by n Eli Ramosn eramos@tahoedailytribune.comn | Feb 13, 2026 | Uncategorized
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Chris Bennett, one of three Democratic candidates for California’s newly drawn 3rd district, sat down for an interview with the Tahoe Daily Tribune. Bennett is the newest face of the candidates, running against Congressman Ami Bera, an incumbent in District 3 and Heidi Hall, who has spent three decades in public service.
Bennett introduces himself as a disabled Army veteran, a graduate of West Point, a former tech worker and cyber officer. One of his major platform points is to refuse money from corporate PACs and lobbyists.
“I am running on the idea of people first, progressive politics and meeting everyone’s needs as opposed to allowing billionaires to exist. Congress is the decisive point of our democracy right now. They have the power of the purse, they can impeach, they can pass laws, they also have investigative authority,” said Bennett. “And it felt to me, like I’m sure a lot of people have been feeling, like our representatives don’t really answer to us. They just answer to giant corporations and billionaires in foreign countries.”
Bennett says that what motivated him to enter politics was seeing the slide towards fascism in the country. “It’s about death by a thousand cuts.” He says that when he saw people getting “black bagged off the streets,” particularly student activists protesting the conflict in Gaza, he decided to take action by entering politics.
In particular, he took an interest in running for Congress in the newly drawn CA-03, which contains rural areas and veterans that were previously in the 6th district.
“Our representatives tend to take rural areas for granted. People everywhere deserve to have access to their representative frequently,” said Bennett. In the South Lake Tahoe area, Bennett said he already had heard from those who wanted to fix the roads, protect the environment and were worried about fires and the impact it had on housing.
“After we deal with fascism, I believe climate change is our next biggest threat. We need to conserve as much of our land as we can, rather than trying to make up for it after we’ve destroyed it,” he said. Bennett expressed an interest in a public homeowners insurance policy funded by top polluters.
Bennett also spoke to his support for single-payer universal healthcare, Medicare For All and support for rural hospitals, especially critical access hospitals. “This should not be a for-profit industry,” he asserted, and added that he was interested in speaking to those who were served by the Tahoe Forest Healthcare System, which is a critical access hospital.
Bennett said many of his platforms he was running on were linked to defending democracy. “I swore an oath to defending democracy and the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And while I have grown a lot in my views of American foreign policy, I am still proud of my service. And I want people to feel good that they served, not to deal with PTSD and moral injuries because we were doing war crimes in foreign countries.”
That’s one of the reasons Bennett says he is not interested in taking AIPAC or corporate money. “We should not be sending our money to foreign countries to hurt people, especially in violation of international humanitarian law, when we could be using that money to help people here,” he said. “We need to get big money out of politics, and that includes not allowing foreign countries to influence our internal affairs.”
To date, Chris Bennett has had $76,245 in contributions, with a little under $6,000 in debts.
Bennett also said he would abolish ICE. “I support creating humane immigration systems, increasing freedom of movement for people and creating a system of restitution for everyone who’s been harmed by ICE terror.”
Other platforms that Bennett said he wanted to stay authentic to were enshrining LGBTQ+ rights, affordable housing and groceries, civil service jobs and livable wages, reproductive justice, democratic reforms and walkable cities.
“I’m running as a Democrat, but in many ways, I almost feel more like an independent,” said Bennett. “I want everyone to know that no matter what political party you’re in, I want you to have your basic needs met. I want you to be able to live in peace and prosperity, I want kids to feel hope for the future, and I want seniors to be able to rest after a job well done. We need a new generation of leaders who actually cares about humanity and puts people before profits. That’s where I’m coming from.”
Bennett’s website and further information on his campaign can be found at https://www.bennettforca.com/
by n Eli Ramosn eramos@tahoedailytribune.comn | Feb 13, 2026 | Uncategorized
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Heidi Hall, Nevada County supervisor and Democrat with three decades in public service, had announced her decision to run for Congress in April of last year—before Proposition 50 redrew the district lines.
Now, in the new CA-03, Hall is still going strong in her home district, despite challenges from incumbent Congressmen Ami Bera. “Bera is taking me on, since I chose to run here first,” said Hall.
Hall is chair of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, was a program manager at the California State Department of Water Resources and worked for the Environmental Protection Agency.
She said her primary reason that she chose to run for Congress was because, “This district, both the old and the new one, is my home. I want to stand up for my community, and it is clear to me that more needs to be done in politics.”
Previously, Hall was challenging Republican Kevin Kiley. Since Proposition 50 and Bera joining the race, she is now challenging another incumbent.
“Proposition 50 was intended to create new blue seats, but it was not intended to provide a place for incumbents to do district shopping. Neither candidate has lived here or worked here the way that I have.”
Hall bills herself as a more progressive voice than Bera. She previously flipped a red seat when she became a supervisor and cited her experience in rural areas as a strength of hers. “I am persistent and not afraid to get things done. I see a path to victory through rural areas where I have experience and through suburban and urban areas where people want more than they have been getting.”
On the campaign trail, she says that a key issue has been the economy, where she wants to institute a wealth tax, support unions and living wages, create affordable housing and remove tariffs. She also cited healthcare as a major topic, stating her support for Medicare for All, protecting reproductive health rights, LGBTQ+ rights, as well as supporting rural hospitals and their reimbursement rates.
A major part of her progressive stance is pushing back on the current administration and holding them accountable. She stated she would abolish ICE, repeal Kristi Noem, and reform the Supreme Court. “The current state of things demands bold vision and bold action.”
Hall is endorsed by former South Lake Tahoe councilmember John Friedrich. As far as local issues to Tahoe, she said she sees similarities between Nevada County and the basin. “We depend on our outdoor recreation economy, we love our public lands—I would lay down my life to protect our lands,” said Hall. “We want someone in Congress who would protect these gorgeous ecological assets.”
Hall cited her experience in advocating against the sale of public lands, as well as her advocacy for increased staffing for USFS and BLM.
She also acknowledged the need for funding for wildfire mitigation. “So many of us live in the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) and we put so much work into mitigation. We put work into home hardening and vegetation management and that should translate to savings for our insurance as well,” she said, referencing her testimonies on behalf of rural counties impacted by wildfires.
On the global level, Hall is responsive to her constituents’ concerns over the conflict in Palestine, which is why she has called for an end to the genocide in Gaza, to stop the transfer of arms to Israel and to fund aid to Gaza. She says she has also been appalled at what’s been happening given her background in international relations.
She has refused to take corporate PAC or AIPAC money for her campaign. “I think it’s important to not be beholden to corporations, and we are relying on people power.” She said they have 4,000 donors and an average contribution of $57. “We are relying on people power.”
In total, Heidi Hall for Congress has a total of $388,835, with $20,000 in debts.
Hall also noted that she was concerned about Bera’s acceptance of PAC money, especially from pro-Israel donors and from pharmaceutical companies. “He has the expertise to do something great in the 14 years he’s been in Congress, but I feel he has been compromised by the money he takes,” said Hall.
As the primary race continues, Hall feels confident about her position. “This is a blue seat, and we have the opportunity to choose the kind of Democrat we want to represent us,” she said. “And I’m bold. I’ve been here. I’m a fighter.”
Hall’s platform and further information on her campaign can be found on her website at https://www.heidihall.com/
by n Eli Ramosn eramos@tahoedailytribune.comn | Feb 13, 2026 | Uncategorized
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Last Thursday, Representative Kevin Kiley announced he was not planning on running in District 3 (CA-03) after Proposition 50 redrew district lines for this electoral race. Congressman Ami Bera, who joined the race in part to combat Kiley’s seat, said he was still interested in running in the district and spoke with the Tribune on the issues he felt were relevant to the area.
Bera has represented CA-06 and has been in Congress since 2013. When asked by the Tribune if he would consider running in CA-06, which Kiley may run in, Bera said he wasn’t planning on it.
“About 50% of my old district is in CA-03, but 50% of my old district is in CA-06 too. I think it’d be tough for Kiley to win because he’s not well-known there and it’s a competitive primary. But I’m not focused on that district—I’m focused on CA-03,” said Bera.
Bera told the Tribune that one of his primary interests running in the district is the challenges with rural healthcare. When he last came to Tahoe, he spoke with Barton Hospital and the Tahoe Forest Healthcare System.
“I’m interested in understanding the unique challenges that rural hospitals face,” said Bera. He also asserted that he had voted to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies and was looking towards universal coverage. “I think it’s something people are ready for. It doesn’t require more money, it requires using resources in a smarter way.”
Bera also expressed an interest in learning more about costs around fire insurance as a major issue he has heard on the campaign trail. He also said he’d heard challenges around utilities bills and affordability in the area, along with the unique challenges of Tahoe being situated close to the state line.
To that end, Bera expressed regret that Representative Mark Amodei had announced his retirement, but said he was interested in collaboration with representatives and reaching across the aisle. “You can’t be a successful member of Congress if you go it alone,” said Bera.
In response to some of the bolder responses of the Democrats he’s running against, Bera said, “When you’re a member of Congress, you need to represent all members of your district. Changes to foreign policy, immigration reform—that’s not happening with one party alone.”
Bera did agree that this was the current moment to reign in ICE and referenced that he had voted to hold them accountable recently. He also hoped more Republicans would join them in holding them accountable, as he felt it was an issue that did not split across party lines.
“I appreciate the aggressiveness from Hall and Bennett, but I’m the only one who’s voted to impeach Donald Trump twice,” said Bera, referencing his incumbency in Congress and involvement in efforts to impeach the president. He also said he believed that they would have likely grounds to impeach him again.
But on the more local level, Bera said, “My role in the federal government might be to find funding through grants or to connect relevant parties. We’ve seen success with leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in Sacramento and I would bring that same approach to other areas of the district.”
Bera’s current campaign has $741,093 in total receipts and $7,800 owed by the Bera for Congress committee.
Bera is an active member of Congress and is holding more virtual town halls to meet with constituents while still in Congress. His platform and information can be found on https://bera.house.gov/
by n Eli Ramosn eramos@tahoedailytribune.comn | Feb 13, 2026 | Uncategorized
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – On Tuesday, city council met to receive a presentation on the Sugar Pine Village tenant selection process and discuss the AI policy on consent agenda, the tourism improvement district report, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment. The council also heard from public comment on continued local concerns on ICE.
You can read about the VHR ordinance and city manager Joe Irvin’s acceptance of the key to the city in their own stories.
Councilmember Scott Robbins was present on Zoom.
Public comment
Tom Milham, commander of Post 795, invited the public to the American Legion’s St. Patrick’s Dinner on March 17th from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. where there will be live music. Tickets are $20 each.
Melissa Soderston again brought up to city council that there was growing concern from people around the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.) On Monday, NorCal Resist volunteers reported that a DHS vehicle was present in town in the morning and departed towards Pollock Pines the same day. No operations were confirmed.
Julie Lowe, on behalf of South Tahoe Indivisible, read out a resolution that they hoped city council would adopt, saying that the symbolism mattered a lot right now. The resolution included a recognition of immigrant contributions to Tahoe’s community and a commitment to SB 54, which prevents state and local law enforcement from using their resources on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies.
While there was support from some attendees, others spoke out against it.
Longtime city council attendee John Messina said, “Why rock the boat? I don’t think any of these people appreciate you bringing attention to them being here illegally and I don’t think the city should focus on that.” Erick Asbury said, “We don’t need this beautiful area becoming a haven for criminals.”
Sugar Pine Village Tenant Selection
Several partners working on Sugar Pine Village came to speak at the presentation, including Saint Joseph’s Community Land Trust, Related California and the John Stewart Company.
As it currently stands, Sugar Pine Village houses 128 families and 219 individual residents, with 106 units occupied by South Lake Tahoe households. 20 households are previously unsheltered families from South Lake Tahoe.
Of the 936 applications received for Phase 1A and 2A, 634 applications were South Tahoe residents. The local preference policies will be applying to the Phase 2B applications, but even previous applications seem to typically pull in local applicants.
During public comment, Messina and Asbury levelled more criticisms at Sugar Pine Village. Messina said that it was supposed to be workforce housing, while Asbury doubted that Sugar Pine Village residents were from the area.
Stacey Ballard spoke out and said that as a disabled person, she was appreciative of Sugar Pine Village and that it provided a place for seniors and disabled people to live. “I’m grateful that 80% of the people living here are people from our town, it’s our own community,” said Ballard, but also said how difficult it was to qualify and go through the “red tape.”
Consent agenda
Councilmember Robbins pulled item 3, the artificial intelligence policy, on the consent agenda to make a suggestion on it. The AI policy will apply to city employees, elected officials and contractors, but the fire department and police department have their own policies. Robbins suggested that they include language regarding citations that AI creates. These citations, Robbins said, are often hallucinated and should also be double checked.
Tourism Improvement District report
The South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District presented their annual report, noting that they budgeted $3,145,345 in 2026, which is flat to the fiscal year budget from 2025. A little over 76% of their budget goes to marketing and promotions.
During their presentation, they shouted out that they won the 2025 eTourism summit award for best data-driven marketing strategy, rolled out Rules to Lake By and supported several events such as the Lake Tahoe Documentary Film Fest, the Ski Run and Meyers farmers markets and Tahoe Brewfest.
Some during public comment expressed concern about international tourism and tourism in general dropping. Jessica Grime represented the Tahoe Chamber and expressed the support for the transient occupancy tax (TOT) and other support that the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority provided to the city and its businesses.
Councilmember David Jinkens expressed interest in further outreach to businesses around the city, as well as to tourists.
Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment
Councilmember Heather Horgan recused herself from the item due to her proximity to the project.
Staff presented on an amendment to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP), which would add the South Y Industrial Tract to the TVAP. Staff believed this would encourage appropriate commercial growth and reduce barriers to development.
According to their timeline, these amendments will be presented to other stakeholders including the Washoe Tribue, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the planning commission and other committees in March. The final adoption will happen sometime in August to September.
Council members had questions about parking policies in the area and regulations, which may come back to council as the plan develops. Public comment was supportive of the amendments, as they would revitalize the development in the area, and questioned possible changes to mitigation fees.
Planning calendar and staff reports
While the council was interested in hearing from the Senior Center, the item has been pushed until they attain 501(c)3 status.
The Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission is still soliciting applications for a student member, but will seek an at-large member if they cannot find a student member.
Jinkens expressed interest in hearing on the bear protocol update, which is slated to happen at the March 13th meeting. He also asked about logistics of surveying businesses and the community, which assistant city manager Hilary Roverud said would likely align with their existing community surveys they had.
Mayor Pro Tem Keith Roberts expressed interest in clarifying the differences between affordable and workforce housing, which the Tribune defined in an article in our housing series.
by n Eli Ramosn eramos@tahoedailytribune.comn | Feb 13, 2026 | Uncategorized
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.
