Element, 7th cycle RHNA credit may only be taken for units approved (entitled or permitted) or built since December 31, 2026, the start date of the RHNA projection period.
Additional housing element and RHNA information is available on HCD’s webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks.
Please contact Thomas Nguyen, Senior Data Specialist, at [email protected], if you have questions about the attached RHNA.
Sincerely,
Marisa Prasse
Fair Housing Section Chief
1667
CITY OF
SOUTH
LAKE TAHOE
2027-2035
HOUSING
ELEMENT
Public Review Draft,
August 2026
1668
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
2027-2035 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft | August 2026
for the City of South Lake Tahoe
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
t 916.245.7500
1669
The City of South Lake Tahoe acknowledges the lands we occupy today are the lands and home of the Wašíšiw, the people from here known today as the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, a sovereign nation. Since the beginning of time and for thousands of years before the arrival of any other people, the Washoe lived here and cared for this place, with values and intention that we can all learn from. On behalf of the City Council, we would like to acknowledge, thank, and honor the Indigenous Washoe Tribal Communities that are the past, present, and future stewards of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
1670
1671
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 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 ......................................................................4-5
4.2 Public Participation......................................................................................................................4-7
4.2.1 Community Workshop – March 25, 2026 ............................................................................4-7
4.2.2 City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission – April 16, 2026 .....................................4-8
4.2.3 Family Resource Center Cafecitos Workshop – April 22, 2026...........................................4-8
4.2.4 Business Community Workshop – June 9, 2026 ..................................................................4-9
4.2.5 Stakeholder Consultations ....................................................................................................4-9
4.3 Needs Assessment .......................................................................................................................4-17
4.3.1 Housing Stock and Demographic Profile ...........................................................................4-17
4.3.2 Demographic and Employment Characteristics and Trends...............................................4-17
4.3.3 Population/Demographic Trends and Employment Characteristics and Trends ................4-20
4.3.4 Housing Characteristics and Trends...................................................................................4-30
4.3.5 Development Trends...........................................................................................................4-35
4.4 Assessment of Fair Housing.......................................................................................................4-68
4.4.1 Outreach..............................................................................................................................4-68
4.4.2 Fair Housing Issues.............................................................................................................4-69
4.4.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ................................................................................4-107
4.4.4 Sites Inventory Analysis...................................................................................................4-108
4.4.5 Contributing Factors.........................................................................................................4-112
4.5 Resource Inventory ..................................................................................................................4-115
4.5.1 Availability of Land and Services ....................................................................................4-115
4.5.2 South Lake Tahoe’s Setting, Zoning, and Development Procedures ...............................4-115
4.5.3 Inventory of Local, State, and Federal Housing and Financing Programs .......................4-143
4.5.4 Preserving At-Risk Units..................................................................................................4-150
4.5.5 Energy Conservation Opportunities..................................................................................4-154
4.6 Housing Constraints.................................................................................................................4-157
4.6.1 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Potential and Actual Governmental Constraints........4-157
4.6.2 Background and Regional Authority − The Bi-State Compact ........................................4-157
4.6.3 City of South Lake Tahoe Potential and Actual Governmental Constraints ....................4-182
4.6.4 Potential Non-Governmental Constraints.........................................................................4-209 1672
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-ii AUGUST 2026
4.7 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................4-212
4.7.1 2022 to 2027 Accomplishments .......................................................................................4-212
4.7.2 Review of Existing Housing Element...............................................................................4-212
4.8 Housing Goals, Policies and Programs...................................................................................4-241
4.8.1 New Construction .............................................................................................................4-242
4.8.2 Affordable Housing ..........................................................................................................4-247
4.8.3 Rehabilitation/Conservation .............................................................................................4-260
4.8.4 Special-Needs Housing.....................................................................................................4-267
4.8.5 Equal Opportunity Housing and Discrimination Prevention ............................................4-272
4.8.6 Energy Conservation Opportunities..................................................................................4-276
4.8.7 Neighborhood Preservation ..............................................................................................4-277
4.8.8 Quantified Objectives.......................................................................................................4-279 1673
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-iii
TABLES
Table 4-1 Place of Residence of Douglas County and South Lake Tahoe Employees............................4-18 Table 4-2 Place of Employment for Low-Income Workers.....................................................................4-19 Table 4-3 Population, Households, Housing Size, and Housing Units....................................................4-20 Table 4-4 Population Projections.............................................................................................................4-21 Table 4-5 Population Breakdown by Age................................................................................................4-22 Table 4-6 Population Breakdown by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................4-23 Table 4-7 Vacant Units by Type of Vacancy...........................................................................................4-24 Table 4-8 Household Income Distribution...............................................................................................4-25 Table 4-9 Employed Population by Occupation ......................................................................................4-27 Table 4-10 Large Employers....................................................................................................................4-28 Table 4-11 Projected Employment by Occupation and Wage .................................................................4-29 Table 4-12 Housing Stock by Type .........................................................................................................4-31 Table 4-13 Housing - Jobs Ratio..............................................................................................................4-31 Table 4-14 Housing Unit Projections.......................................................................................................4-32 Table 4-15 Overcrowded Housing...........................................................................................................4-34 Table 4-16 Household Size by Tenure.....................................................................................................4-35 Table 4-17 Age of Housing Stock and Housing Stock Conditions..........................................................4-36 Table 4-18 Overall Structural ScoRe .......................................................................................................4-38 Table 4-19 Housing Conditions by Structural Issue ................................................................................4-38 Table 4-20 Median Household Income by Household Size.....................................................................4-40 Table 4-21 Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification .................................................4-41 Table 4-22 Housing Problems by Household Income Classification ......................................................4-42 Table 4-23 HCD Income Limits based on Persons per Household..........................................................4-43 Table 4-24 Ability to Pay for Housing based on HCD Income Limits....................................................4-44 Table 4-25 HUD Fair Market Rent..........................................................................................................4-46 Table 4-26 Median Contract Rent and Median Gross Rent.....................................................................4-46 Table 4-27 Average Rents .......................................................................................................................4-47 Table 4-28 Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes........................................................................4-48 Table 4-29 Median Listing Price by Number of Bedrooms.....................................................................4-49 Table 4-30 Median Sales Price of Single Family Homes........................................................................4-49 Table 4-31 Homelessness ........................................................................................................................4-51 Table 4-32 Homeless Facilities................................................................................................................4-52 Table 4-33 Farmworkers..........................................................................................................................4-55 Table 4-34 Persons with Disability by Employment Status.....................................................................4-56 Table 4-35 Persons with Disabilities by Disability Type.........................................................................4-57 Table 4-36 Population with a Developmental Disability.........................................................................4-58 Table 4-37 Developmentally Disabled Residents by Residence Type ....................................................4-59 Table 4-38 Senior Population and Households........................................................................................4-61 Table 4-39 Senior Household By Income Group.....................................................................................4-62 1674
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-iv AUGUST 2026
Table 4-40 Housing Unit Sizes................................................................................................................4-63 Table 4-41 Female-Headed Households..................................................................................................4-64 Table 4-42 Extremely Low-Income Households.....................................................................................4-65 Table 4-43 School Performance Scores, 2025 .........................................................................................4-88 Table 4-44 Unit Capacity by Census Tract and Income Level ..............................................................4-109 Table 4-45 Factors That Constribute to Fair Housing Issues In South Lake Tahoe ..............................4-113 Table 4-46 Plan Area Statements and Community Plan Districts Residential Implications..................4-121 Table 4-47 Representative Projects........................................................................................................4-129 Table 4-48 Approved Projects to Meet the RHNA................................................................................4-138 Table 4-49 Accomodating the 7th Cycle RHNA ...................................................................................4-141 Table 4-50 Financial Resources for Housign Activities........................................................................4-146 Table 4-51 Assisted Housing Stock.......................................................................................................4-151 Table 4-52 Conversion Exchange Rates................................................................................................4-163 Table 4-53 TRPA Density Limitations for Residential Uses 2025........................................................4-167 Table 4-54 TRPA Base Fees for New Residential Construction ...........................................................4-176 Table 4-55 TRPA Fee Multipliers .........................................................................................................4-177 Table 4-56 Other TRPA Fees.................................................................................................................4-177 Table 4-57 City Development Standards...............................................................................................4-195 Table 4-58 Setback Exceptions..............................................................................................................4-196 Table 4-59 Parking Standards for Residential Uses...............................................................................4-201 Table 4-60 Planning Application Fee Schedule.....................................................................................4-204 Table 4-61 Total Processing and Impact Fees for Single- and MultiFamily Units................................4-205 Table 4-62 Progress during Previous Planning Period ..........................................................................4-212 Table 4-63 Evaluation of 2022-2027 South Lake Tahoe Housing Element Programs..........................4-214 Table 4-64 Summary of Quantified Objectives.....................................................................................4-279 Table A-1 Vacant Sites Inventory..........................................................................................................4-282
FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2024 ..............................................4-24 Figure 4-2: Employees by Major Industry...............................................................................................4-26 Figure 4-3: Housing Stock Characteristics ..............................................................................................4-30 Figure 4-4: Census Tract reference map ..................................................................................................4-72 Figure 4-5A: TCAC/HCD Resource Area Designations, Region............................................................4-73 Figure 4-5B: TCAC/HCD Resource Area Designations, Local ..............................................................4-74 Figure 4-6: Median Income .....................................................................................................................4-75 Figure 4-7A: Poverty Status, Regional ....................................................................................................4-77 Figure 4-7B: Poverty Status, Local..........................................................................................................4-78 Figure 4-8: Predominant Populations ......................................................................................................4-79 Figure 4-9: Racial Demographics............................................................................................................4-80 1675
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-v
Figure 4-10: Children in Female-Headed Households.............................................................................4-85 Figure 4-11: Population with a Disability................................................................................................4-86 Figure 4-12: Access to Jobs.....................................................................................................................4-87 Figure 4-13: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ...........................................................................................................4-93 Figure 4-14: Overcrowded Households...................................................................................................4-94 Figure 4-15: Homeowners Overpaying for Housing ...............................................................................4-98 Figure 4-16: Renters Overpaying for Housing ........................................................................................4-99 Figure 4-17: Location of Affordable Housing .......................................................................................4-102 Figure 4-18: Housing Sites Inventory....................................................................................................4-132 Figure 4-19: Vacant Sites In the Tahoe Valley Area Plan .....................................................................4-133 Figure 4-20: Vacant Sites In the Mid-Town Area Plan .........................................................................4-134 Figure 4-21: Entitled and Approved Projects ........................................................................................4-139 1676
1677
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 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 2022.
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 (2027–2035) Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 2022–2027 Housing Element.
The planning period is January 31, 2027, through January 31, 2035. The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) last updated its Housing Element in August 2022. The 6th cycle Housing Element had a planning period from June 30, 2022, to June 30, 2027.
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 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 on 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 regarding 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 65583) 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 the following:
1678
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-2 AUGUST 2026
▪ Analysis of population and employment trends, 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 on 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 nongovernmental constraints on 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.
Section 4.3 through 4.7 of the Housing Element 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 Section, Section 4.8, Goals, Policies, and Programs. In addition to identifying housing needs, section 4.3 through 4.7 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 Housing Element analysis satisfies State requirements and provides the foundation for the goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives. The analysis 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 2020 1679
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-3
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), and City of South Lake Tahoe records. 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 in South Lake Tahoe. The South Lake Tahoe General Plan consists of nine elements that address both State‐mandated planning issues and 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 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 the feasibility of affordable housing projects for lower-income residents (those who are included in the extremely low-, very low-, or low-income categories). 1680
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-4 AUGUST 2026
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 has undergone a series of phased housing amendments since 2021. Phase 1 amendments were finalized in 2021, addressing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and removing barriers to affordable housing development. Phase 2 Housing Amendments were adopted by the TRPA Governing Board on December 13, 2023, with further amendments approved on June 26, 2024. Following litigation, TRPA and Mountain Area Preservation (MAP) reached a settlement in July 2024, allowing the Phase 2 housing policies to remain on track. Phase 3, titled Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin, is currently underway. The Tahoe Living Working Group began meeting in December 2024 to discuss further code amendments to facilitate more housing types and is expected to return recommendations to the Governing Board in 2026.
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, incomerestricted housing up to 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) or at least one occupant of the household works at least 30 hours per week or full-time equivalency for an employer with a business license or tax address within the Tahoe region or Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (termed the “Achievable” income category), which per current TRPA guidance carries no associated income limit, unlike the affordable and moderate categories, which are capped at 80 and 120 percent of AMI, respectively (TRPA Residential Deed Restriction Program Fact Sheet) conversion of commercial and tourist-serving development rights to residential development rights, and transfer bonuses for residential unit transfers into town or regional centers. The Phase 2 Housing Amendments, adopted in December 2023, further expanded these provisions by targeting height allowances (up to 65 feet in Town Centers), increased density, reduced parking requirements, and greater site coverage specifically for income deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable multifamily housing projects. 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. The City implemented amendments to both Area Plans in which the TRPA adopted the TCAP and the Tahoe Valley Area Plan on December 18, 2024. The amendments included incentivizing housing through height and density. 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 actively engaged in the ongoing Phase 3 process (Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin), which is expected to address housing, growth management, climate resilience, and related issues through 2026 and beyond.
4.1.4 Consistency with South Lake Tahoe’s Redevelopment Implementation Plan Per Assembly Bill (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 1681
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-5
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 2027-2035 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) 1682
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-6 AUGUST 2026
This page intentionally left blank.
1683
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-7
4.2 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)(9), 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 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 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, flyers posted on the City’s website, and word of mouth. In addition, the City placed meeting announcements on the City’s website and worked with partner agencies to post the flyer and spread the word through their social media, word of mouth, and email listservs.
As outlined here, the City’s public outreach program was designed to obtain input from residents representing all income groups, nonprofit and for-profit residential developers, and businesses. The following sections describe the City’s outreach and engagement efforts undertaken to ensure meaningful participation from all segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, including the identification of housing goals, policies, and programs.
4.2.1 Community Workshop – March 25, 2026
The City hosted an in-person community workshop at the South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation Center, Aspen Room, in South Lake Tahoe. The meeting began with a presentation to the general public and local stakeholders, giving them an overview of the Housing Element update process, outlining State housing law, and describing the required components of the Housing Element and the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). During and after the presentation, meeting facilitators gave the public and stakeholders an opportunity to identify key housing issues, concerns, and priorities through interactive board activities.
Six community members joined, including renters, property owners, and a second homeowner.
Input received from the public reflected strong support for affordable rental housing, ADUs, townhouses, and workforce housing as the housing types most needed in the city. Participants identified high cost and limited availability as the dominant housing challenges and noted that long-time locals and young adults are the segments of the community experiencing the greatest difficulty accessing housing. Participants prioritized applying for funding to create more affordable housing options, with additional support for programs to increase affordability of existing housing, expand senior and assisted living options, and develop workforce housing. Community members also raised questions about how evacuation routes and infrastructure constraints factor into housing site identification, whether short-term rental regulations constitute a governmental constraint on housing under State law, and whether developers and builders are engaged as stakeholders in the housing element outreach process. 1684
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-8 AUGUST 2026
4.2.2 City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission – April 16, 2026 The City held a public hearing during a scheduled Planning Commission meeting at City Hall Council Chambers as an opportunity for the public to provide public comment and discussion on the 2027–2035 Housing Element Update. Notice of the public hearing was posted two weeks in advance of the meeting in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, notices were also posted on social media and the City’s website. Housing staff presented an overview of the Housing Element, its statutory requirements, the community outreach, timeline, and review process, the City’s housing needs and RHNA, and highlighted housing accomplishments achieved during the 2022–2027 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Discussion during the hearing came from Planning Commissioners, who raised a range of questions and issues related to the Housing Element Update. Topics included the City’s ability to meet its moderateincome RHNA obligations, clarification on penalties for noncompliance with Housing Element law, and the type of housing-specific parcels included in the sites inventory analysis should accommodate.
Commissioners also inquired about potential conflicts between TRPA regulations and California housing law, particularly Senate Bill (SB) 9, as well as the distinction between documented local housing needs and RHNA requirements assigned by the State.
Additional comments focused on challenges with funding for moderate-income housing development due to lack of State and federal subsidies, and the potential need for incentives to encourage such projects.
Commissioners also noted concern about the limited number of available TRPA residential allocations needed to accommodate RHNA targets. Interest was expressed in mixed-use and infill development as strategies to help meet housing demand, and questions were raised about the extent to which vacation home rental permits may reduce the availability of long-term rental housing.
No public comments were provided during the hearing. Staff shared contact information for submitting additional comments after the hearing to the Housing Division.
4.2.3 Family Resource Center Cafecitos Workshop – April 22, 2026 The City hosted an in-person community workshop at the South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center at their weekly Cafecitos meeting, in South Lake Tahoe. The meeting was conducted in Spanish only and began with a presentation, providing an overview of the Housing Element update process, outlining State housing law, and describing the required components of the Housing Element and the City’s RHNA. During and after the presentation, meeting facilitators gave the stakeholders an opportunity to identify key housing issues, concerns, and priorities through discussion.
Input received from the public reflected strong support for affordable rental housing and all other housing types that are more affordable to locals. Participants identified the high cost and access to quality housing that is near reliable transportation options. Participants shared their support for the affordable housing units being planned for and constructed, especially in proximity to transportation. Community members also described the challenge they face when trying to qualify for affordable housing. Many participants shared that they have two to three jobs, which puts their income over the limit for deed-restricted properties so they would have to quit three to four months in advance to qualify but would not be able to afford their current rent until they move into the affordable unit. Stakeholders also mentioned the need to maintain bike paths and transportation in good condition. They would also like to have more information and training on tenant rights and responsibilities, rent control, and rental assistance for back rent. 1685
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-9
4.2.4 Business Community Workshop – June 9, 2026
The City hosted an in-person community workshop at the South Lake Tahoe Recreation Center. The meeting was conducted in the morning and in the evening to ensure various stakeholders could attend. Staff provided various small-group activities and specific topics, which included a table specifically on housing.
The small group facilitators gave the stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges in the region with current housing and some policies or programs the City can implement to support business owners and workers.
Some of the challenges identified include absentee/neglectful landlords, substandard housing (including fear of retaliation for reporting), limited housing options that is affordable which forces employees to commute long distances and it is hard to recruit and retain employees (especially locals), and building housing for all income levels, especially moderate income. Participants identified the following policies and programs to support their businesses and workers: strengthen tenant protections and more education, landlord/tenant mediation, more housing that is affordable to local income levels, incentives for landlords to improve existing rentals, support TRPA Phase 2 Amendments, transitional housing for youth, and more moderate-income housing. These comments were provided for both sessions by attending business stakeholders.
4.2.5 Stakeholder Consultations
Consultations were conducted with service providers and other stakeholders representing a range of housing needs, populations, and sectors. From February through April 2026, staff reached out to stakeholder organizations to offer each the opportunity to provide one-on-one input on housing needs and programs.
Consultations were completed with the following nine organizations:
▪ City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Issues Hotline
▪ El Dorado County Health and Human Services
▪ South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center
▪ South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
▪ Vista Rise Collective
▪ Lake Tahoe Unified School District
▪ Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless
▪ Tahoe Youth and Family Services
▪ Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
The stakeholders were asked questions generally covering the following topics:
▪ Opportunities and concerns: What are the top opportunities and concerns for the future of housing in South Lake Tahoe?
1686
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-10 AUGUST 2026
▪ Housing preferences: What types of housing do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing? Are there opportunities for homeownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
▪ Housing barriers/needs: What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? Are there specific unmet housing needs in the community?
▪ Housing conditions: How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in South Lake Tahoe? What opportunities exist to improve housing?
▪ Equity and fair housing: What factors limit or deny civil rights, fair housing choice, or equitable access to opportunity? What actions can be taken to make living patterns more integrated and balanced?
4.2.5.1 Common Themes
Consultations revealed several key observations and common themes related to housing issues facing residents of South Lake Tahoe:
▪ Lack of affordable housing supply: Across all consultations, the insufficient supply of affordable rental housing was identified as the central challenge. Family-sized units are especially scarce. ▪ Workforce and seasonal housing gaps: The local economy’s reliance on seasonal tourism creates housing instability. Employers, including Barton Health and the school district, struggle to attract and retain staff due to housing costs and availability. Middle-income households are a largely underserved segment.
▪ Barriers for vulnerable populations: Seniors, people with disabilities, immigrants, domestic violence survivors, families with children, and recently displaced workers face disproportionate difficulty in accessing stable housing. There are inadequate accessible units, lengthy waitlists, and limited resources tailored to these groups.
▪ Language and digital access barriers: Multilingual, particularly Spanish-speaking, households face significant barriers in navigating housing applications and leasing processes that are primarily in English and conducted online. Multiple stakeholders noted the need for multilingual materials and in-person direct assistance.
▪ Fear of retaliation and immigration enforcement: Tenants are reluctant to report substandard housing conditions or fair housing violations due to fear of landlord retaliation and, for undocumented residents, fear of immigration enforcement. ▪ Shortage of emergency and transitional housing resources: There is no family shelter in South Lake Tahoe, and existing emergency housing infrastructure, including the City’s seasonal Shelter Pass program and a winter shelter implemented by Tahoe Youth and Family Services, is insufficient to meet demand. In January 2026, the County approved plans for a permanent facility intended to serve approximately 30 individuals and families with children, though construction is not expected to be complete until mid-2028. In addition, the number of units targeted for Transitional Age Youth is limited.
1687
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-11
▪ Need for stronger landlord engagement: Multiple stakeholders emphasized the importance of educating and incentivizing landlords to accept housing vouchers, work with case managers, and maintain units in safe condition to build trust between tenants, landlords, and service providers. ▪ Regulatory and environmental constraints: TRPA regulations, land costs, and governmental oversight create significant barriers to new housing development. Measure T, the citizen-initiated ballot measure that placed additional restrictions on Vacation Home Rentals (VHRs) in the city, was approved by voters in November 2018 and prohibited renewal of VHR permits in residential areas after December 31, 2020.The ban on VHRs and subsequent legal challenges have created ongoing uncertainty in the housing market. On March 13, 2025, the El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Gary S. Slossberg issued a ruling striking down Measure T in its entirety and on April 1, 2025, the City Council voted not to appeal the decision. Active VHR permits resumed being issued in July 2025, continuing to affect the availability of long-term rental units. ▪ Need for coordinated City leadership and services: Several stakeholders called for greater City leadership and a more coordinated approach to housing and social services, including dedicated social workers in schools, a City social services team, and more sustainable funding for service providers beyond grant cycles.
4.2.5.2 Individual Consultation Summaries
City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Issues Hotline
A consultation was conducted with the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Housing Issues Hotline, on March 5, 2026. The Hotline was established by the City to assist residents experiencing substandard housing conditions. Residents can file complaints online or in person, after which a housing inspector visits the property to assess any violations. The program received approximately 41 complaints in 2025, 31 in 2024, and 14 in early 2026 (through the end of June). The most common issues reported are lack of heat or hot water and rodent infestations. Complaints are most frequent in smaller apartment complexes and singlefamily homes that do not undergo the City’s annual multifamily dwelling inspection process (which applies only to residential buildings with six or more units).
The Hotline noted that many calls involve civil or legal matters, such as rent increases, security deposit disputes, or retaliation, that fall outside the program’s scope. Seniors are disproportionately affected by housing issues and have fewer resources to relocate when problems arise. A significant barrier to reporting is fear of landlord retaliation, particularly among residents without legal immigration status. The program representative expressed interest in expanding support for “civil” housing issues (such as legal assistance for tenants who do not qualify for free legal services) and noted that a first-month rent loan would be a valuable addition to the City’s existing no-interest loan program for security deposits and application fees.
El Dorado County Health and Human Services
A consultation was conducted with representatives from El Dorado County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) on March 20, 2026. HHSA provides behavioral health, public health, community, and social services throughout the county, including the only emergency homeless shelter in El Dorado County.
It is a 60-bed facility that opened in February 2023 and has served 404 individuals, with 95 exits to permanent housing. The County also administers a Public Housing Authority with approximately 400 Section 8 vouchers, though the waitlist has been closed since 2016. Additional short-term housing programs 1688
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-12 AUGUST 2026
include the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (serving approximately 30 individuals), Bringing Families Home (approximately five families), and Housing Support (approximately 40 families). Social workers for these programs actively connect clients to community-based organizations and work directly with landlords, throughout El Dorado County.
HHSA identified the general need for affordable housing of any kind as the primary unmet need in the region. Waitlists for existing subsidized units and income constraints are major barriers to housing access.
Staff noted that while South Lake Tahoe’s density makes proximity to services less of an issue than in more rural parts of the county, the overall lack of affordable development has been a long-standing concern.
However, there are several new projects that are currently in various stages of planning and construction.
HHSA staff emphasized their role in quickly connecting clients with resources and mediating between landlords and tenants, noting that many landlords are willing to work with tenants who have a case manager assigned.
South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center
A consultation was conducted with representatives from the South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center (FRC) on February 23, 2026. FRC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit providing basic needs services, educational opportunities, family advocacy, and bilingual counseling to South Lake Tahoe residents. FRC operates as one of the only consistent food banks in the area, serving approximately 1,000 regulars per month and 500 “unique” individuals (only accessing one service or one point in time). Approximately 98 percent of clients are South Lake Tahoe residents. The client base is primarily families, with a majority who are bilingual or primarily Spanish-speaking. Recent trends have shown an increase in seniors and younger single adults, including those recently displaced from employee housing in the Heavenly ski area. FRC also provides lease-up support, translation, and troubleshooting assistance for housing applications (including for Sugar Pine Village), help drafting letters to landlords, security deposit recovery assistance, and referrals to the City’s Housing Issues Hotline.
Key housing concerns identified by FRC include the high cost and limited supply of rental housing, with even “affordable” projects like Sugar Pine Village described as financially out of reach for many clients.
Family-sized units are especially scarce. Complex, English-only, and online-only application processes create significant barriers for Spanish-speaking and digitally challenged residents. Homeownership opportunities were noted as extremely rare for FRC’s client population. FRC also raised concerns about fear of landlord retaliation discouraging tenants from reporting problems, and noted that fear of ICE enforcement has, at times, reduced participation in food programs and other services. FRC partners with Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless, St. Joseph Community Land Trust, ADVANCE, TRPA, and the City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Hotline to provide support.
South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
A consultation was conducted with the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce on February 24, 2026. The Chamber is a member-driven community organization focused on supporting a vibrant local economy for residents and small businesses. Chamber representatives noted that the housing situation for workers has improved somewhat over the past two years compared to 2020–2023, but certain challenges persist. Many workers choose to live in Carson Valley and commute due to lower costs, and some employers (notably Barton Health and City of South Lake Tahoe) have struggled to fill and/or maintain positions due to a lack of suitable housing.
1689
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-13
The Chamber identified several key housing needs and opportunities. The most pressing gap is in middleincome housing. Modest, purpose-built residential units that are not attractive to second-home buyers or vacation renters but would suit permanent families and the local workforce are needed. The Chamber expressed support for employer-assisted housing (noting Vail Resorts as an example) and is hopeful that the City can play a more active role in facilitating employer-housing partnerships. They noted that the City’s rental housing waiting list has been a useful tool for understanding actual demand, with seniors and people with disabilities being a notable proportion of applicants. ADUs were seen as a promising concept but often too expensive to build under current TRPA and local regulations. The 2020 ban on short-term rentals (later found unconstitutional in January 2025) and the subsequent resumption of active permits have continued to affect long-term housing availability.
Alta California Regional Center
A consultation was conducted with Alta California Regional Center (ACRC) on April 25, 2026. ACRC is one of 21 publicly funded regional centers that serve as a nonprofit agency that is overseen by California Department of Developmental Services. Each regional center covers a specific geographic territory to provide localized resources for those with developmental disabilities. Depending on the age and need, regional centers coordinate early intervention therapies, education and gap funding, life-long support, which includes access to housing options.
Staff met with ACRC staff to discuss potential collaboration and the needs of the developmentally disabled individuals in South Lake Tahoe. ACRC shared that there is a lack of affordable housing units that are targeted to their clients, and there is a high need for these units in the region. There is State funding available to provide gap funding for housing projects with units that are only for their clients. In addition, ACRC provides all supportive services and many times, have support staff supporting throughout the application process for housing, moving into housing, and staying in the housing. There is an ACRC office in the city that is in Midtown, which is a central resource to the client population in South Lake Tahoe.
Vista Rise Collective
A consultation was conducted with representatives from Vista Rise Collective on February 26, 2026. Vista Rise is a community service nonprofit providing shelter, counseling, housing assistance, and advocacy for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Services include a 24/7 crisis line, a confidential 10-bed safe house (typical stay of 30–90 days), transitional housing for up to six individuals (6 months to 1 year), a Housing First program, trauma-informed therapy, and community education. Vista Rise serves over 100 individuals per month and approximately 800 annually, with broader community education efforts reaching an estimated 6,000 people per year. The client base is made up of approximately 80 percent women, a roughly even split between Latinx and White individuals, and some representation of queer and immigrant populations. Services are available in English, Spanish, and Tagalog.
Vista Rise identified stable and accessible housing of virtually any type (apartment, condo, ADU) as the most pressing unmet need for their clients. Financial instability resulting from abuse and coercive control is the primary barrier, compounded by low credit, incomplete documentation, and inflexible application processes. Immigration fears and limited accessibility for people with disabilities were identified as additional fair housing barriers. Vista Rise emphasized the importance of landlords willing to work with their clients and is hoping for infrastructure investment in the City’s budget rather than dependent on charitable funding. The organization highlighted the City’s “Pay for Success” contract, which funds rental 1690
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-14 AUGUST 2026
assistance, credit repair, transportation, and childcare in exchange for measurable housing stability outcomes, as a progressive model to continue and expand.
Lake Tahoe Unified School District
A consultation was conducted with a representative from the Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) in February 2026. LTUSD serves approximately 3,377 students. The representative estimated that roughly 15 to 20 percent of students may be experiencing some form of housing instability (residing in hotels, motels, RVs, or living doubled up), though voluntary self-identification methods means the true count is likely higher. The district has seen particular increases in housing instability among immigrant families, including undocumented households. The area’s tourist economy creates cyclical instability, with many families relying on seasonal employment at casinos and ski resorts. The district expressed significant concern about staff housing as well, as high turnover among teachers and administrators (attributed in part to housing costs) has meant that most current staff have been with LTUSD five years or less, including a superintendent hired in 2021.
LTUSD identified several critical gaps in the local housing conditions. There is no family shelter in South Lake Tahoe – the nearest is in Placerville, and Carson City services are not available to California residents.
The City’s seasonal Shelter Pass program provides only three days of emergency housing, which was described as insufficient. The district noted several underutilized resources that could be repurposed for temporary shelter. LTUSD called for mid-town housing, more ADUs and affordable units, stronger rent support programs, and the reintroduction of longer-term hotel stays for families in crisis.
Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless
A consultation was conducted with representatives of Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless (TCH) in May 2026. TCH provides Coordinated Entry intake and referrals, a medical respite, housing navigation, food assistance, job training, ongoing case management, and benefits navigation. Coordinated Entry referrals vary by month, with approximately 10 to 20 referrals in a typical month and occasional higher-volume periods. TCH indicated that these services are currently operating at the limit of available funding, although there is interest in expanding program reach if additional resources become available. Programs are funded through a mix of government and private foundation grants, including, but not limited to, CalAIM reimbursement; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds; Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) funds; and private donations.
Shelter services include 16 medical respite beds and provided four temporary shelter beds during the 2025– 2026 winter. Across South Lake Tahoe projects, TCH estimated serving approximately 103 clients, with the potential to serve approximately 116 clients once additional Bear’s Den units are completed. TCH noted that while 131 individuals are currently identified as experiencing unsheltered homelessness in El Dorado County through the 2026 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) suggests a larger unhoused population. PIT Count results may underrepresent the full extent of unsheltered homelessness due to limitations in methodology and the difficulty of counting individuals who may avoid contact or remain out of view. In May 2026, the HMIS By-Name List for El Dorado County exceeds 400 individuals.
Several significant barriers to securing affordable and decent housing in South Lake Tahoe were identified, including high housing costs, seasonal employment patterns, income inequality, limited mental health support, and a lack of smaller housing options such as one-bedroom units. TCH emphasized the need for 1691
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-15
extremely affordable and accessible housing for older adults on fixed incomes, as well as scattered-site permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing, recovery housing with peer support, and supported independent living opportunities.
TCH highlighted several areas where City support could improve service delivery and housing outcomes.
Key needs included additional funding, particularly to meet grant match requirements for programs such as ESG, as well as funding to improve staff safety and security during street outreach and motel-based case management. TCH also emphasized the need for a low-barrier shelter.
Tahoe Youth and Family Services
A consultation was conducted with the Executive Director of Tahoe Youth and Family Services (TYFS) in May 2026. TYFS is a 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization that has been serving youth and families in the South Lake Tahoe community since 1971. They operate various programs that include supportive services and housing for homeless youth, mental health counseling and substance use treatment, empowerment and leadership engagement for clients, and street outreach. TYFS served 185 clients in 2025 with 4,456 nights of shelter provided through the Rapid Rehousing, Transitional Living, and Winter Shelter Programs with 1,140 hours of intensive case management.
TYFS identified the need to understand the impact of their programs to prevent chronic and episodic periods of homelessness throughout adulthood. They asked to switch the data used in the Housing Element and other housing reports from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PIT numbers from El Dorado County to the HMIS data to receive a true snapshot of the high numbers of youth experiencing homelessness in the community. Under the PIT count, couch surfing is not counted as homelessness under the federal definition for purposes of the count. In addition, those under 18 are not surveyed in the PIT count. TYFS sees a gap in transitional living units targeted for Transitional Age Youth in our community as often times, many clients do not feel comfortable staying with older adults in shelters or other available options.
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
As part of Housing Element outreach and community engagement, the City conducted consultation with the Tahoe Tribal Liaison for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Tribe). The City recognizes that South Lake Tahoe is within the ancestral homeland of the Washoe people and that the Lake Tahoe Basin remains culturally, historically, and spiritually significant to the Tribe. Consultation and engagement helped inform the City’s understanding of the Tribe’s enduring connection to the area, the history of displacement and exclusion from the Basin over time, and the importance of continued coordination on planning issues affecting tribal members and cultural resources. While there is no tribal housing development within the city at this time, the City acknowledges that tribal members may experience housing needs within South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region, including the need for affordable, stable, and accessible offreservation housing opportunities. The City will continue to coordinate with tribal representatives, as appropriate, during Housing Element implementation and future planning efforts.
While there is not currently tribal housing within the city, consultation highlighted the importance of recognizing this history and maintaining government-to-government and intergovernmental coordination on issues affecting tribal members, cultural resources, and future housing opportunities in the region. 1692
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-16 AUGUST 2026
More agencies and organizations in the Tahoe Basin are building relationships and partnerships with the Tribe and creating more jobs around the Basin although their communities and tribal lands where they live are throughout the Carson Valley and in Alpine County. There is a strong interest in establishing a partnership between the City and the Tribe to develop multifamily units for rent and homeownership in South Lake Tahoe. The largest barriers are currently the availability of housing and cost of living. There is also a barrier in the various logistics included to move from one community to another, including the need for multigenerational households.
4.2.5.3 Summary of Community/Stakeholder Feedback
Based on community and stakeholder input gathered during the public participation process, the following issues were identified as being of the greatest importance to the participants. These issues are addressed in this Housing Element update:
▪ Lack of affordable rental housing supply, particularly family-sized units and moderate-income housing
▪ High cost and limited availability of housing for lower- and middle-income households, long-time locals, including for off-reservation tribal members, and young adults ▪ Barriers to housing access for vulnerable populations, including seniors, people with disabilities, immigrant households, and domestic violence survivors
▪ Impact of short-term vacation rentals on long-term rental housing availability ▪ Need for additional funding to support affordable housing development ▪ Shortage of emergency and transitional housing options, particularly for families 1693
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-17
4.3 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.
4.3.1 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 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 2020 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 2019 and the most recent available data are also discussed.
4.3.2 Demographic and Employment Characteristics and Trends
4.3.2.1 Local Housing Needs in the Context of the Lake Tahoe Basin South Lake Tahoe is in the Lake Tahoe Basin (or 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 is in California and one-third in the state of Nevada. In Nevada, the hourly minimum wage is $12.00, and in California, it is $16.90. Housing law requirements also differ between the two states.
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.
Table 4-1 indicates that over half (63.4 percent) of South Lake Tahoe residents work in the city.
Approximately 1,920 (15.7 percent) of South Lake Tahoe residents work outside California, further indicating that many travel over the state line for work. This is higher than the 10.0 percent of Douglas County residents who work outside Nevada. Of Douglas County’s 20,689 residents, 61.6 percent work in 1694
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-18 AUGUST 2026
unincorporated Douglas County, and another 28.3 percent work outside the county. About 11.3 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
2024
Place of Work
Residents of Residents of
Douglas County South Lake Tahoe
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Working in South Lake Tahoe -- -- 7,752 63.4%
Working in unincorporated
county of residence1 12,757 61.6% 1,382 11.3%
Working outside county of
residence 5,861 28.3% 1,162 9.5%
Working outside state of
residence 2,071 10.0% 1,920 15.7%
TOTAL2 20,689 -- 12,216 --
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
1 There are no incorporated cities in Douglas County.
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.
Many South Lake Tahoe employees, especially the workforce, choose housing outside of the Basin. This pattern is documented in the 2025 TRPA Lake Tahoe Workforce Housing Needs Assessment, 1 which found
that in-commuters represent the largest cohort of unmet housing need in the region, with an estimated 7,625 in-commuter worker households and a need for approximately 6,251 units (5,180 of which are needed for households at or below 245 percent of AMI). This reflects an increase from an estimated 4,789 units of incommuter need in 2016. For many who live “off the hill,” commuting may reflect a lifestyle choice, whether to obtain less expensive housing, live where there is less snow, or secure larger and newer housing for their housing dollar than what is available inside the Basin. However, the data suggest that for a large share of commuters, this arrangement is driven by necessity rather than preference. A 2025 regional survey found that 82 percent of in-commuting respondents said they would be “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to relocate into the Basin if adequate, affordably priced housing were available — a share that has remained consistent across surveys conducted in 2016, 2021, 2023, and 2025. Basin-wide, housing cost burden remains the most prevalent housing problem, affecting 85 percent of renter households and 94 percent of owner households with housing problems.
1 BAE Urban Economics, Lake Tahoe Workforce Housing Needs Assessment, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2026, February 11, https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/LakeTahoeWorkforceHousingNeedsAssessment2025.pdf. 1695
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-19
For the lowest-income people, or those without reliable transportation, a commuter lifestyle is typically not an option. The 2025 Assessment identifies 98 unhoused individuals in the region (assumed to have incomes at or below 30 percent of AMI) and 849 seasonal resident worker households with unmet housing needs at or below 245 percent of AMI, populations for whom commuting is not a viable substitute for local housing.
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, 25.4 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 almost half (40.8 percent) of residents in South Lake Tahoe earn less than $49,000 annually. An annual income of $49,000 is far below the threshold for lower-income households in El Dorado County, which is $102,900 based on the 2025 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
2024
Residents of El Dorado County Residents of South Lake Tahoe Earning Less than $49,000
Annually 14,676 3,322
Percentage of Workforce 25.37% 40.8%
TOTAL WORKFORCE 57,855 8,136
Source: US Census, 2020-2024, ACS 5-Year Estimates.
There is both a high home vacancy rate and a decline in rental housing units in the city, which is replicated among comparable jurisdictions. There are also two trends that impact Lake Tahoe due to its destination popularity. 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. However, the individuals and families living in South Lake Tahoe, homeowners and renters alike, are cost-burdened.
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 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. 1696
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-20 AUGUST 2026
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 $850,000 in March 2026, the median sales price in South Lake Tahoe was $695,000.2 Furthermore, 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.
4.3.3 Population/Demographic Trends and Employment Characteristics and Trends
4.3.3.1 Population
Table 4-3 shows population, households, average household size, and housing units for South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County for 2010, 2019, and 2025. The table also shows 2010-2019 and 2019–2025 average annual growth rates (AAGR).
Since 2019, South Lake Tahoe’s population has decreased at a 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 2025 was -7.8 percent compared to -0.6 percent for El Dorado County.
TABLE 4-3
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, HOUSING SIZE, AND HOUSING UNITS South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010, 2019, and 2025
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
2010 2019 2025 2010 2019 2025
Population
Number 21,403 22,800 21,022 181,058 191,848 190,770
Growth from Previous Period -2,206 1,397 -1,778 24,759 10,790 -1,078 % AAGR from Previous Period -9.3% 6.5% -7.8% 15.8% 6.0% -0.6% Households
Number 8,918 8,880 9,519 70,223 70,050 76,185
Growth from Previous Period -492 -38 639 11,284 -173 6,135 % AAGR from Previous Period -5.2% -0.4% 7.2% 19.1% -0.2% 8.8% Average Household Size 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.4
Housing Units
2 Tahoe Realty, 2026, March, North Tahoe, https://www.tahoerealty.com/market-report/North-Lake-Tahoe-Homes/. 1697
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-21
TABLE 4-3
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, HOUSING SIZE, AND HOUSING UNITS South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2010, 2019, and 2025
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
2010 2019 2025 2010 2019 2025
Number 15,087 15,831 16,137 88,159 91,987 95,899
Growth from Previous Period 1,037 744 306 16,881 3,828 3,912 % AAGR from Previous Period 7.4% 4.9% 1.9% 23.7% 4.3% 4.3% Source: DOF, 2025, estimate.
South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock showed little growth between 2019 and 2025, with an increase of 1.9 percent. Comparatively, El Dorado County’s housing stock, as a whole, grew at a slightly faster rate of 4.3 percent from 2019 to 2025. The city’s slow rate of housing unit production is due, in part, to strict TRPA growth regulations that limit housing construction and development in general. While the housing statistics do not show a large net increase in housing units, the city saw a steady amount of residential development since 2010. The rate of development slowed from 2009 to 2012 due to the economic downturn but exceeded pre-2009 levels after 2019.
As shown in Table 4-4, the Tahoe Region is predicted to grow by about 4.6 percent between 2024 and 2031 according to the Claritas Population Projections. However, the population of El Dorado County is projected to remain the same, with only 0.02 percent of total growth. The population in South Lake Tahoe, in contrast, is projected to decrease by 1.5 percent. This shows that population growth in the region is projected to occur beyond El Dorado County.
TABLE 4-4
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024-2031
Jurisdiction 2024 2031 Percentage Change
2024 to 2031
South Lake Tahoe1 21,269 20,946 -1.5%
El Dorado County2 189,079 189,125 0.0%
Tahoe Region3 1,174,744 1,228,433 4.6%
1 Data for South Lake Tahoe 2024 population was sourced from 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates and data for 2031 projections was sourced from Claritas.
2 Data for El Dorado County was sourced from Claritas.
3 Tahoe Region consists of El Dorado, Placer, Douglas, and Washoe Counties. Data for Douglas and Washoe Counties were sourced from 2025-2044 Nevada County Population Projections.
Sources: US Census, 2020-2024, ACS 5-Year Estimates; Claritas Pop-Facts Demographic Trend 2024, 2025-2044 Nevada County Population Projections.
1698
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-22 AUGUST 2026
4.3.3.2 Age Distribution
South Lake Tahoe has a relatively young population. Table 4-5 shows the age breakdown of the city’s population in 2017 and 2024. In 2024, children under 19 made up 18.0 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population, a decrease from 18.5 percent in 2017. This proportion was relatively the same as the proportion of children under 20 in El Dorado County in 2024 (21.5 percent). Almost two-thirds of South Lake Tahoe’s population (63.9 percent) was between ages 20 and 64 in 2024, a slight decrease for this group from 66.1 percent in 2017.
Seniors over 65 made up 18.18 percent of the city’s population in 2024, compared to 23.5 percent of El Dorado County’s population. This represents an increase since 2017, when the senior population made up
15.5 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population. The increasing senior population is because of a combination of aging residents and migration, with about 25.0 percent of buyers identified as retirees interested in moving to the South Lake Tahoe Basin.3
TABLE 4-5
POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY AGE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
Age
Distribution
2017 2024
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 1,164 5.4% 8,571 4.6% 690 3.2% 8,610 4.5%
Age 5 to 19 2,477 11.4% 29,592 16.0% 3,129 14.7% 32,805 17.0% Age 0 to 19 4,008 10.0% 42,239 12.6% 3,819 9.9% 41,415 12.2% Age 20 to 34 6,181 28.5% 32,432 17.5% 4,604 21.6% 28,095 14.6% Age 35 to 64 8,509 39.3% 79,470 43.0% 8,980 42.2% 77,898 40.4% Age 20 to 64 14,323 35.8% 107,826 32.2% 13,584 35.1% 105,993 31.2% Over 64 3,349 15.5% 34,950 18.9% 3,866 18.2% 45,254 23.5% TOTAL 21,680 100.0% 185,015 100.0% 21,269 100.0% 192,662 100.0% Median Age 38.0 − 45.5 − 41.1 - 46.1 -
Source: US Census, ACS 2020-2024 and 2013-2017, 5-Year Estimate.
4.3.3.3 Race/Ethnicity
Table 4-6 summarizes South Lake Tahoe’s population by race and ethnicity. In 2024, 66.8 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s population was White. This percentage is lower than that of El Dorado County. About 26.1 percent of the city’s population was of Hispanic origin. The Asian population represented 5.5 percent of the city’s population, followed by 1.2 percent of residents identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native,
0.3 percent of residents identifying as Black or African American, and 0.2 percent of residents identifying as Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Over 13.6 percent of the population identified as some other race, and 12.4 percent of the population identified as two or more races. 3 South Shore Regional Housing Needs and Opportunities, 2019, October 2019. 1699
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-23
TABLE 4-6
POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
Racial/Ethnic Category
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number % of Total Number % of Total
White 14,204 66.8% 150,027 77.9%
Black or African American 60 0.3% 1,574 0.8%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 261 1.2% 1,069 0.6%
Asian 1,174 5.5% 10,497 5.4%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander 41 0.2% 167 0.1%
Some other race alone 2,890 13.6% 8,889 4.6%
Two or more races 2,639 12.4% 20,439 10.6%
TOTAL 21,269 100.0% 192,662 100.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 5,547 26.1% 27,892 14.5% Source: US Census, ACS 2020-2024, 5-Year Estimate.
4.3.3.4 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. While the Census Bureau separately identifies unmarried and domestic partners in household data, unmarried partners are generally not classified as related individuals for purposes of defining a family household. The 2024 ACS counted 9,519 households in South Lake Tahoe. Of those, about 66.0 percent (6,283) of the households were family households.
4.3.3.5 Tenure
South Lake Tahoe has a high proportion of renter-occupied housing units. Of the 9,519 occupied housing units counted during the 2020-2024 ACS, 4,634 units (48.7 percent) were rental units, while 4,885 units (51.3 percent) were owner-occupied units. This is a shift from the 2015-2019 ACS where renter-occupied housing units represented 59.0 percent of the housing stock. As shown in Figure 4-1, homeownership in South Lake Tahoe is much lower than in El Dorado County, where 77.2 percent of occupied housing units were owner-occupied. This percentage remains consistent with the 2015-2019 ACS.
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 2024, there were 7,143 vacant units in South Lake Tahoe. Approximately 83.6 percent (5,975) of the housing units were considered for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The proportion of vacant seasonal or occasional use units remained consistent with 2017 data where 84.2 percent of the housing stock was classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. 1700
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-24 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-7
VACANT UNITS BY TYPE OF VACANCY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
Vacancy Status
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
For rent 516 7.2% 1,389 7.5%
For sale only 77 1.1% 381 2.1%
Rented or sold; not occupied 243 3.4% 587 3.2%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 5,975 83.6% 15,066 81.6% For migrant workers 29 0.4% 31 0.2%
Other vacant 303 4.2% 1,014 5.5%
TOTAL VACANT UNITS 7,143 100.0% 18,468 100.0%
Source: US Census, ACS 2020-2024, Tables B25002 and B25004 FIGURE 4-1: OWNER-OCCUPIED AND RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, 2024 Source: US Census, ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates.
4.3.3.6 Household Income
Table 4-8 shows median income and the distribution of household income for South Lake Tahoe based on data from the 2020-2024 ACS. The median household income in South Lake Tahoe in 2024 was $105,750, which was lower than the median income for El Dorado County ($108,845), as listed in the 2024 ACS.
Approximately 9.9 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe earned under $20,000 in 2024, compared to 7.6 percent in the county. A much higher percentage of renter households earn less than $50,000 (41.3 percent), compared to owners (18.2 percent), which is typical in resort areas. At the other end of the income spectrum, 22.4 percent of households in South Lake Tahoe earned over $150,000 in 2024, compared to 9.6 percent of households in 2019 and 34.6 percent in El Dorado County. The increase in percentage of households earned over $150,000 reflected an overall increase in median income of households in South Lake Tahoe from 2019 to 2024. This showed that there has been an increase in the number of residents able to afford housing in the city. This trend may reflect, at least in part, an increase in higher-income remote
51.3%
77.2%
48.7%
22.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1701
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-25
workers who relocated to South Lake Tahoe during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022), a pattern documented across many mountain and resort communities during this period, rather than solely an increase in affordability or income growth among existing residents.
TABLE 4-8
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
South Lake Tahoe
2024
Income Category
South Lake Tahoe
Number Percentage of Total
Renter-Occupied
Less than $20,000 680 14.7%
$20,000 to $34,999 543 11.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 693 15.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 753 16.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 597 12.9%
$100,000 to $149,999 805 17.4%
$150,000 or more 563 12.1%
Total Renter Households 4,634 100.0%
Owner-Occupied
Less than $20,000 258 5.3%
$20,000 to $34,999 240 4.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 391 8.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 789 16.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 545 11.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,089 22.3%
$150,000 or more 1,573 32.2%
Total Owner Households 4,885 100.0%
Less than $20,000 938 9.9%
$20,000 to $34,999 783 8.2%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,084 11.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,542 16.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,142 12.0%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,894 19.9%
$150,000 or more 2,136 22.4%
Total All Households 9,519 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
1702
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-26 AUGUST 2026
4.3.3.7 Existing and Projected Employment
South Lake Tahoe is primarily a tourism-based economy (see Figure 4-2). The city's natural amenities, including the lake, ski resorts, and year-round outdoor recreational opportunities, make it a premier destination that draws visitors annually. Arts, entertainment, and recreation represent the largest employment sector, accounting for 26.1 percent of jobs in the city. Also, 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. Throughout the shoulder season in the fall and spring, hours of employment tend to be reduced, and in some cases, full season layoffs occur. Some people work “dual” seasonal employment, such as with the Forest Service or CalFire as Wildland 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: US Census, ACS 2020-2024, 5-Year Estimates.
1.2%
7.6%
3.3%
0.6%
10.9%
4.1%
2.3%
5.7%
11.2%
19.4%
26.1%
3.8%
3.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
Other services, except public administration
Public administration
1703
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-27
TABLE 4-9
EMPLOYED POPULATION BY OCCUPATION
South Lake Tahoe
2026
Number of
Employees Percentage of Total
Architecture/Engineering 236 1.9%
Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 518 4.3%
Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 434 3.6%
Business/Financial Operations 538 4.4%
Community/Social Services 127 1.0%
Computer/Mathematical 156 1.3%
Construction/Extraction 666 5.5%
Education/Training/Library 525 4.3%
Farming/Fishing/Forestry 92 0.8%
Food Preparation/Serving Related 1,413 11.7%
Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 784 6.5%
Healthcare Support 419 3.5%
Installation/Maintenance/Repair 151 1.2%
Legal 48 0.4%
Life/Physical/Social Science 123 1.0%
Management 1,168 9.6%
Office/Administrative Support 1,320 10.9%
Production 329 2.7%
Protective Services 302 2.5%
Sales/Related 1,241 10.3%
Personal Care/Service 472 3.9%
Transportation/Material Moving 1,045 8.6%
Total 12,107 100.0%
Source: Claritas, 2026, Pop-Facts Demographics Snapshot, Employment and Occupation.
The top employers in the city by number of employees are shown in Table 4-10. In both fiscal years (FY) 2014–2015 and 2023–2024, Barton Memorial Hospital was the city’s largest employer with 6.1 percent of total employees in FY 2014–2015 and 7.0 percent of employees in FY 2023–2024. The total number of jobs in South Lake Tahoe increased from 11,762 in FY 2014–2015 to 13,151 in FY 2023-2024, an indicator of the economy slowly recovering since the global pandemic in 2020. 1704
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-28 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-10
LARGE EMPLOYERS
South Lake Tahoe
2014–2024
2014-2015 2023-2024
Number Percentage of
Workforce Number Percentage of Workforce
Barton Memorial Hospital 713 6.1% 923 7.0%
Lake Tahoe Unified School District 402 3.4% 368 2.8%
El Dorado County 237 2.0% 263 2.0%
United States Forest Service 159 1.4% 100 0.8%
Heavenly Mountain Resort 389 3.3% 380 2.9%
Lake Tahoe Community College 180 1.5% 167 1.3%
Marriott Corporation 196 1.7% 236 1.8%
City of South Lake Tahoe 199 1.7% 238 1.8%
Raley's Supermarket 152 1.2% - -
South Tahoe Public Utility District - - 119 0.9%
Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel 154 1.3% 104 0.8%
All Other Employers 8,981 76.4% 10,253 78.0%
Total Workforce 11,762 100.00% 13,151 100.00%
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2024.
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 and wages data for the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA, which includes the El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. When comparing annual incomes to the median El Dorado County income in 2025 for a family of four of $120,800 (see Table 4-20), only four 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 legal occupations and healthcare practitioners and technical occupations at $163,557 and $149,259, respectively. The lowest annual salary is in the healthcare support occupations at $42,906.
1705
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-29
TABLE 4-11
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION AND WAGE
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area 2025
Occupations of Residents Mean Hourly
Wage
Mean Annual
Salary
Estimated
Employment
2024
Management Occupations $69.17 $143,879 102,930
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $45.24 $94,103 90,990 Computer and Mathematical Occupations $57.43 $119,450 37,250 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $61.21 $127,319 19,020 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $48.50 $100,879 15,470 Community and Social Service Occupations $37.57 $78,158 23,250 Legal Occupations $78.63 $163,557 10,820
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $38.07 $79,185 65,400 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations $39.26 $81,661 11,990
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $71.76 $149,259 63,690 Healthcare Support Occupations $20.63 $42,906 76,480
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $20.82 $43,297 91,850 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations $22.86 $47,544 31,710
Personal Care and Service Occupations $21.46 $44,644 24,060 Sales and Related Occupations $27.15 $56,463 79,320
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $28.17 $58,606 117,770 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $21.57 $44,851 5,050 Construction and Extraction Occupations $38.15 $79,346 55,040 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $34.00 $70,717 34,860 Production Occupations $26.88 $55,916 31,310
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $24.69 $51,349 78,130 Source: 2025 First Quarter, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics Dashboard, State of California Employment Development Department.
4.3.3.8 School Enrollment
South Lake Tahoe is served by four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school as part of the LTUSD. Enrollment in the school district has decreased by 5.3 percent since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as shown here:
▪ School Year (SY) 2020-21: 3,725 students
▪ SY 2021-22: 3,641 students
▪ SY 2022-23: 3,648 students
▪ SY 2023-24: 3,604 students
▪ SY 2024-25: 3,528 students
1706
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-30 AUGUST 2026
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. However, a portion of the decrease in enrollment can be attributed to families moving out of the area, while a portion may also reflect students shifting to homeschooling through virtual charter schools that serve El Dorado County but are outside LTUSD.
Additionally, an increasing number of young adults are continuing to live with their families after high school due to the high cost of housing. These factors may support continued demand for family housing even as school district enrollment declines.
4.3.4 Housing Characteristics and Trends
4.3.4.1 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 2025, 60.4 percent of the city’s housing stock was single-family detached compared to 82.1 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 33.6 percent of its housing in multifamily developments in 2025, whereas the county had only 12.1 percent of its housing in this type.
FIGURE 4-3: HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Source: 2025 DOF estimate.
63.1%
33.6%
3.4%
83.7%
12.1%
4.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Homes
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
1707
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-31
TABLE 4-12
HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2019 and 2025
Year Total
Units
Single-Family Multifamily Mobile
Detached Attached 2 to 4 5 plus Homes
City of South Lake Tahoe
2019
# 15,831 9,550 404 2,454 2,860 563
% 100.0% 60.3% 2.6% 15.5% 18.1% 3.6%
2025
# 16,137 9,739 439 2,442 2,975 542
% 100.0% 60.4% 2.7% 15.1% 18.4% 3.4%
El Dorado County
2019
# 91,987 75,227 1,393 4,870 6,372 4,125
% 100.0% 81.8% 1.5% 5.3% 6.9% 4.5%
2025
# 95,899 78,741 1,520 4,875 6,737 4,026
% 100% 82.1% 1.6% 5.1% 7.0% 4.2%
Source: DOF, 2025, estimate.
Table 4-13 shows the number of housing units and employed residents in the city and county in 2019 and 2025. 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 2025, the housing-jobs ratio was 0.8 in the city and 0.9 in the county. This is consistent with 2019. 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 vehicle miles traveled for commuting.
TABLE 4-13
HOUSING - JOBS RATIO
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2019 and 2025
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
2019 2025 2019 2025
Housing Units 15,831 16,137 91,987 95,899
Employed Residents 11,800 12,582 85,101 88,584
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Source: DOF, 2025 estimate; US Census ACS, 2020-2024, 5-Year Estimates.
TRPA housing unit projections for 2050, published in the TRPA Connections 2025–2050: Regional Transportation Plan, updated projections for population, households, and jobs for 2050 using 2022 as the baseline for comparison. Table 4-14 reports the growth as a 7.8 percent increase in housing units in the Tahoe Basin, from 33,802 housing units in 2022 to 36,439 units in 2050. It is expected that some areas in the Tahoe Region will accommodate more housing unit growth and some areas will experience less housing 1708
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-32 AUGUST 2026
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 2022 to 2050.
TABLE 4-14
HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Basin
2022-2050
Jurisdiction 2022 2050
South Lake Tahoe 15,586 17,336
Tahoe Region1 33,802 36,439
1 Tahoe Region consists of El Dorado, Placer, Douglas, and Washoe Counties.
Source: TRPA Connections, 2025, 2050: Regional Transportation Plan.
4.3.4.2 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 2025, DOF reported the South Lake Tahoe homeowner vacancy rate to be 1.5 percent, with a rental vacancy rate of 10.0 percent.
The local tourist economy creates an attractive market for buying houses as second homes, 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 home rentals (VHRs).
There are several concerns associated with the high percentage of seasonal and tourist units. In 2024, 42.9 percent of housing units in South Lake Tahoe were considered “vacant” according to the Census. Of these vacant units, 83.6 percent were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, as shown previously in Table 4-7. Vacant units that were available for rent in 2024 constituted 7.2 percent of vacancies.
VHRs represent a significant component of South Lake Tahoe’s visitor‑serving economy. VHRs operate in both the Tourist Core, the area along Highway 50 from Stateline to Ski Run Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods, with regulatory authority held by the City. VHR activity influences the availability of long‑term housing, neighborhood quality, and seasonal population patterns.
The City’s VHR policies have undergone substantial changes since the invalidation of Measure T in 2025, resulting in two major ordinances adopted in 2025 and 2026. 2025 VHR Ordinance
Adopted July 17, 2025, the 2025 ordinance reestablished VHRs in residential areas following the court’s invalidation of Measure T. Key provisions included:
▪ A 150‑foot spacing requirement between single‑family VHRs outside the Tourist Core. ▪ Monthly issuance of up to 150 new permits.
▪ VHRs allowed in the Tourist Core without spacing restrictions. 1709
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-33
▪ Operational requirements, including noise monitoring, parking limits, and a three‑violation revocation rule.
▪ Requirement for a local property manager for VHRs in residential neighborhoods.
This ordinance represented a transitional regulatory framework intended to restore VHR operations while limiting neighborhood impacts.
2026 VHR Ordinance
Adopted April 23, 2026, the 2026 ordinance replaced the 2025 framework with a more comprehensive, long‑term regulatory system. Key changes included:
▪ Establishment of a 900‑permit cap for VHRs in residential zones. ▪ Elimination of the 150‑foot spacing rule, shifting from geographic dispersion to numerical control. ▪ Condominiums made eligible for VHR permits for the first time, subject to Homeowners’ Association (HOA) approval.
▪ Introduction of a minimum renter age of 25.
▪ Strengthened operational and reporting requirements, including room‑night reporting. ▪ Requirement that applicants own the property prior to applying for a permit. ▪ Continued prohibition on commercial events and retention of the local property manager requirement.
The 2026 ordinance reflects a shift toward a capacity‑based and compliance‑focused regulatory model.
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 motel-room 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 some 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.
4.3.4.3 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 1710
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-34 AUGUST 2026
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.
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 renter- and owneroccupied housing units in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. Of the city’s occupied housing units in 2024, approximately 2.4 percent were extremely overcrowded, compared to 0.8 percent in El Dorado County. Extreme overcrowding occurred more in rental housing than owner-occupied housing in South Lake Tahoe similar to El Dorado County. Overall, there was a 1.3-percentage point increase in extreme overcrowding from 2017, when 1.1 percent of the city’s households were extremely overcrowded. The City has observed an increase in overcrowding as housing prices rose since the COVID-19 pandemic.
TABLE 4-15
OVERCROWDED HOUSING
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017 and 2024
Persons per Room
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Rental Units Owner Units Rental Units Owner Units
# % # % # % # %
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% TOTAL
OVERCROWDED 442, 5.0% 1,459, 2.1%
2024
1 or less 4,223 91.1% 4,701 96.2% 16,417 94.7% 57,896 98.4%
1.01 to 1.50 206 4.4% 164 3.4% 556 3.2% 675 1.1%
1.51 or more 205 4.4% 20 0.4% 368 2.1% 273 0.5%
TOTAL 4,634 100.0% 4,885 100.0% 17,341 100.0% 58,844 100.0% TOTAL
OVERCROWDED 595, 6.3% 1,872, 2.5%
Source: US Census, ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimate, 2017, ACS 5-Year Estimate. 1711
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-35
4.3.4.4 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 2024. According to the ACS, the proportion of households occupied by one person in South Lake Tahoe (34.0 percent) was larger than the proportions of one-person households in El Dorado County (23.4 percent). Households with two to four people made up 60.3 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe in 2024. This proportion was lower in the city than in El Dorado County (68.2 percent). Renter-occupied households had a slightly higher proportion of one-person households (39.3 percent) and households with five or more people (5.8 percent) than owner-occupied households (29.0 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively). Owner-occupied households had a higher proportion of households with two to four people (65.4 percent) than renter households (55.1 percent).
TABLE 4-16
HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Owner-Occupied
1 Person 1,416 29.0% 12,033 20.4%
2-4 People 3,193 65.4% 41,968 71.3%
5 + Persons 276 5.6% 4,843 8.2%
TOTAL 4,885 100.0% 58,844 100.0%
Renter-Occupied
1 Person 1,820 39.3% 5,824 33.6%
2-4 People 2,547 55.0% 9,967 57.5%
5 + Persons 267 5.8% 1,550 8.9%
TOTAL 4,634 100.0% 17,341 100.0%
Total Households
1 Person 3,236 34.0% 17,857 23.4%
2-4 People 5,740 60.3% 51,935 68.2%
5 + Persons 543 5.7% 6,393 8.4%
TOTAL 9,519 100.0% 76,185 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
4.3.5 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 30.0 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 1712
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-36 AUGUST 2026
past, these units 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 first-time homebuyer. This new construction adds diversity to what would likely otherwise be aging multifamily rental housing stock.
4.3.5.1 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 1.0 percent of all housing units in South Lake Tahoe were lacking either complete plumbing facilities or complete kitchen facilities in 2024 (see Table 4-17), these indicators do not reveal much about overall housing conditions. It should be noted that this data does not include single-room occupancy (SRO) units, most of which do not have complete kitchens, and may not fully capture permanent supportive housing (PSH) units.
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 2024. As shown in the table, South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock is older than El Dorado County housing stock. Over 73.0 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s housing units were built before 1980, compared to 44.7 percent for El Dorado County. With Tahoe’s climate, older houses require more investment to keep them properly maintained.
TABLE 4-17
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK AND HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2020–2024 Estimate
Total Occupied Housing Units
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Built 2020 or later 110 0.7% 1,297 1.4%
Built 2010 to 2019 610 3.7% 5,600 5.9%
Built 2000 to 2009 930 5.6% 15,150 16.0%
Built 1990 to 1999 1,152 6.9% 12,970 13.7%
Built 1980 to 1989 1,580 9.5% 17,321 18.3%
Built 1970 to 1979 5,318 31.9% 21,154 22.3%
Built 1960 to 1969 3,456 20.7% 10,020 10.6%
Built 1950 to 1959 2,615 15.7% 5,628 5.9%
Built 1940 to 1949 579 3.5% 2,505 2.6%
Built 1939 or earlier 312 1.9% 3,008 3.2%
TOTAL 16,662 100.0% 94,653 100.0%
Median Year Built 1973 - 1984 -
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 19 0.1% 154 0.2% Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 75 0.5% 184 0.2% Source: US Census, ACS, 2020-2024, 5-Year Estimates.
1713
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-37
4.3.5.2 2019 Housing Conditions Survey
In 2019, the City of South Lake Tahoe contracted with a consulting firm to evaluate the amount of existing housing stock needing rehabilitation and replacement. The housing conditions survey was modeled after the HCD Sample Housing Survey4 with additional features such as fire safety defensible space and drainage.
The survey included 4,009 units, compared to 5,166 units surveyed in 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. While the city has not prepared an updated windshield survey, based on conversations with the City’s building department and code enforcement, the city believes the 2019 data is still representative of the current housing conditions.
4.3.5.2.1 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 25.0 percent of the total housing stock in each neighborhood. Of the 4,009 units surveyed, 75.0 percent were single-family units, 13.0 percent were multifamily housing units, 4.0 percent were condominiums, 5.0 percent were mobile homes, 4.0 percent were SRO units, and less than 1.0 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 10.0 and 26.0 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 65583.5 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 4 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/housing-stockcharacteristics/docs/samplehousingconditionsurvey.pdf. 5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=3. &article=10.6.
1714
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-38 AUGUST 2026
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).
4.3.5.2.2 Survey Results
Of the six Census tracts surveyed, Tract 303.01 (primarily consisting of the Tahoe Sierra neighborhood, also known as Sierra Tract) 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, Barton, and Gardner Mountain neighborhoods) and Tract 304.01 (which includes the Tahoe 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: Michael Baker International, 2019, Housing Conditions Survey.
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: Michael Baker International, 2019, Housing Conditions Survey.
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.
1715
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-39
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 (2.0 percent of the units surveyed) had foundation issues. Mobile homes were excluded from scoring in this category since they typically do not have foundations.
Roofing Condition
Damaged roofs contribute to the deterioration of the interior and exterior of a housing unit, and 193 units (5.0 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 (10.0 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 HOAs that maintain elements such as siding. The largest percentage (32.0 percent) of housing units that need siding replacement and painting are in Tract 303.01.
Window Condition
Only 1.0 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, 7.0 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 (91.0 percent) had paved driveways. There were 1,754 units (48.0 percent) whose driveways had issues - either some cracks, large cracks, or major repairs needed.
1716
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-40 AUGUST 2026
4.3.5.3 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 2025. The median income for a four-person household in El Dorado County was $120,800. Overall, the median household income in South Lake Tahoe was $82,002 and $108,845 for the county based on data from the ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates.
TABLE 4-20
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
El Dorado County
2025
El Dorado County
Median Income
1-Person Household $84,550
2-Person Household $96,650
3-Person Household $108,700
4-Person Household $120,800
5-Person Household $130,450
6-Person Household $140,150
7+ Person Household $149,800
Source: HCD 2025 Income Limits.
4.3.5.4 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 80.0 percent or less of the 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. HUD creates a special Census tabulation for use in Consolidated Plans.6 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 31.0 and 50.0 percent of gross income. A “severe cost burden” is defined as gross housing costs exceeding 50.0 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. 6 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. 1717
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-41
Income groups are shown in the CHAS tabulation based on the HUD-adjusted AMI. The AMI is based on the Sacramento MSA, 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 80.0 and
50.0 percent, respectively, of the area median family income, as adjusted by HUD.7 Table 4-21 shows the CHAS special tabulation data from the 2018–2022 Census ACS regarding the percentage of lower-income households with a housing cost burden greater than 30.0 percent and greater than 50.0 percent by tenure and for extremely low-income households with a cost burden greater than 50.0 percent in South Lake Tahoe.
TABLE 4-21
HOUSING COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION
South Lake Tahoe
2022
South Lake Tahoe
Owners Renters Total
Household Income ≤ 30% MFI (Extremely Low Income [ELI]) Total ELI households in jurisdiction 405 1,205 1,610
Number of lower-income households w/ cost burden > 30% 350 1,100 1,450 Percentage w/ cost burden > 30% 86.4% 91.3% 90.1%
Number of ELI households w/ cost burden > 50% 300 915 1,215 Percentage w/ cost burden > 50% 74.1% 75.9% 75.5%
Household Income < 80% MFI (Lower Income)
Total LI households in jurisdiction 1,515 3,330 4,845
Number of lower-income households w/ cost burden > 30% 925 2,350 3,275 Percentage w/ cost burden > 30% 61.1% 70.6% 67.6%
Number of lower-income households w/ cost burden > 50% 570 1,310 1,880 Percentage w/ cost burden > 50% 37.6% 39.3% 38.8%
Total Lower-Income Households with Cost Burden 1,515 3,330 4,845 Percentage of Total Lower-Income Households with Cost
Burden 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total Households with Cost Burden 1,275 2,565 3,840
Percentage of Total Households with Cost Burden 31.8% 50.2% 42.1% Source: CHAS, 2018-2022, CHAS Data.
7 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. 1718
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-42 AUGUST 2026
Approximately 75.5 percent of extremely low-income households had a housing cost burden greater than
50.0 percent in 2022. In all three of the lower-income categories (extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households), 67.6 percent had a cost burden greater than 30.0 percent and 38.8 percent had a cost burden greater than 50.0 percent. The percentage of renters with this cost burden was higher than owners 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, 42.1 percent were cost burdened in 2022.
Table 4-22 shows the number of households by tenure that has any housing problems according to the 2018- 2022 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 30.0 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, 2,400 households (84.2 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, 72.1 percent reported having any housing problem, and 88.14 percent of renteroccupied households also experienced any of the housing problems.
TABLE 4-22
HOUSING PROBLEMS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME CLASSIFICATION
South Lake Tahoe
2022
South Lake Tahoe
Owners Renters Total
Household income 30% AMI with any housing problem 350 1,120 1,470 Household income > 30% 50% AMI with any housing
problem 155 775 930
Percentage of households (50% AMI) with any housing
problem 72.1% 88.1% 84.2%
Source: 2018-2022 CHAS.
4.3.5.5 Ability to Pay for Housing
The following section compares 2025 income levels and ability to pay for housing with actual housing costs. Housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30.0 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 moderate-income 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 following list shows the definition of housing income limits as they are applied to housing units in El Dorado County, including South Lake Tahoe.
▪ Acutely Low-Income Unit: Affordable to households whose combined income is at or lower than 15.0 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe, as established by HUD. 1719
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-43
▪ Extremely Low-Income Unit: Affordable to households whose combined income is between the floor set at the minimum Supplemental Security Income and 30.0 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
50.0 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 51.0 and 80.0 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
81.0 and 100.0 percent of the median income for South Lake Tahoe as established by HUD.
Note that HCD defines the median income as 100.0-percent AMI. ▪ Moderate-Income Unit: Affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between
81.0 and 120.0 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 120.0 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 $120,800 in 2025. 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
2025
Income Categories
Persons per Household
1 2 3 4 5
Acutely Low Income $12,650 $14,500 $16,300 $18,100 $19,550 Extremely Low Income $27,050 $30,900 $34,750 $38,600 $41,700 Very Low Income $45,450 $51,450 $57,900 $64,300 $69,450 Low Income $72,050 $82,350 $92,650 $102,900 $111,150
Median Income $84,550 $96,650 $108,700 $120,800 $130,450 Moderate Income $101,450 $115,950 $130,450 $144,950 $156,550 Source: HCD FY 2025 El Dorado County Income Limits.
The HCD income limits for acutely low-, 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 2020-2024 Census 1720
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-44 AUGUST 2026
ACS, South Lake Tahoe’s median family income was $105,750, compared to $132,976 for El Dorado County.8
Table 4-24 shows the 2025 HCD household income limits for El Dorado County by the number of persons in the household for the lower five 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 (80.0 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $92,650 in 2025. A household with this income could afford to pay a monthly gross rent (including utilities) of up to $2,316 or to purchase a house priced at or below $233,500.
TABLE 4-24
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING BASED ON HCD INCOME LIMITS
El Dorado County
2025
Acutely Low-Income Households at 15% of 2025 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 $12,650 $14,500 $16,300 $18,100 $19,550 $21,000 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $316 $363 $408 $453 $489 $525
Max. Purchase Price2 $45,000 $52,000 $58,000 $65,000 $70,000 $75,000 Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2025 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 $27,050 $30,900 $34,750 $38,600 $41,700 $44,800 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $676 $773 $869 $965 $1,043 $1,120 Max. Purchase Price2 $68,200 $78,000 $87,700 $97,300 $111,100 $127,300 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2025 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 $45,450 $51,450 $57,900 $64,300 $69,450 $74,600 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,136 $1,286 $1,448 $1,608 $1,736 $1,865 Max. Purchase Price2 $113,600 $129,700 $146,000 $162,100 $175,100 $188,000 Low-Income Households at 80% of 2025 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 $72,050 $82,350 $92,650 $102,900 $111,150 $119,400 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,801 $2,059 $2,316 $2,573 $2,779 $2,985 8 The 2020-2024 ACS estimate of median family income is $105,750 and the 2025 HCD Income Limit estimate of median household income for a family of four is $120,800. For the sake of the analysis in this section, a comparison between the City and County data from the same source (2020-2024 ACS) is more accurate. However, the State has approved the 2025 HCD Income Limits, so that data source is used as the primary estimate of median household income in this Housing Element. 1721
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-45
Max. Purchase Price2 $181,600 $207,500 $233,500 $259,400 $280,100 $300,900 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2025 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 $101,450 $115,950 $130,450 $144,950 $156,550 $168,150 Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,536 $2,899 $3,261 $3,624 $3,914 $4,204 Max. Purchase Price2 $273,700 $312,900 $351,900 $391,100 $422,400 $470,500 Sources: HCD FY 2025 El Dorado County Income Limits; PlaceWorks, 2026. 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 7.00% annual interest rate.
Table 4-25 shows HUD-defined fair-market rent levels (FMR) for El Dorado County in 2026. 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.9 HUD uses FMRs for a variety of purposes: FMRs also determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, HCV 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 (80.0 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $92,650 could afford to pay $2,316 monthly gross rent (including utilities). The 2026 FMR for a two-bedroom unit in El Dorado County was $2,255. 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 (50.0 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $57,900 could afford to pay only $1,448 for monthly gross rent. This household could not afford the FMR of $2,255 for a two-bedroom unit nor the FMR of $1,832 for a one-bedroom unit.
Households with incomes below 50.0 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. 9 According to HUD, “the level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standardquality 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.” 1722
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-46 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-25
HUD FAIR MARKET RENT
El Dorado County
2026
Bedrooms in Unit Fair-Market Rent (FMR)
Studio $1,748
1 Bedroom $1,832
2 Bedrooms $2,255
3 Bedrooms $3,002
4 Bedrooms $3,460
Source: HUD User Data Sets: 2026 FY FMR
4.3.5.6 Housing Costs
4.3.5.6.1 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 2020-2024 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 2024 for South Lake Tahoe was $1,606. As shown in Table 4-26, the median contract rent in South Lake Tahoe in 2024 ($1,450) was about the same as El Dorado County ($1,452). The median gross rent in South Lake Tahoe in 2024 ($1,606) was lower than the county ($1,715). While rents were slightly more affordable in South Lake Tahoe, median incomes in the city were 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
2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Median contract rent $1,450 $1,452
Median gross rent $1,606 $1,715
Source: US Census, 2020-2024, ACS 5-Year Estimates.
1723
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-47
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 2026 for apartments and homes in South Lake Tahoe.
These current average rents were estimated based on rental listings in March 2026. Most rents do not include utility costs. Average monthly rents for units that are studios to two bedrooms are lower than the HUD FMR shown in Table 4-25, but monthly rents for 3 and 4 bedrooms are higher than HUD FMR figures. At these rent levels, an average one-bedroom rental ($1,670 monthly rent) would likely be affordable (depending on utility costs) to a two-person low-income household (can afford $2,059 monthly rent and utilities).
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 $965 for monthly rent and utilities. The average rent for a three-bedroom apartment or house ($3,516) is over three times the affordable price limit for an extremely low-income family.
TABLE 4-27
AVERAGE RENTS
South Lake Tahoe
2026
Number of
Bedrooms Average Rent Range Number of Listings
Studio $1,141 $1,000 to $2,200 10
1 Bedroom $1,670 $1,095 to $2,450 13
2 Bedrooms $1,955 $1,574 to $2,400 13
3 Bedrooms $3,516 $1,826 to $7,500 14
4 Bedrooms $4,662 $2,800 to $8,820 8
5 Bedrooms $6,050 $3,800 to $9,900 4
Source: Zillow.com, Listings for South Lake Tahoe, March 1 through May 1, 2026.
4.3.5.6.2 Value of Homes Sold
Table 4-28 summarizes the median sales prices for single-family homes sold in South Lake Tahoe each year between 2013 and 2026. Since 2013, housing prices have more than doubled, and the average home price in 2021 was $599,000 and in 2022 was $721,000. The significant annual percentage change in median sales prices between 2020 and 2022 can be attributed to housing market volatility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, housing prices have remained relatively consistent. 1724
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-48 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-28
MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
South Lake Tahoe
2013–2026
Year Median Sales Price % Change1
2013 $254,500 3.2%
2014 $334,000 31.2%
2015 $350,000 4.8%
2016 $370,000 5.7%
2017 $425,000 14.9%
2018 $449,000 5.6%
2019 $475,000 5.8%
2020 $475,000 0.0%
2021 $599,000 26.1%
2022 $721,000 20.4%
2023 $710,000 -1.5%
2024 $699,000 -1.5%
2025 $700,000 0.1%
2026 $695,000 -0.7%
1. Percentage change is over a 12-month period, with all sales prices occurring in March in the corresponding year.
Source: South Tahoe Association of REALTORS® Multiple Listing Service Table 4-29 shows the median listing prices by number of bedrooms for single-family homes on the market in March 2026. The majority of single-family homes on the market during this time had between two and four bedrooms. The median listing price for two-bedroom single-family homes in March 2026 was $502,500. The median listing price for three-bedroom homes was $785,000 and $969,500 for four-bedroom homes in March 2026.
Almost all homes were out of the price range of what moderate-income families of all sizes in South Lake Tahoe can afford in 2026. For example, the medium listing price for a two-bedroom house in 2026 was $502,500, while the maximum purchase price for a family of three with moderate income was $351,900 in 2025. Larger homes of four or more bedrooms were also out of the price range of many larger families in South Lake Tahoe. For example, a low-income family of five could afford a maximum purchase price of $280,100, and a moderate-income family of five could afford a maximum purchase price of $422,400. 1725
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-49
TABLE 4-29
MEDIAN LISTING PRICE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
South Lake Tahoe
2026
Number of Bedrooms Median Listing Price Number of Listings 1 $399,000 13
2 $502,500 24
3 $785,000 37
4 $969,500 24
5 $1,099,000 11
6+ $2,298,000 7
Source: Redfin.com. Search of homes listed in South Lake Tahoe, March 27, 2026.
Table 4-30 shows the median sales price of single-family homes in the Lake Tahoe area in March 2026. As shown in Table 4-30, the median sale price in South Lake Tahoe in that time frame was $695,000. Prices in the North Lake Tahoe area were nearly 58 percent greater than those in South Lake Tahoe, with a median sale price of $1,100,000. El Dorado County median home prices were slightly higher than South Lake Tahoe at $710,000.
TABLE 4-30
MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
Lake Tahoe Area
2026
Area Median Sales Price % Difference from
South Lake Tahoe
South Lake Tahoe $695,000 -
North Lake Tahoe Area $1,100,000 58.3%
El Dorado County $710,000 2.2%
California $855,300 23.1%
Source: Lee, Trudi, 2026, January 13, 2026 North Lake Tahoe Real Estate Market Report, https://www.northtahoehomes.com/2026-north-lake-tahoe-real-estate-market-report/; Redfin El Dorado County and California Housing Market Reports for March 2026.
4.3.5.7 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.
1726
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-50 AUGUST 2026
4.3.5.7.1 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 find suitable housing. The following subsections discuss these special housing needs of seven groups identified in state housing element law (California Government Code, Section 65583[a][7]): “elderly, persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities), extremely low-income households, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of household, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.” In addition to these seven groups, the section also discusses the needs of students and seasonal employees, and tourist-based 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.
4.3.5.7.2 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 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. However, HUD mandates the PIT count that requires every Continuum of Care to count all unsheltered individuals and families every two years and sheltered individuals and families every year.
Homeless persons are also unlikely to have stable employment, which makes housing opportunities limited.
There are currently no homeless shelters in South Lake Tahoe, but there have been emergency winter motel voucher programs for adults and youth. In addition, the Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless purchased three properties through HomeKey in 2020, of which, all three properties are used 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 2026, the El Dorado Opportunity Knocks Continuum of Care (EDOK CoC) conducted both a sheltered and unsheltered PIT count on the night spanning January 28–29. “Sheltered homelessness” refers to individuals experiencing homelessness who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or Safe Haven programs during the count. A total of 278 people were experiencing homelessness countywide, including 147 people experiencing sheltered homelessness (113 in emergency shelter and 34 in transitional housing) and 131 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Of the people surveyed, 64 individuals were identified as experiencing chronic homelessness. Due to the inclement winter weather in South Lake 1727
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-51
Tahoe, it is conceivable that the city’s summertime population of homeless residents is higher, but the wintertime count is the only available data.
TABLE 4-31
HOMELESSNESS
El Dorado County1
2026
Status Total Homeless (all ages)
Total Homeless 278
Total Sheltered 147
Total Unsheltered 131
Total Chronically Homeless 64
Total Chronically Sheltered 43
Total Chronically Unsheltered 21
Source: El Dorado County, 2026, Point-in-Time Count Report, El Dorado Opportunity Knocks.
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 CDBG funds in April 2021 to assist Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless (TCH) with rehabilitation of the Bear’s Den Inn, one of the HomeKey properties that provides permanent supportive housing to people experiencing homelessness. In August 2024, the City awarded TCH an additional $1,286,038 in CDBG funds for the rehabilitation of Bear’s Den Inn, bringing the total investment to $1,791,670. As of early 2026, 12 units are operational under a temporary certificate of occupancy, serving 12 clients, with renovations ongoing. Once complete, the Bear’s Den Inn will provide 22 units, and TCH will operate 72 total units across its three properties.
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 and no longer had funds to maintain the shelter. In response to the closure, TCH obtained CARE and HomeKey funds to purchase three motels in South Lake Tahoe to offer a non-congregate option, and their three properties, the Bear’s Den Inn, Red Lodge, and Bird's Nest, now provide permanent supportive housing, with a total of 72 units once all renovations are finalized. In addition to its permanent housing, TCH operates a 16-bed Medical Respite Shelter, which includes three daily meals, and on-site case management. TCH has also added new programs, including rapid re-housing, a domestic violence rental assistance program (ARISE), and street outreach services. El Dorado County opened its first navigation center in Placerville in February 2024, operated by Volunteers of America, providing short-term shelter for up to 60 individuals. The Navigation Center is in a temporary location and will close in 2027. The new Navigation Center will be constructed and cater to families and participants will be required to opt into services. EDOK CoC contracted with the City and TCH for emergency motel vouchers (Shelter Pass) during the 2025–2026 winter. Tahoe Youth and Family Services also contracts with the EDOK CoC to provide motel vouchers to Transitional Age Youth during the winters. TCH also provides scheduled access to shower and hygiene facilities, a community computer, telehealth services, and a mailing address for qualifying individuals. TCH is sometimes able to make referrals to shelters or assistance programs, such as Salvation Army in Carson City or Reno. These referrals serve people who are not California residents (with identification from another state). Table 4-32 identifies facilities serving people experiencing homelessness in El Dorado County. 1728
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-52 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-32
HOMELESS FACILITIES
El Dorado County¹
2024
Facility Type Total Beds (excluding Seasonal)
Emergency Shelter (TCH – South Lake Tahoe) 16
Emergency Shelter (El Dorado Navigation Center – Placerville) 60 Transitional Housing 71
Rapid Re-Housing 70
Permanent Supportive Housing 39
Other Permanent Housing 92
Total 346
¹ Numbers are provided for the El Dorado Opportunity Knocks Continuum of Care.
Source: HUD FY 2023 Housing Inventory Count, El Dorado County CoC (CA-525); Volunteers of America El Dorado Navigation Center, 2024; Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless, 2025.
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 Health and 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.
Various local-serving organizations are working to ensure that all residents in the South Lake Tahoe community have enough to eat through their weekly food programs. Other agencies that provide services to the homeless in South Lake Tahoe are:
1729
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-53
▪ Meals on Wheels. The City of South Lake Tahoe Senior Center operates the Meals on Wheels program for senior nutrition services. Individuals 60 and older can stop by the Senior Center Monday through Friday from 11:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. for a hot meal at a suggested $3 donation, or call in advance and order to go. The Meals on Wheels program continues to serve approximately 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, with Wednesdays reserved for disabled veterans. 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, bags with food items that do not require cooking are also available. ▪ Bread & Broth. Bread & Broth is operated by the parish of St. Theresa’s. The program receives funding from community donations and grants. Bread & Broth serves a hot meal every Monday and Friday in the evening and provides “giveaway” bags with canned and fresh food. St. Theresa’s also offers a Bread & Broth 4 Kids program, which provides weekend bags of food for school-aged children identified as food insecure by school staff. Bags are distributed at all four elementary schools, the middle school, and the high school. Tot food bags are also provided at five local childcare centers that serve local low-income families, as well as at Catalyst Community. Over the summer, the program also provides food bags for all children under the age of 18, available for pick-up on Wednesdays at St. Theresa’s. Bread & Broth does not generally help with shelter; however, it can assist with clothing and household items from The Attic, Barton Health’s no-cost clothing and food distribution program (formerly a thrift shop; retail operations ended in 2023), and gas vouchers.
▪ 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. ▪ South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center. The South Lake Tahoe FRC provides basic need services, educational opportunities, family advocacy, and bilingual counseling to South Lake Tahoe residents. FRC operates as one of the only consistent food banks in the area, serving approximately 1,000 regulars per month and 500 “unique” individuals (only accessing one service or one pointin-time). They also provide drop-in hours in collaboration with Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless in English and Spanish to conduct intake.
▪ Tahoe Youth and Family Services. Tahoe Youth and Family Services (TYFS) have been serving local youth and families in the community, specifically focusing on homeless youth. They provide supportive services and housing, mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and street outreach.
▪ Vista Rise Collective. Vista Rise is a community service nonprofit providing shelter, counseling, housing assistance, and advocacy for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Services include a 24/7 crisis line, a confidential 10-bed safe house (typical stay of 30–90 days), transitional housing for up to six individuals (6 months to 1 year), a Housing First program, 1730
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-54 AUGUST 2026
trauma-informed therapy, and community education. Many of their clients are at-risk or experience homelessness.
▪ Other Programs. Other organizations and programs that serve the homeless population of South Lake Tahoe include the El Dorado County Food Bank. 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 throughout the county. Tahoe Youth & Family Services provides temporary shelter care for runaway/homeless youth.
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 HomeKey properties provide permanent supportive housing with a total of 72 units once all renovations at the Bear’s Den Inn are finalized. As of early 2026, 12 units at the Bear’s Den Inn are operational under a temporary certificate of occupancy, with renovations ongoing.
In addition, TCH operates a year-round 16-bed medical respite. The City partnered with TCH for the 2025– 2026 Winter Emergency motel voucher program. 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 additional emergency shelter capacity in, or near, the city. During warmer summer months, many of the city’s homeless residents camp on California Tahoe Conservancy and US Forest Service land, despite continuous efforts from TCH to relocate and house these residents, increasing the threat of wildfires and damages to the natural environment.
4.3.5.7.3 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 2022 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture, 1,270 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 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture reported 305 farmworkers who worked more than 150 days annually in El Dorado County. Approximately 965 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. 1731
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-55
TABLE 4-33
FARMWORKERS
El Dorado County and California
2022
El Dorado County California
Hired farm labor (farms) 266 26,053
Hired farm labor (workers) 1,270 372,134
Workers by days worked - 150 days or more 305 205,171
Workers by days worked - Less than 150 days 965 166,963 Source: USDA, 2022, USDA Census of Agriculture.
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.
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.
4.3.5.7.4 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 “reasonable modifications.” ▪ 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. 1732
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-56 AUGUST 2026
▪ 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 (SSI), which is currently $1,233.94/month for those living independently as of 2026. Further, there is an even greater scarcity of low-income housing that is barrier-free. 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.
SSI, administered by the Social Security Administration, 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 $1,233.94 as of 2026, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty finding housing that fits within their budgets.
Some people with mobility and/or self-care limitations 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 necessary 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 2024, there were approximately 1,324 persons, or 9.5 percent of the total population, living with a disability in South Lake Tahoe. Of the disabled population, about 40.0 percent were over the age of 65. There were also 761 disabled persons age 18 to 64 who were employed, while 35 disabled persons in the same age range were unemployed.
TABLE 4-34
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Age 18-64, Employed Persons with a Disability 761 5.4% 4,132 3.8% Age 18-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability 35 0.3% 535 0.5% Persons Aged 65 Plus with a Disability 528 3.8% 5,001 4.6% TOTAL PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY 1,324 9.5% 9,668 8.9%
TOTAL POPULATION (CIVILIAN, NONINSTITUTIONAL) 13,994 100.0% 109,231 100.0% 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.
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
1733
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-57
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 2020-2024 ACS on the types of disabilities by age group in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. As shown in the table, there were 2,583 disabilities reported for South Lake Tahoe residents, and 24,191 for El Dorado County residents. Some residents may have more than one disability, so those numbers are not representative of the total people with disabilities. For South Lake Tahoe, the most common disability for people under 65 years old and for people 65 years old or above was ambulatory difficulty. For El Dorado County, the most common disability for people under 65 years old was cognitive difficulty and the most common disability for people over 65 years old or above was ambulatory difficulty.
TABLE 4-35
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY DISABILITY TYPE
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
Disability Type
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Total Disabilities 2,583 100.0% 24,191 100.0%
Total Disabilities for Ages 18-64 1,324 51.3% 9,668 40.0% Hearing Difficulty 170 12.8% 1,770 18.3%
Vision Difficulty 172 13.0% 1,263 13.1%
Cognitive Difficulty 490 37.0% 4,607 47.7%
Ambulatory Difficulty 506 38.2% 3,240 33.5%
Self-Care Difficulty 175 13.2% 1,091 11.3%
Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and over 1,028 39.8% 12,942 53.5% Hearing Difficulty 477 46.4% 6,095 47.1%
Vision Difficulty 203 19.7% 1,833 14.2%
Cognitive Difficulty 194 18.9% 3,188 24.6%
Ambulatory Difficulty 568 55.3% 7,247 56.0%
Self-Care Difficulty 156 15.2% 2,373 18.3%
Independent Living Difficulty 299 29.1% 4,951 38.3%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
1734
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-58 AUGUST 2026
Several facilities in El Dorado County assist people with disabilities. The Alta California Regional Center, with a field office in South Lake Tahoe, is a coordinating agency for group homes and other housing options assisting the developmentally disabled population. As of 2026, the State Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to over 450,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The Alta California Regional Center (ACRC) 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 June 2024, served an estimated 34,140 persons, with less than 1 percent of those clients (at least 341 persons) served in South Lake Tahoe. Program 4-2 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 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 have physical disabilities, developmental disabilities, or mental health disabilities. In addition, El Dorado County has two facilities for adult day care, neither of which are 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 143 people had a developmental disability in South Lake Tahoe in 2026. This population makes up 1.0 percent of the total population. El Dorado County had a similar percentage of population with a developmental disability at 1.6 percent. The largest age group in South Lake Tahoe was 17 years or younger, with 0.6 percent of the developmentally disabled population.
TABLE 4-36
POPULATION WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2026
Age
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
17 years or younger <83 0.6% <853 0.8%
18+ years <70 0.5% <900 0.8%
Total Developmental Disability Population <143 1.0% <1,753 1.6% Total Population 13,994 100.0% 109,231 100.0%
Source: Alta California Regional Center, May 2026.
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 South Lake Tahoe with developmental disabilities, as reported by the Alta California Regional Center. As identified in Table 4-37, a majority of the county’s population with 1735
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-59
developmental disabilities live in the area associated with the 96150 zip code (South Lake Tahoe), which has a population of at least 134 persons. 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.
TABLE 4-37
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS BY RESIDENCE TYPE
South Lake Tahoe
2026
Zip Code
Home of
Parent /
Family /
Guardian
Independent/
Supported
Living
Community
Care Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster /
Family
Home
Other Total
96150 121 13 0 0 0 0 134
96151 5 0 0 0 0 0 5
96155 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
96156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
96158 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Source: Alta California Regional Center, 2026.
Disabled persons often require special housing features to accommodate physical limitations. Some disabled persons may experience financial difficulty in finding 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 due to the age of the structures and building code requirements at that time. 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) and California Building Code (CBC) 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.
1736
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-60 AUGUST 2026
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 three-bedroom 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.
Sugar Pine Village is the most recent and largest affordable housing development that expanded the efforts of housing affordability regionally. The initial phases of the project, which included 128 affordable apartments, were completed in September 2024 and July 2025. The third phase of the project is completed and the lease up date is in September 2026. The project will have a total of 248 affordable units. It was developed in partnership between Related California and St. Joseph Community Land Trust as a result of Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-06-19 to utilize excess State-owned land for affordable housing development in response to California’s acute housing crisis. The project incorporates universal design principles throughout the development, including accessible building entrances, adaptable unit layouts, mobility accommodations, and community-oriented spaces that support residents of varying physical abilities. Located near transit, healthcare services, shopping, and recreational amenities, the project also provides on-site features such as community gathering areas, supportive services access, and connections to daily needs. Sugar Pine Village helps address a critical need for accessible and supportive housing in the South Lake Tahoe community.
4.3.5.7.5 Senior Households
Seniors are defined as persons 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 1737
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-61
limited incomes from Social Security and other retirement benefits. These older adults may benefit from assistance related to:
▪ Repair and maintenance, including defensible space and insurance costs and requirements of owned dwelling 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 is up to two years and the waiting list for Kelly Ridge (Tahoe Senior Plaza II) is up to one year. ▪ 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.
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 2017 and 2024. 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 2024, senior households represented 25.7 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe compared to 36.0 percent in El Dorado County. Both the city and county’s 2024 numbers represent an increase of more than three percentage points from the number of senior households in 2017.
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
17.1 percent of senior households owned their homes in 2024, compared to 51.3 percent of owner-occupied households citywide.
TABLE 4-38
SENIOR POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2017 2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County # % # % # % # %
Population
Total Population 21,680 100.0% 185,015 100.0% 21,269 100.0% 192,823 100.0% Number of Persons
65 years and older 3,349 15.5% 34,950 18.9% 3,866 18.2% 45,254 23.5% Households
Total Households 8,882 100.0% 68,084 100.0% 9,519 100.0% 76,185 100.0% Senior-Headed
Households 2,151 24.2% 20,676 30.4% 2,445 25.7% 27,429 36.0% Owner 1452 16.4% 17,717 26.0% 1,626 17.1% 23,639 31.0%
Renter 699 7.9% 2,959 4.4% 819 8.6% 3,790 5.0%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
1738
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-62 AUGUST 2026
Data from the El Dorado County HMIS shows a steady increase in the number of seniors served, rising from 250 total adults served in 2020 to 499 in 2025. Within that growth, the share of adults served who are age 65 or older increased from 7 percent in 2020 to 12 percent in 2025. This trend is echoed in the county’s PIT sheltered counts, where the number of people age 65 and older in an emergency shelter grew from 10 in 2024 to 23 in 2025, while the number in transitional housing declined slightly from 4 to 3 over the same period.
According to the El Dorado CoC’s March 2026 report, 90 people age 65 and older were active on the county’s Coordinated Entry By-Name List, with 62 assessed as medium acuity, 25 as high acuity, and nine as low acuity. Of these individuals, 11 were identified as veterans and 31 were experiencing chronic homelessness.
As shown in Table 4-39, most senior households fall within low-income groups. Over 60.0 percent of senior households earn less than $74,999 and most households in this category are considered low-income; 23.1 percent of senior households are considered extremely low income, earning up to $24,999 annually.
TABLE 4-39
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP
South Lake Tahoe
2024
Household Income Groups Number Percentage
Extremely Low ($0 to $24,999) 566 23.1%
Very Low ($25,000 to $44,999) 452 18.5%
Low Income ($45,000 to $74,999) 479 19.6%
Moderate and Above Moderate ($75,000 or more) 948 38.8% Total 2,445 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
4.3.5.7.6 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 30.0 percent of a household’s income). 1739
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-63
▪ 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.
As shown previously in Table 4-16, 5.7 percent of all households in South Lake Tahoe had five or more persons in 2024. Of the large households, 276 were owner-occupied households and 267 were renteroccupied households. The percentage of large households in South Lake Tahoe was smaller than the percentage of large households in El Dorado County (5.7 and 8.4 percent, respectively). As shown in Table 4-16 (see previous) and Table 4-40, there are significantly more large ownership housing units (1,068 units with four or more bedrooms) than large ownership households (276 large households), but there are fewer larger renter housing units (134 units) than large renter households (267). 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
2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Renters Owners Renters Owners
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Total
Occupied
Units
4,634 100.0% 4,885 100.0% 17,341 100.0% 58,844 100.0%
No
bedrooms 393 8.5% 0 0.0% 787 4.5% 220 0.4%
1 bedroom 1,276 27.5% 199 4.1% 3,459 19.9% 846 1.4%
2 to 3
bedrooms 2,831 61.1% 3,618 74.1% 11,788 68.0% 36,992 62.9% 4 or more
bedrooms 134 2.9% 1,068 21.9% 1,307 7.5% 20,786 35.3%
Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
1740
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-64 AUGUST 2026
4.3.5.7.7 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 near childcare facilities, schools, youth services, medical facilities, and senior services.
Table 4-41 shows female-headed households in South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. Of the 4,969 family households in the city in 2024, 863 were female-headed households, or 6.2 percent of the family households in South Lake Tahoe, compared with 5.8 percent in El Dorado County. Of the female-headed households in the city, 307 had children under 18 (11.2 percent of all family households); in the county, there were 3,076 female-headed households with children under 18 (6.0 percent of all family households).
TABLE 4-41
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County
2024
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 4,969 100.0% 53,306 100.0%
TOTAL FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS 863 6.2% 6,253 5.8%
Female-Headed Households with Children under
18 307 11.2% 3,076 6.0%
Female-Headed Households with no Children 556 17.4% 3,177 11.7% Source: US Census, 2020-2024 ACS 5-Year Estimate.
Vista Rise Collective includes a 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 income-based 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, such as 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, while others need assistance over the course of a year or two. The goal of Vista Rise Collective 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 1741
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-65
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 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 the 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.
4.3.5.7.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Extremely low-income households are defined as those households making under 30.0 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.
According to HCD, more than 17.6 percent of households in South Lake Tahoe were in the extremely lowincome category in 2022. Of those, 10.1 percent were owners and 23.6 percent were renters. As shown in Table 4-42, 91.3 percent of extremely low-income renter households and 86.4 percent of extremely lowincome ownership households were overpaying for housing (spending more than 30.0 percent of their income on their housing costs) and 75.9 percent of renters and 74.1 percent of owners, respectively, were severely overpaying for housing (spending more than 50.0 percent of their income on housing costs). Table 4-21 also details cost burdens for extremely low-income 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. Program 4-2 is proposed to address the needs of extremely low-income households and residents.
TABLE 4-42
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
South Lake Tahoe
2022
Renters Owners Total
Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
Total ELI Households 1,205 23.6% 405 10.1% 1,610 17.6%
Percentage with cost
burden > 30% 1,100 91.3% 350 86.4% 350 3.8%
Percentage with cost
burden > 50% 915 75.9% 300 74.1% 1,215 3.3%
Source: 2018-2022 CHAS.
1742
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-66 AUGUST 2026
4.3.5.7.9 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 7,500 students. The college has 751 full-time students and 3,289 part-time students, primarily either local area 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 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.
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 feasibility study in 2019 to evaluate student housing development options, which identified challenges related to developer financing, market-rate rents, and uncertain student demand. These efforts, driven by LTCC’s Measure F bond program, led to LTCC securing a $39.3 million State grant to fund construction of new on-campus housing. LTCC’s on-campus housing officially opened in fall 2025.
The residence hall offers 100 beds for full-time, income-qualifying students. LTCC also offers nearcampus, apartment-style housing options. The City will continue to work with LTCC to address remaining student and faculty housing needs.
4.3.5.7.10 Tourist-Based Employee Housing Needs
Unlike in many other communities, the primary backbone of South Lake Tahoe’s economy is the touristbased service industry. Hotel employees, restaurant workers, casino workers, ski instructors, and boat and bike rental employees 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. Vail Resorts, which owns both Heavenly Mountain Resort and Kirkwood Mountain Resort, is the primary provider of employer-sponsored workforce housing in the area. Vail Resorts has expanded its housing capacity and now controls approximately 43 units to house about 147 employees across South Lake Tahoe through a combination of owned properties and long-term master leases on motel properties in South Lake Tahoe. During peak season, employment at Heavenly 1743
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-67
Mountain Resort alone can reach approximately 1,500 workers, and Kirkwood up to 950. With the number of employees far exceeding the number of available beds, 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. This is a fairly common practice among many mountain resort towns due to the high number of employees needed. 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.
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 other employers in the region to create affordable employee housing for full-time city residents and seasonal employees working in tourist-based industries.
4.3.5.7.11 Local Middle-Income 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 are key members of the local community. Nationwide, these workers are having difficulty finding safe, affordable homes in the communities that they serve. These households may earn too much to qualify for traditional affordable housing but not enough to afford market-rate homeownership. The housing 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 $91,000-$110,000 can afford to spend approximately $415,000-$503,000 to purchase a home. With a current 2026 median home sales price of $695,000, 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 homes that they can afford. These commutes, especially during the harsh Tahoe winters, are not only long but dangerous. 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 middle-income housing, which refers to housing that is affordable for working households that do not qualify for traditional affordable housing and cannot afford market-rate housing in their own community.
1744
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-68 AUGUST 2026
4.4 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 of South Lake Tahoe (City) has completed the following outreach and analysis.
4.4.1 Outreach
As discussed in the Public Participation section of the Housing Element, the City hosted three in-person community workshops, a general community workshop, a Spanish-language workshop at the Family Resource Center’s Cafecitos meeting, and a business community workshop 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, flyers 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. At each workshop, the City provided an overview of the Housing Element update and solicited public input on the element and process. Comments emphasized the 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 5-4 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 that is 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 1745
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-69
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 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 4-45). 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 5-4 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.
4.4.2 Fair Housing Issues
California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii) requires the City 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 2026 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Maps, South Lake Tahoe does not include any areas of high segregation or poverty (Figures 4-4A and 4-4B). TCAC identifies areas within the city limits of South Lake Tahoe as primarily Moderate Resource across most of the city. The central portion of the city (Tract 303.02) and the western area (Tract 304.03) carry High Resource designations, as does the northeastern edge of the city (Tract 316.01). The majority of remaining tracts within city limits carry Moderate Resource designations. There are no Low Resource or Lowest Resource tracts within city limits. However, census tracts that are largely outside of the 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, including areas such as Washoe Meadows State Park. While the Moderate Resource designations within the city may reflect a relatively lower level of access to opportunity compared to the High Resource designations in the city’s core, the High and Highest Resource designations outside the city limit do not accurately reflect conditions in those areas. Some of the indicators included in TCAC and HCD’s methodology to determine the final resource designation include high levels of employment and in 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.
Starting in the 2025 analysis, some of the methodology was updated to raise the population density floor used to assign resource categories, specifically to address concerns that sparsely populated rural block groups consisting primarily of open space, agricultural land, or national forest were receiving High Resource designations unsuitable for affordable housing development. This threshold however only applies to block groups that are predominantly uninhabited open space. Block groups that overlap city boundaries and include a mix of residential development and adjacent national forest land may still receive High or 1746
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-70 AUGUST 2026
Highest Resource designations. 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 such. 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 in the sections that follow, 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 4-45), 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 indicators that contribute to high-opportunity areas are those that are discussed in Section 4.4.2.2, Access to Opportunity, and Section 4.4.2.3, Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk. In contrast, the indicators analyzed in Section 4.4.2.1, 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,10 and 2018-2022 ACS, 11 the US Smart
Location Database,12 and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).13 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. With the exception of TCAC resource area maps, the maps presented in this assessment were generated by the City using data provided through HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, a standardized mapping tool developed by HCD for use in fair housing analyses. The data years reflected in these maps may differ from those used in the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) section of this Housing Element. A reference map identifying the census tract boundaries and numbers cited throughout this assessment is provided as Figure 4-4. TCAC/HCD resource area designations by region and local area are shown in Figures 4-5A and 4-5B.
4.4.2.1 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, except for 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 10 State of California Office of the State Treasurer, 2026, CTCAC HCD Opportunity Area Maps, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, 2018-2022 American Community Survey, https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021, Smart Location Database, https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smartlocation-mapping. 13 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021, CalEnviroScreen 4.0. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen.
1747
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-71
remains unaffordable for many residents, as described throughout this assessment. The concentration of poverty east of Ski Run Boulevard and south of Pioneer Trail corresponds with a larger percentage of nonWhite residents and renters, likely many of those who are employed in the commercial area east of Ski Run Boulevard 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 the Tahoe Keys area, the median income in 2022 ranged from $90,100 to $120,000, compared to $55,000 to $90,100 east of Ski Run Boulevard and less than $55,000 just west of Ski Run Boulevard (see Figure 4-6). The trends in the last decade indicate growing income gaps between the area surrounding Ski Run Boulevard and other South Lake Tahoe neighborhoods, which may have additional impacts on overpayment, overcrowding, and other fair housing issues.
1748
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-72 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-4: CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; HCD, 2026
1749
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-73
FIGURE 4-5A: TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, REGION Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; HCD, 2026
1750
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-74 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-5B: TCAC/HCD RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATIONS, LOCAL Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; HCD, 2026
1751
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-75
FIGURE 4-6: MEDIAN INCOME
Sources: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022.
1752
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-76 AUGUST 2026
As discussed in the Housing Characteristics and Trends section of the Needs Assessment, the median income in South Lake Tahoe is lower than in El Dorado County. According to ACS, the median household income in South Lake Tahoe was $82,002 in 2024, compared to $108,845 in El Dorado County. While this does represent a narrowing of the income gap compared to the 2015-2019 period, when South Lake Tahoe’s median of $49,390 and the county median was $83,377, income growth has not kept pace with rising housing costs. The discrepancy in income levels suggests that housing is unaffordable, and remains unaffordable, for residents of South Lake Tahoe. As shown in the cost burden data, approximately 50.2 percent of renter households and 31.8 percent of owner households are overpaying for housing, reflecting that even with income growth, housing costs have outpaced household earnings. 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 the Ski Run Boulevard neighborhood has a higher rate of poverty than all communities and jurisdictions, except for the area south of Tahoma (see Figures 4-7A and 4-7B). The area east of Ski Run Boulevard and south of Pioneer Trail has seen a slight increase in poverty level since 2019, increasing from 21.0 percent to 25.0 percent in 2022. The Tahoe 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 also experienced. The trends of income segregation because of where seasonal jobs and affordable housing are in the Tahoe Basin, 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 4-45 to increase the supply of affordable and other types of 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 67.0 percent of residents in South Lake Tahoe identify as White and approximately 74.0 percent of residents identify as non-Hispanic or Latino. There is a concentration of residents that identify as Hispanic or Latino in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail, where this population is the majority. As shown in Figure 4-8, Tracts 316.01 and 302.02 are the two areas within the city where Hispanic or Latino residents comprise the predominant population group, and both tracts also have a greater share of non-White residents compared to the rest of the city (Figure 4-9).
These tracts are north of Pioneer Trail and east of Ski Run Boulevard (Tract 316.01) and just south of Pioneer Trail to the west of Ski Run Boulevard (Tract 302.02). In the area east of Ski Run Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail, approximately 47.0 percent of the population was Hispanic or Latino in 2022. This area also has the highest concentration of poverty in the city, with approximately 25.0 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 50.0 percent or more of the population identifies as non-White and 40.0 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. 1753
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-77
FIGURE 4-7A: POVERTY STATUS, REGIONAL
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1754
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-78 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-7B: POVERTY STATUS, LOCAL
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1755
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-79
FIGURE 4-8: PREDOMINANT POPULATIONS
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1756
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-80 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-9: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1757
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-81
In contrast to the area east of Ski Run Boulevard in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood, 91.0 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 80.0 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income greater than $125,000 annually. While more than 80.0 percent of the population in Tahoe Keys is White, the median income was $105,278 in 2022, an increase of 18.1 percent from the 2019 estimate of $89,148. This continues an upward trend that has seen median household income in the neighborhood rise substantially over the past decade. At approximately $19,700 below the RCAA income threshold, and given the continued income growth, this neighborhood is approaching the conditions that could qualify it as an RCAA. 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 ADUs, multifamily housing, and deed-restricted affordable housing to increase the supply of more housing types that support various income levels throughout the city and promote a mixedincome neighborhood.
Familial Status
Female-headed households are identified as a special-needs group due to the challenges of working fulltime as a single parent. As shown in Figure 4-10, children living in female-headed households are present across several tracts in South Lake Tahoe, including in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood and other areas of the city. However, the presence of single-parent households in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood is notable given that the median household income there is $105,278. In contrast, in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, where the poverty rate is approximately 25.0 percent, over 80.0 percent of children live in a married-couple household. However, in the area east of Ski Run, approximately 40.0 to 60.0 percent of households are occupied by single adults living with a spouse, while Tahoe Keys reports 60.0 to 80.0 percent. While no neighborhoods are occupied by a majority of one family type, concentrations are present.
Families are 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 housing options affordable to locals 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 promote the conversion of single-family homes in the residential portions of the area east of Ski Run Boulevard to long-term rentals that would accommodate lower-income and moderate-income households who wish to stay in their neighborhood, as well as promote the availability of low- and moderate-income rental housing throughout the city to provide mobility opportunities (Program 3-9).
Familial trends mirror the Tahoe Basin 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 continue the Long-Term Rental Incentive Program (Program 3-9), which conducts targeted outreach to convert vacant and second homes into long-term rental housing for existing employees and seeks to expand rental opportunities in areas of concentrated affluence to promote housing mobility. Access to childcare is an important factor in supporting families with children, 1758
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-82 AUGUST 2026
particularly female-headed households. South Lake Tahoe has a Head Start program within the city, providing early childhood education and family support services. The Alternative Payment Program administered through Catalyst Community provides childcare subsidy vouchers for income-eligible families in El Dorado County. Additional childcare facilities that receive California Department of Education funding for subsidized childcare and preschool include Catalyst Kids and the Boys and Girls Club of Lake Tahoe. The presence of these resources may be one factor contributing to the concentration of female-headed households in the city relative to the broader region.
Disability
According to the 2018-2022 ACS, approximately 12.3 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s noninstitutionalized population has at least one disability, and 39.0 percent of those individuals were seniors, who are more likely to have an ambulatory, visual, or hearing disability. Among working-age residents with a disability (ages 18-64), ambulatory difficulty (38.2 percent) and cognitive difficulty (37.0 percent) are the most prevalent types. The percentage of the population with a disability has remained relatively stable and still reflects the SACOG and Tahoe regions and there are no high concentrations of persons with disabilities within the city (see Figure 4-11). Where concentrations do exist, they are associated with affordable housing projects that specifically target populations with disabilities, including senior housing, housing for persons with developmental disabilities, and permanent supportive housing. Outside of these specific developments, the population with disabilities is distributed throughout the city. The City has not received any requests for reasonable accommodation during the last planning period and only one permit for accessibility modifications (a residential ramp in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood in 2024) was issued.
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 1-5).
4.4.2.2 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 daily 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 HCVs, availability of rental and ownership opportunities throughout the city, and vacancy rates.
South Lake Tahoe residents are served by four transportation providers operated by the Tahoe Transportation District, El Dorado Transit, South Tahoe Transportation Management Association, and 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 and Route 55 offer 30-minute headways. Tahoe Transportation District routes operate seven days per week and the South Lake Tahoe Airporter, which connects residents to the Reno airport, operates at various times everyday. El Dorado Transit, in partnership with Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, operates a connecting bus route between Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains and serves 1759
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-83
Cameron Park, Placerville, and South Lake Tahoe. This route operates once a day from Sacramento to South Lake Tahoe and one route back, but will add more routes in the near future due to additional funding awarded. In July 2022, the South Shore Transportation Management Association, in partnership with the City, implemented an on-demand micro-transit service to address mobility gaps for residents in areas not well-served by this fixed-route transit to improve access to housing, employment, and services. 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 3.6, compared to 1.1 for El Dorado County and 3.8 for the SACOG region. This suggests that while South Lake Tahoe may have better transit opportunities than the immediate vicinity, there are stronger transit options elsewhere in the SACOG region, but not far out of reach. With a score of 3.6 against a regional average of 3.8, South Lake Tahoe’s transit performance is close behind the SACOG region as a whole, suggesting that the gap in service level is relatively modest.
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 5-5).
In addition to Program 5-5 in the Housing Element, the City has identified the following strategy in the City’s Strategic Plan 2025-2030 to promote alternative modes of transportation and connectivity:
▪ Priority 5: Improve Transportation. Improve mobility operations and quality by aligning policy, practice, and funding.
This priority includes action items to improve scooter safety for users and non-users, complete the conceptual US 50 Corridor Planning Study (including widened bike lanes, speed reduction, and a Y mobility hub), complete a Traffic Calming Toolbox, continue to support the Transit JPA and increase funding for Lakelink microtransit, increase annual road repair, prioritize the implementation of Complete Streets, and evaluate city-wide parking management strategies.
Housing Mobility
As discussed in the Tenure section of the Needs Assessment, approximately 48.7 percent of households are renters and 51.3 percent are owner-occupied, based on 2024 ACS data (4,634 renter households and 4,885 owner households, out of 9,519 total). The rental vacancy rate in South Lake Tahoe is 10.0 percent, while the ownership unit vacancy rate is 1.5 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 distributed across the city, HCV holders are concentrated primarily in the Bijou and in neighborhoods near the airport. Beginning January 1, 2020, under Senate Bill (SB) 329 (California Government Code Section 12927(i) and Section 12955), landlords must accept HCVs as an acceptable source of income for tenants.
Therefore, the concentration of voucher recipients may be due to a concentration of housing that is affordable with a voucher and that 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 $1,141 for a one-bedroom unit to $4,662 for a four-bedroom unit. HUD's established FMR for El Dorado County as part of the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade Metro Area has increased substantially since prior reporting periods, rising to $1,832 for a one-bedroom and $2,255 for a two-bedroom unit. As a result, average market rents for studios, one-bedroom, and twobedroom units are now at or below the FMR, suggesting that HCV holders may have improved ability to access smaller units. However, for larger households requiring three or more bedrooms, average market 1760
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-84 AUGUST 2026
rents continue to significantly exceed the FMR by $514 to over $1,200, making those units inaccessible to lower-income households without additional assistance. Overall, the high cost of housing relative to lowerincome wages continues to make much of the rental stock unattainable without subsidy. To improve housing mobility for residents, the City will encourage lot consolidation to facilitate the development of affordable housing with an emphasis on high-opportunity areas (Program 1-6), promote the construction of a variety of housing options throughout the city, emphasizing typically more affordable units such as ADUs (Programs 2-14), and educate landlords on the benefits of advertising their units to Section 8 voucher holders (Program 5-2).
Employment Opportunities
As shown in Figure 4-12, most of South Lake Tahoe has only 1 to 46,000 jobs accessible within a 45- minute drive per the Smart Locations Database (2021), reflecting the region’s geographic isolation. The most recent TRPA data indicated 26,880 jobs in the South Shore Region in 2019. Updated regional projections have not yet been published, though a 2025 Lake Tahoe Workforce Housing Needs Assessment prepared by BAE Urban Economics for TRPA estimates approximately 12,461 workers commuted into the Tahoe Basin region from outside the region in 2025, underscoring a persistent jobs-housing imbalance.
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 US Census indicates that in 2023, 55.0 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 37.0 percent of residents travel more than 50 miles to their place of employment. Nearly 38.0 percent of the residents that travel more than 50 miles are going southwest and 45.0 percent are going west to their place of employment, likely in the Sacramento area, suggesting that not all employment needs are met in close proximity to the city. This long-distance commuting pattern is consistent with findings from the BAE Urban Economics 2025 Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment. 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 increase to meet demand, but there is still a pressing need for housing and jobs to meet the need of the existing population.
While jobs and housing are imbalanced throughout El Dorado County and the Tahoe Basin, 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. 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) to preserve the housing stock for long-term rental needs. However, in March 2025, the El Dorado County Superior Court struck down Measure T in its entirety and a new vacation rental ordinance (Ordinance 2025-1200) took effect July 17, 2025. This is further discussed in the subsection, History of TRPA and Development. The City continues to monitor the impact of VHR regulation on the long-term rental stock (Program 3-7).
1761
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-85
FIGURE 4-10: CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1762
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-86 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-11: POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1763
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-87
FIGURE 4-12: ACCESS TO JOBS
Sources: PlaceWorks; US Environmental Protection Agency Smart Locations Database, 2021. 1764
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-88 AUGUST 2026
Educational Opportunities
Each year, the California Department of Education (CDE) publishes performance metrics for each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics, as measured against grade-level standards. The CDE uses the California School Dashboard, a color-coded performance system that combines current performance levels and year-over-year change, replacing the previous single-score system. The LTUSD serves South Lake Tahoe, including the Meyers community, and includes four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, the Mt. Tallac continuation high school, and the Elevated Digital Learning Academy (a K–12 online program). Mt. Tallac High School enrolled 64 students in the 2024-2025 school year, with a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students; assessment data is not publicly reported due to the small number of students in the dataset. LTUSD provides bus routes for students from all neighborhoods in South Lake Tahoe to schools.
As shown in Table 4-43, the 2025 California School Dashboard reports school performance using Distance from Standard (DFS) scores, which measure how many scale score points above or below grade-level standard the average student scored. The California state average DFS score is -8.1 in ELA and -42.4 in Mathematics, reflecting that the average California student scores below standard in both subjects. Most LTUSD schools perform below the state average in both subjects. Bijou Community Elementary (-4.2 ELA, -45.2 Math), Tahoe Valley Elementary (-20.3 ELA, -47.0 Math), South Tahoe Middle (-28.8 ELA, -50.5 Math), and South Tahoe High (-31.7 ELA, -76.9 Math) all score below the state average in both subjects.
Sierra House Elementary performs above the state average in ELA (+0.9) but below in Math (-11.5). Meyers Elementary, just outside city limits in unincorporated El Dorado County, is the strongest performer in the district, scoring above the state average in both ELA (+44.0) and Math (+25.5).
TABLE4-43
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORES, 2025
School
English Language Arts
- Distance from State
Standard
Mathematics -
Distance from State
Standard
Bijou Community Elementary - 4.2 - 45.2
Meyers Elementary1 + 44.0 + 25.5
Sierra House Elementary + 0.9 - 11.5
Tahoe Valley Elementary - 20.3 - 47.0
South Tahoe Middle - 28.8 - 50.5
South Tahoe High - 31.7 - 76.9
California State Average - 8.1 - 42.4
Source: California Department of Education, California School Dashboard, 2024-2025. 1 Meyers Elementary is in the unincorporated El Dorado County outside South Lake Tahoe city limits but serves students within the LTUSD service area.
Note: Scores reflect the average Distance from Standard (DFS), which measures how many scale score points above (+) or below (−) grade-level standard the average student scored on the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) for the 2024-2025 school year.
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 1765
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-89
performance that may result from teacher shortages or turnover, the City has included Program 2-5 to work with Lake Tahoe Community College and LTUSD to develop new 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 four elementary schools that currently serve South Lake Tahoe students are distributed across the city, with Bijou Community Elementary in the eastern area, Sierra House Elementary in the central area, Tahoe Valley Elementary in the western area, and Meyers Elementary serving students in the southern portion of the district area. While this geographic distribution provides physical access to elementary education across all parts of the city, performance scores vary among schools. As shown in Table 4-43, Sierra House Elementary outperforms Bijou Community and Tahoe Valley, scoring above the state average in ELA and performing substantially better in Math than the other two city limit schools. Meyers Elementary is the strongest performer in the district by a significant margin. As a result, elementary-aged students do not have equal access to equivalent-quality educational opportunities, with access to higher-performing schools varying by neighborhood of residence.
In the area with the highest risk of displacement due to overcrowding and overpayment, in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard, students do not have a guaranteed neighborhood elementary school. Bijou Community School, in the eastern area, is a district-wide Two-Way Bilingual Immersion elementary school that admits students by lottery (first priority is given to children of school district employees, then siblings of existing students, with remaining spots filled through lottery) regardless of residential location, meaning easternarea students are not guaranteed enrollment. Students in this area who are not selected through the lottery must travel to Sierra House Elementary in the central area (all elementary students in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard are zoned for Sierra House). With available buses, all students have access to South Tahoe 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 possible 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.
Beyond the formal school system, several supplemental educational resources serve students across the city. The TRiO Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search Program at Lake Tahoe Community College provides tutoring, mentoring, and college preparation support for primarily first-generation and low-income students in grades 6 through 12, with services available in both English and Spanish. The Boys and Girls Club of Lake Tahoe provides after-school tutoring at all elementary schools, offering access regardless of neighborhood. The Lake Tahoe Community College Math Club also offers free tutoring to K–12 students at the centrally located, transit-accessible campus. To improve access to high school opportunities for students of households that face disproportionate housing needs, the City has included Program 2-5 to meet with LTUSD 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.
1766
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-90 AUGUST 2026
In addition to Program 2-5, 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 LTUSD 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 OEHHA 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 4-13). The decreased environmental conditions in these areas are likely due to a concentration of traffic in commercial areas and proximity to the airport, which includes some surrounding industrial uses. Despite these slightly lower environmental conditions, all residents of South Lake Tahoe have similar access to healthy 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 assistedliving 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 2025 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is accessible to all residents regardless of disability.
Additionally, the City ensures that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can 1767
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-91
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 previously, the City of South Lake Tahoe has a variety of public services, facilities, and infrastructure in place to serve residents. These include a new recreation center, pedestrian and bicycle 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 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. To ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the community, the following policy has 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 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, Starlink, and Viasat. High-speed reliable internet and affordable rates are becoming increasingly necessary for schoolwork, employment, and other purposes. Despite growing availability, high-speed internet access in South Lake Tahoe is challenged by the region’s frequent power outages, which can disrupt service. Cell signal access also varies by neighborhood, and connectivity is further strained during peak tourist seasons when visitor density reduces available network capacity.
These conditions can limit residents’ ability to work remotely or access online services, reinforcing barriers to economic opportunity for lower-income households who may lack alternative means of access. However, there is no known geographic disparity of access in the city.
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, so there is no known disparity in access to these facilities. 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 2025-2030:
▪ Priority 7: Recreation and Equitable Access for All. Address gaps in recreation facilities and services, and multi-modal infrastructure.
This priority includes action items to complete the new Recreation and Swim Complex (while maintaining the current complex in the meantime), implement the Vision Zero Plan, increase connectivity and safety, evaluate public pier options, evaluate the possibility of building and 1768
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-92 AUGUST 2026
maintaining a park in every neighborhood (pocket parks), partner for senior services, and continue to improve access for people of all abilities to all public spaces.
4.4.2.3 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 2024, 8.9 percent of renters and 3.8 percent of owners living in overcrowded situations, compared to 7.7 and 1.7 percent, respectively, in 2017.
Unlike the decline observed between 2010 and 2017, overcrowding increased between 2017 and 2024 for both renters and owners, suggesting that rising housing costs and limited supply have affected residents.
Severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 persons per room) also increased, rising from approximately 1.1 percent of all South Lake Tahoe households in 2017 to 2.4 percent in 2024, with renters accounting for the vast majority of severely overcrowded households. Additionally, according to the 2018–2022 ACS (Figure 4-14), the rate of overcrowding is higher in the area east of Ski Run Boulevard (approximately 5 to 10 percent of households at the tract level, affecting the east side of the city, located in Census Tracts 316.01, 302.01, and 302.02), with all other tracts in the city falling below 5.0 percent of households being overcrowded (Figure 4-14). 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 “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 elevated rates of families with children across multiple household types. Some census tracts in this area have high concentrations of children in marriedcouple households, while other tracts show 20.0 to 40.0 percent of children residing in female-headed households (see Figure 4-10). Together, these patterns indicate a significant concentration of families with children in the eastern area, and the presence of female-headed households with children is notable given that the renter-occupied households are also concentrated here. Further, with the highest rates of poverty and non-White 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.
1769
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-93
FIGURE 4-13: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; CalEPA OEHHA 2022, census tracts 1770
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-94 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-14: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1771
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-95
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 1.0 percent of households to approximately 6.0 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, ACS data indicates that 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 to 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 5-2).
Overpayment
A household is considered to be “overpaying” when they are spending more than 30.0 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 4-14 and 4-15, overpayment is a widespread issue throughout South Lake Tahoe. According to CHAS, in 2018-2022, approximately
42.1 percent of all households were paying more than 30.0 percent of their income on housing, and of these,
50.0 percent were severely overpaying (paying more than 50.0 percent of their income). Throughout the city, 50.2 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of owners are overpaying for housing. Compared to prior reporting periods, renter overpayment has increased while owner overpayment has declined, likely reflecting rising rents alongside the stabilizing effect of fixed-rate mortgages secured before recent interest rate increases. While this presents a citywide barrier to fair housing, Figure 4-15 demonstrates that owner overpayment is now distributed broadly across the city, with most tracts having rates in the 40.0 to 60.0 percent range. Tracts on the northeast side of the city show relatively lower owner overpayment at 30.0 to
40.0 percent. The eastern area of the city south of Pioneer Trail and east of Keller Road has the lowest rate of owner overpayment at less than 20.0 percent. In contrast to the now-citywide pattern of high overpayment, renter overpayment (Figure 4-16) follows a similar geographic pattern. The highest renter overpayment within city limits occurs at the city’s southeast tracts, where renter overpayment rates are between 60.0 and 80.0 percent. The majority of census tracts in the city have renter overpayment rates in the 40.0 to 60.0 percent range. The central area of the city north and west of US Highway 50 but east of Tahoe Keys has the lowest renter overpayment within the city, at a rate between 30.0 and 40.0 percent.
Overpayment remains a citywide issue in South Lake Tahoe and is not confined to any single neighborhood or income group and this 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 Tahoe 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.
1772
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-96 AUGUST 2026
To address displacement risks from overpayment, the City has included several programs to increase the supply of affordable housing (see Table 4-45).
Substandard Housing
In addition to extensive overpayment, approximately 87.0 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 (48.0 percent) was the poor condition of driveways; only 17.0 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 Multifamily and SRO Inspection Programs.
The Housing Division receives approximately 935 calls annually through the Housing Hotline. Some of these calls are referred to other agencies for assistance, such as Legal Services, City Code Enforcement, and Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless. Additionally, many 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 June 2026, the Housing Hotline reported that the primary complaints received regarding substandard housing conditions were related to lack of functioning utilities (gas, electricity, heating, hot water), plumbing issues, pest infestations, and mold or water intrusion. City staff confirms these complaints and adds bed bugs and pest infestations are also recurring issues. The substandard housing complaints are frequently accompanied by civil legal disputes with tenants withholding rent due to unaddressed conditions, while landlords pursue eviction for nonpayment. This is creating a cycle that heightens displacement risk for the most vulnerable residents. 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. To address concerns of substandard housing conditions, the City operates the Multifamily Inspection Program for all developments with six or more units and has successfully improved the overall quality of the housing stock. As part of this program, 193 site visits were conducted to multifamily properties in 2025, covering 1,851 units, and 553 SRO units were also inspected. 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 SRO/Multifamily 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 because of poor housing conditions if retaliation occurs, as there are limited alternative housing options. This sentiment was also echoed by several agencies during the stakeholder consultations. The City is aware of this resident concern and aims to proactively address 1773
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-97
substandard housing conditions through the inspection programs, 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 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 nonprofits 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 segment 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.
1774
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-98 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-15: HOMEOWNERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1775
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-99
FIGURE 4-16: RENTERS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; ACS, 2018-2022
1776
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-100 AUGUST 2026
Homelessness
As discussed in the Special Housing Needs section of the Housing Needs Assessment, there are approximately 131 unsheltered homeless persons living in El Dorado County according to the 2026 PIT count of the homeless population (see Table 4-31). This count is 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. The homeless population is relatively transient based on weather, and as such, demographic characteristics for the broader county population may represent those that reside in South Lake Tahoe on any given day.
According to the El Dorado Opportunity Knocks Continuum of Care, the 2026 PIT count identified a total of 278 people experiencing homelessness countywide. Of those for whom race/ethnicity was known, approximately 11.6 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 28.3 percent identified with a race other than White (race/ethnicity was unknown for 29 percent of the total population). Seventy-four adults (about
26.6 percent of the total population) reported having a mental health issue, and nine adults (about 3.2 percent) indicated they are veterans. The 2026 PIT count identified a total of 278 people experiencing homelessness countywide. 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 4-2 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. The City met with the Alta California Regional Center in April 2026 to begin identifying partnership opportunities for the coming planning period.
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. However, the point-in-time homeless estimate collected by HUD’s 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 (Bear’s Den Inn, Red Lodge, and Bird’s Nest) to offer a non-congregate option. Most of the 72 units across the three properties have since been converted from motel rooms to residential units, and the properties now serve as permanent supportive housing restricted to households at or below 30.0 percent of AMI. Some units have shifted uses to create accessible units. Rehabilitation of Bear’s Den Inn (22 units) was underway as of 2025 with $1.7 million in CDBG funds, and the City maintains a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with TCH to coordinate operations. In addition to these housing resources, the El Dorado Opportunity Knocks CoC has allocated HHAP funds to Housing El Dorado to administer a Homelessness Prevention Program serving El Dorado County residents. The program provides up to $1,500 per household for eligible costs, including moving expenses, security deposits, rental arrears, ongoing rental assistance, and rental application fees. Households seeking assistance are referred to designated local agencies, who coordinate intake through the HMIS and obtain approval from Housing El Dorado. While Housing El Dorado’s primary service area is the western slope of El Dorado County, this prevention program includes South Lake Tahoe, providing meaningful intervention to prevent homelessness among at-risk residents. The City does not directly administer emergency rental assistance but refers residents to this program and to other applicable resources.
1777
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-101
The City has committed to increasing the availability of services for those experiencing homelessness by working with jurisdictions to address the needs of homeless residents and identify potential sites for an emergency shelter (Program 4-2).
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.
Availability and Location of Housing
Shortage of housing units can also increase displacement risk as households seek units that align more closely with available income. The shortage of vacant and units affordable to locals creates barriers to housing mobility opportunities. As discussed previously, while vacancy rates in South Lake Tahoe appear to be high on paper, approximately 84.0 percent of the 7,143 vacant units (5,975 units) are classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use per the 2024 ACS. 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 4-17 identifies the locations of existing deed-restricted affordable housing in the city. The areas where lower-income sites are located 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 higherdensity development, which is more financially feasible for affordable housing development. A significant addition to the City’s affordable housing stock is Sugar Pine Village, a 248-unit affordable development at 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard developed by Related California and Saint Joseph Community Land Trust on State of California surplus land. Phase 1A (68 units, serving households at 30.0–60.0 percent AMI) opened in fall 2024, Phase 2A (60 units) was completed in fall 2025, Phase 1B (60 units) was completed in summer 2026, and Phase 2B is pursuing financing. All units are deed-restricted for 55 years at 30.0–80.0 percent AMI. Additionally, the City is in predevelopment for a 75-unit affordable housing project at 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Lower-income housing will also be promoted throughout the city through promotion of 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 5-2). Through the sites identified for new lower-income development and these programs, the City has adequate sites to accommodate lowerincome 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.
1778
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-102 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-17: LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Source: PlaceWorks, 2026; CHPC, 2023
1779
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-103
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 Public Works 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.
The City’s Vision Zero Action Plan identifies Highway 50 (Lake Tahoe Boulevard), Highway 89 (Emerald Bay Road), and Pioneer Trail as high-collision corridors with a documented history of collisions and fatalities. Safe Routes to Schools plans are in place to address pedestrian safety near schools. Sidewalk infrastructure is largely absent outside of arterial streets; older neighborhoods, including Al Tahoe and Bijou, have smaller street widths that limit the ability to add pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. In addition, many of the streets require complete reconstruction or rehabilitation, which, due to significant costs, delays the ability to add more active transportation infrastructure. These gaps in walkability and pedestrian safety disproportionately affect lower-income residents who rely on active transportation. The City now has dedicated funding to roads which is allowing more streets to be in better conditions and improved mobility infrastructure for all users. Additional recently completed and ongoing capital projects include the Tahoe Valley Stormwater and Greenbelt Improvement Project (Phase 1 complete; Phase 2 ongoing), the Upper Bijou Park Creek Watershed Restoration Project, the Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvements Phase 2, the Stateline Complete Streets project, a Citywide Pipe Replacement Project, a Citywide Drainage Master Plan, and the James-Eloise Drainage project, among others included in the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Since 2016, the South Tahoe Public Utility District has also installed 19 new gravity mains and 22 pressure mains within and adjacent to the city, reflecting sustained investment in water and sewer infrastructure.
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). 1780
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-104 AUGUST 2026
Environmental Disasters
Almost all of South Lake Tahoe is considered a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), due to its location at the wildlandurban 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 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 TRPA 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 DWRcompliant development standards, flooding associated with identified floodways does not present a largescale risk for residents of South Lake Tahoe. However, localized flooding due to inadequate drainage infrastructure affects a number of specific neighborhoods throughout the city. High-intensity, shortduration storm events can overwhelm dirt swales, ditches, and undersized culverts and inlets, producing flash-flooding effects even outside of FEMA-designated floodways. The highest-need areas for drainage improvement are concentrated in the Bijou Park Creek watershed, portions of Bijou off Johnson Boulevard, the Glenwood neighborhood, the Tahoe Island area, the western portion of the Al Tahoe neighborhood, parts of the Tahoe Keys area where aging pipes and lagoon backflow reduce drainage capacity, the States Streets area, and Western Tahoe Sierra streets. These drainage deficiencies affect housing conditions and the long-term habitability of affected neighborhoods, and the City has included drainage infrastructure improvements in its Capital Improvement Plan to address these issues. No significant natural disaster events displaced residents from the city during the last planning period, though isolated multifamily structure fires resulted in temporary displacement; in those cases, property owners assisted affected households in relocating.
Severe weather events deeply impact properties throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. The historic 2022-2023 winter delivered 677 inches of snow, making it the snowiest winter in 70 years. The various atmospheric rivers caused downed trees, which impacted properties and led to widespread power outages. In addition, the severe snow weight on roofs led to some severe structural issues, including roof collapses and some properties being red-tagged and deemed unsafe. The melting snow also placed extreme pressure on local stormwater infrastructure, leading to more flooding issues.
Wildfires, however, present a significant threat to infrastructure and housing in the city, influencing development capacity due to the boundaries of the El Dorado National Forest and Desolation Wilderness and affordability as homeowners face increasing fire insurance rates. Displacement risk from 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 5-3 to promote 1781
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-105
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 CAL FIRE as High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. CAL FIRE updated its FHSZ maps in 2022, with the updated maps finalized and effective April 2024, replacing the prior 2007 maps. Properties throughout the Lake Tahoe region, including within South Lake Tahoe, are designated VHFHSZs under these updated maps. 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 California Insurance Commissioner has declared a “statewide insurance crisis,” with private insurers writing approximately 28.0 percent fewer homeowners policies statewide in 2023 than in 2020 and 788,485 policy non-renewals recorded in 2023 alone.14 El Dorado County is ranked among the 10-highest wildfire-exposure counties in California by the California Department of Insurance. California’s FAIR Plan15 grew from approximately 242,000 residential policies in 2021 to over 642,000 by 2025, a 165.0 percent increase, reflecting the degree to which private insurers have exited fire-prone markets. 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 Multi-Jurisdictional Wildfire Prevention Strategy and actions identified in Program 5-3 are steps the City intends to take to help reduce the threat of home loss due to environmental disasters.
4.4.2.4 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 housing for all income levels; ▪ 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 nearby Squaw Valley (renamed to Olympic 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 14 California Department of Insurance, 2025, Reform made real, press release. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400- news/0100-press-releases/2025/release052-2025.cfm.
15 California Department of Insurance, 2025, “FAIR Plan Fact Sheet,” https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200- wrr/upload/CDI-Fact-Sheet-Summary-on-Residential-Insurance-Policies-and-the-FAIR-Plan-v-011325-2.pdf. 1782
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-106 AUGUST 2026
the tourism industry. However, while tourism has supported ongoing public investment prioritized based on need throughout the community, 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 banned VHRs in residentially zoned areas within the city limits after December 31, 2021. The intent was to reverse the trend of converting long-term rental housing to short-term rentals.
However, in March 2025, the El Dorado County Superior Court struck down Measure T, ruling the permanent-resident exception, a provision that allowed homeowners who resided at their property for the majority of the year to short-term rent their home for up to 30 days annually through a VHR permit, unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The City declined to appeal in April 2025, and a new vacation rental ordinance (Ordinance 2025-1200) took effect July 17, 2025, reinstating a permit-based VHR framework. The new ordinance establishes a 150-foot buffer between permitted VHRs outside the Tourist Core, requires mandatory noise monitoring and a 24/7 local manager, and limits issuance to 150 permits per month on a first-come, first-served basis. In March 2026, the City Council adopted further amendments to the VHR ordinance (second reading March 24, 2026; effective April 23, 2026) that removed the 150-foot buffer requirement entirely and replaced it with a citywide cap of 900 VHR permits in residential areas, along with a waitlist once the cap is reached, a minimum renter age of 25, and expanded eligibility for certain attached condominiums. The long-term impact of this regulatory shift on housing availability for permanent residents and seasonal workers remains to be seen. In addition to VHR regulation, 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 both the 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 distribution cycles, the City was allocated 66 new market-rate units (33 per year). TRPA also distributes residential bonus units for development of new residential units restricted to low-income, moderate-income or achievable qualifying residents. In 2023, TRPA adopted Phase 2 Housing Amendments, providing new density, coverage, and height incentives for deed-restricted affordable and workforce multifamily housing projects in Town Centers. These are expected to increase the share of multifamily units developed within the City's allocation pool going forward. These processes ensure that 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 VHR regulation and new unit allocation policies, is to move in the direction of reversing these impacts and promoting the development of much-needed workforce housing.
1783
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-107
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 2024, White applicants accounted for 60.0 percent of all mortgage loan applications for home purchase and 63.0 percent of all originated loans in South Lake Tahoe. While Hispanic residents make up approximately 26.0 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s ethnic composition, Hispanic and Latino applicants made up approximately 10.0 percent of originated loan applications and 11.0 percent of originated home purchase loans. Black applicants represented less than 2.0 percent of originated loans and Asian applicants represented approximately 3.0 percent of originated loans. The remaining applicants, whose race or ethnicity was not available or identified as joint, represented approximately 26.0 percent of originated loans, reflecting a higher representation than in South Lake Tahoe’s population.
In 2024, applicants applied for three types of loans for home purchase: conventional, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Veterans Administration (VA) loans. Conventional loans accounted for most home purchase originations. Hispanic and Latino borrowers represented a notably higher share of originated loans relative to their share in prior analyses, suggesting improved access compared to earlier periods.
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, and 5-1).
4.4.3 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 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 5-4). 1784
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-108 AUGUST 2026
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.
In their 2023 Annual Report, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) reported that they received 37 housing complaints from residents of El Dorado County, less than 1.0 percent of the total number of cases in the state that year (29,877). The substantial increase in statewide filings from prior reporting periods is largely attributable to the 2021 launch of the California Civil Rights System (CCRS) online portal, which significantly lowered barriers to filing complaints. As part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), CRD dual-files fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD FHEO reported that nine cases were filed by residents of South Lake Tahoe between 2013 and 2022. Six cases alleged discrimination based on disability, two alleged discriminations due to retaliation, one alleged discrimination based on race, one based on religion, three based on sex, and one based on familial status. Cases reporting alleged discrimination on more than one protected class result in more alleged cases than total number of individual cases. In addition to these cases, 20 inquiries about discrimination were sent to HUD to determine whether a case would be valid. Sixteen 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. 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.
4.4.4 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 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 previously, per the 2026 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, in the eastern area, Tract 316.01 carries a High Resource designation while Tracts 302.01, 302.02, and 316.02 carry Moderate Resource designations; in the central area, Tract 303.02 carries a High Resource designation, while Tract 303.01 is Moderate Resource; and in the western area, Tract 304.03 carries a High Resource designation, while Tracts 304.02 and 304.04 are Moderate Resource. There are no Low Resource tracts within city limits. 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 is also 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 housing and facilitate place-based revitalization. 1785
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-109
TABLE 4-44
UNIT CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT AND INCOME LEVEL
Census
Tract
Unit Capacity by Income Level
Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage
Eastern Area
302.01 73 18% 219 85% 13 7%
302.02 0 0% 11 4% 6 3%
316.01 72 18% 1 <1% 5 3%
316.02 0 0% 7 3% 24 14%
Central Area
303.01 38 9% 3 1% 2 1%
303.02 37 9% 10 4% 2 1%
Western Area
304.02 175 43% 4 2% 121 69%
304.03 0 0% 0 0% 2 1%
304.04 8 2% 3 1% 0 0%
Total 403 100% 258 100% 175 100%
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2026.
Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
4.4.4.1 Potential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation The sites identified to accommodate the lower-income housing need are primarily in Tract 304.02 (along Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard in the western area of the city) and Tract 316.01 (eastern area, east of Ski Run Boulevard). 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 4-17, existing affordable housing in the city is also located near 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 and south of Pioneer Trail falls within a Moderate Resource designation, it has high rates of poverty and overcrowding that result in high demand for additional affordable housing in this area. Tract 316.01 (eastern area), which encompasses the residential area east of Ski Run Boulevard, has capacity for 72 lower-income units (18.0 percent of the city’s total lower-income capacity), primarily through the 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard project. The sites identified in the eastern area 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 help prevent displacement of residents from the community. The sites for lower-income housing in Tract 304.02 (western area), along the Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard corridor, are within a Moderate Resource area 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 1786
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-110 AUGUST 2026
combat potential income segregation spurred by available housing that may have resulted in existing patterns of poverty concentration.
Table 4-44 contains a breakdown of unit capacity by census tract and income level. The distribution of sites reflects an effort to spread housing opportunity across the city. Tract 304.02, in the western area of the city along Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard, accounts for 175 lower-income units (43.0 percent of total lower-income capacity) and 121 above-moderate-income units (69.0 percent of that category). Tract 302.01 (eastern area) accounts for the next-largest share of lower-income capacity at 73 units (18.0 percent), followed by 316.01, east of Ski Run Boulevard, with 72 units (18.0 percent). Moderate-income sites are distributed throughout the city with a large percentage of unit capacity in the eastern area Tracts 302.01 (219 units, 85.0 percent of moderate-income capacity) followed by the eastern area Tract 302.02 (11 units,
4.0 percent), central area Tract 303.02 (10 units, 4.0%), and eastern area Tract 316.02 (7 units, 3.0 percent).
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. The City is also encouraging residential uses through the Mid-Town Area Plan. Parts of Census Tracts 303.02, 303.01, and 302.01 are covered by the Mid-Town Area Plan. This plan includes both high- and moderate-resource areas.
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 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 5-2: 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 additional programs will encourage mobility to other neighborhoods in the city and areas of concentrated affluence.
4.4.4.2 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity
While the area east of Ski Run Boulevard (Tract 316.01 in the eastern area) 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. Lower-income sites in Tract 316.01 support place-based revitalization of this area. To provide access to resources available elsewhere in the city, however, sites for lower-income units have also been identified in the western area, Tract 304.02, 1787
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-111
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 in Tract 304.02 in the western area are in close proximity to the South Y Shopping Center and South Tahoe High School.
Additionally, residential projects developed as part of the Mid-Town Area Plan, which includes parts of Census Tracts 303.02, 303.01, and 302.01, are expected to facilitate easy access to resources for residents and encourage place-based revitalization in the center of the city.
Moderate- and above moderate-income sites have been identified throughout the city, as shown in Figure 4-17, including Tracts 302.01, 302.02, 316.01, and 316.02 in the eastern area of the city that have a higher rate of poverty than other areas of the city. This distribution of moderate- and above moderate-income households will help to facilitate mixed-income 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.
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 1-6 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 5-5).
4.4.4.3 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. Overpayment is a citywide issue, with highest renter overpayment within city limits occurring in western area Tracts 304.02 and 303.01 at 60.0 to 80.0 percent, and the highest owner overpayment in western area Tract 304.04 at 60.0 to 80.0 percent. Residential uses developed as part of the Mid-Town Area Plan, which includes parts of Census Tract 303.01, are expected to help to alleviate high rates of overpayment by offering additional housing options. In the eastern area (Tracts 316.01, 302.01, and 302.02, which encompass the Ski Run Boulevard corridor and the broader northeastern residential areas extending toward Keller Road and the Stateline), renter overpayment is in the
40.0 to 60.0 percent range and owner overpayment varies by tract with Tract 316.02 having the lowest owner overpayment in the city at less than 20.0 percent, while other eastern area Tracts 316.01, 302.01, and 302.02 are in the 40.0 to 60.0 percent range, reflecting its character as a predominantly renter, workforce housing area with lower ownership costs. As previously noted, residential uses developed as part of the Mid-Town Area Plan, which includes parts of Census Tract 302.01, are expected to help to alleviate high rates of overpayment by offering additional housing options. The area east of Ski Run Boulevard currently has the largest stock of workforce-accessible housing; however, by identifying site capacity for lowerincome 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. Specifically, the 175 lower-income units identified in Tract 304.02, in the western area, will expand affordable housing options in the western portion of the city, where renter overpayment is currently in the 60.0 to 80.0 percent range, providing meaningful relief for cost-burdened households in that area. The addition of new lower-income 1788
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-112 AUGUST 2026
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. The City continues to pursue regulation of VHRs as a strategy to preserve long-term rental availability for permanent residents.
4.4.5 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 4-45. However, the priority area identified through this assessment of fair housing is the eastern area of the city, encompassing Tracts 316.01, 302.01, 302.02, and 316.02, which extends from the Ski Run Boulevard corridor through the broader northeastern residential areas toward Keller Road and the California-Nevada border. This area has the highest rate of poverty in the city, one of the highest in the Tahoe Basin and has a concentration of Hispanic and Latino residents with a large percentage of residents living in this area living in overcrowded situations and experiencing significant rates of renter overpayment (40.0 to 60.0 percent), alongside the highest rates of overcrowding in the city. While the highest rates of renter and owner overpayment within city limits are now observed in the western area (Tracts 304.02, 303.01, and 304.04 at 60.0 to 80.0 percent), the eastern area remains a focus area given the concentration of poverty, overcrowding, and minority households facing compounding displacement risks. This culmination of fair housing issues has made this a focus area for the City to target fair housing programs identified in Table 4-45. 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. 1789
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-113
TABLE 4-45
FACTORS THAT CONSTRIBUTE 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 in
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.
Seasonal tourism economy driving jobshousing imbalance.
Promote density incentives for affordable and moderate-income housing (Program 1-4).
Work with large employers to develop workforce housing (Program 2-2).
Assess potential of developing housing on federal and state lands (Program 2-4).
Provide technical and financial support to 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 lowincome and moderate-income households (Program 3-9).
Limited housing
mobility
opportunities for
lower-income
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 multifamily housing (Program 1-6).
Work with local agencies and organizations to initiate a first-time and/or moderateincome homebuyer program (Program 2-7).
Promote ADUs throughout the City to facilitate housing mobility opportunities and mixed-income neighborhoods (Program 2-14).
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 lowincome 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 5-2).
Displacement risk
due to overcrowding
and overpayment,
particularly in the
Geographic concentration of lower-income
and Hispanic and Latino households in the
area east of Ski Run Boulevard.
Concentration of overcrowded households.
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).
1790
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-114 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-45
FACTORS THAT CONSTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES IN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE AFH Identified
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
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 (jobshousing imbalance).
Proximity to typically low-wage service
industry jobs.
Concentration of poverty.
Shortage of affordable rental units.
Provide technical and financial support to housing providers to increase supply (Program 2-6).
Promote ADUs throughout the City to facilitate housing mobility opportunities and mixed-income neighborhoods (Program 2-14).
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 lowincome 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.
Tenant fear of retaliation for reporting
substandard conditions.
Provide information on substandard parcels in an online GIS database (Program 1-2).
Develop a housing rehabilitation program (Program 3-1).
Proactively inspect multifamily 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 lowincome residents.
No emergency shelters in the city limit.
Preserve multifamily 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 4-2).
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2026.
1791
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-115
4.5 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.
4.5.1 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 number 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.
4.5.2 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, the area is almost exclusively available for single-family residential development.
Section 4.6, 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 for 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 2014. The City implemented amendments to both of these Area Plans, which TRPA adopted on December 18, 2024. The City also adopted the Mid-town Area Plan (MTAP) in 2026. 1792
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-116 AUGUST 2026
Each parcel of land within the city is geographically assigned to a PAS, Area Plan (AP), or CP (see Table 4-46), 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 following:
▪ The primary land use classification and zoning designation of the area (e.g., residential) ▪ The environmental management strategy
▪ Special designations (e.g., 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 4-46) 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, or multi-family residential projects that are designed in one of three architectural styles preapproved 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 MOU. If it is a smaller project (as listed in the MOU with TRPA and described in Section 4.6.2.2, 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. 1793
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-117
In contrast, an “S” permit (as listed in Table 4-46) 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. For TRPA 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 meets the following requirements:
▪ Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel
▪ Not injurious to the neighborhood
▪ Consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Code
▪ 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 as follows:
▪ 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.)
1794
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-118 AUGUST 2026
▪ 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 facilities such 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.) ▪ Multifamily Dwelling: More than one residential unit located on a parcel. Multifamily 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 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 singlefamily 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 16 TRPA uses the term “secondary residence” for accessory dwelling units. 1795
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-119
according to the income limits published annually by the US Department of 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 who meet TRPA's income-restricted housing eligibility criteria. Eligibility requires that at least one occupant of the household works at least 30 hours per week, or full-time equivalency, for an employer with a business license or tax address within the Tahoe region, or for the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
Per current TRPA guidance, the Achievable income category carries no associated income limit, unlike the Affordable and Moderate categories, which are capped at 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), respectively (TRPA Residential Deed Restriction Program Fact Sheet). Achievable housing units shall meet the criteria and restrictions in accordance with 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 4-18 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 essentially allows “bonus units” to be substituted for needed development rights for multifamily housing.
Single-family and multifamily housing that is deed-restricted for affordable, moderate-, or achievableincome 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 achievableincome 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, or local residency requirements.
1796
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-120 AUGUST 2026
▪ Agree to submit an annual compliance report to TRPA 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 for an ADU. In 2018, TRPA set aside 1,124 bonus units for deed-restricted housing. Half of these units were reserved for deed-restricted affordable housing, and the other half were reserved for affordable, moderate, and achievable housing. About 946 Bonus Units still remain and the majority of the bonus units have gone towards affordable and moderate income 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 4-46 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 4-46, most permittable housing types are allowed and do not require an “S” permit.
1797
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-121
TABLE 4-46
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
No. 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 No. 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
No. 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
No. 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
No. 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
No. 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
No. 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 No. 1 54.71 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Glenwood
No. 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 No. 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
No. 095
− 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
No. 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
No. 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 No. 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
No. 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 No. 1 148.45 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No A, 15 A, 25 No No No No No A(3) No Yes No No Truckee
Marsh
No. 100
1083.01 Conservation No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Bijou
Meadow
No. 101
Total 520.86
Recreation
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Outside SA 486.38 No No No No No S No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No SA No. 1 34.48 No No No No No S No No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Tahoe Keys
No. 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 1798
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-122 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-46
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
SA No. 1 43.4 No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S No No No SA No. 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
No. 103
67.26 Commercial/
Public
Service
No No No Yes No S S, 15 No S, 15 S, 8 S, 25 No S, 25 A(3) A Yes No No Highland
Woods
No. 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 No. 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
No. 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 No. 1 494.91 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 12 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Winnemucc
a
No. 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”
No. 110 See Tahoe Valley Area Plan
Tahoe
Island
No. 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 No. 1 14.63 Yes Yes No Yes No A A, 8 No No No No No No A(3) No Yes No No SA No. 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
No. 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 No. 1 10.76 No No No No No A A, 8 No No No S, 25 No S, 25 A(3) No Yes No No Bonanza
No. 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 No. 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 SA No. 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 No. 3 9.18 Yes No Yes No Yes A A, 8 No No No No No No A(3) No No No No Airport
No. 116 − 344.38
Commercial/
Public
Service
No No No Yes No No S, 15 No S, 15 No No No No A(3) 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 A(3) S((9) Yes No No
2 9.64 No Yes No Yes Yes S S, 15 No S
(1), 15 No No No No A(3) S(9) Yes No No
3 19.14 No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S
(9) No No No
4 286.42 No Yes No Yes Yes No A(1/5)
,
15 No S
(1), 15 No A (1/5), 25 No No A(3) A(1) No No No
1799
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-123
TABLE 4-46
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
Tourist Core
Area Plan
Total 303.91
Tourist
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
TSC-C 64.73 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A,25 A S
(12), 15 No No A, 25 A, 25 A(3) No A No No
TSC-MU 104.83 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 A S
(12), 15 No No A, 25 A, 25 A(3) No Yes A No No
TSC-MUC 42.04 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 A A(12), 15 No No A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A(11) Yes A(11) No No TSC-NMX 2.89 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 A S
(12), 15 No No A, 25 A, 25 A(3) No S No No
TSC-G/TSC-G
Special Area
No. 1
67.39 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A,25 A S
(12), 15 No No A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A A No No
REC 5.57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S
(7) A(10) A(10) A(12), 15 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/
Commercial/
Public
Service/
Recreation/
Conservation
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
TC-C 54.54 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 A, 25 A(8) No A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) No A No No TC-MUC 78.55 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 A, 25 A(8) No A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A A No No TC-G 58.37 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 A, 25 A(8) S, 8 A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A A No No TC-NP 32.88 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 25 A, 25 A(8) S, 8 A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A A No No TC-HC 30.15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A A, 25 A, 25 A(8) S, 8 A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) A S No No EB-CC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(2) A, 25 A, 25 A(8) S, 8 A, 25 A, 25 A, 25 A(3) S S No No CMX-S 61.84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A(5) A(5), 25 A(5), 25 A(8) S, 8 No No No A(3) 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 1800
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-124 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-46
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
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) = As part of a mixed-use project only.
(6) = Special Use with CSLT and TRPA Design Review
(7) = Caretaker residence only
(8) = Employee housing for six or fewer employees is deemed a single-family structure per Health and Safety Code § 17000 (9 )= Allowed with Use Permit
(10) = Only deed restricted Multi-family dwelling units or multi-person dwelling units owned and maintained by public or private entities for purposes of housing employees (11 )= Use not permitted in TSC-MUC Special Area No. 1, which comprises of APNs 028-081-02, 028-081- 04 and 028-081-15. Daycare center allowed as an accessory use (12)= Residential units owned and maintained by public or private entities for purposes of housing employees of said public or private entity. * 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 TRPA documents. ***Residential care facilities are allowed at a maximum density of 25 persons per acre, regardless of facility size. For uses measured in persons per acre, 2.5 persons are equivalent to one residential unit. (TRPA Standards) 1801
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-125
4.5.2.1 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 an 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, the following assumptions were made:
• Acutely Low-, 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 acutely low-, very low-, and low-income households will primarily be deed-restricted multifamily attached housing constructed using bonus units. The City’s sites inventory identifies 270 units from 22 vacant sites, 132 approved project units capable of accommodating lower-income households, and 18 projected ADUs for a total lower-income capacity of 420 units against a RHNA of 105 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. The City's sites inventory identifies a moderate-income capacity of 273 units (257 from 29 vacant sites, plus one approved project unit and 15 projected ADUs) against a RHNA of 53 units. • 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. The City's sites inventory identifies an above-moderate-income capacity of 190 units (129 units from 49 vacant sites, 46 approved project units, and 15 projected ADUs) against a RHNA of 133 units.
In addition, ADUs are expected to address housing needs in all income categories and Program 2-14 proposes to monitor the production of ADUs annually to stay consistent with the assumption made. 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, including the following:
▪ Vacant parcels
▪ Sites with parcel consolidation potential
1802
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-126 AUGUST 2026
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 ▪ Availability or potential availability of infrastructure and public services ▪ Environmental conditions affecting development capability of the land ▪ Current ownership
Realistic Development Potential on Vacant Sites
Consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(c), 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 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 System (IPES) and zoning district. The identified developable acres for parcels account for lot coverage of either 70 percent in community or area plan areas (TVAP and MTAP areas in the case of the 7th cycle sites inventory) 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. In the previous planning period, no sites identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA in the inventory were developed below the minimum allowable density of the zone in which the site is located, and the City did not receive any requests to develop below the assumed capacity in the sites inventory.
Realistic Capacity of Sites Outside Community Plans
A substantial majority of parcels outside community plan areas are listed to accommodate one unit per parcel affordable to above-moderate income. 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 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 TVAP and MTAP designated parcels is 70 percent of maximum allowed density due to 70 percent land coverage allowances in the community and area plan areas. Within the Mid-Town Area Plan, sites subject to this 70 percent land coverage allowance, however the city has taken a conservative approach to account for any potential nonresidential development and further decreased the realistic capacity an additional 50 percent. . In accordance with AB 1397, the site-specific details in Appendix A and the following discussion are included to demonstrate the 1803
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-127
feasibility of private sector development of sites addressing the lower-income RHNA allocation with new multifamily homes.
Both mixed-use and 100 percent residential development are allowed on all parcels in the TVAP area.
While it is not realistic to assume all sites in the TVAP area being utilized to meet the RHNA would develop as 100 percent residential, the number of parcels included in this inventory is a small subset of the properties in the TVAP area. The TVAP area allows greater building heights and greater land coverage than has historically been allowed in other areas of the city. The Phase 2 Housing Amendments adopted by the TRPA Governing Board in December 2023 allow 100 percent deed-restricted affordable, moderate, or achievable housing developments using TRPA bonus units and are no longer subject to a maximum density cap in Town Centers. Based on the analysis in this Housing Element, realistic development capacity on the TVAP sites may be up to the maximum density within the allowed land coverage. Densities of up to 25 units per acre at 100 percent of maximum density are allowed on these sites under base zoning. Deedrestricted projects using bonus units may exceed this threshold under the Phase 2 Housing Amendments.
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 have remained high, with housing costs continuing to rise through 2026. The average percent of maximum allowed density for all projects in Table 4-49 is 68 percent. The realistic capacity assumption of 70 percent on the parcels inside of the TVAP area is more conservative than these development trends.
Three of the projects in Table 4-47 were developed on sites that were consolidated from smaller parcels.
Based on these trends, the City has included parcels smaller than 0.5 acre 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 the 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard affordable housing project, Sugar Pine Village, the Multi-Family Housing Project at 3708 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, and 3709 Osgood Avenue, all listed in Table 4-47.
Three of the projects in Table 4-47 were approved/built in 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.
1804
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-128 AUGUST 2026
▪ All residential bonus units available in the TRPA pool are reserved exclusively for deedrestricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing. Pursuant to the Phase 2 Housing Amendments adopted by the TRPA Governing Board in December 2023, these bonus units are prioritized for use in Centers, including the TCAP and TVAP areas, and in areas zoned for multifamily housing.
▪ 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 to prioritize development in Town Centers.
▪ Pursuant to the Phase 2 Housing Amendments, the TRPA Code of Ordinances allows building heights of up to 65 feet in Centers, including the TCAP and TVAP areas, for deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing projects. Buildings above 56 feet are subject to step-back, shade analysis, and scenic findings requirements. ▪ 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 4.6.2.2, Zoning, of this Housing Element.
The City also adopted (pending September 2026 meeting) the MTAP in 2026, which similarly incentivizes affordable, moderate, and achievable housing development within its Town Center overlay. As with TCAP and TVAP, projects that are 100 percent deed-restricted to affordable, moderate, or achievable households in the MTAP area are exempt from minimum density and parking standards (TRPA Code of Ordinances Sections 13.5.3.I.B and 34.4) and may receive additional building height beyond the district's base limit (TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 13.5.3.I.A); however, MTAP’s base height limits vary by district (34 to 56 feet) rather than a flat 65-foot Town Center allowance. MTAP also commits Residential Units of Use and land coverage at no cost for preferred housing developments (MTAP Policies 1.3–1.4) and has coordinated the reservation of 21 TRPA Bonus Units for Lake Tahoe Community College’s on-campus student housing. As previously discussed, sites within the MTAP that are subject to the 70 percent land coverage allowance have been further discounted to reflect a realistic development capacity, with housing assumed to be developed at 50 percent of the allowable land coverage.
Given these incentives, which are discussed in more detail throughout this Housing Element, residential projects are encouraged and incentivized in the TCAP, TVAP, and MTAP areas. 1805
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-129
TABLE 4-47
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
South Lake Tahoe
Project Name
Acres/
Developable
Acres
Address Small Site Plan Area/ Zone Affordability
Total
Dwelling
Units
LowerIncome
Units
Project
Density
(DU/
acre)
%
Allowed
Density
Similar Sites
in Appendix
A*
3900 and 3908
Multi-Family
Affordable
Housing Project
1.23 3900 and
3908 Lake
Tahoe
Boulevard
Yes – 2
parcels
consolidated
Tourist Core Area
Plan (TCAP)/TSCMU District
Affordable and
Market Rate
75 (72 MFD
+ 2 LiveWork + 1
Mgr)
72 61 94% LowerIncome Sites
Sugar Pine Village
1.58 (1029
Tata) / 2.10
(1860 LTB)
1029 Tata
Lane and
1860 Lake
Tahoe
Boulevard
Yes – 2
parcels
consolidated
Tahoe Valley Area
Plan (TVAP)/TCMUC DistrictAffordable 248 248 67.4 270% LowerIncome Sites Multi-Family
Housing Project 0.74
3708 Lake
Tahoe
Boulevard
and 3709
Osgood
Avenue
Yes – 2
parcels
consolidated
TCAP/TSC-MU
District Market Rate 14 0 18.9 76%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
Tahoe Valley at
Barton MultiFamily Dwelling
Project
0.98 2160 Barton
Avenue No TVAP/TC-NP District Market Rate 14 0 14.3 57% AboveModerateIncome Sites
HVR Acquisition
LLC Multi-Family
Project Phase 2
3.41 3794
Montreal
Road
No TCAP/TSC-MU
District Market Rate 12 0 3.5 5%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
F Street
Residential 0.71 1971 F Street No PAS 114 Bonanza Special Area No. 1 Market Rate 12 (10 MFD + 2 ADU) 0 16.9 113% AboveModerateIncome Sites
8-Unit Residential
Project 0.65
1389
Emerald
Bay Road
No PAS 116 Airport Market Rate 8 0 12.3 82%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
1806
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-130 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-47
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
South Lake Tahoe
Project Name
Acres/
Developable
Acres
Address Small Site Plan Area/ Zone Affordability
Total
Dwelling
Units
LowerIncome
Units
Project
Density
(DU/
acre)
%
Allowed
Density
Similar Sites
in Appendix
A*
Fremont MultiFamily Homes 0.68
1050
Fremont
Avenue
No
Bijou/Al Tahoe
Community Plan —
District No. 1
Market Rate 11 0 16.2 108%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
Ruelas Remodel 1.0 1150 Melba
Drive No TVAP/TC-G District Market Rate 4 0 4 16%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
Mueller
Redevelopment
Project
0.31 2635 Lake
Tahoe
Boulevard
No PAS 102 Sierra Tract
Commercial Market Rate 2 0 6.5 43%
AboveModerateIncome Sites
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2026.
*Column identifies the category of vacant sites in the sites inventory (Appendix A) that share comparable zoning, density allowances, plan area designation, and lot coverage characteristics with each representative project.
1807
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026
Inventory of Vacant Sites
Potential for Lower-Density Dwellings
TRPA has inventoried each vacant single-family residential development-eligible parcel under its 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 Appendix A, 101 undeveloped lots are eligible for residential development in South Lake Tahoe, provided that they obtain a residential allocation for each unit developed. Of these 101 lots, there are 47 parcels (or 30acres) allowing a maximum of one unit per parcel. Vacant lots identified with IPES scores greater than 726 or Bailey scores of 6 or 7, are included in the 7th cycle sites inventory. The available vacant parcels to meet the RHNA are shown in Figure 4-20. Figure 4-19 identifies the sites located in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP) and Figure 4- 20 identifies the sites located in the MTAP.
1808
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-18: HOUSING SITES INVENTORY
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2026.
1809
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-133
FIGURE 4-19: VACANT SITES IN THE TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2026
1810
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-134 AUGUST 2026
FIGURE 4-20: VACANT SITES IN THE MID-TOWN AREA PLAN
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2026
1811
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-135
Analysis of Above-Moderate-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant Land 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 (133 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. For the 2023–2024 and 2025–2026 distribution periods, the City received its full base allocation of 66 allocations per two-year period (33 per year), with no deductions applied.
TRPA distributes residential allocations to local jurisdictions every two years based on residential permit review, code compliance, short-term rental neighborhood compatibility, 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 short-term 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 eight-year planning period, based upon allocations, is 264 units: 176 new single-family homes and 88 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 $30,000, 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. The City's 264 base allocations over the planning period (33 per year over eight years) provide sufficient allocation capacity to support the construction of 129 new above-moderate-income units on vacant sites identified in the sites inventory in Appendix A, consistent with the realistic capacity estimates for above moderate-income parcels. 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 affordable only to people with above-moderate incomes. This number of projected above-moderate-income units from vacant sites, combined with 46 units from approved projects and 15 projected ADUs for a total above-moderate capacity of 190 units, satisfies the City’s above-moderate-income RHNA of 133 units.
Analysis of Moderate-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant Land There are multifamily and small-lot parcels listed in Appendix A that could be used to create affordable ownership opportunities for moderate-income households. The sites inventory identifies 29 vacant parcels (108.6 acres) suitable for moderate-income development, with maximum allowed densities ranging from 8 to 15 units per acre, including four MTAP parcels totaling 96.5 acres. All moderate-income parcels in Appendix A are vacant and privately owned. These 29 parcels are projected to accommodate 257 units of moderate-income housing capacity, including 217 units from the four MTAP parcels.
The City has an RHNA allocation of 53 moderate-income units. The available parcels are sufficient to accommodate the moderate-income RHNA. Moderate-income units approved or constructed during the planning period will also be subject to annual allocation restrictions described previously. While this is a 1812
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-136 AUGUST 2026
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 4.6.2.3, 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 Acutely Low-, Extremely Low-, Very-Low-, and Low-Income Housing Opportunities on Vacant 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 22 parcels that allow multifamily development at densities suitable for lower-income housing, ranging from 25 to 65 units per acre (summarized in Appendix A). All 22 properties comprise 26.4 acres and have the regulatory and physical conditions suitable for facilitating affordable housing development. Seventeen of these parcels (13.1 acres, 123 units of capacity) are in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP) area, allowing densities of up to 25 units per acre; these TVAP parcels were previously included in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory as moderate-income sites and have been reclassified as lower-income sites in this 7th Cycle based on their location in the TVAP area. The remaining five parcels (13.3 acres, 147 units of capacity) are within the MTAP boundary, allowing densities of up to 65 units per acre. These densities are consistent with the State’s default density standard of at least 20 units per acre to meet the lower-income RHNA.
The City has a RHNA of 105 lower-income units. The 22 parcels are proposed to accommodate 270 lowerincome units when land coverage and environmental restrictions are considered. In addition, 132 lowerincome units are provided through approved projects and 18 projected ADUs, for a total lower-income capacity of 420 units. Densities on approved and pending projects with residential in the city range from
3.5 to 67 dwelling units per acre with most projects developing at 100 percent residential. Market-rate projects in recent years range from approximately 3.5 to 19 dwelling units per acre, while deed-restricted affordable projects have reached an achievable density above that. Affordable projects benefiting from TRPA bonus units and the Phase 2 Housing Amendments have achieved densities of 61 to 67 dwelling units per acre.
The lower-income sites inventory is comprised of 16 parcels (73 percent) that are less than one acre in size.
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 1-6 commits the City to allowing and encouraging lot consolidation and working with the development community to promote awareness of lot consolidation opportunities.
Additionally, the City has a track record of lot consolidation and the production of both affordable and market rates housing, as shown in Table 4-47.
1813
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-137
Entitled and Approved Projects to Meet RHNA
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) and HCD guidance, the City's RHNA capacity includes units from projects that have received all required entitlements or have active planning approvals and are reasonably expected to be built within the planning period. These units are credited toward the RHNA based on the affordability level and unit count of each approved development. The City has 179 units in approved or entitled projects distributed across income categories as shown in Figure 4-21 and Table 4-48, and in more detail in Appendix A. These projects reduce the reliance on the vacant sites inventory to demonstrate RHNA with current active private and public investment in housing.
Lower-Income Approved Units
Two entitled projects, Sugar Pine Village and the 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard Affordable Housing Project, contribute 132 lower-income units toward the City's lower-income RHNA. Approved lower-income projects alone exceed the lower-income RHNA, providing a surplus of 27 units before accounting for the vacant site capacity or projected ADUs.
Sugar Pine Village, located on state-owned land at 1860 Lake Tahoe Boulevard and 1029 Tata Lane was entitled in January 2021, and consists of two consolidated parcels in the TVAP area. The third phase of the project includes 60 lower-income units, which will be located at 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The project is funded through a combination of the State Excess Sites Program, Federal and State Tax Credit Equity, the CA Housing Accelerator, and multiple other state and local funding sources. Full buildout of the site is anticipated at 248 units upon completion of funding commitments. Currently, Phase 1 (38 units at 1029 Tata Lane and 90 units at 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and Phase 2 (60 units at 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard) have provided a combined 188 affordable apartments. The 7th Cycle Housing Element credits 60 additional lower-income units from the remaining phases at 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, reflecting units with active funding commitments during the planning period.
Moderate-Income Approved Units
One moderate-income unit is credited from approved projects during the planning period. The approved project at 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard contributes one moderate-income unit.
Above-Moderate-Income Approved Units
Six of the approved projects contribute 46 above-moderate-income units toward the City's RHNA of 133 units. These projects are located across several residential and mixed-use zones in the city and represent active private development without public subsidy.
Table 4-48 provides a summary of the approved projects assumed to meet a portion of the RHNA. 1814
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-138 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-48
APPROVED PROJECTS TO MEET THE RHNA
Project
No.
Project Name or
Address
Lot
Consolidation Total
Affordability Funding
Source
Year
Planning
Approved
Project
Description/Status Lower Mod Abv. Mod
1 8-Unit Residential Project
1389 Emerald Bay Road No 8 8
n/a 2024 Applicant has not applied for
a building permit
2 F Street Residential
1971 F Street No 12 12 n/a 2023 Applicant has not applied for a building permit 3 HVR Acquisition LLC
Multi-Family Phase 2
3794 Montreal Road
No
12 12
n/a 2024 Construction started in June
2026
4 Multi-Family Affordable
Housing Project, 3900 and
3908 Lake Tahoe Blvd
Yes – 2 parcels
consolidated
75 72 1 2 PLHA, PIP.
Additional
funding
currently
being
pursued.
2025
Currently in review for a
building permit and financing
is being pursued.
5 Fremont Multi-Family
Homes
1050 Fremont Avenue
No
11 11
n/a
2025- Original
Design Review
2026 - Design
Review Revision
Currently in review for a
Design Review Revision
6 Sugar Pine Village
1888 Lake Tahoe Blvd –
Phase 4
Yes – consolidated
with 1029 Tata Ln.
60 60 Funding
currently
being
pursued.
2021
Phase 4 Construction
proposed to start in 2027.
7 821 Stateline Avenue No
1 1
n/a
N/A - Planning
has not approved Currently in Design Review
TOTAL 179 132 1 46
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2026.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation: PLHA; Prohousing Incentive Program: PIP 1815
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-139
FIGURE 4-21: ENTITLED AND APPROVED PROJECTS
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2026.
1816
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-140 AUGUST 2026
Accessory Dwelling Unit Assumptions
To accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA the City has projected 48 ADUs over the 2027–2035 planning period. This projection is based on recent ADU permit activity in South Lake Tahoe, which averaged approximately six ADUs per year between 2020 and 2025. Consistent with this trend, the City projects a continuation of approximately six ADUs per year for a total of 48 units over the planning period.
The City proposes Program 2-14 to monitor ADU production annually in order to remain on target with the assumptions used in the sites inventory.
The 48 projected ADUs are distributed across all income categories as follows: 18 lower-income units, 15 moderate-income units, and 15 above moderate-income units based on historical ADU permit activity from 2020 through 2025 and anticipated increases in lower-income ADU production resulting from the TRPA bonus unit program incentives described in this chapter. Lower-income ADUs would be primarily anticipated in the TCAP, TVAP, and MTAP areas, where TRPA offers bonus residential units at no cost to property owners who construct deed-restricted affordable or achievable income ADUs pursuant to Chapter 52 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and described in the beginning of this chapter. This incentive encourages production of deed-restricted ADUs affordable to lower-income households without requiring use of a residential allocation. Moderate- and above-moderate-income ADU projections reflect market-rate ADU production in residential neighborhoods citywide.
Market-rate ADUs require a residential allocation from the City through the annual base allocation or for free per Resolution 2025 - 084. Deed-restricted ADUs meeting TRPA’s affordable, moderate-, or achievable-income criteria are exempt from the allocation requirement. The City’s ADU projections are conservative and are not relied upon to meet the majority of any single RHNA income category.
Site and Environmental Constraints
None of the sites listed in Appendix A have any known constraints to development of housing. Additionally, there are no other conditions that could impact housing development such as shape, contamination, easements, conditions, or compatibility.
Conclusions
The City of South Lake Tahoe has identified a combination of vacant sites, projected ADUs, and entitled and approved projects to accommodate its 7th Cycle RHNA. As shown in Table 4-49, the City has a total capacity of 883 units to meet the RHNA. This includes a lower-income capacity of 420 units, a moderateincome capacity of 273 units, and above-moderate-income capacity of 190 units. 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. 1817
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-141
TABLE 4-49
ACCOMODATING THE 7TH CYCLE RHNA
South Lake Tahoe
Income
Category RHNA Approved Projects
Vacant
Sites
Unit
Capacity
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity
Unit
Surplus
Acutely Low 14
132 270 18 420 351
Extremely Low 22
Very Low 27
Low 42
Moderate 53 1 257 15 273 220
Above Moderate 133 46 129 15 190 57
Total 291 179 656 48 883 628
Source: HCD 2026; PlaceWorks 2026.
4.5.2.2 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 2024, supply approximately 14,200 homes and businesses. Since 1997, MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) 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 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. 1818
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-142 AUGUST 2026
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 following outlines the status of each provider:
▪ Tahoe Keys has three wells. Beginning in late 2020, elevated uranium levels forced two wells offline. Uranium filtration systems have since been installed, and all three wells are now operational, though with reduced pumping capacity. A new inter-tie with the Lukins Brothers Water Company (LBWC) has been established, providing supplemental supply. Tahoe Keys is evaluating long-term water system management options, including potential consolidation with another water provider.
▪ The Lukins Brothers Water Company (LBWC), a privately owned water-supply system, has approximately 975 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. 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 of September 2021, Lakeside Park had 139 domestic water connections. 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 18,300 connections and receive an average daily flow of 3.5 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.
1819
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-143
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 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 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.
4.5.3 Inventory of Local, State, and Federal Housing and Financing Programs
4.5.3.1 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.
4.5.3.1.1 Rental Housing New Construction Program
Of all 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 partnered with developers to create deed restricted affordable housing units in projects throughout the city.
The Aspens project opened in 2014 and included 48 rental units, 47 of which are assisted units occupied by low- and very-low-income households; the remaining unit is a moderate-income manager 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 (Standard Agreement 10-HOME-6347).
The City partnered with the State of California and Related California to develop Sugar Pine Village, an affordable housing project providing 248 low-income housing units. The project is located at 1860 Lake Tahoe Boulevard (official address: 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and 1029 Tata Lane. As of 2025, the 1029 Tata Lane component (38 units, 2 buildings) received a certificate of occupancy in October 2024. At 1888 Lake Tahoe Boulevard (7 residential buildings), 3 buildings received certificates of occupancy in October 1820
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-144 AUGUST 2026
2024 and October 2025, 3 buildings received building permits in September 2022 and February 2025, and two additional buildings applied for building permits in December 2025. The City contributed over $2.5 million in HOME Program Income, Redevelopment Agency Program Income, and general fund dollars, and has supported the project through HOME, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, Infill Infrastructure Grant, and Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds.
In 2025, the City approved an additional major affordable housing project at 3900 and 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard (Project No. 24-173). The project consists of 75 units total, 72 multifamily dwelling units (lowincome), 2 live-work units (above-moderate income), and one manager’s unit (above-moderate income), and is located within the Tourist Core Area Plan. Funding is being pursued through the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program and other sources.
4.5.3.1.2 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 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
▪ For four occupants: 270 square feet
The ordinance requires that motel owners designate 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 553 SRO units across the city. The program is administered jointly with the Multifamily Dwelling Inspection and Maintenance Program; in 2025, City staff conducted 14 site visits to SRO properties as part of this ongoing inspection program.
1821
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-145
4.5.3.1.3 Housing Issues Hotline
The City of South Lake Tahoe administers the Housing Issues Hotline to assist residents with substandard housing 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 and MFD Inspection Program to address substandard housing issues in a timely manner. The program also offers information on the City's website about tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities and provides stepby-step instructions to filing a housing complaint.
4.5.3.1.4 Long Term Rental Incentive Grant Pilot Program In October 2021, the City approved the Long-Term Rental Incentive Grant Pilot Program, designed to 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 and taps 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 housing local employees.
The program was initially administered by Placemate, a Truckee-based company specializing in mountaincommunity workforce housing. The program renamed “Lease to Locals,” was extended through the end of 2023 and has continued since. As of September 2025, the City assumed direct administration of the program, now operating it internally as the South Lake Tahoe Long-Term Rental Incentive Program.
4.5.3.2 Current El Dorado County Programs
El Dorado County implements the following programs.
4.5.3.2.1 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. HUD provides funds to the El Dorado County Public Housing Authority to administer the program. The County of El Dorado Housing Authority Choice Voucher waiting list has been closed since 2016, and no current openings are available.
4.5.3.2.2 Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program
The Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program provides loan assistance to low- and moderate-income homeowners for repairs and improvements to their primary residence, including health, safety, and habitability-related improvements.
4.5.3.2.3 Weatherization and Energy Assistance Programs El Dorado County administers two energy assistance programs available to income-eligible South Lake Tahoe residents through the local office at 1360 Johnson Boulevard, Suite 103.
The Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) helps income-eligible households pay their energy bills or heating fuel costs. Eligible homeowners or renters may qualify for a payment credited directly to their electric utility account or for financial assistance in obtaining firewood, propane, pellets, or heating oil.
Eligible households also receive energy conservation information and practical tips to reduce ongoing energy costs. Priority is given to elderly residents, persons with disabilities, and families with children under age 5.
1822
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-146 AUGUST 2026
The Weatherization Program provides free energy efficiency improvements to income-eligible households at no cost to the resident. Both programs are funded through the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and are administered by El Dorado County.
4.5.3.3 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 4-50 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 partners with the private sector to develop new affordable units.
TABLE 4-50
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSIGN ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
1. Federal Programs
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
Grants are 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
Emergency Solutions Grants
(ESG)
Competitive grants help local governments and
nonprofits finance emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and other supportive services.
- New Construction
- Rehabilitation
- Homeless Assistance
- Public Services
Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME)
Grants are 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)
An assistance program provides direct funding for rental subsidies for very-low-income families.
- Rental Assistance
Section 202
Grants are available to private nonprofit developers of supportive housing for very-low-income seniors.
- New Construction
Housing Rehabilitation
Program
Financial assistance is available to low-income
homeowners for health and safety improvements.
- Rehabilitation
Continuum of Care/Homeless
Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition to Housing
(HEARTH)
Funding is available 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
1823
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-147
TABLE 4-50
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSIGN ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Encampment Resolution
Funding (ERF) Program
This HCD-administered state program (funded by state
budget) provides grants to cities and counties to address encampments and connect individuals experiencing
unsheltered homelessness to permanent housing and
services. This is intended to complement existing federal ESG and CoC resources.
- Encampment Resolution
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
Senate Bill 2 Technical
Assistance Grants
Financial and technical assistance is available 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)
This program provides lower interest rate California
Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) loans to homebuyers
who receive local secondary financing.
- Homebuyer Assistance
Cal Home
Grants are 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 are issued to local lenders and developers so that below-market interest rate loans can be issued to firsttime homebuyers.- Homebuyer Assistance Housing and Disability
Advocacy Program (HDAP)
This program provides services to assist disabled
individuals who are experiencing homelessness who
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 are available 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
1824
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-148 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-50
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSIGN ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
California Emergency
Solutions and Housing
(CESH)
This program 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 can help owners of rental units
develop affordable housing.
- New construction
Prohousing Incentive
Program (PIP)
The PIP rewards local governments that earn HCD's
Prohousing Designation with grant funding to accelerate affordable housing production and preservation. This is funded through the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund
(SB 2 2017). Award amounts vary based on jurisdiction
size and Prohousing Designation score.
- Predevelopment
- Development
- Acquisition
- Rehabilitation
- Preservation
- Matching Funds
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
The HCD loan program is for the new construction,
rehabilitation, and conversion of permanent and
transitional rental housing for lower-income households.
The programs supports affordable housing developments
with capital and operating funds.
- New Construction
- Rehabilitation
- Acquisition
- Conversion
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) Program
This cap-and-trade funded program, administered by the
Strategic Growth Council, links affordable housing to
greenhouse gas reduction goals, making housing, jobs,
and key destinations accessible by walking, biking, and transit. The program provides grants and loans for
housing and transportation improvements.
- New Construction
- Rehabilitation
- Transportation Improvements
- Active Transportation
Infrastructure
Infill Infrastructure Grant
(IIG) Program
This is an HCD loan program for capital improvement
projects that are integral to, or necessary to facilitate, the development of affordable and mixed-income housing in
infill locations. The maximum award is $50 million.
- Infrastructure
- Site Preparation
- Off-Site Improvements
- Utilities
California Housing
Accelerator
This is a state program that provides capital to affordable housing projects that have received 9% Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) awards but face financing
gaps preventing construction from starting. The program helps to accelerate shovel-ready projects to construction. - New Construction
- Gap Financing
Homekey / Homekey+
Homekey provides grant funding to local governments
and developers for the acquisition and conversion of
existing buildings (hotels, motels, commercial properties) into permanent affordable housing. Homekey+
(established by Proposition 1, March 2024) focuses
specifically on veterans and individuals with behavioral health challenges who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness, including new construction.
- Acquisition
- Rehabilitation
- New Construction
- Conversion of Existing
Buildings
1825
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-149
TABLE 4-50
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSIGN ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Homeless Housing,
Assistance and Prevention
(HHAP) Grant Program
Ongoing state block grant provides direct funding to
cities, counties, and Continuums of Care (CoCs) to
address the homelessness crisis. HHAP replaces the
expired Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP).
Funding is allocated based on CoC jurisdiction and
population.
- Shelter Operations
- Rapid Rehousing
- Homelessness Prevention
- Capital Improvements
- Rental Assistance
Behavioral Health Services
Act (BHSA) / Proposition 1
Bond
Proposition 1 (approved March 2024) replaced the
Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) with the Behavioral
Health Services Act (BHSA). BHSA expands eligibility
to include substance use disorder services and requires 50% of housing intervention funds to serve chronically
homeless individuals. Proposition 1 also authorized a
$6.38 billion bond for behavioral health treatment and
residential facilities, including supportive housing.
- New Construction
- Supportive Housing
- Behavioral Health Services
- Special-Needs Programs
Local Housing Trust Fund
(LHTF) Program
This program provides HCD matching grants to local
governments to establish or expand local housing trust
funds that provide flexible, revolving financing for
affordable housing activities. The program requires a
dollar-for-dollar local match and supports affordable
housing production and preservation across income
categories.
- New Construction
- Rehabilitation
- Acquisition
- Preservation
- Matching Funds
Excess Sites Local
Government Matching Grants
Program (LGMG)
The LGMG provides grants to local governments to
support the development of affordable housing on surplus state-owned land conveyed or leased under the Excess
Sites program. This helps jurisdictions cover
predevelopment and infrastructure costs associated with developing state excess sites.
- Predevelopment
- Infrastructure
- Affordable Housing on Surplus
State Land
Veterans Housing and
Homelessness Prevention
(VHHP) Program
This HCD loan program for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable multifamily housing for veterans and their families, particularly those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The program is administered jointly by HCD and CalVet.
- New Construction
- Acquisition
- Rehabilitation
- Preservation
Regional Early Action
Planning (REAP) 2.0 Grants
This program is the successor to the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grants and provides funding to councils of governments and local governments for 7th Cycle
housing element updates, zoning changes, and other
planning actions that accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance with the 7th Cycle RHNA.
- Housing Element Updates (7th
Cycle)
- Zoning Amendments
- Pre-Approved Plans
- Planning Document Updates
- Prohousing Policy
Implementation
1826
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-150 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-50
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSIGN ACTIVITIES
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
3. Private Resources/Financing Programs
California Community
Reinvestment Corporation
(CCRC)
This nonprofit mortgage banking consortium is designed
to provide long-term debt financing for affordable
multifamily rental housing. Nonprofit and for-profit
developers can contact member banks.
- New construction
- Rehabilitation
- Acquisition
Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)
Fixed-rate mortgages are issued by private mortgage
insurers.
Mortgages that fund the purchase and rehabilitation of a home are available.
Low down payment mortgages are available for singlefamily homes in underserved low-income and minority cities.
- Homebuyer Assistance
- Rehabilitation
- Homebuyer Assistance
Freddie Mac Home Works
This program provides first and second mortgages that
include rehabilitation loan. The 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) are available 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 2026.
4.5.3.3.1 Assisted-Housing Projects in South Lake Tahoe In addition to the resources previously listed, there are 13 multifamily rental housing complexes in South Lake Tahoe that receive government assistance from specific programs. Table 4-51, 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.
4.5.4 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 January 31, 2037).
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 1827
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-151
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 13 assisted housing developments in South Lake Tahoe, providing 757 assisted units, that receive government assistance from specific programs. The projects receive assistance from the following funding sources: HUD, HCD, California Housing Financing Agency (CalHFA), Local, 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 January 31, 2037.
As demonstrated in Table 4-51, no subsidized housing units are considered at risk of converting to marketrate 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.
TABLE 4-51
ASSISTED HOUSING STOCK
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
2026
Facility Name Address Assiste
d Units
Total
Units Funding Sources Expiration Date
AtRisk
Tahoe Senior Plaza 1101 3rd Street 44 45 HUD PBRA 2039 No Sky Forest Acres
750 Emerald Bay
Road
18 18 HCD, HUD PBRA, Local 2063
No
Tahoe Pines Apts. 3431 Spruce Avenue 27 28 LIHTC 2048 No Tahoe Valley
Townhomes
1055 Tata Lane 68 70 LIHTC, CalHFA, Local 2053
No
Kelly Ridge 1447 Herbert Avenue 32 33 LIHTC, CalHFA, HCD, Local 2064 No The Aspens at
South Lake
3521 Pioneer Trail 47 48 HCD, LIHTC, CalHFA 2068
No
Bijou Woods
Apartments
3421 Spruce Avenue 90 92 HUD PBRA, LIHTC, Local 2055
No
Sierra Garden
Apartments
1801 Lake Tahoe
Boulevard
75 76 HUD PBRA, LIHTC, Local 2070
No
1828
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-152 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-51
ASSISTED HOUSING STOCK
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
2026
Facility Name Address Assiste
d Units
Total
Units Funding Sources Expiration Date
AtRisk
Evergreen
Apartments
1432 Melba 26 26 HUD PBRA, Local 2061
No
Sierra Gardens II
Apartments
1801 Lake Tahoe
Blvd.
75 75 HCD 2063
No
Sugar Pine Village
Phase 1A 1860 Lake Tahoe Blvd
67 68 LIHTC 2075
No
Sugar Pine Village
Phase 1B
1860 Lake Tahoe
Boulevard
59 60 LIHTC 2078
No
Sugar Pine Village
Phase 2A 1860 Lake Tahoe Blvd
59 60 HCD 2076
No
Bird’s Nest* 2215 Lake Tahoe Blvd 21 21 HCD 2030 n/a
Red Lodge*
1137 Emerald Bay
Road 24 24 HCD 2030
n/a
The Bear's Den* 2250 Lake Tahoe Blvd 25 25 HCD 2030 n/a Total 757 769 -- -- --
Source: California Housing Partnership (Reached out to March 31, 2026) Notes:
HUD PBRA = Department of Housing and Urban Development Project-Based Rental Assistance Program LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
HCD =California Department of Housing and Community Development *The Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless purchased three motels, the Red Lodge, Bear's Den, and Bird’s Nest, and operates them as permanent supportive housing providing 70 beds under HCD’s Homekey funding. Although the use restrictions associated with these properties are anticipated to expire by 2030 according to CHPC, these units do not qualify as at-risk units under the definition set forth in Government Code Section 65863.10, as the units are not eligible to convert to market-rate housing upon expiration of the use restrictions.
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 long-term.
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 4-51 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. 1829
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-153
4.5.4.1 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 five-year affordability term. The Mark-Up-to-Budget program allows nonprofit owners to increase below-market rents to acquire new property or make capital repairs while preserving existing Section 8 units. For abovemarket 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 (i.e., the 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.
4.5.4.2 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 benefiting lower-income renters or owners.
4.5.4.3 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.
1830
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-154 AUGUST 2026
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:
▪ 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)
4.5.5 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 2022 (adopted date of August 11, 2021, and took effect January 1, 2023) 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.
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). Limits are updated annually by the 1831
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-155
California Public Utilities Commission with the qualifying annual household income limits used to determine eligibility for the program as follows:
▪ 1-person household: $39,125
▪ 2-person household: $52,875
▪ 3-person household: $66,625
▪ 4-person household: $80,375
▪ 5-person household: $94,125
▪ 6-person household: $107,875
▪ 7-person household: $121,625
▪ 8-person household: $135,375
▪ Each additional person in household: Add $13,750
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 an MOU.
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 occupied 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, the disabled, and households with children under age five who apply. The Southwest Gas Corporation offers the California Alternate 1832
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-156 AUGUST 2026
Rates for Energy Program, which provides a 20-percent discount on energy bills to households with qualifying incomes. Liberty Utilities, the area's electric provider, also offers the CARE Program, providing a 20-percent discount on electric bills to qualifying households.
The South Tahoe PUD—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 include the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Green Building Program that has 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 implement to increase their sustainability.
Level 2 includes a “Priority Plan Check and Recognition,” which pertains to green building certification through a recognized green building rating system.
1833
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-157
4.6 Housing Constraints
4.6.1 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 the 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.
4.6.2 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’s 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 1834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-158 AUGUST 2026
“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.
4.6.2.1 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.
4.6.2.2 Zoning
Overview
As discussed previously, the “zoning” mechanism of TRPA and the City of South Lake Tahoe is through PAS, CPs, and APs. Within a particular PAS, CP, or AP, a use is considered either an “allowed use” or a “special use.” While a use may be allowed in a certain location, building design and site improvements may 1835
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-159
still require several approvals. Other than single-family, duplex, and triplex developments, new construction and substantial additions require a City Design Review. The application may be considered minor or major depending on the scope of work and the project location. Minor design reviews are approved at staff level, while major design reviews require a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting.
TRPA review and approval is required when a project adds coverage or building mass that is visible from a scenic corridor. 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 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 the project requires a variance or Code Amendment, that process must be complete prior to project approval.
Variances to City Code requirements and amendments to City Code must be approved by the City.
Amendments to PASs, CPs, and APs must be approved by both the City and TRPA. Once the entitlement process is 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 4.6.2.8, Design Standards. The City also adopted objective Residential Development and Design Standards for both single-family and multifamily residential developments that comply with all TRPA design guidelines in 2021. The purpose of the design standards and guidelines is to describe design requirements in residential areas, identify any supplemental land use regulations applicable to residential areas, and establish development standards for the same. Refer to Section 4.6.2.8 for a summary of the residential lot design standards for single-family residential and multifamily 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 through the plan-check process.
Projects may also require transfers of coverage, commercial floor area, tourist accommodation units, residential units of use, or other residential development rights. Development rights are generally transferred to a project site during the Design Review and TRPA review process. These permits may also be conditioned to require the transfer of the applicable development right prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. Transfers of coverage are required to be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. While the parties involved in transfers vary based on the source of the development right or coverage, all transfers must be documents with TRPA. Where a use is a “special use,” a Special Use Permit (SUP) is required.
When a project is covered by the MOU, the City Planning Commission will act on the SUP on behalf of both the City and TRPA Hearings Officer. Projects not covered by the MOU require separate Planning Commission and TRPA hearings. All owners of property within a 300-foot radius of the project area are 1836
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-160 AUGUST 2026
notified of the hearing at which the use permit findings found in Title 6 (Section 6.55.620) of the City Code must be made:
▪ 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.
Where new construction or substantial additions are proposed, the Design Review and TRPA procedures as described also apply. If the building already exists, discussions are limited to the nature of the use, such as potential transportation or noise-related impacts to the surrounding uses.
Both staff and Planning Commission decisions may be appealed pursuant to Title 2 (Chapter 2.35) of the City Code. TRPA decisions made by either TRPA or the City on behalf of TRPA (under the MOU) are appealable to the TRPA Governing Board as outlines of TRPA Code of Ordinances 13.9.
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 a single-family home or a single-family home with up to two ADUs. 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, which favor higher-density development to justify the land cost.
Where an applicable Area Plan establishes a minimum density, such parcels must also be developed at or above that density. Specific residential uses allowed in the PAS, AP, and CP areas in the city are detailed in Table 4-46.
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 4.6.2.4 and 4.6.2.7).
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 the areas where multifamily housing is permissible allow the use “by right,” historically, the use permit process has been handled efficiently when public hearings have been required due to the special-use permit requirements.
1837
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-161
4.6.2.3 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 deed-restricted housing units that meet the criteria as defined by TRPA for Bonus Units (low- and very low-income categories, moderate-income category, or achievable-income category units).
The City receives up to 66 residential allocations biannually. The number of allocations distributed 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 accommodation, 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 amendments were adopted in 2025.
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 2025 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. As of June 2026, there are no applicants on single-family, multifamily, and Town Center allocation waiting lists.
If an allocation is purchased from a private party, the applicant will need to complete a Transfer of Rights process with both the City and TRPA.
There are other mechanisms of obtaining allocations for market-rate residential development:
1838
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-162 AUGUST 2026
▪ 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 number of allocations available in South Lake Tahoe. As of March 1, 2025, the California Tahoe Conservancy’s Land Bank Program lists land coverage and restoration credit prices ranging from approximately $7.50 to $30.00 per square foot, depending on hydrologic area, IPES/Bailey classification, and credit type.17 In 2021, the California Tahoe Conservancy processed 31 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 4.5, Resource Inventory. ▪ 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, the Area Plans, such as the Tahoe Valley, Tourist Core, and Midtown Area/Specific Plans, include a No Net Loss of Residential Units policy. When a parcel containing a residential use is redeveloped to a lower density or to a nonresidential use, the units not rebuilt on site shall be redeveloped elsewhere in the plan area and shall be equivalent in size and number of bedrooms to those being replaced. A deed restriction shall be placed on any resulting singlefamily dwelling prohibiting use as a VHR, as defined in City Code Section 3.50.370. In the Tahoe Valley and Tourist Core Area Plans, this requirement applies to a parcel containing a residential use, while in the Midtown Area/Specific Plan (adopted 2026), it applies to parcels containing multiple residential units.
In addition, TRPA and the City do not have a quantified mitigation requirement related to the replacement of units that are torn down. Average costs include an estimated total cost of approximately $32,500 to obtain an RUU, a land coverage fee of $10 per square foot of permitted lot coverage, and TRPA permit and impact fees averaging approximately $9,250 per unit, with actual amounts varying by permit type and location. The cost of an RUU is still too expensive for developers of multifamily housing that is affordable to people living in South Lake Tahoe. RUUs can be purchased and transferred from outside the city, such as from Douglas or Placer 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 later 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. 17 California Tahoe Conservancy. 2026, March 17 (accessed). Land Bank Program Inventory and Proce List (Land Coverage and Restoration Credit). https://tahoe.ca.gov/programs/tahoe-livable-communities/coverage-developmentrights/prices-forms/land-bank-program-inventory-and-price-list-land-coverage-and-restoration-credit/. 1839
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-163
▪ 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 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 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 March 2025, the TRPA Governing Board approved the release of 520 residential allocations for a four-year period pursuant to TRPA Code Section 50.4.2 and approved the distribution of residential allocations to local jurisdictions for the 2025–2026 allocation cycle. As documented in the TRPA staff report, a total of 240 residential allocations were distributed for 2025 and 2026, including 66 allocations to the City of South Lake Tahoe, 61 allocations to Placer County, 60 allocations to El Dorado County, 20 allocations to Douglas County, and 20 allocations to Washoe County. An additional 13 allocations were assigned to the Residential Allocation Incentive Pool. The remaining 280 residential allocations will be distributed during the subsequent 2027–2028 allocation period, subject to the results of the next Performance Review System evaluation.18 ▪ 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 shown in Table 4-52. 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 4-52
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, Code of Ordinance, 2026.
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.
18 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2025, March 19. “Recommendation to Release and Distribute Residential Allocations.” Memo from TRPA staff to the Governing Board. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/ConsentCalendar-Item-No.-6-Release-and-Distribute-Residential-Allocations.pdf. 1840
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-164 AUGUST 2026
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.
4.6.2.4 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 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 1,150, with scores at or below 725 considered low-capability and 726 and above considered high-capability.19 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, with the exception of sensitive lands, which can be transferred across hydrologic zones. These rules enable coverage to be moved around within a subwatershed but remain within the cap that was created to protect Lake Tahoe. 19 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2026, March 17 (accessed), Land Coverage, https://www.trpa.gov/land-coverage/. 1841
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-165
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 from stream environment zones can be transferred to Town Centers for all uses, other 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 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 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 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 2014 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 major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or Lake Tahoe, allowing additional height in some districts, and allowing transfer bonuses for residential unit transfers into the TCAP and TVAP areas. 1842
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-166 AUGUST 2026
In 2023, TRPA adopted the Phase 2 Housing Amendments that increased coverage allowances for deedrestricted projects outside of Town Centers. Multi-residential projects, or mixed-use projects with a residential component that provide 100 percent deed-restricted units, may transfer in coverage up to 70 percent of the project area that is in high-capability lands, subject to the following:
▪ All runoff from the project must be treated by a stormwater collection and treatment system operated and maintained by a county, city, utility, community service, or improvement district.
Although this change seems to create an incentive to develop high-density housing outside of a Town Center, the feasibility and cost of planning and installing an area-wide treatment system to treat runoff from private properties has not been analyzed. It is likely that the cost-benefit analysis would not justify the cost of installing a public treatment system to achieve a potential increase in housing units. For single-family housing, land coverage limitations tend to result in multistory 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.
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 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 multifamily and other specified housing projects at no cost.
4.6.2.5 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, onehour 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 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. 1843
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-167
The City is also subject to the requirements of its municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an 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. Also, the City adopted its 2025–2030 Strategic Plan on May 6, 2025, which includes a goal to update the Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan. This ensures all stormwater projects are in compliance with sediment total maximum daily load standards and always improve lake clarity.
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; for example, the estimated BMP cost for a Project Homekey rehabilitation at Bear’s Den was approximately $400,000. While the treatment of runoff is essential to the implementation of the Regional Plan, the land available for treatment is limited, and area-wide systems cannot be relied upon to serve all properties or to accommodate all new housing development. 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 and Tahoe Valley Stormwater and Greenbelt Improvement Project (Phase 1 completed in 2024, and Phase 2 construction is currently underway).
20 Even with these systems, however, capacity constraints may limit the ability to connect new construction, and the City continues to work with TRPA to address the high cost of BMP compliance as a barrier to housing.
4.6.2.6 Density
Overview
Table 4-53 summarizes the maximum allowable densities in South Lake Tahoe as of 2025.
TABLE 4-53
TRPA DENSITY LIMITATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
2025
Residential Use Maximum Density
Single-family Dwelling 1 unit per parcel, excluding ADUs 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 July 23, 2025. 20 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2026, March 17 (accessed), Tahoe Valley Stormwater and Greenbelt Improvement Project, https://www.cityofslt.gov/827/Tahoe-Valley-Stormwater-and-Greenbelt-Im. 1844
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-168 AUGUST 2026
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. Unlimited density is allowed for deed-restricted housing in Town Centers.
However, as described in Section 4.6.2.4, 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 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 moderate-income and other local housing, including 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.
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 mixeduse 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 typically develop slightly below the maximum density once land coverage allowances are applied. 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 1845
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-169
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 low- and 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.
4.6.2.7 Height Standards
Overview
Chapter 37 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances assigns maximum building heights based on 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.
In 2023, TRPA amended Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances, allowing up to 65 feet for deed-restricted projects in Town Centers (i.e., affordable, moderate, achievable). 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 and, for deed-restricted projects, Findings 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, and 18:
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 1846
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-170 AUGUST 2026
source of 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.
4.6.2.8 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 that 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.
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 multifamily 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.
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.
1847
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-171
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 multifamily project design review applications. The approval, denial, or approval with conditions is based on the project’s 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-bycase review, may submit schedules for compliance. ▪ Projects that are in assessment districts (or are contained in approved public works projects) that 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 that 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 multifamily 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 multifamily 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 Commission’s decision to the City Council, if desired.
Design standards are available online on the City’s website and at the City’s Development Services Department counter. TRPA has designated Highway 50, Highway 89, and Pioneer Trail scenic highway corridors. The main purpose of this designation is to improve and maintain the scenic quality of the view from these roads. All projects 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 1848
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-172 AUGUST 2026
electrical and communication lines underground, additional massing requirements, screening requirements, and additional landscaping requirements.
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” related to 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.
Community engagement with various stakeholders 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.
4.6.2.9 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. The limited building season also contributes to labor shortages and higher labor costs, which increase the overall cost of construction. The Bear’s Den, one of the City’s Project Homekey motel conversions, faced these constraints during its rehabilitation.
Conclusions
There is an "actual constraint" related to housing associated with the building season limitations and grading requirements. The May 1 to October 15 grading window limits construction timing, and a missed window can delay a project by a full season, adding time and cost. Program 2-8 has been included to reduce the burden on housing development by coordinating with TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board on grading season flexibility.
1849
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-173
4.6.2.10 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 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 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 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 1-5 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 reasonable accommodation. 1850
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-174 AUGUST 2026
Program 4-1 has been included to codify reasonable accommodation provisions, including notice requirements, request procedures, required findings, and appeal procedures, to allow any eligible person to request reasonable accommodation in accordance with State law. In addition, Program 4-4 ensures that the City’s definition of “family” complies with State law.
4.6.2.11 Employee Housing
Overview
Employee housing is defined by state law as accommodations maintained in connection with any work or place where work is being performed, whether or not rent is charged, for five or more employees under California Health and Safety Code Section 17008.
State law asserts that employee housing for six persons or fewer persons 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. In Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the TRPA code lists “employee housing” as a primary use. 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 require 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. The TCAP, and TVAP areas allow employee housing, treated as single-family residential use consistent with State law.
Employee housing may be permitted under the applicable residential land use category based on the design of the development. Most employee housing within the City consists of single-room occupancy units, and the City inspects all units. The City has also adopted an ordinance requiring that instructions for filing a housing complaint regarding substandard conditions be posted for employees, in both English and Spanish, at the property and on the City's website.
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 single-unit residential uses. Program 4-2 is proposed to allow housing in full compliance with the Employee Housing Act.
1851
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-175
4.6.2.12 Residential Care Facilities
Overview
Health and Safety Code Sections 1566.3 and 1568.0831 require local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other by-right singlefamily housing uses. “Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings. The TRPA Code defines residential care as “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. The use includes, but is not limited to, children’s homes, halfway houses, orphanages, rehabilitation centers, and self-help group homes.” It allows residential care as a primary residential use in Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code. The City allows residential care in TCAP and TVAP as allowed uses. In 2024, the City amended TCAP and TVAP to allow residential care densities up to 65 persons per acre to better accommodate populations in need of such services and assistance. However, TRPA caps density at 25 persons per acre for standard projects, and that regional standard supersedes the City’s.
Conclusion
There is an “actual constraint” regarding residential care facilities, or the lack of clear regulatory provisions in place for residential care uses. Although the City permits residential care uses within the TCAP and TVAP and references the TRPA definition in Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code, the Development Code does not clearly reflect State law requirements. Health and Safety Code Sections 1566.3 and 1568.0831 require that licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons be permitted by right in all residential zones. Program 1-5 is proposed to work with TRPA to include the definition in the City’s Development Code and allow residential care as required by State law.
4.6.2.13 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. 1852
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-176 AUGUST 2026
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 deed-restricted affordable housing.
4.6.2.14 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 4-54 shows the base fees for the two groups of residential developments.
TABLE 4-54
TRPA BASE FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
(INCLUDING TEAR-DOWN, REPLACEMENT, OR MODIFICATIONS AFFECTING 50
PERCENT OR MORE OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE/FACILITY)
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 20, 2026
Residential Use Category Base Fee
Single-family Dwelling, Summer Home, Secondary
Residence, one Mobile Home Dwelling, and one
Employee Housing unit
$1.71 per sq. ft. of floor area covered by roof
$862 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
$3,787 + $69/unit1
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Application Filing Fee Schedule (Effective January 20, 2026) 1 All application fees listed under numbers 1 - 4 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 4-55 summarizes TRPA’s fee multipliers.
1853
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-177
TABLE 4-55
TRPA FEE MULTIPLIERS
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 20, 2026
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
Enhanced Staff Level Review: 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 20, 2026), https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/FILING_FEE_SCHEDULE.pdf.
Projects are subject to other TRPA filing fees such as the $151 Information Technology Surcharge applied to each application for maintenance of the TRPA database, and the $1,054 or $2,107 Shoreland Scenic Review Fee applied to projects in the Shoreland area of Lake Tahoe. Table 4-56 lists these and other fees charged by TRPA in the land development process.
TABLE 4-56
OTHER TRPA FEES
Tahoe Basin
Effective January 20, 2026
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.
$1,054 or $2,107
Stormwater Fee $166
Information Technology Surcharge—applied to all applications. $151 Bonus Unit Allocation Transfer $913 per location
Land Coverage Transfer $913
Lot Line Adjustment $1,653 (2 lots) + $171 per add.
lot
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Application Filing Fee Schedule (Effective January 20, 2026) 1854
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-178 AUGUST 2026
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.
▪ 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: $213.76 per average daily vehicle mile traveled.
Together, TRPA mitigation fees for a 2,000-square-foot, single-family home would cost an estimated $18,766, 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, and a two-person household generates an average daily vehicle miles traveled of 24.96 miles (12.48 miles per person per day), based on the TRPA Regional Transportation Report published in 2024.
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 housing associated with TRPA’s mitigation costs. Past reports have suggested reduction or elimination of such fees for housing projects that are affordable to locals. Such suggestions have not been implemented by TRPA. The City works with project proponents to redevelop existing developed sites, such as RV parks, for affordable by design 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.
4.6.2.15 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 fewer throughout the city on behalf of TRPA per a 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 1855
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-179
▪ 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 by the City Planning Commission acting in its capacity as the TRPA Hearings Officer. 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 do not meet the MOU requirements must be evaluated under separate applications regardless. Multifamily 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 multifamily projects proposing fewer than four units. Multifamily projects proposing four or more units that do not meet the City’s objective design standards undergo discretionary review. City staff find that project timing for typical multifamily projects subject to discretionary reviews is approximately four months. The six-month timeframe applies to all types of residential projects that require CEQA review.
The Residential Development and Design Standards (adopted in 2021) were intended to streamline planning review and approval for single-family, duplex, and triplex projects. However, delays still occur due to TRPA permitting, specifically, missing TRPA documentation (e.g., site assessments, historical determinations), and in many cases, the lack of knowledge of TRPA permitting requirements. The City has not seen a decrease in plan review approval for multifamily projects. The vast majority of applicants choose not to fully comply with the objective design standards and thus go through discretionary review. The discretionary review process at minimum requires two months to process. The City believes applicants will continue to submit projects that use alternative development and design standards due to inflexibility in the adopted residential development and design standards. Typical turnaround time after receiving planning entitlements until requesting a building permit is driven by market conditions 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 1856
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-180 AUGUST 2026
permit processes that can create redundancy resulting in procedural delays and increased development costs.
4.6.2.16 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.
4.6.2.17 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 are 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 when an ADU is constructed on a single-family parcel. TRPA allows up to two ADUs on residential parcels so long as the proposed or existing use is consistent with current zoning. This is more restrictive than California code which does not require conforming zoning and, in some cases, allows more than two ADUs (including JADUs) per parcel. ADUs are required to obtain a development right just as primary residential uses are.
This may be in the form of a PRUU paired with an allocation, RUU, or a Bonus Unit. These units must be deed-restricted to affordable, moderate, or achievable TRPA definitions/income limits; as such, application filing fees and mobility mitigation fees are waved.
The following criteria shall be met for affordable, moderate, or achievable housing:
• Be a single- or multi-family development;
• Deed-restrict the unit against second-home or vacation-rental use; • Deed-restrict the unit to its approved use and to affordable, moderate, or achievable income limits (per Chapter 90 of TRPA Code of Ordinance), with annual compliance reporting and fines up to $5,000/day for noncompliance; and
• Be located within ½ mile of a designated Town Center or transit stop, or where multi-family dwellings are allowed or permitted by special use.
1857
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-181
ADUs are still required to comply with TRPA’s land coverage and height regulations. ADUs are not considered in calculations of density. TRPA permits for ADUs are reviewed based on who is providing the development right. If the project is using an RUU from the City, the City will review and issue the TRPA permit. TRPA will review projects when the ADU is using a Bonus Unit, issued by TRPA, or when the development right is obtained elsewhere.
In 2024, the City amended Section 6.85.050, Accessory Dwelling Units, of the Municipal Code to establish the permitting process, allowable number of ADUs and JADUs, and applicable development and operational standards. ADUs and JADUs are subject to review and approval by both the City and TRPA.
While this section is intended to implement State law governing ADUs and JADUs, TRPA may not permit ADUs and JADUs to the same extent allowed by this Code and State law, as required pursuant to applicable TRPA Regional Plan requirements.
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 2-14 proposes to further facilitate the development of ADUs by promoting them as a viable housing option in the City. There are no special ADU/JADU 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/JADUs 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).
4.6.1.1.1 Density Bonus
Overview
A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under current State law (Government Code Section 65915), cities and counties must provide a density increase up to 80 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (or bonuses of equivalent financial value) when builders agree to construct housing developments with 100 percent of units affordable to low- or very low-income households. The TRPA Code of Ordinances provides a density incentive specifically for 100 percent deed-restricted affordable, moderate, or achievable housing. Qualifying residential or mixed-use developments that utilize bonus units are exempt from the density maximums entirely. In those overlays, the residential maximum is generally 25 units per acre, a cap that applies to development broadly rather than specifically to affordable housing. Eligibility for the bonus units that trigger this exemption is not confined to Town Centers. A project qualifies if it is within ½ mile of a designated Town Center, within ½ mile of an existing or planned transit stop, or located in an area where multi-family dwellings are an allowed or special use. 1858
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-182 AUGUST 2026
Conclusions
The City’s density bonus poses no “actual constraint” to the development of affordable housing. State law requires jurisdictions to provide a maximum 50-percent density bonus, an 80 percent density bonus for 100 percent affordable developments, or no maximum density bonus limit for qualifying 100-percent affordable projects within a half mile of a major transit stop. State law also provides a maximum of five incentives to affordable housing developers. However, TRPA provides full exemption from applicable density maximums only for qualifying projects that are 100 percent deed-restricted and satisfy the applicable bonusunit and locational eligibility requirements. Although this exemption may allow greater residential density, TRPA does not provide a comparable benefit to developments that set aside only a portion of their units as affordable, nor does it provide the mandatory incentives, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions State law requires. Accordingly, TRPA regulations may continue to present a potential constraint to the development of affordable housing. Program 2-8 commits the City to continuing to work for basin-wide change, which would allow the City to comply with State Density Bonus Law without conflicting with TRPA regulations.
4.6.1.1.2 General Plan
Overview
In 2017, Senate Bill (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.
4.6.3 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.
1859
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-183
4.6.3.1 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 4.6.3.16, Parking Standards. This discussion, and the discussions related to “Impediments to Housing for Persons with Disabilities” (Section 4.6.2.10), which includes reasonable accommodations and residential-care facilities, “Project Processing and Permit Procedures” (Section 4.6.2.15), density bonuses, and ADUs, also apply to the City and will not be duplicated here. Only land use controls that diverge from the regional regulations, or that the City leaves to TRPA because the regional regulations already address them, are discussed below. Controls where the City and TRPA are consistent are not restated.
4.6.3.2 Airport Safety Areas
Overview
The Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) adopted in 2019, identifies six airport safety zones and five noise contour bands that indicate where uses may be incompatible with airport activities and noise-related impacts. These regulations were required under the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.). The ALUCP policies are designed to promote compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses.
The five noise contour bands are Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 50-55 decibels (dB), 55-60 dB, 60-65 dB, 65-70 dB, and greater than 70 dB. Residential uses within areas around the airport exposed to CNEL 50 dB to 64.9 dB are considered compatible or conditionally compatible subject to the noise compatibility criteria. All areas exposed to CNEL 65 dB or greater are considered incompatible for residential uses, and new residential dwellings are prohibited. For existing single-family parcels in areas exposed to CNEL 60 dB or greater, new residential structures (e.g., ADUs) shall implement construction measures to limit intruding noise such that the interior noise levels shall not exceed CNEL 45 dB. For any new residential development, or improvements to existing structures of more than 200 square feet, occurring between the 50 CNEL and the CNEL 60 dB noise contour, measures shall be incorporated to reduce interior noise levels to CNEL 45 dB. A review of the City’s Zoning Map, indicates that all areas located within CNEL 65 dB or greater are zoned conservation and residential uses are prohibited.
No residential areas are in airport safety zone 1, which is incompatible with all types of residential development. Additionally, residential uses should not be permitted under any circumstances in safety zone 5 due to airport-related safety hazards. Safety zones 2 through 4 indicate that residential developments may be compatible with airport operations depending on their location, size, bulk, height, density, and intensity of use. There are no use restrictions within safety zone 6, though projects should still be reviewed for 1860
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-184 AUGUST 2026
elements that may result in height hazard obstructions, smoke, glare, electronic, wildlife attractants, or other airspace hazards. Within Safety zones 2 through 4, the construction of single-family dwellings, including authorized ADUs, is allowed if permitted by the applicable Plan Area Statements. New multi-family, multiperson, or mobile homes are permitted as infill development and subject to the following criteria:
▪ The proposed development is consistent with the property’s applicable Plan Area Statement, Community Plan, related City or County land use provisions, and the requirements of the TRPA Code of Ordinance.
▪ The residential use is consistent with existing surrounding development. ▪ The residential project would not extend the perimeter of the area of existing development with incompatible uses.
Safety zones 2 through 4 within the city include over 74 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 redrawn in 2019, City planning has permitted single-family residential development pursuant to the applicable PAS (103, 104, and 105), and all other residential uses permitted as “infill” development. These infill 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 and therefore has moderately increased the intensity of uses in the area.
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” associated with the airport safety zone requirements, as interpreted as infill development as new construction; undeveloped lots in the affected portions of Sierra Tract and Highland Woods would be eligible for development from allocations received from the allocation list because they are considered conditionally compatible uses within the zones. Lots in Sierra Tract and Highland Woods are allowed to use allocations for either a single-family dwelling or multi-family, or multi-person, if permitted in the PAS.
4.6.3.3 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. An annexation was completed in 2025 as a clean-up for additional streets in the Sierra Tract neighborhood and near the Upper Truckee River meadow to ensure better service based on the closest the City.
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” associated with annexation restrictions. 1861
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-185
4.6.3.4 Mobile Homes/Mobile Home Parks
Overview
Under California Government Code Section 65852.3, jurisdictions must allow certified manufactured homes on all lots zoned for conventional, stick-built, single-family dwellings. The only difference in regulation between manufactured homes and conventional single-family dwellings may be with respect to architectural requirements. Chapter 3.00 Definition of the City Code defines single-family residential to include mobile homes and factory-built housing, but the City's permissible uses identify mobile home dwellings as a separate use category and do not permit them in all zones where single-family dwellings are allowed in the City’s Area plans. TRPA's Code defines mobile home dwellings distinctly from singlefamily dwellings and does not treat them the same as single-family dwellings. 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 homes or RV parks.
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. The minimum lot size required for a mobile home park lot is 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.
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.
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 1862
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-186 AUGUST 2026
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 need for replacement housing.
Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” associated with how mobile and manufactured homes are classified. To address this constraint, the City proposes to treat mobile and manufactured homes the same as single-family dwellings and to work with TRPA to allow these residential uses to be permitted consistent with State law.
Furthermore, there are potential constraints 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 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.
1863
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-187
▪ 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.
4.6.3.5 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 tourist accommodation units (TAU) that become RUU are excess-rights eligible for sale or transfer.
These new RUUs can be sold or transferred and used only for multifamily residential units, not singlefamily dwellings.
Project Homekey is a State program that funds the acquisition and rehabilitation of motels and similar properties for conversion into permanent housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
The City, in partnership with the Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless, used Homekey funding to acquire and convert three local motels, the Red Lodge, Bird’s Nest, and Bear's Den, to residential use. All three Homekey properties are in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and were eligible for residential conversion.
As of 2025, the fee for transferring the unit of use is $913 per unit. Opportunities for motel conversions are limited by the building and locational criteria provided in the City Code. The motel buildings must meet California Building Code for multifamily commercial (R-2), which differs from tourist accommodation standards. Motel properties abutting Lake Tahoe Boulevard or Emerald Bay Road 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 residential uses. 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.
1864
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-188 AUGUST 2026
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint,” but rather the motel conversion ordinance serves as an affordable housing incentive. However, the conversion of motels to housing has proven to be difficult to accomplish. While TRPA regulations support this conversion, health and safety standards, including the building code requirements, limit the feasibility of many motel-conversion projects due to the age of most motels in the city and deferred maintenance
4.6.3.6 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 SRO units as permissible in the city. The ordinance applies to owners of motel properties who offer long-term stays of 30 days or more for lower-income or unhoused residents in an effort to encourage quality standards and sanitary living conditions. Since adoption of the SRO ordinance, the City has helped to certify at least 188 SRO units across the city. Property owners will often use the motel rooms as tourist accommodations at busy times of the year or flip between residential and tourist uses.
Unless otherwise occupied and used for transient housing, all designated SRO units remain as TAU as their default use. Single-room Occupancy Units are allowed in any zone that permits TAUs (see Table 4-46).
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 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.
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint,” SROs; however, the City recognizes that many older SROs have been lost due to deterioration, hotel conversions, and demolition. Therefore, Program 3-2 proposes to preserve and rehabilitate existing residential hotels and other buildings suitable for SROs. 1865
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-189
4.6.3.7 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 for the Homeless to convert three motels to supportive housing for formerly homeless and individuals with various existing vulnerabilities in South Lake Tahoe in 2020. The three motels, the Red Lodge, Bear’s Den, and Bird’s Nest, are active today and provide 59 beds within the supportive 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.
Conclusions
There is an no “actual constraint” related to housing associated with TRPA and City regulations in place for transitional and supportive housing. This has been addressed through the Mid-Town Area Plan (Appendix B, p. 8), which proposes to define transitional and supportive housing in the City’s Development Code and directs the City to work with TRPA to allow these uses as required by State law.
4.6.3.8 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.
1866
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-190 AUGUST 2026
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 allows the “Social Service Organization” use, including emergency shelter uses, in all commercial zoning districts listed below and conducts inspections of such shelters consistent with AB 130. The City does not impose regulations on 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 Organizations by TRPA and interpreted as such in the Code of Ordinances and are allowed as follows:
Allowed Use
▪ Lakeside Park
▪ Subdistrict 4 of the Bijou/Al Tahoe CP
▪ Sierra Tract Commercial
▪ TSC-MUC, TSC-G, and TSC-G Special Area 1 subdistricts of the TCAP ▪ TC-MUC, TC-G, TC-NP, TC-HC, and CMX-S subdistricts of the TVAP Allowed with a Special Use Permit
▪ Subdistricts 1 through 3 of the Bijou/Al Tahoe CP
▪ Tahoe Keys
▪ Bonanza
▪ Airport Commercial/Public Service Area
The five areas have 70 vacant parcels totaling 53.64 acres. All these areas are close to transit and services.
According to the El Dorado Opportunity Knocks Continuum of Care, the 2026 PIT count identified a total of 278 people experiencing homelessness countywide, including 147 people experiencing sheltered homelessness and 131 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. This represents a slight decrease from the 2024 PIT count, which identified 284 people experiencing homelessness countywide, including 149 people experiencing sheltered homelessness and 135 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
Of those for whom race/ethnicity was known in 2026, approximately 11.6 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 28.3 percent identified with a race other than White (race/ethnicity was unknown for 29 percent of the total population). Seventy-four adults (about 26.6 percent of the total population) reported having a mental health issue, and nine adults (about 3.2 percent) indicated they are veterans. The identified sites provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the homeless individuals. 1867
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-191
State law requires that parking standards for emergency shelters be based on the number of employees and not require more parking 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.
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 developers and the community. The City included emergency shelters under the definition of social service organization in the Midtown Area Plan, adopted in 2026.
Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
Overview
Government Code Section 65662 requires that the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers be by right in zones where mixed uses are allowed or in nonresidential zones that permit multifamily housing.
For a navigation center to be considered “low barrier,” its operation should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include, but is not limited to, the following:
▪ Permitting the presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth
▪ Pets
▪ Ability to store possessions
▪ Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms with multiple beds
The City and TRPA Code do not currently define or permit Low-Barrier Navigation Centers.
Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” related to housing associated with TRPA and City regulations, or the lack thereof, as they pertain to Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. Without a defined use classification and provisions allowing Low-Barrier Navigation Centers by right in areas where mixed uses are permitted or in nonresidential zones that allow multifamily housing, the City is not in compliance with State law.
4.6.3.9 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 1868
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-192 AUGUST 2026
in prime areas can “vacation” rent for more than the price that owners could receive from a permanent rental, while preserving the owner’s 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 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 prohibited vacation rentals in the city’s residential zones. Since all vacation rental permits are required to be renewed on an annual basis, the City phased out 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, become illegal no later than December 31, 2021. The measure also applied to multi-family properties, requiring the expiration of all associated VHR permits, regardless of location, based on their respective renewal cycles. Measure T generally prohibited short-term rentals in residential zones, with a limited exception allowing permanent residents to rent out their primary residence for up to 30 days annually. The measure was implemented over a three-year phase-in period, with the prohibition on existing residential VHRs taking full effect in 2021 and affecting more than 1,300 units.
Measure T was subsequently challenged in court by the South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group, which argued that the permanent-resident exception discriminated against nonresident property owners in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. On March 13, 2025, El Dorado County Superior Court Judge struck down Measure T in its entirety, finding the permanent-resident exception unconstitutional and inseparable from the rest of the measure.
On April 1, 2025, the City Council appealed the ruling and approved a 45-day moratorium on issuing new vacation rental permits in residential areas. Following the moratorium, the City Council approved a new short-term rental ordinance on June 17, 2025. The updated rules took effect July 17, 2025, and included a 150-foot buffer zone between single-family vacation rental properties outside the Tourist Core, occupancy limits of two adults per bedroom, a mandatory 24/7 local property manager, and required noise and parking monitoring devices. The City is prioritizing permit applications from previous vacation home rental (VHR) permittees in good standing whose permits expired under Measure T, with a cap of 150 new permits issued per month.
Following the 2025 ordinance, in March 2026, the City Council adopted further amendments to the VHR Ordinance, removing the previously required 150-foot buffer between VHR properties and establishing a cap of no more than 900 VHR permits in residential areas. Additional changes included a minimum rental age of 25, allowing attached condominiums to obtain VHR permits unless prohibited by applicable HOA rules, requiring room night reporting, and directing appeals of permit denials to an independent hearing officer instead of the Planning Commission. These amendments, combined with the 2025 ordinance, reflect the City's continued efforts to address community concerns with vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. The amended ordinance took effect on April 23, 2026. 1869
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-193
Conclusions
There is an “actual constraint” on VHRs that reduces housing supply for residents. According to ACS 2024 data, there were 7,143 vacant units out of a total of 15,087 housing units, accounting for approximately
47.3 percent of the City’s housing stock. As a result of the court ruling striking down Measure T, some units may shift back to the short-term rental market rather than returning to long-term residential use, which could affect the availability of housing for residents and local housing needs.
To address this constraint, Program 3-9 proposes to continue the Long-Term Rental Incentive Grant Program, which offers cash incentives to property owners who convert their underutilized housing units to 6-month or 12-month rentals for qualified households. The goal of the program is to increase the supply of long-term rental housing available for moderate and low-income households earning 125 percent of area median income or less. In addition, the City commits to monitoring the impacts of vacation home rentals on the availability and affordability of the city's housing stock under Program 3-7.
4.6.3.10 “Illegal Unit” Program
Overview
Government Code Section 66322 states that a local agency may deny a permit to create an ADU due to zoning nonconformance only if the nonconforming condition creates a threat to public health and safety and that threat is caused by, or exacerbated by, the construction of the ADU.
The TRPA Code does not include specific provisions addressing nonconforming ADUs, however, 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 lower-income persons.
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.
1870
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-194 AUGUST 2026
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 2025, the fee for illegal unit review is $1,107 per unit.
Conclusions
Since the program to legalize nonconforming units is codified, it does not 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. Program 2-14 proposes to review and revise the City’s current ADU ordinance with actions that include updating ADU regulations to stay consistent with State law, pursuing funding opportunities, maintaining outreach efforts and the pre-approved plan program, and monitoring ADU production annually to ensure it stays consistent with the assumptions used in this Housing Element’s Sites Inventory.
4.6.3.11 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 4-57.
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 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. 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. In 2023, TRPA amended Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances, allowing up to 65 feet for deed-restricted projects in Town Centers (i.e., affordable, moderate, achievable).
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 and, for deed-restricted projects, Findings 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, and 18:
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 Section 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.
Finding 2: When outside a community plan, the additional height is consistent with the surrounding uses.
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. 1871
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-195
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 6: The building that is permitted additional building height is located within an approved community plan or Ski Area Master Plan that identifies the project area as being suitable for the additional height being proposed.
Finding 8: The maximum building height at any corner of two exterior walls of the building is not greater than 90 percent of the maximum building height. The maximum height at the corner of two exterior walls is the difference between the point of lowest natural ground elevation along an exterior wall of the building, and point at which the corner of the same exterior wall meets the roof. This standard shall not apply to an architectural feature described as a prow.
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.
Finding 14: (1) The project shall meet Findings 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 in Section 37.7; (2) the additional height is required because of the increase in density permitted by Section 31.4.1; (3) the project meets the Kings Beach Commercial Community Plan improvement requirements and special policies of the Special Area; and (4) the project meets the security requirements of subparagraph 37.5.4.E.
Finding 18: The project is exempt from the density maximums per Section 31.4.1.A and the parking minimums per Section 34.4.1, unless an Area Plan specifies alternative standards per Section 13.5.3.I.C.1.
TABLE 4-57
CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
South Lake Tahoe
2025
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.
1872
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-196 AUGUST 2026
TABLE 4-57
CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
South Lake Tahoe
2025
City Guidelines
Single-Family, Duplex, or Triplex Multifamily
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. 2025; Tahoe Valley Area Plan 2015, amended in 2024.
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 4-58 shows several exceptions to the setback requirements listed previously in Table 4-57. 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.
TABLE 4-58
SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
South Lake Tahoe
2025
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. 1873
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-197
TABLE 4-58
SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
South Lake Tahoe
2025
Condition Exception
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
eight-foot 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 set back 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: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2025, South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code, http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/southlaketahoe.
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.
4.6.3.12 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 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.
1874
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-198 AUGUST 2026
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 can rent a condominium pending their resale to income-qualified 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 their 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 deed-restricted affordable housing; however, regardless of the incentives, many developers in South Lake Tahoe are still reluctant to build housing at affordable price points 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.
4.6.3.13 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 other compelling reasons to prohibit conversion of motels to timeshares, they are unrelated to housing needs. 1875
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-199
4.6.3.14 Building Codes and 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, building 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 2022 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 current California Fire Code. Furthermore, the City adopted its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) and conducted two Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories in 2020.
The State has released the 2025 California Building Standards Code, which took effect on January 1, 2026.
As part of the required triennial update cycle, the City passed an ordinance in November 2025 adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code, effective January 1, 2026, transitioning from the 2022 code set to the new 2025 edition.
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 substandard housing 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 receive complaints related to mold, no heat, pest infestation, no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, water intrusion, and electrical issues. The usual process is for a tenant or other individual to complete a housing complaint form with the issues and proof that the property manager or owner was informed but not resolved. A building inspector conducts 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 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. Most recently, the City adopted the 2025 California Building Standards Code in November 2025 to maintain consistency with State law. The City has not made any local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. In 2025, the State enacted AB 130, which pauses the adoption of new or amended residential building standards by both the State and local jurisdictions through June 1, 2031, to contain housing construction costs and provide regulatory certainty for new residential development.
1876
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-200 AUGUST 2026
There is no indication that enforcement practices have unduly penalized older structures. Should the City take over mobile home park enforcement, there needs to be enough 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 2027–2035 planning period (see Program 5-4).
4.6.3.15 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 on- and 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 right-of-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.
1877
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-201
▪ 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.
▪ 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.
4.6.3.16 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 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 4-59 summarizes the City’s parking requirements associated with residential uses.
TABLE 4-59
PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
South Lake Tahoe
2026
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 6 units Multi-person dwelling 1 space per 2 beds and 1 guest parking space for every 10 beds ADU 1 off-street parking space is required per ADU1
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2026, Municipal Code. 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. No off-street parking shall be required for an ADU that meets the criteria set forth in Government Code Section 66322(a).
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 1878
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-202 AUGUST 2026
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. Deed restrictions placed on properties approved for reduced parking will allow for enforcement of parking management if necessary.
For multifamily properties, the City Code allows a reduction of parking requirements up to 20 percent with the submittal of a justification for the case-by-case reduction of parking requirements and a parking management plan. A deed restriction is placed on properties with the approved parking reductions to ensure property owner responsibility for parking management. All parking reductions granted must consider snow removal conditions, during which vehicles parked on the street are towed, as they interfere with snowremoval activities. Therefore, creating too little parking adversely affects residents, which is why case-bycase analysis of the use is important as to whether reductions should be granted. Design standards do not include requirements to provide a garage.
Conclusions
There is no “actual constraint” related to housing associated with South Lake Tahoe’s parking standards.
The City’s parking standards are similar to those in other jurisdictions and therefore do not represent a development constraint above and beyond that of other local jurisdictions. However, parking standards in most jurisdictions have been arbitrarily established and do not necessarily represent the needs of the people living in the developments. This is especially true for senior and affordable housing developments where occupants are less likely to require more than one parking space.
The cost of land associated with parking, in addition to the costs of construction, paving, and maintenance, drive up the overall cost of development, reducing funds available for the development of affordable housing. The City’s efforts to match parking requirements with parking demand should help decrease the cost of housing construction for all income categories, thereby increasing the viability of affordable housing.
4.6.3.17 Streets
Overview
The City’s current street standards are contained in the City of South Lake Tahoe Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. The City requires that all public streets within the city shall have a minimum width of 24 feet (12 feet per lane). The City ensures that the design, construction, and maintenance of roads are performed in accordance with the 2025 State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications.21
Conclusions
The City’s street standards are comparable to other jurisdictions and are not an “actual constraint” on the production of housing.
21 Caltrans, 2025, California Department of Transportation Standard Plans, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/2025-standard-plans-locked.pdf. 1879
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-203
4.6.3.18 Other Improvements
Overview
All projects require off-site improvements if requested by the City Engineer. Required improvements may include curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
Conclusions
In conclusion, on- and off-site improvement requirements for special-use projects are not an “actual constraint” for housing projects, although they can increase project costs. The amenities that required improvements provide for residents typically justify the expense.
4.6.3.19 City Fees and Other Exactions
Overview
Table 4-60 summarizes the City of South Lake Tahoe planning-related fees. The City fee schedule is available on the City website. Fees are the same for single-family or multifamily projects. Building permit fees are based on the valuation of the project. The valuation is determined by the type of construction and square footage based on the building standards publication. The cost is 2 percent of the computed valuation (minimum $263). The City collects a technology fee of $13 per permit and a general plan maintenance fee of $1.15 per $1,000 valuation. In addition to City fees, other public agencies collect fees in South Lake Tahoe, including:
▪ For permits with valuation over $3,850, a California “Strong Motion Instrumentation Program” fee of $13 per $100,000 of valuation is also collected. ▪ The State Building Standards Fee is $1 per $25,000 of valuation. ▪ The Lake Tahoe Unified School District has a developer fee collected on all new residential development of $4.79 per square foot of habitable space. ▪ STPUD charges $21.75 per sewer unit for single-family dwellings and $21.03 per sewer unit for multifamily residences, with a minimum of three sewer units per single-family dwelling unless a qualifying low-use exception applies.
▪ STPUD charges residential water capacity fees based on meter size, including $12,617 for a three-quarter-inch connection and $21,028 plus a $56 fire capacity charge for a 1-inch connection. All new residential connections require a $7,500 time-and-material deposit and a 10 percent down payment of capacity fees at plan review, with the remaining balance due prior to service installation.
▪ TRPA administers $1.71 per square foot for single-family units and $3,787 plus $69 per unit for multifamily development. In addition, TRPA applies a Shoreline Scenic Review Fee and a BMP Fee, based on the project location, and an IT surcharge. TRPA application fees are waived for nonprofits and public agencies proposing affordable housing projects.
The City Code provides nonprofit developers constructing affordable housing with the opportunity to request a waiver of fees for their project. Fees that apply to housing projects are just one type of City fee 1880
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
4-204 AUGUST 2026
that could be waived for a nonprofit. This waiver is granted for nonprofits and public agencies requesting a waiver of permit fees, and it is granted through City Council approval at a hearing. The City finds that the time from application to approval for a fee waiver takes 45 days at most, but this does not impact the project timeline because other permits are typically under City review concurrently. Most recently, the City reduced fees for Sugar Pine Village due to the reduced number of inspections, as the modular units are inspected by HCD.
TABLE 4-60
PLANNING APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE
South Lake Tahoe
2025
Allocations
Deposit $1,000
Residential Permit Processing $784/Unit
General Permits
Major General Planning Application (variance, special use permit, major design review, wireless communications facilities, small wireless communications facilities) $3,219
Minor General Planning Application (minor variance, minor design review, eligible facilities request)
$1,019
Permit Revision and/or Permit Extension $600
Categorical Exemption $82
Negative Declaration Review $4,414
Negative Declaration Preparation $7,991
EIR/EIS Cost of consultant +
25%
Other Permits
Fence Permits $291
Home Occupation Permit $146
Minor Sign Review and Approval $161
Major Sign Review and Approval $400
Sign Application Revision $161
Locally Unique Sign Application $3,219
Major Temporary Activity Permit $459
Temporary Use Permit $689
Certificate of Compliance (Subdivision Map Act) $888
Tentative Subdivision Map $5850
Condominiumization of Existing Residential Development $6,016 Vacation Home Rentals
Vacation Home Rental Application $548
Vacation Home Rental Permit – Annual Fee (Varies based on number of occupants) $250 - $1,325 Vacation Home Rental Permit Master Report $68
Hosted Rental Fees
Hosted Rental Permit $288
Hostel Rental Annual Renewal Fee $288
Planning Documents
General Plan Amendment / City Code $8,855
Community Plan / Area Plan / PAS Amendment $8,855
1881
4. HOUSING
AUGUST 2026 4-205
TABLE 4-60
PLANNING APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE
South Lake Tahoe
2025
Annexation
Annexation Fully burdened hourly
staff cost
Other Services
Zoning Letter $253
Planning Review of Building Permits $128
Admin Fee for Cost of Collection on Liens, Nuisance, etc. 25% Public Notice Label Preparation $304
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2025, Planning Division Service Fee.
Based on these fee schedules and estimated construction costs for South Lake Tahoe, Table 4-61 presents typical fees and costs for single- and multifamily housing development in the city. When compared to the cost of construction and land, the combined fees levied by the City, TRPA, and other agencies for a singlefamily unit is 14.8 percent of the estimated development cost and for a multifamily unit is 21.8 percent of the estimated development cost. However, the fees administered by other agencies comprise the majority of these fees. The City fees for a single-family unit are 2.5 percent of the estimated development cost and for a multifamily unit, it is 2.7 percent of the estimated development costs. The City-administered costs do not pose a constraint to residential development in the city.
TABLE 4-61
TOTAL PROCESSING AND IMPACT FEES FOR SINGLE- AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS South Lake Tahoe
Housing Type City
Fees3
Other
Agency
Fees4
Total
Fees
Estimated
Development Cost
per Unit5
Estimated Proportion of
Fees to Development
Costs per Unit
Single-family unit1 $10,812 $48,505 $59,317 $400,000 14.8% Multifamily unit2 $8,062 $57,236 $65,298 $262,500 21.8% Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2025.
Notes:
1 A single-family unit is assumed to be 2,000 square feet with a 400-square-foot garage and a 200-square-foot deck. 2 A multifamily unit is assumed to be 1,500 square feet with a 400-square-foot garage. 3 Includes a building permit fee, residential permit processing fee, encroachment fee, fire sprinklers fee, and City technology fee. 4 Includes the Lake Tahoe School District impact fee, State Building Standards fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, TRPA fees (air quality mitigation, water quality mitigation, excess coverage mitigation, refundable security deposit, and application fee), and the South Tahoe Public Utility District.
5 The construction costs are estimated based on ICC Building Valuation Data, February 2025, adjusted 9 percent higher for California (EstimationQS, 2024; NAHB, 2024), yielding $200/sq ft for single-family and $175/sq ft for multifamily.