South Lake Tahoe City Council
October 6, 2026

Request for Proposals
El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Projects CY 2026 & 2027 (Supplemental Request)
Background
In 1990, Assembly Bill 2766 (AB 2766) was adopted into the California Health and Safety Code.

AB 2766 authorized the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to collect a motor vehicle registration clean air surcharge of $4 per vehicle. Revenues generated from the surcharge are utilized by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for grant programs that reduce air pollution from motor vehicles in order to implement the California Clean Air Act and internal operations. Grant programs include alternative fueled vehicles, electric vehicle infrastructure, shuttles, park and ride facilities, bike trails, dirt road paving and others. Internal operations include planning, monitoring, enforcement and technical studies.

Purpose
This is a competitive grant program with the sole purpose of improving air quality. The AQMD’s goal is to identify projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions at the lowest cost per ton of emissions reduced. Project information and cost-effectiveness rankings will be presented to the El Dorado County (EDC) AQMD Board of Directors for award consideration. Grant funds are to subsidize emission reduction projects, not supplant existing normal operating expenses.

Grant Funding
Approximately $200,000 will be available for the two-year grant term, contingent upon Board of Directors approval. The Board of Directors reserves the right to approve proposals, reject proposals, or fund amounts less than the amounts requested.

Matching Funds
Match must be at least 20% of requested and awarded funding or at least 16.66% of total project budget identified in the application.

Example: $50,000 requested/awarded will require at least $10,000 in match. $50,000 x 20% = $10,000
$10,000/$60,000 = 16.66%
All applicants must contribute minimum matching funds equal to or greater than 20% of the grant amount requested. The Match Share requirement must be fulfilled after receiving the Notice to Proceed and throughout the grant term. The Match Share may be monetary and/or inkind (non-dollar) contributions. Volunteer services are acceptable in-kind contributions and will be valued as the number of volunteer hours at the current State of California minimum hourly wage rate, or other appropriate rate if identified in the subsequent agreement. Other nondollar contributions will be considered. The Match Share must be actual cost to the grant applicant of matching services.
187

Applicant Eligibility
El Dorado County jurisdictions including: cities, special districts, other political subdivisions and jurisdictions joined together by JPAs or MOUs, private companies, private individuals and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for these grants. Applicants may jointly submit regional project applications.

Eligible Project Examples (Other projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions are also encouraged)
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Infrastructure

1. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) installation and upgrade.

2. Alternative gas or liquid fuel equipment installation and upgrade.

Public Education
The California Clean Air Act requires districts include a public education element in their attainment plans. Public education programs should deliver a focused message encouraging behavioral changes that reduce motor vehicle emissions. Project examples include:

1. Development/distribution of educational materials on how residents can improve air quality.

2. Development and distribution of educational materials to at-risk populations on the health impacts of poor air quality and how to avoid them.

3. Air quality curriculum development and implementation in school districts.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction
Projects to reduce motor vehicle trips by providing alternative methods of travel. Examples of these projects include:

1. Videoconferencing systems that reduce the vehicle trips of the public to public facilities.

2. Construction of public park and ride facilities.

3. Subsidies for new commuter vanpools.

4. Construction of bike paths that serve schools or employment centers.

5. Shuttle services.

Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement
Projects that reduce mobile source tail pipe emissions by retrofit or replacement of vehicles and engines with eligible, new (2025 model or later) vehicles and engines, and related fueling infrastructure. Replaced vehicles and engines must be scrapped. Applications for vehicle replacement projects eligible for Carl Moyer funding may be redirected to the Carl Moyer program. Examples of these projects include:

1. Replacement of old light-duty motor vehicles (8500 lbs. or less) with a new light-duty electric, hybrid, alternative fuel or other low emitting vehicle that meets the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV), alternative technology partial zero emission vehicle (ATPZEV), or partial zero emission vehicles (PZEV) standard.

2. Replacement of old medium-duty (8501 lbs – 14,000 lbs.) vehicles with new low emitting medium-duty vehicle that meets the ZEV or super low emission vehicles (SULEV) standard.

3. Replacement of an old heavy-duty vehicle (14,001 lbs or greater) with a low emission alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) of the same class.
188

4. Replacement of an old high emitting engine in a heavy-duty vehicle with a new alternative fueled low emitting engine.

5. Liquefied and compressed natural gas or electric vehicle infrastructure projects Eligible Costs
Eligible costs are direct costs associated with implementing the project, which are incurred after receiving the Notice to Proceed and by the end of the grant term. AQMD reserves the right to make final determinations regarding cost eligibility for each project.

Ineligible Costs
Any costs not directly related to the project are ineligible for grant or matching funds. Ineligible costs using grant or matching funds including, but are not limited to:
• Costs not specifically identified in the Proposal, unless approved in writing by the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) prior to costs being incurred; • Costs covered by another government grant, contract or loan; • Expenses incurred for meetings, workshops, training not associated with the project; • Personnel travel or per diem costs, unless approved in writing by the APCO prior to the costs being incurred;
• Food or beverages;
• Overhead expenses such as costs for utilities, office supplies, and other miscellaneous costs incurred during the project;
• Overtime costs (except for local government staffing during evening or weekend events when law or labor contract requires overtime compensation), unless approved in writing by the APCO prior to the costs being incurred.
• Any personnel costs not directly related to salaries and/or benefits; • Any personnel costs incurred as a result of any employee assigned to the project funded by the grant while not actually working on the project (i.e., working on other tasks, use of accrued sick leave, vacation, etc.)
• Any costs not consistent with local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations; • Interest charges or payments on bonds or indebtedness required to finance project costs; • Fines or penalties due to violation of federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations; • Cameras, cell phones, electronic personal data devices and/or pagers; • Costs connected with contractor claims against the grantee; and • Any costs not deemed appropriate by the APCO.

Audit Requirements
All grantees are required to comply with the following:

1. Audit/Records Access: Grantees agree that AQMD, EDC Auditor, California Air Resources Board, Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative(s) shall have the right to review and copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to contract performance. Grantees agree to maintain such records for a minimum of three years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated, or until completion of any action and resolution of all issues which may arise as a result of any litigation, dispute or audit, whichever is later. Grantees agree to allow designated representative(s) access to such records during normal business hours and allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, grantees agree to include a 189

similar right to audit records and interview staff in any contract or subcontract related to contract performance.

2. Personal Jurisdiction Waiver: If as a result of an audit finding, AQMD seeks reimbursement of costs paid to a grantee, the grantee hereby waives any jurisdictional defenses as a defense to any action in any court of the State of California for recovery of such funds.

Payment of Grant Funds
Grant funds are paid on a reimbursement basis for the actual eligible costs directly related to the implementation of the project as approved in the Contract. All payment requests must include an itemization with documentation of claimed expenses (e.g., itemized receipts, proof of payment invoices, billable personnel hours, etc.).

A minimum of ten percent (10%) of documented expenses on each payment request must be applied to the match requirement. The AQMD shall not under any circumstances reimburse Contractor for commitments made by Contractor for services not performed or materials not received.

Reporting Requirements
The AB 2766 grant is performance based. Periodic performance reports are required to ensure projects are on schedule and within parameters approved by AQMD. A final report summarizing all grant activities is due February 28, 2028.

Grant Term
The grant term is from the Notice to Proceed date through December 31, 2027. Term may be shortened if all project activities will be completed well in advance of December 31, 2027. All costs must be incurred during this term. The final payment request is due February 28, 2028.

Failure to submit final payment request and final report with appropriate documentation by the due date will result in Payment Request rejection and forfeiture of claims for costs incurred.

GRANT PROGRAM MILESTONES
Activity Date
Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued 8/17/2026
Proposal Deadline (no extensions allowed) 10/30/2026 at 5PM Review and Ranking of Applications November 2026*
Board Receives Proposals, Rankings and Awards
Grants Mid December 2025*
Contract Preparation / Execution December 2026 – January 2027* Grant Performance Period Contract Execution Date to 12/31/27 Final Report and Payment Request Due 2/28/28
* Tentative
190

Proposals
Proposal submittal constitutes an agreement to all conditions set forth in the RFP. Proposals must include all required information, letters of support, and technical appendices as follows:

Project Summary (Attachment 1) - Provide basic information indicated, including a brief project overview.

Contents Checklist (Attachment 2) - Use the checklist sheet to ensure that all required proposal contents are included.

Authorization Letter/Resolution – For public agencies, provide governing body letter /resolution authorizing proposal submittal. Authorization must identify grant administrator. For joint proposals, the authorization must be signed by an authorized representative from each entity.

Project Description - Identify objectives and describe project scope of work.

Project Organization/Background - A description of your ability to implement project. Describe previous, similar, successful projects. If using sub-contractors, identify and state their qualifications. If sub-contractors have not been identified, state qualifications to be met.

Emission Benefits/Cost Effectiveness - Estimate total lifetime NOx, ROG, and PM-10 emission reductions. You must use any historical data on ridership, vehicle miles traveled, participation or other metric in the calculations. Calculations, assumptions and data necessary for estimates must be included in proposal and will be verified by AQMD staff. Automated Methods to Calculate Cost-Effectiveness and other cost-effectiveness analysis information is at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cmaq Use December 2025emission factors found on that same webpage.

Work Statement - Describe work phases, tasks and deliverables in sequence. Include all relevant information regarding materials, equipment and personnel involved with the project.

Acknowledgment - All recipients must provide public acknowledgment that project was funded by AQMD with AB2766 Funds. Acknowledgments include placards on equipment, acknowledgment in a public education address or pamphlets, etc. Describe acknowledgment.

Funding Request/Breakdown of Cost - Include amount of money requested from AB2766 DMV Surcharge fund and total project cost. Estimate cost for each task. Identify source of funding for each task. Itemized any equipment to be purchased and the proportion of the cost of each piece of equipment to be paid with AB2766 DMV Surcharge funds. Grant funds may only be used to fund the portion of equipment’s cost related to the provision of air quality benefit.

Matching Funds – State if matching funds are monetary or in-kind (non-dollar). AQMD staff will evaluate matching funds. Ineligible funds will not be used in cost-effectiveness determination.

Provide proof (letter of commitment) that matching funds are available. Matching funds must be available when the grantee enters into contract with AQMD and must be used to fund project. If matching funds become unavailable, projects will be cancelled. 191

Monitoring Program - A monitoring program is required for all projects. Describe how project objectives will be measured and reported to the AQMD.

Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated as described in Attachment 3.

Respondents are advised that:
• Responses will be accepted on a continuous basis after RFP is released up until the deadline. • Incomplete responses will not be accepted.
• All components of the proposal are mandatory.
• Failure to include all requested information may result in rejection. • Minor or inconsequential deviations may be waived by the APCO. • AQMD reserves the right to reject any and all of the responses to the RFP.

Limitations:

This RFP does not commit AQMD to award contracts, pay any proposal presentation costs, or procure or contract for services or supplies. Respondents are entirely responsible for proposal development costs. All proposals become AQMD property and will not be returned.

Contacts:

Technical Administrative
Cory Gutierrez, Senior AQ Engineer Scott Wilson, Program Manager Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management District 330 Fair Lane 330 Fair Lane
Placerville, CA 95667 Placerville, CA 95667
(530) 621-7571 (530) 621-7554
Submission of Proposals:

Two copies of all responses to this RFP must be received in the Air Quality Management District office at 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667. Responses must be marked Attn. Rania Serieh, APCO, Time Critical. Applications may also be emailed to [email protected].

Proposal Withdrawal and Modifications
Applicants may withdraw their proposal by submitting a written request to the APCO, signed by the applicant or authorized agent at any time prior to the proposal submission deadline. The respondent may thereafter submit a new proposal prior to the deadline. Proposal modifications, oral or written, will not be considered after the deadline. Applicants are not to initiate contact with and lobby AQMD during the project evaluation phase about proposed projects.

Notification:

The AQMD will notify applicants within two business days of AQMD Board of Directors decision.

Contract:

Projects chosen for funding will be required to enter into a contract with AQMD. Grantees must comply with EDC vendor and insurance requirements for service agreements. AQMD may 192

require a proposal to be modified prior to being included as an attachment to a contract to help clarify the project commitment.
193

Attachment 1

PROJECT SUMMARY
Applicant:

Contact Person:

Address:

Telephone: FAX:

Email:

Project Description:

Estimated Emission Reductions/Cost-Effectiveness
Useful Life of Project (years)
Total Lifetime Emissions Reduced (lbs. of ROG, NOx, PM-10) Cost-Effectiveness (total project costs)*
Cost-Effectiveness (AQMD Funded project costs)*
* See Attachment 3 for instructions
Budget
Summary
AB 2766 Funds Matching Funds In-Kind Match Total Project Costs Materials $ $ $ $
Personnel $ $ $ $
Other $ $ $ $
TOTAL $ $ $ $
194

BUDGET ITEMIZATION
Expand Table as necessary to itemize all expenditures
Line Item Title/Classification No. Of Hours Salary Rate Benefit % Total Total Costs Personnel
Contracts (removal, transportation, disposal)
Materials & Supplies
Equipment Rental
Other Costs
PROJECT GRAND TOTAL: $ _________________________
195

Attachment 2

CONTENTS CHECKLIST
Applicant:
_____________________________________________________________________________ Project Summary Sheet (Cover) – page _______________
Request for Proposal Contents Checklist (Second Page) – page __________________ Authorization Letter/Resolution page _________________
Project Description – page __________________________
Project Organization/Background – page _______________
Emission Benefits/Cost Effectiveness – page ______________ (Must utilize December 2022 Emission Factors)
Work Statement – page ________________
Funding Request/Cost Breakdown – page _________________ Matching Funds – page ____________________
Schedule of Deliveries/Self-Monitoring Program – page _____________ Local TRPA Review (If Applicable) – page ________________ 2 Copies of Proposal – page __________________
196

Attachment 3

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria are for reference only. AQMD staff will determine a score and make a recommendation to the AQMD Board of Directors. The Board of Directors will make the final award determinations. Applicants must provide sufficient, accurate data to allow AQMD staff to accurately evaluate cost effectiveness. Required data may include time of operation, ridership and vehicle miles traveled. Projects should be designed to achieve the maximum emission reduction at the lowest cost.

Cost Effectiveness - 90 Points
Cost effectiveness will be determined for total project costs (total of grant funds and matching funds):

Total Project Cost Effectiveness
Points $/Pound of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
90 $0 - 10/lb.
80 $10 - 25/lb.
70 $25 - 50/lb.
60 $50 - 75/lb.
50 $75 - 125/lb.
40 $125 - 200/lb.
30 $200 - 400/lb.
20 $400 – 999/lb
10 >$1000/lb
Preferred Projects – 10 Points
Points are awarded for projects having benefits in addition to motor vehicle emissions reduction.

Additional benefits include reduction of non motor vehicle emissions, such as burning, and projects that improve quality of life for EDC residents. Projects with additional benefits are:
• Projects that include new technology demonstration and introduction • Enhanced Transit/Shuttle Service Projects
• Biomass Transport Reduction
If two or more projects receive the same score, priority will be given to the lowest cost project. 197

Attachment 4

SAMPLE CONTRACT
FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. #xxxx
This Agreement made and entered by and between the EL DORADO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a county air pollution control district formed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 40100, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as “AQMD”); and NAME OF GRANTEE’S BUSINESS (hereinafter referred to as "GRANTEE"); W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control districts to reduce emissions from motor vehicles; and
WHEREAS, AB 2766, codified in California Health and Safety Code section 44220, et seq., authorizes districts to impose a fee of up to four dollars upon certain registered motor vehicles within AQMD’s jurisdiction, and the Governing Board of the AQMD has imposed said fee; and WHEREAS, said legislation requires AQMD to use said funds for activities related to reducing air pollution from motor vehicles and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies necessary for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE has proposed a project that meets the eligibility criteria of AQMD and that has been approved by AQMD and the Board of Directors of the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District for funding; and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is willing and able to perform the activities set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, AQMD and GRANTEE mutually agree as follows:
1) PROJECT
GRANTEE shall perform all activities and work necessary to ________________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as "Project"); as set forth in the fully described “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTEE agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, licenses, permits, fees, and other incidentals necessary to perform and complete, per schedule, in a professional manner, the services described herein. GRANTEE represents 198

that GRANTEE has the expertise necessary to adequately perform the Project specified in Exhibit A.
2) PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE/TIMETABLE
a) GRANTEE shall commence performance of work and produce all work products in accordance with Exhibit A, unless this Agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with Article 7, Termination.
b) GRANTEE shall submit biannual performance reports and a comprehensive final report.

The biannual reports shall detail the work performed during the previous two quarters; work planned for the next two quarters; problems identified, solved, and/or unresolved; and the percentage of each task completed. Biannual reports shall be due 30 days after the end of the previous 2 calendar quarters (Report for January through June expenses shall be due on July 30, report for July through December expenses shall be due on January 30). GRANTEE shall provide AQMD with a comprehensive final written report by February 28, 2028. Said final report shall be complete and shall document the work performed under this Agreement.
3) TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be effective upon final execution by the parties and shall cover the period of January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Article 7, Termination. All eligible project costs, except for final report preparation costs, must be incurred prior to December 31, 2027. 4) COMPENSATION
a) AQMD will pay GRANTEE for work completed in accordance with this Agreement the sum of xxxxxxxxx DOLLARS AND xx CENTS ($xxx,xxx.xx) as follows:
i) GRANTEE shall obtain through other sources sufficient additional monies to fund the total cost of the Project as outlined in the Proposal. Satisfactory written evidence of such funding commitments shall be provided to AQMD prior to the release by AQMD of any funds under this Agreement. In the event funding from other sources for the total cost of the Project is not received by GRANTEE, AQMD reserves the right to terminate or renegotiate this Agreement. In accordance with Health and Safety Code section 44233 , GRANTEE agrees to limit expenditure of funds for the purpose of administration to not more than five percent of the monies distributed to GRANTEE. ii) The total obligation of AQMD under this Agreement shall not exceed xxxxxxxxx DOLLARS AND xx CENTS ($xxx,xxx.xx).
iii) AQMD is not obligated to pay GRANTEE for administrative costs exceeding five percent (5%) of the actual total cost of the Project.
199

iv) GRANTEE’s match must be at least twenty percent (20%) of requested and awarded funding or at least sixteen and sixty six hundredths percent (16.66%) of the total Project budget identified in the application.
b) PAYMENTS
i) Advance payments shall not be permitted. Payments will be permitted only at which time an equivalent service has been completed. AQMD shall reimburse GRANTEE biannually, in arrears, after receipt and verification of submitted invoices. Invoices shall be mailed to AQMD at the following address:

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
ATTN: Rania Serieh, Air Pollution Control Officer
330 Fair Lane
Placerville, CA 95667
Payment shall be made to GRANTEE by AQMD upon submission and evaluation of the GRANTEE’S invoice of claim. Said invoice of claim shall set forth the work completed pursuant to this Agreement.
ii) Upon receipt of proper documentation, and verification that GRANTEE has satisfactorily completed the work for which compensation is sought and that the work is in accordance with Exhibit A, “Scope of Work”, AQMD will issue payment to GRANTEE within forty five (45) calendar days of verification. iii) The amount to be paid to GRANTEE under this Agreement includes all sales and use taxes incurred pursuant to this Agreement, if any, including any such taxes due on equipment purchased by the GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall not receive additional compensation for reimbursement of such taxes and shall not decrease work to compensate therefore.
iv) Concurrently with the submission of any claim for payment, GRANTEE shall certify (through copies of invoices issued, checks, receipts, and the like) that complete payment has been made to any and all subcontractors as provided. v) It is understood that all expenses incidental to GRANTEE’S performance of services under this Agreement shall be borne exclusively by GRANTEE. vi) In no event shall compensation paid by AQMD to GRANTEE for the performance of all services and activities under this Agreement exceed the amount set forth in section 4(a) above.
c) SURPLUS FUNDS
Any compensation under this Agreement, which is not expended by GRANTEE pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the Project completion date, shall automatically revert to AQMD. Only expenditures incurred by the GRANTEE in the direct performance of this Agreement will be reimbursed by AQMD. Allowable expenditures under this Agreement are specifically established and included in Exhibit B, “Budget”. 200

d) CLOSEOUT PERIOD
All final claims shall be submitted by GRANTEE within sixty (60) days following the final month of activities for which payment is claimed. No action will be taken by AQMD on claims submitted beyond the 60-day closeout period.
5) NON-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
The terms of this Agreement and the services to be provided thereunder are contingent on the approval of funds by the appropriating government agency. Should sufficient funds not be allocated, the services provided may be modified or this Agreement terminated at any time by giving GRANTEE thirty (30) days prior written notice. 6) INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR LIABILITY
a) GRANTEE is, and shall be at all times, deemed as an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the acts of GRANTEE’S employees, associates, and subcontractors, in connection with the implementation of the Project, and in performance of the work, duties and obligations by GRANTEE under this Agreement. b) GRANTEE shall be responsible for performing the work under this Agreement in a safe, professional, skillful, and workmanlike manner and shall be liable for its own negligence and negligent acts of its employees. AQMD shall have no right of control over the manner in which work is to be done and shall, therefore, not be charged with responsibility of preventing risk to GRANTEE or its employees. AQMD shall retain the right to administer this Agreement so as to verify that GRANTEE is performing its obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.
c) Section 6, Independent Contractor Liability, shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
7) TERMINATION
a) BREACH OF AGREEMENT
i) AQMD may immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, where in the determination of AQMD there is:
(1) An illegal or improper use of grant funds;
(2) A failure to comply with any term of this Agreement; (3) A substantially incorrect or incomplete report submitted to AQMD; or (4) Improperly performed services.
ii) In no event shall any payment by AQMD constitute a waiver by AQMD of any breach of this Agreement or any default, which may then exist on the part of GRANTEE.

Neither shall such payment impair or prejudice any remedy available to AQMD with respect to the breach or default. AQMD shall have the right to demand of GRANTEE 201

the repayment to AQMD of any funds disbursed to GRANTEE under this Agreement which in the judgment of AQMD were not expended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. GRANTEE shall promptly refund any such funds upon demand. iii) In addition to immediate suspension or termination, AQMD may impose any other remedies available at law, in equity, or otherwise specified in this Agreement. b) WITHOUT CAUSE
i) Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon giving the other party at least thirty (30) days advance, written notice of intention to terminate. In such case, AQMD shall, subject to Section 4, Compensation, pay its pro rata share of the reasonable value of all services satisfactorily rendered and actual, reasonable costs incurred up to the time of the termination. Upon such termination, the entire work product produced by GRANTEE and any unexpended funds shall be promptly delivered to AQMD.
8) CHANGES TO AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto. Said amendments shall become effective only when in writing and fully executed by the Contract Administrators. 9) INDEMNIFICATION
a) GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and hold AQMD, its Board, officers, agents, employees, and representatives and the County of El Dorado, its Board, officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless against and from any and all claims, suits, losses, damages, and liability for damages of every name, kind, and description, including attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person, including but not limited to workers, AQMD or the County of El Dorado employees, and the public, or damage to property, or any economic or consequential losses, which are claimed to or in any way arise out of or are connected with the acts or omissions of GRANTEE, its officers, agents, subcontractors, or employees in their performance of this Agreement unless such claim, loss, damage, injury or death is the result of the sole or active negligence of AQMD or the County of El Dorado. This duty of GRANTEE to indemnify and save AQMD and the County of El Dorado harmless includes the duties to defend set forth in Civil Code Section 2778. b) This indemnification obligation shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 10) INSURANCE
a) GRANTEE shall provide proof of a policy of insurance satisfactory to the County of El Dorado’s Risk Management Division and documentation evidencing that GRANTEE maintains insurance that meets the following requirements:
202

i) Full Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance covering all employees of GRANTEE as required by law in the State of California. ii) Commercial General Liability Insurance of not less than $1,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage and a $2,000,000 aggregate limit.
iii) Automobile Liability Insurance of not less than $1,000,000.00 is required in the event motor vehicles are used by GRANTEE in the performance of the Agreement. – Note – Amount required may be higher if proposal involves transportation of nonemployees as part of Project. iv) GRANTEE shall furnish a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the County of El Dorado’s Risk Management Division as evidence that the insurance required above is being maintained.
v) The insurance will be issued by an insurance company acceptable to the County of El Dorado’s Risk Management Division, or be provided through partial or total selfinsurance likewise acceptable to the Risk Management Division. vi) GRANTEE agrees that the insurance required above shall be in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement. In the event said insurance coverage expires at any time or times during the term of this Agreement, GRANTEE agrees to provide at least thirty (30) days prior to said expiration date, a new certificate of insurance evidencing insurance coverage as provided for herein for not less than the remainder of the term of the Agreement, or for a period of not less than one (1) year. New certificates of insurance are subject to the approval of the County of El Dorado’s Risk Management Division and GRANTEE agrees that no work or services shall be performed prior to the giving of such approval. In the event GRANTEE fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein provided, AQMD and/or the County of El Dorado may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Agreement upon the occurrence of such event.
vii) The certificate of insurance must include the following provisions stating that:
(1) The insurer will not cancel the insured's coverage without thirty (30) days prior written notice to AQMD and the County of El Dorado, and; (2) AQMD, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, and the County of El Dorado, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are included as additional insured on an additional insured endorsement, but only insofar as the operations under this Agreement are concerned. This provision shall apply to the general liability policy.
viii)GRANTEE's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects AQMD, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers and the County of El Dorado, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by AQMD, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers and the County of El Dorado, their officers, officials, employees, and volunteers shall be excess of GRANTEE's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
203

ix) Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, AQMD and the County of El Dorado. At the option of AQMD and the County of El Dorado, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects AQMD, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers and the County of El Dorado, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or GRANTEE shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. x) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to AQMD, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers and the County of El Dorado, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. xi) The insurance companies shall have no recourse against AQMD, its officers and employees or any of them or the County of El Dorado, its officers or employees or any of them for payment of any premiums or assessments under any policy issued by any insurance company.
xii) GRANTEE's obligations shall not be limited by the foregoing insurance requirements and shall survive expiration of this Agreement.
xiii)In the event GRANTEE cannot provide an occurrence policy, GRANTEE shall provide insurance covering claims made as a result of performance of this Agreement for not less than three (3) years following completion of performance of this Agreement. xiv)The certificates of insurance shall meet such additional standards as may be determined by AQMD and the County of El Dorado, either independently of in consultation with the County of El Dorado’s Risk Management Division as essential for protection of AQMD and the County of El Dorado.
11) AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
a) GRANTEE shall at any time during regular business hours, and as often as AQMD may deem necessary, make available to AQMD for examination all of GRANTEE’S records and data with respect to the matters covered by this Agreement. GRANTEE shall, and upon request by AQMD, permit AQMD to audit and inspect all of such records and data necessary to ensure GRANTEE’S compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

GRANTEE shall be subject to an audit by AQMD or its authorized representative to determine if the revenues received by GRANTEE were spent for the reduction of air pollution as provided in AB 2766 and to determine whether said funds were utilized as provided by law and this Agreement. If, after audit, AQMD makes a determination that funds provided GRANTEE pursuant to this Agreement were not spent in conformance with this Agreement, or AB 2766 or any other applicable provisions of law, GRANTEE agrees to immediately reimburse AQMD all funds determined to have been expended not in conformance with said provisions.
b) GRANTEE shall retain all records and data for activities performed under this Agreement for at least three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement or until all state and federal audits are completed for that fiscal year, whichever is later. 204

c) GRANTEE acknowledges that if total compensation under this Agreement is greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), this Agreement is subject to examination and audit by the California State Auditor for a period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, after final payment under this Agreement, pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7. In order to facilitate these potential examinations and audits, GRANTEE shall maintain, for a period of at least three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, after final payment under the contract, all books, records and documentation necessary to demonstrate performance under the Agreement.
d) The obligations set forth in this section shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 12) NOTICES TO PARTIES
All notices to be given by the parties hereto shall be in writing and served by depositing same in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Notices shall be in duplicate and addressed as follows:

GRANTEE: AQMD:

Name of Grantee’s Business El Dorado County
P.O. Box xxx Air Quality Management District
Somewhere, CA 95000 330 Fair Lane
Attn : Name of Primary Contact Placerville, CA 95667
Attn: Rania Serieh, APCO
Or to such other location as GRANTEE Directs Or to such other location as AQMD directs 13) CHANGE OF ADDRESS
In the event of a change in address for GRANTEE’s principal place of business, GRANTEE’s Agent for Service of Process, or Notices to GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall notify AQMD in writing as provided in Section 12, Notice to Parties. Said notice shall become part of this Agreement upon acknowledgment in writing by AQMD’s Contract Administrator, and no further amendment of the Agreement shall be necessary provided that such change of address does not conflict with any other provisions of this Agreement. 14) TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
It is understood that for GRANTEE’S performance under this Agreement, time is of the essence. The parties reasonably anticipate that GRANTEE will, to the reasonable satisfaction of AQMD, complete all activities provided herein within the time schedule outlined in the Proposals to this Agreement.
205

15) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
GRANTEE will comply with all federal, State, and local laws and ordinances which are or may be applicable to the PROJECT to be undertaken by GRANTEE including but not limited to Health and Safety Code sections 44220, et seq, all Air Resources Board and AQMD criteria thereunder, prevailing wage and work day definitions where applicable, Government Code section 8546.7, contracting license requirements and permits. 16) NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Except as otherwise set forth herein, nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor will be deemed, to confer rights or remedies upon any person of legal entity not a party to the Agreement.
17) CALIFORNIA FORUM AND LAW
Any dispute resolution action arising out of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, litigation, mediation, or arbitration, shall be brought in El Dorado County, California, and shall be resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 18) ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This document and the documents referred to herein or exhibits hereto are the entire Agreement between the parties and they incorporate or supersede all prior written or oral Agreements or understandings.
19) CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
The AQMD Officer or employee with responsibility for administration of this Agreement is Rania Serieh, Air Pollution Control Officer, or successor. The GRANTEE Officer or employee with responsibility for administration of this Agreement is Name of Responsible Party, or successor.
20) AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
The parties to this Agreement represent that the undersigned individuals executing this Agreement on their respective behalf are fully authorized to do so by law or other appropriate instrument and to bind upon said parties to the obligations set forth herein. 21) PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any provision, sentence, or phrase of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions, sentences, or phrases will continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 206

22) BUSINESS LICENSE
County of El Dorado’s Business License Ordinance provides that it is unlawful for any person to furnish supplies or services or transact any kind of business in the unincorporated territory of County of El Dorado without possessing a County of El Dorado business license unless exempt under County Ordinance Code section 5.08.070. GRANTEE warrants and represents that it shall comply with all of the requirements of County of El Dorado’s Business License Ordinance, where applicable, prior to beginning work under this Agreement and at all times during the term of this Agreement.
23) BINDING ON SUCCESSORS
This Agreement, including all covenants and conditions contained therein, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, including their respective successors-in-interest, assigns, and legal representatives.
24) TAXES
GRANTEE certifies that as of today’s date, it is not in default on any unsecured property taxes or other taxes or fees owed by GRANTEE to El Dorado County or AQMD. GRANTEE agrees that it shall not default on any obligations to El Dorado County or AQMD during the term of this Agreement.
25) CONTRACTOR TO AQMD
It is understood that the services provided under this Agreement shall be prepared in and with cooperation from AQMD and its staff. It is further agreed that in all matters pertaining to this Agreement, GRANTEE shall act as Contractor only to AQMD and shall not act as contractor to any other individual or entity affected by this Agreement nor provide information in any manner to any party outside of this Agreement that would conflict with GRANTEE’S responsibilities to AQMD during term hereof.
26) CALIFORNIA RESIDENCY (FORM 590)
GRANTEE will submit a Form 590 prior to execution of this Agreement, or seven (7) percent of each payment made to GRANTEE will be withheld during the term of this Agreement. This requirement applies to any agreement/contract exceeding $1,500. 27) COUNTY PAYEE DATA RECORD FORM
GRANTEE shall file a County Payee Data Record Form with El Dorado County, unless GRANTEE has on file with El Dorado County a Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form W-9.
28) LEVINE ACT
Levine Act: Pursuant to Government Code section 84308 (SB 1439, the Levine Act), Grantee shall complete and sign the attached Exhibit C, regarding campaign contributions by Grantee, if any, to any officer of County.
207

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first herein below written.

GRANTEE AQMD
NAME OF GRANTEE’S BUSINESS EL DORADO COUNTY

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Date: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ By: ______________________________ By: ______________________________ Authorized Signator Rania Serieh
Title Air Pollution Control Officer
208

Funding Agreement xxxx - Exhibit A
Name of Grantee’s Business

SCOPE OF WORK
Scope of work and Project requirements will be defined in this Exhibit. 209

Funding Agreement xxxx - Exhibit B
Name of Grantee’s Business

EXAMPLE BUDGET
Salary
Rate
Per Hr
Personnel
1 Employee 1 Wages 200 $25.00 $5,000.00
2 Employee 2 Wages 500 $21.00 $10,500.00
3 Employee 3 Wages 500 $27.00 $13,500.00
4 Payroll Taxes (all employees) $4,000.00
5 Workers Comp (all employees) $2,500.00
Subtotal $35,500.00
Operations
6 Insurance $3,000.00
7 Marketing, Advertising, Merchant Fees $4,000.00
8 Adminstrative Costs including report
preparation, accounting, payroll, utilities and
leasing or renting space (limited to 5%)
$1,500.00
Subtotal $8,500.00
PROJECT SUBTOTAL GRANT AMOUNT: $44,000.00
Match
9 Management Wages $6,000.00
10 Insurance $1,000.00
11 Marketing and Advertising $1,800.00
PROJECT SUBTOTAL MATCH AMOUNT: $8,800.00
PROJECT TOTAL: $52,800.00
Title/Classification
$21.00
Budget Total Rate
No. of
Budgeted
Hours
Total
Budgeted
Costs
Line Item
The not-to-exceed amount of this Funding Agreement is $44,000. The distribution of hours and expenses between staff and tasks are estimates only. This spreadsheet represents the composition of the total not-to-exceed budget for the Funding Agreement. In the performance of the scope of services to be provided in accordance with this budget, Contractor may request to reallocate the hours and expenses listed herein among personnel and among the various tasks identified herein, so long as the total not-to-exceed amount is not exceeded and subject to AQMD Air Pollution Control Officer's written approval. In no event shall the "not-to-exceed" amount of this Funding Agreement be exceeded. $27.00
Per Hr
$25.00
210

Funding Agreement xxxx - Exhibit C
Name of Grantee’s Business

LEVINE ACT STATEMENT
California Levine Act Statement
Government Code section 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any officer of El Dorado County from participating in any action related to a contract if he or she receives any political contributions totaling more than five hundred dollars ($500) within the previous twelve (12) months, and for twelve (12) months following the date a final decision concerning the contract has been made, from the person or company awarded the contract. The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contribution by a party to be awarded a specific contract. An officer of El Dorado County includes the Board of Supervisors, and any elected official (collectively “Officer”). It is the Contractor’s/Consultant’s responsibility to confirm the appropriate “Officer” and name the individual(s) in their disclosure.

Have you or your company made any political contributions of more than $500 to an Officer of the County of El Dorado in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your proposals or the anticipated date of any Officer action related to this contract? YES NO
If yes, please identify the person(s) by name:

Do you or your company anticipate or plan to make any political contribution of more than $500 to an Officer of the County of El Dorado in the twelve months following any Officer action related to this contract?
YES NO
If yes, please identify the person(s) by name:

Answering YES to either of the two questions above does not preclude the County of El Dorado from awarding a contract to your firm or any taking any subsequent action related to the contract.

It does, however, preclude the identified Officer(s) from participating in any actions related to this contract.

Date Signature of authorized individual
Type or write name of company Type or write name of authorized individual 211
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:7
Agenda Item: Resolution of Intent to Abandon the Easterly 30-foot Portion of Paradise Avenue Right-of- Way Executive Summary: This item requests City Council adoption of a Resolution of Intent to abandon approximately 1,438 square feet of the easterly 30-foot portion of Paradise Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the Americana Vacation Resort, finding that the action would not affect the roadway’s use or function, is exempt from CEQA under Class 1 Existing Facilities, and would support efficient government operations by transferring maintenance responsibilities to the adjoining property owner, who would also be responsible for appraisal, fair market value payment, and all associated processing costs.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution of Intent to Abandon the Paradise Avenue Right-of-Way and set public hearing date for November 3, 2026.

Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed and Approved By: Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Hilary Roverud, City Manager
Attachments:
01-SR_Paradise_Ave_Abandonment.docx
02-Resolution-Paradise_Ave_Abandonment.docx
03 - Attachment 1 - Abandonment Map.pdf
212
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Resolution of Intent to Abandon the Easterly 30-foot Portion of Paradise Avenue Right-of-Way Location: Paradise Avenue (east of Pine Grove Avenue, west of Americana Vacation Resort 3845 Pioneer Trail, APN 029-160-003)
Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Associate Transportation Planner (530) 542-6070 Background:

The City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works Department received a request from Jan McCarthy, owner of the Americana Vacation Club, to abandon the easterly 30-foot portion of the Paradise Avenue right-of-way east of Pine Grove Avenue, totaling 1,438 square feet (as shown in Attachment 1) and to consolidate that land area with the Americana Vacation Resort located at 3845 Pioneer Trail, APN 029-160-003.

Paradise Avenue was originally created as part of Bijou Park Addition Subdivision in August 1947. The roadway was dedicated to El Dorado County for public use and, upon the City’s incorporation in 1965, this right-of-way became City-owned. The portion of Paradise Avenue proposed for abandonment is located within a 50-foot right-of-way and serves one (1) parcel to the north and one (1) parcel to the south as shown in Attachment 1. The proposed abandonment will not affect the use or function of Paradise Avenue.

Emergency vehicle access has been addressed through the installation of the Hampton Inn emergency access gate.

The application for right-of-way abandonment was heard at the June 11, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2026-009 stating the abandonment of the right-ofway of interest has no adverse impact on the long-range street pattern for the City and is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and Community Plans. With the adoption of this Resolution, the right-ofway abandonment application was able to move forward for City Council consideration.

Pursuant to City Code Section 7.05.360, City Council shall determine whether or not it intends to abandon the street or portion thereof. If it determines that it does intend to so abandon, the Council shall adopt a resolution declaring its intention to do so. The resolution of intention shall fix a time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. The hearing shall be published and posted in a manner prescribed by law at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing date.

If the Resolution of Intent to Abandon the Paradise Avenue right-of-way is adopted as recommended with this staff report, the required public hearing for the abandonment will be scheduled to occur at the City Council meeting scheduled for November 3, 2026.

Issue and Discussion:

The property is subject to vacation under the process in the City’s municipal and the general vacation process under the Streets and Highways Code, section 8320 et seq. As part of this, the City can approve vacation of the street, subjecting the vacation to any conditions of approval deemed appropriate.

Additionally, based on the existing utilities, the City will need to reserve easements as part of the vacation.

In conjunction with the vacation requested, it is anticipated that the applicant will submit t a request to the El Dorado County Surveyor’s Office for technical review and final recording of the Right-of-Way 213
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 2
abandonment and Certificate of Merge. Once the parcel map is approved and recorded, the City will issue the grant deed with the Council Resolution attached.

Financial Implications:

None anticipated.

Environmental Considerations:

The project involves the abandonment of a small portion of an existing public right-of-way and will result in negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Existing utility facilities will remain protected through the reservation of easements for maintenance and access.

The proposed abandonment of approximately 1,438 square feet of dead-end Paradise Avenue right-ofway is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities.

No new development is proposed as part of the abandonment, and any future physical improvements or development would be subject to separate City review and CEQA consideration, as applicable.

Policy Implications:

The request to abandon 1,438 square feet of Paradise Avenue at the end of the roadway, where the street terminates adjacent to the rear of the Americana Vacation Resort property, supports the City’s Strategic Plan Priority 2 by promoting efficient government. If approved, this portion of the roadway would likely be consolidated into the Americana Vacation Resort property and would no longer be the City’s responsibility for maintenance and snow removal.
214
Resolution 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 6, 2026
Resolution Declaring the South Lake Tahoe City Council’s Intent to Abandon a Portion of Paradise Avenue as Public Right-of-Way

BACKGROUND
A. Paradise Avenue was originally created as part of the Bijou Park Addition Subdivision in August 1947 and was dedicated to El Dorado County for public use. Upon the City’s incorporation in 1965, ownership transferred to the City. Paradise Avenue was dedicated to El Dorado County for public use and, upon the City’s incorporation in 1965, this right-of-way became City-owned.

B. The City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works Department received a request from the owner of the Americana Vacation Club to abandon the easterly 30-foot portion of the Paradise Avenue right-of– way east of Pine Grove Avenue, totaling 1,438 square feet, as shown in Attachment 1 hereto, and seeks to consolidate that land area with the Americana Vacation Resort, 3845 Pioneer Trail, APN 029-160-003. The portion of Paradise Avenue proposed for abandonment is located within a 50-foot City right-of-way.

C. City of South Lake Tahoe departments and affected utilities have reviewed the proposed abandonment and will approve the request with the following conditions:
a. The applicants shall record public utility easement(s) to ensure access to existing infrastructure be retained for future maintenance and repair. b. The applicant shall bear all costs of transfer of right-of-way ownership and any lot consolidation process including completing the right-of-way abandonment process, certificate of merge and title transfer.
c. The applicant shall comply with all TRPA permit standard and special conditions of approval.

D. The Planning Commission, in accordance with the provisions contained in Article III Section 7.05.340, has reviewed the proposed abandonment and unanimously found it would have no adverse impact on the long-range street pattern for the City and is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

E. Said Abandonment may also be subject to additional conditions, which shall be included in any final Resolution of Abandonment of the Paradise Avenue right-of-way.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe does hereby:
215
Resolution 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 2
Declares its intention to abandon that 30’ portion of Paradise Avenue public right-of-way east of Pine Grove Avenue. Further, in accordance with the requirements set forth in City Code Section 7.05.320, the City Council hereby sets the time and place for public hearing concerning the proposed abandonment as follows:

Date: November 3, 2026
Time: 9:00am, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

Location: City Council Chambers 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 6, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission.
216
217
218
219
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:8
Agenda Item: Authorization to Submit a Grant Application for the 2027/2028 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project Executive Summary: This item requests City Council authorization to submit a Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027/2028 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant application for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project, a subsequent phase of the Stateline Complete Streets Project, to advance planning and conceptual design for multimodal safety, connectivity, drainage, erosion, and streetscape improvements in the Tourist Core between Stateline Avenue and US Highway 50. If the City is successful in the grant application, the project would include up to $44,159.50 in required local matching funds from General Fund undesignated reserves toward an estimated total planning cost of $385,000.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing the City to submit a grant application for the 2027/2028 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project.

Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed and Approved By: Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_Park_Pine_Connect_GrantApp_FY27-28.docx 02-Resolution_Park_Pine Connection Project.docx
03 - Circulation Study Map_Park & Pine Complete Streets.pdf 220
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Authorization to Submit a Grant Application for the 2027/2028 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project, a Subsequent Phase of the Stateline Complete Streets Project Location: Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Connection between Stateline Avenue and US Highway 50 Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Associate Transportation Planner (530) 542-6070 Background: The Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program released a call for applications in August 18, 2026, with a grant application deadline of October 9, 2026 at 5:00pm. The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. California Senate Bill 1 (SB1) is a transportation funding bill that provides funding to maintain and integrate the State’s multi-modal transportation system.

SB 1 grant funding is intended to support the implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and ultimately achieve the State’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. The purpose of the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program is to support eligible planning projects that directly benefit the multi-modal transportation system and also improve public health, social equity, environmental justice, the environment, and provide other important community benefits. The grant is focused on funding Complete Street plans that include community and stakeholder outreach to improve the connectivity of the multimodal transportation network. The grant is not available to be used for environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor is it intended for the development of detailed engineering plans past the 30% conceptual design stage.

Issue and Discussion:

Authorization is requested to submit a 2027/2028 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant application for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project as a subsequent phase of the Stateline Complete Streets Project. Applying for this grant opportunity would position the City to compete for state planning funds to advance a safer, more connected, and more environmentally sustainable transportation corridor in the Tourist Core Area along Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue between Stateline Avenue and US Highway 50.

There is a notable lack of pedestrian and bicyclist access between US Highway 50, Park Avenue and Pine Boulevard that create potential conflicts between various mobility options in the Tourist Core Area. Parking is often unstructured, and many areas are bare dirt, creating erosion and sediment issues along with safety and mobility challenges within the area.

Drainage issues and lack of streetscape improvements also continue to be a barrier to providing a safe and connected network for active mobility in this heavily used area. The erodible road shoulders have the potential to impair the clarity of Lake Tahoe and should be addressed under the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements.

A conceptual design process will require considerable stakeholder outreach to develop solutions that can accommodate the needs of existing tourism and hotel businesses, residents, and all types of mobility mode users. The main goal of this grant application is to consider connectivity, access and Active Transportation 221
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 2
options for the Tourist Core District. The Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue connection is a priority opportunity to improve safety and connectivity in the area by addressing gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network and evaluating related drainage, erosion, and streetscape conditions.

If the City is successful in this opportunity, a grant-funded planning effort for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Connection would allow the City to:
 Develop conceptual multimodal improvement alternatives;  Conduct stakeholder and community outreach;
 Evaluate drainage and sediment reduction opportunities;  Coordinate with utility and infrastructure providers;  Define a feasible project scope and planning-level design for future implementation funding.

Financial Implications: The Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027/2028 funding cycle for the Sustainable Transportation Grant allows grant requests ranging from $50,000 to a maximum of $750,000 The required local match is 11.47%. This action includes authorization for a grant application in an amount of up to $385,000 and commitment of up to $44,159.50 in matching funds from general fund undesignated reserves if the grant is successfully awarded to the City. The total amount anticipated to be needed for the project to reach 30% design and conceptual plans is $385,000.

Environmental Considerations: The authorization to pursue a grant application for planning and design of the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Connection is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies).

Policy Implications: Initiating a grant to fund the necessary community outreach, technical analysis and development of a plan for the Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Complete Streets Project between Stateline Avenue and US Highway 50 would provide an opportunity to help improve multi-modal transportation in a manner that is safe and accessible to all within the Tourist Core. The goals of the project would advance the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals, specifically:
 Priority 5 - Improve Transportation
Action Item 5.6: Prioritize the implementation of Complete Streets  Priority 7 - Recreation and Equitable Access for All
Action Item 7.3: Increase connectivity and safety
Action Item 7.7: Continue to improve access for people of all abilities to all public spaces. 222
Resolution 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 6, 2026
Authorization to Apply for Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in an Amount of Up to $385,000 for Pine Boulevard/Park Avenue Connection Project

BACKGROUND
A. The City of South Lake Tahoe is eligible to receive federal and/or State funding for certain transportation planning related plans, through the California Department of Transportation.

B. A Restricted Grant Agreement would be needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be reimbursed through the Transportation Planning Grant Program.

C. The grant acceptance authorization, request to delegate authorization to execute the Restricted Grant Agreement and any amendments thereto, and request for budget appropriations, including a match of $44,159.50 will be brought to the City Council upon notification of a grant award.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Authorizes the Public Works Director, or designee, to submit a grant application to the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for an amount of up to $385,000.

2. Commits to the matching funds in the total amount of $44,159.50 by setting aside this amount from the undesignated General Funds, if the grant is awarded.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 6, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:______________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
223
'
'
Map Extent--b,.,'
,,. '
--·-· L..1 '
.---,-•
. I
. r··'
c''.d
r � . ,.. __ _
I I
I I
I -, I
I _,-. •• \ t
I ; ·v ____ J
I t-:,_t ,,__..., I •• , \ Ir
I \/ J !..... :
-
-
I I .. .., r
I I ' ' ,, .,
Complete Streets
Design
Circulation Study
Zone
... �----·
Rd
Meadow Rd
Azure Ave
� _ .. .. City Boundary Black Rock Rd �
Pine Rd Pine Blvd
Manzanita Ave
Cedar Ave
�
"' a..

Lal<.esnore 6\vd
sunrise Ln
d Rd
Greenwoo
Pioneer Tri
Lake Tahoe Blvd
� u c:: u
UJ UJ ..c
0 C
::E
0 u QJ w LL

CITY OF

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Project Area
Vicinity Map 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!} I i I
:.§ I
.3 ,
.3 I C/J ,
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
200 400 600 800
Feet
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\PublicWorks\CompleteStreets\CompleteStreets.�rx I StateHne RFP Vicinity Map I 2/27/2024 Pine Blvd/Park Ave Complete Streets
Study Boundary
End of Linear Park Class I
Bicycle Trail
Class I Multi-use Path
Connection to TTD's
US 50/South Shore
Community Revitalization
Project.
224
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:9
Agenda Item: Agreement with Zenith Economics for Economic Development Market Study and Business Attraction Strategy
Executive Summary: The City of South Lake Tahoe is seeking to advance its economic-development objectives by contracting with Zenith Economics to prepare an Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy. Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Zenith Economics in an amount not to exceed $80,100.00. The project will provide a data-driven assessment of South Lake Tahoe’s current economic conditions, market opportunities, workforce and infrastructure needs, business environment, and dependence on tourism. It will identify and prioritize viable “second economy†sectors that can complement the City’s visitor-serving economy, support year-round employment, broaden the local tax base, promote business resiliency, and attract private investment. The City issued a Request for Proposals and received 23 proposals. Following a thorough evaluation by the selection committee, Zenith Economics was selected as the most qualified firm based on their experience, understanding of the City’s needs, proposed approach, capacity, and cost. The proposed agreement amount is within the approved project budget of $100,000.00. The consultant’s work will include economic and market analysis; stakeholder and community engagement; assessment of business attraction, retention, and expansion opportunities; identification of target industries; infrastructure, workforce, and policy considerations; and development of a prioritized implementation plan. Final deliverables will include draft and final reports, an executive summary, implementation recommendations, and presentations to the City Council. This project advances the City’s 2025–2030 Strategic Plan, Priority #4, Grow and Diversify the Economy, and will provide the analysis, strategy, and actionable roadmap needed to help complete the City’s Economic Development Strategy.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Zenith Economics for the City’s Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy in an amount not to exceed $80,100.00.

Responsible Staff Member: Brian Dossey, Retired Annuitant, Extra help Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_Professional_Services_Agreement_with_Zenith_Economics.docx 02 - Economic Development RFP - Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy.pdf 03 - Professional Services Agreement-Zenith
225
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Professional Services Agreement with Zenith Economics for an Economic Development Market Study and Business Attraction Strategy
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Brian Dossey, Retired Annuitant, Extra Help – 530.542.6000 Hillary Roverud, City Manager, 530.542.6000
Background: The City of South Lake Tahoe is seeking to strengthen and diversify its tourismbased economy by identifying and advancing “second economies”—business sectors and economic activities that are not primarily dependent on visitor spending, are compatible with local conditions, and can operate alongside the City’s visitor-serving economy. The project is intended to identify market opportunities, evaluate the City’s economic competitiveness, and recommend implementation actions to attract, retain, and grow targeted industry sectors that support year-round employment, broaden the tax base, strengthen fiscal sustainability, encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and increase private investment.

The Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy directly supports the City of South Lake Tahoe 2025–2030 Strategic Plan, Priority #4, Grow and Diversify the Economy.

The resulting analysis and strategy will provide a data-driven, implementation-oriented foundation to help complete the City’s Economic Development Strategy.

On July 1, 2026, the City issued Request for Proposals No. 2026-07-29 for economic development consulting services (attachment #2). The RFP sought a qualified consultant to prepare an Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy. Proposals were due on July 29, 2026, through the City’s PlanetBids portal.

The City received 23 proposals in response to the solicitation. Following a thorough review of responsive proposals, the selection committee recommends Zenith Economics as the most qualified firm to perform the work. The RFP evaluation process considered the firms’ demonstrated understanding of the project, experience and capacity, proposed scope and implementation approach, project budget, and relevant recent project experience and references (attachment #3).

Issue and Discussion: The City’s local economy is substantially influenced by tourism and seasonal visitor activity. While tourism remains a critical component of South Lake Tahoe’s economy, reliance on a visitor-serving economic base presents challenges related to seasonal fluctuations, workforce availability, business resiliency, and diversification of employment and revenue 226
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 4
opportunities. The Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy will provide the City with an objective assessment of these conditions and identify viable opportunities for sustained, year-round economic activity.

Zenith Economics will perform a comprehensive scope of work anticipated to be completed over approximately six months. The work will include project management, review of existing City and regional plans, stakeholder engagement, data collection and economic analysis, business attraction and retention analysis, strategy development, and final reporting and presentations.

Key project elements will include:
 Establishing baseline conditions for employment by sector, business composition, available opportunity sites, fiscal characteristics where data are available, and the City’s seasonal and tourism-related economic conditions.
 Reviewing existing City plans, policies, infrastructure documents, housing and workforce studies, tourism and destination-management efforts, and regional economic and labor-market information to identify alignment opportunities and gaps.  Conducting stakeholder outreach, including interviews, focus groups, and, if needed, a roundtable with local businesses, employers, property owners, education and workforce partners, utility providers, regional agencies, tourism stakeholders, and community members.  Evaluating the local and regional economy, including employment, industry concentration, wages, business establishment trends, tax-base composition where data are available, and seasonal and cyclical economic patterns.
 Assessing the City’s dependence on tourism and identifying economic risks and opportunities associated with diversification.
 Identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing viable second-economy industry sectors based on market feasibility, workforce needs, infrastructure capacity, land-use considerations, ability to provide quality employment, and resilience to seasonal fluctuations. Potential sectors may include professional and business services, health and wellness services, remote-worksupportive businesses, environmental and green-economy businesses, education and training activities, technology-enabled firms, creative industries, specialty production, and local-serving industrial services, among others supported by market evidence  Developing practical, prioritized strategies for business attraction, business retention and expansion, real estate and site readiness, broadband and infrastructure investment, workforce partnerships, entrepreneurship and innovation, incentives, and coordination with regional, educational, and private-sector partners.

The final work products will include an Administrative Draft Report, Public Review Draft Report, Final Report, executive summary, presentation materials, an implementation plan, and editable digital files.

The final report will provide an evaluation of viable second economies, target business and industry profiles, an economic diversification and business attraction strategy, and related policy, infrastructure, and organizational recommendations.
227
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 4
The scope also includes a City Council study session on the final draft and a presentation of final deliverables to the City Council.

The Professional Services Agreement (attachment #3) will establish a not-to-exceed amount of, inclusive of all services, travel, and reimbursable expenses, as applicable. The agreement will require City authorization before the consultant may undertake or receive compensation for any work beyond the approved scope or budget.

Financial Implications: The project budget of $100,000.00 has been allocated in the adopted FY 2026-2027 budget under the City Manager’s account 100-01310-42020 Professional Services. The proposed agreement with Zenith Economics is not to exceed $80,100.00, which is within the approved project budget.

The agreement will provide for monthly invoices based on work performed and City staff approval.

Invoices will identify services performed, dates of service, personnel hours and rates, and reimbursable expenditures, if any. No additional compensation beyond the approved not-to-exceed amount will be authorized without prior written approval by the City.

Environmental Considerations: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15306.

Policy Implications: Approval of the Professional Services Agreement advances the City Council’s adopted 2025–2030 Strategic Plan, Priority #4, Grow and Diversify the Economy. The Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy will provide the City Council and staff with a structured, evidence-based framework for future economic-development policy, investment prioritization, business-attraction efforts, infrastructure planning, workforce partnerships, and coordination with regional and educational partners.

The project will also help complete the City’s Economic Development Strategy by translating existing plans, stakeholder input, market conditions, and economic data into prioritized short-, mid-, and longterm actions. The resulting strategy is intended to strengthen the City’s economic resilience while maintaining compatibility with the community’s tourism economy and the unique conditions of the City of South Lake Tahoe.
228
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page
4 of 4
229

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR
Economic Development Market Analysis and
Business Attraction Strategy
RFP # 2026-07-29
Requests for Proposals will be received until 3:00pm on July 29, 2026 1901 Lisa Maloff Way
City of South Lake Tahoe
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
230
1 SUMMARY
The City of South Lake Tahoe is requesting proposals from economic development consultants for an Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy focused on identifying and evaluating “second economies” that can complement and diversify the local tourism-based economy.

Proposals are due on or before July 29, 2026 no later than 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) through PlanetBids online portal (see section 1) and addressed to:

Attn: Brian Dossey, City Manager’s Office
Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy 1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. Fax and Electronic-mailed (e-mail) submission will not be accepted.

Read this RFP document carefully as the award will be given to the most “responsible and responsive” Proposer responding to this RFP. The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFP at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposals.

In the opinion of the City of South Lake Tahoe, this RFP is complete and without need of explanation. However, if you have questions, or should you need any clarifying information, please use the Q&A feature that is found within Planet Bids, where the RFP is posted.

Please note that no information given will be binding upon the City unless such information is issued in writing as an official addendum to this RFP.

TIMELINE OF CRITICAL DATES
Release of RFP July 1, 2026
Deadline for Question Submittal via Planet
Bids
July 13, 2026
City Response to Questions vis Planet Bids July 20, 2026 RFP submittals DUE July 29, 2026
Selection Committee Review Period/Interviews August 1 – August 28, 2026 Award Date Fall 2026
231
2 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

1. Register with the City
All Proposers must complete a “Vendor Registration Form” within PlanetBids to be entered in the City of South Lake Tahoe Vendor Database, which is required to submit a proposal. Proposers will be notified by the City of any addenda that may be issued to this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Proposers must register in the City’s Vendor Database to be notified of such addenda To register, go to: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/14997/portal-home and follow the instructions applicable to Proposer. Following submission, Proposer will receive a confirmation message within 24 hours from the City. Proposers will then be prompted to complete the “Vendor Registration Form”. Proposers are solely responsible for maintaining up to date and accurate information in the Vendor Database.

2. Number of Copies
One (1) Proposal must be submitted through the Planetbid portal. Proposals shall not be e-mailed or faxed to the City. Proposals not received by the date and time specified in this RFP, will be rejected. Documents submitted in response to this RFP will become the property of the City of South Lake Tahoe and will be regarded as public record under California Public Records Act under Government Code 6250 et seq., and subject to review or release to the public, excluding financial records marked “confidential” which shall be available for the Proposer to pick up following a review and selection of the firm(s).

3. Format
Font, Type and Style: All proposals shall be single-sided and professionally prepared (no hand written proposals will be accepted). There are no requirements on font size, type or style requirements.

Not Bound: Proposals shall not be bound with anything other than a clip or staple to allow the City to make additional copies as needed. No comb binding or permanent binding is permitted.

4. Submittal Deadline
Response to this RFP is due on or before July 29, 2026 no later than 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) via Planetbid. Reponses received after the deadline will not be accepted; there are no exceptions. Fax and Electronic-mailed (e-mail) submission will not be accepted.

5. Selection Process
A Selection Committee consisting of City Staff will evaluate the submitted proposals. Proposer(s) will be objectively evaluated based on their responses to the project scope outlined in this RFP.

The written proposal should clearly demonstrate how the Proposer could best satisfy the requirements of the City. The Selection Committee will utilize the Evaluation Method and Criteria described on page 14 of this RFP to rate and rank each proposal. 232
3 If more information is needed following a review of the Proposals, the Selection Committee may invite one or more of the Proposers to a Selection Interview. Upon completion of interviews, (if needed) a recommendation by the Selection Committee to the City Manager/City Council will be made at that time and awarded in accordance with the City of South Lake Tahoe Procurement Policies & Procedures.

The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFP at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposal.

6. Professional Services Agreement
The Professional Services Agreement with the selected Proposer will begin within 30 days of award of contract. The selected Proposer will be required to sign the City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement. A sample of this Agreement is attached hereto, and the City reserves the right to amend or edit this Agreement however it sees fit.

7. Reservations
a) The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, whether or not minimum qualifications are met, and to modify, postpone, or cancel this Request for Proposal, in whole or in part, or decide to award a contract to perform only some of the services outlined in this Request For Proposal, without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization.
b) In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any Proposer and to negotiate the final scope of services with the selected Proposer.

The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to issuance of an agreement, contract or purchase order. Costs of developing the proposals, oral presentations or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFP are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City of South Lake Tahoe.
c) Only the City Council of South Lake Tahoe, or the City Manager after being duly authorized by the City Council, may execute the Agreement with the successful Proposer. Further, it is understood that respondents must independently evaluate the information in this RFP and that the City makes no guarantee of data accuracy. d) The City reserves the right to waive or permit cure of minor informalities and/or insignificant mistakes such as matters of form rather than substance and to conduct discussions and negotiations with any qualified respondent in any manner deemed necessary by the City to serve its best interests. The City also reserves the right, based on its sole judgment and discretion, to award a contract based upon the written proposals it receives without conducting discussions, interviews or negotiations. e) If, in the opinion of the City, a proposal contains false or misleading statements or references, it may be rejected without notice to Proposer. 233
4 f) The City reserves the right to obtain written clarification of any point in a Proposer's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a particular proposal. Failure of a Proposer to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the proposal. g) The City reserves the right, without qualification, to select a Proposer for further discussions based solely on the content of the RFPs and relevant information obtained from others concerning the respondent's respective records of past performance. . h) Proposer agrees that any response submitted to this RFP will remain current and valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.

8. Local Business Preference (applies to RFP’s over $50,000 only) a) The City shall apply a five percent discount to all local businesses which submit proposals for services for The City of South Lake Tahoe. The City shall evaluate the local businesses’ proposals as though the proposal had been submitted at a cost of five percent lower than the cost submitted.
b) Local Business shall mean a business which maintains its principle place of business in a fixed office within the City of South Lake Tahoe and possesses a current South Lake Tahoe business license. To establish a principle place of business in South Lake Tahoe, a business must demonstrate the majority of its principals are based in the South Lake Tahoe office, and that it pays South Lake Tahoe payroll taxes on at least 51percent of its total payroll.

9. Bidder’s Security
a) When deemed necessary, bidders’ security may be prescribed in invitations to bid, RFP’s and RFQ’s. Bidders shall be entitled to return of bid security; provided however, that a successful bidder shall forfeit his or her bid security upon his or her refusal or failure to execute that contract within 10 days after receipt of contract. 234
5 INTRODUCTION

8. Background
The City of South Lake Tahoe is located along the south shore of Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County, California and consists of approximately 16.5 square miles of land and lake shoreline within the Lake Tahoe Basin. The City is located in a mountainous environment with a touristbased economy. The City’s population is currently approximately 23,000 full time residents, with as many as 200,000 people visiting during the busiest summer weekends.

The City seeks consultant services to prepare an Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy focused on identifying and evaluating “second economies” that can complement and diversify the local tourism-based economy. The work should assess market opportunities, economic competitiveness, and implementation actions to help the City attract, retain, and grow targeted industry sectors that provide year-round employment, broaden the tax base, and strengthen economic resilience. The Strategy will also include specific action items geared towards creating new job opportunities, encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, enhancing fiscal sustainability and increasing private investment.

For purposes of this scope, second economies means, industry clusters, business types, and economic activities that are not primarily dependent on visitor spending, but that are compatible with local conditions and can coexist with the tourism sector.

The consultant shall provide targeted outreach, fact based, data-driven analysis, and actionable recommendations to support policy, investment, business attraction, initial prioritization of resources and long-range economic development decision-making.

9. Objective
The consultant’s work shall, at a minimum, achieve the following objectives:
• Evaluate the City’s current economic base and degree of reliance on tourism. • Establish a baseline of non-services sector business and provide methodology that details how to update that data over time.
• Identify viable second-economy sectors that could diversify local economic activity. o Assess the market feasibility, infrastructure needs, workforce implications, and land use considerations for those sectors.
• Provide tools and methods that foster and support already emerging second- economies. • Identify barriers to business attraction and expansion. • Identify programs that stimulate local growth through public and private investment 235
6 • Recognize public incentives as catalysts to leverage and encourage public and private investment.
• Recommend strategies to attract, retain, and support non-service sector businesses. • Provide realistic implementation-oriented deliverables or action plan that can guide City actions, partner coordination, and future investment.

SCOPE OF SERVICE

10. Scope of Work to be Performed
Task 1. Project Management
The consultant shall provide overall project management, administration, quality control, and coordination throughout the duration of the project. Anticipated project length is 4-6 months.

Subtasks
• Prepare a schedule and communication protocol.
• Facilitate all stages of the Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy. • Conduct a kickoff meeting with City staff to confirm project goals, scope, schedule, roles & responsibilities, and decision points.
• Coordinate regularly with the City’s Project Manager and designated staff team. • Provide monthly progress updates, including completed tasks, upcoming activities, issues requiring City direction, and budget status.
• Manage internal quality assurance and quality control for all work products. • Maintain meeting notes, action items, and document control. • Facilitate one (1) City Council Meeting Study Session where the final draft report is presented
• Conduct one (1) presentation of final deliverables to City Council Task 2. Review of Existing Conditions and Relevant Plans The consultant shall review existing background information, policy documents, and planning materials relevant to economic development, land use, infrastructure, and market positioning. 236
7 Subtasks
• Review relevant existing documents provided by the City and other agencies, which may include:
o General Plan and land use policies
o Economic development strategies or prior studies
o Specific plans and area plans
o Housing and workforce housing studies
o Transportation, parking, and infrastructure plans
o Capital improvement plans
o Tourism and destination management studies
o Climate, sustainability, and resilience plans
o Broadband and utility planning documents
o Regional economic and labor market reports
• Summarize current plans and policies and what businesses they support. • Identify gaps, inconsistencies, and opportunities for alignment across plans and programs that target specific economic sectors
• Document baseline existing conditions related to:
o Employment by sector
o Business composition and business mix
o Development patterns and opportunity sites
o Fiscal characteristics, where data is available
o Seasonal economic fluctuations and tourism dependency Task 3. Stakeholder Engagement
The consultant shall review existing stakeholder engagement and then design and implement a complementary stakeholder engagement process to inform the market analysis and ensure that recommendations reflect local conditions, business perspectives, and community priorities.

Subtasks
237
8 • Prepare a stakeholder engagement plan identifying key audiences, engagement methods, and timing.
• Coordinate with City staff to identify stakeholders, which may include:
o Local businesses and major employers
o Chambers of commerce and business organizations
o Commercial property owners and developers
o Workforce development entities
o Educational institutions
o Utility and infrastructure providers
o Economic development partners
o Regional, county, and state agencies
o Tourism-related stakeholders
o Residents and community groups, as appropriate
• Conduct stakeholder interviews, two focus groups and a roundtable if needed. • Obtain input on:
o Reviewing recent survey results and confirming perceived economic strengths and weaknesses
o Business climate and regulatory barriers
o Workforce availability and skills gaps
o Real estate and infrastructure constraints
o Opportunities for non-service sector industry growth
o Desired types of businesses and employment opportunities • Prepare a stakeholders findings memorandum highlighting key themes, opportunities, and constraints identified through engagement.

Task 4. Data Collection and Analysis
The consultant shall conduct comprehensive economic and market analysis to identify, evaluate, and prioritize potential second economies and related business attraction opportunities. 238
9 Subtasks

4.1 Economic Base and Market Analysis
• Analyze the local and regional economy, including:
o Employment trends
o Industry concentration and specialization
o Wages and earnings
o Business counts and establishment trends
o Tax base composition, where data is available
o Seasonal and cyclical patterns
o Define methodology to track the number or percent of non-service sector businesses in the city.
• Evaluate the City’s competitive position within the broader regional market. • Assess consumer, business, and industry trends relevant to future growth.

4.2 Tourism Dependency and Diversification Analysis
• Assess the degree to which the local economy depends on tourism and visitor-serving uses.
• Identify economic risks associated with overreliance on seasonal or tourism-driven activity.
• Define criteria for viable second economies, such as:
o Ability to operate year-round
o Potential for quality jobs and wage growth
o Moderate infrastructure demands
o Feasibility given location and access constraints
o Resilience to seasonal fluctuations
• Identify and evaluate second-economy sectors that may be suitable for the City.

Examples may include:
o Professional and business services
o Health and wellness services
239
10 o Remote-work-supportive businesses
o Outdoor product design, testing, and specialty manufacturing o Environmental services and green economy businesses
o Education, training, and research-related activities
o Small-scale artisan, specialty food, or value-added production o Technology-enabled firms
o Outdoor adventure and guiding
o Trades, repair, logistics support, and local-serving industrial services o Creative industries and digital media
• The consultant shall not be limited to these examples and should identify the sectors most supported by market evidence.

4.3 Business Attraction and Retention Analysis
• Identify target business types and industry clusters with the greatest potential for attraction, expansion, or retention.
• Assess key location factors affecting those target sectors, including:
o Workforce supply and skills
o Broadband and telecommunications capacity
o Utilities and infrastructure
o Access and transportation
o Available sites and buildings
o Cost structure and development feasibility
o Quality of life and business climate
• Analyze competing and comparable communities and identify lessons, differentiators, and best practices.
• Identify barriers to attracting second-economy businesses, including regulatory, market, infrastructure, and organizational constraints.

4.4 Strategy Development
240
11 Based on the analysis, develop practical strategies for the City and its partners to attract and support identified second economies. Strategies should address, at a minimum:
• Business attraction messaging and market positioning
• Business retention and expansion programming
• Real estate and site development readiness
• Infrastructure and broadband needs
• Workforce development partnerships
• Incentive tools and financing mechanisms, where appropriate • Partnerships with regional agencies, educational institutions, and private sector entities • Structure and prioritize recommendations and strategies (i.e. short, mid and long term actions).
• Provide a technical memorandum documenting data sources, methods, and findings Task 5. Final Deliverables
The consultant shall prepare final written and presentation materials suitable for staff, decisionmakers, partner organizations, and public use.

Subtasks
• Prepare an Administrative Draft Report for City staff review. • Revise the report based on staff comments and prepare a Public Review Draft. • Prepare a Final Report incorporating City comments.
• Develop a concise Implementation plan including, recommended actions, responsible parties, timeframes, resource considerations, and priority levels. • Prepare presentation materials summarizing findings and recommendations. • Present findings to City staff and up to City Council, as directed by the City.

Final Report Content
The final report shall include, at a minimum:
• Executive summary
• Existing conditions overview
241
12 • Summary of stakeholder input
• Market analysis findings
• Assessment of tourism dependency and diversification opportunities • Identification and evaluation of viable second economies • Second-economy sector evaluation matrix
• Include strategies and provide tools that may attract identified second economies. • An economic diversification and business attraction strategy, including business retention and expansion.
• Include a strategy that supports entrepreneurship and innovation. • Include a strategy that allows for collaboration with educational institutions in job creation and advancement related to second economies.
• Include a plan to develop and prepare new programs and/or incentives or updates as needed.
• Target business and industry profiles
• Policy, infrastructure, and organizational recommendations Deliverables
• Administrative Draft Report
• Public Review Draft Report
• Final Report
• Executive summary and presentation deck
• Final digital files in editable and PDF formats
242
13 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

11. Proposal Requirements - All proposals must include the following information and shall be organized as described below.

A. Cover Letter (0-5 points)
The cover letter shall be addressed to Brian Dossey, City Manager’s Office, and at a minimum, must contain the following:
• Identification of Firm, including name, address and telephone number • Name, title, address and telephone number of contact person during period of proposal evaluation
• A statement to the effect that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from date of submittal
• Signed by person authorized to bind the Firm to the terms of the proposal.

B. Executive Summary (10 points)
The intent of this narrative is to convince the City the Proposer understands the requirements of proposal, the nature of the work, and the level of effort necessary to successfully provide the defined services.

C. Company History, Background and Experience (0-20 points) Describe the Company’s history and organizational structure, including the size of the company, location of office(s) and years in business. Provide resumes for project team members. Also include the Firm’s background, experience, and capacity to undertake the project/services for the City of South Lake Tahoe in conformity with the requirements of the RFP.

D. Scope of Work/Implementation (0-35 points)
Describe the Company’s general approach to managing the services provided including an explanation of the methodology to be followed and specific plans to manage, control, and supervise the services in order to insure satisfactory provision of services. In developing the work plan, reference should be made to the specific requirements and specifications noted in the Scope of Services (pages 6-12). Provide a delivery schedule designed to meet the requirements of the City. An implementation time-line from the Company is required. Provide description implementation plan considerations, including timeframes and deliverables for various stages E. Project Budget (0-25 points)
Provide a description of the project cost and/or fees itemized according to the RFP proposal. The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and indirect costs, including all out-of-pocket expenses. The City of South Lake Tahoe will not be responsible for the 243
14 expenses incurred in preparing and submitting the proposal. The Company shall present all costs, fees, taxes, and charges based on achievement of deliverables, which should be outlined in the Company’s cost proposal.

F. Description of Recent Projects/References (0-5 points) Provide a description of accounts/ agreements of a similar nature including at least three (3) recent client references with names and telephone numbers, contact persons.

EVALUATION METHOD & CRITERIA
Proposals will first be reviewed for responsiveness to the requirements. If any information is missing from the required content, the proposal may be deemed non-responsive and returned to proposer and any further review is subject to the City’s discretion (see Reservations, page 3).

The Selection Committee will make a recommendation based on the criteria in this Proposal to award the contract/agreement to a selected Proposer. The City may conduct interviews as described on page 3 under Selection Process.

12. Evaluation Criteria
Recommendations for selection will be based on the following weighted criteria of 100 possible points and passing status on all Pass or Fail categories, if any. This information should match the proposal content requirements on pages 13-14.

Criteria Points
A. Cover Letter 5
B. Executive Summary 10
C. Company History, Background & Experience 20
D. Scope of Work/Implementation 35
E. Project Budget 25
F. Description of Recent Projects/References 5

244

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the _________ day of October 2026 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Zenith Economics, LLC (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the services set forth in this agreement and shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in this agreement. Consultant shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind City in any respect.

The Consultant agrees that it has satisfied itself by its own investigation and research regarding the conditions affecting the work to be done and labor and materials needed, and that its decision to execute this Contract is based on such independent investigation and research.

All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement will be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit B, “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, outlines the fees and compensation which shall be paid pursuant to this Agreement.

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue until project completion. 245

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $81,100.00 without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.

4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, the applicable hourly rate, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.

5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform extra work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, extra work without prior written authorization from City.

6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City or Consultant immediately for cause or without cause upon thirty days (30) days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination, and City shall be entitled to all work performed to that date.

Termination, revocation, or expiration of this Agreement shall not release either party from liability resulting from an event which occurred prior to such termination, revocation or expiration.
246

7. Ownership of Documents.

All plans, studies, documents and other writings, including working notes and internal documents, prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the property of City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request. All documents prepared by Consultant are confidential and shall be maintained to preserve their confidential nature. Release of any such documents to third parties shall only be made upon written consent of City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant retains a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to the general methodologies and non-sensitive baseline data developed under this Agreement for unrelated work, provided all deliverables and work product remain City property and no City confidential or sensitive information is used.

8. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City 247
for inspection at City offices when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the receipt of notices in this Agreement.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City and that the records and documents be maintained at City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.

9. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City.

Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Consultant and not of the City.

City is not required to make any deductions or withholdings form the compensation payable to Consultant under the provisions of this Contract, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of Consultant’s assigned personnel. Any third party persons employed by Consultant shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Contract.

10. Interest of Consultant. Consultant, (and principals, associates and professional employees of consultant) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the 248
performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will not serve in a staff capacity and will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to their rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and,
b. Possesses no authority with respect to any city decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. [FPPC Reg. 18700.3(a)].

11. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise. Consultant's reports, projections, and analyses are planning estimates prepared solely for the City's use under stated assumptions; they are not tax, legal, or investment advice and are not intended for reliance by third parties.

12. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in carrying out their duties under this Agreement. Consultant shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of federal, state and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work authorized by this Agreement. The City, its officials, officers, elected officials, appointed officials and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.
249
In the event it is determined that the Consultant is required to pay prevailing wages for the work performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all penalties and wages as required by law.

13. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. If Consultant will be physically present in the City of South Lake Tahoe to perform some or all of the services, Consultant shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that payments made pursuant to this Agreement may be withheld until this provision has been satisfied.

14. Indemnity. Consultant hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any liability for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages and injuries, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therein), arising out of this Agreement or caused in any way by Consultant’s negligent performance of this Agreement or its breach of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

Consultant agrees to defend City from and against any and all losses, damages, claims costs and fees arising out Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, omissions, regarding this Agreement, the Consultant’s work under this Agreement, or the consultant’s Scope of Work.

City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Consultant which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Consultant, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter set forth.

This hold harmless agreement by Consultant shall apply to all damages and claims for damages, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operation of Consultant or any subcontractor, regardless of whether 250
such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.

Consultant further waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity or right of contribution from the City for any liability, claims, demands, costs, charges and expenses and causes of action of whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with this Agreement, and consultant’s work under this Agreement.

15. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies.
i. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for their employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor’s employees. Any notice of cancellation of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. Consultant shall provide thirty (30) days written notice of nonrenewal of any Workers’ Compensation policies. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by Consultant for City.
ii. Commercial General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage must be made on
the standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made forms are not acceptable without prior written consent of City. City of South Lake Tahoe must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing operation by on behalf of 251
Consultant. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general
aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required
occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and nonowned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant or by its employees, or subcontractors. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.
v. Cyber Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain cyber liability insurance with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim, two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is
undertaken by Vendor in this agreement and shall include, but not limited to, claims involving security breach; system failure; data recovery; business interruption; cyber extortion; social engineering; infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, and alteration of electronic information. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties, 252
and credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. Vendor’s policy shall be primary and shall not seek contribution from the City’s coverage, shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, and shall be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are additional
insureds. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy by Vendor shall not affect coverage provided to the City. If Vendor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums listed above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Vendor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.
b. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insured’s under Consultant’s General Liability and Automobile Liability policies with respect to liability arising out of this Agreement and/or work performed by or on behalf of the
Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self-insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each,
except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring Consultant.
253
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City except for Consultant’s Professional Liability and Employers’ Liability policies, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.
v. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. No policies of insurance carried by Consultant shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice to the City Attorney by Certified Mail.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. The Consultant shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies.

The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein shall be reasonable and approved by the City Attorney.
d. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all insurance required under this section has been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Consultant allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until all similar insurance required and reasonably consistent limits of the subcontractor has been so obtained and approved. Certificates of insurance shall contain no exclusions unless negotiated with the City Attorney and approved, in writing, by the City Attorney.

16. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.

Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
254
Provide a copy to: City Attorney’s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
If to Consultant: Samuel Maury Holmes, CEO
Zenith Economics, LLC
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, PMB 2220
Los Angeles, CA 90071

17. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.

18. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

19. Dispute Resolution. Any dispute concerning this Agreement will be first submitted to the City Manager or his designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, such dispute shall be submitted to the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final and shall be appealable only to the El Dorado Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, and as provided by law.

20. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in the Superior Courts in the County of El Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.
255

21. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any Consultant or person, other than the independent contractors hired in accordance with Consultant’s standard business practice, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid, nor has it agreed to pay any Consultant or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant or an independent contractor hired as discussed above, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

22. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of ancestry, age, color, disability, genetic information, gender expression, gender identity, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health decision making, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination.

23. Anti-Lobbying Certification. Consultant shall submit to City the Anti-Lobbying Certification contained in Exhibit C. Further, Consultant shall require that the language of the certification in Exhibit C be included in all contracts or subcontracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and that all Consultants and contractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.

24. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures that neither it nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
256

25. Americans with Disabilities Act. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures the City that it complies with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. 12101, et. seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to ADA.

26. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

27. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

28. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between City and Consultant. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

29. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

30. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement.

31. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.

Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.
257
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: CONSULTANT:

By___________________________ By ________________________________ City Manager Samuel Maury-Holmes, CEO
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________ Business License # 334912
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________ Date ________________________________ City Attorney
ATTEST:

By______________________________ Date ________________________________ City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C - Anti-Lobbying Certification
258

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
259
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 12 D. Scope of Work/Implementation
Zenith's approach to the Economic Development Market Analysis and Business Attraction Strategy is organized around the five tasks defined in the RFP's Scope of Service. The work follows a sequential structure where each task builds on the outputs of the preceding one: project management establishes the coordination framework; the existing conditions review creates the analytical baseline; stakeholder engagement surfaces local knowledge that secondary data cannot capture; data collection and analysis produces the quantitative findings and sector recommendations; and the final deliverables synthesize everything into an actionable strategy with implementation timelines.

Figure 1: Analytical Methodology and Sector Evaluation Framework The City has already invested in significant groundwork. The June 2026 Business Community Economic Development Workshop, the SWOT analysis developed from that effort, and the survey data collected from August 2025 through June 2026 give us a qualitative foundation to build on rather than duplicate.

Our approach integrates the City’s existing outreach findings from the start, then layers quantitative analysis on top to test and extend what the community engagement has already surfaced. Zenith has also begun quantifying South Lake Tahoe’s economic profile from public data. Median household income in the City is $82,002 against $99,122 statewide, and roughly 52 percent of renter households pay 30 percent or more of income toward rent (ACS 2020–2024 5-Year). Accommodation and food services accounts for 16.0 percent of covered private employment in El Dorado County against 10.7 percent statewide, a location quotient of 1.50, and county employment in the sector swings roughly 18 percent between its seasonal peak and trough (BLS QCEW, 2025). Because QCEW publishes no sub260 South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 13 county geography and El Dorado County includes the non-seasonal West Slope, that figure is a floor on the City’s true concentration and seasonality. Census LEHD data for 2023 shows 9,907 jobs located in the City, of which 56 percent are held by workers living outside city limits and 19 percent by workers living out of state. Our baseline assessment in Task 2 will quantify these dynamics at the sector level using City-provided data alongside secondary sources.

Task 1: Project Management
Zenith will provide project management, administration, quality control, and coordination for the full duration of the engagement. The project management structure is designed to ensure effective oversight of all services: Samuel Maury-Holmes will serve as Project Director with responsibility for managing the overall engagement, controlling scope and schedule against the approved work plan, and supervising all analytical work and deliverable production. Every analytical output produced by one economist will be independently reviewed by the other before submission, and Dr. Kevin Williams will validate the methodology and the principal analytical outputs. This structure ensures that no deliverable reaches the City without at least two levels of independent review.

Zenith understands the City will designate a single Project Manager as the primary point of coordination, with occasional support from other City staff as needed. Within two weeks of contract execution, we will deliver a project schedule and communication protocol to the City's designated Project Manager, covering milestones, deliverable deadlines, meeting cadences, and points of contact.

The kickoff meeting with City staff will confirm project goals, scope, schedule, roles and responsibilities, and decision points. Monthly progress updates will cover completed tasks, upcoming activities, issues requiring City direction, and budget status. Zenith will maintain meeting notes, action items, and document control throughout the engagement, ensuring all project records are organized and available to the City Project Manager. Monthly check-ins with the City Project Manager will occur via email, phone, or Microsoft Teams, supplemented by ad-hoc touchpoints as needed between scheduled meetings. Zenith will maintain a standing response time of one hour during business hours (PST).

Zenith's average communication response time on active engagements is under one hour. Key personnel are committed for the duration of the engagement; any substitution would be made only with the City’s prior written approval and with personnel of equivalent qualification.

Zenith will facilitate one City Council Study Session (presenting the final draft report) and one final presentation of deliverables to City Council, both in person in South Lake Tahoe. All other project meetings may be conducted virtually. South Lake Tahoe will be Zenith's priority engagement during the performance period. Both principals are committed to this project through delivery, with no competing engagements of comparable scope during the active analysis phases. Zenith can reallocate hours across tasks by mutual agreement, and the two-principal structure allows weekly capacity to concentrate on whichever task sits on the critical path. Because the analytical work is not delegated, scheduling and resource decisions can be made more immediately.
261
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 14 Task 2: Review of Existing Conditions
Plans and Policy Review
Because the City has not previously conducted an economic diversification or business attraction study, this review builds the baseline from the ground up. The City has confirmed it will provide most plans identified in the RFP at project kickoff. Zenith will review these documents and datasets, including the General Plan and land use policies, specific and area plans, housing and workforce housing studies, transportation, parking, and infrastructure plans, capital improvement plans, tourism and destination management studies, climate and sustainability plans, broadband and utility planning documents, and regional economic and labor market reports. Zenith will produce a written summary of current plans and policies and the business types they support, documenting how each reviewed plan relates to economic development conditions and second-economy potential. The City's SWOT analysis, Situation Assessment, and survey data from the August 2025 through June 2026 outreach effort will be integrated into this review. The analysis will identify what existing plans and policies support, and where gaps, inconsistencies, or misalignments exist across plans and programs that target specific economic sectors.

The review will assess how existing housing and workforce housing conditions, transportation, parking, and infrastructure capacity, and broadband availability would benefit, support, hinder, and/or pose challenges to the City’s ability to attract and support second-economy businesses. These cross-cutting findings will feed directly into the strategy development in Task 4, where each priority sector’s requirements will be evaluated against the City’s current capacity and planned investments.

Land Use and Development Capacity
The land use analysis will go beyond listing current permitted uses. For the priority sectors carried forward from Task 4, the review will identify where each could operate as-of-right within the City’s commercial and mixed-use districts, where a discretionary permit would be required, and where the use is prohibited under current zoning. Where the General Plan’s land use framework supports or constrains second-economy development, the analysis will document the specific policies, development standards, or zoning provisions involved. The City has indicated openness to land use policy changes under certain circumstances. Where the analysis identifies high-potential sectors that face land use barriers, the strategy will describe the specific policy modifications that would be needed and the planning process required to implement them, so the City can weigh the tradeoffs.

The City’s zoning is only half the land use picture. TRPA’s Regional Plan sets coverage limits by land capability district (Bailey, or IPES score for vacant residential parcels) and controls a finite pool of transferable commodities: Commercial Floor Area, Tourist Accommodation Units, and Residential Units of Use. Code Section 60.4 makes Best Management Practice installation a condition of project approval.

Coverage and commodity availability, more than zoning, determine whether a permitted use is buildable. Zenith will assess how coverage limits and commodity availability bear on each priority sector, identify which sectors fit inside existing developed footprints, and note how the Tourist Core 262
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 15 and Tahoe Valley Area Plans and the City’s delegation MOU apply to target sector needs, drawing on TRPA published data and City parcel records. TRPA’s Tahoe Living housing policy amendments, commonly called Phase 3, completed EIS scoping in March 2026, and TRPA released three alternatives for study in May 2026. The package under study would convert TRPA-held Commercial Floor Area, Tourist Accommodation Unit, and PAOT pools into residential bonus units; locally banked CFA and TAUs would remain at the City's discretion. Governing Board consideration is likely in early 2027, so the strategy will note the amendments status and what they mean for second-economy development.

Baseline Economic Profile
The baseline economic profile will document existing conditions using publicly available federal and state data alongside City-provided datasets.

Source Geography What it provides
American Community
Survey, 5-Year
City place Demographics, income, housing cost burden,
commuting
Census LEHD (LODES /
OnTheMap)
City place, block Jobs by workplace, worker inflow and outflow, industry mix
BLS QCEW County only Employment and wages by industry; regional benchmark, not a City figure
BEA Regional Economic
Accounts
County GDP and personal income for regional context
California EDD City for labor force; county
and MSA for projections
Labor force, unemployment, long-term industry
projections
City transient occupancy
tax and TID reports
City Lodging performance and TOT receipts, Cityspecific City business license
records and GIS parcel data
City, parcel Business counts by sector, parcel and zoning inventory
TRPA parcel and
development rights records
Basin, parcel Land coverage and Area Plan status
IMPLAN County Multipliers and inter-industry linkages
Where federal datasets are published only at county level, Zenith will use ACS and LEHD city-place estimates as the primary geographic frame and treat county indicators as regional benchmarks. Cityspecific lodging and tax figures will come from the City's Revenue Services reporting. The baseline will cover employment by sector, business composition and mix, development patterns and opportunity sites, and fiscal characteristics where data is available. Seasonal fluctuation and tourism dependency are addressed in 4.2, where the method for estimating City-level seasonality is set out.

The baseline will also catalog the City's key economic assets and constraints, including tourism infrastructure, outdoor recreation resources, remote work potential, the housing market, workforce characteristics, and transportation access. Peer benchmarking against comparable mountain and resort communities is addressed in 4.3.
263
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 16 Task 3: Stakeholder Engagement
Building on the City's Existing Outreach
As an initial step, Zenith will conduct a structured review of the City's existing stakeholder engagement, including the SWOT analysis and Situation Assessment from the June 2026 Business Community Economic Development Workshop and survey data collected from August 2025 through June 2026.

This review will document what the prior outreach covered, what themes emerged, and where gaps remain that the new engagement should target. Based on that review, Zenith will prepare a stakeholder engagement plan as an early-phase deliverable, identifying key audiences, engagement methods, and timing for all outreach activities. The plan will be submitted to the City Project Manager for review before fieldwork begins. The City has confirmed that its designated Project Manager can assist with stakeholder identification, scheduling, and follow-up, and will provide meeting space for in-person sessions. Zenith's principals have designed and facilitated stakeholder engagement on prior publicsector engagements, including coordinated outreach across business and hospitality communities statewide for the Montana Aviation study and community-facing engagement on other projects. Zenith will design and implement a stakeholder engagement process that complements the City's existing outreach and feeds qualitative findings directly into the quantitative analysis.

Interviews, Focus Groups, and Roundtable
The engagement plan includes 10-15 structured interviews with key stakeholders, conducted one-onone or in small groups. The City will provide an initial stakeholder contact list, and Zenith will coordinate with its local partner and with the City Project Manager on identification, scheduling, and follow-up.

Stakeholder categories include local businesses and major employers, chambers of commerce and business organizations, commercial property owners and developers, workforce development entities, educational institutions, utility and infrastructure providers, economic development partners, regional and state agencies, and tourism-related stakeholders. Interviews may be conducted virtually.

Activity Participants Format Output
Stakeholder
interviews
10-15 key informants across
nine stakeholder categories
Virtual or in person; one-onone or small groupThemes feeding the Task 4 evaluation matrix
Focus group 1 Up to 15-20 tourism-economy
businesses
In person, City-provided
space; local partner
facilitates
Session summary
Focus group 2 Up to 15-20 non-tourism
owners and emerging-sector
operators
In person, City-provided
space; local partner
facilitates
Session summary
Community
roundtable
Open to residents, community
groups, and business owners
In person, local partner
facilitates, after the baseline
is substantially complete
Input to the stakeholder
findings memorandum
Focus groups are organized by sector or topic area at Zenith's discretion, and the City will provide meeting space and logistical support. They will gather input on perceived economic strengths and weaknesses, business climate and regulatory barriers, workforce availability and skills gaps, real estate 264
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 17 and infrastructure constraints, opportunities for non-visitor-dependent industry growth, and desired types of businesses and employment. A community roundtable open to a broader group of business owners, residents, and community leaders will be scheduled after the baseline assessment is substantially complete, so that preliminary findings can inform discussion. Focus group and roundtable sessions are held on site, facilitated by the local partner with Zenith participating remotely. Zenith attends the two City Council presentations in person.

Engagement with residents and community organizations is a planned element of the outreach strategy, consistent with the RFP requirement to include these stakeholders as appropriate. If Zenith identifies topics where additional community input would strengthen the recommendations, we will discuss the scope and method with the City before proceeding.

Findings and Integration with Task 4
Zenith and its local partner will prepare structured interview and discussion guides tailored to each stakeholder category, and will compile findings into a stakeholder memorandum highlighting key themes, opportunities, and constraints identified through the engagement process. The memorandum will be delivered on completion of the engagement activities and will feed directly into the sector evaluation in Task 4.

Stakeholder themes feed the sector evaluation dimensions used in Task 4, creating a direct linkage between qualitative input and quantitative scoring. Where stakeholders identify opportunities or barriers that secondary data cannot capture, such as informal business activity, unreported workforce constraints, or local regulatory friction, those inputs will be documented as qualitative adjustments to the evaluation matrix.

Task 4: Data Collection and Analysis
Task 4 is the analytical core of the engagement. Zenith will conduct comprehensive economic and market analysis within the City of South Lake Tahoe city limits to identify, evaluate, and prioritize potential second economies and related business attraction opportunities, with consideration of external economic factors that influence local conditions. The analysis is organized across four subtasks that build sequentially: Consistent with the City’s stated preference, the analysis will rely primarily on publicly available federal and state data sources supplemented by City-provided administrative records, including select data points from the City’s business license database and GIS parcel information. IMPLAN publishes zip-code-level data, but IMPLAN’s own guidance notes that zip-code models are heavily estimated and that a county is usually the smallest advisable region for impact analysis. Zenith will therefore run inter-industry analysis at the El Dorado County level and use zip-code aggregations only for descriptive comparison, stating the limitation wherever those figures appear.

Building the analysis on publicly maintained federal and state datasets keeps the baseline methodology reproducible by City staff with minimal proprietary platforms or recurring licensing costs, so the City retains full ownership of the methodology and can update the baseline independently after the engagement concludes.
265
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 18

4.1 Economic Base and Market Analysis
Zenith will analyze the local and regional economy to establish the quantitative foundation for identifying viable second economies. The analysis will cover employment trends, industry concentration and specialization, wages and earnings, business counts and establishment trends, tax base composition (where data is available), and seasonal and cyclical patterns. It will also assess consumer, business, and industry trends relevant to future growth in the South Lake Tahoe market, such as shifts in remote work adoption and outdoor recreation spending, to identify sectors with favorable demand trajectories.

The analytical toolkit includes location quotient analysis, using ACS and LEHD city-level employment estimates benchmarked against state and national distributions, to identify industries where South Lake Tahoe is over- or under-represented; IMPLAN analysis to estimate multiplier effects and interindustry linkages; and cluster analysis run at the city and/or county level, where NAICS detail supports it, to identify groups of related industries that could be developed together. At the City level the industry detail published by LODES and ACS supports a qualitative rather than a quantitative cluster assessment, and findings are presented on that basis. For a city of South Lake Tahoe's size, some industry-level employment cells in federal datasets will be suppressed for confidentiality. Where the county total is disclosed, Zenith will estimate the suppressed city cell by proportional allocation, crossreference the result against LEHD and ACS place-level estimates, and validate it, where possible, against City business license records. Where the county figure is itself suppressed, the sector is reported qualitatively rather than estimated. Every estimated figure is labeled as an estimate.

Sector screening follows the three stages shown in Figure 1: a broad preliminary screen, detailed evaluation of 5-7 candidates, and recommendations for 3-5 priority sectors. Screening criteria include year-round operational viability, potential for quality jobs and wage growth, moderate infrastructure demands, feasibility given South Lake Tahoe's location and access constraints, resilience to seasonal fluctuations, and compatibility with permitted land uses and available TRPA development capacity.

Zenith will also define a methodology for tracking non-service sector business composition over time, using aggregate counts and percentages by sector, structured so that City staff can update the baseline after the engagement concludes.

The preliminary screen will cast a wide net across sector categories, including those the RFP identifies as potential second economies:
• Professional and business services
• Health and wellness services
• Remote-work-supportive businesses
• Outdoor product design, testing, and specialty manufacturing • Environmental services and green economy businesses
• Education, training, and research-related activities
• Small-scale artisan, specialty food, or value-added production • Technology-enabled firms
• Outdoor adventure and guiding
266
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 19 • Trades, repair, logistics support, and local-serving industrial services • Creative industries and digital media
The screening is not limited to these examples. Zenith will evaluate any sector supported by market evidence, including those surfaced through stakeholder engagement or comparative peer analysis.

The evaluation matrix scores each candidate sector from 1 to 5 on the five criteria for viable second economies named in the RFP, plus land use and TRPA development capacity, where 5 is the most favorable score. Dimension weights will be set with City staff at kickoff and calibrated against the SWOT analysis and stakeholder engagement; the weights below are illustrative. The matrix is delivered in the Excel workbook so the City can adjust weights and re-run scoring as priorities change. Example:

Evaluation dimension Illustrative
weight
Outdoor
product design
Health
Services
Environmental
services
Year-round operational viability 20% 4 5 4
Job quality and wage potential 20% 4 4 4
Infrastructure and site requirements 15% 3 3 4
Feasibility given location and access constraints 15% 2 4 5 Resilience to seasonal demand fluctuation 15% 3 4 3
Land use and TRPA development capacity 15% 2 3 4
Weighted composite (illustrative) 100% 3.1 3.9 4.0
Table 1: Sector evaluation matrix, illustrative format. The sectors shown come from the list of example second economies in the RFP; the weights and scores are made up placeholders that demonstrate the output format and are not preliminary findings.

4.2 Tourism Dependency and Diversification Analysis
Zenith will quantify the degree to which South Lake Tahoe’s economy depends on tourism and visitorserving activity. The analysis will estimate tourism’s share of employment and sales tax revenue at the City level, and of employment and payroll at the county level, where QCEW publishes wage data. Citylevel labor income attributable to tourism will be modeled in IMPLAN rather than measured directly, with the method and its limits documented. The analysis will measure the amplitude of seasonal employment fluctuations and identify the economic risks associated with concentration in a single demand source, including exposure to weather variability, shifts in visitor preferences, regulatory actions affecting Basin development, and broader macroeconomic cycles.

Using the City’s transient occupancy tax and Tourism Improvement District reports for City-specific figures, BLS accommodation and food services employment data at the county level, and City sales tax records, we will estimate visitor spending levels and seasonal patterns. Because no federal source publishes reliable monthly employment below the county level, seasonal amplitude for the City will be estimated from City lodging and sales tax receipts cross-referenced against county monthly series, with the method documented. The analysis will benchmark South Lake Tahoe’s tourism dependency against comparable resort communities to establish whether the City’s concentration is typical or exceptional within its peer group. Zenith has direct experience with tourism economic analysis from the Montana Statewide Aviation study, where we designed visitor spending models for 75 airport service areas and all counties in a state whose economy shares many seasonal and geographic traits with South Tahoe. 267
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 20

4.3 Business Attraction and Retention Analysis
Zenith will identify target business types and industry clusters with the strongest potential for attraction, retention, and expansion in South Lake Tahoe. Retention and expansion of existing businesses is a co-equal component of the strategy alongside new business recruitment; the analysis will address both tracks with comparable depth. For each priority sector identified in 4.1, we will assess the location factors that affect business viability: workforce supply and skills, broadband and telecommunications capacity, utilities and infrastructure, access and transportation, available sites and buildings, cost structure and development feasibility, and quality of life and business climate. The competitive analysis will benchmark South Lake Tahoe against comparable and competing communities to identify where the City holds an advantage and where it faces structural barriers. We will analyze competing and comparable communities, selected in coordination with City staff based on criteria including population size, tourism dependency, mountain or resort geography, seasonal employment patterns, and regional economic structure, to identify lessons, differentiators, and best practices relevant to the City's attraction efforts. For each of the 3–5 priority sectors, Zenith will prepare a sector attraction profile summarizing the sector’s fit with South Lake Tahoe’s conditions, target business types, workforce requirements and local availability, infrastructure and site needs, competitive positioning relative to peer communities, and prospective business types to target in recruitment outreach. Each profile is delivered both as a section of the report and as a standalone onepager, so the same content serves the report and the recruitment conversation.

Candidate communities for peer review include a range of mountain or resort economies at different scales and diversification stages, and may include places like Steamboat Springs, CO; Park City, UT; Whitefish, MT; Bend, OR; Big Bear Lake, CA; and Mammoth Lakes, CA, subject to City input. Smaller peers offer insight into what early-stage diversification looks like under similar geographic constraints, while larger peers illustrate what mature diversification can achieve. Each peer community will be profiled on place level measures such as employment mix, population and income, and a documented review of the diversification efforts each community has undertaken. Seasonality is benchmarked at the county level for every peer, since no federal source publishes monthly employment below the county, and the comparison is presented on that basis. The result is a side-by-side matrix showing where South Lake Tahoe outperforms or trails comparable jurisdictions. Peer selections will be mutually agreed with City staff; this framework provides the analytical basis for that discussion.

The Nevada state line forms the City's eastern boundary along the US-50 corridor, and it bears on business attraction more than any other external factor. Stateline and Douglas County draw on the same labor shed and housing market while imposing no personal income tax and no corporate net income tax, offset partly by Nevada's gross receipts Commerce Tax on revenue above $4 million and its payroll-based Modified Business Tax. Census LEHD data shows that 19 percent of all jobs located in South Lake Tahoe are held by workers living out of state, nearly all of them in Nevada, and a comparable number of City residents commute the other way to Stateline, clearly illustrating how tightly the two economies are linked. Because California taxes residents on all income, the personal income tax differential follows residence rather than business location; for firms whose owners can relocate both, 268
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 21 it outweighs most incentives available to the City. Zenith will illustrate the differential at the sector level, using a single worked comparison to show how it bears on a location decision, and identify South Lake Tahoe's offsetting advantages so recruitment targets where the City can realistically win.

Barrier identification is a core component of this subtask. We will document regulatory, market, infrastructure, and organizational constraints to business attraction, and distinguish between barriers the City can address through its actions (permitting processes, zoning flexibility, incentive programs) and those that are structural to the location (access, climate, TRPA coverage and commodity limits).

The site readiness assessment will use City-provided GIS parcel and zoning data to catalog commercially zoned parcels by size and permitted use, with infrastructure capacity described at the corridor and district level rather than parcel by parcel. For each priority sector, we will map site requirements against the available inventory to identify where target businesses could locate without zoning changes, where a conditional use permit or variance would be required, and where no suitable sites exist under current land use designations. The assessment will produce a site readiness checklist that City staff and economic development partners can use when responding to business inquiries, covering suggested minimum square footage, utility requirements, access and parking standards, and permitting pathway for each priority sector.

The inventory will include the Lake Tahoe Airport, a City-owned site of roughly 350 acres. Two constraints govern it: FAA grant assurances arising from roughly $21 million in Airport Improvement Program funding since 2004, most recently obligated in July 2025, which restrict non-aeronautical land use and revenue diversion; and TRPA Code Section 14.2.2.A, which bars expansion of facilities or commercial air service until an airport master plan is adopted. The City’s draft Airport Master Plan and its Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse 2025100157) completed public review in November 2025 and remain pending adoption. The plan proposes removing roughly 378,000 square feet of excess pavement, which in a coverage-constrained Basin is an asset in itself. Zenith will assess aeronautical-compatible second-economy uses against those constraints, drawing on the site-level airport models and on-airport business activity analysis built for our Montana Statewide Aviation study.

4.4 Strategy Development
Based on the analysis in 4.1 through 4.3, Zenith will develop practical strategies for the City and its partners to attract and support the priority second-economy sectors. Strategies will address business retention and expansion programming with the same priority as business attraction messaging and market positioning, real estate and site development readiness, infrastructure and broadband needs, workforce development partnerships, incentive tools and financing mechanisms (general recommendations, fiscal impact concepts, and program design guidance, focusing on tools available through the City’s authority and state and regional programs. The City has confirmed that it has no census tracts eligible under the renewed federal Opportunity Zone program, so the incentive analysis will concentrate on state, regional, and local tools), and partnerships with regional agencies, educational institutions, and private sector entities. The strategy will treat public incentives as catalysts designed to leverage and encourage private investment, consistent with the RFP’s objectives. Where 269
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 22 the City can structure incentives to reduce early-stage risk for businesses entering second-economy sectors, through fee reductions, permit streamlining, or targeted infrastructure investments, the strategy will describe the mechanism and aim to cite precedent from comparable programs.

For each priority sector, the strategy will identify applicable incentive tools at the local, regional, and state levels, including the California Competes Tax Credit, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District authorities (noting that EIFD formation requires establishing a public financing authority, adopting an infrastructure financing plan, and completing a public hearing process under SB 628, and that AB 116 in 2019 removed the 55 percent voter approval requirement for EIFD bond issuance in favor of a protest process), fee reduction or waiver programs, and permit streamlining measures. The strategy will include a recommended approach for evaluating new incentive programs, covering the fiscal questions the City should ask before adopting one and the conditions under which a program should be revisited or retired. The incentive analysis will focus on general recommendations and concepts, fiscal framing, and program design guidance rather than detailed administrative procedures.

The strategy deliverables will include practical toolkits to jumpstart the priority sectors: the sector attraction one-pagers described in 4.3, for use at conferences and in direct outreach; a site readiness checklist for evaluating commercial properties against target sector requirements; and a business retention and expansion visit guide, giving City staff a consistent set of questions for conversations with existing second-economy businesses and a simple format for recording what those visits surface. The City confirmed in its written responses that retention and expansion carry equal weight with attraction, and the visit guide is what makes that operational for staff. The toolkits are formatted for immediate use by City staff without requiring additional consultant support.

Recommendations will be structured across short-term (1-3 year), mid-term (3-6 year), and long-term (7-10 year) action horizons, each with identified responsible parties, resource considerations, and priority levels. The strategy will include tools and methods both to foster and further develop secondeconomy businesses that are already emerging in South Lake Tahoe and to establish new secondeconomy activity through external attraction. A strategy supporting entrepreneurship and innovation and a strategy for collaboration with educational institutions in job creation related to second economies will both be incorporated.

For second-economy businesses already emerging in South Lake Tahoe, the strategy will identify specific retention and growth tools: business-to-business networking facilitated through the Tahoe Chamber, and technical assistance for sole proprietors scaling into formal operations. For new secondeconomy activity, the strategy will set out how the City positions itself to each priority sector: the message that matters to that industry, the channels and venues where it lands, and the regional and state economic development networks through which the City can carry it. The sector attraction onepagers described in 4.3 are the working form of that positioning.

The strategy will include a dedicated component on entrepreneurship and innovation. Zenith will assess small business formation and startup activity in South Lake Tahoe (within sub-county data limits) 270
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 23 and inventory the support infrastructure available to local owners: Small Business Development Center services through the Sierra SBDC, hosted by Sierra Business Council in Truckee, which already runs workshops in South Lake Tahoe with the City and Tahoe Chamber; SCORE mentorship, where the California chapter serving El Dorado County sits in Citrus Heights while SCORE Northern Nevada in Reno covers Lake Tahoe by design; microloan programs through regional Community Development Financial Institutions; and commercial space options including co-working facilities. We will identify the gaps in that infrastructure alongside the barriers that constrain local entrepreneurship: access to capital, commercial space availability, permitting complexity, and mentorship networks. Where gaps exist, the strategy will recommend targeted interventions with order-of-magnitude cost ranges and responsible parties: expanded Sierra SBDC capacity in South Lake Tahoe beyond its current episodic presence, whether the commercial inventory identified in 4.3 could support co-working or maker space, a small business grant program developed with regional economic development partners, and connections to the California Small Business Loan Guarantee Program and the Small Business Finance Center at IBank.

Zenith will develop a strategy for collaboration with educational institutions in job creation and workforce advancement related to second economies. Through the Crowder College study, Zenith quantified the return on investment of career-technical education programs on regional earnings and employment, and that methodology directly informs this component. The institutions assessed will include Lake Tahoe Community College (career-technical education and transfer programs, and the only one based in the City); University of Nevada, Reno (Extension, continuing education, and the Wayne L. Prim Campus at Incline Village, roughly an hour from the South Shore); and Lake Tahoe Unified School District's career pathways, delivered partly through the Central Sierra ROP joint powers agency. For each, we will catalog program offerings relevant to the priority sectors, existing employer partnerships, and proximity and delivery model. The assessment will identify where training already exists for priority sector workforce needs, where programs could be expanded, and where new programming would need to be developed, together with apprenticeship and internship pipelines and continuing education that supports residents seeking year-round careers outside the tourism sector.

Zenith will prepare a technical memorandum documenting data sources, methods, and findings. The methodology documentation will be thorough enough that the City or a future analyst can update and extend the analysis as economic conditions change. The report will include a program and incentive development section documenting recommended new programs, updates to existing programs, eligibility concepts, and fiscal impact estimates. Consistent with the City’s written response on this point, Zenith asks to retain a non-exclusive license to the general methodologies developed under this engagement for use on unrelated work. All data, findings, and work product prepared for the City remain the property of the City under Section 7 of the Professional Services Agreement.

Each strategy area will be mapped against the City’s existing planning initiatives. Where the General Plan, housing element, capital improvement program, climate action plan, or broadband plan already includes actions that support a priority sector, the strategy will reference the specific policy or project and describe how the economic development strategy builds on it. Where a recommended action 271
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 24 depends on infrastructure or policy changes addressed in another plan, the strategy will identify the dependency and the responsible agency so the City can coordinate implementation across departments and with regional partners.

For each priority sector, the strategy will present expected outcomes grounded in market evidence, with all inputs and assumptions documented so the City can evaluate progress and update projections as conditions change. Projections, and the comparative tax analysis in 4.3, are planning estimates prepared for the City’s use under stated assumptions. They are not tax, legal, or investment advice and are not intended for reliance by individual businesses in making location or investment decisions.

Task 5: Final Deliverables
Zenith will prepare all final written and presentation materials for staff, decision-makers, partner organizations, and public use. The deliverable sequence follows the RFP's three-stage review process:
an Administrative Draft Report submitted to City staff for internal review; a Public Review Draft incorporating staff comments; and a Final Report incorporating City comments. The budget assumes one consolidated comment set on each draft, compiled by the City Project Manager and free of internal conflicts. Additional reviews can be accommodated by mutual agreement under written change order.

The Final Report will include the components below, each mapped to the Final Report Content requirements in the RFP.

Component Format Primary audience
Executive summary Report section and standalone PDF Council, public Existing conditions overview Report section Staff
Summary of stakeholder input Report section, drawn from the findings memorandum
Staff, participants
Market analysis findings Report section Staff, partners Tourism dependency and diversification
assessment
Report section Staff, Council
Second-economy sector evaluation matrix Report section and Excel workbook Staff Economic diversification, business
attraction, retention and expansion
strategy
Report section Council, partners
Entrepreneurship and innovation strategy Report section Staff, partners Educational institution collaboration
strategy
Report section Staff, LTCC, regional
partners
Program and incentive development Report section Staff, Council Target business and industry profiles Report section and standalone onepagersStaff, partners, recruitment outreach
Business attraction and retention toolkits Standalone one-pagers, checklist, and visit guide
Staff, partners
Policy, infrastructure, and organizational
recommendations
Report section Council, staff
A concise implementation plan will accompany the report, with recommended actions, responsible parties, timeframes, resource considerations, and priority levels organized across the short-term (1-3 272
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 25 year), mid-term (3-6 year), and long-term (7-10 year) horizons. Zenith will also deliver a presentation deck suitable for both the Study Session and final Council presentation, a supporting Excel workbook containing all analytical inputs, outputs, and methodology documentation, and recommendations for operational tools or dashboards that City staff could use for ongoing baseline tracking after the engagement concludes. These recommendations will include both off-the-shelf platforms and the delivered Excel workbook as options.

Zenith will present findings in person at both the City Council Study Session and the final Council presentation, anticipated in January-February 2027. All other project meetings will be conducted virtually. Final digital files will be delivered in both editable and PDF formats.

Image: Aerial view of a residential area in South Lake Tahoe. 273
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 26 Project Timeline
The table below shows the proposed project schedule across the engagement period. The timeline assumes a Fall 2026 contract award and is designed to support Council presentations in JanuaryFebruary 2027. Specific dates will be confirmed with the City Project Manager at kickoff. All team members are confirmed available for the full engagement.

Task Sep '26 Oct '26 Nov '26 Dec '26 Jan '27 Feb '27
Task 1: Project Management
Kickoff meeting & work plan
Monthly progress reports
Task 2: Review of Existing Conditions
Document collection & review
Policy & planning analysis
Task 3: Stakeholder Engagement
Key informant interviews (10–15)
Focus groups (2 sessions)
Community roundtable
Task 4: Data Collection & Analysis

4.1 Economic base analysis

4.2 Tourism dependency assessment

4.3 Business attraction & retention

4.4 Strategy development
Task 5: Final Deliverables
Administrative Draft Report
Public Review Draft
Final Report & implementation plan
Council Study Session
Council presentation
Both principals will dedicate the capacity necessary to meet every milestone on or ahead of the proposed schedule. The schedule assumes City review of the Administrative Draft within three weeks and of the Public Review Draft within two weeks. Where City review runs longer, downstream milestones move by the same interval.
274
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 27 Deliverable Schedule
The table below lists each discrete deliverable, its target submission window, and the associated review or turnaround assumption. Specific dates will be confirmed with the City Project Manager at kickoff.

The schedule assumes a Fall 2026 contract award consistent with the City’s timeline. If contract execution occurs later, the milestones below shift day for day from the executed start date.

Deliverable Target Window Review/Turnaround
Project schedule and communication
protocol
Within 2 weeks of contract
execution
City PM confirmation
Kickoff meeting September 2026 N/A
Stakeholder engagement plan September 2026 City PM review before fieldwork Monthly progress reports Monthly (Sep 2026 – Feb
2027)
Standing deliverable
Stakeholder findings memorandum November 2026 Internal; feeds into Task 4 Technical memorandum (data sources,
methods, findings)
December 2026 Accompanies Admin Draft
Administrative Draft Report December 2026 2-3 week City staff review Public Review Draft January 2027 Incorporates staff comments; 2- week review
Final Report with Implementation Plan January–February 2027 Incorporates all comments Excel workbook (analytical inputs,
outputs, methodology)
With Final Report Delivered with final package
Presentation deck January 2027 Used for both Council
presentations
City Council Study Session January 2027 (in person) Presents final draft findings City Council final presentation February 2027 (in person) Presents final deliverables Final digital files (editable and PDF
formats)
February 2027 Delivered after final presentation
275
South Lake Tahoe Economic Development Market Analysis & Business Attraction Strategy; Proposal www.zenithecon.com Copyright Zenith Economics, LLC. Page 28 Assumptions and Clarifications
The scope, schedule, and price in this proposal rest on the assumptions below. Zenith states them here so that any difference in expectation can be settled at contract execution rather than during the engagement.
• The City provides the plans, survey results, SWOT analysis, Situation Assessment, business license data, GIS parcel and zoning data, and an initial stakeholder contact list at or shortly after kickoff, consistent with its written responses to proposer questions. • The City returns one consolidated set of comments on each draft, compiled by the Project Manager, reviewing the Administrative Draft within three weeks and the Public Review Draft within two weeks.
• Additional review cycles, analytical scope beyond the tasks described here, or sectors added beyond the three to five priority set are handled by written change order. • Zenith attends the City Council Study Session and the final Council presentation in person. Onsite focus group and roundtable facilitation is supported by the local partner described in Section C. All other meetings are conducted virtually.
• The City provides meeting space and assists with stakeholder identification, scheduling, and follow-up. Focus group and roundtable attendance depends on that recruitment. • Key personnel are committed for the duration of the engagement. Any substitution requires the City’s prior written approval and personnel of equal or greater qualification. • The schedule assumes contract execution in Fall 2026. Later execution shifts all milestones day for day from the executed start date.
• The analysis relies on published federal, state, and regional data together with City-provided records. Where a dataset is suppressed, unavailable, or delivered late, Zenith documents the limitation and the substitute approach rather than leaving a gap unmarked. • Proprietary data platform licensing (LightCast or JobsEQ) is included in the base as an $8,500 notto-exceed allowance • Zenith carries the insurance required under Section 15 of the Professional Services Agreement.

Zenith asks to discuss the indemnification provision in Section 14 and to retain a non-exclusive license to general methodologies at contract execution. 276

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND TIMELINE
BUDGET
Estimated fees (not to exceed) $60,350.00
Hourly Rate: $143.69/hour
Travel and out-of-pocket expenses, non-labor + partner $19,750 (travel is included in the TOTAL (not to exceed amount) TOTAL (not to exceed) $81,100.00

TIMELINE
Until project completion.
277

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000 for such failure.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and

2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.

Consultant: Zenith Economics, LLC
Name, Title Samuel Maury-Holmes, CEO
By:________________________________________
278
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:10
Agenda Item: Waiver of Second Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) to Expressly Authorize Daily Citations and Establish a Process for Referral of Uncorrected Nuisance Conditions to the City Attorney for Evaluation of Further Enforcement Action Executive Summary: On March 2, 1993, City Council adopted Ordinance 814 adding South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC) Article VI to Chapter 17 and amending Chapter 8 to establish a process for remedying nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1182 amending SLTCC Chapters 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) and 4.65 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Dwelling Structures) to include structures that are in a partial state of construction in the definition of abandoned building and to create consistency in remedying nuisances associated with nondwelling and dwelling structures. On March 10, 2026, Councilmember Robbins (seconded by Councilmember Horgan) requested an agenda item to bring back SLTCC Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) for possible amendment to require daily administrative citation for covered nondwelling structures. On June 2, 2026, City Council considered a first reading of a proposed ordinance to amend SLTCC Chapter 4.60 and declined to adopt it. The proposed ordinance considered by City Council at the June 2, 2026 meeting would have expressly authorized, but not required daily citations, and included additional possible amendments that would facilitate the prompt and equitable issuance of citations for such nuisance issues, as appropriate. Additionally, at the June 2, 2026 meeting, Councilmember Roberts requested, and Councilmember Horgan seconded, an item to bring back the proposed amendment to SLTCC Chapter 4.60 with additional revisions to require that, for instances in which a property remains in violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60 after issuance of at least two citations, and in which a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation, such matters be brought to City Council for review. On September 22, City Council passed Motion 2026-130 to waive first reading, and introduce by title only an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) to expressly authorize daily citations and establish a process for referral of uncorrected nuisance conditions to the City Attorney for evaluation of further enforcement action, and refer second reading and adoption to the October 6, 2026 meeting.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to waive second reading, introduce by title only, and adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) to expressly authorize daily citations and establish a process for referral of uncorrected nuisance conditions to the City Attorney for evaluation of further enforcement action.

Responsible Staff Member: Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report-Abandoned_Property_Ordinance_Second_Reading (1).docx 279
02-Ordinance_SLTCC_4.60_amendment.docx
03-SLTCC Chapter 4.60 (REDLINE)
04-Notice of Publication-Nuisances Abandoned Srtucture First Reading.pdf 280
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Waiver of Second Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) to Expressly Authorize Daily Citations and Establish a Process for Referral of Uncorrected Nuisance Conditions to the City Attorney for Evaluation of Further Enforcement Action
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney (530) 542-6046 Background: On March 2, 1993, City Council adopted Ordinance 814 adding South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC) Article VI to Chapter 17 and amending Chapter 8 to establish a process for remedying nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1182 amending SLTCC Chapters 4.60 (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures) and 4.65 (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged dwelling structures) to include structures that are in a partial state of construction in the definition of abandoned building and to create consistency in remedying nuisances associated with nondwelling and dwelling structures.

On March 10, 2026, Councilmember Robbins (seconded by Councilmember Horgan) requested an agenda item to bring back SLTCC Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures) for possible amendment to require daily administrative citation for covered nondwelling structures.

On June 2, 2026, City Council considered a first reading of a proposed ordinance to amend SLTCC Chapter 4.60 and declined to adopt it. The proposed ordinance considered by City Council at the June 2, 2026 meeting would have expressly authorized, but not required daily citations, and included additional possible amendments, discussed below, that would facilitate the prompt and equitable issuance of citations for such nuisance issues, as appropriate. Staff recommends the issuance of citations, including frequency for same, remain at the discretion of the City Building Official or their designee.

Additionally, at the June 2, 2026 meeting, Councilmember Roberts requested, and Councilmember Horgan seconded, an item to bring back the proposed amendment to SLTCC Chapter 4.60 with additional revisions to require that, for instances in which a property remains in violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60 after issuance of at least two citations, and in which a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation, such matters be brought to City Council for review. 281
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 5
On September 22, 2026, City Council passed Motion 2026-130 to waive first reading, and introduce by title only an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) to expressly authorize daily citations and establish a process for referral of uncorrected nuisance conditions to the City Attorney for evaluation of further enforcement action, and refer second reading and adoption to the October 6, 2026 meeting.

Issue and Discussion: Under Government Code section 53069.4, the City is authorized to make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the City subject to an administrative fine. The City shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the City of those administrative fines. (See Government Code section 53069.4(a)(1).) Pursuant to SLTCC section 2.30.010(B) and state law, the current maximum daily fine that may be imposed for a violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60 is $1000.

City Council’s requested amendments to SLTCC Chapter 4.60 are considered in the proposed amendment to the extent same would be consistent with existing law, as summarized below.

The proposed amendment would revise SLTCC section 4.60.030 (Remedies) to add a subsection creating a detailed framework for issuing administrative citations to a property owner in instances where the City determines their property has any condition which constitutes an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure. For the purpose of SLTCC Chapter 4.60, an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure means a structure which meets any of the following:

1. Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake, snow, flood, or has otherwise become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become:
a. An attractive nuisance to children; or
b. A harbor for vagrants; or as to
c. Enable persons to resort thereto or loiter therein for the purpose of committing unlawful acts; or

2. Whenever any structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance in any manner, under any provision of law or in equity; or

3. Whenever any portion of a structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the structure or whenever any structure is abandoned for a period in excess of 180 days so as to constitute such structure or portion thereof a public or attractive nuisance or hazard to the public;

4. Whenever a structure has remained in a state of partial construction for a period of 180 days or more, and where the continuation of the condition is unsightly or hazardous to the public health, safety, or welfare.

The proposed amendment would first provide that, upon the City Building Official’s or their designee’s determination that a structure is an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure, the owner of the property shall be deemed to have violated SLTCC Chapter 4.60 pertaining to nuisances consisting of such structures. Upon such a finding, the City may issue the property owner an administrative citation in accordance with SLTCC Chapters 2.30 and 4.60.

Under the proposed amendment, City Council may set the amount of the administrative citation per resolution. This supports Council’s flexibility to determine appropriate citation amounts without the need to make such future changes by ordinance.
282
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 5
Second, except for circumstances in which a structure creates an immediate danger to public health or safety, the proposed amendment would provide the property owner with a reasonable period of time to correct the condition for a first violation. This is required by state law, Gov. Code 53069.4(a)(2), prior to issuance of a citation. The amount of time that would be reasonable for the particular violation would be determined by the Building Official, or their designee. Although not directly stated in the ordinance, the Building Official has authority to, at their discretion, conduct a site inspection before issuing an additional citation to determine whether new or continuing violations exist, prior to issuing subsequent citations.

Third, the proposed ordinance expressly provides that each additional day within one year from the date of the first violation during which the Building Official, or their designee, finds a property constitutes an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure shall constitute a separate violation and, at the discretion of the Building Official, or their designee, the City may issue a daily administrative citation.

Additionally, the proposed amendment provides that, in any action, including administrative action, to abate the nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code section 38773.5. The proposed amendment also makes related non substantive changes to this subsection.

The proposed amendment would also amend 4.60.040 SLTCC (formerly titled “Authority not exclusive” and retitled as “Referral to City Attorney”) in its entirety to set forth a procedure for seeking City Council’s input in uncorrected nuisance matters through a closed session City Council meeting to be requested by the City Attorney to discuss enforcement actions and alternatives, including injunctive relief for property nuisances, or approval of a court-ordered health and safety receiver to take control of the private property and fix dangerous or nuisance property conditions. This process would be triggered upon the City’s issuance to the property owner of at least two citations under 4.60.030(B) SLTCC for which the condition remains uncorrected, in which a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation.

Finally, the proposed amendment would add 4.60.050 SLTCC as a new subsection which renumbers the previous Section 4.60.040 (Authority not exclusive) from Section 4.60.040 to Section 4.60.050. This amendment clarifies the City’s additional authority to enforce building code standards, California State Housing Law, and other provisions of state law for covered nuisance matters.

Staff Does Not Recommend Requiring Daily Citations Without Any Manner of Flexibility Staff researched whether or not the City could by code require daily fines to be issued to a property which is in violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60. Based on such research, staff does not recommend a municipal code provision requiring daily citations in all circumstances.

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the imposition of “excessive” fines. To determine whether a fine is excessive, the guiding question is whether the fine is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. This is determined based on several factors: “(1) the nature and extent of the underlying offense; (2) whether the underlying offense related to other illegal activities; (3) whether other penalties may be imposed for the offense; and (4) the extent of the harm caused by the offense.” Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC v. Clark County Nevada (9th 283
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 5
Cir. 2026) 164 F.4th 759, 762 (upholding fines imposed on property owner for tenant’s illegal short term rental activity); see also City and County of San Francisco v. Sainez (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302 (upholding $663,000 in daily civil fines issued against San Franciso landlord for prolonged, ongoing housing violations involving living conditions in numerous housing units, noting the fine accounted for 120% of total rents for two-year period in which violations existed).

The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in Thomas v. County of Humboldt and determined that the plaintiffs in that case – residents of Humboldt County who allege that they have been aggrieved by the County's enforcement of its cannabis-abatement regulatory scheme including potential daily fines – could plausibly allege that the County's system of administrative penalties violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly where a violation resulted in “no harm beyond a technical lack of compliance.” See Thomas v.

County of Humboldt, California (9th Cir. 2024) 124 F.4th 1179, 1193-94 (administrative penalty framework which could include daily fines collectively reaching millions of dollars was found to support a viable claim of an Eighth Amendment violation).

While there are numerous instances where daily fines could be warranted and might be imposed, a “one size fits all” approach of required daily fines is not recommended based on these Eighth Amendment concerns. The City’s Building Official is the staff member best situated to assess enforcement timing and need based on their expertise. The amended ordinance would provide the Building Official, or their designee, with the express discretion to take enforcement action based on City priorities and capacity, while also adding a mechanism to require staff (i.e. the City Attorney) to seek City Council input on potential further enforcement strategy, including potential litigation.

Additional Available Alternatives
To strengthen the City’s code enforcement process regarding partially completed projects, an additional tool that may be considered by the City Council is the creation of a construction time limit ordinance. At present, the City does not have a limitation on how long a construction project may take to reach completion, and one is not provided by state law. Under California Health and Safety Code Section 18938.6, a building permit remains valid as long work starts within 12 months of its issuance and is not abandoned, meaning that some work progresses every 180 days and the property owner requests inspection. A construction time limit ordinance normally sets a limit (often in the range of 1-2 years) per project to complete construction, which is based on the valuation of the project — larger, more expensive projects are typically provided more time.

However, once the project exceeds the time limit, there would be a basis for imposition of fines.

Having clear but reasonable rules regarding timeframes for construction allows property owners and their contractors to plan ahead and ensure construction is timely completed. It also discourages property owners from seeking permit approvals for projects which they do not have clear plans on how to complete.

Environmental Considerations: This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Implications: The recommended amendments to provide a more defined framework for issuing citations to property owners who are in violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60 could 284
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 5 of 5
encourage increased utilization of the administrative citation process and could lead to a possible increase in code enforcement revenue. It is not possible to forecast a specific financial benefit to the City associated with such measures.

While the amendments would not directly change the cost of administrative citations issued under SLTCC Chapter 4.60, the amendments support City Council’s discretion to change such costs in the future by resolution thus making program cost recovery more flexible.

Policy Implications: The proposed Ordinance would generally support the City of South Lake Tahoe Strategic Plan 2025-2030, Priority Three: Enhance Public Safety; and Priority Four:

Grow and Diversify the Economy.
285
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 4
Ordinance 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 6, 2026
Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.60 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures) to Expressly Authorize Daily Citations and Establish a Process for Referral of Uncorrected Nuisance Conditions to the City Attorney for Evaluation of Further Enforcement Action

FINDINGS
A. On March 2, 1993, City Council adopted Ordinance 814 adding South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC) Article VI to Chapter 17 and amending Chapter 8 to establish a process for remedying nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures.

B. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1182 amending SLTCC Chapters 4.60 (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures) and 4.65 (Nuisances consisting of abandoned or substantially damaged dwelling structures) to include structures that are in a partial state of construction in the definition of abandoned building and to create consistency in remedying nuisances associated with nondwelling and dwelling structures.

C. At the City Council meeting on March 10, 2026, Councilmember Robbins requested, and Councilmember Horgan seconded, an item to bring back SLTCC Chapter 4.60 for possible amendment to require daily administrative citation for covered nondwelling structures.

D. At the City Council meeting on June 2, 2026, City Council considered a first reading of a proposed ordinance to amend SLTCC Chapter 4.60 and declined to adopt it. Instead, Council member Roberts requested, and Councilmember Horgan seconded, an item to bring back the proposed amendment to SLTCC Chapter 4.60 with additional revisions to require that, for instances in which a property remains in violation of SLTCC Chapter 4.60 after issuance of at least two citations, and in which a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation, such matters shall be brought to City Council for review.

E. The present Ordinance brings this item back for a first reading with the requested revisions as well as additional revisions to covered nuisance abatement administrative action fee entitlement, and various changes to SLTCC 4.60.050 (Authority not exclusive). The procedure set forth in the proposed SLTCC amendment for seeking City Council’s input in such matters is through a closed session City Council meeting to be requested by the City Attorney to discuss further potential enforcement action.

F. California Government Code section 53069.4 authorizes the City to make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the City subject to an administrative fine. The City shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, 286
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 4
collection, and administrative review by the City of those administrative fines. (California Government Code section 53069.4(a)(1).)
Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 4.60.030 (Remedies) of Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

4.60.030 Remedies.

A. Abatement. Upon the building official's determination that a structure is an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure, the city may choose to abate the public nuisance under Chapter 4.40 SLTCC or under any alternative abatement process permitted under state law. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the city's ability to concurrently or consecutively use any of those proceedings as the city may deem effective. In any action, including administrative action, to abate the nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code section 38773.5.

B. Administrative Citation.

1. Upon the building official’s, or their designee’s, determination that a structure is an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure, the property owner(s) shall be deemed to have violated Chapter 4.60 SLTCC and the city may issue the property owner(s) an administrative citation in accordance with Chapter 2.30 SLTCC and this Chapter. City Council may set the amount of the administrative citation by resolution.

2. Unless the abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure creates an immediate danger to public health or safety, the property owner(s) shall be provided, for a first violation, with a reasonable period of time to correct the condition as determined by the building official, or their designee. Failure to correct shall be deemed a continuing violation until the specified violation(s) are verified as corrected by the building official or their designee.

3. Each additional day within one year from the date of the first violation during which the building official, or their designee, finds a property has any condition which constitutes an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure shall constitute a separate violation and, at the discretion of the building official, or their designee, a daily administrative citation may be issued to the property owner(s).

SECTION 2. Section 4.60.040 (formerly titled “Authority not exclusive” and retitled herein as “Referral to City Attorney”) of Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

4.60.040 Referral to City Attorney.

Upon the city’s issuance to the property owner(s) of at least two citations under 4.60.030(B) SLTCC for which the condition remains uncorrected, a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation, the matter shall be referred by the building official to the City Attorney to evaluate further enforcement action, including initiation of litigation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731. The City Attorney shall provide the City Council with such evaluation, and keep the City Council informed of enforcement activity at such properties.
287
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 4
SECTION 3. Section 4.60.050 of Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is added as a new subsection and will renumber the previous Section 4.60.040 (Authority not exclusive) from Section 4.60.040 to Section 4.60.050. It is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

4.60.050 Authority not exclusive.

The authority conferred by this chapter is not exclusive. Dwelling units, buildings and/or structures which are in violation of building code standards in Chapter 6.15 SLTCC, or otherwise in violation of California State Housing Law or other provisions of state law, shall be subject to abatement and enforcement in accordance with any applicable provision of law. Such enforcement action shall be administered by the city building department.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 6, 2026 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
288
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 4
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
289
Chapter 4.60 (Nuisances Consisting of Abandoned or Substantially Damaged Nondwelling Structures) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code

4.60.010 Recitals.

The existence of abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structures, as defined herein, is considered an attractive nuisance, as such structures are found to constitute neighborhood blight and deterioration in the community. Further, these structures represent a significant safety hazard to the surrounding neighborhood and the community as they attract children and others to the dangerous condition of the abandoned or substantially damaged structures.

4.60.020 Definitions.

A. "Abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure" means a structure which meets any of the following:

1. Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake, snow, flood, or has otherwise become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become:
a. An attractive nuisance to children; or
b. A harbor for vagrants; or as to
c. Enable persons to resort thereto or loiter therein for the purpose of committing unlawful acts; or

2. Whenever any structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance in any manner, under any provision of law or in equity; or

3. Whenever any portion of a structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the structure or whenever any structure is abandoned for a period in excess of 180 days so as to constitute such structure or portion thereof a public or attractive nuisance or hazard to the public;

4. Whenever a structure has remained in a state of partial construction for a period of 180 days or more, and where the continuation of the condition is unsightly or hazardous to the public health, safety, or welfare.

B. "Nondwelling unit" means a structure not designed or intended to be used for occupancy for living and sleeping purposes.

4.60.030 Remedies.

A. Abatement.

Upon the building official's determination that a structure is an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure, the city may choose to abate the public nuisance under Chapter 4.40 SLTCC or under any alternative abatement process 290
permitted under state law, or issue administrative citations under Chapter 2.30 SLTCC.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the city's ability to concurrently or consecutively use any of those proceedings as the city may deem effective. In any action, including administrative action, to abate the nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code section 38773.5.

B. Administrative Citation.

1. Upon the building official’s, or their designee’s, determination that a structure is an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure, the property owner(s) shall be deemed to have violated Chapter 4.60 SLTCC and the city may issue the property owner(s) an administrative citation in accordance with Chapter 2.30 SLTCC and this Chapter. City Council may set the amount of the administrative citation by resolution.

2. Unless the abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure creates an immediate danger to public health or safety, the property owner(s) shall be provided, for a first violation, with a reasonable period of time to correct the condition as determined by the building official, or their designee. Failure to correct shall be deemed a continuing violation until the specified violation(s) are verified as corrected by the building official or their designee.

3. Each additional day within one year from the date of the first violation during which the building official, or their designee, finds a property has any condition which constitutes an abandoned or substantially damaged nondwelling structure shall constitute a separate violation and, at the discretion of the building official, or their designee, a daily administrative citation may be issued to the property owner(s).

4.60.040 Referral to City Attorney.

Upon the city’s issuance to the property owner(s) of at least two citations under

4.60.030(B) SLTCC for which the condition remains uncorrected, a sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the first citation, and an additional sixty-day period has elapsed after issuance of the second citation, the matter shall be referred by the building official to the City Attorney to evaluate further enforcement action, including initiation of litigation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731. The City Attorney shall provide the City Council with such evaluation, and keep the City Council informed of enforcement activity at such properties.

4.60.040 050 Authority not exclusive.

The authority conferred by this chapter is not exclusive. Dwelling units, buildings and/or structures which may meet the criteria for abandonment pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable provisions of state law are in violation of building code standards addressed in Chapter 6.15 SLTCC, and or otherwise in violation of California State Housing Law or other provisions of state law, shall be subject to 291
abatement of such structures and enforcement in accordance with any applicable provision of law. Such enforcement action shall be administered by the city building department.
292
FILER

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY
CLERK
[email protected]
(530) 542-6005

FILING FOR
Tahoe Daily
Tribune

OFFICIAL AD PROOF
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run in Tahoe Daily Tribune on the dates indicated below. If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at (530) 541-3880.

Notice ID: xNmQ6iLsLRLzctzY04lq | Proof Updated: Sep. 23, 2026 at 12:17pm PDT Notice Name: Ord-Nuisance Structures 1st Reading | Publisher ID: 416452 This is not an invoice. Below is an estimated price, and it is subject to change. You will receive an invoice with the final price upon invoice creation by the publisher.

Columns Wide: 2
Total Column Inches: 16.98
Number of Lines: 85
Ad Class: Legals
10/02/2026: Other Notice 233.14
Internet Flat Fee Charge 40.00
Affidavit flat charge 10.00
Subtotal $283.14
Tax $0.00
Processing Fee $0.00
Total $283.14
See Proof on Next Page
Ord-Nuisance Structures 1st Reading - Page 1 of 2
293
Ord-Nuisance Structures 1st Reading - Page 2 of 2
294
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:11
Agenda Item: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Housing Amendments and Water Quality and Mobility Fees Summary
Executive Summary: Since 2020, the TRPA Governing Board has identified the Tahoe Living Strategic Priority as one of the agency’s key priorities in the annual operations plan. The TRPA Governing Board appointed the Tahoe Living Working Group to help identify and prioritize specific, quantifiable local and regional actions that leverage environmental redevelopment and water quality improvements to achieve the housing goals of the region. Phase 3 of the Tahoe Living Working Group, is “Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin†is a multi-year project to make housing more accessible while maintaining and improving environmental protections. Staff will provide an overview of the policy recommendations under analysis at TRPA.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing policy direction on the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Cultivating Communities, Conserving the Basin project and Mobility Mitigation Fees.

Responsible Staff Member: Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, Housing Manager and John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved By: Zach Thomas, Director of Development Services Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff_TRPA_Phase_3_Housing.docx
Attachment 2 _Policy Recommendations Report.pdf
Att3_TahoeWorkforceHousingNeedsAssessment2025.pdf
04 - TRPA Cultivating Community_Mobility.pptx
Att 5_TLWG Staff Comments.docx
295
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Housing Amendments and Water Quality and Mobility Fees Summary
Location: City-wide
Responsible Staff Member: Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, Housing Manager and John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
Background: Since 2020, the TRPA Governing Board has identified the Tahoe Living Strategic Priority as one of the agency’s key priorities in the annual operations plan. The purpose of this initiative is to shift the course of development back towards the original intent of the 2012 Regional Plan, designing a path for more residential development rights to be used to achieve regional housing needs while supporting walkable communities and improving air and water quality, and aligning with housing needs identified in regional housing assessments.

The TRPA Governing Board appointed the Tahoe Living Working Group to help identify and prioritize specific, quantifiable local and regional actions that leverage environmental redevelopment and water quality improvements to achieve the housing goals of the region. The Working Group gives TRPA staff an opportunity to hear multiple perspectives from different representative groups around the region, and to gain new, creative ideas that could be considered in policy development. Mayor Bass and Housing Manager, Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli both serve as appointees on the Tahoe Living Working Group. Planning Manager, John Hitchcock is the City appointee on the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission and often provides comments on the Tahoe Living Working Group proposals.

Phase 3 of the Tahoe Living Working Group, is “Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin” is a multi-year project to make housing more accessible while maintaining and improving environmental protections. Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin will plan for equitable and sustainable housing and improved climate resilience by modernizing land use policies and the regional growth management system that directs the “how, what, and where” of new building and redevelopment in the basin. The program will also establish long-term, two-way engagement between communities and agencies, with a particular focus on underrepresented groups.

On January 28, 2026, the TRPA Governing Board directed TRPA staff to release a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin policy recommendations. The Public Scoping opened on January 29, 2026 and closed on March 16, 2026. The policy alternatives that will be studied in the EIS include the following:
 No Project Alternative – Evaluates the potential environmental and housing cost effects of continuing under TRPA’s existing housing policies without adopting new policy amendments through Phase 3.
296
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 4
 Housing Forward Alternative – Focuses on adapting TRPA policy to meet the regional housing need, as developed through the TRPA Lake Tahoe Housing Needs Assessment Attachment 3), through a combination of incentives primarily focused on new workforce housing with limited strategies focused on better utilization of existing housing. This alternative prioritizes policy and code amendments that would use TRPA’s authority to support broader range of workforce housing options, including apartments, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units. These are the policy recommendations that emerged from the public outreach process.
 Housing Preservation Alternative – Focuses on utilizing existing housing stock to meet the need of Tahoe’s workforce. This alternative evaluates policy approaches and programs that could help unlock underutilized or vacant housing through strategies such as Lease to Locals programs, down-payment assistance, or enhanced restrictions on short-term rentals. Several public comments during public scoping period requested this type of policy alternative.

The public review draft EIS, housing cost memorandum, and proposed amendments to the Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances are expected to be available for review in Fall 2026 and will include a 60-day public review period for public comment on the draft EIS. This will inform the final EIS and proposed amendments which are expected to be considered for adoption in 2027.

At the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting, Councilmember Roberts and seconded by Councilmember Bass requested for the mobility fees and update on the Tahoe Living Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin project.

Issue and Discussion:

Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin Policy Recommendations As a result of extensive public outreach with the Tahoe Living Working Group members, Community Partner Group, and various and diverse stakeholders, the TRPA and their consultant drafted a Policy Recommendations Report in January 2026 (Attachment 2). This report summarizes and highlights recommendations for policy changes that will help address the severe shortage of affordable and workforce housing in the Tahoe Basin.

The report is broken down into key “intended project outcomes” which include the following:
 Reduce costs and barriers for smaller housing types (development rights, costs and fees, and development process);
 Water Quality – Improvements help achieve the Housing Need (Using best available science to treat stormwater runoff; and
 Increase Housing Choice (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Expanded Housing Sites, Building Renovation and Rehabilitation, Housing Occupancy, and Development Standards).

The policy recommendations also work alongside a tiered structure for workforce housing incentives whenever possible. The tiered structure prioritizes the most incentives for deedrestricted affordable and moderate-income housing, provides some incentives for achievable and affordable-by-design housing (as defined by TRPA), and does not incentivize other unrestricted housing. Incentives are as follows:
 Tier 1 – Includes deed-restricted affordable and moderate-income housing units. Incentives through cost reductions and waived development fees and streamlined processes. 297
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 4
 Tier 2 – Includes deed-restricted achievable housing units and units meeting the criteria for “affordable-by-design.” Some incentives including access to a limited pool of “affordable-bydesign” bonus units, streamlined processes, and reduced development fees, and are restricted against use as short-term rentals.
 Tier 3 – Includes all other housing types not included in tiers 1 and 2. Including unrestricted condominiums and detached single family homes. These units would not receive incentives under this policy proposal and development fees may be increased based on an impactnexus study.

TRPA Mitigation Fees
All new housing development, redevelopment, and retrofits of existing housing stock are subject to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) water quality and mobility mitigation fees.

New land coverage is subject to a water quality mitigation fee of $1.86 per square foot. For previously developed sites with verified land coverage exceeding the maximum allowable amount, the excess coverage is subject to a mitigation fee of $8.50 per square foot. Additionally, new land coverage proposed within the City right-of-way is subject to a mitigation fee of $8.50 per square foot.

Mobility mitigation fees apply to new housing and redevelopment projects that generate additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Th e fee is calculated based on the VMT generated by the project, which varies according to the project’s proximity to a town center. Projects located closer to a town center generally have lower VMT rates than projects located farther away. The mobility mitigation fee is $213.76 per VMT generated.

On average, TRPA fees for a 2,000-square-foot single-family dwelling range from $8,000 to $10,000. For non-deed-restricted multi-family residential projects, this fee is expected to increase due to increases in VMT.

Projects that qualify as affordable, moderate, or achievable housing under the TRPA Code of Ordinances are exempt from the mobility mitigation fee.

The various policy proposals will be summarized in the presentation (Attachment 4). In addition, staff have provided Attachment 5, providing an overview of the comments and policy recommendations to TRPA staff.

Per City Council direction, this report includes the current policy issues through the TRPA Tahoe Living Cultivating Community and Conserving the Basin project and a summary of the water quality and mobility mitigation fees.

Financial Implications: There are no costs associated with this report, except the staff time that would be needed to provide policy direction and input to TRPA staff for this project. This report does not result in any modifications to any Housing Programs or has any additional financial implications.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a project under CEQA, because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 298
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 4
15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications: This item is consistent with the following adopted policies and programs:

City of South Lake Tahoe Strategic Plan
Action 1.8. Evaluate ability to reduce regulations for development and streamline approval process.

City General Plan Housing Element
Program 2-3. Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation for Housing Program 2-8. Mitigation of TRPA Regulations.
299
Policy
Recommendations
Report
January 2026
300
2 Contents
How to Use this Draft Policy Report ..............................................................................................................3 REDUCE COSTS AND BARRIERS FOR SMALLER HOUSING TYPES...............................................3 Water Quality -- Improvements Help Achieve The Housing Need................................................3 Increase Housing Choice ...............................................................................................................................3 Key Terms.................................................................................................................................................................5 Proposed Policy Changes ...................................................................................................................................7 REDUCE COSTS AND BARRIERS FOR SMALLER HOUSING TYPES...............................................7 Development Rights........................................................................................................................................7 Development Process .................................................................................................................................. 17 WATER QUALITY -- IMPROVEMENTS HELP ACHIEVE THE HOUSING NEED....................... 19 INCREASE HOUSING CHOICE ................................................................................................................... 23 Expanded Housing Sites ............................................................................................................................. 24 Building Renovation and Rehabilitation.............................................................................................. 26 Housing Occupancy ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Development Standards and Area Plan Process Improvements ................................................ 29 301
3 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
How to Use this Draft Policy Report
This Draft Policy Recommendations Report summarizes and highlights recommendations for policy changes that will help address the severe shortage of affordable and workforce housing in the Tahoe Basin. Lake Tahoe and communities across the nation are finding innovative solutions to deep-rooted affordable housing challenges.

While no single organization can solve these challenges, as part of the agency’s mission to lead the cooperative effort to preserve, restore, and enhance the unique natural and human environment of the Lake Tahoe Region, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has a key role to play in working with partners across the region to achieve the housing goals identified in the Regional Plan.

Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin is a multi-year project to advance Regional Plan policies that will encourage more affordable and workforce housing, continue to improve water quality, and reduce environmental impacts of the mismatch between available housing and the housing needs of the local workforce.

To achieve the project goals and outcomes, TRPA staff will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the impacts of the proposed policy changes detailed in this report. The policy recommendations in this report represent the envelope of study or the full extent of policies that will be analyzed in the EIS. The final policy package will be drafted after the EIS is complete. Some policies studied in the EIS may be scaled back or even removed in the final policy package based on the findings of the EIS. In addition to describing policy recommendations for analysis in the EIS, this report identifies how input from the Governing Board and Advisory Planning Commission shaped the suite of recommendations. More detail describing how earlier input from the Tahoe Living Working Group, Community Partner Group, and public meetings shaped the policy recommendations can be found in the November 2025 Governing Board packet.

The report is organized based on key “intended project outcomes,” 1 with related policy topic areas grouped by
intended project outcome. Note that many of the policy topic areas relate to multiple project outcomes. For the sake of readability, staff have grouped policy topics with only one project outcome. Project outcomes and policy topics are listed below. The key project outcomes are as follows:

REDUCE COSTS AND BARRIERS FOR SMALLER HOUSING TYPES
• Development Rights
• Costs and Fees
• Development Process

WATER QUALITY -- IMPROVEMENTS HELP ACHIEVE THE HOUSING
NEED
• Using Best Available Science to Treat Stormwater Runoff

INCREASE HOUSING CHOICE
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
1 The TRPA Governing Board approved a Vision and Intended Project Outcomes for the Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin project in March 2025.
302
4 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
• Expanded Housing Sites
• Building Renovation and Rehabilitation
• Housing Occupancy
• Development Standards
Where a proposed policy topic is recommended or requires more description, a narrative description is included.

Several policy topics were considered in this analysis but not included as a recommendation here for various reasons including redundancy, feasibility, and scope of the policy change. As much as possible, this report explains the rationale for including or excluding policy topics that were considered or discussed previously.t Where an element of the proposal was removed or changed from the version presented at the November 2025 meeting of the Governing Board, that change is detailed in this proposal with rationale for the change. Details that were excluded from this report for brevity, including summaries of past input from the Tahoe Living Working Group, Community Partner Group, and public workshops, may be found in the November 2025 report. Staff has internally tracked all Governing Board and APC input and how it was handled in the updates to the proposal and can respond to questions regarding any specific comment prior to or during the January 28 Governing Board meeting.

These policy recommendations seek to establish a tiered structure for workforce housing incentives whenever possible. This tiered structure prioritizes the most intensive incentives for deed restricted affordable and moderate-income housing, provides some incentives for achievable and affordable-by-design housing, and does not incentivize other unrestricted housing. In some cases, the policies proposed in this package may disincentivize unrestricted market-rate housing. While it is not possible to tier all elements of this policy proposal, incentives are generally organized according to the following tiers:
• Tier 1—Includes deed restricted affordable- and moderate-income housing units. These units would receive the strongest incentives to reduce costs through reduced and waived development fees and streamlined processes.
• Tier 2—Includes deed restricted achievable housing units and housing units meeting the criteria for “affordable-by-design.” These units would receive some additional incentives including access to a limited pool of affordable-by-design bonus units, streamlined processes, and reduced development fees (though not as heavily reduced as tier 1) and are restricted against use as short term rentals. • Tier 3—Includes all other housing types not included in tiers 1 and 2. These include unrestricted condominiums and detached single family homes. These units would not receive incentives under this policy proposal, and development fees may be increased based on an impact-based nexus. 303
5 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Key Terms
Affordable and workforce housing: General terms to include any housing that is affordable to those who are eligible for “Affordable” and “Moderate” income housing and “Achievable” housing, as defined below, as well as to local workers who may not meet those definitions. This may include affordable-by-design housing (unrestricted) and is also referred to as “missing middle housing.”
Affordable-by-design housing: A term used to describe non-deed-restricted housing that may be eligible for some incentives under this proposal including partial fee reductions, process streamlining, and access to bonus units. Affordable-by-design housing includes:
• Multifamily rental housing with restrictions on conversion to for-sale housing for a minimum of 15-years after which time it may be converted to deed-restricted Achievable condominiums.2 • Multifamily housing in a mixed-income project with a required minimum amount of deed-restricted affordable, moderate or achievable housing
• Accessory Dwelling Units under 1200 square feet
• Innovative housing types or models aimed at creating naturally occurring affordable housing, e.g. tiny homes, land trusts, co-housing, dormitories
• Single-family homes converted to duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes All housing types utilizing bonus units would be subject to restrictions prohibiting their use as short term rentals.

Affordable, Moderate and Achievable Housing: Types of deed-restricted homes in the Lake Tahoe Region:
• Affordable: Residential housing, deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by seasonal workers or permanent residents that are lower-income households (income not in excess of 80 percent of the respective county's median income).
• Moderate: 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.
• Achievable: Single or multifamily residential development deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by permanent residents who meet one or more of the following criteria:
▪ Have a household income not in excess of 120 percent of the respective county’s area median income (AMI) (Moderate income households and below); OR ▪ At least one household occupant 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/Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD), and requires the employee’s physical presence; OR
▪ Resident is a retired person who has lived in a deed-restricted unit in the Tahoe Basin for more than seven years.
2 Consistent with the 15-year restriction on condominium conversions for rental projects under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit compliance period. The 15-year restriction on conversion is intended to protect tenants from unexpected loss of housing and maximize public incentives and subsidies for workforce housing while allowing opportunities for home ownership.
304
6 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Area-Wide Stormwater Treatment System (Stormwater Collection and Treatment System):

The physical infrastructure needed to effectively treat runoff from more than one parcel. Stormwater collection includes ditches, storm drains, and water pipes designed to remove surface runoff and transport it to the location or locations where it will be treated. Streets, curbs, and gutters can be included as part of the collection system.

Stormwater treatment is the process of improving stormwater runoff quality, reducing runoff volume, and reducing runoff peak flow. Debris and solids are filtered out, followed by a sedimentation process. Water is then infiltrated or discharged from the system into the receiving environment (groundwater table, ponds, streams, waterways, etc.).

Bonus units: Residential development rights that are provided by TRPA (or in some cases the local jurisdictions) as incentives for contributing to Regional Plan goals, such as constructing Affordable, Moderate, and Achievable housing, or retiring environmentally sensitive parcels from future development.

Land Coverage: All human-made surfaces and structures such as homes, driveways, and parking lots as well as areas of compacted soil created by human use that prevents normal precipitation from directly reaching the surface of the land underlying the structure, improvement, or covering.

Deed-restricted unit: A housing unit with a legal agreement on the property’s title that ensures the home is reserved for local workers or households under certain income limits. A deed restriction protects an existing or new unit from market forces that can put the unit out of reach for most local workers or households.

Development right: The legal permission to create a unit of use on land in the Tahoe Basin. Development rights come in different forms, including permission to build a single-family residential unit of use, a multifamily unit, a tourist accommodation unit, and commercial floor area. TRPA approved a limited number of development rights in 1987 to manage growth and achieve environmental goals. A development right must be obtained prior to the construction of a project and commencement of use or activity on a property. The limited number of development rights in the Tahoe Basin creates a market dynamic for their use. Bonus units (above) are a type of development right.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A TMDL is the calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant. A TMDL determines a pollutant reduction target and allocates load reductions necessary to the source(s) of the pollutant.3
Unrestricted Unit: A housing unit that does not have a deed restriction of any kind on it. Also referred to as “market-rate” housing.

For additional key terms, refer to the Growth Management System Briefing Book, page 2, available here:
https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Growth-Management-System-Briefing-Book-May-2025-1.pdf 3 From: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-total-maximum-daily-loads-tmdls 305
7 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Proposed Policy Changes

REDUCE COSTS AND BARRIERS FOR SMALLER

HOUSING TYPES
A strong focus of public input received throughout this process has been support for making it easier to construct smaller, more affordable-by-design units in the Tahoe Basin and ensuring that the available housing stock provides for the varying needs of Lake Tahoe’s low- and moderate-income households, and other workforce households. The project vision, in fact, is to facilitate meeting the overall housing need for the Lake Tahoe Basin, while maintaining and improving conservation and preservation of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding environment.

Reflecting this input, one of the approved project outcomes is “incentivizing and reducing costs and barriers for smaller home types with lower environmental impacts.” Other outcomes that are supported by policy recommendations in this section include:
• Increasing the availability of affordable and/or workforce housing in the Lake Tahoe Basin to support the regional economy and local businesses.
• Simplifying the development process, regulations, and environmental review for smaller units and multifamily housing that achieves environmental goals to facilitate and reduce costs for affordable and workforce housing.
• Minimizing the displacement of current residents.

Many community members and some Tahoe Living Working Group and Community Partner Group members favored remaining within the existing growth limits of the current Regional Plan. The proposed recommendations include studying whether residential development right conversion ratios, based on vehicle trip generation and used to convert between single-family and multifamily development rights, could be used to inform a system of scaled development rights, or whether the environmental effects of units should be analyzed in another way.

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Development rights policy changes focus on making it easier to provide housing for local families, seniors, and local workers, while maintaining TRPA’s growth limits. The idea of this section is to direct remaining growth as much as possible toward affordable and workforce housing types. The following recommended policy changes would:
• Direct some of the remaining growth potential in the basin to the residential bonus unit pool for use as deed-restricted and unrestricted affordable-by-design workforce housing. This would be limited to the growth potential remaining in existing pools;
• Allow more types of housing to qualify for bonus units; • Simplify the assignment of bonus units through internal process improvements; and • Scale development rights to align with development right conversion ratios and environmental impact.

As noted in the “How to Use This Report” section, incentives are tiered whenever feasible.

Policy Topic Proposed Bonus Unit Policy Changes (Recommended) 306
8 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Name Direct Some of the Remaining Growth Potential in the Basin to the Residential Bonus Unit Pool and Allow More Types of Housing to Qualify for Bonus Units Description
These potential policy changes would direct development rights from other development rights pools to the bonus unit pool and expand the types of projects that qualify for bonus units.

These changes would:
1) Proactively convert underutilized pools of Commercial Floor Area (CFA), Tourist Accommodation Units (TAU), and outdoor recreational facilities called PAOTs (persons at one time) held by TRPA to residential bonus units. This would be limited to the remaining CFA, TAUs and PAOTs in the existing pools today, and would not add to the existing pools or create new development rights.
2) Expand the types of projects that qualify for residential bonus units to include affordable-by-design housing types such as single-family conversions up to fourplexes, accessory dwelling units under 1200 square feet, and new multifamily rental projects, (see discussion below for the full list of qualifying projects). This option would move existing development rights from CFA, TAU, and PAOT pools into the residential bonus unit pool through conversions. It would also set aside some bonus units for unrestricted affordable-by-design housing, ensuring that a certain amount of bonus units are reserved for deedrestricted units only. The “bonus unit boundary” would be removed in favor of incentivizing locations close to transit through the Mobility Mitigation Fee.4 3) TRPA would assign residential bonus units automatically during the application process, while establishing a method for accounting for these from local jurisdictions. For development that does not use bonus units, the property owner would still be responsible for acquiring development rights, like they are today.
4) Prevent all conversions of CFA and TAUs from pools, to unrestricted singlefamily development rights, including for-sale condominiums. Privately held rights and rights yielded from redevelopment could still be converted to unrestricted residential development rights.

Change Since November
Version
Clarified that bonus units created through conversions will go into the existing bonus unit pool and a corresponding number of CFA, TAUs, or PAOTs will be removed. Some new bonus units will be reserved for deed-restricted housing, while others may be used for affordable-by-design housing.

Clarified that any projects utilizing affordable-by-design bonus units will include restrictions preventing their use as a short-term rental. Multifamily rental units utilizing affordable-by-design bonus units may not be converted to condominiums for 10 years.

Governing Board members suggested that use of affordable-by-design bonus units should be monitored through a voluntary survey and policy-adjusted as needed. This 4 The Mobility Mitigation Fee updates are scheduled to come forward for consideration by the TRPA Governing Board early in 2026.
307
9 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
input was not added to the proposal because it is more detailed than is needed for the EIS. Staff will consider this suggestion when crafting the final policy details.

Prohibition on converting CFA and TAUs to unrestricted units will only be applied to publicly held development rights pools, not privately help development rights or redevelopment. This is to avoid any potential disincentive to redeveloping blighted tourist and commercial structures.

These residential bonus unit policy changes would add more development rights to the bonus unit pool and expand the types of housing eligible for incentives, while removing development rights from CFA, TAU, and PAOT pools. Creating a larger residential bonus unit pool would be accomplished by converting unused CFA, TAUs, and PAOTs to residential bonus units for multifamily homes and ADUs. This would only apply to CFA, TAUs, and PAOTs held by TRPA and would not apply to banked CFA and TAUs held by local jurisdictions. Bonus units would still be able to be used, as they are today, for deed-restricted affordable, moderate and achievable homes, including single-family. Bonus units added to the pool would be split between affordable, moderate, achievable, and affordable-by-design housing, such that the division of bonus units approximately reflects the housing needs identified in the Housing Needs Assessment (Attachment F). TRPA would encourage local jurisdictions to use a similar conversion policy. Here is an example of the units that could result from the proposed conversion strategies using existing conversion ratios5:
5 Note that this policy proposal suggests reevaluating conversion ratios, which may result in a different conversion outcome.
308
10 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Conversion Options Description Conversion Potential Based on Existing Exchange Rates
Converting CFA and TAUs
held by TRPA
TRPA holds a pool of 200,000 square feet of CFA
that can only be made available to local
jurisdictions once the CFA in the area plans (see
below) is allocated. CFA can be converted to
multifamily units at a ratio of 200 square feet to
one multifamily unit. (TRPA Code Sections 50.4.1
and 51.4.3.)
CFA: 200,000 square feet
TRPA also holds a pool of unused TAU bonus
units. Current TRPA Code says TAU bonus units
shall be used for tourist accommodation projects
that restore sensitive land, transfer development
to centers, or remove and retire excess coverage
(TRPA Code 50.7.1.C). However, these incentives
have largely gone unused.

TAUs can be converted to multifamily at a ratio of
one TAU to 1.5 multifamily units (TRPA Code
Section 51.4.3).

Unencumbered TAUs: 746
Up to 1,000 multifamily units from
CFA
111 multifamily units from TAUs
(up to 318 if encumbered units are
returned)
Converting CFA held by
TRPA
This pool is held by TRPA for use in area plans.

These pools are currently designated for “Special
Projects” that “promote major projects that result
in the construction of threshold-related
environmental improvements, to promote
transfer of development that results in substantial
environmental benefits, and to rehabilitate
substandard development” (Code Section

50.6.4.D)
CFA: 160,482 square feet
Up to 802 multifamily units from
CFA
6 An additional 138 TAU units from the TRPA pool were permitted for use at Tahoe City Lodge (48), Homewood (50), and Boulder Bay (40). If these projects do not use the units, they will be returned to the TRPA pool and would be eligible for conversion if this proposal is adopted.
309
11 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Converting PAOTs held
by TRPA
This pool has been held by TRPA for outdoor
recreation facilities since 1987 with very little
demand. PAOTs are intended to manage increased
capacity at summer day use facilities, winter day
use facilities, and summer overnight facilities
(campsites), and their effects were analyzed in the
2012 Regional Plan. TRPA recommends that 3,508
of the remaining 5,508 Summer Overnight
“Persons at One Time” (PAOTs) be considered for
conversion to residential bonus units. The TRPA
Code does not specify a conversion ratio from
PAOTs to bonus units. That conversion ratio
would need to be established. For the purposes of
this example, we are assuming a conversion ratio
equivalent to that for multi-person dwellings
established in Section 31.3.3 (2.5:1).

PAOT: 3,508 summer overnight persons at one
time
Up to 1,403 multifamily units
Total Bonus Unit
Conversion Potential
using Current
Conversion Factors
3,316 multifamily units
Converting unused development rights using existing conversion ratios could result in up to 3,316 multifamily units. Converted CFA, TAUs, and PAOTs would be taken out of their respective pools and moved to the bonus unit pool.

Additionally, these potential policy changes would expand the types of projects eligible for bonus unit incentives.

In addition to allowing bonus units to be used for deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing, and as incentives for transfers of development out of sensitive and remote areas (uses allowed today), additional affordable-by-design housing types eligible for bonus units created through the conversions detailed above could include:
• Multifamily rental housing with restrictions conversion to for-sale housing for 15 years after which time it may be converted to deed-restricted Achievable condominiums.i • Innovative housing types or models aimed at creating naturally occurring affordable housing, e.g. tiny homes, land trusts, co-housing, dormitories, etc.
• Single-family homes converted to duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes All housing types utilizing bonus units would be subject to restrictions prohibiting their use as short term rentals.

The housing types newly eligible for bonus units would utilize a pool of bonus units created from the conversion of CFA, TAUs, and PAOTs. Units utilizing this pool would have restrictions preventing their use as short term rentals and preventing their conversion to condominiums for a minimum 15-year period after which time it may be converted to deed-restricted Achievable for-sale housing7. TRPA will consider other restrictions including but not 7 Consistent with the 15-year restriction on condominium conversions for rental projects under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit compliance period. The 15-year restriction on conversion is intended to protect tenants from 310
12 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
limited to allowing only a limited number of condominium conversions each year and requiring an allocation for condominium conversion. Local jurisdictions may also choose to convert unused CFA and TAUs in their own pools to create local-level affordable-by-design bonus units. The existing bonus unit pools would remain reserved for deed-restricted units only.
unexpected loss of housing and maximize public incentives and subsidies for workforce housing while allowing opportunities for home ownership.
311
13 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Development Rights Scaling
Policy Topic Proposed Development Rights Policy Changes (Recommended) Name Align Conversion Policies to Scale Residential Development Rights Description
The Development Rights Scaling policy changes aim to adjust TRPA’s policies to scale development rights for residential units. This approach builds on the current system that uses conversion ratios between rights for different development types.

Under this approach, residential development rights would be scaled so that a multifamily residential unit or a bonus unit is worth only a portion of a single-family development right. It will also consider whether certain unrestricted housing types should require additional development rights. The impacts of larger units will be addressed through a scaled fee structure (see the “Costs and Fees” section). The EIS will also analyze the potential impacts of updating the existing ratios used to convert and scale development rights, and may include a new conversion ratio specific to conversion to bonus units.

This policy recommendation would consider a unit that is within the footprint of the main house and is less than 500 square feet, or meets the definition of a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) as defined by either the State of California or Nevada as allowable within the definition of a single-family home. This would effectively mean that a new development right would not be required for a JADU. Any property utilizing this policy would be required to obtain BMP certification, meet site-specific coverage restrictions, and would be subject to restrictions prohibiting their use as a short-term rental.

Change Since November
Version
The November version of this document included three options for scaling development rights:
• Based on conversion ratios;
• Based on unit square footage; or
• Based on a formulation of environmental impact factors This version clarifies that scaling development rights based on conversion ratios is the preferred policy option for analysis in the EIS. There are several reasons why a scaling methodology based on conversion ratios was chosen, including:
• Simplicity—The TLWG, Community Partner Group, APC, Governing Board, and the public favored simple policy changes wherever possible. Development rights conversion ratios are already part of TRPA’s growth management system and extending the logic of conversion ratios proved to be the simplest option for scaling. Other scaling options would involve more complex structural changes to the existing development rights policy. • Housing need—Several members of the public and CPG noted the need for larger workforce housing units to accommodate families. A scaled system based on square footage could inadvertently incentivize studio and onebedroom units at the expense of units designed for families. A scaled system based on conversion ratios will incentivize efficient land use patterns without dictating unit size. Impacts of unit size will be addressed through the scaled fees policy described in the “Cost and Fees” section of this proposal. 312
14 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
This policy proposal explores how adjusting the way development rights are counted could lower costs, encourage multifamily housing, and increase housing options for local workers. It also seeks to align existing policies on the conversion of development rights and extend conversion ratios to TRPA’s overall accounting of residential development rights.

Scaling development rights (i.e. counting smaller or shared housing as requiring fewer development rights) would apply to all new housing, regardless of deed-restrictions or home size. Any new housing built with allocations and redevelopment using privately held development rights would be subject to these policies. However, scaling would not apply retroactively to existing residences. This policy would use existing or updated conversion exchange rates to scale development rights from single-family to multifamily. Currently, with a ratio of 1 single-family to 3/2 multifamily (Table 51.4.3-1 from the Code of Ordinances), this policy would reduce the cost burden for multifamily projects. If applied to the existing residential bonus units, this would extend the life of the pool and further encourage multifamily housing. Increasing the development rights required for some unrestricted single-family homes, could offset an increase in units. This policy will also analyze whether existing ratios should be changed to better reflect environmental impacts by studying the relative environmental impact of multifamily homes built for local workers as compared to single family detached homes. Any updated ratios would apply both to the conversion and scaling of development rights.

The policy impact of scaling development rights may be significant for achieving desired outcomes. For example, there are approximately 1,380 bonus units (or incentive units) remaining. Scaling these remaining rights would increase the likelihood that a development right is used to produce multifamily homes, and could meet the estimated housing need for low-income, moderate income, and other working households.

This policy proposal also recommends studying the potential environmental impacts of allowing a JADU or similar small unit within a building footprint of a single-family home, rather than requiring a separate development right.

This policy would likely increase the supply of small rental housing within existing homes with limited impact on neighborhood character and the environment. JADUs can also serve as a source of supplemental income for homeowners. Currently, JADUs are prohibited from being used as a short-term rental in the California jurisdictions and in the Tahoe portion of Washoe County.
313
15 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Complementary Development Rights Policy Option
Policy Topic Policy Opt. B (Recommended)
Name Ensure New Development Contributes Proportionally to Alleviating the Housing Need Description This policy option would require that all new development, including commercial, tourist, and unrestricted housing, contribute toward meeting the workforce housing need identified in the Housing Needs Assessment (Attachment F). Currently, projects redeveloping existing multifamily units into condominiums are the only development type subject to TRPA’s inclusionary zoning rules and a 1:1 replacement requirement for affordable and moderate-income units. This places a burden on one type of development (condominiums); while allowing other types of development, which also impact the need for and supply of workforce housing, to proceed without contributing to workforce housing needs. This new policy would require that tier 3 housing in addition to condominiums, tourist, and commercial development construct deedrestricted housing mitigate its impact on affordable-, moderate-, and workforce housing.

Single-family or tourist development replacing de facto or deed-restricted affordable- or moderate-income multifamily development, and the redevelopment of mobile home parks would be subject to a 1:1 replacement requirement.

This policy proposal also recommends an administrative fee for service to cover the cost of deed-restriction recording, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement.

Implementation of these programs would be in close coordination with the local jurisdictions to ensure they complement, rather than detract, from any existing local programs. They would also require the identification of a program of projects that fees would contribute toward and could require a longer timeframe for implementation.

Changes Since November
Version
The previous version of this document included an option to require 1:1 replacement of any workforce housing units lost to redevelopment. Requiring new development to replace units on a 1:1 basis could place a disproportionate burden on redevelopment to replace units, while greenfield development would not have this requirement. The policies described above applied to all new development will support workforce housing without disincentivizing redevelopment that may have environmental benefits and will ensure that all development is responsible for contribute its fair share toward meeting the basin’s housing needs. This policy would still require certain types of redevelopment to replace lost affordable and moderate-income housing on a 1:1 basis, as described above.

DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND FEES
TRPA charges fees to recover the cost of reviewing and processing permit applications and to address the environmental effects of new development, including things like vehicle travel and water quality. These fees are important, but there may be options for modernization to better reflect the relative environmental and community impact of large homes and to support affordable and workforce housing.

This policy change includes four elements: 1) tier and scale fees based on housing type and the size of the home taking into consideration possible environmental or community impact associated with size and housing typey; 2) 314
16 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
lower mobility fees for development in urban areas to encourage housing near transit and walkable places; and 3) defer some fees until after a project is finished to help workforce housing get started Policy Topic Proposed Development Costs and Fees Policy Changes (Recommended) Name Fee Changes to Support Affordable and Workforce Housing Description
This policy recommendation includes:
1) Tiering permitting and mitigation fees based on the tier structure applied throughout this policy proposal. Tier 1 projects (Affordable and Moderate deed-restriction) would receive full relief from TRPA fees. Tier 2 projects (Achievable and affordable-by-design) would see fees reduced by 50 percent.

Tier 3 projects (other market rate) would not receive relief from mitigation and permitting fees.

This proposal will include a fee study to analyze the fiscal as well as the potentially significant environmental impact of fee reductions. The study will consider options for recovering sums lost due to fee reductions for project tiers 1 and 2. This is important, both from a fiscal perspective to TRPA, and to the environment because mitigation fees are returned to local jurisdictions to fund environmental improvement projects that help in achieving the environmental thresholds. The study will also consider scaling Tier 3 and possibly Tier 2 project fees, whereby larger homes would be subject to higher fees.
2) Lower mobility fees for development in urban areas to encourage housing near transit and walkable places.
3) Consider deferment of some mitigation fees until after a project is completed and the project receives its certificate of occupancy. This would focus on Tier 1 and 2 projects.

Change Since November
Version
The inclusionary zoning requirement for large employers was removed due to redundancy. The “Ensure New Development Contributes Proportionally to Alleviating the Housing Need” policy would address the housing impact associated with large employers.

Clarified tiering structure for fee incentives and scaling for unrestricted (Tier 3) housing. While the proposal to scale development rights does not consider square footage, unit size in terms of square footage may be addressed, if relevant to environmental and community impacts in the proposal through scaled fees for market rate housing.

Fee Changes to Support Affordable and Workforce Housing would incentivize housing types that achieve Regional Plan goals by reducing development costs for affordable and workforce housing in the Basin. The system may work well when paired with other changes such as reducing cost barriers for ADUs and development rights policy changes. Initial estimates suggest that current TRPA fees average from four to eight percent of total development costs before land value and any profit.

This policy proposal will analyze a tiered fee system that promotes deed-restricted and affordable-by-design housing units in or near centers. Deed restricted Affordable- and Moderate-income housing would receive full 315
17 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
relief from TRPA fees 8while Achievable and affordable-by-design projects would experience a 50 percent reduction in fees. Other market rate projects will not receive fee reductions and this proposal will analyze scaling up fees for market rate units based on impact. For example, a baseline will be established and fees will be scaled up or down based on impact, which could be related to size, proximity to the Lake, or other factors. Fees could be linear, exponential, or tiered like utility fees but must have a nexus to actual impacts.

Fees for unrestricted housing will also be adjusted to better reflect the relative cost of reviewing and permitting a project and the cost to provide public services. For example, very large and complex single-family residential projects can involve significant staff time for review and permitting. These costs may not be fully reflected in application fees currently and should be considered when making changes to fees.

A variety of factors affect the total cost of development, including the cost of land itself, development fees, and interest rates. By decreasing fees for tier 1 and 2 projects, project economics would improve somewhat, potentially increasing the number of homes produced for low-income, moderate income, and other working households. However, other valuation factors in today’s market, such as construction costs, interest rates, and capitalization rates would still challenge new multifamily housing to achieve feasibility. Additionally, mitigation and permitting fees serve an important role in achieving the region’s environmental goals. This proposal will analyze other funding sources to offset revenue lost from reducing fees for tier 1 and 2 projects.

Deferring mitigation fees until post-construction, particularly for tier 1 and 2 projects would lower the barrier to entry for smaller developers and reduce their upfront costs. It would require a fee deferral agreement, a surety bond, a “bank” to back the deferral, or other mechanism as well as expanded project tracking and coordination with local jurisdictions to ensure deferred fees are paid once the project is complete.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The development process topic area seeks to adapt administrative processes to better support workforce and affordable housing. The EIS will analyze two complementary policy options in the development process topic area.

Policy Topic DP Opt. A
(Recommended) DP Opt. B (Recommended)
Name Increase Thresholds for
Discretionary Review
Environmental Exemptions
Description
This policy change would
establish higher thresholds
for TRPA-level review so
that smaller projects (e.g.,
ADUs, small MFR projects,
including small deedrestricted MFR projects)
are reviewed ministerially
by TRPA or local
governments if they do not
require an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or EIS
instead of by the TRPA
Article VI(a) of the Compact allows
TRPA to “prescribe by ordinance
those activities which it has
determined will not have
substantial effect on the land,
water, air, space or any other
natural resources in the region
and therefore will be exempt from
its review and approval.” This
policy change would analyze
exempting all residential projects
up to a fourplex and tier 1 and 2
redevelopment projects from
project-level environmental
8 In addition to the existing waiver of mobility mitigation and permitting fees, water quality mitigation and excess coverage mitigation fees would also be waived.
316
18 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Hearings Officer or
Governing Board.
review under this section of the
TRPA Compact. Lakefront projects
would not qualify for this
exemption. Single-family homes
that may be the size of a fourplex
or even larger are already exempt
under the code today. Above this
threshold multifamily projects
would require project-level
environmental review.

Process
Ministerial or
administrative review for
tiers 1 and 2 projects that
meet all development
standards (e.g. staff level
review for residential
projects if they do not
require an EA or EIS).

Amend Code Ch. 3 to exempt up to
fourplexes and tier 1 and 2
redevelopment projects from
environmental review.

Change Since November Version
Clarified that this policy
applies to tier 1 and 2
projects.
• Clarified how policy relates to
tiered incentives.

The Environmental Streamlining policy change would exempt project-level environmental review requirements for certain qualifying projects, including multifamily up to fourplexes and tier 1 and 2 redevelopment projects consistent with adopted Area Plans. Articles 6 and 7 of the TRPA Compact allows the agency to exempt certain project classes from environmental review. Single family residential projects are currently exempt from projectlevel environmental analysis under Chapter 3 of the Code and Compact Article 7 and there are many smaller multifamily housing types that could have a similar or lesser environmental impact than some new single-family homes. This option aligns with California’s CEQA streamlining provisions, TRPA’s Environmental Impact Checklist, and could reduce costs and review times for projects with minimal net new impact. Projects qualifying for ministerial review could also benefit from reduced permitting fees. 317
19 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living

WATER QUALITY -- IMPROVEMENTS HELP

ACHIEVE THE HOUSING NEED
TRPA’s vision is for a lake environment that is sustainable, healthy, and safe for the community and future generations. Protecting Lake Tahoe is a top priority for the agency and is the underlying basis for nearly every action undertaken. The overarching vision for Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin recognizes this in its own vision statement, which reads:

Adapt TRPA policy, regulations, and programming to facilitate community vitality and compact, walkable neighborhoods and meet the overall housing need for the Lake Tahoe Basin, while maintaining and improving conservation and preservation of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding environment.

The policy recommendations in this section support the following intended project outcome:
• Direct development into compact, walkable neighborhoods to limit the impact of development, create a healthy living environment, preserve surrounding natural areas, and create vibrant communities where people live and work.

The policy recommendations in this section focus on the synergy between achieving water quality goals through local government pollutant load reduction targets and meeting the regional housing need.

TRPA requires each parcel to maintain a certain amount of open space that allows precipitation to naturally infiltrate into the soil. A certain percentage of a parcel can be covered by buildings, driveways, and other hard surfaces, while the rest is required to remain uncovered to capture runoff, naturally filter pollutants, recharge groundwater, and sustain plant life. TRPA also requires best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management on individual parcels or on an area-wide basis.

In addition to TRPA’s requirements, local governments must meet permit or memorandum of understanding requirements associated with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan approved by the states of California and Nevada. As parcel-level BMPs or area-wide treatment systems are installed and/or expanded, local governments receive pollutant load reduction credits that help satisfy their TMDL requirements. Since key stormwater treatment regulations were last approved with the 2012 Regional Plan, significant progress has been made in implementing the TMDL.

These policy proposals seek to build on progress in water quality management while reducing costs and barriers to affordable and workforce housing. As with the other proposals in this package, incentives for affordable and workforce housing are tiered wherever practical, with affordable- and moderate-income housing (Tier 1) receiving the greatest incentives, achievable and affordable-by-design housing (Tier 2) receiving some incentives, and other market-rate housing (Tier 3) not incentivized.

TRPA’s policies currently only recognize some of the benefits of the TMDL for deed-restricted housing. As part of the Phase 2 Affordable and Workforce Housing amendments, TRPA allows 100 percent deed-restricted housing to build additional coverage if it is in an area treated by an area-wide stormwater treatment system fully managed and maintained by a local jurisdiction or utility. Any additional coverage over and above the base allowable (which is a maximum of 30 percent on the highest capability land) must still be purchased and transferred in, and water quality mitigation fees must still be paid.

The policies proposed as part of this section of the Cultivating Communities, Conserving the Basin project seek to recognize the benefits of the TMDL more broadly, and to focus parcel-level requirements on ensuring that stormwater is fully treated over the long term (including successful system maintenance), rather than using the percentage of a parcel covered by impervious surface as the main indicator of compliance with water quality 318
20 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
treatment standards. While this policy proposes changes to parcel-level coverage requirements, the proposal will still need to comply with regional coverage limits under the impervious coverage threshold. These policies are not anticipated to increase region-wide coverage overall, as they are intended to incentivize smaller, more compact units that need less coverage per unit. Coverage may still be regulated through fees or limits for some housing types, particularly in the case of tier 3 housing, to ensure that the soils threshold can be met The new system would allow parcel owners to use one of several approved methods to treat parcel runoff for tier 1 and 2 projects, including mixed-use, as long as existing treatment standards can be met.

These policies are important because currently land coverage limits can be a barrier to the very development and redevelopment that is called for in the Regional Plan, such as affordable and workforce housing projects close to transit and services. Current coverage requirements make it harder and more costly to build smaller units closer together, even when near transit and services where housing would require less parking. Allowing other methods to treat stormwater can both encourage needed housing while also resulting in improved water quality by encouraging and generating revenue for effective treatment systems.

The policy changes recommended here would allow housing projects to either use existing coverage standards, or be allowed as much coverage as needed if they can demonstrate sufficient treatment of stormwater runoff through parcel-based BMPs or by tying into an area-wide stormwater treatment system managed and maintained by a local jurisdiction. In addition, the recommended policy changes would also 1) use the best available soil maps for land capability determination, 2) continue to support local jurisdiction implementation of regional stormwater projects, and 3) analyze exemptions to coverage transfer requirements and excess coverage mitigation fees for tier 1 and 2 projects. Basic water quality mitigation fees would still apply for all tiers of housing, to maintain a stable funding source for investing in water quality mitigation projects and planning. 319
21 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Policy Topic Proposed Stormwater Treatment Changes (Recommended) Name Options Other than Coverage Limitations and Areawide Stormwater Systems to Treat Parcel-Level Stormwater Runoff
Description
These proposed changes would allow projects to use one of several approved methods to manage runoff effectively and meet environmental thresholds.

These policy changes would update the existing land coverage requirements, allowing the option for additional land coverage for tier 1 and 2 projects, including mixed-use, to reduce barriers to compact housing if runoff treatment standards, including long-term maintenance needs are met. This option would also be available to redevelopment projects. While this policy proposes changes to parcel-level coverage requirements, the proposal will still need to comply with regional coverage limits under the impervious coverage threshold. This policy would include a small administrative fee for service charged to all development that would pay for maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement of parcel-level BMPs. The fee study will analyze the fee required to cover the cost of a maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement program for BMPs, managed by the local jurisdictions, and including maintenance scenarios where the property owner is out of compliance.

This policy change would study exempting tier 1 projects from coverage transfer requirements and water quality mitigation fees and reducing these fees and requirements for tier 2 projects, as long as the fee could be offset through another mechanism.

This policy change would also consider whether existing coverage transfer, and restoration incentives could be recalibrated to better incentivize coverage removal and disincentivize overcoverage for large market-rate homes.

This policy proposal will also include analyzing higher exemptions for pervious coverage.

Change Since November
Version
Clarified that the proposal would include a fee to support BMP monitoring and enforcement.

Clarified how incentives for coverage transfer and fee relief would be tiered to further incentivize affordable- and moderate-income housing.

Increasing parcel-level land coverage limits for tier 1 and 2 housing would allow these housing types to continue to use a simple process for meeting water quality requirements, if tying into a larger area-wide treatment system is not an option and stormwater can be shown through existing tools9 to be captured and effectively treated onsite. If a parcel cannot treat its runoff onsite, it could still receive higher coverage if it can demonstrate that its runoff will be treated through one of the other treatment options, such as an existing area-wide stormwater treatment system that a local jurisdiction has in place to meet the TMDL, as long as that system has capacity. This option would also be extended to all redevelopment projects, to incentivize redevelopment of overcovered parcels. This potential change would also include providing higher exemptions for pervious coverage. By allowing higher coverage while still guaranteeing stormwater treatment, these changes would 9 BMP Calculation Spreadsheet: https://tahoebmp.org/Documents/BMP_Calc.xlsx 320
22 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
reduce one of the largest barriers for multifamily housing, enabling more projects to “pencil-out” financially. An administrative fee for service charged to all new development would support local government programs to monitor and enforce parcel-level BMP compliance, ensuring that BMPs are properly maintained to effectively capture and treat parcel-level stormwater.

To maintain incentives for deed-restricted housing, TRPA will differentiate requirements between tier 1 and 2 projects. For example, both project types could be allowed the same higher coverage, height, and density allowances to ensure feasibility, but tier 2 projects would continue to pay a portion of ECM and other mitigation fees, while tier 1 projects could be exempted from coverage transfers and receive full fee relief.

This set of policy changes would be most effective when paired with reforms to height, density, and parking standards (See Development Standards) so that projects can fully utilize the additional coverage. They would also combine well with all of the land coverage policy options in the table below.

Complementary Land Coverage Policy Options
The EIS will analyze the following complimentary land coverage policies:

Policy Topic Land Coverage Policy Opt.

A (Recommended)
Land Coverage Policy Opt. B
(Recommended)
Land Coverage Policy Opt. C
(Recommended)
Name
Install Area-wide
Stormwater
Improvements
Use Updated Soils Maps Reevaluate ECM Fees
Description
This policy supports the
ongoing work that local
jurisdictions are doing to
implement area-wide
stormwater treatment
improvements, particularly
in centers and urban areas,
to support environmental
thresholds. Increased areawide stormwater
improvements would
provide more stormwater
treatment options for new
multifamily in those areas.

This policy change would use
existing, updated soils maps
created by the Natural
Resources Soil Conservation
District (NRCS) or the latest
maps based on the best
available science to determine
land capability instead of the
Bailey maps. Field verification,
particularly for areas with
sensitive lands, would still be
required. This policy would
allow for a reconsideration of
land verification maps to ensure
they are based on the best
available science.

This policy change would
reevaluate Excess Coverage
Mitigation (ECM) fees to
ensure that they do not deter
redevelopment of parcels,
while also considering
increasing the ECM fees, in
some cases, to better align with
the actual cost of mitigating
coverage.

This proposal recommends
tiering and aligning ECM fee
incentives with other fee
incentives where possible. In
this case, tier 1 projects would
be exempt from fees, tier 2
projects would see fees
reduced by 50 percent, and tier
3 projects would pay full fees.

A fee study will determine
options to recover revenue
from fee exemptions and
reductions, including an
exponential ECM fee for tier 3
development.
321
23 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Change since
November
N/A Clarified that soil maps should
be updated regularly based on
best available science, not just
NRCS data.

Clarified that changes to ECM
fees should be consistent with
other fee changes proposed in
this policy package where
possible.

Use Updated Maps adopts updated soils and hydrologic maps to provide more accurate coverage allowances. This update would be largely technical in nature, requiring investment in mapping updates, but would yield long-term certainty and efficiency for both applicants and TRPA staff. It complements the standard-based system by improving the reliability of baseline data used for both meeting stormwater treatment standards or coverage limits. Updating current maps may reduce land capability challenges and thus reduce staff costs for TRPA. This policy would also allow for a reconsideration of soils and hydrologic maps every five years should new data become available.

Reevaluate ECM Fees would both analyze the current ECM fee to see if it is sufficient to support coverage restoration, while also supporting housing objectives by analyzing exemptions for deed-restricted projects and workforce types like ADUs. This reform would reduce cost barriers for affordable housing while still funding coverage removal and water-quality improvements. TRPA may also want to reevaluate ECM fees for redevelopment of commercial parcels to encourage adaptive reuse of underutilized sites for housing. Where possible, changes to ECM fees will be consistent with the tiered fee incentives proposed in this policy package. A fee study will determine how to recover revenue from fee reductions for tier 1 and tier 2 projects, this may include increasing fees for tier 3 projects if there is nexus to do so. The fee study will include analyzing an exponential fee structure for excess coverage mitigation to raise revenue for mitigation and disincentivize overcoverage by large, market-rate homes.

INCREASE HOUSING CHOICE
New housing development in the Tahoe region in recent years has been characterized by increasingly large, singlefamily homes that are primarily affordable only to those seeking a second home in the region, or by state and federally subsidized, deed-restricted affordable housing for the lowest income levels (generally 60 percent of AMI or below).
10 While housing needs studies show that the most housing is needed in the “affordable” income category, there is also a substantial need for housing in the moderate and achievable categories with 49 percent of identified housing need in the moderate and above moderate categories (See Attachment F). Input from community workshops has also pointed to a need for more affordable, for-sale homes so that local families can build wealth and stability. Many affordable-by-design housing types that used to be provided by the market, such as ADUs, duplexes and triplexes, and affordable, for-sale condominiums are either not allowed by current code or are financially infeasible, in part due to restrictive zoning. The policies in this section are focused on providing the range of housing types necessary to meet the housing need. They support these approved project outcomes:
• Providing for the range of housing types that meet the proportion of housing needed for different income groups as identified in the Assess and Generate portion of this process. 10 Constructed projects utilizing bonus units or requiring deed-restrictions as mitigation have resulted in the following numbers of deed-restricted units: 542 affordable, 129 moderate, and 17 achievable. This does not include approximately 130 additional deedrestricted affordable units in the City of South Lake Tahoe that are not administered by TRPA. 322
24 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
• Advancing a range of housing options for individuals and families of all types and income levels to ensure greater housing occupancy, community vitality and stability, and upward mobility for local households and families.
• Encouraging mixed-income rental and for-sale housing. • Minimize the risk of natural hazards for new and existing housing as indicated through an environmental analysis using best science available and consistent with legal requirements. • Ensuring priority communities, including low-income households, seniors, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) community members, and those with disabilities, have equitable access to quality housing near education, recreation, jobs, services, and other opportunities. • Preserving, improving, and supporting occupancy of existing housing used by local households.

EXPANDED HOUSING SITES
The Expanded Housing sites policy changes focus on four options for adapting zoning and eligibility to support affordable and workforce housing in the Basin. Four policy recommendations are split into two separate tables for readability. The EIS will analyze all four complimentary policy recommendations to expand housing sites.

Policy Topic HS Opt. A (Recommended) HS Opt. B (Recommended) Name Expand Geographic Scope for Incentives Allow Missing Middle Housing in More Neighborhoods
Description
This potential policy change would support
local jurisdictions expanding town center
and urban area boundaries in certain
locations through amendments to the
required Findings in the TRPA Code that
must be made to amend a Regional Land
Use boundary (such as a town center). This
policy change could lead to broadened
eligibility for infill development incentives
and broaden the areas where deedrestricted housing would be eligible for incentives.

This potential policy change would allow
missing middle housing types, including
duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes that
used to be allowed in many Tahoe
neighborhoods, to be permissible in certain
single family residential areas.

Implementation of this option could be a
change to the use definition of single family
residential to include duplexes, triplexes,
and fourplexes. However, this would
effectively allow small-scale multi-family in
any residential neighborhood in the basin,
regardless of its proximity to transit.

Alternatively, this option could be
implemented by local jurisdictions through
area plan amendments with support from
TRPA. This would allow for limited
implementation in specific neighborhoods,
such as areas near transit or areas with
stormwater infrastructure, or for deedrestricted housing only. 323
25 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Change Since November
Version
Narrowed scope of policy changes to
support local jurisdictions implementing
the policy option in their area plans.

NA
Expand Geographic Scope for Incentives would support broadened eligibility for TRPA’s existing town center and multi-family incentives — including higher density, additional height, and reduced parking requirements — to a broader set of parcels. Implementing this potential set of policy changes would require TRPA and local jurisdictions to analyze land outside existing town centers and align new boundaries with other incentive program boundaries, such as those for bonus units. This analysis would consider factors like proximity to transit and existing town centers, land capability, existing land use, and land ownership. As part of this update, TRPA may also wish to consider removing certain high-value, environmentally sensitive lands from existing town center boundaries where development incentives are inappropriate. Its effectiveness, however, depends on concurrent reforms to land coverage and development rights, since new sites in town centers will be much more feasible for housing if those barriers are also addressed.

The Allow Missing Middle Housing in More Neighborhoods policy change could be implemented in two different approaches: 1. TRPA could mandate the change in every single-family residential neighborhood, without the need for an area plan amendment, or 2. Support local jurisdictions in amending their area plans to allow for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in appropriate neighborhoods. Under the first implementation approach, TRPA could update allowable land uses in single-family neighborhoods to permit "missing middle” housing such as duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes. Alternatively, under the second implementation approach, a new land use category, “missing middle” could be created that allows up to a fourplex and could be applied to these neighborhoods by local jurisdictions, at their option through an area plan update. Rezoning could occur in transition areas adjacent to town centers, near transit, or in areas with stormwater infrastructure in place. This approach could provide a wider range of housing styles, sizes, and price points and incrementally expand the housing supply. It also depends on complementary reforms to development rights (for example, waiving and/or scaling rights), and development standards to make these housing forms financially feasible. For purposes of the EIS, allowing up to a fourplex in all single-family neighborhoods will be analyzed. The policy decision of how to implement will be further developed with the Tahoe Living Working Group, Community Partner Group, APC and Governing Board.

Policy Topic HS Opt. C (Recommended) HS Opt. D (Recommended) Name Allow and Encourage Housing on
Public/Institutional Lands
Facilitate Transitional and Supportive Housing
Description This potential policy change would
amend the TRPA Code and Plan Area
Statements (for jurisdictions that still
have them) to allow residential uses on
public/institutional lands as an
allowed use to activate underutilized
sites.

This would update TRPA’s use tables and project
review requirements to allow transitional and
supportive housing as an allowed use in residential
zones. It would also require that these types of
projects be reviewed ministerially by staff if the
project is located in an area zoned either for
multifamily or mixed-use development. This has
been identified by California jurisdictions as a
discrepancy between TRPA and California law that
inhibits them from meeting statewide housing
goals.
324
26 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Change Since
November Version
NA NA
The Allow and Encourage Housing on Public/Institutional Lands policy change would allow underutilized public and institutional parcels — such as lands owned by local governments, school districts, or faith-based institutions — to include housing on their properties. This could include surplus properties, vacant parking lots, or other sites suitable for redevelopment. While the scale of impact depends on the number and suitability of available parcels, this policy change has the potential to unlock land for housing production, particularly if paired with incentives, such as bonus units and fee reductions. Implementation of this option would include amending the TRPA Code to allow residential uses on public/institutional parcels covered by Plan Area Statements (in the City of South Lake Tahoe, for example). Local jurisdictions covered by area plans would likely need to process area plan amendments to take advantage of this policy change.

The Facilitating Transitional and Supportive Housing policy change would update TRPA’s use definitions to explicitly allow transitional and supportive housing as a residential use. This would allow jurisdictions on the California side to comply with California law, while allowing Nevada jurisdictions the flexibility to implement if they deem appropriate. This aligns with the intended project outcomes of providing more housing types and more housing choice.

BUILDING RENOVATION AND REHABILITATION
The Building Renovation and Rehabilitation topic area includes one recommended set of policy changes aimed at supporting revitalization of existing housing.

Policy Topic Proposed Building Renovation and Rehabilitation (BRR) Policy Changes (Recommended)
Name Support renovation and rehabilitation of existing buildings Description
This set of potential changes would reduce fees, including excess coverage mitigation fees, mobility mitigation fees, and water quality mitigation fees and streamline the permitting process for renovation and rehabilitation projects that do not change the building footprint. Tier 1 renovation projects would receive full fee relief and could obtain a permit for renovations without BMPs. Other renovation projects would receive a 50 percent reduction in fees.

Change Since November
Version Added specificity for what fees would be reduced.

Preserving and improving existing housing is a key concern for the community and is essential to preventing further displacement, maintaining affordability, retaining year-round residents, and improving environmental quality. At community workshops, participants, particularly low- or moderate-income homeowners reported difficulty in both finding labor as well as getting through the permitting process for rehabilitation projects that can improve safety, for instance upgrading outdated electrical systems.

This set of policy changes would encourage reinvestment in existing housing by reducing regulatory and cost barriers via fee waivers or fee reductions for modest upgrades and conversions. It would also provide financial assistance for BMP requirements, or delay BMP requirements, particularly where stormwater infrastructure is in place, significantly reducing costs and barriers on small or constrained lots. By focusing these incentives on projects that do not significantly expand footprint or intensity of use, it would preserve and improve existing 325
27 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
housing stock while maintaining environmental protections. Fee reductions and BMP flexibility would be particularly impactful for adaptive reuse of commercial sites and low-income homeowners/small landlords, making it more feasible to keep units in good condition, maintain existing rents, and keep units occupied by local residents. This set of policy changes also aligns closely with State and Federal housing rehabilitation programs, meaning TRPA and local jurisdictions could potentially leverage external funding and partnerships.

HOUSING OCCUPANCY
The Housing Occupancy policy area aims to increase access to existing housing for local residents. This topic area includes three complementary policy options.

Policy Topic HO Opt. A (Recommended) HO Opt. B (Recommended) HO Opt. C (Recommended) Name
Unlock vacant housing units Support housing authority
to manage deed restrictions
and programs
Establish stable sources of
funding for deed-restricted
housing.

Description
Policy changes could support local
jurisdictions finding ways to use a
certain amount of existing housing
stock for affordable and workforce
housing, such as through programs
like “Lease to Locals,” downpayment assistance programs, or restrictions on STRs.

TRPA could do this by tying access to
the benefits of the Cultivating
Community package, to successful
utilization of existing housing stock,
or through further amendments to
the allocation distribution program.

The EIS should also study the
impacts of providing for a certain
portion of the housing need through
existing housing, whether that is
through local or TRPA restrictions
on short-term rentals (STRs), or
incentives to bring more homes into
workforce housing stock.

This policy is intended to
make the allocation and
management of deedrestricted housing more
effective and streamlined by
supporting the establishment
of a regional housing
authority. This would likely
be implemented by partners,
with TRPA support where
appropriate.

This potential package of
policy changes would
explore establishing a stable
set of funding sources to
support deed-restricted
housing in the basin. This
could include purchasing
deed restrictions on existing
homes or implementing
programs to purchase
restrictions on units like
ADUs as well as enforcement
of deed restrictions, possibly
through support of a housing
authority.

Best practices indicate that
to ensure long-term stability,
funding sources should layer
multiple revenue
streams. This policy is
closely tied with the proposal
for a housing mitigation fee
in the “Cost and Fees”
section.

Change Since
November
Version

NA NA NA
326
28 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
Unlock vacant housing units
Over the past decades TRPA has taken up the question of whether TRPA should regulate STRs directly multiple times and determined that local jurisdictions should have control over how short-term rentals are managed, with TRPA incentivizing robust STR management through its Performance Review System (Section 50.5.2.E of the TRPA Code of Ordinances). The Performance Review System now includes a “Neighborhood Compatibility” score for each local jurisdiction based on short-term rental neighborhood compatibility guidelines established by TRPA that address short-term rental location, operations, and enforcement. The Performance Review System influences how many building allocations a jurisdiction receives each year as part of the annual allocations distribution program, influencing how many new unrestricted residential units may be constructed. This program could be expanded, as described below, or an additional program tying certain new policy benefits to successful utilization of existing housing could be developed.

These incentives themselves would primarily need to be implemented by local jurisdictions, as TRPA does not have the funding or administrative mechanisms in place to administer these programs. Strategies that TRPA could implement include:
• Tie access to the benefits of the other Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin policies (particularly for Tier 2 project types) to successful implementation of programs that bring a certain amount of existing housing stock back into use as affordable or workforce housing. • Add additional requirements to the “Neighborhood Compatibility” element of the Performance Review process, through which local jurisdictions receive residential allocations each year. • Support local jurisdictions in exploring mitigation fees or other mechanisms to support the programs that would successfully bring a certain amount of existing housing back into affordable and workforce housing stock.

Support a Housing Authority
Housing authorities are the entities best-suited to manage and expand deed-restricted housing. Establishment of one or more regional housing authorities would require a concerted commitment by multiple partners in the region, including finding a dedicated funding source. However, diverting responsibility for management of deed restrictions to a centralized agency could reduce staff costs for multiple agencies, so eventually could result in lowered costs overall.

Establish stable sources of funding to support deed-restricted housing To ensure the viability of deed-restricted housing in the long term, a stable source of funding is critical. This package of policy changes would explore developing stable sources of funding to provide new and maintain existing deed-restricted housing in the Tahoe Basin. This package of changes would be most effective if combined with the establishment of a regional housing authority. Strategies and steps for this can include:
• Obtain agreements with both states: TRPA could explore approaching both state legislatures to request a dedicated, on-going source of funds to support on-going monitoring and enforcement of deedrestrictions. • Establish a new application fee: TRPA could establish a new application fee for all new development, that would cover the cost to monitor and enforce deed restrictions, as well as support the establishment of a Housing Authority over time. Application of this fee would need to be carefully considered, so as to not add back fees onto affordable and workforce housing that these draft policy recommendations seek to remove, while also ensuring that fees are applied equitably. This fee could be included with the housing mitigation fee proposed in the “Costs and Fees” section.
327
29 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND AREA PLAN PROCESS

IMPROVEMENTS
The Tahoe Living Phase 2 amendments created development standard incentives for deed-restricted housing. This section considers how development standard incentives could serve to support workforce and naturally affordable housing by allowing local governments to adopt development standards that incentivize multifamily housing that is not deed-restricted. The TLWG and CPG also discussed policy options related to Process Improvements. There is some discussion below on process improvements but the full section has been removed from this document because it was duplicative of the Development Standards discussion.

This section focuses on simplifying TRPA’s role in setting development standards while providing for greater flexibility and context-sensitivity at the local level. Local governments could adopt Area Plans with detailed, objective development and design standards that fall within TRPA thresholds but can be tailored to local context and needs. This approach aims to reduce confusion and redundancy, improve adaptability, and streamline future Area Plan updates while maintaining environmental, scenic, and neighborhood character protections.

Policy Topic Proposed Development Standards Policy Changes (Recommended) Name Allow higher density and height standards
Description
This set of policy changes would allow more flexibility with density and height standards in the TRPA Code and local area plans:
• Increase the density and height standards for town centers in Chapter 13 of the TRPA Code, allowing local jurisdictions to adopt higher standards if they choose and can demonstrate action toward implementing the “Unlocking Vacant Housing” section of this proposal. This policy change could also include increasing density allowances in Chapter 31 that could apply outside of town centers if local jurisdictions revise their area plans. • Ensure that incentives for deed-restricted and unrestricted housing in area plans match the tiered structure of this proposal.

Height
Allow local jurisdictions to adopt increased height for MFR both inside and outside of town center (e.g. more flexibility on roof pitch outside of centers, 5-6 stories inside centers) (DS-4, DS-5)
Density
Increase density standards for unrestricted MFR to 65 units per acre. Building form would be limited by coverage and height. (recommended); OR Increase density standards for MFR both inside and outside of town centers (DS2) Parking No change to parking standards at the regional level—local jurisdictions already have discretion to change parking minimums for unrestricted housing; Scenic Standards
Consider modifying standards in town centers to recognize scenic quality of existing development (DS-6)
Changes Since November
Version
Clarified specific standards for analysis in the EIS.
328
30 Draft Policy Recommendations Report | Tahoe Living
This potential set of policy changes would update TRPA’s standards for multifamily projects, focusing on non-deed restricted housing that does not currently qualify for previous Phase 2 amendments to the Code of Ordinances.

Local jurisdictions could choose to apply incentives to multifamily housing that is unrestricted. Adoption of these policy changes by the local jurisdictions would not be required. Regional limits on height and density would be removed from Chapter 13 and jurisdictions could propose local standards that meet the scenic threshold if they demonstrate progress toward implementing the “Unlocking Vacant Housing” section of this proposal. Because the number of units on a parcel is effectively already regulated through growth limits, zoning, and building envelope standards (height, coverage, setbacks), this package of policy changes proposes removing density maximums entirely or substantially increasing them to allow or encourage construction of smaller, naturally affordable units.

It could also reevaluate scenic standards to incorporate the scenic quality of new development in town centers and improve clarity and predictability of scenic findings. These reforms would allow projects to fully utilize zoning allowances and available land, making moderate to larger-scale multifamily housing more physically and financially viable. Jurisdictions that choose to utilize this option would need to ensure that additional incentives remain for deed-restricted housing.

Parking standards for workforce housing were discussed at public workshops and Tahoe Living Working Group meetings, including the idea of parking minimums for deed-restricted housing. Staff believe that adding parking minimums to deed-restricted housing would not further the goals and objectives of this project. Therefore, these policy recommendations do not include any changes to parking standards. i Consistent with the 15-year restriction on condominium conversions for rental projects under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit compliance period. The 15-year restriction on conversion is intended to protect tenants from unexpected loss of housing and maximize public incentives and subsidies for workforce housing while allowing opportunities for home ownership.
329

bae urban economics
Lake Tahoe Workforce Housing Needs Assessment
Prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
February 11, 2026
330
i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................1 Study Area Definition ...................................................................................................................3 Approach Summary......................................................................................................................3 QUANTITATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 7 Total Unmet Housing Need..........................................................................................................7 Resident Workforce Housing Need.......................................................................................... 11 In-Commuter Workforce Housing Need ................................................................................... 13 Unhoused/Emergency Housing Need...................................................................................... 14 Longitudinal Trends Analysis.................................................................................................... 15 LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS .................................................................................................... 17 Douglas County (Nevada) ......................................................................................................... 17 Washoe County (Nevada) ......................................................................................................... 17 El Dorado County (California) ................................................................................................... 18 Placer County (California) ......................................................................................................... 19 City of South Lake Tahoe (California)....................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A: 2025 HOUSING NEED ESTIMATES WITH SUBAREA DETAIL ............................... 24 APPENDIX B: HUD HOUSING PROBLEMS DETAIL ..................................................................... 36 APPENDIX C: 2016 HISTORICAL ESTIMATES ........................................................................... 40 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY ............................................................................. 52 331
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Lake Tahoe Basin Boundary with County and Census Designated Place Boundaries, 2020............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Total Unmet Housing Need (in Units) by Cohort, ≤ 245% of AMI, 2025....................... 7 Figure 3: Households With and Without Outstanding Housing Needs, ≤ 245% of AMI, Lake Tahoe Basin..................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Unmet Housing Need by Unit Size and Income Level, ≤ 245% of AMI......................... 9 Figure 5: Share of Households with HUD Defined Housing Problems by Type and Tenure, 2017-2021, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study (CHAS)................................. 10 Figure 6: Total Regional Unmet Housing Need at 245 percent of AMI and Below by Need Cohort, 2016 and 2025 .................................................................................................. 16 List of Tables
Table 1: Employed Resident and Workers Populations, Lake Tahoe Basin ................................ 4 Table 2: Unmet Housing Demand from Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a) ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 3: Unmet Housing Demand from Seasonal Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a) ............................................................................................. 13 Table 4: Unmet Housing Demand from In-Commuter Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size................................................................................................... 14 332
1 INTRODUCTION
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and basin partners recognize that affordable and workforce housing are vital to the health and vitality of our environment and communities. In light of this, TRPA is working to update the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan to make housing more accessible, while maintaining and improving environmental protections. This Workforce Housing Needs Assessment provides rough estimates of the number of workforce households living in, or commuting into, the Lake Tahoe Basin that exhibit unmet housing needs. The analysis is based on methods originally developed on behalf of the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF), which have been used to prepare similar estimates for the North Tahoe and Truckee area in 2016, 2021, 2023, and 2025.

The figures presented here represent a reasonable estimation of the existing unmet housing demand in the region for different income, housing size, and resident and worker categories.

The estimates reflect demand coming from existing resident, non-resident, and seasonal worker households and, as such, illustrate the magnitude of the mismatch between the available housing stock and the types of housing that best suit the needs of the workforce.

The estimates do not necessarily reflect the number of new housing units that need to be delivered to address the ongoing housing crisis. Because a portion of the identified housing need is driven by overpayment for housing, household overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions, a portion of the estimated housing need may be addressed through programs and strategies that target those specific symptoms of the housing crisis. Nonetheless, many of the housing problems that contribute to the identified housing needs are closely linked to, or are symptoms of, the chronic undersupply of housing in various unit size classes, rental and ownership categories, and at different price points. Strategies that increase the supply of housing that is available for full-time occupancy at price points that are affordable at workforce household incomes will be crucial to meeting the need. It is also important to note that addressing the housing need in one size or income category may free up housing in another category,1 allowing households to “move up” to housing that better suits their needs.

Key Findings
Basin-wide, around 62 percent of the housing need is for households with incomes that are less than 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), which is slightly higher than a previous region-wide estimate of 56 percent.2 The greatest need for housing is for 1-bedrooms and 3- bedrooms, and of housing problems that Tahoe residents and workers face, as defined by the federal government, housing cost burden is the most prevalent, affecting 85 percent of those 1 Note that for this to occur, the new housing must be occupied by existing resident households and cannot be absorbed by the second home market or by households moving into the region from elsewhere. 2 TRPA summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessments: https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Summary-ofHousing-Need-by-Income-Level-from-Regional-Housing-Needs-Assessment-Documents.pdf. These numbers are 77 percent (2025) and 73 percent (2020), if selecting only for households that make less than 245 percent of AMI. 333
2 Figure 1: Lake Tahoe Basin Boundary with County and Census Designated Place Boundaries, 2020
334
3 renters with housing problems, and 94 percent of owners with housing problems.3 Overall, the housing need has increased about two percent since 2020.

Local Housing Programs
In the Tahoe Basin, local jurisdictions have been working for many years on a variety of programs and projects to address the housing need of their constituents, as well as meet state requirements for planning for and providing housing. These efforts are an important component of the on-going effort to address housing shortfalls both locally and throughout the region. These programs are described in more detail in the Local Housing Programs section.

Study Area Definition
The study area for this research includes the Lake Tahoe Basin, as defined by TRPA and illustrated in Figure 1 on the prior page, which includes the portions of El Dorado, Douglas, Placer, and Washoe counties, and the incorporated City of South Lake Tahoe, that fall within the Lake Tahoe Basin.4 While most of the report presents data for the Lake Tahoe Basin as a whole, subarea detail is provided in Appendix A for the five constituent jurisdictions.

Approach Summary
This Workforce Housing Needs Assessment is focused on estimating housing demand among four distinct ‘cohorts,’ each of which represents a distinct need within the region:
• Resident Workforce – Resident worker households include at least one year-round worker that is employed either within or outside of the region. • In-Commuter Workforce – Households with at least one worker that commutes into the region but lives elsewhere.
• Seasonal Workforce – Resident worker households with only seasonal workers (workers may be employed within the region or outside of the region).5 • Homeless/Unhoused – People living, and potentially working, in the study area, without a safe, secure, and consistent place to live.

For the purposes of this analysis, unmet housing need (including people and households who are ‘inadequately’ housed, as well as those in need of housing) is defined to include a variety of different types of housing needs. For example, the definition includes households that 3 The department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined housing problems to include substandard housing (i.e., lack of adequate kitchen and bathroom facilities), overcrowding, and high housing cost burdens, as well as households with zero or negative income. 4 While a portion of the Carson City rural area technically falls within the Lake Tahoe Basin, that area features limited development and no resident population, and is therefore excluded from the technical analysis. 5 Likely excludes some seasonal workers that relocate into the region for a very short time and who are not well documented in the available data, such as some J1 visa holders and international workers. 335
4 significantly overpay for housing (i.e., greater than 30 percent of income), who live in overcrowded conditions (i.e., more than one person per room), and households that live in substandard housing conditions (i.e., without complete kitchen and/or bathroom facilities), as documented by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In addition to the resident workforce household cohort, the unmet housing needs estimated here also include households that contain workers who are employed in the region, according to the Census Bureau, and who indicated that they would prefer to live in the region as part of a recent regional resident and workforce survey, but who are driven to commute due to a lack of adequate and affordable housing options.

Due to the increasing prevalence of ‘working poor’ and ‘van life’ individuals within the regional labor force, this research also identifies the number of homeless individuals living in the region, either on the street or in non-traditional types of housing, like living in vehicles or ‘couch surfing,’ as documented in the most recent Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Although homeless and unhoused individuals may, or may not, be active members of the labor force, Defining the Regional Workforce
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are roughly twice as many employed people living in the Basin than there are employed residents that work for Tahoe-based employers, as roughly half of employed residents commute out of the Basin to work elsewhere, or work remotely. Similarly, more than half of the workers employed in the basin commute in from outside the region (see Table 1). Combined, these data indicate that there are more than 40,000 workers associated with the Lake Tahoe Basin, either living within the region or commuting in for work. By comparison, the Tahoe Open Data Portal reports data from the 2020 Decennial Census that identified around 24,000 workers employed at locations in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Table 1: Employed Resident and Workers Populations, Lake Tahoe Basin Notes: (a) Based on the 2019-2023 ACS resident workers in households estimate and the 2022 LEHD workplace distribution.

Sources: U.S. Census 2019-2023 American Community Survey, Table B08014; Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics (LEHD), 2022; BAE, 2025.

Estimate
Resident Workers in Households ('19-'23 ACS) 28,262
Living and Working in Region (a) 13,994
Living in Region, Working Elsewhere (a) 14,268
Workers Commuting Into Tahoe Basin ('22 LEHD) 12,111
Total Resident and In-Commuter workforce 40,373
336
5 their needs represent an important and extreme component of the regional housing need, and are therefore included as part of the workforce housing needs estimates presented here.

Data Sources
The Workforce Housing Needs Assessment relies primarily on a variety of publicly available government data sources. The research leverages the most current data available at the time the analysis was conducted. The following housing need estimates rely on data from the 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) datasets published by the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data set published by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as data from the 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data set published by the U.S. Census Bureau. For incommuter estimates, this research is also supplemented by a tailored regional resident and workforce survey that was administered by Raimi and Associates and Mariposa Planning in summer 2025 (Appendix D). The analysis also incorporates information on local homeless populations collected as part of the most recent available Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts for each jurisdiction in the Tahoe Basin. For more information on the data used for this research, please see the relevant section for each component (i.e., cohort) of the estimated need.

Key Definitions
The following are definitions for some of the key terms used throughout this report.

Unmet Housing Need and Inadequately Housed – Include resident households, both seasonal and year-round, that work either inside or outside the study area, that experience at least one of the four HUD defined housing problems, as well as in-commuter households that would prefer to live in the region if adequate housing was available in their price range, and homeless individuals and households already living in the region.

Area Median Income (AMI) – Equal to the median gross annual income for households living in the study area, calculated by HUD and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2025, and adjusted for household size, including: 6 7 Douglas County, NV: $108,813
El Dorado County, CA: $124,600
Placer County, CA: $120,800
Washoe County, NV: $110,500
Median Family Income (MFI) – Largely synonymous with the area median income Point-in-Time (PIT) Count – The annual count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a given night in January. The PIT Count is administered by local Continuum of Care (CoC) organizations in coordination with HUD. 6 Median incomes reported for Nevada jurisdictions are based on reported fiscal year 2025 HUD Adjusted HOME income limits and extrapolated using the low-income value for a household of four. 7 Medina incomes reported for California jurisdictions are as reported by HCD for 2025. 337
6 Resident Workforce Household – Includes households with their primary residence in the study area that include at least one year-round worker, as documented in the ACS and the PUMS. Workers could be employed either inside the study area or outside the study area.

In-Commuter – Includes persons that are employed within the study area, but who live outside of the study area and who physically commute into the area for work.

In-Commuter Workforce Household – Includes households with at least one worker that commutes into the study area, but who lives outside of the study area.

Seasonal Workforce Household – Includes households with their primary residence located within the study area that include only seasonal workers, defined as those that work less than 50 weeks per year according to the ACS.

Homeless/Unhoused – Includes persons identified in the most recent available PIT Count.

Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) – A set of individual-level records from the ACS that allows users to create their own custom estimates and tabulations of available Census variables. PUMS data is edited to protect the confidentiality of respondents, with some information grouped or coded to prevent disclosure of confidential information.

Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) – A non-overlapping geographic area used by the Census Bureau to tabulate data from the ACS and Decennial Census a part of the PUMS data set. Each PUMA contains at least 100,000 residents to ensure confidentiality.

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) – A set of custom tabulations of data from the ACS provided to HUD by the U.S. Census Bureau, which document the prevalence of housing problems and housing needs, particularly among low-income households.

American Community Survey (ACS) – An annual survey of the U.S. population first introduced in 2005. The results are presented as either one-year or five-year averages, depending on the geographic scale. The ACS provides intercensal estimates for a wide variety of variables, and supplements the Decennial Census with detailed attribute data.

Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) – A program at the U.S. Census Bureau through which the states have agreed to share Unemployment Insurance earnings data and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data with the Census Bureau. The program combines these and other administrative data, and data from censuses and surveys to generate statistics on employment, earnings, and job flows at detailed levels of geography and industry and for different demographic groups.

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) – A program at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that publishes a quarterly count of employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs, available at the ZIP Code, County, MSA, State, and national levels by major industry sector. 338
7 QUANTITATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The following section summarizes key assumptions and the process used to generate the regional housing needs estimates, as well as key outputs from the housing needs model.

Total Unmet Housing Need
Figure 2 illustrates the total estimated unmet housing need in the Lake Tahoe Basin in four key categories referenced in this report. Meeting this demand may include a combination of constructing new units, as well as programs designed to improve affordability, address overcrowding, and mitigate substandard housing conditions. The estimates reflect the existing unmet housing demand originating from existing resident and non-resident worker households in the region. The data indicate that 4,394 resident workforce households earning incomes of 245 percent of AMI and below are inadequately housed. The housing needs model excludes households earning greater than 245 percent of AMI, which roughly represents the average income needed to afford market rate single-family for-sale housing throughout most of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 245 percent of AMI figure is also used for consistency with the upper income limit used in the 2025 Truckee-North Tahoe Housing Needs Assessment. Incommuters represent the largest sub-group, reflecting a need of approximately 5,180 units, Figure 2: Total Unmet Housing Need (in Units) by Cohort, ≤ 245% of AMI, 2025 Sources: BAE, 2025.
339
8 which is driven by the relatively high levels of in-commuting that exist between the Lake Tahoe Basin and surrounding population centers.8 Roughly 850 resident seasonal worker households are also inadequately housed. The model also includes 98 homeless individuals, which are assumed synonymous with households, as part of the 2024 and 2025 PIT Counts.9 Housing Needs by Income Category
Figure 3, illustrates the order of magnitude of workforce housing demand in the Lake Tahoe Basin region by income level, including differentiation between households that are adequately housed and those that are inadequately housed. The data reflect the overall distribution of households by income level, with lower-income households having a higher likelihood of facing various types of housing problems, such as overpayment and overcrowding, and exhibit unmet housing needs. For example, 90 percent of households earning 30 percent of AMI or less and 71 percent of households earning 30 to 60 percent of AMI have unmet housing needs, compared to around 32 percent of those earning 150 to 245 percent of AMI.

Figure 3: Households With and Without Outstanding Housing Needs, ≤ 245% of AMI, Lake Tahoe Basin
Sources: BAE, 2025.
8 The in-commuter cohort reflects the portion of in-commuter households that would prefer to live in the region (based on survey data) if adequate housing options were available in their price range. 9 The PIT Count is notably conducted in January, per federal requirements, which likely impacts the number and relative visibility of homeless persons in the community. 340
9 Housing Needs by Unit Size
Figure 4, further summarizes the breakdown of unmet housing needs by unit size and income level. Note that unit size is determined based on household size, with households being assumed to occupy the smallest housing unit available without triggering overcrowded conditions. This recognizes that smaller housing units are often more affordable and that housing cost is a primary driver of housing needs within the region. The appropriate size of a housing unit was determined based on one of a number of definitions used by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which defines an appropriately sized housing unit as have one person per bedroom, plus one. Under this definition, a four-person family household (i.e., two parents and two children), could occupy a three-bedroom housing unit or larger without triggering an overcrowded condition. By comparison, a one-person household would occupy a studio unit, while a two-person household would occupy a onebedroom housing unit. While BAE recognizes that many households tend to overconsume housing by occupying units that are larger than they might otherwise need, the purpose of this research is to identify the housing resources that are needed to meet the existing unmet need.

Therefore, assuming that households occupy the smallest unit available without being overcrowded appropriately prioritizes housing affordability as a key regional housing goal.

Figure 4: Unmet Housing Need by Unit Size and Income Level, ≤ 245% of AMI Sources: BAE, 2025.
341
10 Housing Problems by Type and Tenure
As noted in the introduction, unmet housing needs for resident year-round and resident seasonal workforce households are estimated based on the prevalence of the four HUD defined housing problems, including lack of adequate kitchen facilities, lack of adequate bathroom facilities, overcrowding, and high housing cost burdens. While households may experience more than one housing problem, HUD has also established a rough hierarchy of housing problems, ranking them from most to least severe (substandard conditions being the most severe and cost burden being the least). Figure 5 illustrates the share of owner and renter households with housing problems, by most severe housing problem type. The data illustrate that by far the most prevalent housing problem is cost burden, with only around five to ten percent of all households with housing problems being overcrowded. Substandard housing is reportedly uncommon among owner households, according to HUD, while around

2.4 percent of renter households were reportedly living in substandard conditions. Please refer to Appendix B for more information on the prevalence of housing problems by subarea.

Figure 5: Share of Households with HUD Defined Housing Problems by Type and Tenure, 2017-2021, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study (CHAS) Source: HUD, CHAS, 2017-2021; BAE, 2025.

84.6%

10.5%
Renters 2.4% 2.4%
Housing Cost Burden Overcrowded Substandard Housing Zero/Negative Income

93.5%

4.9%

1.6% Owners
342
11 Resident Workforce Housing Need
The unmet resident workforce housing demand estimates are based on the existing workforce housing demand from year-round and seasonal resident worker households in the region. This includes households that live in the region that include employed people, whether they work in the region, commute outside of the region, or work remotely for employers located elsewhere.

The following two sections summarize the unmet housing demand from the existing resident worker households in the region based on the share of worker households that experience at least one of the four housing problems tracked by HUD. Additional breakouts by jurisdiction are provided in Appendices A and C. The estimates are based on the number of resident worker households in each cohort by household income and household size, based on the Census PUMS data, multiplied by the proportion of households within each income category that experienced one of the four HUD defined housing problems between 2017 and 2021, as reported in the HUD CHAS dataset. Households were translated to housing units based on the HUD definition for an appropriately sized unit referenced above (i.e., one person per bedroom, plus one).

Year-Round and Seasonal Workers
This analysis classifies year-round workers and seasonal workers based on the number of weeks worked per year. Year-round workers are defined as those who work 50 or more weeks per year, while seasonal workers are defined as those who work less than 50 weeks per year. According to ACS data covering the 2019 through 2023 period, there were an estimated 17,293 households with at least one year-round or seasonal worker in the region during the 5-year period. BAE applied average annual household growth rate for the Lake Tahoe Basin as documented by the Census Bureau between 2010 and 2020 to estimate the 2025 household total. Evaluation of more recent data suggests that the historical growth rate of 0.3 percent likely remains representative of current trends. Based on these assumptions, this analysis estimates that there are 17,779 resident worker households in the region.

BAE used data from the 2019-2023 PUMS data set published by the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate the total number of existing resident worker households with only seasonal workers and the distribution of seasonal worker-only households by household income level and household size. Based on the PUMS data, seasonal worker-only households make up approximately 10.2 percent of all existing resident worker households in the region. This share was applied to the current total number of resident worker households (17,779 households) to estimate the number of seasonal worker-only households (1,810 households) and the number of resident worker households with at least one year-round worker (15,969 households) in the region.
343
12 Resident Workforce Housing Need
Table 2 shows the unmet demand by income level and unit size for existing resident worker households with at least one year-round worker. There are an estimated 4,679 resident worker households that are inadequately housed, and 4,394 earning 245 percent of AMI or less (i.e., the income needed to afford market rate for-sale housing). Around 49 percent of the existing resident worker households with unmet housing needs are lower-income households with household incomes less than 80 percent of AMI. Notably, moderate-income households with incomes between 80 percent and 120 percent of AMI account for 28 percent of the existing unmet need from resident worker households with at least one year-round worker.

Table 2: Unmet Housing Demand from Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a)
Note:
(a) Resident workforce households are defined as households with at least one year-round worker. Year-round workers are those who work 50 or more weeks per year.

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2023; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); CA Dept. of Finance, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Seasonal Resident Workforce Housing Need
As shown in Table 3, there are an estimated 864 resident worker households with only seasonal workers that are inadequately housed, including 849 with incomes of 245 percent of AMI or less.10 Please note that this figure likely excludes some seasonal workers that travel into the region only temporarily. Most of the seasonal worker households with unmet housing needs (76 percent) are lower-income households with household incomes less than 80 percent of AMI. Moderate-income households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of AMI account for 16 percent of the existing unmet need from seasonal worker households.

Due to the smaller household sizes of existing seasonal worker households, most of the current unmet demand from seasonal resident worker households (approximately 67 percent) could potentially be met with studios or one-bedroom units. 10 Seasonal resident workforce households are defined as worker households with only seasonal workers.

Seasonal workers are defined as those who work less than 50 weeks per year.

Total Unmet
HH Income as Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Demand (Units) Up to 30% of AMI 70 189 101 160 520
Betw een 30% and 60% of AMI 132 356 191 301 980
Betw een 60% and 80% of AMI 108 290 156 246 801
Betw een 80% and 120% of AMI 174 467 251 396 1,288
Betw een 120% and 150% of AMI 57 153 82 130 422
Betw een 150% and 195% of AMI 31 82 44 69 226
Betw een 195% and 245% of AMI 21 57 30 48 156
Above 245% of AMI 38 103 55 88 285
Total Unmet Demand 632 1,697 912 1,438 4,679
Unmet Demand by Unit Size
344
13 Table 3: Unmet Housing Demand from Seasonal Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a)
Note:
(a) Seasonal resident workforce households are defined as worker households with only seasonal workers. Seasonal workers are defined as those who work less than 50 weeks per year.

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2023; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); CA Dept. of Finance, 2025; BAE, 2025.

In-Commuter Workforce Housing Need
BAE utilized 2022 U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD data set to estimate the number of incommuting workers who are currently employed in the region but live elsewhere. Based on these data, there were a total of 12,111 workers commuting into the region in 2022. The incommuter worker growth rate from 2019 to 2022 (approximately 2.9 percent)11 was used to estimate the current (2025) number of in-commuting workers (12,461 individuals). This figure was translated to worker households based on the average number of workers per worker household in the region according to ACS data for the period between 2019 and 2023 (1.6 workers per worker household), yielding an estimated 7,625 in-commuter worker households in 2025. BAE then utilized the household income distribution for all worker households in the PUMS dataset (including seasonal only-worker households) to estimate the number of incommuter worker households by household income level and household size. The unmet housing demand from in-commuter worker households was then estimated based on the proportion of in-commuter survey respondents who indicated that they would be ‘somewhat likely’ or ‘very likely’ to relocate to the region if adequate housing options were available (approximately 82 percent), which is consistent with the approach used as part of the 2016 North Tahoe Truckee Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and later needs assessments.12 11 LEHD 12 Data from surveys conducted by the TTCF for the Tahoe-Truckee area indicate that the share of in-commuting workers surveyed in 2016, 2021, 2023, and 2025 that responded that they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to relocate was very consistent over time, and it was the combination of these two responses, or the equivalent, which was used in the 2016 report. Therefore, it is BAE’s professional opinion that applying the 2025 survey results for the Tahoe Basin to the 2016 historical estimates results in an estimate that is reasonably likely to reflect the preferences of in-commuter households over time, and is comparable to previous estimates for purposes of the historical comparison in the Longitudinal Trends Analysis section.

Total Unmet
HH Income as Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Demand (Units) Up to 30% of AMI 86 137 50 59 331
Betw een 30% and 60% of AMI 63 100 36 43 242
Betw een 60% and 80% of AMI 22 35 13 15 85
Betw een 80% and 120% of AMI 35 56 21 24 137
Betw een 120% and 150% of AMI 8 13 5 6 31
Betw een 150% and 195% of AMI 3 5 2 2 12
Betw een 195% and 245% of AMI 3 4 2 2 11
Above 245% of AMI 4 6 2 3 15
Total Unmet Demand 224 356 130 154 864
Unmet Demand by Unit Size
345
14 As shown in Table 4 below, this analysis estimates an unmet need of 6,251 units for incommuter households, including 5,180 with incomes of 245 percent of AMI or less.

Table 4: Unmet Housing Demand from In-Commuter Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2023; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); U.S. Census Bureau LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2022; BAE, 2025.

Unhoused/Emergency Housing Need
Based on data from the 2024 and 2025 PIT Counts, there are an estimated 98 individuals experiencing homelessness in the region. Homeless and unhoused individuals are assumed to be synonymous with households due to limited information on household size. Due to a lack of information on income and household size, all homeless and unhoused individuals are assumed to be single individuals with incomes equal to 30 percent of AMI or less.

Total Unmet
HH Income as Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Demand (Units) Up to 30% of AMI 49 122 63 98 331
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 98 244 126 195 664
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 92 230 119 184 624
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 194 483 250 386 1,312
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 118 294 152 235 798
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 126 313 162 251 852
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 88 220 114 176 598
Above 245% of AMI 158 394 204 315 1,071
Total Unmet Demand 923 2,299 1,189 1,839 6,251
Unmet Demand by Unit Size
346
15 Longitudinal Trends Analysis
While the results of the above analysis may be beneficial for understanding housing needs at this point in time, comparison to prior historical years can provide important perspective on how housing needs are changing over time in the region. To support trendline analysis, BAE prepared historical estimates for the year 2016 using methods and data sources to ensure longitudinal consistency. The comparison year of 2016 was selected by TRPA to correspond with the year that the first workforce housing needs assessment of this kind was prepared for the Tahoe-Truckee region on behalf of the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF).

Total Regional Unmet Housing Need
Figure 6 shows regional trends in unmet housing needs based on estimates for 2016 and 2025. The historical estimates were developed using the same methodology and are based on consistent data to allow an analysis of trends over time. As shown in the figure, the total unmet housing need in the region has increased by around 357 households since 2016, or about 3.4 percent. The figures reflect a decrease in the share of resident households with unmet housing units among households earning 245 percent of AMI and below from 54 percent in 2016 to 51 percent in 2025. This is likely the result of ongoing efforts to address housing needs throughout the region, in addition to a likely changeover of the population, wherein lower-income and working households have relocated out of the region and have been replaced by higher-income remote workers. This is evidenced by an increase in the number of workers commuting into the region, according to the LEHD, and an increase in the number of housing units that would need to be provided to create opportunities for those workers to live within the Lake Tahoe Region. While, for the purposes of comparison by category, the housing need is summed among categories in Figure 6, below, the summation is not necessarily representative of a total, cumulative housing need number, as explained above. Households can move into freed up housing when housing is provided in another size or income category, assuming that the new housing is being occupied by existing households and is not otherwise absorbed by the second home market. TRPA has recently used a total housing need of 5,822,13 based on a series of regional housing need studies conducted between 2019-2021.

However, these numbers are not directly comparable to the current estimate primarily because some of the previous studies used the gap between working households and jobs as the primary indicator of the housing shortage, whereas this study focuses on those that are inadequately housed.
13 TRPA summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessments: https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Summary-of-Housing-Need-by-Income-Level-from-Regional-Housing-NeedsAssessment-Documents.pdf 347
16 Figure 6: Total Regional Unmet Housing Need at 245 percent of AMI and Below by Need Cohort, 2016 and 2025
Note: Includes housing needs at incomes up to 245 percent of AMI.

Sources: BAE, 2025.
4,414 4,394
4,789 5,180
875 86 849 98
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2016 2025
Homeless
Seasonal Worker Households
In-Commuter Households
Resident Worker households
Total Unmet
Need = 10,165
Total Unmet
Need = 10,521
348
17 LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
As noted in the introduction, the five local government jurisdictions in the Lake Tahoe Region administer a variety of programs to help provide a diversity of housing opportunities for lowerand moderate-income households, as well as other workforce households. Each jurisdiction in the region has some amount of deed-restricted housing within its Tahoe boundaries. For this report, TRPA asked each jurisdiction to submit a description of projects, programs, and existing housing stock specific to each jurisdiction. The information provided below was submitted by each jurisdiction, with some editing done by TRPA for consistency. TRPA also added data on the number of multi-family and deed-restricted units in each jurisdiction.

Douglas County (Nevada)
Douglas County is currently embarking on a code update to help address production, preservation and protection of housing within the county as a whole. The update will include policies allowing or encouraging tiny home villages. Douglas County’s code current allows for tiny homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Upcoming code amendments will remove the minimum acreage requirement for ADUs in the Tahoe Basin.

Multi-Family Units
Of the 5,071 total units in the Tahoe portion of Douglas County, 661, or 13 percent, are multifamily units Deed-Restricted Units
The Tahoe portion of Douglas County has the following mix of existing deed-restricted housing units, according to TRPA’s records:

Deed-Restriction Type Number of DeedRestricted Units
Affordable 103
Moderate 15
Washoe County (Nevada)
In order to support the production, preservation, and protection of housing in Washoe Tahoe, Washoe County initiated updates to the Tahoe Area Plan. These updates include several measures to support the creation of deed-restricted housing, including code amendments to “opt-in” to the TRPA Phase 2 Housing Amendments, which includes incentives for deed-restricted housing in Town Centers and multifamily areas; allow 100% affordable, moderate, or achievable deedrestricted housing in the Ponderosa Ranch regulatory zone, opening up an opportunity for workforce housing close to transit routes and within walking distance of major employment centers; allow ADUs on parcels of less than one acre; allow multifamily housing through the 349
18 administrative review application process in Incline Village Commercial, Incline Village Tourist, and Crystal Bay Tourist zones; and allow multifamily developments of four units or less by right in the same regulatory zones.

Washoe County is also running a Lease to Local programs in Incline Village and Crystal Bay, which started in 2025. The program utilizes federal funding to incentivize homeowners to rent dwelling units long-term to workers, rather than on a short-term basis.

In addition to efforts within the Tahoe Basin, Washoe County has also been working to increase housing affordability in the Truckee Meadows, which includes housing stock that serves employees and other citizens of Incline Village/Crystal Bay. In 2025, Washoe County adopted amendments primarily aimed at reducing barriers for missing middle housing types such as triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage courts. This followed amendments in 2024 that made it easier, faster and more economical for homeowners to establish accessory dwelling units, aligned manufactured home sizing standards with state law, and lowered barriers for multifamily housing. In-process or upcoming work is focused on creating incentives for senior housing, reducing barriers to development of smaller homes, better supporting redevelopment of infill parcels, modernizing standards for fabricated housing, creating incentives specific to affordable housing development, developing a streamlined program for homeowners to construct accessory dwellings, and other related initiatives.

Multi-Family Units
Of the 7,949 total units in the Tahoe portion of Washoe County, 558, or 7 percent, are multifamily units Deed-Restricted Units
The Tahoe portion of Washoe County has the following mix of existing deed-restricted housing units, according to TRPA’s records:

Deed-Restriction Type Number of DeedRestricted Units
Affordable 14
Moderate 100
El Dorado County (California)
El Dorado County is working with TRPA on the Tahoe El Dorado Area Plan (TED Area Plan), which is a long-term planning document that will set the major goals and policies for the entire unincorporated area of the County within the Tahoe Basin. The goals of the TED Area Plan are to 1) ensure consistency between the County’s Zoning Ordinance and TRPA’s Plan Area Statements, 2) simplify permitting and streamline environmental review, 3) allow the County to control land use policies and decisions based on each community’s needs, and 4) incorporate TRPA Code and State law updates – ultimately, establishing a better framework to advance affordable housing. The County is also developing a Land Use and Affordable Housing Strategy 350
19 Memo, which will be incorporated in the TED Area Plan. The Strategy Memo will propose the following five strategies to advance housing in the Tahoe Basin: 1) create a Village Center in Tahoma to incentivize housing; 2) create a new zone around town and village centers to allow for “missing middle housing;” 3) increase housing capacity in the Meyers Town Center and expand the Meyers Town Center to incentive housing; 4) rezone sites for multifamily housing; and 5) provide commodities and land for free or at a discounted rate for affordable housing and other projects that meet the goals and policies of the TED Area Plan. The proposed deadline for final adoption of the TED Area Plan is approximately Fall/Winter 2027.

Multi-Family Units
Of the 9,100 total units in the Tahoe portion of El Dorado County, 332, or 4 percent, are multifamily units.

Deed-Restricted Units
The Tahoe portion of Washoe County has the following mix of existing deed-restricted housing units, according to TRPA’s records:

Deed-Restriction Type Number of DeedRestricted Units
Affordable 15
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
The California Regional Housing Needs Assessment number for the Tahoe Basin listed in El Dorado County’s most recent Housing Element Update was 359 of which 146 are needed as lower-income units throughout the entire county (i.e., 80 percent of AMI and below).

Placer County (California)
Placer County has several programs dedicated to creating new workforce housing or encouraging existing housing stock to be utilized as workforce housing. Placer County was the first Tahoe jurisdiction to adopt an Area Plan encompassing the entire Tahoe portion of the County and has updated this area plan several times to incorporate new policies to encourage affordable and workforce housing. Additionally, Placer County was the first county to receive the State of California’s Prohousing Designation, in February of 2023. Receiving this designation gives Placer County a competitive edge in obtaining grant funding toward affordable housing, workforce housing, sustainable community development and infrastructure projects.

Key Placer County housing programs include:

Workforce Housing Preservation Program (WHPP). The WHPP is a homebuyer program designed to secure existing housing inventory for the local workforce. The program pays homebuyers up to 16% of purchase price towards a down payment (based on available 351
20 funding) in exchange for deed restricting their home so that it can only be occupied by local workers. In the Tahoe portion of Placer County, 13 households have provided workforce housing in partnership with Placer County through this program.

Launchpad Program. Launchpad facilitates the creation of new housing units in eastern Placer County. The program provides participants creating new eligible housing units in eastern Placer County with a grant (subject to available funding) in exchange for deed restricting the housing units for occupancy by members of the local workforce. The deed restrictions run for 55-years and auto-renew upon each transfer of the property.

Other programs and projects include an Affordable Housing & Employee Accommodation Ordinance, a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) set-aside for housing funding, and planning the Dollar Creek Crossing project, which envisions over 80 units of affordable housing on an 11.4-acre site owned by Placer County.

Placer County has two ADU pre-approved plans and both are allowed in the Tahoe Basin.

Multi-Family Units
Of the 11,754 total units in the Tahoe portion of Placer County, 1,575, or 13 percent, are multi-family units.

Deed-Restricted Units
The Tahoe portion of Placer County has the following mix of existing deed-restricted housing units, according to TRPA’s records:

Deed-Restriction Type Number of DeedRestricted Units
Affordable 52
Moderate 8
Achievable 7
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Placer County has made progress toward meeting the California Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirements (RHNA) county-wide, including 110 very low-income units (plus another 13 units at Brown Bear Studios), 67 low-income units, 77 moderate-income units, and 181 above moderate-income units, for a total of 435 new housing units.

City of South Lake Tahoe (California)
The City of South Lake Tahoe has engaged in significant work to address housing needs.

Consistent with the City Council’s adopted Strategic Plan and General Plan Housing Element, a robust set of housing programs are underway to address production, preservation, and protection of housing within its boundaries. Additionally, by adopting the Housing Element, the 352
21 City Council has adopted numerous policies that seek to advance the development of affordable housing. The City received a Prohousing Designation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in March 2024. The City is the only Tahoe jurisdiction to be completely encompassed within the boundaries of the TRPA. Key programs and projects include:

Production
• Affordable Housing:
o Sugar Pine Village: 128 affordable housing units have received a Certificate of Occupancy. Another 60 units are under construction and expect a Certificate of Occupancy in Fall 2026.
o Received entitlements for 3900 Lake Tahoe Blvd: 72 affordable housing units (plus 2 work/live and 1 manager’s unit)
o The City provided a local contribution through loans and grants for affordable housing projects, including $2.4 million contributed towards Sugar Pine Village for three phases and another $1,064,073 million for 3900 Lake Tahoe Blvd. • Other New Construction:
o 2024: 22 residential units issued certificates of occupancy (excluding Sugar Pine Village)
o 2025 (as of Sept. 30) new construction permits completed: 13 new single family dwellings, 7 new ADUs, 8 new MFD units
• Preapproved ADU Plans
o Four ADU design types to be made available for free to property owners in the city in Winter 2026.
• Policy Regarding Disposition of TRPA Development Commodities owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe
o City-owned development rights and land coverage are available at no cost to single or multifamily residential projects which are deed-restricted to accommodate low, very-low, and moderate-income families, as defined by HCD annual state Income Limits
o No cost to a developer/applicant of a multifamily residential project or a mixeduse project containing multifamily residential units if located within the boundaries of an identified Town Center
o 70 City-banked TAUs are set aside and may be converted to Residential Units of Use and sold at no cost for the construction of ADUs or the construction of new multifamily rental units (2 or more unit) projects
o Should the City provide or sell development rights or land coverage for a project containing residential units, a deed restriction shall be placed on the property prohibiting use as a Vacation Home Rental.
353
22 • Permitting Streamlining
o Streamlining permitting for green building and priority permit processing for special needs groups that include: seniors, people with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness.
• Amended the Tahoe Valley and Tourist Core Area Plans to incorporate housingsupportive amendments, including the Phase 2 Affordable and Workforce Housing amendments.

Preservation
• Permanent Supportive Housing Preservation
o Rehabilitation of 75 units through Project Homekey with Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless properties (Bear’s Den, Bird’s Nest and Red Lodge), using over $1.8 million in Community Development Block Grant and Prohousing Incentive Program grant. These units are all deed restricted and primarily used for households at 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) and below. • Multi-Family Dwelling and Single Room Occupancy Program • Long Term Rental Incentive Program
Protection
• Requirements for Replacement of Lost Units from Residential Demolitions • Local Preference Policy for Affordable Housing Resolution • Housing Hotline
Multi-Family Units
Of the 15,669 total units in the City of South Lake Tahoe, 5,469, or 35% percent, are multifamily units.

Deed-Restricted Units
The City of South Lake Tahoe has a mix of deed-restricted units, some of which have deed restrictions administered by TRPA, and others which have deed restrictions administered by the City or another entity, such as the State of California. The table below shows all deedrestrictions for which either the City or TRPA shows records Deed-Restriction Type Number of DeedRestricted Units
Affordable 690
Moderate 14
Achievable 3
No Short-Term Rental 10
354
23 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
The following summarizes City’s RHNA progress to-date as of late-2025:
6th Cycle RHNA:
2022-2027
Housing Unit Need Percentage Attainment (as of Dec.
2024)
RHNA Total 289 100% 88%
Very Low Income 70 24% 100% (72 units)
Low Income 52 17.3% 100% (57 units)
Moderate Income 42 14.7% 4.7% (2 units)
Above Moderate
Income
127 44.1% 98.4% (125 units)

355
24 APPENDIX A: 2025 HOUSING NEED

ESTIMATES WITH SUBAREA DETAIL
356
Appendix A Table 1
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2025TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentLake Tahoe Basin Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 562 520 404 331 358 331 98 1,422 1,28130% and 60% of AMI 1,478 980 810 664 364 242 0 2,653 1,88660% and 80% of AMI 1,566 801 762 624 166 85 0 2,494 1,51080% and 120% of AMI 3,292 1288 1,601 1312 350 137 0 5,242 2,737120% and 150% of AMI 2,063 422 974 798 152 31 0 3,189 1,251 150% and 195% of AMI 2,241 226 1,039 852 122 12 0 3,403 1,090195% and 245% of AMI 1,551 156 729 598 108 11 0 2,388 765Above 245% of AMI 2,825 285 1,306 1071 146 15 0 4,277 1,370 Total 15,579 4,679 7,625 6,251 1,766 864 98 25,068 11,891 Placer County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 92 85 66 54 58 54 19 235 21230% and 60% of AMI 241 160 132 108 59 39 0 432 30760% and 80% of AMI 255 130 124 102 27 14 0 406 24680% and 120% of AMI 536 210 261 214 57 22 0 854 446120% and 150% of AMI 336 69 159 130 25 5 0 520 204 150% and 195% of AMI 365 37 169 139 20 2 0 554 178195% and 245% of AMI 253 25 119 97 18 2 0 389 125Above 245% of AMI 460 46 213 174 24 2 0 697 223 Total 2,538 762 1,243 1,019 288 141 19 4,088 1,941
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 357
Appendix A Table 1 (continued)
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2025TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentDouglas County Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 57 53 41 33 36 33 1 135 12130% and 60% of AMI 149 99 82 67 37 24 0 268 19060% and 80% of AMI 158 81 77 63 17 9 0 252 15380% and 120% of AMI 333 130 162 133 35 14 0 530 277120% and 150% of AMI 208 43 98 81 15 3 0 322 126 150% and 195% of AMI 226 23 105 86 12 1 0 344 110195% and 245% of AMI 157 16 74 60 11 1 0 241 77Above 245% of AMI 285 29 132 108 15 1 0 432 138 Total 1,574 473 770 632 178 87 1 2,524 1,192
Washoe County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 92 85 66 54 59 54 33 250 22730% and 60% of AMI 243 161 133 109 60 40 0 436 31060% and 80% of AMI 257 131 125 103 27 14 0 410 24880% and 120% of AMI 540 212 263 215 57 22 0 861 449120% and 150% of AMI 339 69 160 131 25 5 0 524 205 150% and 195% of AMI 368 37 171 140 20 2 0 559 179195% and 245% of AMI 255 26 120 98 18 2 0 392 126Above 245% of AMI 464 47 214 176 24 2 0 702 225 Total 2,558 768 1,252 1,026 290 142 33 4,133 1,969
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 358
Appendix A Table 1 (continued)
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2025TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentCity of South Lake Tahoe Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 229 212 165 135 146 135 31 570 51330% and 60% of AMI 602 399 330 270 148 98 0 1,080 76860% and 80% of AMI 638 326 310 254 68 35 0 1,015 61580% and 120% of AMI 1,340 524 652 534 142 56 0 2,134 1,114120% and 150% of AMI 840 172 396 325 62 13 0 1,298 509 150% and 195% of AMI 912 92 423 347 50 5 0 1,385 444195% and 245% of AMI 632 64 297 243 44 4 0 972 311Above 245% of AMI 1,150 116 532 436 59 6 0 1,741 558 Total 6,342 1,905 3,104 2,545 719 352 31 10,197 4,833
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 93 86 67 55 59 55 13 231 20830% and 60% of AMI 244 162 133 109 60 40 0 437 31160% and 80% of AMI 258 132 125 103 27 14 0 411 24980% and 120% of AMI 542 212 264 216 58 23 0 864 451120% and 150% of AMI 340 70 160 132 25 5 0 525 206 150% and 195% of AMI 369 37 171 140 20 2 0 561 180195% and 245% of AMI 256 26 120 99 18 2 0 394 126Above 245% of AMI 465 47 215 176 24 2 0 705 226 Total 2,567 771 1,256 1,030 291 142 13 4,127 1,956
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 359
Appendix A Table 2
Total Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 303 447 214 317 1,281
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 293 699 354 540 1,886
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 222 555 288 445 1,510
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 403 1006 521 807 2,737
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 183 459 239 370 1,251
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 160 400 208 322 1,090
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 112 281 146 226 765
Above 245% of AMI 200 503 261 405 1,370
Total 1,877 4,352 2,231 3,432 11,891
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 52 73 35 52 212
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 48 114 58 88 307
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 36 90 47 73 246
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 66 164 85 131 446
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 30 75 39 60 204
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 26 65 34 53 178
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 18 46 24 37 125
Above 245% of AMI 33 82 43 66 223
Total 309 709 363 559 1,941
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 22 45 22 32 121
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 30 71 36 55 190
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 22 56 29 45 153
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 41 102 53 81 277
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 18 46 24 37 126
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 16 40 21 33 110
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 11 28 15 23 77
Above 245% of AMI 20 51 26 41 138
Total 181 440 225 347 1,192
Total Units
Total Units
Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
360
Appendix A Table 2 (continued)
Total Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 67 73 35 52 227
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 48 115 58 89 310
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 37 91 47 73 248
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 66 165 86 132 449
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 30 75 39 61 205
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 26 66 34 53 179
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 18 46 24 37 126
Above 245% of AMI 33 83 43 67 225
Total 325 714 366 563 1,969
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 115 182 87 129 513
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 119 285 144 220 768
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 91 226 117 181 615
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 164 410 212 328 1,114
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 74 187 97 151 509
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 65 163 85 131 444
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 46 114 59 92 311
Above 245% of AMI 82 205 106 165 558
Total 756 1,772 908 1,397 4,833
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 47 74 35 52 208
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 48 115 58 89 311
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 37 91 47 73 249
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 66 166 86 133 451
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 30 76 39 61 206
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 26 66 34 53 180
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 18 46 24 37 126
Above 245% of AMI 33 83 43 67 226
Total 306 717 368 565 1,956
Total Units
Total Units
Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
361
Appendix A Table 3
Resident Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 70 189 101 160 520
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 132 356 191 301 980
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 108 290 156 246 801
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 174 467 251 396 1,288
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 57 153 82 130 422
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 31 82 44 69 226
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 21 57 30 48 156
Above 245% of AMI 38 103 55 88 285
Total 632 1,697 912 1,438 4,679
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 11 31 17 26 85
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 22 58 31 49 160
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 18 47 25 40 130
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 28 76 41 65 210
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 9 25 13 21 69
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 5 13 7 11 37
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 3 9 5 8 25
Above 245% of AMI 6 17 9 14 46
Total 103 276 148 234 762
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 7 19 10 16 53
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 13 36 19 30 99
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 11 29 16 25 81
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 18 47 25 40 130
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 6 15 8 13 43
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 3 8 4 7 23
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 2 6 3 5 16
Above 245% of AMI 4 10 6 9 29
Total 64 171 92 145 473
Studio 1-Bedroom
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Total Units
362
Appendix A Table 3 (continued)
Resident Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 12 31 17 26 85
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 22 58 31 49 161
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 18 48 26 40 131
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 29 77 41 65 212
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 9 25 13 21 69
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 5 13 7 11 37
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 3 9 5 8 26
Above 245% of AMI 6 17 9 14 47
Total 104 279 150 236 768
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 29 77 41 65 212
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 54 145 78 123 399
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 44 118 64 100 326
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 71 190 102 161 524
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 23 62 33 53 172
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 12 33 18 28 92
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 9 23 12 20 64
Above 245% of AMI 16 42 23 36 116
Total 257 691 371 585 1,905
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 12 31 17 26 86
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 22 59 31 50 162
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 18 48 26 41 132
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 29 77 41 65 212
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 9 25 14 21 70
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 5 13 7 11 37
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 3 9 5 8 26
Above 245% of AMI 6 17 9 14 47
Total 104 280 150 237 771
2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 363
Appendix A Table 4
In-Commuting Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 49 122 63 98 331
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 98 244 126 195 664
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 92 230 119 184 624
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 194 483 250 386 1,312
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 118 294 152 235 798
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 126 313 162 251 852
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 88 220 114 176 598
Above 245% of AMI 158 394 204 315 1,071
Total 923 2,299 1,189 1,839 6,251
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 8 20 10 16 54
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 16 40 21 32 108
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 15 37 19 30 102
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 32 79 41 63 214
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 19 48 25 38 130
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 21 51 26 41 139
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 14 36 19 29 97
Above 245% of AMI 26 64 33 51 174
Total 150 375 194 300 1,019
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 5 12 6 10 33
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 10 25 13 20 67
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 9 23 12 19 63
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 20 49 25 39 133
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 12 30 15 24 81
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 13 32 16 25 86
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 9 22 11 18 60
Above 245% of AMI 16 40 21 32 108
Total 93 232 120 186 632
Studio 1-Bedroom
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Total Units
364
Appendix A Table 4 (continued)
In-Commuting Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 8 20 10 16 54
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 16 40 21 32 109
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 15 38 20 30 103
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 32 79 41 63 215
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 19 48 25 39 131
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 21 51 27 41 140
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 15 36 19 29 98
Above 245% of AMI 26 65 33 52 176
Total 152 377 195 302 1,026
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 20 50 26 40 135
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 40 99 51 80 270
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 38 93 48 75 254
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 79 196 102 157 534
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 48 120 62 96 325
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 51 128 66 102 347
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 36 90 46 72 243
Above 245% of AMI 64 160 83 128 436
Total 376 936 484 749 2,545
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 8 20 10 16 55
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 16 40 21 32 109
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 15 38 20 30 103
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 32 80 41 64 216
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 19 48 25 39 132
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 21 52 27 41 140
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 15 36 19 29 99
Above 245% of AMI 26 65 34 52 176
Total 152 379 196 303 1,030
2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 365
Appendix A Table 5
Seasonal Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 86 137 50 59 331
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 63 100 36 43 242
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 22 35 13 15 85
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 35 56 21 24 137
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 8 13 5 6 31
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 3 5 2 2 12
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 3 4 2 2 11
Above 245% of AMI 4 6 2 3 15
Total 224 356 130 154 864
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 14 22 8 10 54
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 10 16 6 7 39
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 6 2 2 14
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 6 9 3 4 22
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Total 37 58 21 25 141
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 9 14 5 6 33
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 6 10 4 4 24
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 2 4 1 2 9
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 4 6 2 2 14
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 1 1 0 1 3
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 0 1 0 0 1
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 0 0 0 0 1
Above 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 1
Total 23 36 13 16 87
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 366
Appendix A Table 5 (continued)
Seasonal Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2025
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 14 22 8 10 54
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 10 16 6 7 40
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 6 2 2 14
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 6 9 3 4 22
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Total 37 58 21 25 142
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 35 56 20 24 135
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 26 41 15 18 98
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 9 14 5 6 35
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 14 23 8 10 56
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 3 5 2 2 13
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 1 2 1 1 4
Above 245% of AMI 2 2 1 1 6
Total 91 145 53 63 352
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 14 23 8 10 55
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 10 16 6 7 40
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 6 2 3 14
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 6 9 3 4 23
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Total 37 59 21 25 142
Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 367
36 APPENDIX B: HUD HOUSING PROBLEMS
DETAIL
368
Appendix B Table 1: Housing Problems, Tahoe Basin & Counties, 2017-2021 (Page 1 of 3) Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Overcrowded (e) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Housing Cost Burden (g) 0 0.0% 23 21.3% 38 66.7% 84 95.5% 145 48.0% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 49 100.0% 85 78.7% 19 33.3% 4 4.5% 157 52.0% Zero/Negative Income 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Subtotal, Owner Households 49 100% 108 100% 57 100% 88 100% 302 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Owner Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 4 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1.0% Overcrowded (e) 10 9.2% 30 35.3% 25 20.2% 0 0.0% 65 16.4% Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 8.1% 0 0.0% 10 2.5% Housing Cost Burden (g) 10 9.2% 15 17.6% 85 68.5% 75 94.9% 185 46.6% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 60 55.0% 40 47.1% 4 3.2% 4 5.1% 108 27.2% Zero/Negative Income 25 22.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 6.3% Subtotal, Renter Households 109 100% 85 100% 124 100% 79 100% 397 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Renter Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Overcrowded (e) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 11.1% 15 4.4% Housing Cost Burden (g) 0 0.0% 20 25.3% 35 58.3% 80 59.3% 135 39.2% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 60 85.7% 59 74.7% 25 41.7% 40 29.6% 184 53.5% Zero/Negative Income 10 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 2.9% Subtotal, Owner Households 70 100% 79 100% 60 100% 135 100% 344 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Owner Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 25 22.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 6.5% Overcrowded (e) 20 18.2% 0 0.0% 30 35.3% 0 0.0% 50 13.0% Severely Overcrowded (f) 15 13.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 3.9% Housing Cost Burden (g) 0 0.0% 85 56.7% 55 64.7% 40 100.0% 180 46.8% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 50 45.5% 65 43.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 115 29.9% Zero/Negative Income 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Subtotal, Renter Households 110 100% 150 100% 85 100% 40 100% 385 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Renter Households
- Continued on Next Page -
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2017-2021 CHAS Data; TRPA, 2025; BAE, 2025. 49 122 121 118 410
Renter-Occupied Households Renter Households
Washoe County (a)
Owner-Occupied Households Owner Households
0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 109 85 124 79 397
70 139 160 275 644
Renter-Occupied Households Renter Households
Douglas County (a)
Owner-Occupied Households Owner Households
0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 110 150 85 40 385
369
Appendix B Table 1: Housing Problems, Tahoe Basin & Counties, 2017-2021 (Page 2 of 3) Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Overcrowded (e) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Housing Cost Burden (g) 0 0.0% 69 29.6% 75 68.2% 50 58.8% 194 34.2% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 135 97.1% 164 70.4% 35 31.8% 35 41.2% 369 65.1% Zero/Negative Income 4 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.7% Subtotal, Owner Households 139 100% 233 100% 110 100% 85 100% 567 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Owner Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 10 4.3% 0 0.0% 25 11.9% 0 0.0% 35 5.1% Overcrowded (e) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 45 21.4% 0 0.0% 45 6.5%
Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Housing Cost Burden (g) 10 4.3% 130 60.5% 110 52.4% 34 100.0% 284 41.0% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 174 74.4% 85 39.5% 30 14.3% 0 0.0% 289 41.7% Zero/Negative Income 40 17.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 40 5.8% Subtotal, Renter Households 234 100% 215 100% 210 100% 34 100% 693 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Renter Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Overcrowded (e) 25 3.7% 0 0.0% 69 11.6% 35 11.4% 129 7.2% Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1.3% 4 0.2% Housing Cost Burden (g) 71 10.5% 40 17.9% 329 55.5% 188 61.4% 628 34.9% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 545 80.7% 184 82.1% 195 32.9% 79 25.8% 1,003 55.8% Zero/Negative Income 34 5.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 34 1.9% Subtotal, Owner Households 675 100% 224 100% 593 100% 306 100% 1,798 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Owner Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 30 2.4% 0 0.0% 10 1.6% 0 0.0% 40 1.4% Overcrowded (e) 45 3.6% 19 2.4% 105 16.6% 4 2.4% 173 6.1% Severely Overcrowded (f) 10 0.8% 35 4.4% 25 3.9% 25 14.8% 95 3.4% Housing Cost Burden (g) 115 9.3% 429 54.4% 464 73.2% 125 74.0% 1,133 40.1% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 994 80.6% 305 38.7% 30 4.7% 15 8.9% 1,344 47.6% Zero/Negative Income 40 3.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 40 1.4% Subtotal, Renter Households 1,234 100% 788 100% 634 100% 169 100% 2,825 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Renter Households
- Continued on Next Page -
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2017-2021 CHAS Data; TRPA, 2025; BAE, 2025. 139 307 330 165 941
Renter-Occupied Households Renter Households
Placer County (a)
Owner-Occupied Households Owner Households
0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 234 215 210 34 693
715 514 1,126 706 3,061
Renter-Occupied Households Renter Households
El Dorado County (a)
Owner-Occupied Households Owner Households
0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 1,234 788 634 169 2,825
370
Appendix B Table 1: Housing Problems, Tahoe Basin & Counties, 2017-2021 (Page 3 of 3) Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Overcrowded (e) 25 2.7% 0 0.0% 69 8.4% 35 5.7% 129 4.3% Severely Overcrowded (f) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 3.1% 19 0.6% Housing Cost Burden (g) 71 7.6% 152 23.6% 477 58.2% 402 65.5% 1,102 36.6% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 789 84.6% 492 76.4% 274 33.4% 158 25.7% 1,713 56.9% Zero/Negative Income 48 5.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 48 1.6% Subtotal, Owner Households 933 100% 644 100% 820 100% 614 100% 3,011 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Owner Households
Housing Problems in Order
of Severity (b) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (d) 69 4.1% 0 0.0% 35 3.3% 0 0.0% 104 2.4% Overcrowded (e) 75 4.4% 49 4.0% 205 19.5% 4 1.2% 333 7.7% Severely Overcrowded (f) 25 1.5% 35 2.8% 35 3.3% 25 7.8% 120 2.8% Housing Cost Burden (g) 135 8.0% 659 53.2% 714 67.8% 274 85.1% 1,782 41.4% Severe Housing Cost Burden (h) 1,278 75.8% 495 40.0% 64 6.1% 19 5.9% 1,856 43.2% Zero/Negative Income 105 6.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 105 2.4% Subtotal, Renter Households 1,687 100% 1,238 100% 1,053 100% 322 100% 4,300 100% with Housing Problems
Total, Renter Households
Notes:
(a) Includes the portion of each county that is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin as defined by TRPA. (b) Housing problems are listed from most severe to least severe, as ordered by HUD. Households may have multiple housing problems, but, for the purposes of this table, they are counted under their most severe housing problem. (c) “HAMFI” is the HUD Area Median Family Income.
(d) Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.
(e) 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room.
(f) Greater than 1 persons per room.
(g) Housing costs greater than 30% but less than 50% of gross income. (h) Housing costs greater than 50% of gross income.

Sources: U.S. HUD, 2017-2021 CHAS Data; TRPA, 2025; BAE, 2025. 973 1,082 1,737 1,264 5,056
Renter-Occupied Households Renter Households
Lake Tahoe Basin
Owner-Occupied Households Owner Households
0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI (b) 31-50% HAMFI 51-80% HAMFI 81-100% HAMFI ≤ 100% HAMFI 1,837 1,543 1,888 920 6,188
371
40 APPENDIX C: 2016 HISTORICAL ESTIMATES
372
Appendix C Table 1
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2016TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentLake Tahoe Basin Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 350 322 307 251 325 298 86 1,068 95730% and 60% of AMI 1,597 1180 900 738 383 283 0 2,880 2,20160% and 80% of AMI 1,205 704 634 519 189 111 0 2,028 1,33380% and 120% of AMI 2,827 1021 1,416 1161 290 105 0 4,533 2,287120% and 150% of AMI 1,789 657 871 714 128 47 0 2,787 1,417 150% and 195% of AMI 2,108 315 1,015 832 126 19 0 3,250 1,166195% and 245% of AMI 1,449 217 699 573 90 13 0 2,239 803Above 245% of AMI 2,155 322 1,038 851 128 19 0 3,321 1,192 Total 13,481 4,736 6,879 5,640 1,660 895 86 22,106 11,357 Placer County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 60 55 52 43 55 51 18 186 16730% and 60% of AMI 272 201 153 126 65 48 0 491 37560% and 80% of AMI 205 120 108 88 32 19 0 346 22780% and 120% of AMI 482 174 241 198 49 18 0 772 390120% and 150% of AMI 305 112 148 122 22 8 0 475 242 150% and 195% of AMI 359 54 173 142 22 3 0 554 199195% and 245% of AMI 247 37 119 98 15 2 0 381 137Above 245% of AMI 367 55 177 145 22 3 0 566 203 Total 2,297 807 1,172 961 283 153 18 3,770 1,939
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 373
Appendix C Table 1 (continued)
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2016TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentDouglas County Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 38 35 34 28 36 33 5 112 10030% and 60% of AMI 175 130 99 81 42 31 0 316 24260% and 80% of AMI 132 77 70 57 21 12 0 223 14680% and 120% of AMI 310 112 155 127 32 11 0 498 251120% and 150% of AMI 196 72 96 78 14 5 0 306 156 150% and 195% of AMI 231 35 111 91 14 2 0 357 128195% and 245% of AMI 159 24 77 63 10 1 0 246 88Above 245% of AMI 237 35 114 93 14 2 0 365 131 Total 1,480 520 755 619 182 98 5 2,422 1,242
Washoe County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 57 52 50 41 53 48 20 179 16130% and 60% of AMI 259 192 146 120 62 46 0 468 35860% and 80% of AMI 196 114 103 84 31 18 0 329 21780% and 120% of AMI 459 166 230 189 47 17 0 737 372120% and 150% of AMI 291 107 141 116 21 8 0 453 230 150% and 195% of AMI 342 51 165 135 21 3 0 528 189195% and 245% of AMI 235 35 114 93 15 2 0 364 131Above 245% of AMI 350 52 169 138 21 3 0 540 194 Total 2,190 769 1,118 916 270 146 20 3,597 1,851
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 374
Appendix C Table 1 (continued)
Unmet Demand by Household Income Category, 2016TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs AssessmentCity of South Lake Tahoe Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 138 126 121 99 128 117 32 418 37430% and 60% of AMI 628 464 354 290 151 111 0 1,133 86560% and 80% of AMI 474 277 249 204 74 43 0 798 52480% and 120% of AMI 1,112 401 557 457 114 41 0 1,783 899120% and 150% of AMI 704 258 342 281 50 18 0 1,096 557 150% and 195% of AMI 829 124 399 327 50 7 0 1,278 459195% and 245% of AMI 570 85 275 225 35 5 0 880 316Above 245% of AMI 848 127 408 335 51 8 0 1,306 469 Total 5,302 1,863 2,706 2,218 653 352 32 8,692 4,464
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Homeless
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Individuals/
Households
Total Worker
Households
Inadequately
Housed HHs
Up to 30% of AMI 58 53 50 41 53 49 12 173 15530% and 60% of AMI 262 194 148 121 63 46 0 472 36160% and 80% of AMI 198 115 104 85 31 18 0 333 21980% and 120% of AMI 464 168 232 190 48 17 0 744 375120% and 150% of AMI 294 108 143 117 21 8 0 457 233 150% and 195% of AMI 346 52 167 137 21 3 0 533 191195% and 245% of AMI 238 36 115 94 15 2 0 367 132Above 245% of AMI 354 53 170 140 21 3 0 545 196 Total 2,212 777 1,129 925 272 147 12 3,625 1,861
Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total Percent of AMI
Resident Workforce In-Commuting Workforce Seasonal Workers Total 375
Appendix C Table 2
Total Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 251 311 160 235 957
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 383 773 416 628 2,201
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 228 467 253 385 1,333
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 387 800 436 664 2,287
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 239 495 271 413 1,417
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 197 408 223 339 1,166
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 136 281 153 234 803
Above 245% of AMI 201 417 227 347 1,192
Total 2,022 3,951 2,140 3,244 11,357
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 46 53 27 40 167
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 65 132 71 107 375
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 39 80 43 66 227
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 66 136 74 113 390
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 41 84 46 70 242
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 34 69 38 58 199
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 23 48 26 40 137
Above 245% of AMI 34 71 39 59 203
Total 348 673 365 553 1,939
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 23 34 18 26 100
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 42 85 46 69 242
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 25 51 28 42 146
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 42 88 48 73 251
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 26 54 30 45 156
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 22 45 24 37 128
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 15 31 17 26 88
Above 245% of AMI 22 46 25 38 131
Total 217 434 235 356 1,242
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 376
Appendix C Table 2 (continued)
Total Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 47 51 26 38 161
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 62 126 68 102 358
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 37 76 41 63 217
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 63 130 71 108 372
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 39 80 44 67 230
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 32 66 36 55 189
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 22 46 25 38 131
Above 245% of AMI 33 68 37 56 194
Total 334 642 348 527 1,851
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 97 122 63 92 374
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 151 304 164 247 865
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 90 184 100 151 524
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 152 314 171 261 899
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 94 195 106 162 557
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 77 160 88 133 459
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 53 110 60 92 316
Above 245% of AMI 79 164 89 136 469
Total 793 1,554 842 1,276 4,464
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 39 51 26 38 155
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 63 127 68 103 361
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 37 77 42 63 219
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 64 131 72 109 375
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 39 81 44 68 233
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 32 67 37 56 191
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 22 46 25 38 132
Above 245% of AMI 33 68 37 57 196
Total 330 648 351 532 1,861
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
377
Appendix C Table 3
Resident Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 52 112 62 96 322
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 191 409 228 352 1,180
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 114 244 136 210 704
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 165 354 197 304 1,021
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 106 228 127 196 657
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 51 109 61 94 315
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 35 75 42 65 217
Above 245% of AMI 52 112 62 96 322
Total 766 1,643 915 1,412 4,736
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 9 19 11 16 55
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 32 70 39 60 201
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 19 42 23 36 120
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 28 60 34 52 174
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 18 39 22 33 112
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 9 19 10 16 54
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 6 13 7 11 37
Above 245% of AMI 9 19 11 16 55
Total 130 280 156 241 807
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 6 12 7 11 35
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 21 45 25 39 130
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 12 27 15 23 77
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 18 39 22 33 112
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 12 25 14 22 72
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 6 12 7 10 35
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 4 8 5 7 24
Above 245% of AMI 6 12 7 11 35
Total 84 180 100 155 520
2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Studio 1-Bedroom
378
Appendix C Table 3 (continued)
Resident Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 8 18 10 16 52
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 31 66 37 57 192
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 18 40 22 34 114
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 27 58 32 49 166
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 17 37 21 32 107
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 8 18 10 15 51
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 6 12 7 10 35
Above 245% of AMI 8 18 10 16 52
Total 124 267 149 229 769
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 20 44 24 38 126
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 75 161 90 138 464
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 45 96 53 83 277
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 65 139 78 120 401
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 42 90 50 77 258
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 20 43 24 37 124
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 14 30 16 25 85
Above 245% of AMI 20 44 24 38 127
Total 301 646 360 555 1,863
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 9 18 10 16 53
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 31 67 37 58 194
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 19 40 22 34 115
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 27 58 32 50 168
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 17 37 21 32 108
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 8 18 10 15 52
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 6 12 7 11 36
Above 245% of AMI 9 18 10 16 53
Total 126 270 150 232 777
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 379
Appendix C Table 4
In-Commuting Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 43 88 48 73 251
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 125 258 140 214 738
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 88 182 99 150 519
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 197 406 221 336 1,161
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 121 250 136 207 714
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 141 291 159 241 832
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 97 201 109 166 573
Above 245% of AMI 145 298 162 246 851
Total 958 1,973 1,074 1,634 5,640
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 7 15 8 12 43
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 21 44 24 36 126
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 15 31 17 26 88
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 34 69 38 57 198
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 21 43 23 35 122
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 24 50 27 41 142
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 17 34 19 28 98
Above 245% of AMI 25 51 28 42 145
Total 163 336 183 278 961
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 5 10 5 8 28
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 14 28 15 23 81
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 10 20 11 17 57
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 22 45 24 37 127
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 13 27 15 23 78
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 16 32 17 26 91
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 11 22 12 18 63
Above 245% of AMI 16 33 18 27 93
Total 105 217 118 179 619
2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Studio 1-Bedroom
380
Appendix C Table 4 (continued)
In-Commuting Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 7 14 8 12 41
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 20 42 23 35 120
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 14 30 16 24 84
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 32 66 36 55 189
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 20 41 22 34 116
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 23 47 26 39 135
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 16 33 18 27 93
Above 245% of AMI 23 48 26 40 138
Total 156 321 175 265 916
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 17 35 19 29 99
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 49 102 55 84 290
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 35 71 39 59 204
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 78 160 87 132 457
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 48 98 53 81 281
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 56 115 62 95 327
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 38 79 43 65 225
Above 245% of AMI 57 117 64 97 335
Total 377 776 422 643 2,218
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 7 14 8 12 41
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 21 42 23 35 121
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 14 30 16 25 85
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 32 67 36 55 190
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 20 41 22 34 117
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 23 48 26 40 137
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 16 33 18 27 94
Above 245% of AMI 24 49 27 40 140
Total 157 324 176 268 925
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 381
Appendix C Table 5
Seasonal Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Lake Tahoe Basin
Up to 30% of AMI 71 112 50 66 298
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 67 106 47 63 283
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 26 41 19 24 111
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 25 39 18 23 105
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 11 18 8 10 47
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 4 7 3 4 19
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 3 5 2 3 13
Above 245% of AMI 5 7 3 4 19
Total 212 335 150 198 895
Placer County
Up to 30% of AMI 12 19 9 11 51
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 11 18 8 11 48
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 7 3 4 19
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 4 7 3 4 18
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 2 3 1 2 8
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 1 1 0 1 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Total 36 57 26 34 153
Douglas County
Up to 30% of AMI 8 12 5 7 33
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 7 12 5 7 31
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 3 5 2 3 12
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 3 4 2 3 11
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 0 1 0 0 2
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 1
Above 245% of AMI 0 1 0 0 2
Total 23 37 16 22 98
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units 382
Appendix C Table 5 (continued)
Seasonal Workforce Unmet Demand by Unit Size, 2016
TRPA Lake Tahoe Basin Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Washoe County
Up to 30% of AMI 11 18 8 11 48
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 11 17 8 10 46
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 7 3 4 18
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 4 6 3 4 17
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 2 3 1 2 8
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Total 34 54 24 32 146
City of South Lake Tahoe
Up to 30% of AMI 28 44 20 26 117
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 26 42 19 25 111
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 10 16 7 10 43
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 10 15 7 9 41
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 4 7 3 4 18
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 2 3 1 2 7
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 1 2 1 1 5
Above 245% of AMI 2 3 1 2 8
Total 83 132 59 78 352
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Up to 30% of AMI 12 18 8 11 49
Between 30% and 60% of AMI 11 17 8 10 46
Between 60% and 80% of AMI 4 7 3 4 18
Between 80% and 120% of AMI 4 6 3 4 17
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 2 3 1 2 8
Between 150% and 195% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Between 195% and 245% of AMI 1 1 0 0 2
Above 245% of AMI 1 1 1 1 3
Total 35 55 25 32 147
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Total Units
Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms Total Units Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3+ Bedrooms
383
52 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
384
Housing Needs
Survey
(Tahoe Basin)
December 5, 2025
385
2 Survey | Tahoe Living
2025 Housing Needs Survey and
Analysis–Tahoe BasinResults
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF) conducted a Housing Needs Survey from April 22 through June 30, 2025 to understand housing and transportation needs, issues, and preferences of people who live, work, or spend a significant amount of time in the areas served by the organizations. TRPA helped facilitate the survey as part of the Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin project (Cultivating Community) to inform policy changes within the Tahoe Basin to make workforce and affordable housing more plentiful. The study area for the survey included the Lake Tahoe Basin, plus the TahoeTruckee Unified School District boundary, which includes parts of Eastern Placer and Nevada Counties, including the Town of Truckee (see map below). Together, these two areas were called the “Greater Lake Tahoe Region” in the survey. For the purposes of this report, TRPA is reporting on only the respondents who live year-round or most of the year in a Lake Tahoe Basin zip code, or who work or go to school in a Lake Tahoe zip code.

The survey consisted of 43 questions and was available online and in person through printed copies in English and Spanish. Survey distribution included press releases, which were widely distributed to regional and out-of-region media outlets; email and digital campaigns conducted by TRPA and TTCF, and in-person outreach to underrepresented and vulnerable populations. Outreach grants were provided through a competitive process to community-based nonprofits to assist with the outreach process. Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin grants were awarded to the following partnering nonprofits: Sierra Community House, Sierra Native Alliance, North Tahoe-Truckee Homeless Services, and South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center. TRPA provided outreach 386
3 Survey | Tahoe Living
materials, including a flyer, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) handout, and content and visuals for social media posts to assist these community-based organizations with survey dissemination.

TRPA and TTCF chose to conduct an opt-in survey to explore more about people’s experiences around the known shortage of affordable housing in the region. The survey also gathered information from underrepresented and vulnerable populations, including the Hispanic/Latino worker population and those experiencing homelessness who might be difficult to find through random sampling. These survey results complement the Housing Needs Assessment, which is representative of the broader population, by improving accessibility and providing useful research on the knowledge of survey participants. While this survey sought to represent the experiences of underrepresented populations, the survey was open to all respondents. As noted above, for the purposes of this report, only responses from respondents living or working/going to school in Tahoe Basin zip codes are included.

Comparison of the survey population with regional demographics is included where available.

Key Findings
- Two thirds (66 percent) of survey respondents are housing cost-burdened, meaning they pay 30-50 percent of their income on housing costs, and one quarter (24 percent) are severely burdened by housing cost, meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. - Rising rent and ownership costs including insurance and utilities, poor housing quality, and unaffordable downpayments/deposits are the most prevalent housing-related issues people experienced over the past year.
- Many renters do not qualify for affordable housing and many cannot find year-round occupancy, or housing that is the right size.
- Fifteen percent of respondents have been unhoused or experienced homelessness at some point while living in the Tahoe Basin. Many have resorted to sleeping in their vehicles, temporarily staying at one or multiple friends’ homes (couch surfing).
- The largest segment of survey respondents (42 percent) lives within 5 miles of their work or school, - Over eight out of ten (84 percent) respondents who live outside of the Lake Tahoe Basin but work/study within the basin stated they would likely move to the Greater Lake Tahoe Region if adequate housing was available in their price range.

Survey Results
A total of 2,224 surveys were collected for the Greater Lake Tahoe Region, which included the Lake Tahoe Basin (defined by zip codes within TRPA’s jurisdiction) plus the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District boundary (outside of TRPA’s jurisdiction). This report analyzes 1,293 responses, around half, by respondents living or working/going to school in the Tahoe Basin. Out of the 1,293 surveys that fit this geographic criterion, 1,110 were English language surveys and 183 Spanish language surveys. Not all respondents answered all the questions. Some questions allowed for multiple answers, therefore some percentages will add up to more than 100 percent. This report analyzes the responses to questions of relevance to the Cultivating Community project. The full set of questions is included as an attachment.

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
Q4. What is the zip code of your primary residence (the place where you live most of the time)? (1,171 individual responses).

Fifty-two percent of respondents live primarily in South Lake Tahoe, 16 percent in Kings Beach, 10 percent in Incline Village, and 8 percent in Tahoe City.
387
4 Survey | Tahoe Living

COMMUTING POPULATION
Q33. Do you work or study in the Greater Lake Tahoe Region but live elsewhere? (1,133 individual responses).

Most survey respondents live and work/study in the Tahoe Basin (89 percent), but one out of ten (11 percent) report that they live elsewhere and commute into the basin for work or school.

Since this survey was distributed to the Greater Lake Tahoe Region which includes the Truckee Tahoe Unified School District boundary, Truckee was the main location survey respondents commuted from, but other locations include Minden, NV, Carson City NV, Olympic Valley, CA, Ruhenstroth, NV, Verdi, NV, Gardnerville, NV, Reno, NV, and Sparks, NV.
52%
16%
8%
10%
3%
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
96150 - SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
96143 - KINGS BEACH, CA
96145 - TAHOE CITY, CA
89450, 89451, 89452 - INCLINE VILLAGE, NV
96148 - TAHOE VISTA, CA
96140 - CARNELIAN BAY, CA
89449 - STATELINE, NV
96141 - TAHOMA, CA
96142 - HOMEWOOD, CA
89448 - ZEPHYR COVE, NV

OTHER ZIPCODES IN THE BASIN
ZIPCODE OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE (N=1,171)
388
5 Survey | Tahoe Living
Of this population that is commuting into the basin, over eight out of ten (84 percent) of respondents that live outside of the Tahoe Basin but work/study there, stated that they would be very likely or somewhat likely to move to the Greater Lake Tahoe Region if adequate housing was available in their price range.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Q36. What is your age? (1,108 individual responses).

Respondents were mostly in the 30-39 or 40-49 age group, making up 44 percent of those surveyed. The third largest age group was 50-59 years old (18 percent) followed by those between 60-69 years old (15 percent). The age profile of respondents differs from the 2020 Census Data which shows the largest age group to be the 60-70 age group, followed by the 25-40 age group.

Yes
11%
No
89%

DO YOU WORK OR STUDY IN THE GREATER LAKE
TAHOE REGION BUT LIVE ELSEWHERE? (N=1,133)
Very likely
67%
Somewhat likely
16%
Not sure
12%
Not likely at all
5%

HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO MOVE TO THE REGION IF
ADEQUATE HOUSING (I.E., HOUSING THAT WOULD

MEET YOUR NEEDS) WAS AVAILABLE IN YOUR
PRICE RANGE? (N=122)
389
6 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q38. Which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify with? (1,121 individual responses).

Seventy percent of respondents identified as Caucasian/non-Hispanic White and 20 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino. This distribution is in line with 2020 Census Bureau data (69 percent non-Hispanic White and 22 percent Hispanic/Latino).
1%
13%
21%
23%
18%
15%
7%
1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
AGE OF RESPONDENTS (N=1108)
70%
20%
3%
2%
2% 1% 1%
1%
RACE AND ETHNICITY (N=1,121)
Caucasian/non-Hispanic White
Hispanic/Latino
Two or more races
Asian or Asian American
Native American/American Indian/First Nation/Indigenous/Alaskan Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian
Middle Eastern
African American/Black
390
7 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q41. To the best of your knowledge, what is the combined gross annual income of all household members over the age of 18 (this includes you, your spouse, and any other people with whom you share household expenses)? (1,115 individual responses).

Nearly half of all respondents are earning less than $100k annually. Over the past decade, household incomes in the Tahoe Basin have generally increased, with a notable rise observed from 2019 to 2021 (TRPA, 2023)1.

According to the U.S. Census 2021 data, the median household income in the basin is $79,291.

HOUSING ISSUES
Q13. What housing-related issues have you experienced over the last year (12 months)? (3,247 responses, multiple responses are included).

Residents described significant housing challenges, with costs of both renting and homeownership far exceeding local incomes and creating displacement or instability. Rising insurance premiums, utilities, taxes, and HOA fees also add substantial financial pressure for homeowners which is passed on to renters. Respondents also highlighted a shortage of adequate and affordable units, particularly family-sized and senior housing, which leads to overcrowding, long commutes, or reliance on shared or family arrangements. Poor housing quality was also a frequently cited response.
1Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2020. “Demographics.” Arcgis.com. 2020. https://data-trpa.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/52a1541ee93e43fc9ebd4bc48644829e. 21%
14%
11%
16%
13%
9%
4%
2%
2%

0.3%
1%
7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under $50,000
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000-$249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $599,999
Over $600,000
Prefer not to state
COMBINED HOUSEHOLD INCOME (N=1115)
391
8 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q14. What problems have you experienced when searching for and securing a home to RENT in the Region? (Select all that apply)? (2,296 responses, multiple responses are included).

Affordability was the most common issue cited when searching for and securing a home to rent in the region, as well as qualification for affordable housing, followed by securing the right type of housing, including the right size, proximity to work, or available year/round occupancy.
20%
18%
14%
8%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
2%
7%
4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Housing prices are out of reach/too expensive
Rising cost of insurance and utilities
Rising rents
Poor housing quality
Lack of a downpayment/deposit
Working a second job to pay rent
Gave up other necessities or deferred payment on other bills to pay for rent or mortgage
Live far from my job due to the lack of affordable housing nearby
Unresponsive property management
Fell behind on rent or mortgage payments
Became unhoused/homeless
Eviction or property conversion
None of the above
Other

WHAT HOUSING-RELATED ISSUES HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED
OVER THE LAST YEAR? (N=3247)
392
9 Survey | Tahoe Living
Responses to “Other”:

Age and fixed income
Conditions of properties were abysmal
Credit score requirements
Do not want to have to deal with roommates
Expensive
Homes are being modernized and remodeled to increase rent prices. Lack of rental properties in the region due to high number of second homes and short-term rentals Homes poorly taken care of, not a lot of options, expensive for small places Housing being sold under me while renting, Housing increasing rent by 50% or more Housing needed for older working adults that don't want roommates Home with a garage
Lack of affordable housing options. Unable to find housing that fell in my income level Lack of senior housing
Lack of transit made it hard to live places without a personal car but there wasn't enough parking for all the cars.

Lack of ADA housing
Loud neighbors
471
306
224
175
161
110
88 54
41 32
387
177
70 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
The rent was not affordable
The security deposit was more than I could afford
Did not qualify for affordable housing
I could not find housing for year-round occupancy
I could not find housing that was the right size for my… Suitable housing was too far from work
Landlord/property manager did not return communication
I had trouble finding roommates
Landlords didn’t want to rent to seasonal workers
I could not find housing that was offered for seasonal… Not applicable
None of the above
Other

WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WHEN

SEARCHING FOR AND SECURING A HOME TO RENT IN
THE REGION? (N=2296)
393
10 Survey | Tahoe Living
Many homes are furnished or short(er) term. I am not going to sell my furniture and risk having nothing if the landlord breaks the lease after 6 months.

Not enough places to rent
Not pet friendly
Pet fees and pet weight limit being 40 lbs. or under
Places had poor insulation; ability to heat or cool difficult; access challenges (outdoor steep stairs or long walkways or driveways)
Requirements needed as rental history up here to even apply to rent The rents are too high so multiple families have to live together under one roof.

They don't allow children
Too many STR eating into inventory
Too much competition
Very little inventory
It is hard to find something affordable for just one person Q15. What problems have you experienced when searching for and securing a home to PURCHASE in the Region? (Select all that apply) (2,464 multiple responses).

Responses to “Other”:
25%
13%
9%
10%
9%
8%
4%
20%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Home purchase prices were not affordable
I lacked a sufficient down payment and/or funds for
closing costs
I could not qualify for a mortgage loan or could not secure a mortgage loan on reasonable terms
I could not find insurance that was affordable
I could not find a suitable home to purchase
Was not competitive against all-cash offers
Suitable housing was too far from work
No, I have not experienced any problems/Not
applicable/None of the above
Other (please specify)

WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WHEN

SEARCHING FOR AND SECURING A HOME TO
PURCHASE IN THE REGION? (SELECT ALL THAT
APPLY) (N=2464)
394
11 Survey | Tahoe Living
Several homes that needed significant improvements, but I was told it would be difficult to get the permits to do this in a timely fashion
Both Truckee & SLT homes are priced too high. Sellers are pricing based on high market from a couple years ago. Most homes working class may be able to afford are outdated, old, and/or falling apart.

Property taxes are too high when calculating off selling prices and fire insurance is going through the roof (not to mention utilities!)
Can’t afford it
Cannot obtain affordable fire insurance
Condition of Housing
Difficulty finding property insurance
Given extreme wildfire risk, purchasing at high prices in basin is poor financial decision. Insurance may not cover equity investment or insurance rates/HOA fees unpredictable.

Got prequalified for a mortgage that was MORE than I take home in month, unless you count overtime which is not ideal.

Had to enter a jumbo loan with terrible terms as a first-time home buyer. The high cost of my older home did not allow me to take advantage of the first-time home buyer benefits Home insurance is frighteningly expensive
Homes within my price range were being sold "as-is" but non-traditional mortgages/mortgage assistance type loans (e.g. FHA, 184 loans, first-time homebuyer programs) wouldn't pay for them due to work needing to be done prior to closing.

Houses are overly expensive and wealthy people are able to out bid locals.

Housing stock that was affordable was super low quality and would require expensive renovations but contractors are expensive here because they just want to work big jobs for wealthy second homeowners I don't know enough about the process of buying a house I'm working three jobs to be able to pay my mortgage
Increased mortgage rates
Interest rates are too high
I've heard it is difficult to add onto smaller homes, which is what I would need to do here.

Not enough inventory. Build more houses
Quality of housing at more affordable prices is bad, and then you have to remodel which makes it much harder to afford. Also people are offering over asking then running the home as a tourist accommodation business and using it themselves 2-4 times a year
Single household earners are priced out
The cash offers are locking out locals who need a mortgage Ther are no 1–2-bedroom townhomes available for sale.

There is no way I could afford to own a home here. It's why we're leaving to move elsewhere once our lease is up. My husband is tired of working two jobs and I'm tired of working a lot but still being unable to afford necessities let alone save to purchase our own home.

There is not a single-family home for less than $600,000 Uncooperative seller after in contract
Utilities cost
We qualified for the Placer downpayment program, but couldn't find a suitable home in the $700k range.

And we were just 1% above the AMI for Hopkins. We didn't qualify for the Truckee downpayment program, but we couldn't find any housing there in that range either.

Would not have been able to purchase without Placer WHPP 395
12 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q16. At any point in time, have you ever been unhoused or experienced homelessness (for example, lived in a car, a tent, or an overnight shelter) while living in the Region? (1,255 individual responses).

Fifteen percent of respondents have been unhoused or experienced homelessness at some point while living in the Tahoe Basin.

Q16. Why did you experience homelessness or become unhoused? (Select all that apply) (275 multiple responses).

The most frequently cited reason for experiencing homelessness was rent increases or not being able to afford the rent, followed by job loss/unemployment.

Responses to “Other”:

Yes
15%
No
85%

AT ANY POINT IN TIME, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN

UNHOUSED OR EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS
WHILE LIVING IN THE REGION? (N=1,255)
95 45
19 17
16 15
10 58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rent increase/couldn’t afford rent
Unemployment/lost my job
Injury or illness
Lack of mental health and addiction treatment services
Unable to provide requested documents
Domestic violence
Healthcare costs
Other (please specify)

WHY DID YOU EXPERIENCE HOMELESSNESS
OR BECOME UNHOUSED? (SELECT ALL THAT
APPLY) (N=275)
396
13 Survey | Tahoe Living
Apartment building was condemned (winter 22/23 roof collapse), no relocation assistance from prop management.

Between rentals
Casino was sold and employees were fired
City messed up my camper and took it
Couldn’t find a new lease when mine expired and my landlord turned my place into an Airbnb Couldn’t find housing
Couldn’t find suitable rental
Couldn't afford temporary housing
Couldn't find acceptable/affordable housing
I had part time work only and couldn't afford rent yet.

Issues with landlord
It burned down
Just moved here, needed to get set up
Landlord decided to not renew lease so they can increase rent for the next person Landlord dispute
Landlord sold house and couldn't find another affordable rental Landlords moved back in
Looking for job
My job didn’t pay enough to cover rent.

Not enough savings to pay rent & security deposit.

Owner selling property
Pay did not increase with rental costs
Pet issue
Refused application to rent
Seasonal employment between jobs
Seasonal worker, did not want to sign a year lease
Terminated lease
The apartments were going to be remodeled
The apartments were uninhabitable
Unsafe family house
Was searching for clean, affordable housing

HOUSING NEEDS
Q24 How many days per week do you commute to work or school? (1,045 individual responses).

Nearly 50% percent of the survey respondents commute to work 5 days a week 397
14 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q25. When commuting to work or school, how many miles do you usually travel ONE WAY? (1,040 individual responses).

The largest segment of survey respondents (44%) lives within 5 miles of their work or school. Proximity makes this segment more likely to commute via non-auto modes (based on a cross-tabulation with Question 26). Just two percent of commuters travel more than 50 miles/day, and around one in ten (11%) travel more than 25 miles to work/school. The share of respondents traveling more than 25 miles one way suggests that some residents may be living farther from jobs or educational opportunities due to limited affordable housing options nearby. Expanding affordable housing closer to employment and education centers can help reduce long-distance commutes and support non-auto commutes.

Q26. How do you typically travel to work or school? (Select all that apply) (1,366 multiple responses).

Most people drive to work alone in a personal vehicle (63%). The most popular mode beyond solo driving among respondents was bicycling (10%), followed by walking (8%). 11%
2%
7%
9%
16%
45%
6% 5%

NONE ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN

HOW MANY DAYS PER WEEK DO YOU
COMMUTE TO WORK OR SCHOOL? (N=1045)
10%
32%
24%
18%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than 1 1-5 6-10 11-25 More than 25

WHEN COMMUTING TO WORK OR SCHOOL, HOW
MANY MILES DO YOU USUALLY TRAVEL ONE WAY?
(N=1,040)
398
15 Survey | Tahoe Living
Responses to “Other”:

Drive in winter (not near bus routes), bike in summer
Employer provided vehicle
TART Connect
Q29. What would your ideal housing situation be like? (1,878 responses, multiple responses are included).

Responses to this question reveal the main priorities for residents in terms of housing. Above all, people want housing that is affordable, appropriately sized for their household, and in better physical condition than many options currently available. In addition to these considerations, many respondents expressed a strong desire to own rather than rent, which could reflect both a need for long-term stability and a sense of investment in the community.
61%
10%
7%
6%
5%
5%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Drive alone in a personal vehicle
Bicycling (electric or pedal)
Walking
Carpool (more than one person of driving age in a vehicle) Bus
Telework (work from home or other remote location)
Ride Share through an app (Waze, Lyft Line, Uber Pool,… Employer provided shuttle
Ride Hailing (Taxi, Uber or Lyft)
Not applicable
Other (please specify)

HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY TRAVEL TO WORK
OR SCHOOL? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
(N=1366)
399
16 Survey | Tahoe Living
Other responses:

A house with a yard or an apartment with a patio
Ability to make needed repairs so can rent it
Better mixed use and live/work housing options
Closer public transit access
Expensive utilities
Home that is fire hardened with better emergency evacuation provisions.

Home with garage, accepts pets, and has maintenance and snow removal included Home with neighbors. Home with outdoor space
I want a house instead of a condo, with a yard, preferably.

Living without roommates
My current house is fine, just needs expensive upgrades.

Near a medical center
17%
16%
15%
13%
11%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Home that is more affordable
Home with adequate storage space and/or garage
Home of a different size
Home that is in better condition
Prefer to own instead of rent
Home in a different location or neighborhood
More parking or better managed parking
Housing located closer to work or school
My current home is temporary, and I need permanent
housing
Supported housing (permanent, affordable housing linked to supportive services for low-income, disabled, senior, and formerly homeless people)
Other (please specify)

WHAT WOULD YOUR IDEAL HOUSING SITUATION BE
LIKE? (N=1878)
400
17 Survey | Tahoe Living
No vhrs nearby
Not an apartment
Pet friendly housing! Easier to walk around town
Practically anything that isn't in an HOA, isn't near an STR, is quiet and preferably has a garage.

Reasonable fire insurance
The right types of housing in the right locations. Move to parking maximum not minimum and get serious about mainline frequent transit.

Would like an ADU.

Q30. What type of residence would you prefer to live in? (998 responses, multiple responses are included).

The results directly inform the conversation on housing options by showing both the strong preference for singlefamily homes (88 percent) and a significant interest in more space-efficient options such as apartments, condos, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
Other responses:
1-2 bedroom town home with garage
Any good studio
Home with separate ADUs that we can rent out to others in need of housing, while assisting us with mortgage, insurance, taxes, utilities, costs, etc.

House with yard
I would be fine living in an apartment, but most don't have any parking or 1 spot for the two bedroom apartment and are still over 1k per bedroom in a tiny bedroom that a full bed completely fills Just bigger for grandparents and closer to school/work so kids could walk and take the bus Live work or mixed use
Multiple story apartment with accessible and good public transit Tiny home community
Town center mixed use condo? Walkable to coffee, to a shop, etc.

Q9. Including yourself, how many people live in your primary residence? (1,286 individual responses).

Most respondents live in smaller households, with two-person households being the most common (37 percent), followed by one-person (18 percent) and four-person (17 percent) households. These patterns highlight the need for a housing supply that can accommodate both small and mid-sized households, suggesting demand for a mix of unit types and sizes. Understanding household composition helps ensure that future housing options align with the way people are actually living.
88%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single family home/cabin/detached unit
Apartment/condominium/duplex, triplex, or
fourplex/ADU or other

WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENCE WOULD YOU PREFER TO
LIVE IN? (N=998)
401
18 Survey | Tahoe Living

OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding was assessed using the persons-per-room (PPR) measure as defined by the U.S. Census and U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as one person per room plus one. Thus, a one-bedroom apartment would be determined to be overcrowded if three or more people reside there.

To determine whether a respondent’s household is overcrowded, TRPA analyzed the number of bedrooms a respondent had in their primary residence (Q8) with the number of people living in it. • Q8 (How many bedrooms does your primary residence have?) and • Q9 (Including yourself, how many people live in your primary residence?).

An analysis of the data shows how household size and bedroom availability interact to create pressure within the existing housing stock, particularly for lower-income residents. By applying the HUD standard, the analysis reveals that 15 percent of respondents live in overcrowded conditions—with especially high rates in studio and twobedroom units—and that households earning under $75,000 are twice as likely to be affected. This highlights a clear mismatch between available unit sizes and household needs, underscores equity concerns, and points to the importance of increasing the supply of appropriately sized and affordable homes to reduce overcrowding and improve living conditions.

By the HUD standard, studios are only suitable for one person. Therefore, as shown in the graph below, 30 percent of respondents to the survey living in studios are living in overcrowded conditions. 18%
37%
16% 17%
7%
5%

ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX OR MORE

INCLUDING YOURSELF, HOW MANY PEOPLE
LIVE IN YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE?
(N=1,286)
402
19 Survey | Tahoe Living
One-bedrooms are suitable for one or two people, therefore, three or more people residing in a one-bedroom would be considered overcrowded. Fifteen percent of survey respondents living in one-bedroom homes are living in overcrowded conditions based on this definition.

Two-bedrooms are suitable for up to three people, therefore, four or more people residing in a two-bedroom would be considered overcrowded. Thirty-one percent of survey respondents living in two-bedrooms are living in overcrowded conditions by this standard.
5 people, 1% 4 people, 5%
3 people, 2%
2 people, 22%
1 person, 70%

NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN A STUDIO
6 or more, 1% 5 people, 1% 4 people, 4%
3 people, 9%
2 people, 42%
1 person, 43%

NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN A ONE-BEDROOM
403
20 Survey | Tahoe Living
Three-bedroom households are suitable for up to four people, therefore, five or more people residing in a threebedroom would be considered overcrowded. Fifteen percent of survey respondents living in three-bedrooms are living in overcrowded conditions by this standard.
6 or more, 5%
5 people, 10%
4 people, 16%
3 people, 14%
2 people, 41%
1 person, 14%

NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN A TWO-BEDROOM
6 or more
7% 5 people
8%
4 people
20%
3 people
21%
2 people
36%
1 person
8%
NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN A THREEBEDROOM
404
21 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q31. How many bedrooms would you prefer to have for your primary residence? (673 individual responses).

Nearly 70 percent of the respondents indicated a preference for two or three bedrooms in their primary residence.

This strong clustering around mid-sized residences suggests that current housing options may not fully align with community needs, particularly if the market lacks sufficient diversity in unit sizes. Ensuring an adequate supply of two- and three-bedroom homes could better support both renters and prospective buyers.

Q27: Please rate how satisfied you are with your primary residence. (1141 individual responses) Three out of four respondents (76 percent) are satisfied with their primary residence, suggesting that the existing housing stock generally meets the needs of those who can access it. However, this level of satisfaction does not eliminate broader housing needs in the community; it primarily reflects the experiences of residents who already have housing.

Less than two
11%
Two
24%
Three
44%
Four
18%
Five or more
3%

HOW MANY BEDROOMS WOULD YOU PREFER TO
HAVE FOR YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE? (N=673)
39%
38%
8%
11%
5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

PLEASE RATE HOW SATISFIED YOU ARE WITH
YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE (N=1141)
405
22 Survey | Tahoe Living
Q28: Why are you somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with your primary residence?? (1386 multiple responses) Respondents who were somewhat satisfied or not satisfied most often pointed to issues that reflect broader structural housing challenges. The top concerns include homes being too small or overcrowded (20 percent), too expensive (20 percent), or in need of repairs/poor condition (19 percent)—directly highlighting gaps in affordability, adequacy, and suitable unit sizes within the current housing stock. Additional factors include preferring to buy rather than rent (12 percent) and disturbances from nearby short-term rentals (8 percent).

Responses to “Other”:

No washer and dryer
Built poorly, low ceilings aggravate the owner
Consumes too many resources/supplies
Cost of remodeling is too high = house continues to fall apart.

Parking difficulty, very small
Extremely steep driveway, upstairs neighbors can be loud, not especially walkable to the main part of town High cost of upkeep, lack of contractors
HOA is so high--it's risen 49% in 3 years!!!
I'd like a larger home!
Increasing costs of insurance/ utilities
Isolated area
It burned down
It is what I could afford, but I want to have a house, rather than a condo someday.

It's poorly maintained/operated
Lacking garage for parking and storage
Landlord has deferred maintenance on things
Landlord may, at any time, decide to sell property.

Mold
Needs accessibility improvements and garage for winter
20%
20%
19%
12%
8%
6%
3%
2%
9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Too small/overcrowded
Too expensive
Needs repairs/poor condition
Currently rent, prefer to buy
Disturbance from nearby short-term rentals
Too far from work or school
Pets not allowed
Too far from public transit
Other (please specify)

WHY ARE YOU SOMEWHAT SATISFIED OR NOT
SATISFIED WITH YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE?
(N=1386)
406
23 Survey | Tahoe Living
Needs to be fire hardened.

No medical care of value nearby
No parking, garage or handicap spots for affordable housing Not available long term, will have to move in a few months Not suitable for elderly
Poor infrastructure e.g. Schools, parks, etc.

Problems with other tenants
Rent keeps going up yearly
Too large for my needs
Too many pests indoors (Spiders, ants, etc.)
Want to create ADU/JDU for income
Would like less roommates
Would like to downsize and can't see options.

Would like to move into something larger that fits our needs

HOUSING COSTS
Housing costs varied significantly by respondent. There were two questions in the survey based on housing cost:
• (Q10) Approximately how much do you spend monthly on rent or mortgage for your primary residence (excluding insurance and utilities)? Give the total paid by all people living in the residence if you share the housing expenses with others.)2
• (Q11) Roughly what proportion of your income do you spend on housing? According to the US Census, “a housing cost burden is defined as a situation where a household spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs, which includes rent, mortgage, and other housing-related expenses.

Households that spend 50% or more of their income on housing are considered severely cost-burdened".3 Most survey respondents spend between 30 and 50 percent of their income on housing, but a closer look at the data shows that some residents are more impacted. Housing cost impacts vary significantly by tenure and income level, with renters and lower-income households generally experiencing the greatest strain. 2 The question asked about the combined household costs - the low housing costs may reflect a misunderstanding of the question. It may be skewed if respondents only put their individual housing costs, especially noting that these households had more than 6 people living in their primary residence. 3 United States Census Bureau. “Housing Costs a Big Burden on Renters in Largest U.S. Counties.” December 8, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/housing-costs-burden.html 407
24 Survey | Tahoe Living
When splitting Q10 and Q11 responses by renter vs owner, we find that renters pay less overall towards housing than owners monthly. Eighty-two percent of renters are paying less than $3000 in housing costs compared to 70 percent of owners.

Although renters generally pay less towards housing, they are paying more as a proportion of their income than owners. This proportional difference is evident in the graph below with 10 percent of owners paying over 50 percent of their income to housing costs compared to 37 percent of renters. Only 15 percent of renters experience affordable housing costs (less than 30% of household income spent on housing) compared to over half or owners (52%).

Less than 30
percent
34%
30 to 50 percent
42%
Over 50 percent
24%

ROUGHLY WHAT PROPORTION OF YOUR INCOME
DO YOU SPEND ON HOUSING?
12% 17%
70% 53%
16%
22%
1% 8%
RENTERS % OWNERS %
HOUSING COSTS: RENTER (N=617) VS. OWNER
(N=618)
$0-$1,000 $1,000-$3,000 $3,000-$5,000 $5,000 +
408
25 Survey | Tahoe Living
Across all responses, housing costs ranged from $0 to $23,000 per month with the overall median being $2,181, and the median being $2,022 for renters and $2,298 for owners.

Spending on housing costs overall varied by different factors, including household income and renter versus owner.

Housing costs also tend to increase by the number of bedrooms. In other words, as the size of the home increases, so does the amount spent on housing. The one outlier is respondents with five or more bedrooms, which spend less on housing monthly than 2–4-bedroom homes. The question asked about the combined household costs - the low housing costs may reflect a misunderstanding of the question. It may be skewed if respondents only put their individual housing costs, especially noting that these households had more than six people living in their primary residence.
15%
47%
37%
52%
38%
10%
LESS THAN 30% 3 0 - 50 % OVER 50%
HOUSING COST BURDEN: RENTER VS OWNER
renter owner
$1,507
$2,000
$1,945
$2,248
$2,460
$2,787
$2,902
$3,290
$2,935
$3,100
$5,436
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Under $50,000
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000-$199,999
$200,000-$249,999
$250,000-$299,999
$300,000-$399,999
$400,000-$499,999
$500,000-$599,999
Over $600,000
Average Monthly Housing Costs
Household Income

AVERAGE HOUSING COSTS VS HOUSEHOLD INCOME
409
26 Survey | Tahoe Living
Below is a more in-depth look at housing costs of renters and owners based on the number of bedrooms in the primary residence. This graph shows that renters are on average paying more for one-bedrooms, three-bedrooms, and four-bedroom residences than owners.

Finally, renters tend to live in what are generally considered smaller units such as apartments and duplexes. A cross-tabulation of Q5 (Do you own or rent your primary residence?) and Q7 (What type of home is your primary residence?) found that far more renters report living in apartments, ADUs, mobile homes, and duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, compared to owners. Homeowners were three times more likely to live in a single0/studio , $938 1 bedroom, $1,594
2 bedroom, $2,140
3 bedroom, $2,430
4 bedroom, $2,997
5 bedroom +, $1,770
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
1 AVERAGE HOUSING COST BY NUMBER OF

BEDROOMS
$1,014
$1,604
$2,098
$2,577
$3,301
$1,372
$1,079
$1,496
$2,286 $2,318
$2,972
$2,046
0/STUDIO 1 -BED 2 -BED 3 -BED 4 -BED 5 -BED +
HOUSING COSTS: RENTER VS. OWNER BY # OF
BEDROOMS (N=1235)
Renter Owner
410
27 Survey | Tahoe Living
family home than renters. This may explain in part the difference in overall housing costs between renters and owners, since single family homes tend to be more expensive than more space-efficient housing types.

Conclusion
The 2025 Housing Needs Survey provides a snapshot of the challenges facing survey respondents who live, work, or spend significant time in the Tahoe Basin. The findings show the differentiation in housing cost burdens between those of different income levels and housing ownership status, issues with availability of appropriately sized and year-round housing, and difficulty maintaining stable living conditions amid rising rents, ownership costs, and deteriorating housing quality. These pressures are especially acute for renters, lower-income households, and individuals who have experienced homelessness or housing instability.

At the same time, the survey highlights the demand for more attainable housing options within the basin. Many respondents live close to their jobs or schools, reinforcing the link between housing availability, commute distance, and transportation behavior. Notably, a large majority of those who currently live outside the basin would consider relocating if adequate, affordable housing were available, underscoring the basin’s unmet need for workforce housing.
4%
37%
6%
16%
4%
34%
0 1%
6% 2% 2%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TYPE OF HOME OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE:

RENTER (N=567) VS. OWNER (N=599)
Renter
Owner
411
Housing Needs Survey of the Greater Lake Tahoe Region
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA) and the Tahoe Truckee
Community Foundation (TTCF) are
working with other organizations and
agencies to administer the following
survey on housing issues and needs.

The survey results will inform potential
policies and programs to increase
access to housing for residents and
workers in the Greater Lake Tahoe
Region (the Lake Tahoe Basin, plus the
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
boundary, which includes parts of
Eastern Placer and Nevada Counties,
including the Town of Truckee).

Please participate in the following
survey if you live and/or work in the
Greater Lake Tahoe Region (referred to
as "Region" in this survey).

Any personal information collected
will be kept confidential and used for
internal purposes only.

1. How did you hear about this survey?
 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
 Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF)
 Sierra Community House
 Sierra Native Alliance
 South Lake Tahoe Family Resource Center
 Tahoe-Truckee Homeless Services
 Media/newspaper
 Other (please specify): __________________________
412

2. How much of the year do you typically spend in the Region?  Year-round or most of the year
 Seasonally or part of the year
 A few times a year
 Hardly ever
Living Situation

3. Do you live or own property in the Greater Lake Tahoe Region and/or any of these TRPA Community Priority Zones (CPZs)? (Select all that apply)  The Greater Lake Tahoe
Region
 Kings Beach CPZ
 Incline Village CPZ
 Bijou CPZ, City of South Lake
Tahoe (CSLT)
 Tahoe Sierra/Sierra Tract CPZ,
CSLT
 Tahoe Verde CPZ, CSLT
 None of the above

4. What is the zip code of your primary residence (the place where you live most of the time)? _______________
413

5. Do you own or rent your primary residence? (Select all that apply)  Own
 Rent
 Care-take
 Unhoused
 Other (please specify):
___________________

6. Do you own or rent another home other than your primary residence?  Yes  No

7. What type of home is your primary residence?
 Single family
home/cabin/detached unit
(not a condominium)
 Duplex, triplex, or fourplex
(not a condominium)
 Apartment
 Condominium
 Mobile home
 Accessory dwelling unit
(ADU)/in-law/caretaker unit
 Dormitory
 Independent senior housing
 Assisted living
 Hotel/motel
 Car/van/recreational vehicle
(RV)
 Couch surf (moving from
house to house, sleeping in
whatever spare space is
available)
 Unhoused
 Other (please specify):
________________________

8. How many bedrooms does your primary residence have?
 0/studio
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 or more

9. Including yourself, how many people live in your primary residence?  1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6 or more

10.Approximately how much do you spend monthly on rent or mortgage for your primary residence (excluding insurance and utilities)? Give the total paid by all people living in the residence if you share the housing expenses with others. $____________ per month

11.Roughly what proportion of your income do you spend on housing?  Less than 30%
 30-50%
 Over 50%

12.How many times have you moved in the last year (12 months)?  0
 1
 2
 3
414
 4  5 or more
Housing Issues

13.What housing-related issues have you experienced over the last year (12 months)? (Select all that apply)
 Housing prices are out of reach/too expensive
 Lack of a downpayment/deposit
 Rising rents
 Rising cost of insurance and utilities
 Eviction
 Poor housing quality
 Unresponsive property management
 Mortgage foreclosure
 Property conversion (such as mobile home parks to condominiums, luxury homes, or some other type of development)
 Live far from my job due to the lack of affordable housing nearby  Working a second job to pay rent
 Became unhoused/homeless
 Fell behind on rent or mortgage payments
 Gave up other necessities or deferred payment on other bills to pay for rent or mortgage
 None of the above
 Other (please specify): ______________________

14.What problems have you experienced when searching for and securing a home to RENT in the Region? (Select all that apply)
 The security deposit was more than I could afford
 Did not qualify for affordable housing
 The rent was not affordable
 Landlords didn’t want to rent to seasonal workers
 Landlord/property manager did not return communication  I could not find housing for year-round occupancy
 I could not find housing that was offered for seasonal occupancy  I could not find housing that was the right size for my household  I had trouble finding roommates
 Suitable housing was too far from work
 Not applicable
 None of the above
 Other (please specify): ______________________
415

15.What problems have you experienced when searching for and securing a home to PURCHASE in the Region? (Select all that apply)
 Home purchase prices were not affordable
 I lacked a sufficient down payment and/or funds for closing costs  Could not secure a mortgage loan on reasonable terms
 I could not qualify for a mortgage loan
 I could not find insurance that was affordable
 I could not find a suitable home to purchase
 Suitable housing was too far from work
 Was not competitive against all-cash offers
 No, I have not experienced any problems
 Not applicable
 None of the above
 Other (please specify): _______________________
Experience with Being Unhoused

16.At any point in time, have you ever been unhoused or experienced homelessness (for example, lived in a car, a tent, or an overnight shelter) while living in the Region?  Yes (If yes, continue answering the following questions)  No (if no, skip to the following section)

17.Where did you find shelter when you became unhoused or experienced homelessness? (Select all that apply)
 Stayed at homeless shelter
 Stayed at a friend’s home on a
temporary basis
 Slept in a tent
 Slept in a car, van, or
recreational vehicle (RV)
 Couch surfed (moved from
house to house, sleeping in
whatever spare space was
available)
 Left the Region to find shelter
 Other (please specify):
____________________________

18.Why did you experience homelessness or become unhoused? (Select all that apply)  Rent increase/couldn’t afford
rent
 Unemployment/lost my job
 Injury or illness
 Couldn’t afford to pay the
mortgage
 Unable to provide requested
documents
 Healthcare costs
 Lack of mental health and
addiction treatment services
 Domestic violence
 Other (please specify):
____________________________
416
Employment & Education

19.Are you currently employed or going to school in the Region?  Yes  No

20.Which best describes your employment or educational status? (Select all that apply. If you are not employed or studying, skip to the Housing Satisfaction & Preferences section.)
 Employed full-time, salary
 Employed full-time, hourly
 Employed full-time, multiple
jobs
 Employed part-time, one job
 Employed part-time, multiple
jobs
 Employed
seasonally/temporarily
 Unemployed
 Retired
 Full-time student
 Part-time student
 None of the above
 Other (please specify):
__________________________

21.What is the zip code of your primary work or school location (the place where you work or go to school most of the time)? ____________

22.Which seasons do you typically work or go to school? (Select all that apply)  Year-round, not seasonal
 Seasonal, winter
 Seasonal, summer
 Seasonal, spring
 Seasonal, fall
 None of the above
 Other (please specify):
________________

23.In what type of industry are you employed or studying for? (Select all that apply)  Natural resources and mining
 Construction
 Manufacturing
 Trade, transportation, and utilities
 Information
 Financial activities
 Professional and business services
 Education and health services
 Leisure and hospitality (including food service, accommodations, and gaming)
 Government
 None of the above
 Other (please specify): ______________________
417
Travel to Work or School

24.How many days per week do you commute to work or school?  0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7

25.When commuting to work or school, how many miles do you usually travel ONE WAY?
 Less than 1
 1-5
 6-10
 11-25
 26-50
 More than 50
 Not applicable

26.How do you typically travel to work one or more times per week? (Select all that apply)
 Drive alone in a personal
vehicle
 Carpool (more than one
person of driving age in a
vehicle)
 Bus
 Ride Hailing (Taxi, Uber or Lyft)
 Ride Share through an app
(Waze, Lyft Line, Uber Pool,
etc.)
 Employer provided shuttle
 Walking
 Bicycling (electric or pedal)
 Telework (work from home or
other remote location)
 Not applicable
 Other (please specify):
____________________
Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

27.Please rate how satisfied you are with your primary residence. (If you are very satisfied, please skip to the Destinations, Needs, and Amenities section)  Very satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor satisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Very dissatisfied
418

28.Why are you somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with your primary residence? (Select all that apply)
 Too small/overcrowded
 Too expensive
 Needs repairs/poor condition
 Pets not allowed
 Too far from work or school
 Too far from public transit
 Disturbance from nearby short-term rentals
 Currently rent, prefer to buy
 Other (please specify): ________________________

29.What would your ideal housing situation be like? (Select all that apply)  Home of a different size
 Home in a different location or neighborhood
 Housing located closer to work or school
 Home that is more affordable
 Supported housing (permanent, affordable housing linked to supportive services for low income, disabled, senior, and formerly homeless people)  Home with adequate storage space and/or garage
 More parking or better managed parking
 Home that is in better condition
 Prefer to own instead of rent
 My current home is temporary, and I need permanent housing  Other (please specify): ____________________________

30.What type of residence would you prefer to live in? (Select all that apply)  Single family home/cabin/detached unit (not a condominium)  Duplex, triplex, or fourplex (not a condominium)
 Apartment
 Condominium
 Mobile home
 Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)/in-law/caretaker unit
 Dormitory
 Independent senior housing
 Assisted living
 Hotel/motel
 Car/van/recreational vehicle (RV)
 Couch surf (moving from house to house, sleeping in whatever spare space is available)
 Unhoused
 Other (please specify): __________________________
419

31.How many bedrooms would you prefer to have for your primary residence?  0/Studio
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 or more
Locational Preferences

32.Please select which destinations, needs, and amenities you would prefer to have located closer to your primary residence (Select up to three).  Your job/employment
 School/education
 Public transportation
 Health care/clinics/pharmacies
 Grocery stores
 Restaurants Parks/recreation centers
 Libraries
 None of the above
 Other (please specify): __________________

33.Do you work or study in the Greater Lake Tahoe Region but live elsewhere?  Yes  No

34.How likely are you to move to the Region if adequate housing (i.e., housing that would meet your needs) was available in your price range? (If you are not likely at all, please skip to the Demographics section)
 Very likely
 Somewhat likely
 Not sure
 Not likely at all
420

35.If you had to pick your top
preference, where would you
most prefer to live in the
Region? (Please refer to the
map)
 Anywhere in the Greater
Lake Tahoe Region
 Eastern Placer County
 Eastern El Dorado
County
 Western Washoe
County
 Western Douglas
County
 Eastern Nevada County
 City of South Lake
Tahoe
 Town of Truckee
 None of the above
Demographics
These questions help us understand who we’re reaching and potential differences between demographics.

36.What is your age?
 Under 20
 20-29
 30-39
 40-49
 50-59
 60-69
 70-79
 80-89
 90 and over
421

37.How do you identify?
 Male
 Nonbinary (gender identity
that is neither male nor
female)
 Female
 Other (please specify):
____________________

38.Which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify with? (choose all that apply)  African American/Black
 Asian or Asian American
 Caucasian/non-Hispanic
 White
 Hispanic/Latino
 Middle Eastern
 Native American/American
Indian/First
Nation/Indigenous/Alaskan
Native
 Pacific Islander/Native
Hawaiian
 Two or more races
 Other (please specify):
____________________

39.What language do you primarily speak at home? (Select all that apply)  English
 Spanish
 Tagalog
 Other (describe): _________

40.How many children under the age of 18 live with you?  0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 or more

41. To the best of your knowledge, what is the combined gross annual income of all household members over the age of 18 (this includes you, your spouse, and any other people with whom you share household expenses)?
 Under $50,000
 $50,000 - $74,999
 $75,000 - $99,999
 $100,000 - $149,999
 $150,000 - $199,999
 $200,000-$249,999
 $250,000 - $299,999
 $300,000 - $399,999
 $400,000 - $499,999
 $500,000 - $599,999
 Over $600,000
 Prefer not to state
422
Staying Informed and Involved
Thank you for participating in our survey!
The results of the survey will inform
housing interventions for residents and
workers in the Region. To stay informed and
involved moving forward, please sign up for
updates at www.tahoeliving.org and
www.ttcf.net/connect.
423
City Council
October 6, 2026
TRPA Housing Amendments & Mobility Fees
424
TRPA Tahoe Living & Working Group
• Since 2020, the TRPA Governing Board initiated the Tahoe Living Working Group to achieve regional housing needs and meeting the intent of the 2012 Regional Plan • The TRPA Governing Board appointed the Tahoe Living Working Group to identify and prioritize specific local and regional actions to achieve housing goals of the region. • Mayor Bass and Housing Manager, Jessica Wackenhut, are the City representatives on TLWG and Planning Manager, John Hitchcock is on TRPA Advisory Committee. 425
TRPA Tahoe Living & Working Group – Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin
• Multi-year project that is Phase 3 of the TLWG to make housing more accessible while maintaining and improving environmental protections
• On January 28, 2026, TRPA released a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the policy recommendations. • The policy alternatives that will be studied include:
• No Project Alternative – Evaluates the potential environmental and housing cost effects of continuing under TRPA’s existing housing policies without adopting new policy amendments • Housing Forward Alternative – Focuses on adapting TRPA policy to meet the regional housing need, through a combination of incentives primarily focused on new workforce housing with limited strategies focused on better utilization of existing housing. • Housing Preservation Alternative – Focuses on utilizing existing housing stock to meet the need of Tahoe’s workforce.
426
TRPA Tahoe Living & Working Group – Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin
• The public review of the draft EIS, a housing cost memorandum, and proposed amendments to the Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances are expected to be available for review in Fall 2026 • This will include a 60-day public review period for public comment • The public review will inform the final EIS and proposed amendments to be considered for adoption in 2027
427
Key Terms
Affordable-by-design housing
• Non-deed-restricted housing that includes:
• Multifamily rental housing with restrictions on conversion to for-sale housing for a minimum of 15 years when it may be converted to deed-restricted Achievable condominiums • Multifamily housing in a mixed-income project with a required minimum amount of deedrestricted affordable, moderate or achievable housing • ADUs under 1200 SF
• Innovative housing types or models aimed at creating naturally occurring affordable housing (tiny homes, land trusts, co-housing, dormitories)
• Single-family homes converted to duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes * All housing types utilizing bonus units would be subject to restrictions prohibiting their use as short-term rentals
428
Key Terms
Affordable, Moderate & Achievable Housing
• Affordable: Residential housing, deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by seasonal workers or permanent residents that are lower-income households (income not in excess of 80% of the county’s AMI
• Moderate: Residential housing, deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by permanent residents with an income not in excess of 120% of county’s AMI • Achievable: Single or multifamily residential development deed-restricted to be used exclusively as a residential dwelling by permanent residents who meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Household income not in excess of 120% of the respective county’s AMI; OR • At least one household occupant 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/Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, and requires the employer’s physical presence; OR • Resident is a retired person who has lived in a deed-restricted unit in the Tahoe Basin for more than 7 years
429
Key Terms
Bonus Units
• Residential development rights that are provided by TRPA (or in some cases the local jurisdictions) as incentives for contributing to Regional Plan goals, such as constructing Affordable, Moderate, and Achievable housing, or retiring environmentally sensitive parcels from future development. 430
Policy Recommendations & Tiered Structure for Incentives Tier 1
• Includes deed-restricted affordable and moderate-income housing units. Incentives through cost reductions and waived development fees and streamlined processes.

Tier 2
Tier 3
• Includes deed-restricted achievable housing units and units meeting the criteria for “affordable-bydesign.” Some incentives including access to a limited pool of “affordable-by-design” bonus units, streamlined processes, and reduced development fees, and are restricted against use as short-term rentals.
• Includes all other housing types not included in tiers 1 and 2. Including unrestricted condominiums and detached single family homes. These units would not receive incentives under this policy proposal and development fees may be increased based on an impact-nexus study. 431
Reduce Costs & Barriers for Smaller Housing Types
Development Rights
• Direct some of the remaining growth potential in the Basin to the Residential Bonus Unit Pool & allow more types of housing to qualify for bonus units
• Align conversion policies to scale residential development rights * • Ensure new development contributes proportionally to alleviating housing need Development Costs & Fees • Fee changes to support affordable and workforce housing * Development Process
• Increase thresholds for discretionary review *
• Environmental exemptions
432
Reduce Costs & Barriers for Smaller Housing Types – Staff Comments
Development Rights • Update affordable by design definition to include market rate condominiums and include only a no VHR deed restriction rather than requiring an Achievable deed restriction. Most other TLWG members do not want market rate units and only want deed restrictions. • Concerns about conversion of TRPA Commercial Floor Area (CFA) to only housing which was in Regional Plan.
• Supports any TRPA recommended housing replacement to all jurisdictions & to opt out if they have their own ordinance.

Development Process • In support of supporting higher thresholds for discretionary review. • In support of environmental exemptions for up to fourplex from TRPA project-level environmental review. City staff wanted hire threshold to align with CEQA. 433
Water Quality – Improvements Help Achieve the
Housing Need
Development Costs & Fees
• Options other than coverage limitations and areawide stormwater systems to treat parcel-level stormwater runoff
• Install area-wide stormwater improvements
• Use Updated Soil Maps *
• Re-evaluate Excess Coverage Mitigation Fees *
• In support of exempting projects from coverage transfer fees for projects we want to see such as ADUs, affordable, moderate, etc.
• In support of area-wide stormwater improvements with the caveat that they cost a lot of money and may not be able to accommodate some projects.

Staff Comments
434
Increase Housing Choice
Expanded Housing Sites
• Expand geographic scope for incentives *
• Allow missing middle housing in more neighborhoods *
• Allow & encourage housing on public/institutional lands * • Facilitate transitional & supportive housing
Building Renovation & Rehabilitation
• Support renovation & rehabilitation of existing buildings * Housing Occupancy
• Unlock vacant housing units
• Support housing authority to manage deed restrictions and programs • Establish stable sources of funding for deed-restricted housing * Development Standards & Area Plan Process Improvements
• Allow higher density & height standards
435
Increase Housing Choice – Staff Comments
Expanded Housing Sites
• Facilitate transitional & supportive housing in alignment with CA state law Housing Occupancy • Unlock vacant housing units: jurisdictions have to fund these programs & implement • Support housing authority to manage deed restrictions and programs Development Standards & Area Plan Process Improvements
• Allow higher density & height standards, coverage is the limiting factor. Many TLWG members are against this for units that are not deed-restricted.
• Opposing height and density increases actually works against environmental goals. Concentrating housing in appropriate town centers and mixed-use areas through increased height and density is precisely what smart growth and environmental planning principles recommend. • In South Lake Tahoe the majority of the city is within ½ mile of transit. Transit only works when you have higher density within ½ mile. The town centers are not meeting this density currently. • Reduce the TRPA meetings for approvals for Area Plans (APC, RPC, Governing Board) 436
TRPA Water Quality & Mobility Mitigation Fees
Water Quality Mitigation Fees
Mobility Mitigation Fees
Type of Coverage – Water Quality Cost per Square Foot
New land coverage $1.86
Previously developed sites w/ verified
land coverage exceeding the maximum
allowable amount: excess coverage
$8.50
New land coverage within the City rightof-way$8.50
• Apply to any project generating additional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Calculated based on VMT generated by project and varies by proximity to a Town Center • Cost is $213.76 per VMT generated
437
TRPA Water Quality & Mobility Mitigation Fees
• On average, fees for a 2,000 SF single-family home range from $8,000 - $10,000 • For non-deed-restricted multi-family residential projects, this fee is expected to increase with VMT increases
• Projects that qualify as affordable, moderate, or achievable housing under TRPA Code of Ordinances are exempt from the Mobility Mitigation Fee
Staff Comments
• Mobility Mitigation Fee lacks transparency and is inequitable. Depending on who calculates the fee, their discretion alters the fee and they are overall too high for small businesses. 438
QUESTIONS?
439
Attachment 5: TRPA Tahoe Living Working Group - Cultivating Communities, Conserving the Basin
City of South Lake Tahoe Staff Comments on Code Amendments Overall Comments:
 The position that only deed-restricted affordable housing should be allowed is fundamentally exclusionary and fails to address the full scope of our housing crisis. The incentives proposed in the scope to support market rate multifamily housing development would benefit these works with quality housing that meets their income levels that are not currently subsidized.
 Allow incentives for market rate affordable by design housing – condominiums, ADUs, multifamily units with only a no VHR deed restriction.  The City of South Lake Tahoe has consistently demonstrated regional leadership in advancing housing solutions through comprehensive programs, forwardthinking policies, and actual project development. The City is currently undertaking more housing development projects than any other jurisdiction in the Tahoe Basin, with multiple projects in various stages of planning, permitting, and construction. The City cannot solve this regional challenge alone. The housing shortage affects every community around Lake Tahoe, and it requires coordinated, basin-wide action. The Tahoe Living Phase 3 amendments represent an important opportunity for TRPA to provide the regulatory framework necessary to enable all Basin jurisdictions to meaningfully participate in addressing our shared housing needs.

Reduce Costs & Barriers for Smaller Housing Types
Development Rights
 Update affordable by design definition to include market rate condominiums and include only a no VHR deed restriction rather than requiring an Achievable deed restriction.
 Concerns about conversion of TRPA Commercial Floor Area (CFA) to just housing which was in Regional Plan. CFA is a limited resource and by converting the TRPA pool of CFA, this will reduce the ability for future economic development/redevelopment. In addition, this will create issues for city issued CFA incentives to projects.
 CFA conversion could lead to concern with availability of CFA for commercial redevelopment/improvement projects
 In favor of scaling residential development rights based on conversion rations for simplicity.
 Supports any TRPA recommended housing replacement to all jurisdictions while allowing jurisdictions to opt out if they have their own ordinance/policy. 440
Development Costs & Fees
 In support of scaling fees to align with tiered structures depending on development type.

Development Process
 In support of supporting higher thresholds for discretionary review.  In support of environmental exemptions for up to fourplex and tier 1& 2 redevelopment projects from TRPA project-level environmental review. This aligns closer to what is allowed under CEQA.
 Hearings per TRPA Code of Ordinances: TRPA Code Chapter 2 Subsection

2.2.2.B.2(a), multi-residential housing greater than four units requires Hearings Officer review.

Water Quality – Improvements Help Achieve the Housing Need  In support of exempting projects from coverage transfer fees for projects we want to see such as ADUs, affordable, moderate, etc.
 In support of area-wide stormwater improvements with the caveat that they cost a lot of money and may not be able to accommodate some projects.  Support of updated use of soil maps based on best available science.  Support of alignment of ECM fees reduced for projects consistent Increase Housing Choice
Expanded Housing Sites
 Align incentive boundaries including Bonus Unit Boundary, Town Center, and any other incentive boundaries through Area Plans.
 Allow more middle-income housing in more neighborhoods (Duplexes through quadplexes, regardless of proximity to transit (including through Area Plans)  Support to allow and encourage housing on public/institutional land.  Facilitate Transitional and Supportive Housing in alignment with California State Law
Building Renovation & Rehabilitation
 Support of renovation and rehabilitation to existing buildings through fee reductions
 Bonus Units – Chapter 52.3.5 - Requires projects that are turning to residential conversion and using bonus units to require Development rights sold off to only multifamily projects. This severely restricts the projects ability to finance the project. Example: Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless.

Housing Occupancy
441
 In support of programs assisting locals to rent or purchase current housing stock (ex: Long Term Rental Incentive Program).
 In support of establishing a stable source of funding for deed-restricted housing.

Development Standards and Area Plan Process Improvements  Densities are not the limiting factor – coverage is
 Opposing height and density increases actually works against environmental goals. Low-density development patterns force sprawl, increase vehicle miles traveled, expand impervious surfaces across a wider area, and make public transportation infeasible. Concentrating housing in appropriate town centers and mixed-use areas through increased height and density is precisely what smart growth and environmental planning principles recommend.  Higher density development in already-developed urban areas reduces pressure on sensitive lands and natural areas.
 In South Lake Tahoe the majority of the city is within ½ mile of transit. Transit only works when you have higher density within ½ mile. The town centers are not meeting this density currently.

TRPA Water Quality & Mobility Mitigation Fees
 Staff regularly comment on the lack of transparency for calculating VMTs and the inequitable process. Depending on the staff doing the calculation, the fees can be drastically different and overall, the fees are too high for small businesses. 442
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:12
Agenda Item: Update on Geothermal Feasibility Study and Recreation & Aquatics Center Hydronic Snowmelt System
Executive Summary: This item will provide an update on the efforts to commission a geothermal feasibility study and to complete the hydronic system at the Multigenerational Recreation and Aquatic Center
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass one of the following motions: 1) Pass a Motion directing staff to execute an agreement for a Geothermal Feasibility Study; or, 2) Pass a Motion directing staff to procure and install a gas-powered boiler for the hydronic system at the Multigenerational Recreation and Aquatic Center; or 3) Pass Motion directing staff to execute an agreement for a Geothermal Feasibility Study and procure and install a gas powered boiler for the hydronic system at the Multigenerational Recreation and Aquatic Center.

Responsible Staff Member: Ricky Riddle, Construction Manager, Capital Improvements Program Manager, Facilities Program Manager, and Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
01_Staff Report-Geothermal Feasibility and Recreation Aquatics Snowmelt 02_GreyEdgeGroupProposal (1).pdf
443
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Update on Geothermal Feasibility Study and Recreation & Aquatics Center Hydronic Snowmelt System
Location: Recreation & Aquatics Center
Responsible Staff Member: Ricky Riddle, Construction Manager, Capital Improvements Program Manager, Facilities Program Manager; Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works
Background:

The City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan identifies Strategic Priority 2.3, "Complete a geothermal feasibility study," under Efficient Government.

At the June 2, 2026 meeting, as part of the discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan activities for the 2026-27 fiscal year, Council was informed about the deferral of the hydronic snow melt system at the new Recreation & Aquatics Center. During the discussion, staff were asked to evaluate the use of geothermal energy as opposed to traditional gas-powered boiler.

In response to the June 2nd meeting staff inquired with one of our trade partners who would be a potential contractor for the installation of an equivalently producing geothermally sourced heating mechanical unit. Ultimately, our trade partner declined to provide a budgetary estimate based on the physical size of the ground source heat pump unit that would be required, the cost of the equipment itself (initial estimate of 5x equipment cost), the requirements of well-drilling activities, the potential impact to in place improvements pertaining to the loop installations, and the unknown thermal production. The trade partner also strongly advised that this specific assembly is not a practical application of geothermally sourced heat at this time.

On September 26, 2023, the City Council approved the final funding plan and associated budget adjustments for construction of the new Recreation and Aquatic Center. The facility opened to the public in April 2026. The original Recreation & Aquatics Center design did not include an exterior hydronic snowmelt system.

During construction, staff evaluated winter operations with City departments and facility users and identified a need for snowmelt capability at selected high-use exterior areas.

The system is intended to provide safe, reliable year-round access to the Multigenerational Recreation & Aquatics Center during periods of significant snowfall.

Keeping the primary entry route clear of accumulated snow and ice will reduce the potential for slip-and-fall incidents and help maintain an accessible route for patrons with mobility limitations and those using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers. These 444
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 5
improvements support public safety, accessibility, and dependable year-round access to the facility.

Because hydronic tubing must be embedded in concrete, postponing this work until after construction would have required demolition and replacement of newly completed concrete. Staff therefore incorporated a limited hydronic-ready scope through change order while the concrete work was underway. The work was completed within the Council-approved Recreation & Aquatics Center project budget using available construction contingency.

The installed hydronic-ready scope includes an approximately six-foot-wide path between the primary parking area and main entrance, the service and delivery yard, and a small concrete apron adjacent to the solid waste enclosure. The tubing and associated embedded infrastructure are installed; however, the system is not operational because the heat source, pumps, controls, heat exchanger, and final utility connections have not been completed. Design development to date has generally been based on an approximately 500,000 Btu/h natural-gas-fired boiler. Southwest Gas has confirmed the existing facility gas service can support the additional load.

Issue and Discussion:

The Public Works Department issued an RFP in June 2026 to assess the feasibility of Geothermal energy. This first assessment is not project or location specific and is intended to answer if Geothermal energy is feasible in the City. 397 vendors were notified via PlanetBids. The City received two responsive bids, of which the best value proposal was identified at a cost of $47,936. This proposal would perform the following tasks:
 Complete a Phase 1 Geothermal Feasibility Study to evaluate the viability of geothermal and/or an Ambient Temperature Loop system for City facilities.  Review hydrogeologic conditions, available well information, seismic data, and subsurface geology.
 Conduct an on-site assessment with City staff and other project stakeholders.  Evaluate potential vertical and horizontal drilling conditions and identify potential geothermal installation locations.
 Estimate potential system loads and evaluate opportunities to connect multiple City facilities.
 Evaluate potential connection corridors and opportunities for future system expansion.
 Evaluate available thermal resources, including groundwater, wastewater, and solar thermal opportunities.
 Evaluate potential energy and greenhouse gas reductions associated with the proposed system.
 Coordinate with the local utility regarding potential incentives.  Develop a preliminary cost range for the recommended system. 445
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 5
 Prepare a final feasibility report identifying findings, recommendations, and a detailed path forward.
 Prepare a permitting matrix and project risk register identifying anticipated approvals, key constraints, risks, and potential mitigation measures.  Identify recommended next steps, including whether additional field investigation, test boring, agency coordination, permitting, or further design should be pursued.  Present the study findings to the City and project stakeholders.

If geothermal is found feasible, a subsequent site-specific analysis and design would be needed for use with the hydronic system. This could include additional subsurface investigation or testing as applicable, detailed engineering, permitting, procurement, construction, startup, and commissioning.

It is likely that a geothermal solution could not be implemented until the summer of 2028 or even summer 2029. A total installed construction cost has not yet been developed. Preliminary planning discussions have suggested that a geothermal or ground-source snowmelt system could require initial capital investment on the order of four to five times the gas-fired installation; however, that comparison is conceptual and remains to be validated through the feasibility study.

The hydronic snowmelt infrastructure is currently incomplete and cannot provide the winter access, accessibility, and public-safety benefits described above until a heat source, pumps, controls, heat exchanger, final utility connections, startup, and commissioning are completed. The implementation issue is therefore how to complete the remaining scope: through the currently developed gas-fired boiler concept or through a geothermal/ground-source approach following completion of the City's feasibility work.

For the gas-fired boiler option, the remaining sequence consists of final mechanical design and equipment selection, permitting, procurement, equipment delivery, installation, startup, and commissioning. The final construction value is estimated to be $215,000. Given the expedited timeline required to make a 2026 installation possible, staff has released a 10-calendar-day solicitation period for contractor proposals to complete the boiler installation.

The following reflects a potential timeline for execution of this work. None of the dates below have been verified, and should serve only as targeted execution dates instead of an actual construction schedule:

Best Case – (Estimated $215,000)
 October 6th- Council Directive to Proceed with Gas-Fired Boiler  October 13th – Contract Execution, Equipment/Material Order Placed (Time allotment for bond procurement & contract routing)
 December 8th – Equipment Delivered to Site (Based on 4-8 week lead time)  December 22nd – Equipment Operational
446
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 5
For comparison, the gas-fired option has a defined remaining construction sequence, but its total cost and completion date remain dependent on final design, procurement, equipment lead time, and competitive pricing. The geothermal option has a 6-14 week initial study phase, with study costs of $47,936 for the broader pre-feasibility effort; site specific study, total design, permitting, construction schedule, and installed cost would still need to be established afterward. A general sequence of activities required for geothermal installation would be as follows:
 October 2026 – Spring 2027 - Phase 1: Geothermal Feasibility Study (Complete hydrogeologic and geological review, utility and load analysis, system feasibility assessment, preliminary cost analysis, permitting review, risk assessment, and site evaluation as weather and site conditions allow.)
 Spring 2027 - Feasibility Report / Go-No-Go Decision (Complete the feasibility report and determine whether the geothermal concept should advance to additional investigation and design.)
 Spring – Summer 2027 - Agency Coordination / Field Investigation Determination (Coordinate with applicable agencies to determine what subsurface investigation, if any, can be permitted and establish requirements for advancing the project.)  Summer – Fall 2027 - Potential Subsurface Investigation (If permitted, complete test boring, thermal conductivity testing, or other approved subsurface investigation during the grading season. If test boring is not permitted, advance the project using available geotechnical, hydrogeologic, well, geological, and other approved information.)
 Fall 2027 - Conceptual / Preliminary Design (Refine system sizing, ground heatexchange approach, equipment configuration, controls strategy, electrical requirements, connection to the existing snowmelt system, and preliminary construction cost.)
 Fall 2027 – Winter 2028 - Final Design and Permitting (Prepare final construction documents and complete required City, TRPA, utility, and other agency permitting and coordination.)
 Spring 2028 - Construction Procurement and Award (Advertise the construction project, evaluate bids or proposals, award the construction contract, and issue notice to proceed.)
 Spring – Summer 2028 - Equipment Procurement / Preconstruction (Procure long-lead mechanical, electrical, pumping, heat-exchange, and controls equipment and complete contractor mobilization and construction coordination.)  May – October 2028 - Construction (Complete permitted borefield or ground heat-exchange installation, underground piping, site work, mechanical and electrical installation, controls, and connection to the existing snowmelt system during the applicable grading season.)
 Fall 2028 - Startup and Commissioning (Complete system startup, testing, balancing, controls integration, commissioning, operator training, and performance verification.)
447
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 5 of 5
 Winter 2028–2029 - Target Operation (Target system availability for snowmelt operations, subject to feasibility findings, permitting, funding, procurement, weather, and construction conditions.)
Without a hydronic snowmelt system in place, mechanical and by hand methods will be used by City staff to clear snow from the walkway and service areas. Completion of a gas-fired snowmelt system would not prevent the City from continuing the geothermal feasibility study or considering future geothermal applications at the Recreation & Aquatics Center or other municipal facilities.

Environmental Considerations: Geothermal Feasibility: This action is statutorily exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies).

Gas-fired Hydronic Snowmelt: Installation and operation of the proposed gas-fired boiler is consistent with the project evaluated under the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The IS/MND evaluated the Recreation and Aquatics Center at a project level and expressly accounted for natural gas service, natural-gas-fired heating, and associated operational energy use, air-quality emissions, and greenhouse-gas emissions. The proposed boiler does not represent a new category of environmental impact beyond those previously evaluated in the IS/MND. The proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects; therefore, no subsequent environmental document is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Financial Implications: Current Funding of $483,617 is available within the Recreation & Aquatics Center FF&E project account 301-70023-46140. If Council directs staff to proceed with the natural-gas boiler option, available FF&E funding can be used for the remaining design, procurement, equipment, utility connections, installation, and commissioning.

For the geothermal feasibility study; the study will cost $47,936 based on the attached proposal. Funding for the study has been included in the approved adopted FY 2026- 2027 under the Engineering account 100-03210-42020.

Policy Implications: The City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan identifies Strategic Priority

2.3, "Complete a geothermal feasibility study," under Efficient Government. The City has initiated that evaluation.

Procurement and award of the snowmelt improvements must comply with the City's Procurement Policy, applicable provisions of the California Public Contract Code, South Lake Tahoe City Code provisions governing public projects, and the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. The applicable competitive process will be based on the final engineer's estimate and construction value, and available budget must be verified before contract award.
448
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study Proposal

7.13.2026 | The GreyEdge Group
Prepared by:

Matt Garlick
[email protected]
801-907-5654
City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works
449
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 2

7.13.2026
July 13th, 2026
RE: City of South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study Members of the Selection Committee,
The GreyEdge Group (TGEG) is pleased to submit our response to the South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study Request for Proposal. Our team’s experience is unparalleled in initiatives just like this, and we are excited to work with you to bring this project to life. Our promise is to be responsive, open to discussion and enthusiastic about the work! In response to the unique needs and goals of the South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study, The GreyEdge Group has brought together industry leading subject matter experts to create an unmatched team, focused on creating project success. We are developers, engineers, energy modelers, drilling contractors, construction managers, hydrogeologists, design engineers, deep geo experts, researchers, and innovators. We have the skill and experience to take projects from the study phase through design, construction and optimized operation.

The GreyEdge Group is uniquely focused on helping Mountain and Ski communities navigate the clean energy transitions. Our team is focused specifically on this and have been recognized as a TEN thought leader. We regularly present at MT2030 conferences and webinars as well as other regional groups such as the Rocky Mountain Utility Exchange, Colorado Communities for Climate Action and the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. More than any other applicant you recieve, we understand what drives South Lake Tahoe and how this technology can be tailored to best help solve your challenges.

Our team offers:

İ A group that has pioneered one-pipe ambient temperature loops, working to elevate the entire industry to the lessons we have already put into practice.

İ A deep understanding of the plug-and-play nature of Thermal Energy Networks components and how they can mitigate first cost while maximizing efficiency.

İ A strong understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities involved in developing energy systems for ski towns and resort communities.

We are eager to bring our innovative and cost-effective approach to support the South Lake Tahoe and are confident in our ability to deliver meaningful results through this collaboration. Please reach out to me directly at 801-907-5654 or [email protected] should you have any questions about our submission.

Best,
Matt Garlick
CEO
1000+

GEOTHERMAL

PROJECTS
20+

MOUNTAIN

COMMUNITY

TEN STUDIES

COMPLETED
300+

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
450
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 3

7.13.2026
Founded in 2016, the GreyEdge Group specializes in architecture, engineering, and design of complex Thermal Energy Networks (TENs) using an Ambient Temperature Loop (ATL). Our systems are operating successfully around the world delivering clean and comfortable heating and cooling on projects ranging from single-family homes to large district geothermal systems including a 123-story skyscraper.

The Grey Edge Group has evolved the breadth and scale of its water and geothermal energy services in innovative ways that deliver even more value to our customers. Using a unique ATL concept, we offer customized designs integrating all available thermal management devices including solar thermal heat, wastewater heat, industrial waste heat, thermal heat storage, and large-scale recycling of thermal energy.

Our solutions scale up to large geographic areas by connecting integrated multi-source thermal districts. This powerful combination delivers system performance at much higher efficiency, with lower project cost, and lower operating cost than traditional geothermal systems.

The GreyEdge Group, with twelve specialty members, bring together unparalleled expertise with over 250 years of experience in all facets of the energy industry. Members have numerous patents and patents pending and are continually exploring new innovative concepts. Our multi-disciplinary team is adept at applying the best systems engineering and thermal energy engineering practices with an over-arching focus on emissions reduction. Our team uses a disciplined approach to services which include:
¶ Overall Program Planning
¶ Networked Geothermal Design
¶ Consulting Focused on:
° System Performance Optimization
° System Control Optimization
° Best Value Design Trade-Offs
° System Emissions Reduction
° Identifying and Optimizing sink/source/storage opportunities ° Best Technology Assessment
¶ Technology Upgrade Planning
¶ Risk Reduction Management
¶ System Technical Training
¶ Energy Modeling
¶ System Commissioning
¶ Hydrogeologic Assessments
The GreyEdge group has identified a team to perform services listed in this proposal that also includes a partner firm – FVB Energy based out of Washington DC to provide the regulatory and permitting review component of this feasibility assessment.

Statement of Qualifications
Statement of Qualifications
451
V
Project Approach
Approach, Methodology, & Budget
452
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 5

7.13.2026
Phase 1- Initial Site(s) Evaluation
The GreyEdge Group will review and evaluate the possibilities of using a geothermal ambient temperature loop system for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

The goal of the first round of study is to validate the opportunity for an ATL and/ or stand alone geothermal systems.

This study will include:

İ An extended Hydrogeological Review of known water well and other drilling operations
İ Review of available seismic data for subsurface geology İ Onsite review (Site Visit) with the facilities group and other involved parties
İ We anticipate this will involve one full day in South Lake Tahoe by our San Jose based licensed engineer.

İ Facilitation of custom utility incentive discussion with local utility company
İ Evaluate the vertical and horizontal drill-ability of each site through research
İ Estimate the magnitude of the connected system load for a project baseline
İ Evaluate potential diversity of connected buildings per location İ Evaluate potential connection corridors, also considering future expansion İ High level review of potential thermal management device opportunities including wastewater, ground water and solar thermal
İ Review of potential geothermal installation sites
İ Review of potential energy and GHG savings
İ Estimated range of costs for the recommended system
A report will be developed that outlines the findings and will provide a detailed path for moving forward. The GreyEdge Group will present this report to the City of South Lake Tahoe and other stakeholders to assist in clarifying questions about study findings.

Project Approach
Project Approach
453
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 6

7.13.2026
Project Approach
Deliverables will include a permitting matrix and risk register summarizing likely approvals, principal constraints, material red flags, likelihood, consequence, and practical mitigation considerations. The report will also identify recommended next steps and optional follow-on phases, including agency coordination, field verification, test-well or test-bore planning, and project-specific permitting strategy or application support.

City of South Lake Tahoe ResponsibilitiesAs part of the Phase 1 study we will ask for participation from South Lake Tahoe staff. Assistance will include, but is not limited to:

İ Gathering utility data
İ Gathering pertinent building and civil drawings
İ Providing contacts with utility and private building owner partners İ One person available to walk with us on Site Walk
Phase 1 Timeline
Should Phase 1 result in a favorable outcome and the Town decide to move forward, our process for continued study, retrocommissioning and design is included below to clarify path forward.

Phase 2 – Focused Site Evaluation- INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY The goal of phase 2 is a more detailed investigation. This study will include:

İ Drill one closed loop test borehole*
İ The GreyEdge Group will provide the drilling contractor and cuttings removal services
İ Test closed loop borehole using the Advanced Thermal Conductivity (A-TC) methodology
İ Detailed sink/source/storage asset evaluation for the site İ Work with the City of South Lake Tahoe staff to develop a high-level load profile for potential connected buildings and the snowmelt system İ Initial costing of the central loop outside the building including the ground heat exchanger and central pumps
Task Duration
Sign Contract Begin Work
Project and Hydrogeology Review 2 Weeks
Site Visit 1 Day- likely to occur 3-4 weeks after NTP
Analysis and Report Development 3 Weeks after Site Visit 454
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 7

7.13.2026
Project Approach
İ Evaluation of potential carbon, natural gas, and demand reduction due to system operation
İ Outline next steps
İ Present a final report to discuss findings with the City of South Lake Tahoe If Phases 1 and 2 result in a favorable outcome, The GreyEdge Group can assist the City of South Lake Tahoe in progressing the project through phase 3 and 4 activities outlined below.

Phase 3 Retrocommissioning- INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY TGEG can provide retro-commissioning of building or snowmelt systems to improve performance and determine actual load. This effort can substantially reduce load on the ATL and result in capital and operational savings.

Phase 4 – ATL Design, Construction, and Support - INCLUDED FOR

REFERENCE ONLY
İ Define project size and develop Construction Documents for a central ATL İ Design retrofit for connected buildings (TGEG is a Certified Geo Design firm) İ Construction Quality Control
İ Provide a Certified Geo Inspector (CGI) to Commission the System İ Operations assistance for two years
İ On Call consulting after two years
Pricing for Phases 2, 3 and 4 can be developed after phase 1 is complete.

The budget for the activates are presented below. The budgets presented include all anticipated hourly rate escalations that will occur over the course of this study. The GreyEdge Group is proposing to contract on lump sum basis and will invoice monthly based on scope completion.

Geothermal Evaluation Services Compensation
Project Budget
Work Element Feasibility Study to Evaluate a Geo-Exchange ATL Cost 1 Phase 1- Initial Site Evaluation $47,936
2 Phase 2- Focused Site Evaluation TBD
3 Phase 3- Retrocommissioning TBD
4 Phase 4- ATL Design, Construction, and Support TBD
455
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 8

7.13.2026
Project Approach
Should additional services be required, they will be billed according to the following Hourly Rate Schedule:

The GreyEdge Group will accept normal, course of construction, changes, revisions, and clarifications. However, we consider changes, revisions, and clarifications as a scope change if they:

İ Modify the scope of work as defined in the proposal.

İ Result in after-hours, weekend work.

İ Cause project delays (that push the date for substantial completion 60 days past the schedule received at the time this bid was offered) or acceleration of the work that adds complexity to logistics.

Stipulations:

İ The pricing in this proposal expires 60 days from the date the proposal was offered.

İ Where a provision of the Prime Agreement is inconsistent with the scope denoted in this proposal, this document shall govern as the prevailing agreement with respect to scope of work.

Assumptions, Limitations, Exclusions
and Stipulations
TGEG Hourly Rates:

Principal $265/hr
Project Manager $265/hr
Certified Geothermal Designer $265/hr
Hyrdrogeologist PE $265/hr
Nationally Certified Technician $200/hr
Junior Engineer $125/hr
Support Staff $85/hr
456
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 9

7.13.2026
Appendix
Representative Projects, References, & Resumes
457
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 10

7.13.2026
Lionshead Snowmelt System
160,605sf Snowmelt Hybrid Geothermal System at
8,150’
¶ TGEG is currently engaged to provide a schematic
design for the Town of Vail to hybridize their existing snowmelt plants at the Lionshead parking garage and
the Vail Resorts Plant operated from the Arabelle Hotel boiler room.
¶ The proposed project will use unique local resources
such as the local wastewater plant effluent and
heat rejection from the Dobson Ice Arena as well as
geoexchange fields to provide a baseload of heat pump
heating to over 160,000sf of snowmelt.
¶ Removing heat from the wastewater effluent will
assist the wastewater plant in meeting environmental
regulations around discharge temps and eliminate the
need for a dedicated cooling system.
¶ TGEG was engaged to perform Retrocommissioning on
the existing Town of Vail snowmelt boiler plants. After recommendations were implemented, the Town noted
a 20% reduction in natural gas use, saving utility costs and reducing the load needed to be satisfied with the
heat pump system.
¶ The proposed system is being designed in coordination with construction projects at the Dobson Ice Arena and
Town of Vail Library and will be modular in nature, able to expand to any future districts.
¶ As a hybrid system, the existing boilers are not
proposed to be removed but utilized as peak units
for high demand events. Using the heat pumps for
the idling hours of the system has the potential to
decarbonize 90% of the operational hours and reduce
the first cost of the system substantially.

Description
Vail, CO
Representative Project
Cameron Millard, Clean Energy Specialist
Town Of Vail
75 South Frontage Road| Vail, CO 81657
970.477.3467
[email protected]
Client Reference
¶ Status: 30% Schematic Design
¶ Capacity: 1,200 Tons
¶ Buildings:
¶ Lionshead Snowmelt Plant (18ksf),
Arrabelle Hotel DHW and Cooling, Arrabelle
Snowmelt Plant (137ksf), Vail Public
Library
¶ Thermal Resources & Equipment:
¶ 2 distributed geo fields
¶ Wastewater Effluent Heat Exchange
¶ Existing boilers for peaking
¶ Existing cooling towers as heat resource
¶ Existing cooling towers as heat resource
¶ Ice Arena heat rejection
¶ Performance & Impact:
¶ Anticipated 95% reduction in carbon
emissions
¶ Team: TGEG, McKinstry, Martin & Martin,
Town of Vail, Vail Resort, Eagle River Water
and Sanitation District
458
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 11

7.13.2026
Park City Thermal Energy Network
Park City is evaluating shared energy infrastructure
to support redevelopment, strengthen sustainability
goals, and create a flexible framework for long-term
community growth.
¶ The Park City project evaluates
district-scale Thermal Energy
Networks across key redevelopment
areas including Bonanza Park in
Park City, Utah. The study includes
public facilities, private development
opportunities, and future mixed-use
construction. GreyEdge assessed
how shared infrastructure could
support long-term redevelopment
and sustainability goals. Planning
identified opportunities for district
energy systems that can grow
alongside future development. The
project provides a framework for
community-scale electrification and
resilient energy infrastructure.
¶ Thermal assets considered include
wastewater energy recovery,
mine-water resources, solar
thermal systems, CLAD technology,
vertical boreholes, groundwater
infrastructure, snowmelt solar
collection, and surface-water
opportunities.

Description
Park City, UT
Luke Cartin, Director of Lands and
Sustainability
| Park City Municipal Corporation
[email protected]
Client Reference
¶ Status: In Progress
¶ Team: TGEG & Carin Global
Representative Project
¶ The study is focused on identifying
the most viable pathways
for an Ambient Temperature
Loop. The diverse portfolio of
thermal resources provides
significant flexibility for future
implementation. Park City
demonstrates how district-energy
planning can be integrated into
community redevelopment
strategies.
459
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 12

7.13.2026
Telluride Thermal Energy Network
Telluride is combining housing, infrastructure,
and clean energy planning to support long-term
community goals and environmental leadership.
¶ The Telluride project supports affordable
housing, transit, commercial development,
and municipal infrastructure in Telluride,
Colorado. The development program
includes approximately 265 housing units,
20,000 square feet of commercial space,
parking facilities, childcare, and publicservice infrastructure. Planned facilities include mixed-use developments at Lot L
and Carhenge along with public works and
transit assets. By integrating these uses
into a shared Thermal Energy Network, the
Town can support growth without relying
on conventional heating approaches. The
project aligns housing, transportation, and
sustainability objectives within a single
infrastructure strategy.
¶ Thermal assets evaluated include
wastewater energy recovery, energy
piles, vertical boreholes, Genesys CLAD
technology, solar thermal systems,
snowmelt collection, and mine-water
resources.

Description
Telluride, CO
Darin Graber, Sustainability and Grant
Administrator, Town of Telluride
| (970) 200-8455
[email protected]
Client Reference
¶ Status: In Progress
¶ Size of Project: 265 housing units + 20,000
sf commercial
¶ Buildings: 8 buildings
¶ Team: TGEG
Representative Project
¶ Project studies identified an
estimated 1,000-ton heating
load excluding snowmelt energy.

Modeling indicated a potential
greenhouse gas reduction of
approximately 53 percent compared
with a natural gas boiler baseline.

The Ambient Temperature Loop
concept provides flexibility for
future community expansion
and redevelopment. The project
illustrates how shared infrastructure
can support climate goals while
addressing community housing
needs.
460
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 13

7.13.2026
Colorado Mesa University
An Ambient Temperature Loop was installed to
connect the campus, driving down costs for students
and the university alike.
¶ TGEG members have worked with CMU to connect
16 buildings, over 1.2 Million square feet, on a
common Ambient Temperature Loop over the last 18
years. We have provided feasibility studies, design
services, commissioning and ongoing support to this
nation leading campus. Student tuition at this school
was dropped 2% because of utility cost savings
resulting from the ATL. We are working with CMU on
further expansions as their owners representative.
¶ This District Energy system covers approximately
a ten city block university campus. It has a Central
Loop distributed energy system that involves use of
multiple renewable technologies, including waste
energy recovery and GeoExchange, along with
conventional technologies to limit demand, minimize
combustion, and reduce carbon footprint.
¶ This system is currently designed to incorporate
over 1.2 MM square feet of buildings including
classrooms, dormitories, the University Field House,
Student Union, and Library. Through the Central
Loop System these buildings share energy between
one another. Ground Loop heat pumps and vertical
boreholes are the core technologies for this system.
¶ The system has reduced carbon emissions by over
8,800 tons, reduced demand, and saved over $2
Million in energy costs. The system is modular and
has been an on-going (phased) project since 2007.

The campus uses a Global Energy Management
System which integrates with the individual building
systems (multiple vendor platforms) and controls
energy distribution across the campus. The GEMS
also serves as a demand side management tool.

Description
Grand Junction, CO
Representative Project
Kent Marsh, Director of Facilities
Services
Colorado Mesa University
1100 North Ave | Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-248-1303
[email protected]
Client Reference
¶ Project Status: Operating since 2007
¶ Project Capacity: 4,700 Tons
¶ Qty Buildings: 19 buildings, 1.4 million square
feet and currently expanding
¶ Thermal Resources:
¶ 7 distributed geo fields
¶ Irrigation water heat exchanger
¶ Existing boilers for backup
¶ Existing cooling towers for peaking
¶ Significant Diversity
¶ Performance and Impacts:
¶ Average electric load reduced from 784kW
to 185kW vs traditional systems
¶ Cooling tower water use reduced from

14.5MM gal to 4.5 MM gal vs traditional
systems
¶ >$2M annual utility savings
¶ 2% Reduction in tuition costs due to utility
savings
¶ Team: TGEG, Sound Geothermal, Bighorn
Engineering
461
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 14

7.13.2026
Resume
Background
Matt Garlick is a man who loves what he does! Although he took a non-traditional route to get where he is, he has found a place to put his talents to good use and improve the world through efficient design. Matt holds a Master of Architecture degree from the University of Utah and is a Building Energy Modeling Professional, a Certified Energy Manager and a Certified Commissioning Professional.

Matt is a leading advocate for Thermal Energy Networks and regularly speaks to professional organizations such as CAST, RMUE and MT2030. In an industry filled with engineers,
Matt’s combination of a broad understanding and technical expertise allows him to reduce complicated ideas into simpler forms. This helps bridge the worlds of owners, architects, engineers and contractors and encourages efficient systems that deliver in the real world. Matt is a dedicated energy efficiency professional with a proven skill for technical leadership. As CEO of the GreyEdge Group, Matt is committed to delivering cost effective thermal decarbonization and sustainable comfort solutions.

Areas of Expertise
Matt’s career has led to working on building typologies that have the most to gain from energy efficiency. He has developed energy models and provided design teams with
actionable recommendations on over 12,000,000sf of
projects from China to Canada and California to New York.

Working as the lead commissioning agent, he has also led teams on over 1,000,000sf of projects and an additional 400,000sf of existing building retro-commissioning.

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ ATL Assessment and DesignCarbondale CO
¶ ATL Assessment and Design- Vail CO
¶ ATL Assessment- Lexington MA
¶ Medina, Saudi Arabia ATL Load
Modeling
¶ ATL Assessment- Breckenridge, CO
¶ ATL Assessment- Winter Park, CO
¶ ATL Assessment- Pitkin County Airport,
CO
¶ ATL Assessment- Aspen School District,
CO
¶ ATL Assessment- Mountain Village, CO
¶ ATL Assessment, Park City, UT
¶ ATL Assessment, Deer Valley Resort, UT
¶ WSU Noorda Engineering Building Geo
and LEED Modeling- Ogden, Utah
¶ Lakeview Landing Modeling- Brewery,
Restaurant, Residence District Heat
Pump Modeling
¶ 2023 BCxA 20 under 40 Awardee
Matt Garlick, CEM, CCP, BEMP

CEO - TGEG
[email protected]
462
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 15

7.13.2026
Resume
Background
Roshan Revankar is on a mission to make ground source
energy affordable. He has expertise in geothermal design and energy modeling and is also involved in writing standards and codes for various organizations. Roshan holds a master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Oklahoma State
University and is a certified building simulation analyst by Association of Energy Engineers and certified geothermal designer and inspector by IGSHPA. He is the current Chair of ASHRAE’s technical committee for geothermal and he
serves on various technical committees at IAPMO to develop standards and codes for ground source technology. Roshan is a Professional Engineer.

Areas of Expertise
Roshan enjoys the design process for ground source and has worked with several facets in this industry including heat pump manufacturers, drillers and installers. He has trained over 300 professionals in the last 12 years. Roshan is a cofounder and partner at Genesys NZE working to develop low cost ground heat exchangers. He is also a partner at Melink Zero where the team has advanced thermal energy
storage products using phase change materials. Roshan has previously served as the Executive Director at IGSHPA where he developed training and membership programs and also
established the organization internationally. He has served the role of an industry advocate and has been invited as a speaker nationally and internationally.

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ Designed first Net Zero office facility
with Thermal Energy Storage using
PCM
¶ Designed and commissioned
multiple geothermal schools in Ohio
¶ Patented system design using
geothermal with thermal energy
storage
¶ Co-founded ground water based
heat exchanger to reduce cost of
geothermal systems
¶ Selected by DOE’s innovators
program in building energy
innovations (IMPEL)
Roshan Revankar, PE, CGD, CGI, BESA
Professional Engineer- TGEG
[email protected]
463
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 16

7.13.2026
Resume
Background
With over 45 years of consulting engineering practice,
Rich has substantial experience in the assessment, design, and management of civil and environmental engineering
projects. Through this experience, he has gained an in-depth understanding of the critical role that surface and subsurface water, soil, and rock play on project success. He has provided consulting engineering services to small and large mining, oil and gas, chemical, and other industrial concerns as well as local, State, and Federal governments throughout the United States and internationally. His designs have been implemented to restore natural conditions, mitigate past environmental impacts, prevent future impacts, allow aquifer storage and recovery of groundwater, and permit groundsource heat exchange.

Areas of Expertise
Rich has extensive experience conducting hydrogeologic
assessments to evaluate potential groundwater supplies
and identify drilling challenges. His expertise includes assessing and mitigating environmental impacts associated with land development, as well as designing disturbed‑land reclamation, runoff‑ and sediment‑control, and stream
channel stabilization plans. He also provides rapid
engineering response to oil spills and other environmental emergencies and prepares comprehensive plans for the
remediation of soil and groundwater contamination.

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ Conducted office and field evaluations
of hydrogeologic conditions at multiple
locations across the United States to aid
in the design of open- and closed-loop
ground-source heat exchange systems
¶ Served as senior water resources
engineer on a project to evaluate
and implement Aquifer Storage and
Recovery for the community of Provo,
Utah
¶ Prepared specifications and supervised
the installation of multiple exploratory
boreholes in Salt Lake County, Utah to
develop a data-base for the design of
large-quantity production wells
¶ Supervised environmental
characterization efforts at rocketmotor production facilities, petroleum refineries, petroleum pipelines,
printed-circuit facilities, abandoned
smelter complexes, and other industrial
facilities in the western and midwestern
United States to determine the extent
and magnitude of soil and groundwater
contamination
¶ Conducted an investigation at the
site of an active uranium mill in
southeastern Utah to determine
appropriate remedial actions to prevent
future groundwater contamination after
a plume had developed due to seepage
from tailings ponds
Richard White, P.E. PLLC
Hydrogeologist- TGEG
[email protected]
464
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 17

7.13.2026
Resume
Background
Cary worked as a Drilling Engineer and related fields in the Oil and Gas Industry from 1972 to 1997. During that time his specialty was advanced and high temperature
drilling fluids and drilling optimization. Cary has worked in the GSHP industry since 1997 and has been involved
in the design and implementation of over 80,000 tons
(~280 MW) of installed capacity in North America. Cary
is a founding member and acting CFO of the GreyEdge
Group and an AEE Fellow.

Areas of Expertise
Applying a “Systems” approach to networked
geothermal design is a key to making systems function
economically, correctly and with a minimum carbon
footprint. This requires complete integration of the
Ground Heat Exchanger (GHE), mechanical piping, and
controls. As an early adopter of this approach, we have been able to integrate systems from several HUD homes
to university campuses. Mixed use applications in city
and Campus environments provide ideal opportunity to
bring together wasted energy collection and re-use that energy, significantly increasing System Coefficient of
Performance (SCOP). This approach not only increases
efficiency but also dramatically reduces greenhouse gas emission and water consumption.

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ Cashman Equipment Henderson Facility,
Cashman Equipment, Las Vegas, Nevada.
~ 500,000 ^ ft. (LEED & Hybrid) 900 tons.

Multi Building Community Loop
¶ 250,000^ft, six -building Hospital Campus,
Extended Care Facility, Doctors Clinics,
Same Day Surgery, Emergency, Women’s
OB Center – Add community loop design
to interconnect existing buildings with the
main hospital and future buildings.
¶ 2007 - Present Mesa State College, Grand
Junction Colorado, Design New Classroom
building, Design hybrid and borefield
design. Development of Community
Loop system for 4,700 connected tons, 16
buildings, 1.2MM^ft.
¶ Co-author of, and teaches, the Certified
Geothermal Inspector and Certified
Geothermal Designer courses.
¶ International Association of Plumbing
and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) 2026,
2023, and 2020 Uniform Mechanical Code
(UMC) Technical committees and the
2027, 2024, 2021, and2018 Uniform Solar,
Hydronic, Geothermal Code (USHGC)
national code committees. He is past
Chair of the 2024 USHGC code committee
And is currently Chair of TSC Z1381, the
Ambient Temperature Loop Standards
Committee.
¶ Association of Energy Engineers Fellow
Cary Smith, CGD, CEM CEA CGI AEE Fellow
ATL Specialist- TGEG
[email protected]
465
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 18

7.13.2026
Resume
Background
Steve grew up in a family HVAC business, his father
was an early-adopter of ground-source heat pump
(GSHP) systems in the 1970’s. Steve has always had
a passion for sustainability and renewable energy,
building concentrating solar collectors while in high
school and studying various high-performance building
design approaches. He served for nearly 4 decades as a
principal in an architecture & engineering firm, piloting the design of many energy efficient and innovative
projects that included ground-source heat pumps,
energy recovery, thermal energy storage, solar PV, etc.

Steve is the Vice-Chair (soon to be Chair) of ASHRAE TC

6.8 Ground-Source Heat Pumps and Energy Recovery,
and has designed many, many ground-source systems
in his career. He developed and patented a web based
GSHP design software, which would automatically
export a self-learning control algorithm for large GSHP systems. This control approach has been installed
on several military bases, universities and other
applications.

Areas of Expertise
Steve has several patented innovations in the HVAC
marketplace and has enjoyed the design process as well
as directing and managing many design professionals for several AE firms. In addition to his work at Melink Solar & Geo, and his efforts with The GreyEdge Group, he also has his own consulting practice; Zeven Element Design
Institute (ZEDI PLC).

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ ASHRAE 2014 1st Place Global Award for
the Low Energy Science Building designed
for the University of Findlay. It includes a
GSHP, DOAS and radiant heating/cooling.
¶ Several articles published in Engineered
Systems Magazine: ASHRAE 2014 1st
Place Global Award for the Low Energy
Science Building designed for the
University of Findlay. It includes a GSHP,
DOAS and radiant heating/cooling.
¶ Several articles published in Engineered
Systems Magazine:
- “V” is for Ventilation
- “Large Scale Geothermal Heat
Pump Systems”
- “Pumping and Flow Controls in
Geothermal Heat Pump Systems”
¶ Advisor to ASHRAE and Dr. Steve
Kavanaugh on the design handbook;
“Ground-Source Heat Pumps: Design of
Geothermal Systems for Commercial and
Institutional Buildings” published in 2013
¶ Speaker at dozens of ASHRAE, IGSHPA
and various green building conferences
since the 1990’s.
¶ Steve has served on numerous civic,
communities, and advisory boards as
member and chair including City Council,
Board of Education, Hospital Board,
Municipal Utility Board and others.

Steve Hamstra, P.E., ASHRAE HBDP & Life Member, AEE Fellow, Certified GeoExchange Designer/CGD, LEED AP LEED AP
Lead Engineer - TGEG
[email protected]
466
South Lake Tahoe Geothermal Feasibility Study The GreyEdge Group 19

7.13.2026
Resume
Professional Profile
Scott is the Engineering Manager of the FVB Washington
D.C. office. He is a senior engineer with more than 15 years of experience in the renewable energy sector and the
commercial construction market. Scott is a leader in the high-performance building sector and an expert on building energy efficiency. He specializes in building decarbonization and geothermal heating and cooling, including open loop, standing column, closed loop vertical, and closed loop surface water systems. Scott’s experience includes but is not limited to energy modeling and feasibility studies as well as ASHRAE level 1 and 2 energy audits. He has extensive project manager experience for commissioning projects and is an asset in any decarbonization project.

Previous Experience
Scott’s professional experience includes over 20 years at industry leading Engineering firms, with executive roles including Senior Vice President, Managing Director, and Business Unit Manager.

İ Directed the Washington DC office and established
the Existing Building Decarbonization Service area for
Baumann Consulting.

İ Led the start-up and development of the geothermal
heating and cooling consulting firm GeoEx Analytics LLC İ Directed engineering practice focused on the design
and implementation of energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects throughout the United States and
overseas for Bowman Geothermal/Maevelle Energy.

İ Directed $23 million business division serving the
waterworks and renewable energy markets for REHAU, an
international manufacturer of polymer-based products.

Notable Projects
& Achievements
¶ HIGHLIGHTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
¶ Minneapolis Thermal Potential Study
Minneapolis, MN Project Manager –
Thermal Resource Assessment, 2026 –
ongoing
¶ Lead development of means and
methods for the assessment of areas
for the development of thermal energy
networks in Minneapolis.
¶ Identify and evaluate available
technical solutions including ground
heat exchanger, waste energy transfer,
distribution piping configurations, and
building level energy transfer systems
for application in TENs in Minneapolis.
¶ Guide the development of structured
process to evaluate areas of the city to
prioritize for TENs development.
¶ PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS
¶ Register Professional Engineer: In VA,
MD, D.C., IL
¶ CSA GSHP Commercial System
Designer (GCSD)
¶ EDUCATION
¶ Master of Science, Mechanical
Engineering Michigan State
University, 1991
¶ Bachelor of Science, Mechanical
Engineering North Carolina State
University, 1989
Scott Emery, M.Sc., P.E.

Engineering Manager - FVB
[email protected]
467
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:13
Agenda Item: Waive First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40 (Signs and Advertising Structures), Article III (General Provisions), Section

6.40.080 (Signs and Activities Not Requiring Permits) to expand the timeframe in which a portable sign may be displayed.

Executive Summary: On November 4, 2025, Councilmember Robbins made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roberts, to direct staff to bring back to City Council proposed amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 (Sign Ordinance) to ensure equitable access to signage for businesses and promote economic activity. Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to waive First Reading, and introduce by Title only an Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40 (Signs and Advertising Structures), Article III (General Provisions), Section 6.40.080 (Signs and Activities Not Requiring Permits) to expand the timeframe in which a portable sign may be displayed, and refer Second Reading and adoption to the November 3, 2026 meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Zachary Thomas, Director of Development Services Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
01_-_Staff_Report_Sign_Ordinance_Amendments 1.docx
02 - Sandwich Board Dimensions.pdf
03 - Sandwich Board Examples.pdf
04_-Proposed_Code_Amendments_Tracked_Changes.docx
05 - Resolution 2026-014_Amend City Ordinance (Signs).pdf 06 -Sign Ordinance Amendment Notice.pdf
07 - Sept 17 PC Tribune Notice Proof.pdf
08 - Oct 6 CC Tribune Public Notice.pdf
09_-_City_Council_Ordinance2026-XX.docx
468
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Waiver of First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40 (Signs and Advertising Structures) Article III (General Provisions), Section 6.40.080 (Signs and Activities Not Requiring Permits) Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Background: On August 12, 2025, Mayor Pro Tem Bass requested a presentation on South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 and a discussion of potential Code amendments, for example, being more permissive with sandwich boards. Council member Jinkens seconded the request. On November 4, 2025, Development Services presented on the request by providing a history of this Code section, current standards, and enforcement issues.

Staff's presentation focused primarily on the history, use, and enforcement of temporary signage (Banners and A-frames), and Council's previous decisions implementing temporary signage as a mechanism to boost economic activity.

Following public comments and deliberation among the City Council, Councilmember Robbins made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roberts, to direct staff to bring back to the City Council proposed amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 to ensure equitable access to signage for local businesses and promote economic activity.

The Council formed an Ad Hoc committee, including Mayor Bass and Councilmember Robbins, to provide input on the proposed amendments and directed staff to seek input from interested stakeholders on signage.

Issue and Discussion: City staff met with the Tahoe Chamber CEO and representatives of the Tahoe Chamber South Tahoe Restaurant Association.

Feedback focused primarily on allowing portable signage, providing additional display flexibility, and ensuring equity for all business owners wishing to display portable signage. Stakeholders did not express interest in amending other provisions of the sign ordinance.

Staff recommends revising South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section

6.40.080 to remove the restriction limiting portable signage to holidays and weekends, expand the timeframe to accommodate businesses that operate into the evening, and allow one sign per business rather than one sign per parcel to accommodate multi469 City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 3
business properties (e.g., Heavenly Village). Staff also recommends deleting the option of using banners as portable signage.

Portable signage would be permitted Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Staff also recommends adopting a maximum square footage for sign copy of six (6) square feet per side and capping the maximum height of a portable sign at four (4) feet (see Attachment 02). Proposed ordiance language also addresses sign materials, colors, and maintenance.

Examples of preferred portable signage are shown in Attachment 03.

On September 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending the sign ordinance amendments. After receiving public comment and deliberating, the Planning Commission passed a motion, with a 3-1 vote, to adopt Resolution 2026-XX recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080.

During preparation of the City Council staff report, City staff noticed a typo in Exhibit 1 of the Planning Commission Resolution. Section 6.40.080.I.iv, which reads “Sandwich boards are limited to one per parcel.” The proposed ordinance langauge should read “Sandwich boards are limited to one per business.” This typo has been corrected in the City Council Ordinance.

Environmental Considerations: Potential amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 would be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land), and Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemptions – Common Sense Rule), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for this action to have a significant effect on the environment.

Public Notice: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65854, the City published a notice of the proposed ordinance amendment in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 21, 2026, 20 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing. In accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, on September 4, 2026, a second notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune. On September 25, 2026, the notice of the City Council October 6, 2026 meeting was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune.

Financial Implications: Feedback from business outreach indicated that more flexible portable sign standards could boost economic activity for local businesses, which could in turn increase revenue for City operations.

Policy Implications: Adopting amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan provides goals and policies to preserve the community's character, aesthetics, and environmental characteristics while maintaining a strong, healthy 470
City Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 3
economy and ensuring the health and safety of the community's residential character.

Adoption of future amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 would further these goals and objectives by providing enforceable sign regulations to protect aesthetics and public safety.

Although the adopted City General Plan does not provide policy direction specific to all aspects of signage, the following goals and policies are relevant to the issue:

Policy LU-8.11: Scenic Corridors
The City should continue to work with Caltrans and property owners to enhance facades, landscaping, and infrastructure (e.g., lighting, signage, utilities) on portions of Highway 50 and State Route 89 corridors that are designated as scenic corridors by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Policy LU‐8.9: Signage and Way‐finding Program
The City shall create a signage and wayfinding program for residents and visitors that includes informational kiosks, gateway signs, and signs identifying special districts, neighborhoods, public facilities, special events, and school activities. Revitalized signage provides a sense of Tahoe's unique style and neighborhood character and shall conform to rich nonvibrant nature inspired colors, sensible to heights of snow and snow loads, and complying with Title 24. Kiosks should specify walking and biking distances and include maps.
471
4 Feet
6 Square Feet
472

SANDWICH BOARD EXAMPLES
473
474
ATTACHMENT 04
(New language double-underlined, deleted language struck-through) § 6.40.080 Signs and activities not requiring permits.

The following types of signs and activities are exempt from permit requirements but shall be in conformance with all other standards of this chapter:

A. Maintenance or cleaning of a sign.

B. In residential areas, (1) identification signs, (2) names on mailboxes or newspaper tubes, (3) private property parking or warning the public against trespassing or danger from animals, provided they do not exceed two square feet.

C. Signs not readable from a public street, recreation area, bicycle trail, or Lake Tahoe, such as window placards denoting community special events.

D. Temporary signs located on private property not greater than 12 square feet in area, not internally illuminated, and not displayed for more than 30 days in a calendar year, except that for 60 days preceding a general or special election more than one such sign may be placed on each parcel, provided they are removed immediately after the election. Any sign larger than the limits described shall be counted as either freestanding or building sign area as appropriate.

E. Off-premises temporary signs in residential areas as permitted by California Civil Code Section 713, provided the following standards are met:
i. The signs shall not exceed three square feet. Within the three square feet, all copy shall be placed including arrows, logos, name of real estate office, address and the like. The height of sign shall not exceed three feet. For the purpose of this provision, the three-foot-high signs may be placed on top of a snow berm. ii. All signs shall not be located within the public right-of-way. iii. The signs shall not be allowed within the Tahoe Keys Boulevard median, the 15th Street median and parkway, or the Loop Road median and parkway. iv. The maximum number of signs per individual or activity shall be limited to three. v. The signs shall be either freestanding, mounted on a stake, or an "A-frame." The location and/or size of such signs shall not create a traffic hazard. vi. The signs shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity.

F. On-premises temporary signs as permitted by California Civil Code Section 713, provided the following standards are met:
i. Residential.
a. The maximum number of signs shall be limited to one per frontage. b. The standards for all signs shall be:
i. If freestanding, the sign area shall not exceed three square feet.

Should the sign be mounted on a stake, the stake shall not exceed five feet in height. The sign or its supports shall not encroach into the public right-of-way and shall not create a traffic hazard or encroach into a clear zone area. Said sign may be double-faced;
ii. If a wall sign, the area shall not exceed three square feet; iii. Shall not be illuminated;
iv. Shall not contain more than two sign riders, each a maximum size of six inches by 18 inches; and
475
v. Shall not contain more than one flier box.
c. The sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity. ii. Commercial.
a. One sign per premises unless the property has both a front and rear street frontage, in which case, two signs are permitted; b. The standards for all signs shall be:
i. If freestanding, the sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet; shall not exceed six feet in height. The sign or its supports shall be a minimum of five feet from all property lines and shall not encroach into a clear view area. Said sign may be double-faced; ii. If a wall sign, the area shall not exceed 32 square feet; iii. Shall conform to the design standards contained in SLTCC §

6.40.340 and § 6.40.350; and
iv. Shall not be illuminated.
v. The sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity.

G. Motor vehicle signs used for business, company, or government identification, or motor vehicle signs on nonstationary motor vehicles. Motor vehicle signs may not be used in a manner to augment approved signage for a business as opposed to normal operation or parking of the vehicle.

H. Window signage that does not exceed five percent of the window area.

I. Banners and sSandwich board signs in compliance with the following standards:
i. May be displayed between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., only during weekends (Friday at 8:00 a.m. through Sunday at 5:00 p.m.) and holidays (December 24th at 8:00 a.m. through New Year's Day at 5:00 p.m., Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day) or during city-sanctioned community events;
ii. Not within a street right-of-way, sidewalk, bicycle path, pedestrian walkway, designated parking space, ADA-accessible zone or path, or clear zone; and iii. Not impede pedestrian or bicycle circulation.
iv. Banners and sSandwich boards are limited to one per business parcel. =v. Sign copy shall not exceed 6 square feet in size (per side), and sandwich boards shall not exceed four feet in height.
vi. Sandwich boards shall be constructed of high-quality materials, and colors shall be limited to darker earth-tone hues, and must be maintained in good repair.

Signs constructed, placed or maintained by the federal, state or local government or a sign that is specifically authorized or required to be constructed, placed or maintained by law. Signs constructed, placed or maintained by the city are also exempt from all other requirements in this chapter.
(Ord. 1145 § 1)
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
September 17 2026 PC Amendment Notice - Page 2 of 2
484
September 17 2026 CC Public Notice - Page 2 of 2
485
October 6 2026 City Council Sign Ordinance - Page 2 of 2 486
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 4
Ordinance 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 6, 2026
An Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40 (Signs and Advertising Structures), Article III (General Provisions), Section

6.40.080 (Signs and Activities not Requiring Permits)

FINDINGS
A. On November 4, 2025, a presentation of South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40 , Section 6.40.080 was provided by City Development Services staff to the City Council.

B. On November 4, 2025, Councilmember Robbins made a motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Roberts, directing staff to bring back proposed amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 for consideration by the City Council.

C. The purpose of the amendments is to create equity and flexibility and to promote economic activity.

D. On March 13, 2026, City Development Services staff met with the City Council Ad Hoc Sign Committee to discuss and to receive input on the proposed amendments.

E. On May 6, 2026, City Development Services staff met with representatives of the Tahoe Chamber and the Tahoe Chamber South Tahoe Restaurant Association to discuss South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080 and receive feedback.

F. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65854, the City posted a public notice on August 21, 2026 of the proposed ordinance amendment at least 20 days before the September 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

G. On September 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public input on the proposed amendments to South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.080, and recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the sign ordinance.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Title 6 Chapter 6.40 (Signs and Advertising Structures), Article III (General Provisions), Section 6.40.080 (Signs and Activities not Requiring Permits) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
487
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 4
§ 6.40.080. Signs and activities not requiring permits.

The following types of signs and activities are exempt from permit requirements but shall be in conformance with all other standards of this chapter:

A. Maintenance or cleaning of a sign.

B. In residential areas, (1) identification signs, (2) names on mailboxes or newspaper tubes, (3) private property parking or warning the public against trespassing or danger from animals, provided they do not exceed two square feet.

C. Signs not readable from a public street, recreation area, bicycle trail, or Lake Tahoe, such as window placards denoting community special events.

D. Temporary signs located on private property not greater than 12 square feet in area, not internally illuminated, and not displayed for more than 30 days in a calendar year, except that for 60 days preceding a general or special election more than one such sign may be placed on each parcel, provided they are removed immediately after the election. Any sign larger than the limits described shall be counted as either freestanding or building sign area as appropriate.

E. Off-premises temporary signs in residential areas as permitted by California Civil Code Section 713, provided the following standards are met:

1. The signs shall not exceed three square feet. Within the three square feet, all copy shall be placed including arrows, logos, name of real estate office, address and the like. The height of sign shall not exceed three feet. For the purpose of this provision, the three-foot-high signs may be placed on top of a snow berm.

2. All signs shall not be located within the public right-of-way.

3. The signs shall not be allowed within the Tahoe Keys Boulevard median, the 15th Street median and parkway, or the Loop Road median and parkway.

4. The maximum number of signs per individual or activity shall be limited to three.

5. The signs shall be either freestanding, mounted on a stake, or an "A-frame." The location and/or size of such signs shall not create a traffic hazard.

6. The signs shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity.

F. On-premises temporary signs as permitted by California Civil Code Section 713, provided the following standards are met:

1. Residential.
a. The maximum number of signs shall be limited to one per frontage. b. The standards for all signs shall be:
i. If freestanding, the sign area shall not exceed three square feet. Should the sign be mounted on a stake, the stake shall not exceed five feet in height. The sign or its supports shall not encroach into the public right-of-way and shall not create a traffic hazard or encroach into a clear zone area. Said sign may be double-faced;
488
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 4
ii. If a wall sign, the area shall not exceed three square feet; iii. Shall not be illuminated;
iv. Shall not contain more than two sign riders, each a maximum size of six inches by 18 inches; and
v. Shall not contain more than one flier box.
c. The sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity.

2. Commercial.
a. One sign per premises unless the property has both a front and rear street frontage, in which case, two signs are permitted;
b. The standards for all signs shall be:
i. If freestanding, the sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet; shall not exceed six feet in height. The sign or its supports shall be a minimum of five feet from all property lines and shall not encroach into a clear view area. Said sign may be double-faced;
ii. If a wall sign, the area shall not exceed 32 square feet; iii. Shall conform to the design standards contained in SLTCC § 6.40.340 and § 6.40.350; and
iv. Shall not be illuminated.
c. The sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the activity.

G. Motor vehicle signs used for business, company, or government identification, or motor vehicle signs on nonstationary motor vehicles. Motor vehicle signs may not be used in a manner to augment approved signage for a business as opposed to normal operation or parking of the vehicle.

H. Window signage that does not exceed five percent of the window area.

I. Sandwich board signs in compliance with the following standards:
i. May be displayed between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
ii. Not within a street right-of-way, sidewalk, bicycle path, pedestrian walkway, designated parking space, ADA-accessible zone or path, or clear zone; and iii. Not impede pedestrian or bicycle circulation.
iv. Sandwich boards are limited to one per business.
v. Sign copy shall not exceed 6 square feet in size (per side), and sandwich boards shall not exceed four feet in height.
vi. Sandwich boards shall be constructed of high-quality materials, and colors shall be limited to darker earth-tone hues, and must be maintained in good repair. 489
Ordinance 2026-XXX October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 4
J. Signs constructed, placed or maintained by the federal, state or local government or a sign that is specifically authorized or required to be constructed, placed or maintained by law. Signs constructed, placed or maintained by the city are also exempt from all other requirements in this chapter.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 6, 2026 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
490
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:14
Agenda Item: Waive First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (First Reading)
Executive Summary: The salary of City Council members may be increased by ordinance by an amount equal to five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance is enacted. The last City Council salary increase was a five percent increase, to $1,394.49 per month (effective January 23, 2025). The proposed compensation increase is necessary because Council has not received an increase since January 23, 2025, and the cost of living has increased by 2.9% on average since then.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: City Council may choose to: a) make no changes to the current compensation, b) increase compensation by a lower amount, or c) increase compensation by 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary by making to following motion: Pass a Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, an ordinance increasing City Council compensation from $1,394.49 to $1,687.33 (effective January 23, 2027), and refer to second reading and adoption at the November 3, 2026, meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Reviewed and Approved By: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report-City Council Compensation.docx
02-Draft Ordinance City Council Compensation.docx
03-ORD 2024-1189 Increasing City Council Comp (5).pdf
491
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Title: Waive First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (First Reading)
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Background: The process for increasing City Council compensation is set forth by Sections 36516 and 36516.5 of the California Government Code, as amended by Senate Bill 329:

Government Code Section 36516(a)(4)-(5); (g)(3) The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this subdivision by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance, but the amount of the increase shall not exceed an amount equal to the greater of 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or an amount equal to inflation since Jan. 1, 2024 which shall not exceed 10 percent per calendar year. No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. The proposed ordinance shall include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation.

Government Code Section 36516.5. A change in compensation does not apply to a council member during the council member’s term of office. This prohibition shall not prevent the adjustment of the compensation of all members of a council serving staggered terms whenever one or more members of the city council becomes eligible for a salary increase by virtue of the council member beginning a new term of office.

The last City Council compensation increase was a five percent increase approved by Ordinance No. 2024-1189 on October 22, 2024, with the effective date of January 23, 2025. The current City Council salary is $1,394.49 per month.

Issue and Discussion: Because inflation since January 1, 2025, was 2.9% on average, City Council is eligible for an increase in compensation of up to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last salary adjustment following the November 3, 2026, election, when three Council members will begin new terms of office.

City Council may choose to: a) make no changes to the current compensation, b) increase compensation by 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary, or c) increase compensation by a lower amount. The attached ordinance is drafted to increase compensation by five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last salary adjustment, which would increase the monthly City Council salary from $1,394.49 to $1,687.33 per month.
492
Council Agenda Report October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 2
Any compensation increase would be effective January 23, 2027, 2 years from the date of the last compensation adjustment.

Financial Implications: The total cost increase for 2026/2027 is $14,206. A portion of this increase is included in the 2026-2027 budget and the additional $10,789 will need to be allocated from the undesignated general fund balance if approved.

Environmental Considerations: This action is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities such as personnel-related actions).

Policy Implications: An increase of City Council compensation is consistent with the California Government Code.
493
Ordinance 2026-XXX November 3, 2026 Page 1 of 2
Ordinance 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
November 3, 2026
An Ordinance increasing City Council compensation to $1,687.33 per month (Replacing Ordinance 2024-1189)

FINDINGS
A. Compensation for members of the City Council shall be established by ordinance in accordance with provisions of Sections 36516 and 36516.5 of the California Government Code as amended by Senate Bill 329 (effective Jan. 1, 2024).

B. The salary of City Council members may be increased by an amount equal to five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance is enacted.

C. The last City Council salary increase was a five percent increase, to $1,394.49 per month, approved by Ordinance 2024-1189 on October 22, 2024 (effective January 23, 2025).

D. In accordance with the Government Code, City Council desires to increase its salary by five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment in 2025, for a total of $1,687.33 effective after the next City Council election.

E. City Council finds that the proposed compensation increase is necessary because Council has not received an increase since January 23, 2025, and the cost of living has increased by 2.9% since then.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1.

1. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary the sum of $1,687.33 per month. Such salary shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as salaries are paid to other officers and employees.

2. The 2026-2027 adopted budget is revised and the allocation of undesignated general fund balance in the amount of $10,789 is authorized to cover this expense.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 23, 2027.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on November 3, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
494
Ordinance 2026-XXX November 3, 2026 Page 2 of 2
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading: October 6, 2026
Published:

Second Reading:

Effective: January 23, 2027
495
October 22, 2024 Page 1of 2
Ordinance 2024-1189
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 22, 2024
An Ordinance increasing City Council compensation to $1,394.49 per month Replacing Ordinance 2022-1169)

FINDINGS
A. Compensation for members of the City Council shall be established by ordinance in accordance with provisions of Sections 36516 and 36516.5 of the California Government Code as amended by Senate Bill 329 (effective Jan. 1, 2024).

B. The salary of City Council members may be increased by an amount equal to five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance is enacted.

C. The last City Council salary increase was a five percent increase, to $1,264.86per month, approved by Ordinance 2022-1169 on November 1, 2022 (effective January 23, 2023).

D. In accordance with the Government Code, City Council desires to increase its salary by five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment in 2022, for a total of $1,394.49 effective after the next City Council election.

E. City Council finds that the proposed compensation increase is necessary because Council has not received an increase since January 23, 2023, and the cost of living has increased by

3.33% since then.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1.

1. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary the sum of $1,394.49per month. Such salary shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as salaries are paid to other officers and employees.

2. The 2024-2025 adopted budget is revised and the allocation of undesignated general fund balance in the amount of $4,521 is authorized to cover this expense.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 23, 2025.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 22, 2024 by the following vote:

Date:_________
Yes: Bass, Wallace, Creegan, Robbins, Middlebrook
Cody Bass, Mayor
Ordinance 2024-1189
Cody Bass ( Oct 23, 2024 15:11 PDT)
10/23/2024
496
Ordinance 2024- 1189 October 22, 2024 Page 2of 2
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading: September 24, 2024
Published: September 27, 2024
Second Reading: October 22, 2024
Effective: January 23, 2025
Susan Blankenship ( Oct 23, 2024 14:30 PDT)
497
ORD 2024-1189 Increasing City Council Comp
Final Audit Report 2024- 10-23
Created: 2024- 10-23
By: Michelle Davis ( medavis@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAU4tkgiCZmV6EPotyWBv0hSGsUS7VyBo2 ORD 2024-1189 Increasing City Council Comp" History
Document created by Michelle Davis ([email protected]) 2024- 10- 23 - 9:07:45 PM GMT
Document emailed to Susan Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2024- 10- 23 - 9:07:50 PM GMT
Email viewed by Susan Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2024- 10- 23 - 9:30:20 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Susan Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024- 10-23 - 9:30:28 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Cody Bass ([email protected]) for signature 2024- 10- 23 - 9:30:29 PM GMT
Email viewed by Cody Bass ([email protected])
2024- 10- 23 - 10:11:43 PM GMT
Document signing delegated to Cody Bass ([email protected]) by Cody Bass ([email protected]) 2024- 10- 23 - 10:11:47 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Cody Bass ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2024- 10-23 - 10:11:57 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2024- 10- 23 - 10:11:57 PM GMT
498
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: October 6, 2026
Agenda Item #:15
Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Identify, with consent of at least two Council Members, any desired future agenda items, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, City manager, and Susan Carpenter, City Clerk Attachments:

APC 09 30 2026.pdf
499
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
Agenda Item Section 1st/2nd
10/13/2026 Special Mtg City Attorney Sale and Use of Glyphosate in the City NB CB/DJ Nov 3, 9:30 a.m. CA/CM Ethics Policy Update Consent SR/DJ City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (Second Reading) Consent Resolution Increasing City Treasurer Compensation Consent Citizen Boards & Commissions Resolution Amendment Consent City Manager Becoming a BearWise Community NB Motion 2026-063 Dev Services PSA 3rd Party Plan Check Inspection Services Consent Sign Ordinance Amendments (Second Reading) Consent
Finance Budget Carry-Forward Consent
Arctic Wolf 3-Year Agreement Consent
Parks & Rec Ice Arena Concessionaire Agreement NB
Replacement of Trash Compactor Truck Consent
PD/CA Pedestrian Only Zone Ordinance (First Reading) NB Entertainment Zone Ordinance Amendments NB KR/DJ
Police Patrol Car Purchase Consent
500
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
Public Works Paradise Avenue Right-of-Way Abandonment PH Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with CDM Smith for Mainstreet Corridor Plan Consent CA Land Use + Climate Innovation/Extreme Heat and Comm. Resilience Consent Award of the On-call Surveyor Services contract Consent LTRA Project Ranking Consent
Stateline Complete Streets Consulting PSA Consent
Nov 17, 5:30 p.m. City Manager Community Benefit Grant Awards Consent Dev Services PC + BBOA + ALUC Comission Annual Reports Consent Parks & Rec ACT + P&R + ICOC Comission Annual Reports Consent Police PAC Annual Report Consent
Existing Cell Tower License Agreement Consent
PD/CA Pedestrian Only Zone Ordinance (Second Reading) Consent Public Works Update on Reduction of Plastics in the Environment NB Dec 1, 9 a.m. City Clerk Certification of Election
Outgoing Councilmember Recognition
Oath of Office
If Election is Certified by
December 1, if not these
items will be brought forward
December 15
501
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
City Council Re-Organization Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem
City Council Assignments to Boards & Commissions
2027 City Council Meeting Schedule
Finance TID Annual Report NB
Police Parking Garage Update NB
Boating Safety and Enforcement Financial Aid Program Consent PD/PW Shared Mobility Device NB DJ/HH
Bicycle Safety Regulation Discussion NB DJ/HH
Public Works Prioritization of Bikes at City Intersections and Bike Lanes NB SR/HH Dec 15, 5:30 p.m. Airport Airport Master Plan adoption NB City Clerk City Council Protocols Update NB
City Manager Progress on Joining a CCA NB SR/DJ
Dev Services Food Truck Ordinance Review NB
Finance Annual ROPS Approval Consent
Investment Portfolio Report as of September 2026 Consent Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of September 2026 Consent

502
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
HR Minimum Wage Increase Consent
Public Works Drainage Master Plan Consultant Award Consent January City Manager Strategic Planning Workshop NB
Dev Services Quarterly Housing Report
TVAP/South Y Area plan Amendment NB
Police VHR permitting and enforcement status update NB
PW/DS CDBG Grant Application Consent
Public Works 2027 Pavement Management Plan Update and Prioritization of all users NB SR/CB Lakeview and Ski Run Electrical Upgrades SR/
February City Manager Strategic Planning Workshop UB
Dev Services Noise Standards for Special Events NB KR/HH Public Works Rufus Allen/Rec Center Parking & Pedestrian Access HH/DJ March
April
CA/PD Crescent V Parking Enforcement Agreement DJ/
Unscheduled/Pending
503
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
City Manager Exploration of becoming a public electric utility City Green Card Assistance Program KR/
Grants/Funding for Undergrounding Utilities
Legislative Agenda
LTBMU Permit Program Funding SR/KR
TID Disolution or Funding Allocation Changes SR/KR
Dev Services Performance Bond as a Condition of Demolition SR/ Evaluate Feasibility - Res. Area Plan/SB9 & Remove Tourist Accomodation Update on Inclusionary Housing and Expansion to Timeshares SR/DJ Tobacco Retail Ordinance
Finance Financial Policies Update inc. Local, State & US Preference Informational Item - Check Cashing KR/
Fire MOU Ratification of Auto Aid with TDFD
Grants for Homeowner Defensible Space HH/DJ
LVFD MOU update for data sharing
CTC Land Access Agreement for Airport project
Parks & Rec Events and Facitilies Naming Rights Discussion 504
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 09 30 2026)
El Dorado Boat Ramp Dock Replacement Purchase
Regan Beach Environmental & Design RFP
Police Barton Community Health Needs and Harm Reduction Update AI Policy Update HH/
SANE Presentation with Barton
Heavenly Village Employee Discount Parking Passes SR/CB Ratification of Application for CalOES DVRT
Massage Ordinance Update/Amendments
Police/PW Bike Paths/Speed Bumps, Bike Parking, Vehicle Parking KR/CB 2026 Update to Parking Fees in the Bellamy Parking Garage Public Works Award of PD Roof Replacement
TTD US 50 Plans Presentation
Facilities Condition Assessment
505