SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. — The South Lake Tahoe City Council discussed multiple items addressing housing at their meeting on Tuesday, March 12.

The conversation about housing began when Councilmember Scott Robbins pulled item eight from the Consent Agenda, the General Plan Annual Progress Report, the Housing Element Implementation Update, and the Surplus Land Inventory for 2023.

This progress report is required annually by state law and is reported to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. It outlines a status report of the City’s General Plan to these legislative bodies. According to Senior Planner Anna Kashuba, the housing element has the most rigorous reporting and is required for funding purposes.

---

---

Data pulled from the California Department of Finance in the housing element reveal the population of South Lake Tahoe was almost 23,500 at the start of 2021. The report graph shows a steep decline to 20,500 at the beginning of 2023.

This item was an accept and file item, but it sparked conversation among councilmembers when Robbins pointed out the population decline from 2021 to 2023 was around 13%, adding “That’s a significant net outflow of population.”

---

---

Councilmember Tamara Wallace noted the City might be losing people due to the proximity to another state and due to the state as a whole losing people. “In fact,” Wallace said, “We lost a congressional seat because of it.”

To her point, Robbins said he pulled up California’s population change and reported a 1% loss. According to data from the California Department of Finance, the population was around 39.37 million in 2021 and it reduced to an estimated 38,940,231 as of Jan. 1, 2023, a change of about 1%.

Council passed a resolution accepting and filing the report.

Security deposit assistance is one way the City plans to tackle housing. Council approved a $200,000 allocation for a rental assistance program. From this pool, the staff report explains the City would provide security deposit assistance to individuals or households at or below 60% of the area median income. Up to 10% of households may have incomes at or below 80% of the El Dorado County median family income.

The proposal program may also provide grants for application fees, up to three per client at or under 60% AMI.

The security deposit assistance would act as a zero-interest loan directly to the landlord. Upon lease termination, the landlord returns the deposit to the City. If any of the deposit was used for damages or missed rent, the tenants pay the remainder to the City.

The amount of the assistance deposit depends on the number of unit bedrooms. For studio and one-bedroom units, the City may provide up to $1,500. For two bedrooms or more, the City may provide up to $2,000.

For City residents, a six-month minimum lease is required. For others, a 12-month minimum lease is required to qualify.

Councilmember Creegan wanted to ensure landlords are out of the situation, even if they have to use the entire deposit, “I think that’s an important protection layer that the City wants to provide.”

Wallace inquired how the City intends to collect from tenants in this situation. According to the program guidelines, unpaid balances due are subject to collections.

All Councilmembers present voted in favor of the item. Mayor Cody Bass was absent.

A housing item that did not have as much of a consensus from the Council was the Rental Registry Ordinance.

The ordinance proposed would require landlords to provide information on each rental unit in order to provide real-time assessment of rents and basic census information of rental housing stock. The draft ordinance requests the following information on an annual basis:

• Name, current address, and contact information of current owners authorized representatives, and property managers, as applicable;
• Address of each rental unit, including identifying number or letter;
• Number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the rental unit;
• Date of assumption of ownership by current owners;
• The current amount of the monthly rent received for each rental unit, identifying whether the monthly rent includes specified utilities (water/sewer, refuse, natural gas, electricity, etc.);
• The occupancy status of each rental unit (e.g., vacant or occupied) and the reason for vacancy, if applicable.

There was some confusion on whether the ordinance included single-family homes or not. After discussion and clarification from City Manager Joseph Irvin, it was found that single-family homes of landlords owning three or more units and any managed by a property management company would be required to register. However, owners of one single-family home they were renting out themselves would not be required to register, although they could do so voluntarily. This was in an effort to not add burden to small individuals, according to Robbins.

However, property managers expressed concerns over their burden of completing the registry. Property Manager and Broker Mike Phillips said, “We should be paid for this.” Tahoe Property Management Owner Michelle Benedict cited the California Association of Realtors stance, saying rental registries do not alleviate the housing crisis, calling it unnecessary paperwork.

Another California Association of Realtors member, Natalie Yanish said, “If you want a policy that discourages property owners from renting their homes and providing housing, then this is one way to do it,” and added, “Try more carrots and not sticks if you’re actually trying to solve any housing issues in our community because this is overburdensome in so many different ways for housing providers.”

Other worries expressed by public commenters were privacy and data concerns.

Wallace inquired why it is the City’s business to know how much people pay in rent unless a rent cap is being considered.

Mayor Pro Tem Friedrich offered an explanation, “Housing crisis or not? That is the question.” He said with competing narratives, some saying there is available affordable housing, and others saying there is not, a registry like this could provide a data-driven answer. In addition to providing an answer, it helps the City know how much to spend on housing programs by sizing up the problem.

Wallace said she still didn’t see the correlation between what people are paying for rent and what the city can do, saying she believes they’ve already decided there is a housing crisis.

Robbins said the reason for listing rents is to know whether rent is affordable or not.

There was further debate over the validity of an area median income, which is needed to calculate affordability. While Robbins seemed to think they had that number, Wallace called it a conjecture. Council also discussed a compromise and alternatives, but ultimately Robbins’ motion passing the proposed rental registry failed with a tie consisting of Councilmember Cristi Creegan and Wallace against, and Friedrich and Robbins for.

Robbins didn’t let the issue go without presenting a motion during the agenda planning calendar item, asking to place the Rental Registry Ordinance on a future agenda, allowing Bass to provide his vote. Bass had seconded a rental registration request on August 8, last year.

Robbin’s motion to place the item on a future agenda did not receive a second from the council and died, but not without Friedrich’s offering, “it can always be requested in the future with a different constitution of members here.”