A closer look at housing around the Basin
LAKE TAHOE, Calif./Nev. – With limited land, varying policies between counties, and environmental regulations to consider, it’s no wonder that housing development has been a challenge in the Basin. And after the COVID-19 pandemic increased the number of remote workers who flocked to tourist destinations, housing issues for local workers were further exacerbated.
Though there are many similarities to housing issues around the Basin, each area faces its own set of challenges, from policies to land use to attitudes. In this next article of the Tribune’s housing series, we’re taking a magnifying glass to each of the areas around the lake. Because the greater Lake Tahoe area spans different cities, counties, and states, their specific housing challenges and solutions tie into where they fall geographically.
South Lake Tahoe
As a city within El Dorado County, South Lake Tahoe has a little more ability to make definitions and decisions within their borders. Sugar Pine Village, the affordable housing project heralded as a major success from Governor Newsom’s Excess State Sites program, is just one of the latest affordable housing projects on the south shore.
“The city has implemented a broad-spectrum approach when it comes to housing,” said Zachary Thomas, director of development services at the city. The housing department has adhered closely to its 2022 – 2027 housing element, which earned them the Prohousing Designation in April last year.
Part of its success owes itself to the topography of the south shore, which offers more land to develop on and anchors of previously built structures in the city. And overall, South Lake Tahoe has more housing stock than the rest of the Basin, especially for multi-family homes.
But the impact of COVID-19 causing an influx of home buying did impact the area—and the community has expressed at least some reticence to vacant homes in the city, as seen with the Measure N conversations from election season.
South Lake Tahoe is a leader in the region addressing homelessness and are more active in that space—especially now, as the city approved Live Violence Free’s (LVF) contract in its relation to housing, and is reviewing a contract for Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless (TCH). “Evolving relationships with different partners is part of what leads to our success,” said Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, city housing manager. Wackenhut Lomeli also addresses homelessness through interacting with El Dorado County’s continuum of care programs.
But other issues higher up the AMI spectrum have presented themselves. South Lake Tahoe is more interested in increasing density for their area plans than TRPA has allowed—causing delays in already lengthy bureaucratic processes for changing area plans. “Density is the key for market-rate housing and addressing the missing middle,” said Thomas.
Most importantly though, Thomas and Wackenhut Lomeli agreed on, is ensuring people’s education regarding the importance of housing and the need for housing in the area.
“When we talk about housing, what we’re also really talking about is quality of life, health, and education—all of that is tied up with housing,” said Wackenhut Lomeli.
Thomas added, “Housing affects everything in a person’s life, their prospects, their relationships. We have to communicate the total facts of what housing is and educate people. And the fact of the matter is, here in Tahoe, the need outstrips the resources available.”
Now, programs like Placemate, which is entering its second year, continues to incentivize Lease to Locals and unlock existing housing stock. And land trusts like St. Joseph’s Community Land Trust have been involved in multiple housing projects, making multi-family dwellings and affordable housing projects possible. Without more land or more density though, the ability to sustain housing—and local workers—threatens the economy of South Shore when looking forward.
El Dorado and Placer County’s unincorporated areas
El Dorado County’s unincorporated areas from Meyers to Tahoma have been in recent conversation to produce the Tahoe El Dorado Area (TED) Plan, which subsumes many of the smaller area plans that made decisions especially focused on land use and zoning in these unique communities. TED aims to ensure consistency with the county’s zoning ordinance and TRPA’s Plan Area statements, which have in the past been complicated and unwieldy.
Still, for many residents there, it can often feel like the county overlooks the Basin, with historical redirection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) dollars that are generated primarily in the Basin, but fund projects outside of it.
Those who live there can feel neglected by the lack of engagement from the rest of El Dorado County and reduced access to services. Wackenhut Lomeli says she has sometimes received calls from people in these areas experiencing substandard housing, and has to inform them that she cannot assist them if they live outside of the city limits of South Lake Tahoe. But many of the people living in these unincorporated areas care deeply about the rural character where they live.
This has led to some conflict within communities, who worry about the increased height and density, along with the decreased parking requirements that TRPA set forth in their housing amendments. El Dorado County District 5 Supervisor Brooke Laine said in an email to the Tribune, “I personally hear some pushback and concern from residents in the unincorporated area relative to affordable and workforce housing, which is something along the lines of, ‘I am not against affordable and workforce housing, just not in my backyard or neighborhood.'”
Similar sentiments were addressed by Cindy Gustafson, District 5 Supervisor for Placer County. “Neighbors become concerned about the impacts to their area—whether it is density, or height, or concerns about their property values decreasing if affordable housing is constructed near them. It seems to me that the most pressing challenges are the fear of change, distrust of others, divisive politics (nationally and locally), and lack of compromise,” said Gustafson in an email. “As an example, at the request of some of the opponents, we modified TRPA’s Phase 2 housing amendments to apply only in our Town Centers. This compromise is still not supported by some and has been fought by others.”
Affording housing in general on the west shore can be challenging. Many of the properties there sell to wealthy second-home owners, some to the tune of millions of dollars, and may sit vacant for a long time. The housing stock is also limited by the public lands ownership, which means larger multi-family dwellings are less common—apartments, too, are in short supply, and are typically converted motels.
Local wages for jobs, often tied to ski resorts like Homewood or to nearby cities, can’t keep up with the escalating prices. Even remote workers face challenges with the internet connection, which can go out for hours at a time.
These unincorporated areas rely on far-away county offices or resources from nearby cities, making it far more difficult to get reliable access and a clear picture of what restrictions there are, which are also often made for the more populous areas of their county. For example, Placer County’s resources for the Tahoe area make up only 10 pages of a nearly 40-page resource list. Of those 10 pages, none have any resources for those specifically in the unincorporated area.
Though now both El Dorado County and Placer County are addressing these rural areas, what housing resources they may develop specifically for the region remain to be seen.
Douglas County
Douglas County’s housing priorities have generally been located in the valley, which cover a much wider area than what is in the Basin. Still, principal planner Kate Moroles-O’Neil says, “The need for attainable housing is not limited to one area.” Moroles-O’Neil says the lack of vacant land in the Basin is one of the major problems.
Unlike other areas, Douglas County still does not have a full housing needs assessment or housing element—it’s still being worked on by the University of Nevada, Reno. Unlike a housing element, it would also not present specific recommendations or solutions, but could be utilized for local housing and development planning.
While there are neighborhoods in Douglas County that interface with Tahoe as locals, there is also more incentive for developers to build with second-home owners in mind. “It’s difficult to provide attainable housing when developers and builders can sell their product at a much higher price and obtain an increased return on investment.”
Still, the adoption of Phase 2 of the TRPA housing amendment would provide more incentives for developers and 100% deed restricted housing. Douglas County also implemented tiny houses into the code, which allows them as single-family dwellings and accessory structures within certain zoning districts. But those are generally in the valley and not at Lake Tahoe because of those limited lands. The county is hoping to expand to districts in the Basin and implement tiny house parks in the future, but those developments remain to be seen.
Like with other local areas, growth is also a sticking point—the feeling that the county is growing too fast, that it will become too urbanized, and will lose the character of the region has come up with developments at Stateline like Barton Hospital or the Tahoe Blue Event Center. However, Moroles-O’Neil told the Tribune, “We are well below our growth management ordinance of 2% a year.”
Incline Village and Crystal Bay
After their recent Placemate program launch, Incline Village and Crystal Bay are working towards their goals in the Washoe Tahoe Housing Needs Assessment and Housing Roadmap.
But the area lagged behind others in getting those studies done. Alexis Hill, Washoe County District 1 Commissioner, said, “We’ve known there’s been a housing issue in Incline Village since back when I was living there in 2012. There have been housing issues in the area for a long time. But I’m inspired to see the progress we’ve made—we’ve finally done a housing study and gotten a housing group together.”
Hill was referring to the Incline Village Crystal Bay Community and Business Association (IVCBA) and their housing committee, headed by Linda Offerdahl. Offerdahl and community outreach spokesperson Clare Novak spoke to the Tribune about the history of housing in the area.
Like the rest of the region, the population demographics of the area were reshuffled by COVID-19, pushing several residents out of the mountains and into the valley. Offerdahl says there is a misconception that Incline Village and Crystal Bay are a wealthy enclave—something she strives to debunk.
However, the population does skew older than other areas around the lake, and the community has in the past expressed a discomfort with attainable housing and amendments to the area plan. Hill says that the increased density and associated height changes to accommodate that have some evidence that they reduce environmental impacts, though there have been enduring misconceptions that these changes “work around laws” rather than being amendments. Now though, there is a stronger appetite for housing information from the IVCBA.
“We have to remind people that a workforce, and thus workforce housing, is needed here,” said Offerdahl. For Incline Village and Crystal Bay, they’re trying to cover workforce housing for those at the AMI all the way down to 60% of the AMI—which includes service workers and minimum wage earners all the way up to deputies, teachers, and nurses.
Offerdahl pointed out that because so many workers commute into the area, it affects how businesses and other services run. “When there’s too much snow on Mt. Rose, they cancel school and businesses go unopened, because employees live somewhere else and have to commute.” But there’s a gap between knowing businesses need employees and actually accepting them into the community through housing.
“There are plenty of people concerned with evacuation and preserving the lake—development is often equated with endangering those. There’s also a fear of policy changes like those from TRPA, but the scarcity of the land precludes large multi-family dwellings,” said Offerdahl.
“Although it’s apparent that housing is a common problem to the Basin and the nation, we are a fragmented community,” said Novak. The Washoe Tahoe region is far smaller than most of the other regions around the lake, making it hard to capture in studies. Not only that, but its location means they have limited access to governmental offices, as well as different county and state restrictions to adhere to than those on the California side. Hill pointed out that Nevada doesn’t have the same funding or laws incentivizing affordable housing that California does.
Offerdahl theorized their position in Nevada may also affect the attitudes in adopting different housing solutions. “Perhaps there’s a stronger impression of property rights and people’s say on their property here,” she said.
However, there’s a larger percentage of vacation homes—anywhere between 50% to 80%–that could be unlocked using the new Placemate program. Hill is also working on the links between transportation and housing with the Tahoe Transportation District, though she is also encountering the push and pull of the community regarding tourism and visitors when there’s not much reliable transportation into Lake Tahoe.
While many more units of housing are needed to meet the needs, Offerdahl praised the area for its sense of community. “When someone hears about or talks about someone having a housing problem, there’s an outreach to them to help out. I think with that stronger bond in the community and workforce, there’s a potential to build that support further.”
North Shore/Truckee
North Tahoe and Truckee have a long history of working together on housing issues due to location proximity, despite being located in different counties. A notable example was the formation of the Mountain Housing Council and its work from 2018 – 2023, which helped define “achievable housing” and worked to create new solutions for housing challenges in the area.
For the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF), now that they aren’t convening the Mountain Housing Council, program director Kristina Kind told the Tribune they are working with TRPA to do the next assessment of housing availability and affordability with their housing program.
From the last assessment, workforce housing grew by 10% and the population grew by 8%, while there was a dip in commuters by 11%. Still, Kind said, “The affordability gap is the major issue at play… and the pandemic widened that gap considerably. The cost of living in this area is so much higher than the rest of the county.”
North Tahoe has a larger discrepancy between AMIs in the county, where Tahoe is on the much higher end, leading to a push for regional housing finance authorities to be established. Senate Bill 440, which enabled this, passed in late September last year.
The North Shore and Truckee benefit from their many programs made to ease these issues, such as the Launchpad program, Lease to Locals, Rooted Renters, home buyer assistance programs, and funds like the Martis Fund—since 2017, there’s been 15 programs, 770 units of workforce housing built, and $80 million attracted to help fund them. But there’s only so much that these programs can do for the many people still struggling who don’t have their applications accepted.
Palisades, like other large employers in the area, have promised to build workforce housing as their project expands. But locals worry that they won’t deliver for the scale of the project, especially when current employee housing still has a strain on it.
The North Shore has been leading the way for other housing solutions with Tahoe Housing Hub’s ADU Accelerator program, where homeowners have expressed “tremendous support” for them according to Erin Casey, CEO and President of the Tahoe Housing Hub. But it’s not without bumps in the road—construction costs and financing are particularly high, and it’s difficult to offset costs. Their efforts to streamline the process of permitting, design, and construction are designed to help beat the clock there, as Casey says, “Time is money in our region—it helps when processes are streamlined.”
Truckee has an easier time with streamlined construction, especially as they’re not within the TRPA jurisdiction—they’ve constructed several affordable housing projects that have support throughout the housing spectrum. They have a large stock of single-family housing, but lack density for units with higher demand, like one or two-bedroom apartments. Additionally, there’s a large portion of local workers that commute into Truckee that want to live locally too. But they fall within the 60% to 120% AMI range, which is their “missing middle.”
Truckee also has more affordable housing on the north side, and even Placer County lists these Nevada County sites of Coldstream Commons, Meadow View Place, and Sawmill Heights Apartments as affordable housing. But local attitudes on places like the Artist Lofts have given a more negative reputation to some of the available housing.
Like Sugar Pine Village, Truckee also was granted an Excess Site where there was previously a California Highway Patrol site. The site, also known as Pacific Crest Commons, was selected in 2021 and will be developed by The Pacific Companies.
Even with these major differences across the lake, Tahoe residents often find that similar solutions do work—they just have to be tailored to the specific history, character, and community in each area. In the next article in the series, the Tribune will dive into affordable housing, what it means, and what the state of it looks like around the lake.
