted to be treated as if the parcels had not been subdivided but remained legally consolidated for purposes of land coverage calculations. Parcel area, land capability, existing and banked coverage, and existing and banked development rights for all 29 parcels have been combined.
765

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–PUBLIC DRAFT - JUNE 2022 4-129
Inventory of Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Potential for Lower-Density Dwellings
TRPA has inventoried each vacant single-family residential development-eligible parcel under its Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES). This system evaluates the “buildability” of each lot based on slope, soil type, water influence, etc. The IPES scoring system sets a minimum point value, also called an “IPES line.” Development is permitted only on parcels that are above the IPES line. Prior to 2003, the IPES line was set at 726; however, TRPA lowered the IPES line within certain jurisdictions that implemented water quality improvement projects. Because of the implementation of these improvement projects, TRPA has set the IPES line to “1” in most jurisdictions in the Basin, including the City of South Lake Tahoe. Therefore, all vacant parcels in the city that have an IPES score above “1” can apply for a building allocation.

The following assumptions were made in determining which vacant lots have development potential:
 If it has an IPES score greater than 1, the vacant lot is developable.  If it has an IPES score of zero, it is not developable.

Alternatively, the Bailey Land Capability Classification System, in place since 1971, regulates land coverage for multifamily housing development. The Bailey classification system scores land between one and seven. Low-capability scores (i.e., less suitable for development) range between one and three, and high-capability scores (i.e., more suitable for development) range from four to seven. This system also generally limits the amount of land coverage for most developable parcels to a maximum of 30-percent impervious land coverage, except in the TVAP and TCAP areas, which allow a maximum of 70-percent impervious land coverage.

The site inventory in Appendix A summarizes the potential for development of vacant lots in South Lake Tahoe based on data provided by TRPA and the City of South Lake Tahoe. All of the parcels in the land inventory can accommodate at least one unit per parcel. As shown in the table, 1,188 undeveloped lots are eligible for residential development in South Lake Tahoe, provided that they obtain a residential allocation for each unit developed. Of these 1,188 lots, there are 487 parcels (or 106.1 acres) allowing a maximum of one unit per parcel, and multifamily residential development is allowed on 112 parcels (or

66.5 acres). Of the total vacant lots identified in Appendix A, 515 parcels (or 149.6 acres) are considered highly developable, with IPES scores greater than 726 or Bailey scores of 6 or 7. These “highly developable” lots would be able to build with a base land coverage of at least 30 percent. Highly developable vacant parcels are shown in Figure 4-19.
766

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-130 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-19: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY
767

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT– JUNE 2022 4-131
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021.
768

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-132 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
Analysis of Above Moderate-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant or Underutilized Land Seven parcels are pending City approval for development with achievable housing (income-restricted housing up to 160 percent of Area Median Income), and they are anticipated to produce 118 achievableincome units and 6 market-rate units. About 70 of these achievable-income units are part of a mixed-use project proposed on a property owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy. As of December 2021, the project is under design review. Another 20 achievable-income units are part of a multi-family project and recently received design review approval. Two additional projects are each proposing 14 achievableincome units, and the City anticipates approving them with their proposed unit estimates. The remaining three parcels are each entitled for two above-moderate income units per parcel. While the number of units to be built under all of these projects exceeds the realistic capacity assumptions for these parcels, they all have either been entitled and provided with allocations or they have active development proposals that the City anticipates approving under the proposed design specifications. The unit estimates on all seven parcels are based on those proposals or approved entitlements. All above-moderate sites are vacant. The parcels designated for above-moderate income development in Appendix A accommodate 215 housing units.

There are an adequate number of vacant single-family and small multiple-family parcels to meet the City’s “fair share” of regional housing needs for above moderate-income housing (127 units). TRPA restricts the number of housing unit permits for local jurisdictions within the Basin. In the past, jurisdictions received a fixed number of allocations each year. In 2003, TRPA changed the allocation system by tying it directly to a jurisdiction’s accomplishments of environmental improvements. The number of allocations that TRPA will make available to South Lake Tahoe will likely fluctuate in the future. In 2021, the City received 33 residential allocations (22 single-family and 11 multifamily).

TRPA distributes residential allocation to local jurisdictions every two years based on residential permit review, code compliance, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation, pursuant to TRPA Code (Section 50.5.2.E). The system includes criteria for evaluating conformance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and shortterm rental neighborhood compatibility guidelines. Each jurisdiction is provided with a base allocation, which may be reduced incrementally based on TRPA’s evaluation of these criteria. The City’s minimum allocation may be reduced to 10 allocations with deductions. Based on past performance, it is likely that the City will continue to receive the full base allocation of 33 allocations per year. The realistic development within this five-year planning period, based upon allocations, is 165 units: 110 new singlefamily homes and 55 new multifamily units (some of which may be subdivided into condominiums).

Different jurisdictions have different methods of distributing allocations to property owners. The City of South Lake Tahoe sets aside 33.3 percent of its allocations for multifamily housing developments (including condominiums). Because the market value of transferable allocations is about $35,000, it would be reasonable to expect that only people constructing above moderate-income homes would elect to obtain their allocations by purchasing them on the private market instead of waiting on the City’s waiting list. Consequently, with the purchase of approximately 27 transferable allocations, a total of 137 new above moderate housing units, both single-family and multifamily units, are estimated to be constructed within the five-year planning period. Based on staff assumptions and the affordability analysis described earlier in this section, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of these units will be 769

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022 4-133
affordable only to people with above-moderate incomes. This number of projected above moderateincome units satisfies the City’s remaining above moderate-income RHNA of 127 units.

Analysis of Moderate-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant or Underutilized Land There are three sites in the Al Tahoe area which the City donated to the St. Joseph Community Land Trust for development with moderate-income housing. These three sites, listed in Appendix A, are proposed to accommodate one unit per parcel and contribute to the moderate-income RHNA.

There are multifamily parcels listed in Appendix A that could be used to create affordable ownership opportunities for moderate-income families who have made South Lake Tahoe their home. Of these parcels, 61 (or 38.86 acres) allow densities between 12 and 15 units per acre, appropriate for moderateincome development. Two of these parcels are pending City approval for development with achievable housing, so they are anticipated to produce 17 above-market rate units, constrained to 160 percent of the region’s AMI (as discussed in the prior subsection). Another 18 parcels are entitled for single-family development, so they are anticipated to produce another 22 above-moderate income units.

For the remaining 41 multi-family sites listed in Appendix A, these parcels could produce 156 moderateincome units. All moderate-income parcels in Appendix A are vacant. One additional parcel that allows densities up to 25 units per acre is proposed to accommodate nine moderate-income units. That parcel is owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy. The City has a RHNA allocation of 42 moderate-income units. The 42 available parcels are sufficient to accommodate the moderate-income RHNA. Moderateincome units approved or constructed during the planning period will also be subject to annual allocation restrictions described previously. While this is a significant amount of the annual allocation allotted to the City, more affordable units can be developed than the annual allocation due to bonus units granted from unit affordability. As described in Section 4.4.5.4, Growth Controls, TRPA does not require allocations for the construction of deed-restricted housing units that meet the criteria of affordable housing (low- and very low-income categories, moderate-income category, or achievable-income category units).

Analysis of Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant or Underutilized Land
Consideration of sites suitable for development of lower-income housing is based on properties that have suitable land use designations, densities, and conditions to be considered likely to develop with affordable housing. As allowed by the state, the City is considering sites that allow at least 20 dwelling units per acre to have suitable density for lower-income housing development. There are nine parcels that allow multifamily development up to a maximum of 25 units per acre (summarized in Appendix A) in the TCAP and TVAP areas, which would be suitable for lower-income development. All nine properties comprise 16 acres, have the regulatory and physical conditions suitable for facilitating affordable housing development, and have not been included in the inventories of the past two housing elements. Below are additional specifics about the subset of the parcels that are government owned:
 Two parcels are owned by the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency, and the City Council has expressed recent interest in developing affordable housing on the parcels.  Two of the parcels are approximately 10 total acres in size. The State of California owns the sites and is in pre-application discussions with the City. These two parcels are proposed for lot consolidation, and one is currently paved but underutilized. The sites are located in the TVAP 770

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-134 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
area, and the property owner is interested in developing high-density residential units (248 dwelling units). These parcels would be developed to 99 percent of its maximum development capacity upon City approval with the current assumptions for the potential project. This assumption is also reasonable because this site is in an area plan that allows 70 percent land coverage.

The City has a RHNA allocation of 120 lower-income units. The nine parcels are proposed to accommodate 337 lower-income units when land coverage and environmental restrictions are considered, and they are sufficient to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. 771

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–PUBLIC DRAFT - JUNE 2022 4-135
FIGURE 4-20: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY INSIDE THE TOURIST CORE AREA Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021.
772

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-136 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
FIGURE 4-21: VACANT HOUSING INVENTORY INSIDE THE TAHOE VALLEY AREA Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2021.
773

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-137
Densities on approved and pending projects with residential in the city range from 8 to 25 dwelling units per acre with most projects developing at 100-percent residential. Most of these projects have affordable units in them and many have a high numbers of affordable units.

All of the developable acreage on vacant sites in the TCAP area and the majority of the developable acreage in the TVAP area are less than one acre per site. Consolidation of existing development to create affordable housing for people of lower incomes can be expensive. It can be challenging to consolidate properties to make a re-use project financially feasible and to create reasonably secure investments for a developer. However, lot consolidation could increase the financial feasibility opportunities for affordable multifamily housing developments. Program 1-8 commits the City to allow and encourage lot consolidation and to work with the development community to promote awareness of lot consolidation opportunities.

Conclusions
Because of the maximum densities allowed by the TRPA Regional Plan, South Lake Tahoe has limited sites where development at densities conducive to feasible affordable housing projects can occur. These limited sites are often small and constrained. Currently, only the TCAP and TVAP areas allow densities above 15 units per acre and land coverage above 30%. However, the city currently has sufficient vacant land appropriately zoned to meet all RHNA income categories. A summary of the total development potential shown in the land inventory is provided in Table 4-50. A detailed table of all of the sites is provided in the sites inventory (Appendix A). The City will continue to strive to meet its housing production goals within the constraints of TRPA’s allocation process and constraints to development related to Basin-wide restrictions.

TABLE 4-50
ADDRESSING THE 6TH CYCLE RHNA
South Lake Tahoe
Income Category RHNA RHNA Buffer (+15%) 6th-Round Sites Unit Capacity Surplus
Extremely Low 35 41
Very Low 35 41 337 197
Low 50 58
Moderate 42 49 165 116
Above Moderate 127 147 215 68
Total 289 336 717 381
Source: HCD, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2021.

4.3.1.1.2 Adequacy of Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure This section addresses the adequacy of public facilities, services, and infrastructure to accommodate planned residential growth through the end of the Housing Element planning period (to June 30, 2027).

Water
The South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD, District) provides water service to the majority of South Lake Tahoe. The water supply originates from 11 active wells and four standby wells, which, as of 2021, supply more than 14,235 homes and businesses. Since 1997, MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) 774

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-138 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
contamination has been responsible for the closure of 15 STPUD drinking wells. However, the District was the first in California to employ progressive advanced oxidation MTBE treatment technology approved by the California Department of Health Services. This treatment has significantly reduced the MTBE contamination in the water supply, and none was detected in any wells as of 2020. Currently, there is a known tetrachloroethylene (PCE) plume within the west-central portion of the Tahoe Valley South Sub-basin northeast of Emerald Bay Road and the South Y Area, which has impacted the beneficial use of groundwater in that area. The District has evaluated various remediation options and plans to use targeted pumping to control or remove the contaminant and prevent its migration.

The available groundwater for extraction in the Tahoe South Subbasin is 32,050 acre-feet per year. The District operates well below this value and is expected to remain within the sustainable yield until at least 2045. The District estimates that it could serve up to 7,000 additional housing units with existing infrastructure and currently issues Intent to Serve letters for current and future development projects.

While the District has small waterlines within the existing distribution system, these rarely present a problem for standard residential construction. High-density projects may require upgrading existing undersized waterlines however, these types of projects are typically in more developed areas that tend to have larger waterlines. Future capital projects are planned and will be implemented to improve reliability, efficiency, and community-wide access to fire flow. The District reports that no projects are currently planned to increase its storage capacity, as capacity is not a limiting factor for anticipated buildout conditions. Therefore, there are enough connections available to address the sites inventory identified in this Housing Element.

Three smaller water providers (and several individual private wells) also serve South Lake Tahoe. These private water companies are mostly built out and serve approximately 2,600 total connections. The status of each provider is below:
 Tahoe Keys has three wells, with two taken offline recently due to uranium contamination. The Lukins Brothers Water Company (LBWC) and Tahoe Keys are currently partnering to install an inter-tie that will provide Tahoe Keys with additional water supply while Tahoe Keys prepares a long-term facility plan. Tahoe Keys anticipates it will take about two years to complete necessary facility improvements to fully treat and eradicate the uranium.  The LBWC, a privately owned water-supply system, has 986 connections and less than 100 remaining buildable lots within its territory. LBWC and the City of South Lake Tahoe have a Franchise Agreement for system infrastructure rehabilitation through 2026. Since 2014, the LBWC has begun replacing 4-inch water mains with 12-inch water mains. Over 6,000 feet of water mains have been completed to date, and 20 fire hydrants have also been constructed. In addition, LBWC has built a water filtration plant to treat PCE contamination and another 98,000 gallons of storage capacity. LBWC issues Intent to Serve letters for any serviceable lots in their territory. With the updates planned at the LBWC, it is anticipated that they will have capacity to serve the remaining lots available within its territory.  Lakeside Park has the ability to filter lake water and to bypass the filter if necessary to meet fire flows. The water is pumped from a pump station on Lakeside Beach to a treatment plant on Pine Boulevard. Once treated, the water is stored on-site in a 210,000-gallon storage tank ready to use.

Lakeside Park also has a well and an eight-inch tie-in with STPUD in case of an emergency. As 775

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-139
of September 2021, Lakeside Park had 139 domestic water connections, and a water model planned for 2021-2022 will detail how many additional connections the system can accommodate at the existing design capacity. Given the availability of lake water, groundwater, and STPUD water for emergencies, Lakeside Park will have capacity to serve the remaining lots available within its territory.

Sewer
STPUD also provides wastewater collection, treatment, and export for Tahoe's South Shore within El Dorado County. The system provides effluent water at state water standards, but the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board prohibits the use of recycled water within the Tahoe Basin. Therefore, after advanced secondary treatment, STPUD pumps the effluent outside of the Lake Tahoe Basin to a reservoir in Alpine County for agricultural purposes. The facilities have a permitted capacity of 7.7 million gallons per day serving 18,237 connections, and receive an average daily flow of 4.0 million gallons per day, 100 percent of which is recycled. The wastewater treatment plant could accommodate 30,729 additional sewer connections. Sewer capacities are not expected to be a problem unless a high-density project is planned in an underperforming part of the collection system. The District reports that that would not be an insurmountable obstacle, as sewer lines can typically be upsized to accommodate increased flows.

Regardless, there are enough connections available to address the sites inventory identified in this Housing Element.

Infrastructure Financing
Because of the already high cost of TRPA fees associated with development in South Lake Tahoe, the City does not collect impact fees from developers to finance infrastructure improvements as other cities may do. Infrastructure needs can also be assessed and financed on a case-by-case basis during individual project review. On large projects, specific mitigation required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may include off-site infrastructure improvement.

Dry Utilities
Dry utilities are available to serve all the sites in the inventory.

Summary
The City of South Lake Tahoe has adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure to accommodate planned residential growth within the existing the city limit during the time frame of this Housing Element. The STPUD has water and sewer capacity to accommodate projected residential demand.

Improvements are underway to resolve the uranium contamination in the primarily built-out Tahoe Keys’ district. With uranium treatment and eradication in progress and emergency water supplies secured from another nearby water provider, this is a near-term issue and not deemed to be a long-term constraint to population growth. In general, the facilities in South Lake Tahoe are adequate to meet population growth associated with the development of South Lake Tahoe’s share of the regional housing sites identified in this Housing Element.
776

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-140 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022

4.3.2 Inventory of Local, State, and Federal Housing and Financing Programs

4.3.2.1 Current City Programs
The City has very limited financial resources of its own to allocate for housing. Instead, funds for affordable housing and rehabilitation come primarily from the state and federal governments. The programs discussed in this section are implemented by the City of South Lake Tahoe.

4.3.2.1.1 Rental Housing New Construction Program
Of all of the City’s housing programs, the Rental Housing New Construction Program has been the most effective for creating deed-restricted affordable housing for very low- and low-income households in South Lake Tahoe. The City works with developers to create quality affordable housing and allocates funds to support such projects. The City has partners with developers to create 400 deed restricted affordable housing units in eight projects throughout the city. The most recent affordable housing development project in the city was The Aspens project, which opened in 2014 and includes 48 rental units, 47 of which are assisted units occupied by low- and very low-income households. The other unit is a moderate-income manager’s unit. The City had a Loan Agreement with SLT Pacific Associates for the construction of The Aspens project. The loan was for $3,000,000 of HOME Program funds (Standards Agreement 10-HOME-6347).

The City is currently working with the California Tahoe Conservancy and Related California to develop Sugar Pine Village, an affordable housing project that will yield 248 low-income housing units. The project is at 1860 Lake Tahoe Boulevard and 1029 Tata Lane. The City has contributed over $2.5 million in HOME program income, Redevelopment Agency program income and general fund dollars and is supporting the project with applications for HOME, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, Infill Infrastructure Grant, and Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds to finance Sugar Pine Village.

The City has also supported the development of moderate income housing by donating land to the St.

Joseph Land Trust to develop three moderate income single-family residences in the Al Tahoe neighborhood. The three homes have approved building permits and are expected to be developed in 2022.

4.3.2.1.2 Illegal Unit Conversion Program
Since adoption of TRPA regulations, a number of illegal ADUs have been built in South Lake Tahoe. In April 1993, the City adopted an ordinance authorizing certain illegally constructed units to become legalized if they meet specific criteria. The program was created specifically to help meet the city’s affordable housing needs. The criteria for legalization include:
 Cannot have been illegally constructed since the ordinance was adopted in April 1993.  May contain one unit beyond permissible density (detached, attached, or within the legal dwelling).
 Must conform to height, setbacks, and design standards.  Must meet health and safety standards.
 Parcel must contain 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
777

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-141
 Must pay STPUD all costs for the illegal sewer hook-ups.  Must be deed restricted as lower-income housing.

Through the Illegal Unit Conversion Program, the City has authorized the conversion of 34 illegally constructed units (as of April 2015) which have been brought into compliance with health and safety standards and other applicable codes. The cost of bringing the illegal unit up to code is paid by the property owner.

4.3.2.1.3 Single-Room Occupancy Unit Conversion and Inspection Program On June 16, 2015, the City Council of South Lake Tahoe moved to adopt an ordinance that established standards for residential single-room occupancy (SRO) units as permissible in the city. The ordinance applies to owners of motel properties who offer long-term stays of 29 days or more for lower-income or unhoused residents in an effort to encourage more healthful and sanitary living conditions. Emergency shelters or other uses intended purely for transient lodging are exempt from these requirements. In terms of living standards, the ordinance requires that SRO units offer, at the very minimum, access to kitchen facilities (one in each SRO if a common kitchen does not exist); a bathroom with a toilet, sink, and bathtub or shower; and functioning smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. It also establishes minimum habitable floor-area requirements based on household size, as follows:
 For a single occupant: 120 square feet;
 For two occupants: 170 square feet;
 For three occupants: 220 square feet; and
 For four occupants: 270 square feet.

The ordinance requires that motel owners designating a certain portion of their rooms as SRO units to obtain a permit for all necessary improvements. The ordinance also establishes a process for conducting inspections of these SRO units (see City Code Section 6.15.750). The City inspects each permitted SRO unit on an annual basis or more frequently as needed. The SRO unit or units at a specific property must comply with the standards in force when the permit was originally issued. If any SRO unit poses a health risk to the degree that a tenant must seek relocation, relocation costs are imposed on the property owner.

Unless otherwise occupied and used for transient housing, all designated SRO units remain as tourist accommodation units (TAU) as their default use. Since adoption of the SRO ordinance, the City has helped to certify at least 188 SRO units across the city.

4.3.2.1.4 Housing Issues Hotline
The City of South Lake Tahoe administers the Housing Issues Hotline to assist residents with landlordtenant concerns. The Housing Issues Hotline is a phone number that residents can call to get information, locate resources, request assistance, or potentially file a complaint regarding the condition of their rental unit. The hotline tracks substandard housing complaints and works alongside the City’s SRO Inspection Program and multi-family inspection requirements to address substandard housing issues in a timely manner. The program also offers information on the City's website about tenant rights and provides stepby-step instructions to filing a housing complaint. 778

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-142 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022

4.3.2.1.5 Long Term Rental Incentive Grant Pilot Program In October 2021, the City approved the Long-Term Rental Incentive Grant Pilot Program, which will encourage property owners to convert their vacant homes and/or rooms into long-term rentals for local employees seeking housing. The program incentivizes homeowners to participate by offering funds awarded to the City from the American Rescue Plan Act and attempts to tap into the large stock of second homes that sit vacant for a large part of the year. Homeowners can earn income on their second homes in return for helping to house local employees.

The program is administered by Landing Locals, a Truckee-based company that connects vacation homeowners with local renters to provide both seasonal or long-term, stable housing in resort towns. The program was approved for one year and will be revisited after the professional services agreement with Landing Locals expires.

4.3.2.2 Current El Dorado County Programs
El Dorado County implements the following programs.

4.3.2.2.1 The Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8) helps low-income residents of El Dorado County afford safe, decent, and sanitary housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to the El Dorado County Public Housing Authority to administer the program. As of June 18, 2021, the Housing Authority has granted 67 active vouchers to households in South Lake Tahoe. The waitlist for additional vouchers is currently closed.

4.3.2.2.2 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
El Dorado County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate Program is available to provide home purchase assistance to low-income residents (earning 80 percent or less of the AMI) in South Lake Tahoe and the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program reduces the amount of federal income taxes a homebuyer pays, allowing the homebuyer to qualify for a larger mortgage loan by increasing the household income. The mortgage credit certificate is a 15-percent tax credit that is in effect for the life of the loan as long as the property remains owner-occupied.

4.3.2.3 Private, State, and Federal Funding Programs
In addition to the funding programs available through the City and County, there are several state and federal funding programs that assist first-time homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help specialneeds groups, such as seniors and large households (see Table 4-51 for a list of these programs). In most cases, other entities, including for-profit and nonprofit developers, apply for funds or other program benefits. For example, developers apply directly for Section 202 grants. In general, the City relies on the private sector to develop new affordable units.
779

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-143
TABLE 4-51

FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities

1. Federal Programs
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
Grants available to the City on a competitive basis for a variety of housing and community development
activities. City competes for funds through the state’s allocation process.
- Acquisition
- Rehabilitation
- Homebuyer Assistance
- Economic Development
- Homeless Assistance
- Public Services
Federal Emergency Shelter
Grants
Competitive grants to help local governments and
nonprofits to finance emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and other supportive services.
- New Construction
- Rehabilitation
- Homeless Assistance
- Public Services
Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME)
Grants available to the City on a competitive basis for a variety of housing activities. City competes for funds
through the state’s application process.
- Homebuyer Assistance
- Rehabilitation
- New Construction
- Rental Assistance
Housing Choice Voucher
Program (Section 8)
Assistance program that provides direct funding for
rental subsidies for very low-income families. - Rental Assistance Section 202 Grants to private nonprofit developers of supportive housing for very low-income seniors. - New Construction Housing Rehabilitation
Program
Provides financial assistance to low-income homeowners
for health and safety improvements. - Rehabilitation
Continuum of Care/Homeless
Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition to Housing
(HEARTH)
Funding through the HEARTH Act of 2009 to provide
necessary resources for development of programs to
assist homeless individuals and families.
- Homeless Assistance
- New Construction
Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
The HOPWA program provides housing assistance and
supportive
services for low-income people with HIV/AIDS and their
families.
- Rental assistance
Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME)
Provides grants to local governments and nonprofit
agencies, through the State of California, for many
homeowner and renter needs.
- Homebuyer assistance
- Rehabilitation
- New construction
- Rental assistance
780

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-144 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-51

FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities

2. State Programs
Permanent Local Housing
Allocation (PLHA)
PLHA provides a permanent source of funding for all
local governments in California to help cities and
counties implement plans to increase the affordable
housing stock. The two types of assistance are: formula grants to entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions, and competitive grants to non-entitlement jurisdictions. - Predevelopment
- Development
- Acquisition
- Rehabilitation
- Preservation
- Matching Funds
- Homelessness Assistance
- Accessibility Modifications
- Homeownership Assistance
- Fiscal Incentives
Local Early Action Planning
(LEAP) Grants
The Local Action Planning Grants (LEAP), provides
over-the-counter grants complemented with technical
assistance to local governments for the preparation and adoption of planning documents, and process
improvements that:
- Accelerate housing production
- Facilitate compliance to implement the sixth-cycle
Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
- Housing Element updates
- Updates to zoning, plans, or
procedures to
increase/accelerate housing
production
- Pre-approved architectural and
site plans
- Establishing State-defined prohousing policies
- See complete list in program
materials online
Senate Bill 2 Technical
Assistance Grants
Financial and technical assistance to local governments to update planning documents and zoning ordinances to
streamline housing production, including, but not limited to, general plans, community plans, specific plans,
implementation of sustainable communities strategies,
and local coastal programs.
- Technical assistance
- Planning document updates
Affordable Housing
Partnership Program (AHPP)
Provides lower-interest rate California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) loans to homebuyers who receive local
secondary financing.
- Homebuyer Assistance
Building Equity and Growth
in Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
A state-funded program administered by HCD that
provides low- and moderate-income households up to
$30,000 for a down payment.
- Homebuyer Assistance
Cal Home
Grants awarded to jurisdictions for owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer
assistance.
- Homebuyer Assistance
- Rehabilitation
Single-Family Housing Bond
Program (Mortgage Revenue
Bonds)
Bonds issued to local lenders and developers so that
below-market interest rate loans can be issued to firsttime homebuyers. - Homebuyer Assistance
781

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-145
TABLE 4-51

FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Housing and Disability
Advocacy Program (HDAP)
Services to assist disabled individuals who are
experiencing homelessness apply for disability benefit
programs while also providing housing assistance. HDAP
has four core requirements: outreach, case management,
disability advocacy, and housing assistance
- Rental assistance
No Place Like Home
Loans to counties or developers in counties for
permanent supportive housing for those with mental
illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
- New construction
Mental Health Services Act
(MHSA)
Funding through MHSA of 2004 available to counties to
spend toward mental health services.
- New construction
- Special-needs programs
Homeless Emergency Aid
Program (HEAP)
A block grant program designed to provide direct
assistance to cities,
counties, and Continuums of Care (CoCs) to address the
homelessness crisis throughout California.
- Identified homelessness needs
- Capital improvements related
to homelessness
- Rental assistance
California Emergency
Solutions and Housing
(CESH)
Provides funds for activities to assist persons
experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Program funds
are granted in the form of five-year grants to eligible applicants.
- Homelessness service system
administration
- New construction
- Rental assistance
Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits
A 4% annual tax credit that helps owners of rental units develop affordable housing. - New construction

3. Private Resources/Financing Programs
California Community
Reinvestment Corporation
(CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium designed to
provide long-term debt financing for affordable
multifamily rental housing. Nonprofit and for-profit
developers contact member banks.
- New construction
- Rehabilitation
- Acquisition
Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)
- Fixed-rate mortgages issued by private mortgage
insurers.
- Mortgages that fund the purchase and rehabilitation of a home.
- Low down payment mortgages for single-family homes
in underserved low-income and minority cities.
- Homebuyer Assistance
- Rehabilitation
- Homebuyer Assistance
Freddie Mac Home Works
Provides first and second mortgages that include
rehabilitation loan. City provides gap financing for
rehabilitation component. Households earning up to 80%
MFI qualify.
- Homebuyer Assistance
Affordable Housing Program
(Federal Home Loan Bank)
Loans (and some grants) to public agencies and private
entities for a wide variety of housing projects and
programs. Participation is by Federal Home Loan Bank
participating lenders.
-New Construction
-Homebuyer Assistance
-Rehabilitation
-Housing Supportive Services
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021
782

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-146 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022

4.3.2.3.1 Assisted-Housing Projects in South Lake Tahoe In addition to the resources listed above, there are eight multifamily rental housing complexes in South Lake Tahoe that receive government assistance from specific programs. Table 4-52, Assisted Housing Stock, lists these projects by address, assisted/total units, funding sources, and their earliest years of converting to market-rate prices (expiration date). The predominant funding source for assisted housing units in South Lake Tahoe is Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs). The project that could potentially convert to market-rate housing at the earliest would be the Tahoe Senior Plaza, with a covenant expiration date of 2039. Section 4.3.3, Preserving At-Risk Units, describes these housing projects in further detail.

4.3.3 Preserving At-Risk Units
State law requires that housing elements include an inventory of all publicly assisted multifamily rental housing projects within the local jurisdiction that are at risk of conversion to uses other than low-income residential within 10 years of the beginning of the current planning period (prior to June 30, 2032).

Thousands of privately owned affordable rental housing units have been constructed in California with the assistance of federal, state, and local funding (loans or grants) that restrict rents and/or occupancy of units to lower-income households for specified periods. In general, once the period of restricted rent/occupancy expires, a property owner may charge market rents for the previously restricted units.

There is a threat that low-income occupants may have to find alternative housing if rents rise to market levels, although in properties with Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) vouchers, those residents are provided “enhanced” vouchers to subsidize their rent in market-rate projects.

There are eight assisted housing developments in South Lake Tahoe, providing 400 assisted units, that receive government assistance from specific programs. The projects receive assistance from the following funding sources: HUD, California Housing Financing Agency (CalHFA), and LIHTC. Units are considered “at risk” if they will be eligible, within the next 10 years, to change to market-rate housing due to termination (opt-out) of a rent subsidy contract (e.g., Section 8), mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions. Although these projects are required by law to be listed as at risk of converting to market-rate housing, it is not a very good indicator of whether these units will actually convert. The inventory of assisted units required to be reported in the Housing Element includes all multifamily rental units regulated by federal, state, and/or local programs. Such units include those developed under HUD programs, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond programs, LIHTC, redevelopment programs, inclusionary housing programs, and density-bonus programs that are eligible for conversion to market rate through June 30, 2027.

As demonstrated in Table 4-52, no subsidized housing units are considered at risk of converting to market-rate units within 10 years of the beginning of this Housing Element planning period. California Government Code Section 65583 requires each city and county to adopt analysis and programs for preserving assisted housing developments. Program 3-4 states that the City will maintain a list of all dwellings in the city that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives, and that the City will contact all property owners and notify them of the legal requirements to provide notice prior to the conversion of any units for lower-income households to market-rate units.
783

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-147
TABLE 4-52

ASSISTED HOUSING STOCK
South Lake Tahoe
2020
Facility Name Address Assisted
Units
Total
Units Funding Sources Expiration Date
Tahoe Senior Plaza 1101 3rd Street 44 44 HOME, HUD PBRA, RDA 2039 Sky Forest Acres 750 Emerald Bay Road 17 17 HOME, HUD PBRA, RDA 2048 Tahoe Pines Apts. 3431 Spruce Avenue 27 28 HOME, LIHTC 2048 Tahoe Valley
Townhomes
1055 Tata Lane 68 70 HOME, LIHTC, CalHFA,
CDBG
2053
Kelly Ridge 1447 Herbert Avenue 32 33 HOME, LIHTC, CalHFA, RDA
2063
The Aspens at South
Lake
3521 Pioneer Trail 47 48 HOME, LIHTC, CalHFA 2067
Bijou Woods
Apartments 3421 Spruce Avenue 90 92 HUD PBRA, LIHTC 2055 Sierra Garden
Apartments
1801 Lake Tahoe
Boulevard
75 76 HOME, HUD PBRA,

LIHTC, CDBG
2070
Evergreen
Apartments
1342 Melba 26 26 HOME, RDA 2059
Total 426 434 -- --
Source: HCD October 2019 (SACOG Housing Element Data Profile 2020).

Notes:

HUD PBRA = Department of Housing and Urban Development Project-Based Rental Assistance Program LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
CalHFA = California Housing Finance Agency
Deed restrictions and affordability covenants are commonly used to preserve affordable units in publicly assisted housing. These methods ensure that the units are available to lower-income households longterm. Over time, the City may face the risk of losing some of its affordable units due to the expiration of covenants and deed restrictions. If market rents continue to increase, property owners may become inclined to discontinue public subsidies and convert the assisted units to market-rate housing to increase profits.

Conversion risk was assessed for the units in Table 4-52 based on information from HUD and the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC). As stated previously, no units within South Lake Tahoe are at risk of converting into non-affordable housing projects in the near future. The following is an analysis of the preservation and replacement options of these housing projects.

4.3.3.1 Federal Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units
For below-market properties, Section 8 preservation tools include the Mark-Up-to-Market program, which provides incentives for for-profit property owners to remain in the Section 8 program after their contracts expire. The Mark-Up-to-Market program authorizes eligible Section 8 properties to increase rents, the difference of which is paid to the property owner by HUD, in exchange for a guaranteed five784

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-148 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
year affordability term. The Mark-Up-to-Budget program allows nonprofit owners to increase belowmarket rents to acquire new property or make capital repairs while preserving existing Section 8 units.

For above-market properties, Mark-to-Market provides owners with debt restructuring in exchange for renewal of Section 8 contracts for 30 years.

For Section 236 properties, Interest Reduction Payment (IRP) Retention/Decoupling enables properties to retain IRP subsidy when new or additional financing is secured.

Section 515 enables the US Department of Agriculture to provide deeply subsidized loans directly to developers of rural rental housing. Loans have 30-year terms and are amortized over 50 years. The program gives first priority to individuals living in substandard housing.

A range of resources are available for preservation of Section 515 resources. Nonprofits can acquire Section 515 properties and assume the current mortgage or receive a new mortgage to finance acquisition and rehabilitation of the structures. Section 538 Rental Housing Loan Guarantees are available for the Section 514 and 516 loans and grants are also available for purchase and rehabilitation of Section 515 properties that are occupied by farmworkers. Section 533 provides a Housing Preservation Grant Program, currently closed, which funds rehabilitation, but not acquisition.

Due to the termination of two major federal preservation programs (Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act and Emergency Low-Income Housing and Preservation Act), and the limitations of existing federal tools, such as Mark-to-Market, state and local programs must assume a greater role in preserving HUD-assisted properties.

4.3.3.2 State Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units
At the state level, the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) offers low-interest loans to preserve long-term affordability for multifamily rental properties through its Preservation Acquisition Finance Program.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides grants to cities and counties and low-interest loans to state-certified community housing development organizations to create and preserve affordable housing for single-family and multifamily projects benefitting lower-income renters or owners.

4.3.3.3. Local Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units
To help preserve housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, the City can pursue direct negotiations with at-risk project owners to extend affordability restriction terms. In addition, the City applies for and receives HOME and CDBG funds that it can direct through grants and loans to extend affordability covenants on expiring properties.

Community Housing Development Organizations can apply directly to the state for HOME funds for preservation. The only local group in this category is the St. Joseph Community Land Trust, but it has not pursued HOME funds for preservation purposes.

Qualified entities are nonprofit or for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk properties that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects.

Following is a list of qualified entities for El Dorado County:
785

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-149
 El Dorado County Housing Authority (Placerville)
 Eskaton Properties Inc. (Carmichael)
 ROEM Development Corporation (Santa Clara)
 Rural California Housing Corporation (West Sacramento)  Volunteers of America (Sacramento)

4.3.4 Energy Conservation Opportunities
State housing element law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing because the more money spent on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb cost increases and must choose between basic needs, such as shelter, food, and energy. In addition, energy price increases since 2001, combined with rolling electricity blackouts, have led to a renewed interest in energy conservation.

All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy-Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations respond to California’s energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. They were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2019 (effective date of January 1, 2019) and included a Green Building Code. Through the building permit process, local governments enforce energy-efficiency requirements. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. The standards found in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 25 percent over residential construction practices used prior to the standards. South Lake Tahoe is enforcing the provisions of Title 24. Additionally, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan on October 20, 2020, with the ultimate aim of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the city.

This plan includes such goals as 50-percent municipal renewable energy by 2025, 100-percent municipal energy by 2032, and 100-percent community renewable electricity by 2032. The implementation work to reduce emissions is just now beginning and will continue.

El Dorado County oversees the Home Weatherization Program. The federally funded program is available to low-income owners and renters in El Dorado County. The program offers free services, including home repairs and installation of energy-saving measures or devices.

Liberty Utilities offers the California Energy Savings Assistance Program (formerly known as the California Low-Income Energy-Efficiency Weatherization Program). For 2019, the qualifying annual household income limits used to determine eligibility for the program were as follows:
 1-person household: $34,840
 2-person household: $34,840
 3-person household: $43,920
 4-person household: $53,000
786

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-150 BACKGROUND REPORT – JUNE 2022
 5-person household: $62,080
 6-person household: $71,160
 7-person household: $80,240
 8-person household: $89,320
 Each additional person in household: Add $9,080
The California Energy Savings Assistance Program provides qualified customers with no-cost, energysaving improvements, such as caulking, door weather-stripping, low-flow showerheads, and water heater blankets.
“Attachment R,” TRPA’s standard conditions of approval for residential projects, includes requirements for water-conservation devices on all fixtures and sets strict emissions requirements for gas water and space heaters, as well as wood stoves and inserts, which ensure that equipment installed is some of the most energy-efficient on the market. The City of South Lake Tahoe enforces Attachment R on projects reviewed by the City on behalf of TRPA through a memorandum of understanding.

City Code Title 6, Section 80, contains additional water-efficiency landscaping regulations consistent with the state Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The regulations describe the maximum applied water allowance throughout the year that can be used for landscaping and requires development applicants to prepare and submit a landscape design plan, irrigation design plan, and a grading design plan to the City for review.

However, because the majority of housing stock in South Lake Tahoe is older, additional consideration has to be given to the rehabilitation of older dwelling units. Many of these homes were originally built for summer-only occupancy and are now being resided in year-round. The City is currently investigating opportunities to re-establish its rehabilitation loan program for homes in its jurisdiction and could include energy conservation retrofit projects as an important component in this program. Energy conservation retrofits would help to greatly reduce monthly utility costs.

There are also various programs available in South Lake Tahoe to assist low-income households with utility costs. El Dorado County administers the Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a federally funded program that assists income-eligible households in offsetting the cost of heating and/or cooling their homes. Program recipients may either have specific payment amounts credited to their utility accounts or receive assistance in obtaining firewood or heating fuel. Priority is given to the elderly and disabled applicants. The Southwest Gas Corporation offers the California Alternate Rates for Energy Program, which provides a 20-percent discount on energy bills to households with qualifying incomes.

The STPUD—the main supplier of water and sewage treatment in South Lake Tahoe—started the Helping Hands Outreach program to assist customers who need help paying utility bills, but are ineligible for, or have exhausted, all other financial assistance. Programs 6-1 through 6-4 address energy conservation needs in the city. The TVAP and TCAP includes the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Green Building Program, which includes two levels for residential projects. Level 1 includes a “Priority Plan Check,” which pertains to a set of feasible measures that developers of residential projects could 787

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-151
implement to increase their sustainability. Level 2 includes a “Priority Plan Check and Recognition,” which pertains to green building certification involving a third-party. 788

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-152 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4 Potential Housing Constraints

4.4.1 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Potential and Actual Governmental Constraints
This section analyzes the potential constraints to the production of housing in South Lake Tahoe imposed by TRPA. California Government Code defines two categories of constraints: governmental and nongovernmental constraints. In South Lake Tahoe, governmental constraints include ordinances, policies, and procedures of both TRPA and the City. When constraints within the City’s realm of control are identified, the City is required to take action to remove or mitigate the constraints.

In South Lake Tahoe, development is subject to two levels of regulations: TRPA regulations and City of South Lake Tahoe regulations. This section addresses potential TRPA constraints on housing.

4.4.1.1 Background and Regional Authority − The Bi-State Compact The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (California Government Code Section 66801 or Public Law 96-551, 93 Stat. 3233, revised December 19, 1980), or “Bi-State Compact,” authorized TRPA to have both planning functions (Article V) and enforcement functions (Article VI). Of these functions, the planning powers are broader than the enforcement powers. Regulations that do not further the realization of the Regional Plan can neither be adopted nor enforced by the agency. However, regulations furthering the realization of the Regional Plan can preempt state law.

Both the states of California and Nevada delegated police powers to TRPA to enforce their ordinances and regulations to effectuate the Regional Plan. In coordination with the US Forest Service, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, TRPA adopted an updated Regional Plan in 2012. The police power given to TRPA by the states of California and Nevada allows TRPA to regulate or prohibit the use of property where necessary for the public welfare.

The findings and declarations of the Bi-State Compact are weighted with a concern for the protection of the natural resources of the Lake Tahoe Basin. TRPA’s Regional Plan is “the long-term general plan for the development of the (Lake Tahoe) region.” The Bi-State Compact dictates the required elements of the Regional Plan: a land use plan, a transportation plan, a conservation plan, a recreation plan, and a public services and facilities plan. The land use plan, in particular, was intended by Congress for “the integrated arrangement and general location and extent of, and the criteria and standards for, the uses of land, water, air, space and other natural resources within the region, including but not limited to, an indication or allocation of maximum population densities.” TRPA was given the power to enforce its land use plan. In fact, only the federal government is legally exempt from TRPA’s “zoning regulations.” The Bi-State Compact also required TRPA to adopt all necessary rules, regulations, ordinances, and policies to implement the Regional Plan. These include regional standards for subdivision, zoning, tree removal, grading, and the like, without limitation on the subject matter.

The Bi-State Compact directs TRPA to “take account of” and “seek to harmonize” regional needs, and the plans and planning activities of local jurisdictions within the Basin, such as the City of South Lake Tahoe.

TRPA is to “seek the cooperation and consider the recommendations of…cities” and other governmental entities and other individuals and organizations (Article V[6]). TRPA is specifically granted the power to 789

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-153
“initiate, negotiate, and participate in contracts and agreements among the local governmental authorities of the region.”
In matters where it has jurisdiction, TRPA establishes the minimum standards for the Basin; political subdivisions like the City of South Lake Tahoe can enact equal or higher standards. The Bi-State Compact gives TRPA the explicit authority to sue local jurisdictions—not the states nor federal government—to ensure compliance with the Regional Plan and ordinances (Article VI[e]).

Under the requirements of the Bi-State Compact, TRPA is to address general, regional matters; local governments retain their power over purely local matters (Article V[b]). Almost immediately after TRPA became operational, both the Nevada and California Supreme Courts had occasion to clarify the local/regional relationship when they acted on constitutional attacks regarding TRPA. This case law stresses the necessity for a regional approach. Both courts recognized that a regional plan or regulation may have had a local impact and still are within TRPA’s power if it is not local in nature and purpose. [People of the State of CA, ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480, 487 P. 2d 193 (1971); and NV, ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, et al., 524 P. 2d 1271 (1974).] The former case recognizes TRPA’s purpose and responsibility to protect the delicate environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin and to provide for orderly development and provides this purpose as the basis for TRPA’s exercise of police power.

4.4.1.2 Housing Goals and Policies of the Existing Regional Plan TRPA updated its 20-year Regional Plan and adopted it on December 12, 2012. The Land Use Element of the Regional Plan includes a Housing Sub-element with a purpose of assessing the housing needs of the Basin and to make provisions for adequate housing. The goals and policies recognize that the Bi-State Compact does not specifically mandate this sub-element and that it is not addressed by the Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities. However, because both California and Nevada require housing to be addressed as part of a general plan, it was included to address housing issues on a regional basis, with local plans handling the specifics of implementation.

The three housing goals of the Regional Plan are:

1. Promote housing opportunities for full-time and seasonal residents as well as workers employed within the region.

2. To the extent feasible, without compromising the growth management provisions of the regional plan, the attainment of threshold goals, and affordable housing incentive programs, moderateincome housing will be encouraged in suitable locations for the residents of the region.

3. Regularly evaluate housing needs in the region and update policies and ordinances if necessary to achieve state, local, and regional housing goals.
790

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-154 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.1.3 Zoning
Overview
As discussed previously, the “zoning” mechanism of TRPA and the City of South Lake Tahoe is through PAS, CPs, and APs. In a particular PAS, CP, or AP area, a use is considered either an “allowed use” or a “special use.” A proposed project that is an allowed use may still require several approvals. If it is new construction or an addition to an existing building, it requires a City Design Review and TRPA approval.

For the City Design Review, the application may be considered minor or major depending on the extent of the project and whether new coverage is proposed. If it is a smaller project (residential within a Regional Center with less than 100,000 square feet of new floor area, residential within a Town Center with less than 50,000 square feet of new floor area, residential outside a Regional Center or Town Center with less than 25,000 square feet of new floor area, commercial within a Regional Center with less than 80,000 square feet of new floor area, commercial within a Town Center with less than 40,000 square feet of new floor area, commercial outside a Regional Center or Town Center with less than 12,500 square feet of new floor area, or other project listed in the Memorandums of Understanding [MOU] with TRPA), the City can review the project on behalf of TRPA. This means that City staff applies the requirements of the TRPA Code of Ordinances in the project review as well as the City Code. If the project does not fall under the MOU, then the applicant must submit separate applications to the City and TRPA. City Planning Division staff conducts the Design Review and, if necessary, TRPA review. If a variance or Code Amendment is necessary for the project, that must be completed prior to applying for a building permit. Variances to City Code requirements must be approved by the City, and Code Amendments must be approved by the City and TRPA. Once these are complete, the project may be submitted to the City Building Division for a Building Permit application.

Design review findings for TRPA are defined in the Design Review Guidelines as “standards” which must be met. The Design Review Guidelines do not create new standards but rather compile all design standards featured in the Code in one place. These standards are described in Section 4.4.1.6, Design Standards. The City also adopted objective Residential Development and Design Standards for both single-family and multi-family residential development that comply with all TRPA design guidelines in 2021. The purpose of the design standards and guidelines is to describe permit requirements in residential areas, identify any supplemental land use regulations applicable to residential areas, and establish development standards for the same. Refer to Section 4.4.1.6 for a summary of the residential lot design standards for single-family residential and multi-family residential developments, as outlined in the adopted objective design guidelines.

If the project is just an interior remodel, it does not require Design Review and can be submitted directly to the Building Division for a building permit. The project is routed to other City departments (Planning, Engineering, Fire, etc.) for review during the plan check process. The City also conducts TRPA review of these projects.

Projects may also require transfers of coverage, commercial floor area, tourist accommodation units, residential units of use, residential development rights, etc. This process involves the City Planning and Building Divisions and TRPA. It is typically done during the building permit plan check process. 791

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-155
Where a use is a “special use,” a Special Use Permit is required, and standard review procedures are followed. If the building already exists, the procedures relate primarily to the transportation-related impacts of a change of use. For example, is there adequate parking for the use? In addition, there is a neighbor-notification requirement for a 300-foot radius and use permit findings must be made. The City’s use permit findings are found in Title 6 (Section 6.55.620) of the City Code. All of these findings must be made to approve a special use:
 The use is necessary or desirable on a specific parcel.  The use is not injurious to the neighborhood.
 The use is consistent with the intent of Chapter 6.55 of the City Code.  The use is consistent with the permitted uses in the plan area.

If a new building is proposed, design review requirements also apply. In either case, CEQA-related environmental analysis is required. The level of analysis varies depending on the circumstances related to the application.

The use permit and/or design review application will be reviewed and decided upon by the Development Services Director, Zoning Administrator or the City Planning Commission depending on the type, size and location of the project. In either case, the staff person preparing the review documents will offer the decision-maker his or her recommendation related to the proposal. The applicant, or others, can appeal the decision or specific conditions of approval to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2.35 of the City Code within five business days from the date of this decision.

The PAS, CP, and AP methods of zoning tailors uses to what is appropriate for the area; various residential uses are often permissible without requiring rezoning. In some cases, large parcels eligible for multifamily development are also eligible for one single-family home or a single-family home with an ADU. There is a risk that such parcels could be underutilized through development as single-family “estate” housing. This risk is lessened, however, by the limited land availability of multifamily parcels and the high prices that these parcels currently command.

Specific residential uses allowed in the PAS, AP, and CP areas in the city are detailed in Table 4-48.

TRPA regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development. Land coverage limitations and height standards are described in detail later in this section (see Sections 4.4.5.5 and

4.4.5.8).

Conclusions
There is no actual constraint related to housing associated with the zoning mechanism of TRPA and the City. The flexible zoning mechanism provides for a wide range of permissible uses. Amending the Regional Plan to encourage affordable and other housing has proven achievable based on the several amendments undertaken in the past to promote such development.

Enhancements to the PAS are feasible. The TVAP has minimum-density policies for multifamily-eligible parcels of a certain size to eliminate the risk of such parcels being used for single-family housing. While not all of the areas where multifamily housing is permissible allow the use “by right,” historically the use 792

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-156 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
permit process has been handled efficiently when public hearings have been required due to the specialuse permit requirements.

4.4.1.4 Growth Controls
Overview
The TRPA Code defines “additional residential units” as dwelling units created after January 1, 1986, with living, cooking, sleeping, and eating facilities in one or more rooms designed to be permanently occupied by a family or household. New residential units either require an allocation (to be matched with a development right for each unit) or a specific TRPA Code exemption from the need for an allocation pursuant to Chapter 50 of the TRPA Code. Each market-rate residential unit requires an allocation; therefore, development of a 25-unit multifamily housing project would require 25 allocations and 25 additional development rights.

Allocation of residential units within the Tahoe Basin is the responsibility of TRPA (Chapter 50 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances). The number of market-rate allocations that TRPA makes available to the local jurisdictions is restricted, and the different jurisdictions have different methods for their distribution to property owners desiring to build. TRPA does not require allocations for the construction of deedrestricted housing units that meet the criteria of affordable housing (low- and very low-income categories, moderate-income category, or achievable-income category units).

The City receives up to 33 residential allocations annually. The number of allocations distributed each year fluctuates, as they are allocated pursuant to a performance-based system directly tied to accomplishments of environmental improvements. The Regional Plan update assessed the allocations used in different allocation categories (e.g., residential, tourist bonus, and commercial square feet) during the period of the first Regional Plan from 1987 through 2012. Table 50.4.1-1 of the Regional Plan provides details of units allocated from 1987–2012, remaining units, and new allocations made in 2013.

The Regional Plan also calls for additional releases of allocations during the current Regional Plan planning period in four-year increments up to a maximum of 20 percent of the 2013 additional allocations. Requirements for traffic monitoring accompany the additional allocation releases. The most recent release was in 2021.

The City distributes the allocations it receives to separate waiting lists for single-family and multifamily developments. This split was created to ensure that multifamily units would be consistently added to the supply of housing. From 1990 to 2021, 30 percent of all allocations received were assigned only to the creation of multifamily housing. The City adopted new procedures in 2021 increasing the multifamily allocation to 33.3 percent of all residential allocations received from TRPA if there are 55 or more unit allocations available in the Town Center pool. If there are less than 55 allocations available in the Town Center pool, 49 percent of residential allocations are assigned to Town Centers, and the remaining residential allocations received from TRPA are assigned to any area of the city in the same 66.6 percent single-family and 33.3 percent multifamily proportions. Multifamily allocations can only “roll over” to other multifamily housing projects (not single-family). South Lake Tahoe is the only local jurisdiction in the Lake Tahoe Basin that sets aside allocations solely for multifamily housing development. It should be noted that approved new condominium projects receive their allocations from the multifamily list. 793

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-157
There are four other mechanisms of obtaining allocations for market-rate residential development:
 Environmentally Sensitive Parcel Retirement. Environmentally sensitive parcels may be permanently retired in exchange for a transferable residential allocation. This option has seen a lot of interest in the city because of the length of the allocation waiting list in South Lake Tahoe.

The price of both transferable allocations is approximately $1,500 to $35,000 depending on the type of development right and the jurisdiction in which the development is located. 17 In 2020, the
California Tahoe Conservancy processed 40 transactions. In 2003, retirement of lots due to this program and state and federal sensitive lot acquisition programs led to the first movement of the El Dorado County “IPES line,” described in Section 4.3, Resource Inventory. Consequently, the “shortage” of allocations from pent-up demand and longer waiting lists for allocations have increased the use of this alternative program for obtaining allocations.  Replace Existing Housing Unit. Each residential unit has an associated “residential unit of use” (RUU), which is essentially both a development right and an allocation. When a residential unit is torn down and removed, the original RUU can be used to rebuild on-site or can be transferred offsite. Transferring RUUs allows the buyer of the RUU to bypass the allocation process and proceed directly to the permitting process. To make this option of obtaining an allocation financially feasible for local developers, typically the least expensive housing, which is often the smallest, most substandard units are torn down. While residential units are ultimately rebuilt in South Lake Tahoe with the “banked” RUU (e.g., there is no net loss of housing unit numbers), there are no local or regional restrictions, beyond the basic land coverage, height, and design standards, as to size or type of housing that can be reconstructed. In addition, TRPA and the City do not have a quantified mitigation requirement related to the replacement of units that are torn down. In 2018, RUUs were selling for as much as $35,000.18 The cost of an RUU is still too expensive for developers of affordable multifamily housing. RUUs can be purchased and transferred from outside the city, such as from Douglas County  Existing or Banked Development Rights. The Lake Tahoe Regional Plan required that developers obtain development rights for any property constructed after 1987, so development rights may already exist on a property developed on or after that year. Unused or underutilized existing development rights, potential RUUs, or land coverage can be banked on a property to be used at a later date or sold to another property. For example, an excessively large asphalt parking area or unoccupied lodging units may be candidates for verified or banked development rights.  Multi-Residential Bonus Units. As described in Chapter 52 of the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances, TRPA allows “bonus units” to be substituted for the market-rate residential units of use associated with existing multifamily housing if the property meets, or is upgraded to meet, local government habitability and design requirements. This option is only available for properties that are located in PAS or CP districts that have the appropriate designations needed to obtain bonus units. For example, an existing market-rate apartment of 40 units, which is substandard and consequently collecting rents at or below affordable rates, could upgrade to meet local requirements, deed-restrict the units as affordable housing, substitute in bonus units, and 17 California Tahoe Conservancy, 2018.
18 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2018.
794

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-158 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
ultimately have 40 market-rate units of use available for an off-site development. The off-site development would not require an allocation to build. The subsequent development project(s) are restricted to the construction of market-rate, multifamily housing of two units or more, which can never be subdivided into condominiums. In early 2019, TRPA had 2,374 residential allocations and 1,452 residential bonus units left to distribute throughout the Tahoe Basin through the year 2032. Of the total bonus units, 859 of the remaining residential bonus units from the TRPA pool must be used for affordable, moderate, or achievable housing units, and an additional 260 residential bonus units must be used for affordable, moderate, or achievable housing units in Town Centers.
 Conversion of Tourist Accommodation Units and Commercial Floor Area. TRPA allows the “conversion” of units of use from or to a residential use in very specific circumstances. The following types of development rights are eligible for conversion: Commercial Floor Area (CFA), Multi- or Single-Family RUUs, and Tourist Accommodation Units (TAUs). These conversions are subject to exchange rates as shown in Table 4-53. These exchange rates ensure that there is no increased environmental impact from the change of land use. For example, 300 square feet of commercial floor area could be converted into 1.5 multifamily residential units of use, or one TAU could be converted to one Single-Family RUU.

TABLE 4-53

CONVERSION EXCHANGE RATES
Existing Development Rights Equivalent Development Rights CFA TAU Single-Family RUU Multifamily RUU
300 square feet CFA 300 square feet 1 1 3/2
1 TAU 300 square feet 1 1 3/2
1 Single-Family RUU 300 square feet 1 1 3/2
1 Multifamily RUU 300 square feet 2/3 2/3 1
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2019.

Note: Any remaining development right square feet or unit fractions that result from a conversion shall not be rounded up or down to the nearest whole number.

Conclusions
Although TRPA has made several amendments to growth management regulations that allow more opportunity to utilize bonus units and to convert development rights from commercial and tourist accommodation to residential, there remains an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with the growth-control mechanism of TRPA. Obtaining necessary development rights for residential projects can add cost and delays in securing project entitlements. The limitation on the total amount of new development in the Tahoe Basin can influence market prices for land and development rights and create uncertainty. However, these growth-control mechanisms are the foundation of the Regional Plan. In the meantime, the City’s performance related to implementation of environmental improvements can allow the City to continue earning the maximum number of residential allocations. In addition, continued City participation in the TRPA Tahoe Living Working Group, will contribute to discussions and recommendations on potential Regional Plan amendments to achieve housing goals. 795

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-159

4.4.1.5 Land Coverage Limitations
Overview
Two systems regulate land coverage in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Bailey Land Capability Classification System, in place since 1971, regulates land coverage for all uses except single-family housing development. Single-family housing falls under the Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES), which was adopted by TRPA under the 1987 Regional Plan.

Both systems generally limit the amount of land coverage for most developable parcels to a maximum of 30-percent impervious land coverage. These limits were deemed necessary to protect the clarity and water quality of Lake Tahoe and are based on site factors such as soils, slope, proximity to surface water, and other environmental factors.

The Bailey classification system scores land between one and seven. Low-capability scores (i.e., less suitable for development) range between one and three, and high-capability scores (i.e., more suitable for development) range from four to seven. The IPES, used only for vacant residential parcels, scores land between 0 and 1,200, with scores under 726 considered low-capability and above 726 considered highcapability. Landowners are permitted to cover between 1 and 30 percent of a parcel’s surface with “base coverage” depending on the Bailey classification or IPES score.

Chapter 30 of the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances describes the land coverage requirements for the Basin.

There are two elements of that chapter related to housing that are important to clarify. First, there is recognition that a certain minimum amount of land coverage is required to build a home. As a result, if a lot has a buildable IPES score, but only has a small permissible amount of “base land coverage,” property owners can transfer in additional land coverage up to a specific maximum based on the parcel size. This transferred land coverage is not free, but it can be purchased either privately or from the land bank in accordance with hydrologic transfer area restrictions. These rules enable coverage to be moved around within a sub-watershed but remain within the cap that was created to protect Lake Tahoe.

There are different types of coverage that can be transferred. “Potential” coverage refers to the unused allowable base coverage on residential land that can be transferred to other residential property. Any land that is undeveloped or developed to a lesser extent than allowed by the Bailey or IPES system has potential coverage that it can use or sell. “Existing” coverage refers to the impacted surface of a parcel that can be restored to its near-natural state and then transferred to another parcel. There are two types of existing coverage—“hard” and “soft.” Hard coverage refers to existing impervious surface and can be transferred in all cases. Soft coverage refers to soil that is compacted but not covered with impervious surface. Soft coverage can be transferred in all cases, except for transfers relating to commercial or tourist accommodation use; however, exceptions can be made in some areas of the South Y Industrial Tract CP area.

For multifamily parcels within adopted CP areas, there is an additional land-coverage transfer opportunity. For multifamily housing projects of five units or more, properties can transfer in up to 70 percent of land coverage based on the parcel size, to high land capability districts only. This incentive is available for both market-rate and affordable multifamily housing of at least five units. APs may also include the ability to transfer up to 70-percent coverage on to high-capability lands. The transferred land coverage is not free, and it must be purchased either privately or from the land bank in accordance with 796

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-160 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
hydrologic transfer-area restrictions. In addition, there are limited numbers of undeveloped, large parcels in the AP and CP areas.

There is an advantage of developing on existing property where there is excess coverage. As mentioned previously in this section, some parcels, which were developed prior to TRPA land coverage regulations, have excess coverage beyond that which would currently be allowed by TRPA. This excess coverage is “grandfathered.” If a developer chooses to demolish and rebuild on a previously developed parcel with grandfathered excess coverage, the developer has the option to build to the previously existing coverage, as long as the developer implements certain mitigation measures, such as payment of a mitigation fee. In many cases, the option to use grandfathered excess land coverage with certain mitigation measures can be beneficial to developers.

Land coverage limitations often pose a constraint to the achievement of maximum residential density for multifamily uses. When land coverage limitations are combined with setbacks, parking requirements, and height limitations, the ability to build to maximum density is more limited, especially for projects proposing larger units. The Sugar Pine Village development project, an affordable housing project currently under construction, will be built at a density of over 21 units per acre in an Area Plan with a maximum permissible density of 25 units per acre. If built to maximum density, the project could have provided roughly 283 units, rather than the 248 units that are actually being built. Plans for the project indicated that there the land coverage was 57 percent on the East Village portion of the site (1029 Tata Lane) and 66 percent on the West Village portion of the site (1860 Lake Tahoe Boulevard), signifying that coverage limitations limited the project to a density lower than what is otherwise allowed.

The City’s 2013 TCAP and 2015 TVAP implement the allowed development standards from the TRPA Regional Plan update. The standards implemented in the TCAP and TVAP include allowing mixed-use development and allowing 70-percent land coverage on high-capability lands further than 300 feet from Lake Tahoe, allowing additional height in some districts, and allowing transfer bonuses for residential unit transfers into the TCAP and TVAP areas.

For single-family housing, land coverage limitations tend to result in multi-story structures to minimize the footprint of the building and maximize building square footage in relation to the amount of impervious land coverage. As a consequence, most homes do not implement universal design concepts.

The key advantage to the land coverage limitations is that they ensure that there is considerable open space available in the project area. This tends to make new development projects more attractive and gives children residing in family housing projects open space on-site where they can play. (Note that true play structures may create land coverage.) New deed-restricted affordable housing projects in South Lake Tahoe tend to be models for attractive development and break down the myth of affordable housing as substandard development that destroys neighborhoods and reduces property values.

Note that Chapter 12 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances specifically provides for the amendment of CP boundaries to facilitate deed-restricted affordable housing projects. 797

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-161
Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with TRPA’s land coverage limitations. Past reports have called land coverage restrictions the “biggest single impediment” to the development of affordable housing. However, land coverage is a concept intrinsic to the Regional Plan. TRPA believes that limiting the amount of impervious surfaces is essential to improving water quality and maintaining the clarity of Lake Tahoe. A global amendment to the Regional Plan to eliminate land coverage regulations entirely is unlikely at this time. The City works with applicants to direct them to AP and CP areas where incentives are already in place to allow for the additional coverage that could help them achieve the densities necessary to make a project pencil out. The City also provides City banked development commodities, including land coverage to affordable housing projects at no cost.

4.4.1.6 Water Quality Requirements
Overview
In addition to the land coverage requirement, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) is also a requirement intended to protect water quality in the Basin. TRPA requires property owners to install infiltration facilities designed to protect water quality by ensuring that runoff from up to the 20- year, one-hour storm is contained on-site for all development in the Lake Tahoe Basin. BMPs have long been required for new construction projects. Existing development in South Lake Tahoe, mainly located within Priority 2 watersheds, was required to be BMP compliant by October 15, 2006. The western edge of the city is within Priority 3 watersheds, where development was required to be BMP compliant by October 15, 2008.

The City is also subject to the requirements of its municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and a recently adopted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program that includes requirements to reduce stormwater pollution to meet milestone targets every five years. This includes stormwater runoff from all land within city boundaries, public and private.

The City of South Lake Tahoe adopted a Drainage Master Plan in February 2008 that identifies the public storm drain improvements necessary to serve a major portion of the city at build-out.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with TRPA’s BMP requirements. BMPs for some existing properties are costly to implement and maintain, especially for developments such as mobile home parks. However, the treatment of runoff is essential for the implementation of the Regional Plan. The installation of area-wide BMPs would remove much of the financial burden from individual homeowners. The City continues to construct additional area-wide treatment systems, such as the Bijou Park Creek Stream Environment Zones (SEZ)/Watershed Restoration Project and the Upper Bijou Park Creek Restoration Project. The City is also currently developing a 320-acre drainage area and multibenefit stormwater treatment system as part of the Tahoe Valley Stormwater and Greenbelt Improvement Project. These are examples of area-wide systems that treat stormwater from multiple parcels as well as public land.
798

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-162 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.1.7 Density
Overview
Table 4-54 summarizes the maximum allowable densities in the Tahoe Basin.

TABLE 4-54

TRPA DENSITY LIMITATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
Tahoe Basin
2020
Residential Use Maximum Density
Single-family Dwelling (parcels smaller than 1 acre) 1 unit per parcel Single-family Dwelling (parcels larger than 1 acre) 2 units per parcel (provided one unit is an authorized secondary residence)
Summer Home 1 unit per parcel or lease site
Multiple-family Dwelling 15 units per acre
Multiple-family Dwelling in Special Height Districts 25 units per acre Multiple-family Dwelling in Area Plans 25 units per acre Mobile Home Dwelling 8 units per acre
Multi-person Dwelling, nursing and personal care, and residential care 25 persons per acre Source: TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31, 2012, amended September 30, 2020.

Basin-wide, the maximum permissible density for multifamily housing is 15 units per acre. However, as described in Chapters 31, 37, and 13 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, densities may be increased in Special Height Districts and Area Plans. The TCAP was the first Area Plan adopted in the city (November 2013) and allows densities up to 25 units per acre. The TVAP, adopted in 2015, also allows densities up to 25 units per acre. In some specific PAS areas, that density is as low as eight (and sometimes 12) units per acre to maintain consistency with neighborhood character. Where mobile home parks are permissible, maximum density is eight units per acre. Multi-person density, and density for other residential uses measured by persons per acre, is 25 persons per acre, which equates to roughly 10 dwelling units per acre based on typical household size. Affordable housing is allowed a 25-percent density bonus (i.e., 18 units per acre) when the following two specific findings can be made: (1) the project, at the increased density, satisfies a demonstrated need for additional affordable housing; and (2) the additional density is consistent with the surrounding area.

However, as described in Section 4.4.5.5, Land Coverage Limitations, codified densities and density bonuses are typically not achievable because of other site conditions that limit land coverage availability.

Developers new to the Tahoe Basin sometimes assert that permissible densities are too low to support new affordable housing projects. They suggest that 20 to 30 units per acre are required for financially viable projects, and even higher densities are often necessary for workforce housing, SROs, and tiny homes. The City’s success with affordable multifamily developments has been rooted in deep subsidies that have made projects financially feasible. These past success stories have made project developers interested in participating in additional projects in South Lake Tahoe. 799

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-163
When multifamily housing is developed as part of a mixed-use project, the number of units that can be developed is allowed according to the proportion of project area devoted to the multifamily use in relation to the entire project area. The maximum density for a multifamily dwelling, multi-person dwelling, or other tourist accommodation use is the maximum density for the given residential or tourist accommodation use multiplied by the ratio of the floor area of that use to the total floor area in the project area. The maximum density for mixed-use development is the proportional share of the maximum densities for the combined uses, rounded to the next lowest whole number. This reduces multifamily development potential on mixed-use sites if the site is not fully designated for multifamily development.

Additional information on densities in mixed-use projects can be found in Chapter 31 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

The City reports that parcels identified in the housing element are typically developed at close to maximum density taking into account land coverage allowances. There are some parcels in the existing housing element inventory that developed with a lower number of units than were included in the inventory (and some that developed with more units). While a higher number of units could have been accommodated on the parcels that developed with a lower number of units, the applicant chose to propose a lower number of units.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with density limitations. However, the requirement to reduce residential density for a mixed-use project has been revised to allow an increased allowable maximum density for affordable housing projects. If the affordable project satisfies a demonstrated need for housing and the additional density is consistent with the surrounding area, TRPA allows a density increase by up to 25 percent, which may negate any units lost in the calculation of maximum-density allowances. Regardless, the City would like for affordable multifamily housing to be developed at the maximum allowable density as if it were a stand-alone project when the mixed-use project is otherwise consistent with height, coverage, and other development standards. Program 1-1 addresses constraints to mixed-use development in the city. Program 2-8 proposes to work with TRPA to allow more residential development in mixed-use projects than is currently allowed.

There are other density issues that do not pose an actual constraint. In recently constructed affordable housing projects approved for South Lake Tahoe, no one has proposed a project to maximum density, let alone proposed the use of permissible density bonuses. The ability to build high-density developments tends to be constrained more by regional land coverage limitations than by density limitations.

Permissible density and potential for density bonuses can actually mislead developers into thinking that they will be able to construct more units than is physically possible. The possibility of building to the maximum density is increased for projects proposed to reuse existing “over-covered” project areas or in CP areas where there are land coverage transfer incentives. Rather than being available only for very lowand low-income affordable housing projects, the density bonus program is available for mixed-use projects that provide a percentage of its units to lower- and moderate-income residents or seniors. 800

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-164 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.1.8 Height Standards
Overview
Chapter 37 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances assigns maximum building heights based upon the slope of the parcels in combination with the pitch of the roof. For example, a building with a 5:12 roof pitch on a parcel consisting of a 10-percent slope is assigned a maximum building height of 32 feet and -6 inches.

Additional height findings must be made for residential buildings more than 26 feet tall.

Buildings outside of Town and Regional Center areas containing a residential use, including mixed-use developments, are limited to two stories. This height limitation, combined with land coverage and setback restrictions, limits the feasibility of affordable housing and mixed-use projects.

The TRPA Regional Plan update allowed increased heights in the Town and Regional Center areas of the city. To implement these allowed increases, the City adopted the TCAP and TVAP in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Heights up to 56 feet are allowed in Town Centers and up to 95 feet in the Regional Center.

To minimize impacts related to height, projects of three stories or greater in Town Centers and the Regional Center are required to comply with Findings 1, 3, 5, and 9 from Section 37.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with regional height standards in areas of the city outside the TCAP and TVAP. Sites located within Area Plan districts which allow greater height do not have a constraint associated with height standards. Mixed use and housing projects are incentivized in Town Centers through increased allowable land coverage, increased density, and the ability to obtain residential allocations, residential units of use, and land coverage rights from the City. Mixed-use projects outside Town Centers that contain residential and commercial uses are limited to two stories. These strict height restrictions limit the feasibility of mixed-use projects outside of Town Centers, which are a potential source of affordable housing. Program 1-4 directs the City to provide more information regarding available incentives, and Program 1-1 directs the City to continue to create incentives for mixed use and housing projects.

4.4.1.9 Design Standards
Overview
Excellent project design enhances the appearance and reputation of local affordable housing development projects, as well as the neighborhoods in which they are located. Chapter 36 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances provides design standards to ensure consistency with the Land Use Element of its Regional Plan. In addition, TRPA provides Design Review Guidelines which define design and site planning methods and techniques that are applied during project review. Design Guidelines are provided for the following topics: screening, site design, building height, view protection, drainage and grading, building design, historic resources, setbacks, parking and driveways, on-site circulation (including emergency vehicle access), snow storage, landscaping, exterior lighting, signs, and water conservation. Additional area-specific standards regulate design in scenic highway corridors and the shorezone area. 801

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-165
Chapter 6.10, Citywide Design Standards, of the City Code substitute for TRPA’s design standards in South Lake Tahoe, except for in the TCAP and TVAP, where the development and design standards of the Area Plans apply. The City adopted objective residential development and design standards (City Code Section 6.85) in 2021, which clearly and precisely establishes the basic objective site and structure regulations that apply to all single-family, duplex, or triplex projects and multi-family projects that are designed into one of three architectural styles pre-approved by the City. All residential projects, including projects in the TCAP and TVAP areas, must meet the standards listed in City Code Section 6.85 to be reviewed ministerially.

Flexible local design standards enable the use of a variety of materials, although affordable housing projects have elected high-quality details such as cedar siding and real rock accents. Most design standards, such as retention of natural vegetation outside of the project’s construction area, do not add to developer costs.

Single-family, duplex, and triplex applications that conform with the standards set forth in Section 6.85 of the City Code are ministerially approved by the City and are therefore exempt from Design Review.

Design requirements include standards to ensure that units are equipped to handle Tahoe’s special climatic challenges. The design standards also specifically allow for single-family manufactured housing on a permanent foundation, outside of mobile home parks, when design and building standards are met.

Multifamily development and design standards for development with four or more units, including mobile home parks, multi-person dwelling units, and nursing care and residential facilities, are clearly defined in Section 6.85 of the City Code. If a multifamily residential project is within plan areas where the use is allowed and complies with the architectural styles and other design standards of the City Code, the project is permitted by right and not subject to discretionary review. Approved architectural styles were refined through an extensive community engagement process and include Alpine and European Chalet, Tahoe Rustic/Historic Parkitecture, and Mountain Modern and Contemporary. These styles allow the City to preserve the community character while providing an interchangeable set of options for developers, and they guide the design process to streamline approvals.

Approval of a housing project requires compliance with the objective design standards. The one required finding is listed below:
 The proposed project must comply with the standards listed in Chapter 6.85, Residential Development and Design Standards.

Section 6.10.090 of the City Code identifies the review authority responsible for permits where the development and design standards apply and the appeal authority for each type of application. Either the Director of Development Services or Planning Commission may be the review authority of single-family or multi-family project design review applications. The approval, denial, or approval with conditions is based on the projects adherence to form, massing, roof design, and other aesthetic elements identified in the City’s Objective Residential Development and Design Standards. Exceptions to these standards and guidelines may occur under four circumstances at the discretion of the Director of Development Services, Planning Commission, or City Council:
 Projects for which the cost of public improvements may be prohibitive, based on a case-by-case review, may submit schedules for compliance.
802

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-166 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
 Projects which are in assessment districts (or are contained in approved public works projects) which are committed to implement the public improvements.  Projects for which the City has found the standard not to be applicable as a result of the City variance process (SLTCC 6.55.630). The City shall consult with the TRPA regarding exceptions and required TRPA findings, including those which may affect the scenic thresholds on Highway 50, 89 and Pioneer Trail. (Note: the TRPA cannot approve a variance to a scenic threshold if it affects the scenic threshold rating.)
 Exterior remodeled structures shall only be required to comply with those standards which are directly affected by the construction.

The objective design standards allow all single-family, duplex or triplex projects to be reviewed ministerially requiring only a building permit. The objective design standards also allow for residential projects with more than three units to be reviewed ministerially if they are designed in one of three architectural styles. The Director of Development Services is the review authority for both single-family and multi-family projects that fall into these categories. The review is ministerial and does not require a public hearing, but the applicant may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.

For multi-family projects that do not adhere to any of the pre-approved architectural styles, the developer may obtain a design review permit. In that event, both TRPA and the City’s Planning Commission are the review authorities for two separate approval processes. The applicant may appeal the Planning Commissions’ decision to the City Council, if desired.

Design standards are available online on the City website and at the City’s Planning Department counter.

TRPA has designated Highway 50, Highway 89, and Pioneer Trail scenic highway corridors. The main purpose for this designation is to improve and maintain the scenic quality of the view from these roads.

All projects located along scenic corridors must meet certain design standards above and beyond the standards imposed by the City and TRPA’s design standards. These standards include placing all electrical and communication lines underground, additional massing requirements, screening requirements, and additional landscaping requirements.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” related to affordable housing associated with local design standards. The design standards in South Lake Tahoe were updated in 2021 to streamline residential development proposals by minimizing discretionary review and developing objective standards. These design standards were prepared through extensive community engagement, which solicited feedback at a community workshop and via interviews with local developers and design professionals. Using the direction on appropriate design components outlined in these standards, developers have clear guidance to provide a complete application for approval on the first submittal, reducing time and resources expended as part of development costs. Furthermore, the high-quality designs of recent affordable housing projects in South Lake Tahoe have helped to decrease the stigma previously associated with affordable housing and gained community support. The 2019 South Shore Region Housing Needs and Opportunities Report found that employers and residents support affordable housing, and several local groups are engaged and interested in collaboration to provide affordable housing, including Barton Hospital, Vail Resorts, Lake Tahoe Community College, and the Tahoe Transportation District. 803

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-167

4.4.1.10 Building Season Limitations/Grading Requirements Overview
The building season in South Lake Tahoe is affected by winter conditions that reduce the number of days construction can occur. The building season is further limited by the regulatory context in which land development can proceed. To protect water quality, the grading season in Lake Tahoe is May 1 to October 15. It should be noted that TRPA has the authority to grant limited exceptions to the grading season. Construction sites must be “winterized,” or have BMPs in place that prevent soil and runoff from leaving the project area during storm events. Outside of the grading season, no grading that disturbs cumulatively more than three cubic yards of soil may occur without TRPA and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board-issued grading ordinance exceptions. Many construction projects get their grading and framing done during the grading season and work inside all winter. However, there is an additional burden for developers to carefully plan their construction schedule, as unforeseen events or poor planning can delay a development project an entire season.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” related to housing associated with the building season limitations and grading requirements. Grading limitations are inherent to the water quality protections required by the Regional Plan.

4.4.1.11 Impediments to Housing for Persons with Disabilities Overview
Most of the housing in South Lake Tahoe is not accessible to persons with disabilities. For example, areas with the mountainous terrain make for changes in grade that require steps or stairs, and land coverage restrictions encourage builders to reduce the building footprint by constructing multiple-story homes.

Universal design is generally not being used in new residential construction except when required by the Building Code for multifamily housing.

Chapter 30, Land Coverage, of TRPA’s updated Code of Ordinances includes an opportunity for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. Specifically, development that is required to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is exempt from the calculation of land coverage. However, this exemption does not apply to the land coverages associated with parking and other vehicular uses nor to single-family dwellings or multifamily dwellings with three or fewer units.

This accommodation allows for greater ADA accessibility in public/commercial facilities and multifamily residences.

Sky Forest Acres, a 17-unit affordable housing project, is available exclusively to persons with disabilities. The developers were required to get permits from both the City and TRPA. For this project, TRPA signed a contract review agreement with the City to enable the City’s planners to conduct the review on behalf of TRPA. Consequently, TRPA has been open to innovative opportunities to expedite project review and reduce duplication of efforts.

Group homes for persons with disabilities, and all other group homes, fall under the use category of “residential-care facilities.” These are defined as establishments primarily engaged in the provision of residential, social, and personal care for children, the elderly, and special categories of persons with 804

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-168 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
limited ability for self-care, but where medical care is not a major element. The latter would be classified as “nursing and personal care facilities.” While the definition does not clarify the required number of occupants necessary to qualify a residence as a residential-care facility, the City and TRPA have a track record of treating group homes of six or fewer clients as a “family,” not as a residential-care facility. In these cases, the residential-care facilities with six or fewer clients are authorized wherever single-family homes are authorized. There are no regional or local restrictions regulating a minimum distance required between group homes. Program 1-7 is proposed to amend the zoning code to comply with state guidance allowing both residential-care facilities for six or fewer and residential-care facilities for more than six by right in all residential districts.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing for persons with disabilities, similar to constraints for other housing projects related to land coverage limitations. The TRPA Regional Plan update put land coverage exemptions in place for ADA compliance in new and existing homes giving equal housing opportunity to persons with disabilities. While the City adopted a reasonable accommodation procedure to exempt persons with disabilities from carport structure requirements, neither TRPA nor the City have other specific processes in place for requesting a reasonable accommodation nor residential-care facility permitting.

4.4.1.12 Employee Housing
Overview
State law asserts that employee housing for six persons or less shall be allowed in the same way residential structures are allowed in zones allowing residential uses and that employee housing for up to 12 units or 36 beds shall be deemed an agricultural use and must be subject to the same regulations as any other agricultural use in the same zone. “No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone” (Employee Housing Act, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8).

The TRPA Code of Ordinances defines “employee housing” as residential units owned and maintained by public or private entities for purposes of housing employees of said public or private entity. While the definition does not provide explicit limitations on unit or bed count, the Code states that projects proposing employee housing with more than four units requires the review and approval by the Hearings Officer. Neither the TRPA Code nor the City’s Development Code addresses instances in which employee housing would be deemed an agricultural use, but the city does not have any agriculturally zoned land.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” regarding employee housing in South Lake Tahoe. While the “employee housing” definition and use do not allow the use in agricultural zones, there is no agricultural land use designation in South Lake Tahoe. Therefore, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.6 and 17021.8 do not apply within the city. However, employee housing (housing for six or fewer persons) is not considered a single-unit residential use nor is it permitted by right in the districts that permit singleunit residential uses. Program 4-2 is proposed to allow housing in full compliance with the Employee Housing Act.
805

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-169

4.4.1.13 Subdivision and Condominium Requirements
Overview
Chapter 39 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances contains TRPA’s subdivision ordinances. Subdivisions that would create new development potential are prohibited in the Tahoe Region. Under TRPA code, both preand post-1987 multifamily structures may be converted to condominiums, under specific circumstances, if they do not exceed the density standards by more than 10 percent. While there is a general prohibition or mitigation requirement for subdivisions of existing low-income residential units, housing units in South Lake Tahoe are exempt from these requirements since the City has a housing program that addresses lowincome housing needs. The City allows the conversion of multifamily rental units to condominiums with a stipulation that a portion of the units be deed-restricted for low- and moderate-income households. The remaining units must be deed-restricted for owner-occupancy and price-capped at the maximum price of the First-Time Homebuyer Program with the intent of serving middle-income residents.

Condominium density must be consistent with the multifamily housing density described in the applicable PAS, AP, or CP areas. Where multifamily housing is prohibited, new condominiums are also prohibited.

New condominiums in areas designated preferred affordable housing areas are prohibited unless the local jurisdiction is meeting its portion of the regional fair share of low- and very low-income housing.

Conclusions
The City Council adopted condominium ordinances and policies stricter than TRPA’s to preserve rental housing. These are described in the section related to City of South Lake Tahoe constraints.

Consequently, TRPA ordinances are less restrictive than the City’s and are not an “actual constraint.” The City’s condominium ordinance is also not a constraint for affordable housing. The City’s ordinance allows more opportunities for homeownership for residents of all income levels by promoting deedrestricted affordable housing.

4.4.1.14 Fees and Other Exactions
Overview
TRPA’s filing fee schedule categorizes residential projects into two groups: single-family and multifamily new construction, but affordable housing projects (including lower-, moderate-, and achievable-income sites) are exempt from application fees. TRPA processes the waiver through a staff level ministerial review. This process for a new housing development takes approximately 120 days for TRPA review and approval. Table 4-55 shows the base fees for the two groups of residential developments. 806

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-170 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-55

TRPA BASE FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 25, 2021
Residential Use Category Base Fee
Single-family Dwelling, Summer Home, Secondary Residence, one Mobile Home Dwelling, and one Employee Housing unit $1.38 per sq. ft. of floor area covered by roof
$690 min.1
Multiple-family Dwelling, Multiple-person Dwelling, Nursing and Personal Care, Residential care, more than one Employee Housing unit, more than one Mobile Home Dwelling
$3,034 + $56/unit1
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Application Filing Fee Schedule (Effective January 25, 2021) 1 All application fees are waived with projects that use new affordable, moderate, or achievable housing bonus unit(s). Other fees would still be applicable.

Depending on the required level of review (i.e., staff, hearing officer, or governing board review) and the location of the project, the total fee may be greater than the base fee. The majority of projects are reviewed at the staff level. The TRPA Hearings Officer or Governing Board generally only review residential projects identified as a “Special Use” in the applicable PAS. Fees for revisions to a permitted project are also determined by applying a multiplier to the original project fee. Table 4-56 summarizes TRPA’s fee multipliers.

TABLE 4-56

TRPA FEE MULTIPLIERS
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 25, 2021
Level of Review Multipliers
Staff Level Review 1.00
Hearing Officer Review 1.40
Governing Board Review 1.80
Plan Revisions
Minor—A non-substantive change to a permitted project. A project that will not cause changes to any TRPA permit conditions, does not require new field review by TRPA staff, does not require a public hearing, and does not involve any modifications to building size, shape, land coverage, location, or scenic rating score.

0.40 Major— A substantial change that does not significantly exceed the original scope of the project. Revisions that significantly exceed the original scope of a project, or which require a public hearing, shall be treated as new or modified projects, as the case may be.

0.70 Special Planning Area
For projects located in an adopted community plan area, or subject to an adopted redevelopment, specific, or master plan.

1.25 Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Application Filing Fee Schedule (Effective January 25, 2021) 807

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-171
Projects are subject to other TRPA filing fees such as the $121 Information Technology Surcharge applied to each application for maintenance of the TRPA database, and the $552 Shoreland Scenic Review Fee applied to projects located in the Shoreland area of Lake Tahoe. Table 4-57 lists these and other fees charged by TRPA in the land development process.

TABLE 4-57

OTHER TRPA FEES
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 25, 2021
Category Fee
Shoreland Scenic Review Fee—For new construction projects, and additions and other construction modifications to existing structures located in the shoreland area of Lake Tahoe. $552
Best Management Practices Fee – For new construction projects and additions, and other construction modifications to existing structures. $133 Information Technology Surcharge—applied to all applications. $121 Bonus Unit Allocation Transfer
$731 minimum fee,
deposit account
Land Coverage Transfer
$731 minimum fee,
deposit account
Lot Line Adjustment
$1,324 (2 lots) +
$138 per add. lot
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Application Filing Fee Schedule (Effective January 25, 2021) In addition to the project application fees, mitigation fees are required by TRPA for all projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin. No exemptions for affordable housing are provided, but the mobility mitigation fee may be waived. These fees are the same for single-family or multiple-family housing:
 Water quality mitigation fee: $1.86 per square foot of land coverage.  Off-site land coverage mitigation fee: $8.50 per square foot of coverage created in the public right-of-way (dependent upon project location).
 Excess land coverage mitigation fee: $8.50 per square foot of land coverage; $200 minimum (dependent on project location).
 Mobility mitigation fee: $196.20 per average daily vehicle mile travelled.

Together, TRPA mitigation fees for a 2,000-square-foot, single-family home would cost an estimated $10,198, assuming that the site is not built in a public right-of-way and does not exceed the base allowable land coverage on the parcel.

Conclusions
While TRPA exempts affordable housing projects from application fees through staff level ministerial review, there is an “actual constraint” related to the development of affordable housing associated with TRPA’s mitigation costs. Past reports have suggested reduction or elimination of such fees for affordable housing projects. Such suggestions have not been implemented by TRPA. The City works with project 808

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-172 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
proponents to redevelop existing developed sites, such as RV parks, for affordable housing, as existing developed sites have grandfathered land coverage and a certain number of recognized daily vehicle trip ends that reduce mitigation fees. In recognition of TRPA’s high development fees, the City of South Lake Tahoe maintains fees lower than those of most jurisdictions. The lower City fee schedule reduces the amount of money available in the City’s budget and limits the ability of the City to provide supporting infrastructure and services.

4.4.1.15 Project Processing and Permit Procedures
Overview
Permissible uses that are allowable in the PAS or CP district are approved at staff level. Special uses require neighbor notification, public hearings, and issuance of a use permit. Design review is conducted in either case for residential projects that propose alternative architectural styles or modifications to the City’s Residential Development and Design Standards. To expedite project review and remove duplication, the City and TRPA have executed an MOU that delegates the responsibility for TRPA permitting to the City. The City reviews and approves all single-family and multifamily residential projects of four units or less throughout the City on behalf of TRPA per an MOU signed in 2014. The City also reviews residential projects with:
 Less than 50,000 square feet of new floor area in Town Centers,  Less than 100,000 square feet of new floor area in Regional Centers, and  Less than 25,000 square feet of new floor area in other areas within the boundary of an area plan.

Projects reviewed under the MOU are still required to comply with all TRPA regulations and procedures which may require a hearing and decision by TRPA’s Hearings Officer or Governing Board. However, projects reviewed under the MOU that require a hearing are reviewed under one, joint hearing with both the City and TRPA. Review of typical CEQA-exempt projects reviewed under the MOU, such as all single-family and multifamily residential projects of four units or less, takes approximately three months.

The three-month review includes TRPA required neighbor notification and issuance of the permit.

For projects not reviewed under the MOU that require a hearing, both the City and TRPA each hold separate hearings. Review of projects requiring CEQA review that are not reviewed under the MOU takes approximately six months. While both TRPA and the City must review a project not under the MOU and potentially hold two separate hearings, separate hearings themselves do not impact the project timeline because projects that don’t meet the MOU requirements must be evaluated under separate applications regardless. Multi-family projects proposing four or more units that meet the City’s objective design standards have the same ministerial findings and procedures for approval as single-family projects and multi-family projects proposing less than four units. Multi-family projects proposing four or more units that don’t meet the City’s objective design standards undergo discretionary review. City staff find that project timing for typical multi-family projects subject to discretionary reviews is approximately four months. The six-month timeframe applies to all types of residential projects that require CEQA review.

While the City does not yet have significant development trend history to assess the impact of the Residential Development and Design Standards (adopted in 2021) on project timing, the City expects that 809

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-173
single-family, duplex, and triplex projects and multi-family projects complying with the residential objective design standards will have shorter review times moving forward.

Typical turnaround time after receiving planning entitlements until requesting a building permit is driven by market and funding availability. Building permits are typically requested within a year after receiving planning approval.

TRPA conducts audits of City permitting under the MOU. Audit results related to delegated authority in an area plan is reported to the TRPA Governing Board annually (TRPA Code of Ordinances Section

13.8.3) and audits related to the Performance Review System (TRPA Code of Ordinances Section

50.5.2.E) affect the number of residential allocations distributed to the City as part of the Allocation of Development system (TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 50).

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to the permitting process. The complicated regulatory environment in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the audited oversight process associated with the MOU require substantial staff resources to ensure compliance, resulting in longer application review times. Larger multifamily housing projects that are not within the delegated authority of the MOU require separate TRPA and City permit processes that can create redundancy resulting in procedural delays and increased development costs.

4.4.1.16 TRPA Preemption of State Housing Law
TRPA regulations that further the realization of the Regional Plan can preempt state law. In the past, TRPA has made efforts to eliminate conflicts with state law where a modification that enabled compliance would not compromise the Regional Plan. For example, TRPA staff has interpreted its code consistent with California law that licensed group homes with six or fewer residents are treated no differently than other family housing and can move into any single- or multiple-family dwelling unit. In addition, TRPA recently updated ADU regulations to become more consistent with state law.

4.4.1.16.1 Accessory Dwelling Units
Overview
California has adopted multiple laws in recent years to clarify and improve various provisions to promote the development of ADUs and junior ADUs (JADUs). These include allowing ADUs and JADUs to be built concurrently with a single-family dwelling, opening areas where ADUs can be created to include all zoning districts that allow single-family and multifamily uses, modifying fees from utilities such as special districts and water corporations, limited exemptions or reductions in impact fees, and reduced parking requirements. The California Government Code, Section 65583(c)(7), requires that cities and counties develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs in compliance with State law. These laws intended to simplify the process for obtaining ADUs to increase California’s supply of affordable housing. Cities must either establish specific development and design standards for ADUs or apply the state’s enumerated standards. In either case, the standards must be applied ministerially and no public hearing can be held.

With the advent of recent ADU legislation, in July 2021, TRPA removed the one-acre limit on parcel size to allow ADUs in more areas of the city and removed requirements for noticing to adjacent neighbors. 810

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-174 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
TRPA also lifted the requirement of only one ADU per parcel because ADUs are typically located in close proximity to transit and Town Centers, so allowing two ADUs per parcel would support walkability goals. The updated rules also waive application filing fees for ADUs that are deed-restricted for affordability. In addition, mitigation fee reductions are permitted if the proposed ADU is within a halfmile of an existing transit stop, half-mile from a Town Center, or within an area zoned for multifamily housing. This gives the City the authority to regulate ADU construction similar to City regulation of other single-family home construction through area plans and the development and building codes. ADUs are still required to comply with TRPA’s land coverage, height, and growth-management regulations. This amendment does remove TRPA requirement for noticing of multifamily projects or remove the requirement for the ADU to obtain a “residential unit of use” or bonus unit allocation, just like a singlefamily residence. In addition, TRPA does not exempt ADUs from mitigation fees. Therefore, TRPA still requires noticing for ADUs when constructed on a property with existing or proposed multifamily residential uses. TRPA is considering lifting this requirement for noticing for ADUs. As ADUs would be allowed on all single-family parcels, the construction of an ADU would not be an exception to the rule; therefore, it would not require special notice.

Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to ADUs. While TRPA’s changes in ADU regulation helps South Lake Tahoe comply with state law, which allows multiple ADUs and JADUs per parcel, these changes to regulations do not completely bring the City into compliance with state law. The complicated regulatory system and the environmental constraints in the Lake Tahoe Basin pose challenges to the feasibility of ADU construction that are not experienced in other parts of the state.

Program 2-9 proposes to further facilitate the development of ADUs through changes to regulations.

These regulations are consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.2, which allows the designation of locations where ADUs may be permitted. There are no special ADU standards related to height, coverage, required development rights or mitigation fees; they must be consistent with other residential design review standards. In many cases, the TRPA Code restricts ADUs and “granny flats” to a greater extent than what state law allows. This poses an “actual constraint” for the City of South Lake Tahoe in its ability to meet the requirements of state law without creating confusion for the public (e.g., if the City amended its code to meet the requirements of state law, but the TRPA Code remains more restrictive).

4.4.1.16.2 Density Bonus
Overview
Multiple bills have passed since the adoption of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, which revised California’s density bonus statutes by increasing the density bonus percentages and number of incentives and concessions awarded to developers and offering additional incentives for 100-percent affordable housing projects. Density bonuses are given when a project has a density increase of a minimum required under state law for the project type/affordability level (minimum of 5 percent) up to a maximum of 50 percent, in exchange for developing affordable and other types of housing. For example, the developer must construct at least 10 percent of the total units of the housing development for low-income households and 5 percent for very low-income households, including senior housing. In another example, the developer must designate 10 percent of the units for moderate-income households in a development 811

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-175
with moderate-income units. Concessions and incentives are offered with the state density bonus and can be requested by applicants. Regulatory concessions include reductions in development standards or modifications of zoning requirements that result in identifiable cost reductions, such as reductions in setbacks, lot size, and parking requirements, and an additional bonus density. In addition, the laws have expanded the definition of projects eligible for density bonuses to include student housing.

Recent legislation also imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus, in some cases waiving any required parking, with most exceptions due to proximity to transit.

Conclusions
TRPA allows a 25-percent density bonus to affordable housing developments provided that the project satisfies specific TRPA requirements. First, the project, at the higher density, must satisfy a demonstrated need for additional affordable housing. Second, the additional density must be consistent with the surrounding area. These requirements are subjective and open to interpretation by TRPA. While TRPA does, in some cases, allow affordable housing developers to take advantage of a density bonus, TRPA’s treatment of the density bonus is not consistent with state law. This poses an “actual constraint” for the City of South Lake Tahoe in its ability to meet the requirements of state law without creating confusion for the public (e.g., if the City amended its Code to meet the requirements of state law, but the TRPA Code remains more restrictive). Although current regulations pose challenges to taking advantage of what is allowed under state density bonus law in the City of South Lake Tahoe, Program 1-5 commits the City to continuing to work with TRPA and other Tahoe Basin agencies to advocate for the option to allow density bonuses in the City compliant with state government code.

4.4.1.16.3 General Plan
Overview
In 2019, SB 166 or the ‘no net loss’ statute, amended the law to require that all local governments maintain enough sites to accommodate their remaining unmet RHNA per income category at all times throughout the housing planning period. Local governments cannot take any action that would reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it simultaneously identifies alternative and adequate sites that would account for any initial loss in the housing supply by income category. If the City approves a housing development on a Housing Element site that provides fewer units and/or at different income levels than designated in the Housing Element, the City must demonstrate that enough adequate sites remain in the jurisdiction to address all units and income categories of its remaining RHNA.

Conclusions
This is not an “actual constraint,” as any amendment proposal could be required to be submitted in hand with another amendment request to re-zone another area. 812

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-176 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.2 City of South Lake Tahoe Potential and Actual Governmental Constraints In South Lake Tahoe, governmental constraints include ordinances, policies, and procedures of both TRPA and the City. This section addresses the potential constraints related directly to the City.

The City of South Lake Tahoe’s 2011 General Plan, APs, and CPs, along with the PAS, establish the amount and distribution of land allocated for the different types of residential uses. These documents also provide the City’s framework for creating and fostering a viable local economy. While housing production is primarily constrained by the TRPA Regional Plan, the City’s own land use controls, development processing procedures, fees, off-site improvement requirements, and building codes also affect development potential.

4.4.2.1 Land Use Controls
The discussion found in the TRPA section related to zoning, densities, and design also applies to the City of South Lake Tahoe, as the City has adopted the TRPA PAS and CPs as its zoning. This was done to ensure consistency and reduce confusion for applicants. Regional growth controls, grading standards, and land coverage standards have not been codified by the City but nevertheless apply region-wide due to TRPA’s special regional government status. The City’s zoning and development standards are available online as part of the City’s municipal code.

Citywide, CP and AP design standards have been mutually adopted by both the City and TRPA, superseding the requirement of Chapter 36 of the TRPA Code. These design standards incorporate by reference the TRPA Code Chapter 37 height requirements. In addition, the City has adopted objective residential design standards, which streamline project review within the City. Conversely, TRPA’s Code incorporates the City’s parking standards, described in Section 4.4.6.15, Parking Standards. This discussion, and the discussions related to “Impediments to Persons with Disabilities” (Section 4.4.5.11), which includes reasonable accommodations and residential-care facilities, “Project Processing and Permit Procedures” (Section 4.4.5.15), density bonuses, and ADUs, also apply to the City and will not be duplicated here. Land use controls either not imposed within the city because of the regional regulations or different from the regional regulations are discussed below.

4.4.2.2 Airport Safety Areas
Overview
The South Lake Tahoe Airport has three airport safety zones that affect land uses within the city. These regulations were required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure no net increase of such uses exposed to safety risks associated with the aircraft take-off and landing.

No residential areas are located in airport safety zone #1, which is incompatible with all types of residential development. Safety zone #2 indicates that residential development is generally inconsistent unless the building density is two or less dwelling units per acre. Safety zone #3 is compatible with residential development, with a limitation that custodial care facilities are restricted to no more than six persons. In both zones 2 and 3, infill of vacant parcels, changes of use, and reconstruction within areas of existing development not ordinarily permitted by the airport land use plan can be permitted if the following specific findings are made:
813

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-177
 The use is consistent with the PAS, CP, and related City land use provisions, and there are similar uses within the area of existing development.
 The project would not extend the perimeter of the area of existing development with incompatible uses, and there is no increase in the “concentration of people.” New construction or expansion of incompatible uses is limited to uses that relocate development rights associated with other incompatible uses from within the safety zone and where the sending parcel is restricted to open space. Incompatible uses and their rights can be relocated from zone 2 to zone 3, but not from zone 3 to zone 2. On April 14, 2020, the City adopted an ordinance to require that the City refer land use actions that involve adoption or amendment of the General Plan, a specific plan, plan area statement, area plan, community plan or zoning ordinance to the Airport Land Use Commission for review and approval, even if such actions are compliant with the adopted Airport Land Use Commission Plan.

The City of South Lake Tahoe can overrule the guidelines where there is a finding made that the hardships outweigh the public health, safety, and welfare objectives of the airport plan.

Safety zone #2 within the city includes over 100 single- and multifamily parcels with IPES scores or land capability classifications that would otherwise make them eligible for development. Note that residential parcels, particularly in the Sierra Tract portions of the zone, are typically smaller than one-half acre. Since the airport safety zones were established, City planning has permitted residential development of duplexes and single-family units as “infill” consistent with the PAS (103, 104, and 105) and adjacent development within flight zone #2. Duplexes (two dwellings per parcel) and single-family dwellings at one unit per residential parcel have been approved. These projects have not extended the area of existing development with incompatible uses. The residential construction that has occurred has been constructed using “new” residential allocations, not relocating existing units of use, and therefore has moderately increased the intensity of uses in the area.

Planning staff responded to FAA safety concerns by limiting infill to two units or less. The FAA was concerned with safety factors related to concentrating large numbers of people in one building. The twounit infill limitation was a compromise that addressed the FAA’s safety concerns while still providing some land use options for the city.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” associated with the airport safety zone requirements, as interpreted as infill development. If they were interpreted as new construction, undeveloped lots in the affected portions of Sierra Tract and Highland Woods would not be eligible for development from allocations received from the allocation list because they do not relocate incompatible uses from within the zone; however, this is not the case. Lots in Sierra Tract and Highland Woods are allowed to use allocations for either a singlefamily dwelling or a duplex, if permitted in the PAS. 814

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-178 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.2.3 Annexation Restrictions
Overview
Possibilities for annexation are limited by the geographic and physical boundaries surrounding South Lake Tahoe to the north and east. However, there are no annexation restrictions limiting annexation of unincorporated El Dorado County land.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” associated with annexation restrictions.

4.4.2.4 Mobile Homes/Mobile Home Parks
Overview
Chapter 6.55 of the City Code includes standards for new or enlarged mobile home parks. In reality, all existing parks are very dense and have no room for expansion. All existing mobile home parks in the city have some nonconforming elements, whether they are a nonconforming use, or have nonconforming land coverage, density, setbacks, etc. Only the Tahoe Verde Mobile Home Park was constructed since City incorporation in 1965. No one has inquired about construction of a new park, but if a new park were constructed, the PAS/APs/CPs permissible uses matrices would apply. In March 2021, the City reduced the minimum mobile home park lot size requirements from 10 to 5 acres. Three PAS include areas that allow construction of new mobile home parks. Where permissible, TRPA limits new mobile home park densities to eight units per acre.

While manufactured homes that comply with local design standards can be placed on a permanent foundation outside of mobile home parks to serve as permanent residences, mobile homes and travel trailers cannot, as prohibited by City Code. Mobile homes and travel trailers are limited to designated mobile home or RV parks.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD's) Division of Codes and Standards is the enforcement agency for the mobile home parks within South Lake Tahoe. The City has the option, but has not assumed enforcement responsibilities, for parks within its jurisdiction. Most South Lake Tahoe mobile home parks are overly dense and predate City incorporation; therefore, they tend not to meet City standards in at least some aspects. All parks are required to comply with the Mobile Home Parks Act and the regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Division I, Chapter 2, commencing with Section 1000. HCD is required to ensure compliance with the act.

Even so, under state law, the City becomes involved prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use or prior to either the closure of a mobile home park or cessation of use of the property as a mobile home park. Some California local jurisdictions have codified the local requirements created to implement the conversion of a mobile home park to another use. Since the City has not done so, the requirements of the California Government Code apply. This law applies only to mobile home parks. The city’s two RV parks, considered under TRPA’s use definitions to be a recreation use similar to camping and not residential units of use, have conversion standards pursuant to state RV park law, but they do not include a relocation requirement.
815

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-179
Specifically, Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code requires the person or entity proposing to close a mobile home park or otherwise change the use to file a report with the City, prior to initiating the change. The report must document the impact of the change on the residents of the park. The term “residents” includes both owners and tenants of park coaches. The report must specifically address the availability of adequate replacement housing and the costs of relocation to mitigate the adverse effects of the conversion/closure/cessation of use. This report must be provided to each park resident. In writing this report, the feasibility of moving the coaches should be assessed. Many older coaches are not moveable (either because of condition or due to lack of replacement mobile home parks that will accept older coaches) and as a result may need to be appraised and acquired by the person or entity proposing the change.

The City Council would review the report before any change of use is approved. Payment of relocation assistance/moving expenses to park residents may be required. The costs of relocating residents—whether owners or occupants—would be borne by the person or entity proposing the change. In addition, an administrative fee for processing the change/closure/cessation of use can be charged. However, the City has not yet established such a fee.

After the change of use is approved, park management must give homeowners six months or more written notice of the termination of tenancy. If no local government permit is required to change the use, then notice must be given 12 months or more before the change of use occurs. This notice triggers response requirements on the part of the mobile home owners pursuant to Section 798.56a of the Civil Code.

The ability to do acquisition/rehab or conversion/rebuild projects is impeded by the high cost of relocation of residents. Pursuant to the City’s nonconforming use requirements (and those of TRPA), if a subsequent multifamily housing project or other use is proposed on a converted mobile home park site, nonconforming densities and setbacks will not be grandfathered as part of the new project. Legally existing excess land coverage may remain, but it must be mitigated pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 30 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

Many members of the community concerned about substandard mobile home park conditions in South Lake Tahoe suggest that these should be priority sites for park conversion and replacement with quality affordable housing projects. As stated previously, subsequent projects built to appropriate densities typically reduce the amount of housing, creating a replacement housing need.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” associated with the mobile home park design standards and land use controls.

The recent reduction by the City of the minimum mobile home park lot size to five acres was based on an evaluation of constraints to housing development and community engagement and feedback. However, as part of Program 3-10 the City will assess other mobile home issues that may be constraints to development, including the following:
 City regulations do not address the conversion of mobile home parks. The City Council could consider codifying the specifics regarding what constitutes a change of use (quantifying the definition of “cessation,” such as all or part of a park, immediately or gradually, etc.), when relocation payment is required, etc. The City could also evaluate the appropriateness of TRPA’s 816

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-180 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
restriction for the reuse of any units of use that originate from a mobile home park. These may be appropriate for single-family workforce housing.
 City regulations for new and enlarged parks should include design and required amenities, any fencing requirements, and an assessment of affordability. Further, it could consider identifying those mobile home parks that are most desirable or feasible to preserve as long-term, permanent housing. These mobile home parks could be targeted for park-wide improvement with the necessary infrastructure and residents could be part of a special program for rehabilitation or replacement of older coaches.

4.4.2.5 Motel Conversion Regulations
Overview
The motel conversion and bonus unit substitution program is an option to assist the City of South Lake Tahoe in meeting its affordable housing obligations and ensuring a long-term supply of affordable housing for city residents. The City Code of Ordinances Section 6.55.370 establishes the criteria for the conversion of motels to affordable multifamily rental housing and the substitution of bonus units allowed by Chapter 52 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (see TRPA Constraints, Growth Controls). The motel rooms (TAU) that become residential units of use (RUU) are excess-rights eligible for sale or transfer.

These new RUUs can be used as multifamily residential units, single-family or transitional housing. As of 2020, the fee for transferring the unit of use is $852 per unit (includes a $121 IT surcharge).  Opportunities for motel conversions are limited by the building and locational criteria provided in the City Code. The motel buildings must meet certain building criteria, such as ceiling height, roof covering standards, electric system standards, and heating and cooling system standards.

Motel properties abutting Lake Tahoe Boulevard or Emerald Bay Road located within certain PAS or CPs, all of which have either a commercial or tourist land use designation, are not eligible for conversion. Approximately one-third of the city’s motels are ineligible because of their location. The excluded PAS/CP areas are as follows:
 PAS 103 (Sierra Tract commercial)
 PAS 110 (Tahoe Valley Area Plan area)
 PAS 116 (airport)
 The Bijou/Al Tahoe CP
 The Stateline/Ski Run CP (Tourist Core Area Plan)
Properties that are in the excluded PAS/CP areas but do not directly abut Lake Tahoe Boulevard or Emerald Bay Road are still eligible to apply for conversions to affordable housing. Also, motel conversions may occur in the excluded areas when the conversion project is a mixed-use project that combines affordable housing with a commercial or public service component. 817

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-181
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint,” but rather the motel conversion ordinance serves as an affordable housing incentive. However, the conversion of motels to affordable housing has proven to be difficult to accomplish. While TRPA regulations support this conversion, health and safety standards limit the feasibility of many motel-conversion projects due to the age of most motels in the city.

4.4.2.6 Transitional and Supportive Housing
Overview
Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 defines transitional housing as rental housing for stays of at least six months but where the units are recirculated to another program recipient after a set period. It may be designated for a homeless individual or family transitioning to permanent housing. This housing can take many structural forms, such as group housing and multifamily units and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.

Supportive housing is permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable residents to maintain stable housing and lead fuller lives. Typically, supportive housing is targeted to a certain population, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 53260—i.e., low-income persons with mental disabilities, AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, or persons whose disabilities originated before the age of 18. The types of support services that can be provided include medical and mental health care, vocational and employment services, substance abuse treatment, childcare, and independent-living skills training. To encourage the development of more supportive housing and to address increasing levels of homelessness statewide, the State Assembly passed AB 2162 in 2018, which limits the discretionary review for supportive housing projects in certain zones. AB 2162 requires jurisdictions to permit the development of supportive housing by right in areas zoned for either multifamily or mixed-use development. By requiring ministerial approval in these circumstances, the development of certain supportive housing would also fall under the CEQA exemption for ministerial approval.

The City currently defines transitional housing in the Development Code and allows conversion of motel units to transitional housing facilities pursuant to Section 6.55.370. This facilitated the work of the Tahoe Coalition of Homeless to convert three motels to transitional housing for homeless and at-risk of homeless individuals in South Lake Tahoe in 2020. The City treats these motels as SROs for the purpose of land use regulations. However, the motels function more realistically as transitional housing due to the services that TCH provides on-site. The three motels, the Red Lodge, Bear’s Den, and El Nido, are active today and provide 59 beds within the transitional housing facilities. The City does not define supportive housing in the Development Code, and the TRPA Code of Ordinances neither identifies nor defines either use or where they are permitted within the Tahoe Basin. 818

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-182 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with TRPA and City regulations, or lack thereof, in place for transitional and supportive housing. Without clarification that transitional and supportive housing are allowed ministerially in areas allowing residential development, the City is out of compliance with state law. While TRPA is the regulating body for land use and zoning in the Tahoe Basin, Program 2-9 proposes to include definitions of transitional and supportive housing in the City’s Development Code, and it calls for the City to work with TRPA to allow each of these residential uses as required by state law.

4.4.2.7 Emergency Shelter
Overview
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or households may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” SB 2 (Cedillo, 2007) requires jurisdictions to allow emergency shelters without a conditional use permit.

The City has worked with TRPA to confirm that the “Social Service Organization” use in the TRPA Code of Ordinances includes emergency shelter uses. The TRPA definition for Social Service Organization is “Public and quasi-public establishments providing social services and rehabilitation services, counseling centers, welfare offices, job counseling and training centers, or vocational rehabilitation agencies, serving persons with social or personal problems requiring special services and the handicapped and the disadvantaged. The use includes organizations soliciting funds to be used directly for these and related services. The use also includes establishments engaged in community improvement and neighborhood development.”
The City does not regulate Social Services Organizations beyond how they are allowed and neither TRPA nor the City has adopted any operational standards for this use. Therefore, emergency shelters are known as Social Service Organization by TRPA and interpreted as such in the Code of Ordinances. This use is allowed without a special use permit in five PAS/APs/CPs or subareas in the city. The five areas include Sierra Tract Commercial, South “Y,” Subdistrict 4 of the Bijou/Al Tahoe CP, and the TSC-MUC and TSC-G subdistricts of the TCAP. The five areas have 51 vacant parcels totaling 46.9 acres. All of these areas are located close to transit and services.

State law requires that parking standards not require more parking for emergency shelters than other similar residential or commercial uses within the same zone. The City Code groups parking requirements for Social Service Organizations, considered a public/quasi-public use by TRPA, with commercial uses, so parking standards are the same as similar commercial uses within the same PAS/APs/CPs or subareas in the city. Therefore, the City is in compliance with State law for emergency shelter parking requirements.

Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” to the development of emergency shelters in South Lake Tahoe, as they are allowed in multiple areas of the city. However, the correlation between the definitions for “Social Service Organization” and “emergency shelter” could be improved to minimize confusion, if any exists, amongst 819

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-183
developers and the community. Therefore, Program 2-9 proposes to include the term “emergency shelter” and definition of emergency shelters in the City’s Development Code with reference to the alternative “Social Service Organization” term.

4.4.2.8 Vacation Rental Regulations
Overview
In 2003, the City Council first adopted an ordinance (City Code Chapter 3.50) to regulate vacation rentals in South Lake Tahoe. Some area homeowners have used their Tahoe residences as their vacation property, renting it to other vacationers when not used by them. As property values have risen, this use has generally provided owners with an income stream that helps them pay for and maintain their properties. Large homes in prime areas can “vacation” rent for more than the price that owners could receive from a permanent rental while preserving for the owners their ability to also use the property.

Since adoption of the last Housing Element, much work has been done in the community and by the City to address the issue of vacation rentals and the different viewpoints on that use in the city. The City updated their Vacation Home Rental Ordinance (most recently in 2017) and conducted studies about the impacts of vacation rentals to inform the ordinance updates. This remains a controversial issue in the community.

In 2018, voters passed Measure T, which prohibits vacation rentals in the city’s residential zones beginning in 2021 onwards. Since all vacation rental permits are required to be renewed on an annual basis, the City is removing all vacation rentals in residential zones by denying vacation rental permit renewal applications. Presumably, all vacation rentals in residential zones, with the exception of Qualified Vacation Rentals rented less than 30 days in a year, will become illegal no later than December 31, 2021, assuming that the last permit for a vacation rental in a residential zone was renewed on December 31, 2020. Program 3-7 commits the City to monitoring impacts of vacation home rentals as the impacts of the moratorium unfold.

Conclusions
Vacation rental regulations are not an “actual constraint” to providing housing for all income levels in South Lake Tahoe at the current level of use. The City’s prohibition on vacation rentals in residential zones may incentivize some property owners to sell these housing units, which may expand the availability of housing supply available to all income levels in the city, or rent these units long term. The City has also initiated the Long Term Rental Incentive Grant Pilot Program that provides grants to motivate vacation rental and second home owners to rent their homes long term to residents earning 125% of area median income or less.

4.4.2.9 “Illegal Unit” Program
Overview
Chapter 6.25 of the City Code provides an opportunity for certain unauthorized ADUs to become legalized if they meet specific criteria. This complaint-based program, created specifically to help meet the City’s affordable housing needs with decent, safe, and sanitary housing units, only applies if units are deed-restricted as affordable housing and are rented only to a lower-income person(s). 820

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-184 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
The criteria for legalization include:
 Cannot have been illegally constructed since the ordinance was adopted in April 1993.  May contain one unit beyond permissible density (detached, attached, or within the legal dwelling).
 Must conform to height, setbacks, and design.
 Must meet health and safety standards.
 Parcel must contain 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
 Must pay STPUD all costs for the illegal sewer hook-ups.  Must be deed-restricted as lower-income housing.
 Must meet the TRPA illegal unit criteria.

Since its adoption in April 1993, 137 potential illegal units were evaluated, 23 were “legalized” and deedrestricted as lower-income housing, 28 substandard units were removed, and the balance were determined not to contain an illegal unit after investigating the property’s history. No units were legalized and deedrestricted as lower-income housing or removed since 2014. As of July 2021, the fee for illegal unit review is $963 per unit.

Conclusions
Since the program to legalize nonconforming units is codified, it doesn’t currently have an impact on the development of housing in the city. The Illegal Unit Program provides an opportunity for certain unauthorized ADUs to become legalized if they meet specific criteria, creating housing and increasing favorable opportunities to increase the housing stock. Therefore, the Illegal Unit Program is not a constraint on housing in South Lake Tahoe.

4.4.2.10 Building Height, Setback, and Minimum Lot Size Requirements Overview
Setbacks have been codified in Chapter 6.85 of the City Code, as have minimum lot sizes and building heights. Standard setback requirements, building height, and minimum lot sizes are listed in Table 4-58.

Chapter 37 of TRPA’s Code assigns maximum building heights based on the slope of the parcels in combination with the pitch of the roof. Generally, buildings containing a residential use, including mixeduse developments, are limited to two stories, except in Town Centers. This height limitation, combined with land coverage and setback restrictions, limits the feasibility of affordable housing and mixed-use projects. The TRPA Regional Plan update allowed increased heights in the Town and Regional Center areas of the city. To implement these allowed increases, the City has adopted the TCAP and the TVAP.

Heights from 24 to 42 feet are allowed depending on the ratio of the slope to the building volume, with exceptions of up to 56 feet in Town Centers and 95 feet in Regional Centers. To minimize impacts related to height, projects of three stories or greater in Town Centers and the Regional Center are required to comply with Findings 1, 3, 5, and 9 from Section 37.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances:
821

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-185
Finding 1: When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.

Finding 3: With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.

Finding 5: The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background.

A. The horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; B. The extent of screening; and
C. Proposed exterior colors and building materials.

Finding 9: When viewed from a TRPA scenic threshold travel route, the additional building height granted a building or structure shall not result in the net loss of views to a scenic resource identified in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory. TRPA shall specify the method used to evaluate potential view loss.
822

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-186 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
TABLE 4-58

CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
South Lake Tahoe
City Guidelines
Single-Family, Duplex, or Triplex Multifamily
Building Height 24-95 ft.*
Setbacks
Front 20 ft. 20 ft.

Side (parcel < 80 ft. wide) 5 ft. 15 ft.

Side (parcel > 80 ft. wide) 10 ft. 5 ft.

Side, Street 15 ft. 15 ft.

Rear 15 ft. 15 ft.

Rear, Corner 5 ft. 5 ft.

Rear, Street 5 ft. when no vehicle access; 15 ft. when vehicle access is provided Minimum Lot Size
Residential Development 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.

Minimum Width 60 ft. 60 ft.

Minimum Depth 100 ft. 100 ft.

Mobile Home Park Sites 5 acres 5 acres
Source: South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/southlaketahoe/; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Code of Ordinances. 2020; Tahoe Valley Area Plan 2015.

Note:
* Depending on lot slope and roof pitch. See Table 37.4.1-1 of TRPA Code of Ordinances The minimum residential lot size in South Lake Tahoe is 6,000 (60 x 100) square feet. However, the City recognizes all legal residential lots. In older subdivisions such as Sierra Tract, the typical lot size is 5,000 square feet. Consequently, the primary purpose of the minimum lot size relates to lot line adjustments. An adjustment that reduces an existing lot to below the minimum lot size would not be permissible.

Table 4-59 shows several exceptions to the setback requirements listed previously in Table 4-59. For example, if a lot was established prior to April 30, 1962, and is 5,000 square feet or less in size, then the rear yard setback is reduced from 15 to 10 feet. Another example is for the use of residential pools and spas. When these are developed, the rear-yard setback is reduced from 15 to 5 feet. 823

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-187
TABLE 4-59

SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
South Lake Tahoe
Condition Exception
Lot established prior to April 30, 1962, and 5,000 sq.ft. or less Reduce rear yard setback 10 ft.

Garage or carport site with slope greater than 1:4 Setback can be either 20 ft. or 0 ft.

Swimming pool and spas Reduce rear setback to 10 ft.

Cornices, eaves, fireplaces or similar architectural
features
May extend into any required yard by not more than 50 percent of the required width or depth.

First floor decks (not including freestanding decks),
patios, and canopies
Reduce rear setback to 5 ft.

First floor stairs, landings, or decks May encroach into front yard setback provided they do not exceed a height of 30 in. and encroach no more than 5 ft.

Second story cantilever May encroach into the front or rear setback by a maximum of five feet as long as a minimum five-foot setback exists Accessory buildings
Maximum building size of 120 square feet and maximum eightfoot sidewall height may exist three feet from the side or rear property lines.

Play equipment allowed in yard Must be temporary, less than 7 ft. tall, less than 115 sq.ft., and 3 ft. from property line
Garage, Carport, or Parking Pad Replacement Shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front Residential Carport for Residents with Disabilities
May be granted an exception to accommodate persons with disabilities, provided that the structure meet building code requirements for safety, snow load, wind load, City design standards, and fire code.

Source: South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/southlaketahoe, 2021 Conclusions
City setbacks, building heights, and minimum lot size are not an “actual constraint.” They are comparable to other jurisdictions and, since they have been in place since City incorporation, they preserve community character.

4.4.2.11 Condominium Regulations
Overview
Existing Development: Chapter 6.55 of the City Code describes lot and setback requirements for condominiums. In addition, the City created regulations for condominium conversions that are more restrictive than TRPA’s regional regulations. While the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances allows conversion of existing multifamily residential development to condominiums, the City Code in Chapter 6.55 establishes stricter criteria for such conversions. Previously, the City Code prohibited the conversion to condominiums of multifamily rental properties; however, in 2004, the City amended the code to allow the conversion of multifamily rental units to condominiums with a stipulation that a portion of the units be deed-restricted for low- and moderate-income households. The remaining units must be deed-restricted for owner-occupancy and price-capped at the maximum price of the City’s First-Time Homebuyer 824

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-188 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
Program with the intent of serving middle-income residents. This change was made with the intent of increasing local homeownership for local area residents, specifically the local workforce, who are being priced out of the local market. However, to protect the city’s supply of rental housing, eligible properties were limited to multifamily rental properties with 10 or fewer units.

In 2008, the City further amended the code after discovering financing issues that arose in the tightened housing market. Previously, the code restricted the converted units to owner-occupied condominiums.

This restriction made obtaining financing difficult since lenders who may have to foreclose on a unit want the ability to rent the condominium pending a resale after foreclosure. The City amended the code to confirm that a foreclosing lender has the ability to rent a condominium pending their resale to incomequalified buyers.

In spring 2007, Fernwood Village was successfully converted from an eight-unit multifamily rental property to eight single-family condominiums. Of the eight condominium units, six units are limited to middle-income households, and two units are limited to moderate-income households.

New Development: In 1998, the City Council modified the way allocations were distributed to condominium projects. Previously, people had to obtain such allocations from the single-family list. Since no one can receive more than one single-family allocation each year, it would have taken two or more years to obtain enough allocations from the list to construct a project. Consequently, the City Council amended the allocation policy to enable such allocations to come from the multifamily list. The developer must identify his or her intent to construct condominiums at the outset.

Conclusion
Existing Development: City restrictions on condominiumization of existing development to preserve rental housing do not pose an “actual constraint” to providing housing in South Lake Tahoe. The City Code allows more opportunities for homeownership for residents of all income levels by promoting deedrestricted affordable housing; however, regardless of the incentives, many developers in South Lake Tahoe are still reluctant to build affordable housing so preserving existing affordable housing is critical.

New Development: Since 2014, the City has encouraged the proliferation of condominiums in the City’s Town Centers and has not established a cap on the number of residential allocations that can be used in a Town Center. Timeshare Conversion Regulations
Overview
Chapter 6.60 of the City Code prohibits conversion of existing residential dwellings to timeshares. There is also a moratorium on converting existing visitor lodging uses to timeshares. This section of the code has been interpreted as prohibiting the tear-down and reconstruction of either existing residential (through conversion) or motels as timeshares.

Conclusion
City prohibitions on conversion of residential units to timeshares are not an “actual constraint” to providing housing for all income levels in South Lake Tahoe. The legislative intent of the timeshare ordinance was to protect the city’s housing stock. There is a clear nexus between the loss of residential units and preservation of housing stock, but that is not true for the loss of motel units. While there may be 825

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-189
other compelling reasons to prohibit conversion of motels to timeshares, they are unrelated to housing needs.

4.4.2.12 Building Codes and Their Enforcement
Overview
Through building codes and other land use requirements, local governments influence the style, quality, size, and costs of residential development. Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner, buildings codes and their enforcement act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability.

State law prohibits modifications to building codes except where local variations are necessary for reasons of climate, geology, or topography (Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5). The City has adopted the 2019 California Building Code, which determines the minimum residential construction requirements throughout California. The City also has adopted a Green Building Code that encourages sustainable materials and practices in new buildings. Because of Tahoe’s high elevation, susceptibility to fire, and snowy climate, local amendments have been made to adopt special requirements for snow loads, wind shear, fire protection (sprinklers and smoke detectors), and frost line/freeze protection listed in the 2019 California Fire Code.

The state’s Uniform Housing Code regulates the condition of habitable structures (health and safety standards) and provides for the conservation and rehabilitation of housing. The City responds to code enforcement problems on a complaint basis. Based on community dialogue from previous Housing Element updates, the City learned that there is a community perception that code enforcement has, in the past, been lax. The City initiated the Housing Issues Hotline as a forum for code enforcement complaints.

Because much of the least expensive, market-rate housing stock is older, often not well maintained, substandard, or owned by absentee landlords who are not responsive to tenants’ complaints, the hotline has proven valuable to tenants. Staff receives complaints related to mold, no heat, pests infestation, no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, water intrusion, and electrical issues. The usual process is for a building inspector to conduct a field investigation after a complaint has been submitted. If the complaint is determined to be valid, the immediacy and severity of the problem is evaluated. There is no indication that code enforcement practices have unduly penalized older structures.

Conclusion
City building code modifications and code enforcement are not an “actual constraint” to providing housing for all income levels in South Lake Tahoe. There is no indication that code enforcement practices have unduly penalized older structures. Should the City take over mobile home park enforcement, there needs to be enough code enforcement staff to adequately address the concerns. If a building must be vacated for violation of housing and building codes, tenants may be left without housing. The Housing Issues Hotline will continue to be administered during the 2022–2027 planning period (see Program 5-1). 826

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-190 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022

4.4.2.13 On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements cover the range of water, sewer, circulation, and other services and infrastructure needed to facilitate residential developments. South Lake Tahoe requires the installation of certain onand off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of its neighborhoods. Requirements include parking, streets, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements.

Street improvements are described in Chapter 6.10 of the City Code and require all new road construction projects or the repair of existing improvements within the publicly owned right-of-way to comply with the City of South Lake Tahoe Public Improvement Engineering Standards, which were established in 2009 and are posted on the City’s website. The City does not have subdivision standards, so Chapter 6.10 of the City Code and the Public Improvement Engineering Standards regulate improvements in the rightof-way. These requirements for improvements can go beyond the property boundary under the conditions described below.

If a residential project involves new construction on vacant land, demolition and reconstruction, a Special Use permit, or a public project, then street improvements may be deemed necessary by the City Engineering Division. These improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other off-site street improvements.

If a residential project is subject to a discretionary review, the City may condition the construction of other reasonable on- and off-site improvements to serve a residential project. Public and private projects are required to construct off-site improvements (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other improvements) consistent with the standards in the City Code when:
 The project is processed as a Special Use permit and is determined by the City Public Works Department that the off-site improvements are necessary for the orderly development of the area;  A public project, not subject to the Special Use permit process, is determined by the City Public Works Department that the off-site improvements are necessary for the orderly development of the area.

The required street right-of-way improvements for projects requiring off-site improvements may include:
 Curb and gutter shall be constructed of concrete in a design and specification approved by the City.
 Sidewalks shall be constructed of asphalt and be a minimum of five feet wide, in a design and specification approved by the City. The placement of the sidewalk must be a minimum of three feet from the curb and have a meandering layout. If not enough public land is available, a pedestrian easement over the private land is desirable. As a last resort, the sidewalk shall be placed adjoining the curb.
 Road fixtures shall be limited to the minimum length, height, and bulk necessary to adequately provide for the safety of the user, as determined by the City with input from appropriate State and Federal agencies as necessary.
827

4. HOUSING
BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022 4-191
 Color of road fixtures shall be of an earth-tone color of dark shades and have a flat finish. New and replacement guardrails shall not have a shiny and reflective finish.  Signal poles and their ancillary equipment and sign structures shall be painted “midnight green” or an approved equivalent and installed per City specification.  Retaining walls and other erosion control devices shall conform to the BMP Handbook.

Requiring developers to make site improvements increases the cost of housing and impacts the affordability of the homes; however, they are standard for most jurisdictions. Moreover, site improvements are necessary to maintain the quality of life desired by city residents and ensure that public services and facilities are in place at the time of need.

4.4.2.14 Parking Standards
Overview
Since off-street parking often requires large amounts of land, parking requirements are one of the development standards that can most negatively impact the development of affordable housing. Off-street parking requirements increase the cost of development, limiting the funds available for providing housing. Many municipalities have adopted parking standards that exceed the actual parking needs of the population. Table 4-60 summarizes the City’s parking requirements associated with residential uses.

TABLE 4-60

PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
South Lake Tahoe
2013
Residential Use Parking Requirements
Single-family 1 space for one bedroom or studio; 2 spaces for 2 bedrooms or more Multifamily 1 space for one bedroom or studio; 2 spaces for 2 bedrooms or more; and 1 guest space per 4 units
Mobile Home Park 2 spaces per unit; or 1 space per unit and 3 guest spaces per 4 units Employee housing 1 space for one bedroom or studio; 2 spaces for 2 bedrooms or more; and 1 guest space per 4 units
Multi-person dwelling 1 space per 2 beds and 1 guest parking space for every 10 beds Nursing and personal care facility 1 space per 3 beds; 1 space per employee Residential care 1 space per 4 beds; 1 space per live-in employee; and 1 space per 5 beds (guest parking)
ADU 1 off-street parking space is required per ADU1
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code 2021.
1 Exceptions for ADU parking are as follows: When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure providing required parking for the primary residence or residences is demolished to allow for the construction of an ADU or is converted to an ADU, those parking spaces are not required to be replaced. Additional parking for the ADU is not required if the ADU is within one-half mile walking distance of public transit (including transit stations and bus stations), if the ADU is within a historic district, if the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure, when on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU, or when there is a designated car-share vehicle parking space within one block of the ADU.
828

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-192 BACKGROUND REPORT–JUNE 2022
The City of South Lake Tahoe has developed parking standards with the intent to better align parking requirements with the actual needs of residents. The parking requirement for studio and one bedroom units has been reduced to one parking space and additional parking reductions can be approved for multifamily projects where the property owner assumed responsibility for parking management (City Code Section 6.85.030.6.c.xiii) to prevent environmental impacts associated with parking in non-paved areas and safety impacts associated with parking long term on public streets during snow removal operations.

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilJune 21, 2022

South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 21, 2022