Category: Stories

< Back to Stories

2026 Federal Housing Policy Review

January 27, 2026

Article by David Garcia, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, January 21, 2026

Link to article here.

After a surprising year of housing policy bipartisanship, lawmakers in Washington, DC are poised to continue pushing for housing supply and affordability solutions in 2026. At the same time, ongoing actions by the administration will continue to pose challenges to housing providers, developers, and the most housing insecure, while new and potentially forthcoming orders demonstrate a willingness to use executive power to address affordability concerns. As we head into an election year, there are several developments worth following in federal housing policy. This commentary previews the year ahead in Washington, DC.

Housing packages are poised to move forward in 2026.

By the end of 2025, both the House and Senate had advanced their own bipartisan bills to increase housing supply and promote affordability. And while the two packages (The ROAD to Housing Act in the Senate, and the Housing for the 21st Century Act in the House) have several unique and novel components, they also feature many overlapping and/or complementary features. Both packages have an opportunity to progress in the first half of this year before lawmakers turn their attention to the November election.

The ROAD to Housing Act, which passed out of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee unanimously and was nearly passed into law as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),[1] contains several provisions that would have a positive impact on housing supply. These provisions include an expansion of the Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) to preserve existing public housing,[2] reforms to existing federal loan products to support Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) financing,[3] and new programs leveraging existing federal dollars to promote more homebuilding in supply-constrained markets. As noted in a Terner Center commentary, the negotiation and advancement of ROAD to Housing represent a shift in how policymakers are approaching federal engagement on housing supply issues.

The Housing for the 21st Century Act advanced from the House Financial Services Committee on a vote of 50-to-1 just before the end of 2025. The Act includes provisions that are similar or identical to ROAD to Housing—for example, the Housing Supply Frameworks Act, reforms to the National Environmental Protection Act, and increases to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance for residential multifamily construction. However, the proposed House legislation also includes a number of unique ideas that would support increases in housing supply and affordability. These include changes to the application of Build America, Buy America requirements for new homes using HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding,[4] requirements that cities report on their progress toward reducing barriers to housing production as part of federal funding reporting, and an examination of how building code reforms could reduce the cost and complexity of homebuilding.

Lawmakers have limited time to move each package forward before members turn their attention to their respective 2026 election campaigns. In the Senate, ROAD to Housing must now be brought back to a vote of the full chamber. The next step for the Housing for the 21st Century Act will be a vote on the floor of the full House. Both could be advanced in the earlier part of the year, setting up a conference committee between the two chambers to send legislation to the president’s desk for signature into law.

The budget deal is poised to maintain funding for critical housing programs.

Senate and House members released their FY 2026 budget agreement on Tuesday, which generally maintains and even increases some funding for affordable housing and infrastructure programs, while increasing resources to vulnerable residents—despite earlier indications that those programs would face steep reductions. For example, lawmakers have proposed that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME both maintain the same funding levels as FY2025 after earlier facing nearly $1 billion less in last year’s budget proposal. In addition, $50 million is included for another round of the CDBG PRO HOME program, which provides support for localities pursuing land use and zoning reforms. Legislators have also proposed a funding increase over FY2025 levels for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), Project Based Rental Assistance, and Homeless Assistance Grants. Congress, which has been operating on a continuing resolution since November of last year, has until January 30 to vote on the full budget.

The budget deal also appears to include a solution for the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program, which provides rental assistance to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. EHV program funding was set to run out before the end of 2026. In the budget, $600 million is allocated to Tenant Protection Vouchers, which can be used to support current EHV holders. This is significant as our recent analysis notes that over 50,000 households nationwide are served through the program and would be at risk of losing that assistance.

The funding bill also includes language that would amend the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) newly proposed guidelines for its largest homelessness program, the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program, which are currently suspended by a court order. HUD’s proposed funding criteria would have changed the CoC Program in many ways that would shift funding away from current permanent housing programs, potentially jeopardizing housing for 32,000 people in California. The bill would limit the extent to which HUD can make these shifts. It would also ensure funding continuity for current program awards that are scheduled to end prior to the next funding application process.

Executive Actions will continue to impact housing markets.

In addition to Congressional activity, the administration has signaled for several months that it has been working on Executive Actions to address housing supply and affordability, with President Trump saying in December that actions will include “some of the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history.”[5]

Statements from other administration officials signal that such actions could include the creation of new mortgage products and rule changes to allow for potential homebuyers to tap their 401(k) for down payments, as well as conditioning federal funds for states and cities on the adoption of policies to make it easier to build new homes. On January 20, President Trump also signed an Executive Order, which he alluded to in his remarks at the World Economic Summit, directing agencies to pursue initiatives aimed at curbing large institutional investor activity in the single-family home market. The Order would have the attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission review large acquisitions for anti-competitive practices and order other departments to promote sales to owner-occupants.

In addition, continued action on tariffs and immigration are likely to have a substantial impact on new supply. For example, multiple analyses by researchers and industry groups note that tariffs imposed or proposed in 2025 have the potential to increase the cost and uncertainty of new homebuilding. Increased deportation activity has also put a chill on residential construction labor supply, where immigrants comprise roughly a quarter of the labor force.[6] In California, more than two-thirds of California contractors cite skilled worker shortages as their top concern, and the state has faced a net loss of construction workers just in the last year.[7]

This year is likely to be consequential for housing affordability.

Polling going into this election year suggests that housing affordability will continue to be a consequential issue, and during campaign season, members of both parties are likely to want to showcase their efforts to advance meaningful legislation. Moreover, success on housing this year could set the table for even greater reforms in the next Congress and beyond. But for this momentum to continue into the next Congress, maintaining bipartisan support for housing solutions during what is likely to be a highly polarizing campaign will be critical.

Endnotes

[1] Lawmakers in Congress will often leverage “must-pass” bills to advance other priorities that are not relevant to the “must-pass” legislative vehicle. The NDAA is considered a “must-pass” bill to ensure funding for national defense.

[2] The RAD program allows public housing providers to rehabilitate existing units by leveraging private debt. We explored the potential of this program in a 2023 paper.

[3] A 2022 Terner Center paper explored the creation of loan products through existing federal programs specifically to provide homeowners with a broader selection of financing options.

[4] The Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) requires that all iron and steel, construction materials, and manufactured products used in federally funded infrastructure projects are produced in the United States. Affordable housing organizations have raised concerns that requiring affordable housing projects to adhere to BABA raises the cost of development.

[5] Samuels, B., & Manchester, J. (17 December, 2025). “Trump touts ‘warrior dividend’ checks, housing reform in address to nation.” The Hill. Retrieved from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5654365-trump-primetime-address-housing-checks/

[6] National Association of Homebuilders. Concentration of Immigration in Construction Trades. Retrieved from: https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/labor-and-employment/immigration-reform-is-key-to-building-a-skilled-workforce/concentration-of-immigration-in-construction-trades

[7] The Home Builders Institute (HBI) Construction Labor Market Report. (2025). Home Builders Institute. https://hbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Fall-2025-Final-Construction-Labor-Market-Report-Update.pdf; California Construction Workforce Trends 2025. (2025). ABLEMKR. https://ablemkr.com/california-construction-workforce-trends-2025/

< Back to Stories

Article: Why State Housing Reform is Failing (and What We Can Do About It)

January 26, 2026

In this article by Edward Erfurt, published in Strong Towns on December 2, 2025, the author breaks down the reasons why building infill housing like ADUs is so difficult. The complexities and risk profiles for individual homeowners building an ADU are vastly different than they are for large developers. This article provides a great explanation of why.

Link to full article HERE.

Across the country, state legislatures are taking bold steps to make more housing possible. Parking mandates are being rolled back. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are being legalized. Entire housing types that were prohibited for decades are now being allowed by right.

For many communities, these changes feel like long-overdue progress. Yet even in the most supportive communities, almost nothing is getting built.

After all the effort, all the hearings, all the debate and negotiation, the number of new units emerging from these reforms is at best a trickle. As I travel across the country talking to communities, these local governments are asking the same question: Why?

The answer reveals something deeper than zoning.

The Paradox of Legalizing Something You Can’t Actually Do

Legalization is the first step, but it is not the ecosystem. I was in Flagstaff, Arizona when the local city council had declared a housing emergency. City staff shared how they wanted to see ADUs built as an option to address the housing crisis. The community was on board politically, because they expanded the applicability of ADU to cover the entire city. But “allowed by right” didn’t translate into “possible in practice.” Builders still couldn’t make the projects work. They could not make these work not because the idea was wrong, but because there’s no broader system to support small-scale development in place.

Our approach to zoning and adoption of codes have left communities with an inability to take action. Over the years, permitting processes grew more complicated, layers of review multiplied, and neighbor veto points cemented themselves into procedure. On top of it all, the procedures in place aren’t proportional to the project. The smallest of projects must navigate systems designed for the largest of developments. A 600-square-foot backyard cottage must comply with the same development standards, permitting submission requirements, and timelines as a 2,500-square-foot house on a one-acre lot.

This tangle of requirements occurs all before we reach the financing system, where nearly every available tool is designed for one thing: standardized, federally backed, single-family houses on large lots. These are the mortgages that banks can bundle and sell on secondary markets, at very low risk. Builders must stack more complicated, and expensive financing that is not readily accessible to all. 

State law can declare that small backyard cottages are legal. But unless cities can review them, permit them, and builders can finance them, legalization will remain largely symbolic.

When State Reform Crashes Into Local Capacity

This gap between the state’s mandate and the city’s ability to carry it out is where the real struggle begins. Cities often default to their only familiar process, so what we’ve seen is that they’ll apply the same permit process for a small ADU as they would a multifamily building. Cities use the permits and processes they know because they have no other smaller template, or worse, they create an even more complicated process. What should be the lowest risk investment, quickly becomes overly complicated and far more risky. That shift in risk matters. Small builders or homeowners are working in the thinnest of margins and uncertainty and risk increases costs.

What looks like a simple option for affordable housing on paper quickly becomes quite unintentionally the most expensive housing to deliver in the city.

Imagine a homeowner walks in, hoping to build a cottage no larger than a shed in their backyard, or convert their garage into an apartment. They’re handed the thick binder of requirements to address all of the unknowns that could occur. The natural reaction of municipal staff when they face uncertainty is to demand more. So an exhaustive and detailed process is initiated to root out and eliminate every possible failure or conflict. The result is a tangle of forms and submittals that imply that perhaps the applicant shouldn’t attempt this after all.

A builder deciding between a modest cottage in an established neighborhood and a large single-family home on the edge of town will likely choose the easier path. When both projects offer the same financial return, people understandably choose the one with fewer headaches. Cities unintentionally push small-scale builders away, not through policy, but through friction.

A Case Study in What Works: Tallahassee’s Breakthrough

We’ve seen the opposite, too. Tallahassee, Florida, had very few ADU permits. Only a handful of persistent builders attempted them. Rather than defending their process, city staff sat down with those builders and listened to learn where there were tangles and friction. They asked where the bottlenecks were. They investigated every confusion point, every unnecessary submittal, every erroneous requirement, and sought out conflicting requirements. Then they made small adjustments: clarifying intent, adjusting standards to align with existing zoning, and making procedures proportional to the scale of the application.

The result? An exponential increase in permits.

This wasn’t a statewide mandate. It wasn’t a massive rewrite. It was staff learning the scale of the work and responding proportionally. They built the local ecosystem necessary for incremental housing to succeed.

What State Mandates Can’t Do

A mandate can change the zoning, but it cannot:

  • Teach staff how to right-size their review.
  • Build trust between cities and local builders.
  • Reform decades of overengineered building codes designed for the biggest projects.
  • Create financing tools that fit the scale of a backyard cottage rather than a cookie cutter suburban home.
  • Form local partnerships between small banks and small developers.
  • Reduce the cultural fear of neighborhoods evolving again.

These changes must be made locally. They are the “ecosystem” of incremental developers, contractors, plan reviewers, lenders, and neighbors. This is why state reforms so often underdeliver: the structure changed, the permissions changed, but the systems never adapted.

What Cities Can Do Right Now

Cities have more control in this process than they think. And small steps matter because ADUs are the lowest-risk housing type a city can allow. They can start by asking three questions:

1. How can we reduce risk for the smallest projects?

Lowering risk lowers cost. That may mean creating a simplified permit, a predictable review timeline, or a small-housing checklist.

2. Are our fees and standards proportionate to the scale of the work?

Many cities charge permit fees for new construction. Waivers or scaled fees can make incremental housing feasible.

3. What local financing tools already exist—and who can we partner with?

Small banks understand local risk better than national lenders. Cities can convene them, share case studies like California’s ADU financing programs, and begin adapting those models.

This is how we localize financing: not through subsidies, but through relationships.

A Call for a More Human Approach

We also need to demystify these units for our communities. At Strong Towns, we’ve learned that people respond far more to stories than policy.

When we talk about who actually lives in back yard cottages we share stories of grandparents staying close, adult children returning home, caregivers helping a senior in place. We also do not use planning acronyms because ADU sounds more like a disease than a home. These are familiar stories that are relatable. Incremental housing is not a radical transformation. It’s a return to the adaptable neighborhoods we built for generations.

But helping people rediscover that truth starts with listening, and this conversation starts best at the most local level at city hall.

< Back to Stories

Article: The Argument for Infill Housing

January 26, 2026

In this article by Andrew Burleson for Strong Towns published on January 20, 2026, the author argues the case for incremental infill housing. Large housing projects get a lot of time, attention and investment, but infill housing plays a critical role in housing supply. The full article is copied below.

Link to article HERE.

I’ve recently seen a lot of chatter about a proposed Safeway redevelopment in the Marina district of San Francisco, including Dave Deek’s December article summarizing the messy (and perhaps hypocritical) politics involved: San Francisco’s Marina Could Get 790 Homes. Mayor Daniel Lurie Says No. YIMBYs Say Yes.

I don’t live in San Francisco anymore, and I’m not writing to opine on the particular project. Rather, I want to share a few thoughts on this kind of project. Specifically, I think that large projects with shiny renderings tend to draw a disproportionate amount of pro-housing advocates attention. While projects like this will be part of the housing solution, I don’t think they’re the answer to our housing problems, and I don’t think we should overly focus on them.

Why do I say that?

First, large redevelopment projects will always be relatively few in number.

  • These projects require enormous skill and capital to execute. There aren’t that many developers with the access to capital or the skill to deploy many projects like this. I’m skeptical that there are even 100 development companies that could execute this kind of project.
    ‍
  • Even if I’m wrong about how many developers are capable of delivering projects on this scale, there’s a finite number of sites that are viable for this kind of project. The Safeway in the Marina is uniquely under-developed relative to its location near the heart of America’s second most important city center, already surrounded by dense, mixed-use development. There’s no shortage of under-developed land, but most of it could not redevelop anywhere at anywhere near the level of the Marina site.
    ‍
  • Opportunity sites tend to be clustered, and, ironically, when one site experiences a massive leap in development intensity it can stall the local market, and make the nearby opportunity sites harder to redevelop rather than easier.

Second, large redevelopment projects like this are uniquely political.

  • Because they are large, they’re extremely visible, and because they will always be relatively few in number, it’s easy for opponents to organize against them.
    ‍
  • It’s also much easier to make people upset about something concrete — “this tower will block your view of the bay!” — than it is to rally against something abstract like single-stair reform.

Third, I’m skeptical that large projects like this could actually scale to meet the housing need in supply-constrained cities, even if they were politically easy to get approved and built.

  • No single project (of any scale) provides enough units to matter. Let’s assume, optimistically, the Marina project will make it through from concept to completion in 5 years. That means its delivering 158 units per year, which is great! But it’s nowhere near enough to meet San Francisco’s housing needs on its own.
    ‍
  • As mentioned previously, there are a limited number of redevelopment sites that can even support large-scale projects like this.
    ‍
  • Even we assume there were 100 capable firms executing these projects in parallel, and that they’d never run out of viable sites, that would net 15,800 units per year. That would be great! But, for context, it’s still less than the 20k + ADUs California has been adding annually.

Now, I’m not trying to argue that projects like this are good or bad, or that we should or should not do them. In the context of San Francisco, the Marina project makes sense to me, I think it should go forward. But I often run into pro-housing advocates who, I think, are overly focused on bulldozing the political obstacles in front of large-scale projects because they think that large-scale projects are the answer, singular. And I think that misunderstands the reality on the ground.

As a case in point, I’ve heard housing advocates characterize California’s ADU program as a modest “take what you can get” reform, even though ADUs are probably already adding more units per year than we could achieve via large-scale apartment projects. That’s an error in thinking.

Housing markets are not made of a few local projects, they’re made of regional aggregates. Even in smaller cities there are tens of thousands of lots, the biggest cities contain millions of parcels. Reforms that apply to millions of parcels are going to unlock more housing than reforms that only apply to hundreds of parcels.

Consider this napkin sketch to illustrate the point:

If we take the zip code 94116 as representative of the Outer Sunset, it contains 16,139 housing units in 2.53 square miles, or 6,379 units per square mile. The Outer Sunset is often criticized as an area that has resisted new housing units and needs to develop further—I agree with that. But there are several hundred zip codes in the Bay Area, and very few of them are near this level of development.

To take one example, let’s look at 94061, in Redwood City. The zip code is currently 54% as dense as the Outer Sunset; 14,006 housing units over 3.86 square miles, or 3,628 units per square mile. The area has some sites that could redevelop into apartment buildings, but the majority of lots are single family homes. The biggest opportunity is to open up new housing options for all those existing homeowners. That means allowing a family to build a backyard cottage for their aging parents to move into, a retiree to convert their basement into an accessory apartment for some extra cash flow, or a local builder to convert a run down house into a duplex or triplex.

If those options were allowed by right, this part of Redwood City could mature to the level of the Outer Sunset; still predominately single family residential, but up from 14,006 homes to 24,623, an increase of 10,617 homes.

There are 323 zip codes in the broader Bay Area, although some of these are quite far from the city, and some contain mostly mountainous terrain. If we passed reform that that permitted ten thousand new homes in half of these, it would unlock 1.6 million new homes.

< Back to Stories

Building Trust: A faster way to preserve and create housing in the Tahoe Truckee region

December 17, 2025

You don’t need to follow the news or attend public meetings to feel the undercurrent of anxiety and frustration related to housing in the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region. Renters are barely hanging on, long-time local families are moving out of the area, and employers are struggling to find and retain workers. The housing crisis isn’t new, and while progress has been made in advancing housing solutions, the need continues to outstrip what our current tools can deliver.

Over the last several years, Placer County and other local jurisdictions have taken important steps—dedicating staff capacity, advancing policy tools, investing in programs, and partnering regionally to increase housing options. That leadership matters. And at the same time, residents and employers are still asking the question that continues to surface across the region: What more can we do, and how do we move faster?

A little over a year ago, the Tahoe Housing Hub put out a call to the local community. We launched the ADU Accelerator Pilot program and invited homeowners to be part of the solution. The community stepped up in a big way. We met with homeowners, walked their property, brought in engineers and planners, and tried to make the numbers pencil. It was incredible to see how many local people wanted to step up and be a part of the housing solution. They were willing to share their personal space with other members of the community so that local workers and families could also have a place to call home in Tahoe.

What the Pilot made clear is that willingness is not the limiting factor—today’s costs and financing realities are. Programs like Placer County’s Launchpad incentives represent real leadership and a clear commitment to housing. Yet even with those tools, many homeowners still face structural barriers: construction costs, financing constraints, insurance and utility realities, and the long-term requirements that often come with deed-restricted housing. In short: people want to help—and even with meaningful progress from local partners, many good-faith efforts still stall before they can become homes.

For years, the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee community has been grappling with the same questions – what more can we do and how do we move faster to reach our housing goals? From the early efforts of Mountain Housing Council to programs like the ADU Accelerator and Launchpad, many ideas have been tried, each moving the conversation forward. The reality is that building in mountain communities is complex and expensive—and those pressures have intensified in recent years. At the same time, existing housing continues to sell at prices unattainable for many local workers and families.

That’s where Housing Trust Tahoe comes in – a new mechanism to immediately preserve existing housing and add units on a small scale, while working alongside local jurisdictions and regional partners. As a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, Housing Trust Tahoe is poised to acquire and preserve existing homes, accept donations of land or property, and leverage private dollars from employers, philanthropy, and individual donors alongside public investment. That means a homeowner or business who wants to help has more than one path: they can build, they can sell or donate a home or a lot, or they can contribute financially to keep naturally affordable housing in local hands.

Housing Trust Tahoe isn’t just “another nonprofit.” It is the culmination of years of community energy, leadership and urgency focused on providing homes for our neighbors – the people who teach our children, serve our food, plow our roads, and care for our elders. On December 9, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved $500,000 to support the formation of Housing Trust Tahoe, our efforts to develop processes for feasibility and property acquisition, and a land/housing donation campaign.

Housing Trust Tahoe now has a new call to action for the local community. Do you have a home or an empty lot that you’d like to donate in exchange for a tax deduction? Do you have resources—financial or otherwise—that you want to put to work locally? Housing Trust Tahoe is ready to partner with the community to purchase units and turn donations into homes for local workers and families.

We are already in the process of accepting our first donation which will directly translate into homes for local workers. Housing Trust Tahoe is a culmination of all those years of energy, frustration and urgency that we’ve felt for so long. We finally have a mechanism to do more and do it quickly.

If you would like to learn more – please reach out to us! info@tahoehousinghub.org.

< Back to Stories

Creating a Housing Trust – Public Comments

December 17, 2025

< Back to Stories

Your Voice Matters: Show Up to Support a First-of-Its-Kind Housing Trust for Tahoe

November 14, 2025

Join us Tuesday, November 18th at the North Tahoe Events Center as the Placer County Board of Supervisors considers seed funding to launch Housing Trust Tahoe – a new regional tool that will preserve existing homes for local workers and families through NOAH (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing) acquisition.

Preserving the Housing We Already Have

The Tahoe Housing Hub is expanding its scope to create immediate, tangible housing solutions for our region. Through our new affiliate charitable non-profit, Housing Trust Tahoe, we can acquire, preserve and finance housing. The Trust is poised to immediately receive land and housing units either in the form of donations or through purchase.

Our primary focus will be NOAH acquisition – existing single-family homes, small multi-family units, cottages and all other types of housing in our region that are already built, might need some upkeep, and can be deed restricted and preserved as affordable and/or workforce housing now and for generations to come.

Why This Matters

The 2023 Housing Needs Assessment identified an 8,200 -unit shortage in the Tahoe-Truckee. Limited developable land and the high cost of construction make new housing difficult – but with only 34% of the homes in our region occupied year-round, there is a tremendous opportunity to preserve what we already have.

NOAH preservation keeps existing homes in local hands, maintains community stability, and delivers housing faster and more cost-effectively than new construction.

True to our core beliefs, all units owned and managed by the Trust will be maintained as dignified, safe and affordable housing in our region. Updating and improving existing housing serves to uplift the surrounding neighborhood. Every unit will be deed restricted in perpetuity and provide housing to local workers at variable income levels.

What This Funding Will Enable

County support will allow Housing Trust Tahoe to:

  1. Evaluate properties for preservation through feasibility analysis, appraisals, title review, and long-term financial planning.
  2. Engage property owners donate land and/or housing.
  3. Develop public-private partnerships with employers, landowners and philanthropic partners to unlock additional housing opportunities.

Be Part of the Solution

To learn more and hear the full presentation to the Placer Board of Supervisors, you can attend in person or listen via Zoom. You can find the agenda and meeting link here. The meeting starts at 9am at the North Tahoe Event Center, 8318 North Lake Blvd in Kings Beach. If you would like to submit public comments you must either do that in person or in writing. Written comments can be submitted 24 hours prior to the meeting by utilizing this link: https://www.placer.ca.gov/FormCenter/Clerk-of-the-Board-29/Public-Comment-Submission-157 or by emailing the Clerk of the Board at BoardClerk@placer.ca.gov. If you are submitting written comment, please be sure to reference Agenda Item 7B: Housing Trust for Eastern Placer County.  

< Back to Stories

Housing 101: Why Every California Community Must Plan for Housing

October 16, 2025

The State Sets the Goals – Communities Decide How to Get There

Across California, every city and county is legally required to plan for housing at all income levels. This isn’t optional — it’s part of state housing law that dates to 1969, when California began requiring local governments to adopt what’s known as a Housing Element as part of their General Plan.

The state’s goal is simple: ensure that communities plan for enough homes for residents of all income levels — from very low-income families to higher earners. To do this, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total number of homes the state needs. That number is then divided among 28 regional planning areas and allocated to each city and county through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Each community captures these state-assigned housing goals in a document called the Housing Element. It’s part of the community’s General Plan and lays out how the town or county will meet its share of housing needs — including zoning updates, land use policies, and programs to support housing at different income levels. Every city and county in the state is required to update their housing element on a seven-year cycle.  

Why the State Is Taking Housing Seriously

In recent years, California has taken a much more aggressive approach to enforcing housing laws. Cities and counties that fail to adopt a compliant housing element now face penalties and loss of control over local zoning decisions. One major consequence is the “builder’s remedy,” which allows developers to bypass local zoning restrictions if a jurisdiction’s housing element is out of compliance. That means if a town or county doesn’t meet state requirements, it loses some of its ability to decide what gets built and where.

Truckee’s Turn to Update Its Housing Element

It’s crunch time for the Town of Truckee to update the town’s Housing Element and get it certified by HCD. The town has about a year and a half to update the existing housing element, allow for a lengthy review process and work with HCD to achieve certification.

During Truckee’s last update, adopted in 2019, the town was required to create planning and regulatory systems for 775 housing units. This time around, based on current data from the RHNA, Truckee must identify development sites, review and update policies, zoning and regulations (if needed), create specific goals, objectives and programs for the preservation and development of 1,534 units – more than double requirement from the previous cycle.  

What Does This Mean to You?

Community input and participation is built into the housing element update process, and it is your chance to help guide where new development should occur and what it should be. It’s important to note that the Town of Truckee is required by state law to create a housing element that removes government constraints and provides a clear framework for development of the 1,534 units. The community can’t say they just don’t want 1,534 more units, but it can be a part of the decision-making process for how and where those units are built.

Solutions to Meet Housing Needs

The actual number of units constructed depends on market demand, cost, financing and other economic considerations. This means that even though there is a great need for housing, new development is never the only solution. An often-overlooked strategy when developing a jurisdiction’s housing element is NOAH – or Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. At the Tahoe Housing Hub, we believe NOAH should be prioritized as a critical part of every housing element. With the cost of new construction so high, NOAH provides a way for local governments or non-profits to purchase existing housing and deed restrict it in perpetuity to serve the local population.

The Tahoe Housing Hub is currently expanding to add a 501(c)3 non-profit component of the organization that will be able to purchase NOAH units, make necessary upgrades and permanently preserve critically needed housing for the local workforce, seniors and families in our community.

How to get involved:

The Town of Truckee began updating the housing element in September 2025, and is planning to provide initial information during a Town Council meeting sometime in late October or November. More information about the town’s housing element update process can be found here. All jurisdictions in the state are required to create and update their housing element. Placer County and El Dorado County’s current housing elements run through 2029.  Nevada County’s housing element runs through 2027, so Nevada County will likely start their update process soon. The chart below outline’s the Town of Truckee’s timeline for completing the Housing Element.

Artist rendering of Edmunds Lofts, a 12-unit workforce housing project located on Edmunds Drive near Meadowood Park in Truckee.

< Back to Stories

Housing 101: Breaking Down California’s 2025 Housing Legislation

September 18, 2025

The California Legislature ended its 2025 session over the weekend with a slew of new housing initiatives aimed at reducing costs and speeding up the process to build housing. The legislature passed a total of seven bills that now sit on Governor Newsom’s desk. He has until October 12 to sign or veto the bills.

**It’s important to remember that since development in the Lake Tahoe Basin is governed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency under a bi-state compact, state law sometimes doesn’t immediately apply or is modified within in the Tahoe Basin.  Here’s a breakdown of the legislation:

Speeding Up Housing Approvals

  • AB 253 – The housing “shot clock” speeds up approvals by allowing home builders to hire a licensed third-party reviewer if local agencies can’t complete a permit review within 30 days.
  • AB 1308 – Creates another “shot clock,” this time for inspections. Jurisdictions must complete final inspections within 10 days for new residential buildings or additions of 1–10 units.

Expanding Housing Opportunities

  • AB 79 – Makes it faster and easier to build multifamily housing near transit stops, with requirements tied to the type of transit, its frequency, and the distance from housing to transit.
  • AB 1061 – Extends the provisions of SB 9 (2021)—which allows for lot splits and duplexes in single-family neighborhoods—to historic districts if existing historic structures are not altered or demolished.

Supporting ADUs and JADUs

  • SB 9 (2025) – Despite sharing the same number, this is different from SB 9 (2021). It reforms ADU ordinances by requiring local governments to bring them into compliance with state law and gives HCD the authority to void any local ordinances that create barriers to ADU construction.
  • AB 1154 – Clarifies rules for Junior ADUs (under 500 sq. ft.) by creating a unified set of standards, resolving confusion from overlapping rules, and making approvals faster and easier.

Making Housing More Accessible

  • AB 413 – Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to translate key state housing guidelines and handbooks into the non-English languages commonly spoken in California, so more homeowners and builders can understand their housing options.

Local Spotlight: Tahoe Basin

Closer to home, the Placer County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Tahoe Basin Area Plan Phase 2 Housing Amendments Their recommendation now moves to the Placer County Board of Supervisors, who will make a final vote on the Amendments later in 2025.

The Phase 2 Amendments apply to housing projects that are 100% deed-restricted and located within town centers in Kings Beach, Tahoe City and other areas zoned for multifamily housing and allow for greater flexibility related to building height, density and parking.

These new housing bills highlight the state’s ongoing efforts to address housing challenges by focusing on faster approvals, expanded opportunities, and clearer rules. Locally, we’re working closely with the Tahoe-Truckee Workforce Housing Agency, which has partnered with Sierra Business Council on state-level housing policy initiatives. You can track statewide legislation and get more in-depth analysis here.

This collaboration helps ensure our region’s housing needs are represented in Sacramento. We’ll also continue to share updates as these laws take shape and as local changes—such as the Tahoe Basin amendments—move forward. By staying informed, our community can better understand the evolving housing landscape and the opportunities ahead.

< Back to Stories

Housing in Tahoe/Truckee on the Regional and Statewide Radar

August 12, 2025

In July, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) hosted the second round of community workshops for the Tahoe Living: Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin project. At the North and South Shore meetings, more than 100 community members and workforce housing stakeholders provided input on fundamental changes to the permitting process for affordable housing projects and accessory dwelling units. TRPA has been hosting a series of bi-lingual workshops, webinars and working groups for the second phase of Cultivating Community, Conserving the Basin. The goal of this multi-year project is to create meaningful policy changes that can make housing more accessible in the Tahoe Region while maintaining and improving environmental protections. You can learn more about the project objectives, timeline, and how to get involved at tahoeliving.org.

Also in July, the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation hosted Tomiquia Moss, California Secretary of Business, Consumer Services, and Housing for a dynamic conversation with local housing agencies and organizations including the Tahoe Housing Hub, Placer County, Town of Truckee and the Tahoe Truckee Workforce Housing Agency. Local housing leaders articulated Tahoe Truckee’s full housing landscape, from rural homelessness to workforce housing gaps and rising fire insurance costs to where State policy can leave mountain communities behind. The Secretary and her team came to learn about Tahoe-Truckee’s regional housing and forest-to-housing efforts as part of a greater, statewide effort hosted by the League of California Community Foundations.

< Back to Stories

Housing 101: ADU Lessons Learned

July 16, 2025

What Homeowners Should Know Before Building

ADUs Are Hard, But Prefabs May Offer a Solution

When we launched the Tahoe Housing Hub’s ADU Accelerator Pilot Program in late 2024, we were ambitious. We set out to support the construction of 20 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in two years and build momentum from there.

The response was strong – over 100 people joined our interest list prior to launching the program, and more than 60 homeowners have since completed applications. Its clear residents want to be part of the solution but building ADUs in the Tahoe-Truckee region is anything but easy.

A year in, we’ve learned the same challenges that make construction difficult in the Tahoe-Truckee region—high costs, short building seasons, and a complicated permitting process—also apply to ADUs. Building a small unit doesn’t necessarily mean small challenges.

In response, we’ve had to get creative – exploring new approaches to construction, design, financing, and permitting in hopes of making ADUs more feasible for homeowners.

Traditional Construction vs. Prefab

The cost of traditional ‘stick-built’ construction cost is simply too high for most people to build an ADU. To address this, we’ve researched financing options, local housing incentive programs, and explored prefab and modular construction companies to find a low-cost solution to our high snow load environment.

Prefab and modular units are built off-site in a controlled environment, then transported and installed on your property. The quality is excellent, energy efficient, and often incorporates sustainable design and construction materials.  They can also reduce construction time and minimize weather delays. You can get anything from a 450 to a 1200 square foot ADU built this way, and the costs are significantly less than traditional construction.

If you’re considering prefab, it’s essential to do your homework. Some companies don’t have experience building in our region, and many models aren’t designed to meet our snow load or energy efficiency requirements. Ask if they’ve installed ADUs in the Tahoe region, whether their models are engineered to meet local codes, and if they can provide references from similar mountain climates. Also, be sure to compare the total cost of the project—not just the base price of the unit. Site work, foundation, utility hookups, and permits can significantly increase the final price.

The Town of Truckee has more detailed information on the different types of prefab ADUs, links to snow load requirements and local building and design criteria. Their site also provides links to several prefab companies. It’s important to note that the town’s prefab company list is informational only, and some of those companies may not be able to provide a product that meets the required snow loads in our area.

How the ADU Accelerator Can Help

If you are interested in a prefab ADU, please reach out to us. We are currently developing a list of prefab ADU companies with products that meet our region’s snow load requirements that we hope will help homeowners as they explore prefab ADU options.

Every ADU that is built in conjunction with our ADU Accelerator Pilot Program provides a home for a local worker. As we continue to learn what works—and what doesn’t—we’re focused on helping homeowners navigate the complexities of building in this region. Program participants receive free technical assistance as they navigate the permitting and construction process. We also cover all or some of the cost of additional pre-construction services like site surveys, land use planning, engineering and design.

Homeowners who participate in the program agree to rent their ADU to a local worker and can choose two different options: rent at market rate for 5 years or rent at a lower rate set by HUD for 3 years. The ADU Accelerator program is made possible by a grant from the Martis Fund and the North Tahoe Community Alliance’s TBID/TOT Dollars at Work Program. For more information visit www.tahoehousinghub.org.

STAY INFORMED AND STAY CONNECTED

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