LAKE TAHOE, Calif./Nev. – Area plans, also called community or specific plans, help keep local control, flexibility and character of the area that they cover, and are an essential function of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. But how do these area plans address housing? And how have they changed as the Phase 2 amendments of TRPA’s housing plan have taken effect? In this month’s housing series article, the Tribune takes a look at different area plans and their specific housing policies.

What is an area plan?

Area plans, as defined by the TRPA, are plans created by local governments with community members and stakeholders to help implement the policies of the regional plan at a community scale. They contain land use goals and policies, along with zoning and regulations, permit requirements, development and design standards. They also contain goals and policies around transportation, conservation, recreation, public services and housing.

These area plans serve as the framework that provide the incentives for coverage, density and height, but they have to be built into the plan before they can be made available to a developer or to the public. Plus, they still need to fall within the allowable use of the regional plan as dictated by the TRPA.

And while California or Nevada rules may differ for things like accessory dwelling units or parcel divisions, because the Lake Tahoe area is governed by the bistate compact of the TRPA, their rules come first.

Outside of the TRPA, area plans are also called specific plans, which can help with determining more local control under a general plan. These can help with the framework of additional regulations that help achieve the goals of the general plan, and may be more difficult to achieve solely through regulations like zoning.

What priorities does the regional plan promote for housing?

In general, TRPA’s regional plan promotes environmental redevelopment and sustainable economic development, especially in the creation of town centers. This promoted higher density and height along with housing in town centers, along with transit and walkability in these areas, which also would reduce vehicle miles traveled in these sections. These were paired with incentives for housing, such as deed restrictions, bonus units and changes to coverage.

In 2023, the TRPA’s Phase 2 Housing Amendments intended to make deed-restricted and multi-family projects more financially viable, which impacted local plans. To become consistent with the new regional policies, local amendments were made to area plans or counties adopted the regulations put forth by the TRPA.

What area plans are out there?

• Washoe County: Tahoe Area Plan
• Placer County: Tahoe Basin Area Plan, Alpine Meadows General Plan, Martis Valley Community Plan, Olympic Valley Area General Plans
• Douglas County: South Shore Area Plan; proposed Tahoe Douglas Area Plan
• El Dorado County: Tahoe El Dorado Area Plan (TED Area Plan); will update and incorporate the Meyers Area Plan
• City of South Lake Tahoe: Tahoe Valley Area Plan, Tourist Core Area Plan; the Y Industrial Area Plan and the Mid-Town Area Plan are currently in development

Washoe County – Tahoe Area Plan

Washoe County’s area plan has a community vision statement that expresses interest in providing a range of housing opportunities while also respecting private property rights and respecting the heritage of the area. Their land for residential use exists with the regulatory zones of Chateau, Crystal Bay and Crystal Bay Condominiums, Fairway, Incline Village 1 through 5 and Residential, Lakeview, Mill Creek, Mt. Shadows, Stateline Point, Tyrolian Village and Wood Creek. They also included some housing in the Incline Village Commercial Area and Ponderosa Ranch.

Senior Planner Kat Oakley said that they heard feedback from citizens regarding Phase 2 Housing Amendments and proposed to adopt some parts and modify others—proposing a half parking space per unit in town centers and a shorter maximum height of 56 feet, which was the pre-existing maximum height. However, Washoe County ultimately opted into the parking reductions down to 0 spaces per unit with an approved parking study that showed that all parking needs would be met, as well as the 65 feet maximum height.

However, Oakley said, “Washoe County was still able to adopt the change to allow deed-restricted multi-family housing in Ponderosa Ranch to further support opportunities for workforce housing.”

“In the Tahoe Basin, area plans have the dual function of providing a vision for the future of that particular area and enabling more local control over zoning regulations,” said Oakley. Recent amendments focused on the zoning aspect, but the vision for the character focuses on maintain a year-round population, continuing tourism as the central economic anchor for the area and maintaining natural resources.

“Since area plans include zoning regulations, they play a very direct role in housing. There are more incentives now for affordable, moderate and achievable deed-restricted housing. We also expanded opportunities for accessory dwelling units, which could help with housing provision,” said Oakley. “Zoning regulations are one piece of the puzzle—they can allow the types of housing we want to see in appropriate places, and they can create regulatory incentives. The Washoe County Tahoe Area Plan has both of those pieces.”

Still other pieces such as funding, land availability, land cost and development costs also prevent challenges that Oakley says can’t be overcome by zoning regulations alone.

You can read Washoe’s current area plan at https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/WTAP_Full_121725-1.pdf

Placer County – Tahoe Basin Area Plan and others

Placer County states in their area plan that they are trying to create affordable, moderate and achievable housing. The land for residential use exists within the subdistricts of Kingswood West, Lake Forest, Lake Forest Glen, Mark Twain Tract, McKinney Tract, Rocky Ridge, Sunnyside/Skyland, Tahoe Estates, Tahoe Park/Pineland, Tahoe Pines, Tahoe Vista Residential, Tahoe Vista Subdivision, Talmont, Tavern Heights, Timberland and Woodvista. They have several mixed use and town center subdistricts within Greater Tahoe City, North Tahoe East (including Kings Beach), Tahoma and Sunnyside.

Principal planner Emily Setzer noted that Placer County also accepted the Phase 2 Housing Amendments from the TRPA. “We brought the option to have an alternative set of proposed amendments, but it would have required us to create a financial feasibility statement and much more work on our end, and we didn’t hear an alternative from our public workshops.”

Setzer also said that the Phase 2 amendments ultimately achieved the same goal of getting housing costs down and making them more feasible within the area. However, the multi-family housing amendments have been harder for Placer County to utilize, as they do not have enough active stormwater systems to allow for the increased coverage and density. Setzer recently asked TRPA to analyze additional coverage solutions to allow these projects to achieve the increased density needed.

Outside of the Tahoe Basin but still in the region, Placer County has area plans that are set for further updates. Setzer noted that while there isn’t necessarily a major focus on those areas, there is a more comprehensive approach to them coming through the Placer County General Plan Update, which will likely update the land use and area plans for those parts of the valley.

Several of those plans were established a fairly long time ago and have not received substantial updates, although there has been some feedback that people living in the areas have wanted changes. Setzer said there was the potential to consolidate plans, to look at trends and needs, especially within housing.

Setzer invited members of the public to reach out to the planning department and staff, and to keep an eye on the discussions around the Placer County General Plan Update. The planning committee will be discussing it on March 26, then it will go to the Board of Supervisors on May 19. More community outreach will follow those two meetings.

You can see all of Placer County’s area plans, including the 2050 General Plan Update at https://www.placer.ca.gov/2971/General-Plan-Community-Plans.

Douglas County – South Shore Area Plan (SSAP)

Douglas County’s area in the Tahoe Basin is relatively small, containing largely multi-family housing units according to their area plan in 2024. Of their 132 housing units, they have 88 multi-family units on Market Street and 64 units on Deer Run Court, though those operate as a timeshare. They also have 31 units of housing in the Kingsbury Manor Mobile Home Park. Employee housing is provided by Edgewood and Heavenly, though both locations are within South Lake Tahoe.

However, the SSAP was originally adopted in 2013, and amended both in 2024 and 2025. However, efforts to create a Tahoe focused plan have been in the works since 2014, called the Tahoe Douglas Area Plan (TDAP), that didn’t come to fruition until late last year.

The TDAP will be replacing the 29 plan area statements and the Round Hill Community Plan, simplifying the permitting and environmental reviews, supporting a mix of land use and transportation options along with implementing existing design and development guidelines to protect the environment.

The public outreach portion for the initial draft closed in December 2025 and the TDAP’s public draft area plan will be released in spring of this year. Members of the public will be invited to another community meeting in summer 2026 before the final environmental review and consideration of the plan’s adoption take place. “It is imperative that community members are involved in the process to share their visions for their community area,” said Eric Cachinero, public information officer of Douglas County. Ascent Inc. is also helping to creates the area plan alongside the county.

Cachinero also shared that the county intends to conduct a comprehensive housing needs assessment, which will help identify the specific challenges, opportunities and the appropriate mix of housing types and suitable locations for future development. The county will continue to utilize the Phase 2 amendments for areas zoned for multi-family and town centers, which have had varied levels of support. But the upcoming housing needs assessment, Cachinero said, “is vital in preparation for decision making regarding housing policies, to ensure they align with both regional goals and Douglas County’s unique community needs.”

You can stay up to date with the TDAP at their webpage or email principal planner Kate Moroles-O’Neil at kmoneil@douglasnv.us for more information.

El Dorado County – TED Area Plan

The Tahoe El Dorado Area Plan (TED Area Plan) was designed to ensure consistency between TRPA Plan Area Statements and the county zoning ordinance, which would simplify permitting and streamline environmental review. This would establish a better framework to advance housing and economic development, according to the TED Area Plan’s goals.

Chief Deputy Director at the Tahoe Planning and Building Division Brendan Ferry and Planning Manager, Long Range Planning Unit Thea Graybill spoke with the Tribune on the TED Area Plan.

Ferry said that they’ve known about these land use inconsistencies for a while and that they have made things difficult for homeowners and stifled economic development. “There’s been a reliance on these old plan area statements, which serve a purpose, but they really need to be updated and incorporated,” said Graybill.

El Dorado County proposed alternatives to TRPA’s Phase 2 amendments, choosing to take a customized approach rather than take them at face value. “We’ve been in lockstep with TRPA,” said Ferry, regarding the process of these amendments. “We recognized that our county is more rural than others, we don’t have as many town centers and less population, so this felt necessary.”

Meyers, which has more familiarity with an area plan given that the Meyers Area Plan existed before the TED Area Plan was initiated, had a strong voice in public comments. The county did a year of public outreach during Phase I of the TED Area Plan, conducting hearings in Tahoma, Fallen Leaf Lake, Meeks Bay and Meyers. “This is a democracy, we want input and we’re building this thing together,” said Ferry. He says they’re striving to give each community their own policies within the TED Area Plan.

County staff are also providing quantitative analysis for the proposed alternatives to TRPA’s Phase 2 amendments for the TED Area Plan. Ferry says that a major part of the plan is looking at commodities and land that the county has control over and cutting costs there. “We’re also really looking at the height, density and coverage as three driving factors,” said Ferry.

Graybill told the Tribune that they are tentatively planning to release the public draft at the end of February and will be hosting public workshops in Meeks Bay on March 4, Meyers on March 11, and a virtual option on March 12. The TED Area Plan will also be agendized for discussion at TRPA’s regional planning committee meeting on March 25.

You can keep up with the TED area plan on their website at https://www.tedareaplan.com/.

South Lake Tahoe – Area Plans

South Lake Tahoe has several area plans within its limits: the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, Tourist Core Area Plan; the Y Industrial Area Plan and the Mid-Town Area Plan are currently in development. City planning manager John Hitchock and director of development services Zach Thomas spoke with the Tribune about the various area plans.

“These area plans replace community plans and allow local jurisdictions to create flexibility and control in the community. They help substitute standards, but coverage is the only one that can’t be substituted,” said Hitchcock.

Currently, all the area plans in the city cover commercial zones in the city, including the tourist areas. The city was interested in focusing on areas of work, recreation and high density residential development.

“For many, many years our commercial cores had nothing happening. I mean, there was no redevelopment, buildings were past their useful life,” said Hitchcock. “And that’s why we have that huge focus on that commercial core in our area plans, because it really needed infrastructure improvement and redevelopment opportunities. The only way you’re going to get that done is to create incentives for development.”

The city adopted TRPA’s Phase 2 amendments primarily for the benefits it would confer outside of town centers, driving more coverage, density and height in the suburbs of South Lake. However, they did have concerns with requirements around the stormwater system, given the density of population and the infrastructure. It’s something that the city has spoken about with the TRPA.

It helps that the city does provide recommendations to the TRPA through the Tahoe Living Working Group—increased coverage for deed restricted housing happened as a result of some of those conversations, and the importance of a seat at the table can’t be overstated, especially as South Lake Tahoe has a large portion of the population and affordable housing units within the basin.

Some of the principles around housing that is “affordable by design” that will serve the missing middle has become a major focus, which is what they hope to achieve through higher density housing that is closer to services. While this has brought up concerns around the basin around evacuation, Thomas says that there have been studies that show it is easier to evacuate town centers and that they typically have better firefighting infrastructure—and studying these impacts is required under CEQA regulations.

Currently, the expansion of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan to the Y would lead to expanded uses for the industrial area and increased flexibility for use, such as indoor recreation facilities. Thomas noted that while there’s not a pressing need to make residential area plans and the idea has not yet been fully explored, likely options for those plans would be to create more consistency with state laws with regards to ADUs and subdivisions of parcels.

Both Thomas and Hitchcock said the city prides itself on their outreach efforts with stakeholders and the public. “We really believe area plans should reflect community input,” said Hitchcock, and invited the public to reach out to him at jhitchcock@cityofslt.org or senior planner Anna Kashuba at akashuba@cityofslt.gov.

To learn more about South Lake Tahoe’s area plans, you can visit their page at https://www.cityofslt.gov/2290/Area-Plan-Proposals-and-Updates.