Category: News

< Back to News

The Town of Truckee has Submitted the 2027-2035 Housing element to the State of California on July 9, 2026.

July 16, 2026

Housing Element Update Process Background

At the September 23, 2025 Town Council meeting, the Town Council kicked-off the 2027-2035 Housing Element Update process. 

The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of a General Plan and the only element that is required to be certified by the State of California. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and certifies housing elements. A Housing Element is required to have the following components: 

  • Review of previous element
  • Housing needs assessment based on the HCD’s analysis of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is a state-mandated process where the State quantifies the need for housing for each local jurisdiction; the Town is then tasked with ensuring that there is enough land zoned for the required residential density.
  • Inventory and analysis of adequate sites to meet RHNA requirements
  • Analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints 
  • Housing policies and programs 
  • Quantified objectives

The Town of Truckee’s current 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted in 2019, applies to the 2019-2027 planning period. In order to ensure compliance with State law, the Town is required to adopt and certify an updated Housing Element by May 15, 2027 for the 2027-2035 planning period (7th cycle). State law requires that HCD review and certify the Housing Element, which requires a 90-day HCD review period and potential revisions and subsequent 60-day reviews. The length of HCD’s review period requires that the Town begin work early on the update to ensure that the Housing Element is adopted by the May 15, 2027 deadline. 

On June 25, 2025, the Town Council authorized a contract with Ascent Environmental (Ascent) to provide consulting services to help with drafting and adoption of the Housing Element.

Updated July 9, 2026

The Town of Truckee submitted the 2027-2035 HCD Review Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the State-mandated 90-day review of first draft submittals.

The Public Review Draft Housing Element was released on May 18, 2026, and the public comment period closed on June 17, 2026. During that period, the Town held a community meeting and open house on May 27, 2026, a special Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2026, and a Town Council meeting on June 23, 2026. Following these meetings, the Town revised the Public Review Draft Housing Element in response to public comments and Town Council direction. The HCD Review Draft Housing Element was published on July 9, 2026, on the Town’s project website.

The Town did not receive any written comment letters during the public review period. However, public comments were received at the community meeting and open house and during the Planning Commission and Town Council meetings noted above. The Public Review Draft Housing Element was revised in response to those comments. The Town will continue to accept and review any comments received during the HCD review process and make any appropriate revisions to the draft Housing Element.

The following revisions were made since the public review draft:

  • Program H-1.A – Updated the objective and timeline to support maintaining a 30% buffer.
  • Removed the Truckee-Specific AMI program.
  • Table HA-15 (Occupied Units by Tenure): Clarified that the totals in this table exclude units considered vacant.
  • Table HF-1 (Progress Towards Meeting the 2019-2027 RHNA – Permitted Units Issued by Affordability): Calculations were corrected.
  • References to the Olympics were changed to 1960 Olympics.
  • Throughout the document, the term “pipeline projects” was changed to “projects in the entitlement pipeline” and the term was more clearly defined to mean projects that are approved by not constructed and projects that are under review.
  • The approved and pending unit counts in the sites summary table and list of projects (Appendix HC-6) were separated.
  • References to “Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan” were updated to “Truckee Active Transportation Plan” to reference the future document the Town is working on, where appropriate.
  • Minor typos were corrected.

Full Town of Truckee 2027-2035 HCD Review Draft Housing Element (PDF)

Individual Chapters

  • Housing Element – HCD Review Draft (PDF) – This is the main policy framework.
  • Appendix HA: Community Profile (PDF) – This section summarizes key population, household, employment, income, and housing market characteristics that shape housing demand and supply in the town, with attention to income level, tenure, and special needs groups.
  • Appendix HB: Constraints (PDF) – This section reviews both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. This section includes a comprehensive review of the Town’s Development Code requirements that apply to housing projects.
  • Appendix HC: Site Inventory (PDF) – This section describes the Town’s assigned housing target, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and presents the Town’s strategy for how it will accommodate that need through the estimated residential capacity in the Town.
  • Appendix HD: Assessment of Fair Housing (PDF) – This section is an assessment of fair housing conditions in Truckee as required by Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10). The analysis evaluates patterns related to segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, how the sites inventory improves or exacerbates fair housing issues, and unique local factors.
  • Appendix HE: Funding Resources and Energy Conservation (PDF) – This section describes the local, regional, State, and Federal funding resources that are available to support housing development and programs in Truckee and the ways the Town provides opportunities for energy conservation in residential development.
  • Appendix HF: Past Performance (PDF) – This section summarizes major accomplishments made during the sixth cycle, highlights progress towards meeting special housing needs in the Town of Truckee, and provides an evaluation of sixth cycle housing element programs
  • Appendix HG: Community Outreach (PDF) – This section summarizes the Town’s outreach efforts on housing and specific information on outreach conducted as part of the Housing Element effort.
  • Appendix HH: Glossary (PDF) – This section defines terms found in the Housing Element and its appendices

< Back to News

ROAD to Housing Crosses the Finish Line: The Most Significant Housing Legislation in a Generation

July 16, 2026

By David Garci & Julie Aguilar, published by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley on July 11, 2026

The U.S. Congress formally passed the 21st Century Road to Housing Act (ROAD Act) on Tuesday, June 23, and it became law on Saturday, July 11.* This bill culminates over a year of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. In its final form, the nearly 400-page ROAD Act contains dozens of provisions—ranging from policies that support best practices in zoning and land use changes at the state and local level, to reforms to manufactured housing regulations and that curb large investor activity in single-family home purchases.

Individually, these disparate components represent mostly technical or narrowly tailored reforms; none of these alone will likely change the game for housing supply and affordability across the country. Much more work remains, especially as it pertains to improving outcomes for recipients of federal housing support and returning to an evidence-based approach to addressing homelessness. However, as a whole, the various provisions of the ROAD Act comprise the most significant housing reform package Congress has passed in a generation, setting the stage for even bigger reforms in the future.

Passage of the ROAD Act cements housing as a top tier issue for both parties 

One can hardly overstate the significance of passing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, not just because of the legislation’s complexity, but because lawmakers reached any agreement at all. In an era of hyper-polarization, it is an unlikely outcome that legislators from such disparate political backgrounds moved such an intricate set of reforms through several rounds of negotiations. Passing this act required Democrats Elizabeth Warren (Ranking Member, Senate Banking) and Maxine Waters (Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee – HFSC) to work in extended good faith with Republicans Tim Scott (Chair, Senate Banking) and French Hill (Chair, HFSC), as well as the White House. Such bipartisan, good-faith legislating is largely unheard of today; the ROAD Act serves as an exception to the norm and demonstrates that the need to address housing affordability transcends traditional political barriers.

Several key provisions were authored by members from both parties who, in many other instances, struggle to agree on other policy matters. For example, deeply conservative Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana partnered with progressive stalwart Senator Warren to craft the BUILD Now Act (codified in Section 213), which ties Community Development Block Grant program dollars to housing construction in high-cost, supply-constrained markets. Similarly, Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska (Chair of the HFSC Housing Subcommittee) and Democratic Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware (Senate Banking Committee) co-led the Housing Supply Frameworks Act (Section 107), directing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop zoning and land use best practices for localities. The list of bipartisan sponsors continues well beyond those mentioned here.

Previously non-starter policies gain acceptance

Many architects of the ROAD Act moved beyond their parties’ longstanding positions during broader negotiations. For example, in previous Congresses, the idea of Democrats championing the loosening of environmental rules seemed impossible. In this Congress, however, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reform became a priority for some Democrats who expressed that the well-meaning law needlessly delayed and increased the cost of new housing, despite staunch opposition from some environmental groups. This mutual policy priority between Democrats and Republicans resulted in ROAD’s Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development (BUILD) Housing Act provision (Section 205), which expands NEPA exemptions for most infill housing.

In another example, Congressional Republicans have traditionally balked at programs that require new spending. Yet, in ROAD, both House and Senate Republicans agreed to Senator Warren’s new $200 million innovation fund program (Section 208). The fund asks congressional appropriators to create a flexible pool of funding for communities that increase their housing supply. Republicans also supported the reauthorization and modernization of the HOME program (Section 501), despite repeated proposals from the White House and the House Budget Committee to zero out funding.

ROAD also expands the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program (Section 212), which allows Public Housing Authorities to take on debt to preserve and rehabilitate their units. Ranking Member Maxine Waters had previously opposed the RAD program, stating it might “do more harm than good.” Ultimately, members of both parties and chambers overcame those and other reservations.

Research and analysis get a boost

ROAD also directs research into understudied topics, including requiring HUD to assess the cost-effectiveness of supporting housing finance for factory-built housing (Section 303) and to identify barriers to insured lending for modular housing (Section 302). Section 205 directs HUD to review the application of Build America, Buy America rules on affordable housing projects and to issue updated guidance. Section 804 directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct several assessments, including a report on barriers to workforce and senior housing. The GAO must also research challenges related to heirs’ property (property handed down without legal documentation). Furthermore, localities must conduct local analyses to qualify for certain funding programs, including creating accessible inventories of underdeveloped and publicly owned land (Section 104). Research requirements like these can help shed light on critical housing issues and provide data and evidence to guide future policy development.

Creatively lowering the cost to build and expanding financing options

ROAD includes several common-sense reforms to address high construction costs and expand financing options. Regarding manufactured housing, Section 301 eliminates a long-standing HUD rule requiring a permanent steel chassis. This, combined with a recent rule change loosening restrictions on multistory manufactured homes, could expand the use of factory-built homes and reduce construction costs. Section 303 also updates Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lending rules to allow home improvement loans for manufactured homes used as accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This change opens a new pipeline of financing for homeowners who wish to build an ADU but lack the resources to do so with a federally backed product. Additionally, Section 102 allows HUD to establish federal guidelines for point-access block buildings (single-staircase apartments), which could reduce the cost of “missing middle” housing.

Lawmakers also made important changes to funding rules. Section 203 increases the Public Welfare Investment Cap from 15 percent to 20 percent of overall capital, enhancing banks’ capacity for private investment in affordable housing. Furthermore, Section 204 reforms the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to allow for new construction; cities can now allocate up to 20 percent of their CDBG funds toward new housing development, an activity previously prohibited.

This commentary highlights some of ROAD’s most impactful reforms, though dozens more exist, such as the authorization of a disaster relief funding program, modernizations to rural housing programs, and limitations on large investor purchases of single-family homes. Many of these changes are small in nature and much more work can and should be done around federal approaches to increasing housing supply. ROAD also does not appropriate any money to improve or expand critical demand-side programs. Nor does the bill address any of the contentious actions taken by the current administration, such as the substantial staffing cuts at HUD or proposing to eliminate the mixed-status rule or move away from a housing-first approach to homelessness. All of that said, the passage of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act is a landmark achievement, marking the most significant federal housing reform in a generation.

Beyond the technical details, the significance of ROAD also lies in its existence as a bipartisan, bicameral product. The ability of lawmakers from such varied political backgrounds to broker such a sweeping package suggests that Washington is finally ready to take housing supply and affordability seriously.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to our colleagues, including Sarah Karlinsky and Ben Metcalf, for their thoughtful reviews of this piece.

This commentary does not represent the institutional views of the University of California, Berkeley, or of the Terner Center’s funders. Funders do not determine research findings or recommendations in the Terner Center’s research and policy reports.

*This post was originally published on June 24, 2026, when Congress had passed the the legislation, and it was awaiting signature from President Donald Trump. It has been updated to reflect that it became law on Saturday, July 11, without the President’s signature.

< Back to News

Here’s what the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ federal housing bill means for California

July 16, 2026

By Ben Christopher – Cal Matters, published July 10, 2026

The largest single piece of federal housing legislation to come out of Congress in at least a generation is about to become law. It will happen in the middle of the night, without much fanfare and it might be a while before many Californians notice its effects. (Note: the bill became law on July 11, 2026 without the president’s signature).

That’s because though the bill is politically monumental, it doesn’t do one big thing. Instead, it does a lot of little things. Individually, none of the bill’s 56 regulatory tweaks, pilot programs and low-cost loans and grants are likely to move the needle on the nation’s housing affordability woes, nor on California’s specifically. 

Supporters hope that collectively, they just might. 

Even the law’s path to enactment had an under-the-radar quality to it. The White House abruptly cancelled a planned signing ceremony late last month with President Trump vowing not to lend his signature to the housing bill until Congress first passed a national voter ID proposal. That bill has stalled out in the Senate.  On Friday, Trump vowed again not to sign the bill in protest. Even so, because Trump does not appear likely to veto the housing package, it will automatically become law on Saturday just after midnight, as per terms specified in the U.S. Constitution.

For all that, supporters say this is still a big deal: A major, bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at boosting housing construction from a hyperpartisan legislative body that doesn’t typically touch the topic.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” said Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, at a press conference on Thursday. “I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive … it is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

That’s thanks in part to a growing caucus of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement that helped push the bill into law. Many hail from California, a state that has had more experience than most contending with wildly unaffordable housing. But the cause of making housing more affordable, and attributing high housing costs to a lack of sufficient supply, has become a national and bipartisan concern. Case in point: The bill originated as a joint proposal by U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat and one of the body’s most liberal members. 

While the constituent parts of the bill are relatively narrow and none are specifically focused on California, experts highlight a handful of new provisions that could leave a notable imprint on the state.

Build Now (or else)

For high-cost cities that don’t build much housing (see: an awful lot of urban California), the federal bill includes a novel carrot and stick.

This portion of the bill would change the Community Development Block Grant, one of the largest sources of federal funding for affordable housing and local economic development. Pricey cities — defined through a variety of data benchmarks like median prices and vacancy rates — with a track record of under-building that continue to see below-average housing construction will have their grant funds cut by 10%. The savings will go to their municipal counterparts that build at a faster clip. 

That’s likely to have “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that have traditionally lagged behind” in adding housing supply, said David Garcia, the deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. 

The City of LA received $48.4 million in its last award from the block grant program in 2024, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data. San Francisco received $18.9 million. Those numbers aren’t enough to make or break the budget of either city.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which taken across the country could still have a good impact! Little nudges add up.”

More dramatic than the number of dollars involved may be the precedent the policy sets. Even in California, where the state government has aggressively incentivized cities to plan for more housing development and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never punished municipalities for failing to actually grow — an outcome that may not always be under a city government’s control. Such an idea would have been “inconceivable in previous congresses,” said Garcia. Despite that, the provision hasn’t engendered much public pushback from local government groups yet. In an online summary, Michael Wallace, a lobbyist with the National League of Cities, applauded the overall housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing partnership with local governments over preemptions.” He singled out other provisions of the bill that provide expanded flexibility for Community Development Block Grant spending, new incentive programs for adding supply, and new supports for local urban planning.

Chassis change

Manufactured housing units are often colloquially referred to as “mobile homes,” but they don’t tend to move around much. Built on assembly lines and shipped to where they’re needed, these naturally affordable houses — the likes of which lawmakers across California and the United States claim we need in droves — are often placed upon permanent foundations where a fewer than one-in-ten ever move again. Even so, the federal building code applied to manufactured housing includes a costly, vestigial reference to its mobile origins: a permanent chassis.

A giant steel frame with removable axles and wheels, the chassis ostensibly exists to make it easier to pick up and move a manufactured house by truck. In practice, it serves as a 10- to 12-inch thick floor beneath the floor. Because it cannot be removed upon delivery, it just serves as “dead space and wasted money,” said Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, the industry’s trade group. Aside from adding thousands of dollars in added costs per unit, it also makes it harder for manufactured units to be stacked into double story homes or multifamily apartment buildings. The federal housing bill removes the permanent chassis requirement, something that manufacturers and some housing policy experts have been pushing for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” said Rep. Scott Peters, a San Diego Democrat, at the Thursday press conference. Maxcy said he doesn’t expect the end of the chassis requirement to trigger an overnight building boom in the manufactured home industry. But especially in California where, due to the high price of land, new single-family homes are more likely to be built stacked on small lots, the regulatory change “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

Recovering after disaster

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal dollars have come and gone, Congress has provided communities with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program. Over the last three decades, the program has spent more than $100 billion on the long-term work of recovery, like home construction, infrastructure repair, and rental and relocation assistance. That money tends to be reserved for low income people and communities “who are not going to bounce back without the funds,” said Marion McFadden, who used to run the program under the Biden administration and now works at the disaster preparation and recovery consulting company IEM.

Unfortunately for California, the program only kind of exists. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been stood up and funded on an ad hoc basis, one appropriation bill at a time. That’s presents a challenge for communities planning in the middle of post-disaster planning. It also means the rules that govern the program — when the money goes out, to whom, under what conditions and for what purposes — are redrafted with each political administration. That’s had the effect of slowing things down considerably. No program funding has gone to Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fire storms, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congress has yet to appropriate any.

The new housing bill would officially write the program into law for at least three years. “It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” said McFadden. What the housing bill doesn’t do: Actually provide any fresh funding. Disaster prone communities will need to wait for Congress to take that up later.

A ‘bottleneck’ removed

For the last two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have been turning to the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to help repair and upgrade their aging stock of increasingly dilapidated public housing. The program works by switching up funding sources in a way that gives locals more flexibility to borrow money and attract private investment dollars. Until July 11 at midnight, the federal government was only authorized to permit 455,000 of these conversions. The new bill raises the cap by another 100,000. “This has been a bottleneck in California for years and that bottleneck just got removed,” said Russell with the San Diego Housing Federation.

Not all affordable housing advocates are cheering the development. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expansion of the program on the grounds that the change in funding source could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear whether and to what extent that might be true. A study from last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to more evictions.

Wall Street out of suburbia

If you’ve heard only one thing about this housing bill, it’s that it bans “large institutional investors” from buying up more single family homes. Caveats apply in the final version of the law. The bill defines “large” as any of a number of business structures with control over more than 350 single family homes. It doesn’t apply retrospectively, so current investors with portfolios brimming with houses need not divest. Exemptions exist for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other major investors do not play a significant role in the housing market, the effect is likely to be muted. 

The measure “takes a hyper-salient issue for lots of people across the country and does a pretty modest intervention to address it,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy advisor to President Biden. Even so, the provision has plenty of bipartisan appeal. Earlier this year, Trump called for an even stricter crackdown on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom followed suit the same week.

The anti-investor language was considerably watered down from earlier this year, when a related provision threatened to undermine “build-to-rent” projects: Well-financed subdevelopments of single-family homes reserved for renters. That prompted a revolt by many developers and YIMBY activists who had otherwise enthusiastically supported the bill, who argued that such communities are one of the fastest growing sources of the U.S. housing stock and provide some of the few opportunities for renters to live in suburban-style, family-sized housing. 

After the build-to-rent provision was left on the cutting room floor of Congress, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Fremont Democrat who is now running for Congress, introduced a bill that picked it back up again. SB 880 would have banned the bundled sale of multiple single-family homes, striking at the heart of the build-to-rent business model. That bill died in the Assembly Judiciary committee in late June.

< Back to News

Placer Supervisors approve funding for housing, transportation programs

June 12, 2026

By Katelyn Welsh – Sierra Sun, June 12, 2026

AUBURN, Calif. – The Placer County Board of Supervisors approved transient occupancy tax funding for two projects and extended another project at their meeting on Tuesday in Auburn, Calif.

Through the board’s action, $500,000 of transient occupancy tax (TOT) will go to the Lease to Locals program, which incentivizes homeowners to lease their properties to local workers.

Another $869,992 will go towards the TART Connect Expanded Service hours, a free on-demand shuttle service.

The board also approved an extension of the Workforce Housing Preservation Program, a down-payment assistance and deed-restriction program aimed at securing housing for local workers.

The allocated funds come from TOT generated in eastern Placer County. A local TOT advisory committee, organized by the North Tahoe Community Alliance (NTCA), vets projects and makes funding recommendations to the NTCA board and county board for final consideration.

Last year, the board approved a new 10-year memorandum of understanding with the NTCA. A part of that agreement is the development of the economic health and catalyst initiatives roadmap, meant to guide future TOT and TBID dollar investments over the next 10 years.

However, as the roadmap is being prepared, county staff identified these housing and transportation programs that needed immediate funding to avoid disruption.

The Winter and Events Park and Ride was another identified program that will come before the board at a future date.

< Back to News

Tahoe City Affordable Housing Development Meets Funding Challenges

June 12, 2026

By Katelin Welsh – Sierra Sun, June 12, 2026

TAHOE CITY, Calif. – Placer County’s potential Dollar Creek Crossing Affordable Housing Development continues to meet funding challenges, according to an update at a county supervisors meeting on Tuesday.

In 2019, the county bought vacant parcels in Tahoe City across N Lake Blvd. from the 7-11 with the intention of developing housing there.

The county and a selected developer have explored potential mixed-use, mixed-income, and mixed-tenancy plans for the property over the last seven years.

In April of last year, the board directed county staff to pursue a development agreement for an affordable-only project with at least 80 lower-income units.A development agreement would mark the next step in the process; however, staff did not have one to present to the board due to funding challenges.

The developer, Related Norcal Development, LLC, is currently working with the county under a preliminary agreement (set to expire at the end of this month) and has conducted public outreach and provided a revised site plan, a milestone schedule and a financial report for an 80-unit low-income housing development.

The financial report indicates that, to make it feasible, the county would likely need to contribute $18.5 million.

Staff explained at the meeting that if the current developer’s agreement were allowed to expire, the county would be required to submit another request for proposals no later than July of next year.

While some residents during public comment questioned the project’s viability and whether to pull the plug, certain board members expressed support for allowing the project to continue on its current course.

Both Supervisor Cindy Gustafson and Bonnie Gore said obtaining funds may require creativity, with Gustafson mentioning a bond or some type of borrowing.

Additionally, staff mentioned the team is working closely with the county’s Ad Hoc Committee for Housing Funding and Fee Implementation, which may identify funding sources.

< Back to News

How are two of Placer County’s Tahoe housing programs doing?

June 12, 2026

By Katelyn Welsh – Sierra Sun, May 15, 2026

KINGS BEACH, Calif. – On Monday, the Placer County Board of Supervisors received annual updates on two programs tackling housing needs for local workers in the Tahoe region of Placer County.

Lease to Locals Program

Lease to Locals is a program launched in 2022, initially as a pilot, that has continued to incentivize homeowners to lease their properties to local workers. In exchange for renting their home that previously was not a full-time rental, homeowners can receive up to $4,500 per qualified tenant (max of four for 12-month lease).

Between July of last year and this April, the program has secured 24 properties, reflecting 56 bedrooms and housing 62 people. Of those, 48 are local workers, and 14 are children. Average rent per property was $2,725 and $1,168 per bedroom. The county committed $194,000 on incentives, averaging $8,083 per property.

Since the program’s start, 147 properties have participated, providing 335 bedrooms. It has housed 357 people, including 286 local workers and 55 children. Over that time, the average rent per property was $2,617 and $1,148 per bedroom. The average income of adults housed has been $64,631. In the four years, the county has committed $1.39 million in incentives. According to Placemate, Inc., the program facilitator, 77% of properties that have graduated the program continue to rent long-term, indicating a positive long-term impact on unlocking housing for local workers.

Launchpad Program

In April of last year, the board approved the Launchpad program to support the creation of new housing through either new construction or the renovation of previously nonresidential or non-code-compliant spaces.

Upon the completion of the project and recording of a deed restriction, applicants receive their previously reserved monetary incentive. The deed restriction requires the property to be occupied by a household with at least one member of the local workforce.

Funding is reserved for projects during development through the program’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process.

A pilot $1 million NOFA was issued last year and received eight applications. Four were deemed eligible. Of the four, two ADU projects declined due to the deed restriction requirements.

The following funding reservations were made for the other two:

  • $600,000 for Steelhead Cottage Court, a project in Kings Beach replacing an uninhabitable unit with three tiny homes (completion expected late 2026)
  • $125,000 for an ADA-Accessible ADU on Brook Avenue in Kings Beach that will offer a wheelchair-accessible unit above a garage (completion expected summer 2027)

In February, the board approved $3 million for the next NOFA round. The county received 12 applicants and expects to use a lottery system following eligibility checks.

< Back to News

A Tahoe nonprofit is using storytelling as a tool for solving the housing crisis

April 14, 2026

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.

< Back to News

TTCF, TRPA align housing findings, highlight regional workforce housing crisis

April 14, 2026

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.

Provided / TTCF

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.

< Back to News

How area plans help incentivize housing

April 14, 2026

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/.

< Back to News

Truckee approves Development Code changes to boost workforce housing

April 14, 2026

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.

STAY INFORMED AND STAY CONNECTED

Get important updates and timely information about workforce housing in our region.