South Lake Tahoe panel approves 75‑unit deed‑restricted housing project on Lake Tahoe Boulevard

The South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, acting as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency hearings officer, approved a resolution and TRPA permit for a proposed 75‑unit multifamily housing project at 3900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard.

John Hitchcock, the city’s planning manager, told commissioners the project is deed‑restricted to households earning below 80% of area median income and includes a manager’s unit, street‑level commercial space, podium parking and a mix of one‑ to three‑bedroom units. Staff recommended approval of TRPA permit 24‑173 after concluding the proposal meets the TRPA code, the Tourist Core Area Plan and the city’s objective design standards in a ministerial review under SB 35.

“The project is deed‑restricted to households below 80% of the area median income,” Hitchcock said, summarizing the affordability commitment and the staff findings. Hitchcock also described site constraints: two parcels totaling about 1.23 acres, TRPA land capability classes V and VII, a need to transfer roughly 5,269 square feet of coverage to mitigate excess land coverage, and the removal of five trees larger than 30 inches DBH that TRPA considers old growth.

Developer Sheldon Rodriguez of SMR Development said the design includes about 13,250 square feet of usable open space (courtyard and plaza areas), internal bicycle storage for 76 bikes, and a podium parking layout proposing 71 vehicle spaces. Rodriguez said the second‑floor plaza is intended to be private to residents but can be coordinated for on‑site services. “We want to house people, not cars,” he said while describing parking‑management practices and pro rata allocation during lease‑up.

Commissioners pressed on scale, setbacks and traffic. Hitchcock confirmed a required 10‑foot side setback, and staff said the city lacks the right‑of‑way to add a center turn lane on Pioneer Trail; staff agreed to consult public works about ingress and egress improvements. Commissioners also raised pedestrian safety at the garage exit and asked the developer to consider early mitigation, such as warning systems or design features that reduce conflicts between vehicles and people walking or biking.

The commission discussed affordability and tenant selection. A staff member noted the city recently adopted a local preference policy that would guide wait‑list prioritization consistent with state law. The developer said the financing stack will determine the final distribution of AMI tiers but estimated the average income of the affordable units would be about 60% of AMI.

On funding, the developer said the project’s all‑in cost is roughly $60–$64 million. Applications recently submitted include slightly more than $14 million in state funding; the team has an earlier IIG award of about $4.5 million, and the city has set aside up to $500,000 as a predevelopment loan. Most of the project’s capital is expected to come from low‑income housing tax credit equity, which the developer said they cannot apply for until after local approvals are complete.

Nick Spiel, a member of the public, urged the commission to move ahead without delay under SB 35 and suggested decoupling parking from rent and adding more bike parking. “I would encourage you all to move forward and approve this without any additional holdups,” Spiel said.

Chair Bjorcek moved to adopt the staff resolution finding no significant environmental effect and to approve TRPA permit 24‑173 with the standard and special conditions in the staff packet; Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried. Staff noted the TRPA permit decision can be appealed to the TRPA Governing Board under TRPA rules, not to the City Council.

Next steps outlined by the developer include securing tax credit equity and other awards; if financing is secured on the timetable discussed, grading and construction could begin once snow conditions permit in 2026. The commission scheduled its next meeting for May 15, 2025, and then adjourned.

This decision approves permit 24‑173 as described in the staff report; conditions, mitigation measures and any appeal filings will be reflected in the final permit documents.