Occupancy, density and caps of SLT VHRs topic of long meeting

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. - There are two topics that fills the City Council chambers: Marijuana and Vacation Home Rentals (VHR). Interested residents and other stakeholders in the City's proposed changes to the VHR ordinance not only filled chambers, but filled seats surrounding televisions in the lobby where the proceedings were aired.

After almost six hours of presentation and conversation, the City Council voted to bring back the new ordinance in one month on October 5.

"Our job is to make a decision, not continuing to kick the can down the road," said SLT Mayor Austin Sass.

Not all four members could agree on what changes should be implemented that came out of their subcommittee meetings (Councilman Tom Davis has to recuse himself on all VHR matters since he is involved with Tahoe Keys Resort).

Mayor Sass and Mayor Pro Tem Wendy David are the council's VHR subcomittee and developed the proposed ordinance, but Councilmembers Jason Collin and Brooke Laine did not agree with all they came up with, nor did many in the audience during Tuesday's meeting, though many changes met with a positive response.

The hot topic clearly has divided many in the community, just as it has in cities across not only California, but across the country.

Proposed amendments presented Tuesday:
- Set a cap of 1500 as the maximum number of VHRs allowed in residential areas
- Create a standard of distance of 250 feet between VHRs to address saturation in neighborhoods
- Make a clear line to create more certainty when applying for a VHR permit and eliminate the need of a Zoning Administrator hearing
- Streamline permit renewal process
- Not allow VHRs in homes 1100 sq feet and under
- Allow home owners associations and rentals in the Tourist Core Area be except under new code
- Require face-to-face meetings with guests to ensure regulations are understood
- Requirement of VHRs to have a Bear Box to prevent wildlife getting into trash
- Kids count as an occupant, something not counted in the prior ordinance
- Hot Tubs prohibited from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
- In person face-to-face meetings between renters and homeowners/property managers
- Homeowner of permitted VHRs must abide by same rules as renters (no parties, no weddings, parking restrictions)
- Fine homeowner and renter $1,000 at first offense

Sass said he and David met with stakeholders on August 8, but, according to several in attendance, the new ordinance was read to them and they had no input in what it said.

One of those participating, Josh Priou of Lake Tahoe Accommodations, said what was presented to the public Tuesday was exactly what was presented to them on August 8.

"There was no collaboration," said Priou.

At this time there are 1,350 active VHR permits issued with 92 pending. Currently, about 15-18 percent of homes in South Lake Tahoe are vacation rentals, the other 82-85 percent are either vacation homes not rented, or occupied by local owners and renters.

With a proposed change in density or using the suggested 250 foot distance criteria, it is unknown how many homes would be affected. All current permitted homes would be grandfathered in with the new ordinance, but when a home is sold they wouldn't be eligible for a permit if another one is within either the radius or density limits.

"It will kill the industry," said Priou.

Councilman Jason Collin wanted to see hard data on how many homes would be affected if they implemented the one VHR per 250 foot rule, and how it'd look at 100 feet and 300 feet. He was also concerned about an economic ripple effect.

"We need to be careful to not cut off our nose to spite our face," said Collin. "Get as close to a win-win as possible instead of everyone being unhappy," he said of a new ordinance.

Councilwoman Brooke Laine asked for an economic study on what effect the cap and density components of the proposed ordinance would be. She suggested a temporary cap to see what the impact would be.

"Do the things that affect our residents the most now," said Laine.

Since noise is occupancy driven, the council will also be looking at reducing the number of guests allowed in a VHR. The current formula is two people per bedroom plus four, meaning a four-bedroom home could have 12 people in it. One audience suggestion was to make a cap of 12, no matter how many bedrooms since many new homes are being built with six and seven bedrooms.

Tom Spencer, a resident of the Tahoe Keys, said better enforcement was the key and that "striking a balance is key."

"If you want to protect VHRs in the City, raise fees high enough to run the program," said Spencer.

Mayor Pro Tem David, a longtime proponent of affordable housing for the community, said she thought leaving the homes under 1,100 square feet would save housing stock for locals.

Real estate agent Amanda Adams, one of almost three dozen people who went up to speak during the meeting, shared some facts on home values and said limited the size would have an adverse affect.

A small house valued at $369,000 (current going rate) would cost the homeowner about $2,100 a month in mortgage payments. Adams said that with a median income in South Lake Tahoe of $41,380, and going by the suggested 30 percent of income going to housing, that income earner could only afford to buy a home $185,000. Or, if someone bought that house to rent out full time, they'd have to charge $2,100 a month in rent to break even, something most locals cannot afford.

There are approximately 2,900 homes in the City that are less than 1,100 square feet, and of those 300 are current VHRs.

Enforcement was another hot topic, with just one Community Service Officer (CSO) currently working four days per week on VHR complaints. The City had trouble getting a second one hired, but one is slated to start this week. Police Chief Brian Uhler said his officers and CSO will go to a home, turn off their vehicle and listen. If they don't hear anything then no citations are issued.

There is perception from some residents who think the City doesn't respond to their complaints.

"Enforce, enforce, enforce" said Laine.

"Enforcement is the issue, but its hard to do," added Sass.

With 1,400 VHRs to cover, not even two staff members will be enough to be on top of issues. Sass said staff is doing the best they can and can't park in front of a home that has misbehaving renters.

"We will never be able to hire enough to make the problem go away," said City Manager Nancy Kerry.

A proposed $1,000 fine for noise or parking violations would be given to both the renter and the homeowner, something what was met with mixed reviews. Currently, homeowners get a warning if there is a verified complaint at a home, but many times they challenge the citation in court and win. This means a homeowner could keep getting those first warnings and never reach the current financial implication. If there were a first time $1,000 fine, the subcommittee felt there would be more skin in the game and more compliance.

Those opposed to VHRs, which in sense are businesses in a residential neighborhood, want permits to go to residences the Tourist Core Area, which is predominately motel/condos and very few homes. They say they feel this would help preserve the quality of life of residents and address their concerns on saturated neighborhoods.

On the other side, many of those visiting Tahoe want to experience the area as a temporary resident instead of as a tourist according to some VHR management companies, and giving their families a safe experience in a neighborhood.

Chuck Maas, who has been marketing tourist destinations around the world, said South Lake Tahoe has the nicest selection of accommodations of all competitors in the West and Canada.

"We have competition for tourism," said Maas. "Anytime we make it more difficult for tourists to come here, they'll go elsewhere."

Mayor Sass encouraged VHR owners to do what they can to enforce the code in the meantime, and look into purchasing cameras for the front and back of their homes to monitor occupancy, as well as sound monitors.

The council will bring back the proposed changes to the VHR ordinance in October with requested information, and concentrate on the main issues of occupancy, density and caps. They'll also look at rules concerning homeowners who use their VHR for their own use and an amnesty program for owners/management companies who self-report.