SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Last week’s final city council meeting of the year had several housing updates, including the second hearing on employee housing signage ordinances, the Prohousing Incentive program grant application for Sugar Pine Village, and an ADU agreement with Workbench.

Employee housing signage

This was the second hearing regarding making an amendment to the signage ordinance for the city. The change would affect City Code 6.15.730 and 6.30.080 and require lodging properties used for employee housing and multifamily properties to post signage in a conspicuous location with information for the Housing Hotline, in both English and Spanish.

---

---

David Jinkens asked clarifying questions on why the city was taking on “responsibilities of the state of California” with regards to the housing hotline. Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, housing manager for the city, clarified that the housing hotline number that the city has processes and directs the complaints for substandard housing to the state when necessary. Since January, they have only received one complaint.

One attendee, Mr. Hayes, thanked the city council on behalf of the J1 employees who brought the issue to their attention. He especially thanked councilmember Scott Robbins, saying he “showed [him] politics still have a heart.”

---

---

City council adopted the ordinance unanimously.

Sugar Pine Village funding

The item regarding Sugar Pine Village requested city council to pass a resolution ratifying the grant application for the Prohousing Incentive Program 2024, which would authorize the city manager to accept funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The funding would be up to $620,000 for Phase 2B of Sugar Pine Village.

During the clarifying questions section, Councilmember David Jinkens requested assurances that Sugar Pine Village would be for existing working local members in need of housing, not for other Californians in need of housing. “God bless them, but that’s not our job,” said Jinkens.

City manager Joe Irvin stated that a disparity report will be ready in January or February of next year, which will inform a local preference policy that city staff will bring to city council’s consideration. “That report will give us the parameters for what level of local preference we can give,” said Irvin.

Wackenhut Lomeli also clarified that this current grant application is for the final phase of Sugar Pine Village housing. She added that the policy would need to be drafted in accordance with the disparity report, along with state and federal fair housing laws.

She added that of the nearly 300 applications that have been submitted and vetted, about 80% of them are coming from within South Lake Tahoe.

During public comment, an online attendee, Stacey Ballard, said that she was applying for Sugar Pine Village. As someone on Social Security and disability payments, she expressed that the application was not easy. “I literally have to show bank statements,” she said, in reference to the housing being targeted for low-income residents. “I was happy to hear that 80% of the applications were locals, that was a higher percentage than I expected it to be… so far, so good.”

Ballard said she looked forward to more affordable housing initiatives in the area.

Another online attendee said that the process should include those who have lived in the area before and had to move away for another reason, such as the pandemic. She agreed that the application process was not easy. She encouraged city council to make the process easier and to also consider those who were pushed out of South Lake Tahoe, especially seniors.

Angelica Q., a member of the South Lake Tahoe Lived Experience Advisory Board, brought up the application process, which requires things like identification and bank statements. She said that the large population of undocumented people, many of whom make up the Latine population of South Lake Tahoe, could be blocked by this. “How is this helpful to them? It’s not accessible at that point—just because people don’t have documents doesn’t mean they don’t matter.”

Jae Marquez, another member of the South Lake Tahoe Lived Experience Advisory Board, added that they want to see a prioritization of those who are currently unhoused. She also emphasized that requiring certain documents was a barrier to undocumented people who may want to apply. “As a single parent who experienced homelessness and struggled with housing instability, I was deterred by how complicated the application process was and how much documentation was required,” Marquez said. She acknowledged that there could be reasons why that would happen on a state and federal level, but she said that getting access to documents or a lawyer’s services also costs money—which defeats the purpose of making it accessible.

City council unanimously passed the item.

ADU Workbench Agreement

Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli returned to the podium once again to present on this item. She asked for approval on the professional agreement with Workbench for preapproved accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans. The permit-ready plans could be obtained online and would not have to go through the plan check process, reducing fees and making it easier for those interested in building ADUs. However, it does not include site analysis or other site verifications that could be required under TRPA regulations.

After four different options were presented earlier this year, city staff determined that Workbench was the best firm to assist the city in developing pre-approved ADU plans. Staff recommended that city council pass a motion authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a professional service agreement with Workbench, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for the development of preapproved ADU plans.

Jinkens expressed his concerns about following the laws for the state of California, which Wackenhut Lomeli responded to by saying they were following these to the best of their ability, while also operating in the TRPA jurisdiction.

Councilmember Tamara Wallace redirected the conversation on state and TRPA regulations to a future strategic planning meeting.

Councilmember Scott Robbins asked whether pre-built ADU products, also called modular housing, were being investigated with this professional services agreement. Wackenhut Lomeli showed that it was included in the scope of services.

During public comment, an attendee criticized the “cookie-cutter” nature of ADUs and asked why the planning department wasn’t responsible for looking at potential solutions rather than paying out $125,000. Another attendee expressed similar concerns as Jinkens regarding the jurisdictions and laws around housing units.

The motion passed with four yes votes. Jinkens chose to abstain from the vote. Wallace also asked city staff to include the item in their strategic planning meeting, with Robbins chiming in that they should expand it to include SB 9 discussion, which is a law allowing up to four housing units on single-family lots in California—which currently conflicts with other regulations in the area.

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.