Maria Palma – March 20, 2026

https://www.kunr.org/local-stories/2026-03-20/a-tahoe-nonprofit-is-using-storytelling-as-a-tool-for-solving-the-housing-crisis

Tahoe Housing Hub recently launched a storytelling campaign called “Voices for Housing” with the goal of bringing visibility to stories often absent from public discussions.

“We really thought that it was important to focus on the personal stories of our local workforce, our local workers, and just let them tell their housing stories and tell their successes as well,” said Shelly Purdy with Tahoe Housing Hub.

Ten short films will be released throughout the year, showcasing a wide range of people from different backgrounds. Purdy said that mix is intentional.

“Because it really shows that the housing issue impacts the entire community as a whole,” she said.

Two films have already been published. They tell the stories of Xander, a professional skier raised in Truckee, who returned after college to build his life. And Mary, a local artist and retiree, who shares her deep connection to Kings Beach.

The campaign is funded by a grant from the North Tahoe Community Alliance.

Staff Report – Feb. 23, 2026

TAHOE REGION, Calif./Nev. — For the first time, the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) have aligned findings from their respective housing needs analyses, revealing consistent and urgent housing challenges across the greater Tahoe region. While the two studies examine slightly different geographies, the results point to the same conclusion: there is a significant mismatch between housing supply and the local workforce’s needs.

“Since 2016, investments in regional data have helped us track progress towards achievable local housing solutions* with the many housing efforts across agencies,” said Stacy Caldwell, TTCF CEO. “This aligned data shows that most unmet need remains on working households, which are essential to our community. This moment calls for continued coordination and locally driven solutions that match the scale of the need.”

Key takeaways

---

---

• In-commuters (those who commute into the Tahoe-Truckee area but would prefer to live in the region) represent the largest share of unmet demand,
• 50% of renter households are overpaying for housing, compared to 34% of homeowners,
• 65% of Tahoe – Truckee housing stock is held for seasonal and occasional use,
• 245% – 255% of Area Median Income** (AMI) could be required to purchase a median-priced single-family home in the broader region.

Achievable Workforce Housing Gaps Persist

The housing studies show that unmet housing needs continue to impact achievable local housing, from the unhoused to those making 245% AMI, or the “missing middle.” This expanded definition of affordability- originally developed by the Mountain Housing Council in 2021 and adopted by TTCF, TRPA, and regional housing partners- improves our region’s ability to address local housing needs. This unmet need includes those who are inadequately housed (e.g., in overcrowded conditions or substandard housing) as well as those in need of housing, spanning the resident workforce, in-commuters, and seasonal workforce.

Comparing TTCF’s housing data from the 2016 study, affordability has generally worsened throughout the community, with higher incomes being required to afford market-rate housing. The new data for the Tahoe Basin show the same widening affordability gap, although the overall level of housing need has risen only slightly from earlier studies.

---

---

In-Commuter Data Suggests Workforce Displacement

TRPA data confirms a substantial number of workers commute into the Basin but would prefer to live closer to their jobs — a pattern that increases vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and affects environmental outcomes. TTCF’s analysis echoes this finding.

Furthermore, TTCF notes that current data primarily capture in-commuters and does not fully quantify residents who have already been displaced from the region, suggesting the true housing pressure may be even greater.

“Housing and environmental sustainability in the Tahoe Basin are deeply connected,” said TRPA Long Range Planning Director Karen Fink. “When workers are forced to commute longer distances, it increases vehicle miles traveled and impacts Basin health. These findings will help inform the next phase of the Tahoe Living initiative.”

Testing Assumptions and Designing Solutions

Both TRPA and TTCF hosted data walks to test the quantitative data against the lived realities and observations of those organizations and agencies that serve the people of our regions. These walks affirmed the data and also pointed to the interventions that are working. For example, Sierra Community House provides one-time rental and utility assistance to help people remain housed during emergencies, the collaborative efforts of Tahoe Truckee Workforce Housing Agency, and free transportation solutions through Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transport (TART) to aid commuting.

Data Will Continue to Inform Regional and Local Housing Strategies

TRPA will use its findings to guide the Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin phase of the Tahoe Living policy initiative, currently in the scoping phase of an Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed policies in the environmental analysis include changes to the growth management system that would scale certain regulations and incentives by the size of residential units, something the new data points to as an area of concern and possible driver of environmental impacts. Learn more at http://www.tahoeliving.org/housingassessment.

TTCF will share the results with local housing authorities in Nevada and Placer Counties, the Town of Truckee, and alumni partners of the Mountain Housing Council to help advance locally driven housing solutions. TTCF has facilitated housing needs assessments in 2015, 2016, 2021, and 2023 to accelerate housing solutions in North Tahoe-Truckee. The full report is available at http://www.ttcf.net.

By Eli Ramos – Feb. 13, 2026

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.

Eli Ramos is a reporter for Tahoe Daily Tribune. They are part of the 2024–26 cohort of California Local News Fellows through UC Berkeley. Learn more at https://fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows/.

By Petra Molina – April 8, 2026

TRUCKEE, Calif. — Truckee Town Council on Tuesday approved a series of Development Code amendments aimed at increasing workforce and affordable housing, advancing implementation of the Truckee 2040 General Plan and the town’s long-term housing goals.

The changes establish a Truckee-specific workforce and affordable housing density bonus program, offering developers additional building capacity and incentives in exchange for creating deed-restricted housing units. The program is designed to target infill areas and support housing for local workers who might otherwise be priced out of the market.

The amendments implement General Plan Action LU-2.B, which directs the town to create a local density bonus program tailored to Truckee’s needs. In addition to increased density, the program includes both financial and nonmonetary incentives, along with defined criteria for developer participation.

Town staff said the Development Code updates provide nonmonetary incentives — such as streamlined approvals and added flexibility — that can be paired with financial incentives currently being refined through the town’s Homegrown Housing program.

The move builds on a 2022 Town Council goal to deed restrict 10% of Truckee’s housing stock by 2032, or about 1,500 units based on projected buildout under the 2040 General Plan. Deed-restricted housing, which limits occupancy and resale to maintain affordability, is widely used in resort communities to preserve housing for full-time residents and local workers amid demand for second homes.

Truckee has so far deed restricted approximately 800 units, accounting for 5.7% of its current housing stock.

The town has relied on a range of programs to support local housing, including inclusionary and workforce housing requirements, accessory dwelling unit initiatives, the Truckee Home Access Program, Lease to Locals and Rooted Renters. Officials say the newly approved Development Code changes expand that toolkit and are intended to accelerate the creation of deed-restricted units.

Town leaders say the goal is to create a more predictable and effective pathway for developers while helping ensure Truckee remains accessible to the workforce that supports its economy

The council determined the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, finding the changes would not result in significant environmental impacts.

As part of the action, council introduced Ordinance 2026-06, which amends the Truckee Municipal Code to create a Deed-Restricted Housing Incentives program and includes related clean-up changes to the Development Code. Council also adopted Resolution 2026-11, establishing qualifying income limits for the program.

Story by Katelyn Welsh, Sierra sun – November 21, 2025

Link to Sierra Sun Story

KINGS BEACH, Calif. – The Placer County Board of Supervisors met at the North Tahoe Event Center on Tuesday, Nov. 18, to hear, discuss and take action on topics related to North Tahoe.

Area plan amendments

The supervisors conducted a public hearing on and unanimously adopted amendments to the Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan.

---

---

The amendments seek to address housing affordability and availability by increasing building coverage, height, and density, while lowering parking requirements in areas already zoned for this type of development, such as town centers and areas zoned for multifamily housing.

The amendments were sparked by the Tahoe Regional Planing Agency’s own Dec. 13, 2023 and June 26, 2024 amendments to its codes and regional plan. The amendments are required to be subsequently incorporated into each Tahoe jurisdiction’s area plan.

---

---

The changes are intended to aid by allowing developments to produce more units with a smaller footprint in order to make them more affordable. The added flexibility these amendments offer is only available to deed restricted achievable housing.

For more information, read the Sun’s article titled, Placer County Supervisors adopt density increasing amendments to area plan.

Housing topics: local preference and a housing trust

The supervisors received a presentation regarding a potential priority applicant policy for affordable housing aimed at preventing local resident displacement and offering current residents and workers first priority for affordable units.

Developers, property managers and sales agents would administer the policy, placing qualified preferred applicants at the top of the list for available properties.

The policy would be countywide, but divided into two geographic regions:

• Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD)
• remaining western Placer County

Tahoe applicants would have priority for units in the TTUSD region if one adult 18 years or older within the household is currently employed an average of 30 or more hours per week at a location within the TTUSD geographical boundary, or has primary residency in the TTUSD boundary, or has had residency within the last 10 years.

The drafted policy is planned to undergo a fair housing analysis. Results could lead to modifications to the policy.

After the analysis, the policy is expected to come before the board for potential approval in the spring of 2026.

In another housing item, the board directed staff to draft an agreement for the county to provide start up funds for a housing trust in eastern Placer County.

The housing trust, to be operated through Housing Tahoe, a nonprofit, seeks to leverage private funds through a charitable structure to acquire, preserve, rehabilitate, and construct community-serving housing.

The immediate focus for the nonprofit would be on protecting existing units, which are currently marketed as opportunities to investors.

However, Housing Tahoe sees an opportunity to step in, acquire and deed restrict the units, preserving them for the community. A charitable structure in this endeavor allows them to unlock private donations and partners to diversify funding streams for housing efforts.

The strategies combat an 8,200 unit shortage in housing within the TTUSD area, as identified in the July 2023 Housing Needs Assessment Update from the Mountain Housing Council.

Housing Tahoe is currently in the process of obtaining federal 501(c)(3) status and until the status is approved, plans on partnering with a non-profit organization who can serve as a fiscal sponsor to legally receive and administer tax-deductible donations on its behalf.

A future decision for the board could be funding Housing Tahoe with around $500,000 to support its establishment and early housing preservation activities in a phased approach, tied to defined milestones.

An funding agreement for this will come before the board at a future unspecified date.

Transportation topics: TART plan update and free to rider extension

The board approved a two year extension of the Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit (TART) Free to the Rider Bus Service. The service, which set out to reduce vehicle miles traveled by offering free bus rides, replaced fares collected from passengers and was first implemented in 2019.

In addition to the annual $275,000 of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) funds from Placer County, local partners also contribute to the free service in lieu of purchasing employee fares and passes. Those local partners include resorts such as Northstar California Resort, Palisades Tahoe, Homewood Mountain Resort and other partners.

The board also approved the TART 2025 Systems Plan Update.

The update, which is a short range transit planning document and replaces the 2016 plan, offers an overview of services, operation plans and provides recommendations for modifications.

Analysis found the fixed route ridership is highest in the winter and spring, and during commute hours. It also found that while TART’s mainline fixed route ridership has decreased in the last five years, TART Connect ridership has increased in the last three with peaks on Fridays and Saturdays.

Identified challenges of fixed routes include finding and retaining drivers, seasonal fluctuations in demand, coordination with other transportation providers, and funding. Between 2023 and 2024, there were 16 driver vacancies. The plan identifies strategies to attract drivers and retain them.

Challenges with TART Connect is the redundancy and competition it creates with fixed routes, its lower productivity, and funding.

Numerous public outreach efforts and surveys informed on the update and recommendations.

Some of the service recommendations from the plan update include:

• 30 minute frequency on all routes in winter and summer to start, with potential expansion to year-round 30 minute frequency
• Maintain the West Shore route as separate and extend it to Tahoe City
• Extend all TART fixed routes for an evening service between 6:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. in the summer and winter months
• TART Connect fares when fixed routes are operating
• TART Connect expansion to Ponderosa Palisades and Martis Valley

Capital recommendations include replacing buses with electric buses, installing zero-emission bus charging stations, adding stop shelters, creating a park and ride plan, real-time bus information software and real-time bus displays.

The plan also included a scenario for the loss of TOT funds, which are not guaranteed. The loss would likely result in a drastic reduction of fixed routes and discontinuation of TART Connect.

Tourism business improvement district renewal

The board conducted a public meeting to hear comment on the renewal of the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, which is administered through the North Tahoe Community Alliance (NTCA).

Through the business improvement district, tourism related businesses (including lodging, retail, restaurants, activities) self-assess a percentage that is typically passed on to the customer. The collected revenues are then reinvested within the North Tahoe community on programs and projects that directly benefit the businesses that are paying the assessment.

In its five years, the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District has reinvested $34.2 million into the community and leveraged an additional $42 million. The funds have gone to projects improving trails, promoting environmental stewardship, mitigating human impacts, improving transportation and workforce housing.

To be considered before the board, renewal requires petition signatures from a majority of the paying business owners in the proposed district. According to NTCA President and CEO, Tony Karwowski, the district has amassed 67.25 % of weighted revenue signatures so far.

The renewal proposes certain changes to the district’s management plan, including increasing the renewal term to 10 years, rather than five, for efficiency. Another change is the removal of the tier two and tier three businesses, which are not high producing businesses, and often transient for arts and crafts festivals. This has demanded significant staff time and energy to track them down.

The district boundary and assessment percentages are not changing with the renewal.

Public comment was for largely supportive, highlighting the need for the district in the community, while also highlighting the continued desire for the district’s transparency.

The NTCA finances are audited by a third party every other year and a third party reviews the finances in the off years. The finances are publicly available online. The NTCA is also required to give an annual report to the Placer County Board of Supervisors.

The board was also introduced to and waived the first reading of the ordinance renewing the business improvement district. A public hearing and second reading will take place at the board meeting on Dec. 9., where the supervisors may adopt and renew the district.

For more information on the meeting topics or a video recording, visit placer.ca.gov/10065/_2025.

Link to Placer Sentinel Story

AUBURN, CA (MPG) – The Placer County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a funds management agreement with Housing Tahoe, a regional nonprofit organization dedicated to the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and construction of housing in eastern Placer County. Housing Tahoe will receive up to a total of $500,000 over three phases to increase local housing capacity and address critical workforce housing needs in the Tahoe region.

This new partnership was one of the recommendations included in the Placer County 2021–2029 Housing Element, which identified the need for private housing trusts to be able to leverage contributions from public, private and nonprofit partners. The board previously affirmed the importance of such trusts in 2019, leading to the creation of Housing Trust Placer and the development of much-needed affordable housing throughout unincorporated Placer.

Recognizing the need for more housing locally, the board directed staff to move forward with an east county partnership with Housing Tahoe in November. Tuesday’s approval solidifies the funding needed to help establish the trust.

“The creation of Housing Tahoe represents a collaborative and strategic approach to increasing local capacity for developing and preserving housing that serves the workforce of the Tahoe region,” said Tahoe Housing Hub CEO Erin Casey. “We’re excited to get the county’s support as we kick-start our efforts to create more affordable housing for our community.”

Housing Tahoe is in the process of securing federal 501(c)(3) nonprofit status and will operate in partnership with the Tahoe Housing Hub, an established 501(c)(4) dedicated to advocacy and community engagement around workforce housing. While awaiting IRS approval, Housing Tahoe will use a fiscal sponsorship with The Martis Fund, allowing it to receive and administer tax-deductible land, property and financial donations in support of its mission.

The approved allocation of $500,000 will support both operational tasks and program-specific activities. This will include the following.

Organizational development: Legal and administrative setup, insurance, staffing and finalization of 501(c)(3) status

Property evaluation and due diligence: Building standardized processes to evaluate potential land or housing donations and acquisitions

Donation campaign: Targeted outreach to encourage land and housing contributions from eastern Placer property owners

Public-private partnership development: Building frameworks to leverage employer, philanthropic and investor participation in future housing projects

County funding will be distributed in three performance-based phases, each contingent on clear milestones, such as execution of key agreements, county approval of property evaluation criteria, full expenditure reporting, and demonstrated progress in securing supplemental external funding at a two-to-one ratio.

This agreement is part of a larger initiative to find housing solutions for North Lake Tahoe communities and local workers. More information on Placer County’s housing initiatives is available at https://www.placer.ca.gov/housing.