Tehachapi council introduces rental registration and inspection ordinance for first reading

The Tehachapi City Council on first reading unanimously introduced an ordinance to codify rental-inspection procedures, require registration of rental properties, and impose a small annual business tax on 1–3-unit residential rentals.

Development Services staff told the council the ordinance would formalize the city’s current complaint-based inspection process for multifamily housing and require landlords to register so the city can reach an owner or manager when a tenant files a complaint. “We don’t do annual inspections of rental properties. We wait till somebody calls us, and that’s not gonna change,” the presenter said, describing the proposal as a codification of existing practice. Staff cited a 2023 California law (identified in the presentation as “85 48”) that requires cities to adopt inspection policies for multifamily housing when violations affect other units.

The proposal would also require owners of 1–3-unit rentals to pay a $40 flat annual business tax; staff pointed out the municipal code already requires owners of apartment complexes with four or more units to pay $40 plus $5 per unit annually (a 2002 provision). The presenter described the registration and fee as a phased, largely educational approach: “This is not … we’re gonna go out tomorrow or next week or next month and start dragging out landlords to pay a business tax fee. This is gonna be a phased approach. We’re gonna work with them.”

Staff said the registration requirement is intended to give the city a contact for landlords—particularly absentee owners who may hold multiple properties—so complaints for potential health-and-safety issues such as mold, roof leaks or lack of hot water can be addressed more quickly. An estimate cited in discussion characterized roughly 20% of structures in the city as apartments; staff said registration would also help the city better inventory rental housing.

Council members asked clarifying questions about unit counts and fee calculations. After discussion a council member moved to introduce the ordinance (read by title only) and the council approved the motion 4-0. Staff said the ordinance is administrative in nature, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and will return for final adoption at a future meeting.

The council’s action was an introduction (first reading) only; no final adoption or effective date was set. Staff and a consultant from RWG were available to answer council questions during the presentation.