South Lake Tahoe new Vacation Ordinance

South Lake Tahoe new Vacation Ordinance

SLT vacation rental ordinance to change Oct. 1

Published: August 4, 2015 

By Kathryn Reed

Those wanting a vacation home rental permit in South Lake Tahoe under the current rules have an extra month to get one.

The City Council today approved the controversial ordinance that will take effect Oct. 1. This ordinance only affects VHRs in residential neighborhoods, of which there are about 1,200 parcels.

Ten people spoke at the Aug. 4 meeting about the rentals. This was the second reading of the ordinance, which is usually a formality on the consent agenda without changes. It was pulled for discussion, which took more than 90 minutes.

“The City Council is making up this ordinance as they go. The council doesn’t understand the real estate industry and how escrow works,” Natalie Yanish, South Tahoe Association of Realtors board member, told Lake Tahoe News. “It’s unfortunate that they feel these bureaucratic processes and top down government tactics will work in the real world.”

Mayor Hal Cole said the purpose of the ordinance is to deal with the abuse of the industry, reel in houses being built purely as a vacation rental, and not to put anyone out of business.

The new ordinance requires notification within a 300-foot radius of a home seeking a vacation rental permit. Anyone, though, can voice an objection. However, the hearing administrator will have discretion as to whose comments carry more weight. Staff and electeds repeatedly said not liking a VHR is not a reason to have a permit denied.

If an issue is identified, it’s possible an applicant could mitigate the problem and then the permit would be granted.

To deal with the mandated inspections – which are required for new permits starting Sept. 1 and existing ones’ permit holders when their permit comes up for renewal – the city will be hiring staff. It’s expected three to five inspections will be done a day. The city will have two inspectors dedicated to VHRs.

The fee schedule related to VHRs was also changed. The VHR inspection fee will be $133. It was $160.

Appealing a denied permit will cost $1,500 for most people. Those living within 300 feet of the property will be charged $250 to appeal. According to the staff report, that expense includes “15 hours of staff time including preparation of reports by zoning administrator for appeal to Planning Commission or City Council, compilation of facts regarding the decisions, review by mid-level and senior management official, public notification and public reporting requirements and conducting the public hearings.”

5 Replies 5
Khoi0
Level 1
Philadelphia, PA

If your SLT home is your primary home and you host it on Airbnb, does it need a VHR permit?

Yes ANY rental in your home, even just a room in your own home falls under the need to get a VHR Permit and remit TOT taxes quarterly (Transient Occupancy Tax of 12%)

Mind you; the city is one week away from enforcing a moratorium on new VHR applications, so if you wait you will not be able to rent in the near future. 

The new ordinances from 2015 have not been in effect for very long. Were they not working as the city had hoped? How are hosts feeling towards the new changes?

Changes are based on feedback from all sides. The citizens are very fed up with their neighborhoods having mini hotels and as a consequence the city council added to the changes adopted in 2015. 

Does the city not already have a process in place with rules/ordinances and enough staff to monitor or respond to disturbances within neighborhoods? Whether or not money is exchanged between a homeowner and a guest, should not be a factor in ensuring residents (visitors/homeowners) abide by the city's rules. Some neighbors may need reminders or fines when noise levels or other disruptive behaviors become inconsiderate and disrespectful toward their fellow neighbors. But to blame all nuisance behavior on just ONE group of homeowners by setting restrictive rules and penalties on them, seems unreasonably punitive and perhaps even unconstitutional.