Mammoth Lakes City Council
April 1, 2026

Town Council Agenda

Wednesday, April 1, 2026, 2:50 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members of the Town Council:

Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Bill Sauser, Councilmember John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Brent Truax, Mayor Amanda Rice
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (760) 965-3602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 13.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Offices located at 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Mammoth Lakes website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

NOTE: You may attend the Town Council meetings in person or watch them on the Town of Mammoth Lakes' website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov , on the local government cable channel 18, or via Zoom. Public comments can be submitted to the Town Clerk at [email protected]. before and during the meeting, or may be made in person or via Zoom.

NOTE: All comments will be limited to a speaking time of five minutes.

ZOOM INFORMATION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device:

Please type in or cut and paste in this URL to join. https://monocounty.zoom.us/s/92958002088 Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 876 9923
Webinar ID: 929 5800 2088
International numbers available: https://monocounty.zoom.us/u/acobwlnMsm To raise your hand Press *9, to Mute/Unmute Press *6

1. INTERVIEWS
The Town Council will interview the applicants for the Building Advisory Committee/Board of Appeals vacancies.
3:00 p.m. Michael Britton
3:15 p.m. Joshua Graef
3:30 p.m. William Harder
3:45 p.m. Genevieve Liang

2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Bubser will be participating in the meeting remotely from 72-100 Ka`upulehu Drive, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment portion of the agenda provides the public with an opportunity to address the Town Council on matters not otherwise listed on the agenda. Under California law the Town Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Town Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Town Council will listen to all public comment, but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it. Requests for service from the Town may also be made at the Town offices during regular business hours.

Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration.

5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Opportunity to add urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)2, if necessary.

6. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS

6.1 Approve the proclamation declaring April, 2026 as Fair Housing Month in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

7. INTRODUCTIONS

7.1 Introduce new Community Service Officer Nancy Vargas.

8. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED)

9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

9.1 Receive a presentation on the final 2026 Regional Housing Needs Study Report.

9.2 Receive a presentation on the North Village Specific Plan Regulatory Framework.

9.3 2025 Year in Review Presentation.

9.4 Transient Occupancy Tax Collection and Certified Properties Update.

10. CONSENT AGENDA

10.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 18, 2026.

10.2 Adopt resolutions calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 for the election of three members of the Town Council and requesting the Mono County Board of Supervisors consolidate the election.

10.3 Approve the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Mammoth Lakes Recreation Measure U Arts and Culture Programming and Special Event Transit Service Funding Recommendations.

10.4 Approve the request for a Public Convenience or Necessity Letter in support of a Type 40 OnSale Beer License for the Pokonobe Lodge business located at 3787 Lake Mary Road.

10.5 Accept Check Register 3/19/26 in the amount of $391,042.87. Accept Check Register 3/26/26 in the amount of $848,155.72.

11. POLICY MATTERS

11.1 Appoint three applicants to serve as members of the Building Advisory Committee/Board of Appeals, with terms expiring on April 1, 2030.

11.2 Consider the request to conduct a financial analysis of the Mammoth Crossing Development.

11.3 Presentation on budget performance through the second quarter FY25-26 and approval of Budget Amendments.

11.4 Authorize the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Systems Source, Inc. to purchase furniture for the Civic Center / Town Hall.

11.5 Award Contract for Annual Linear Striping Maintenance of Town Roads MAINT 26- 001.

11.6 Award contract for Minaret MUP (multi-use path) project CAP 22-004 to Spiess Construction Co., Inc.

12. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on committees, commissions, and organizations; general reports on Councilmember activities.

13. CLOSED SESSION

13.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.(a), Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Town Council will meet with its representatives, Town Manager Rob Patterson, Community and Economic Development Director Nolan Bobroff, Human Resources Manager
Amanda Pelham, and Jack Hughes, Partner with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, with respect to the following Employee Organizations: Mammoth Lakes General Employees Association, Mammoth Lakes Management Employees Association, and the Mammoth Lakes Public Works Employees Association.

13.2 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, the Town Council will hold a conference to consider evaluation of a public employee: Town Manager.

14. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION

15. ADJOURNMENT
The Town Council will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 4:00 p.m.

A PROCLAMATION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PROCLAIMING APRIL 2026 AS

FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 11, 2026, marks the 58
th anniversary of the passage of the Fair
Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, which enunciates a national policy of Fair Housing that prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability, and commits recipients of federal funding to affirmatively further fair housing in their communities; and
WHEREAS, the Mammoth Lakes Board of REALTORS•is committed to highlighting the Fair Housing Act by continuing to address discrimination in our community, to support programs that will educate the public about the right to equal housing opportunities for all, and to plan partnership efforts with other organizations to help assure everyone of their right to fair housing; and WHEREAS, the National Association of REALTORS• Code of Ethics commits all REALTORS•to provide equal professional services without discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, California, hereby proclaims that the month of April, 2026 is Fair Housing Month in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and urges all citizens to wholeheartedly recognize this commemoration of the Fair Housing Act throughout the year.

PROCLAIMED this 1
st day of April 2026.

_________________________________
ATTEST: AMANDA RICE, Mayor
____________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Receive a presentation on the final 2026 Regional Housing Needs Study Report
Meeting Date: April 1, 2026
Prepared by: Marcus Sproll, Housing Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

This is an informational only item. Town Council can discuss and ask questions of staff.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”), along with Mono County, Inyo County, City of Bishop, and Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG) (collectively the Collective Housing Committee or CHC), have been working on a Regional Housing Needs Assessment since January 2025. The final report was published in March 2026 and provides a comprehensive analysis of housing conditions, needs, and challenges facing the region’s workforce. This Study will serve as the foundation for a forthcoming Regional Housing Toolkit.

ANALYSIS:

Population and household growth in the Town, and across much of the region, has been negative over the last decade and households are getting smaller. The Town lost approximately 1,200 residents, or 14.5 percent of its total population, from 2010-2025; the largest loss of any jurisdiction in the region. This population decline is expected to continue, driven in part by an acute shortage of available long-term housing for the resident workforce. The data indicates that these dynamics were under way prior to the pandemic, with pandemic induced population movement exacerbating existing trends and driving a changeover of the population (i.e., existing resident households moving out with transient occupants and remote workers moving in).

Nearly two-thirds of employers surveyed for this research reported that housing availability hampers recruitment and retention, with businesses estimating they could grow 23 percent more over the next five years on average, if adequate workforce housing options were available. Employers cited a need for all types of housing, with a particular need for rental housing units.

The study’s quantitative housing needs model estimates that a total of 1,170 households have unmet housing needs in the Town. The breakdown of the unmet housing needs by area median income (AMI) is as follows:
 Low-Income (≤ 80% AMI): 389 households
 Moderate- to Upper-Middle Income (80% - 150% AMI): 560 households  Upper-Income (≥ 150% AMI): 221 households

2 Over 500 units, or 88 percent of the existing deed-restricted housing inventory in the region, is located within the Town. Due to the recent delivery of a significant number of low-income housing units, the largest need cohort in the Town now falls into the middleincome category. The Study finds the greatest unmet need among smaller middle-income households earning up to 120 percent of AMI, who are best served by studio and onebedroom rental units.

The Study makes clear that while the Town has made significant progress in terms of the low-income housing inventory, there is an urgent need for new rental units that are affordable to moderate and middle-income workers. These workers are first responders, health care professionals, teachers, and small business owners, and form a critical component of the social and economic fabric of the community.

As a follow-up to the Housing Needs Study, staff will be coming to Town Council over the next several months with a series of informational presentations on middle-income rental housing, the financing challenges, and a proposed model for how the Town can successfully develop this critical middle-income housing infrastructure.

bae urban economics
Eastern Sierra Regional Housing Study
Prepared for the Eastern Sierra Collective Housing Committee March 19, 2026

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 The Eastern Sierra Region...........................................................................................................1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS ................................................................................ 3 Population Trends ........................................................................................................................4 Age Distribution............................................................................................................................9 Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................................... 10 Household Type......................................................................................................................... 11 Households by Tenure .............................................................................................................. 11 Household Size.......................................................................................................................... 14 Household Income Characteristics .......................................................................................... 14 Household Income Limits ......................................................................................................... 17 ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS .................................................................................. 18 Labor Force Trends ................................................................................................................... 18 Employment by Industry Sector................................................................................................ 22 Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................. 26 HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................... 27 Housing by Units in Structure................................................................................................... 29 Housing Inventory Growth ........................................................................................................ 29 Housing Units by Bedrooms ..................................................................................................... 30 Age of Housing Stock ................................................................................................................ 32 Housing Vacancy Status ........................................................................................................... 32 Inventory of Deed Restricted Housing ..................................................................................... 37 HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 39 For-Sale Housing Market .......................................................................................................... 39 Rental Housing Market............................................................................................................. 45 HUD-Defined Housing Problems .............................................................................................. 49 Short-Term and Vacation Rentals ............................................................................................ 53

ii
Residential Development Pipeline ........................................................................................... 55 Residential Development Costs ............................................................................................... 58 Residential Land Availability..................................................................................................... 62 REGIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING SURVEYS ........................................................................... 64 Survey Administration and Outreach ....................................................................................... 64 Resident/Worker and Employer Respondent Profiles ............................................................ 65 Current Housing Situation ........................................................................................................ 68 Housing Challenges and Concerns .......................................................................................... 70 Workforce Housing Preferences............................................................................................... 72 Relocation Potential (Non-Resident Workers)......................................................................... 76 Employer Survey Responses .................................................................................................... 77 QUANTITATIVE HOUSING NEEDS MODEL .................................................................................. 80 Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................... 80 Total Unmet Housing Need....................................................................................................... 82 Resident Workforce Housing Need.......................................................................................... 86 In-Commuter Workforce Housing Need ................................................................................... 88 Unhoused/Emergency Housing Need...................................................................................... 89 APPENDIX A: SOCIOECONOMIC DATA TABLES ......................................................................... 90 APPENDIX B: SURVEY OUTREACH MATERIALS ...................................................................... 160 APPENDIX C: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ................................................................................... 167 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARIES .................................................................... 222 APPENDIX E: HOUSING NEEDS MODEL OUTPUTS ................................................................ 473

iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Total Resident Population, 4/1/2010 to 1/1/2025...................................................... 6 Table 2: Total Population, Census Designated Places (CDPs), 2010 to 2020............................ 7 Table 3: Household Size, 2020 ..................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Median Household Incomes, 2011-2015 and 2019-2023 ACS ................................. 15 Table 5: HCD Statutory Income Limits and Achievable Income Limits, 2025 ........................... 17 Table 6: Employed Residents by Occupation, 2019-2023 Avg. .................................................. 20 Table 7: Employment by Industry, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2018 and 2023........................... 23 Table 8: Principal Employers, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2025.................................................... 24 Table 9: Deed Restricted Housing Inventory, Eastern Sierra Region, 2025.............................. 38 Table 10: Home Sales Distribution, 2024 ................................................................................... 39 Table 11: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Inyo County, 2025........................................ 41 Table 12: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Mono County, 2025 ..................................... 43 Table 13: Relative Affordability of Market-Rate For-Sale Housing by Subarea, 2025 .............. 45 Table 14: Market Rate Rent, Inyo and Mono County, 2025........................................................ 46 Table 15: Maximum Affordable Rental Rates, Inyo County, 2025 .............................................. 47 Table 16: Maximum Affordable Rental Rates, Mono County, 2025 ........................................... 48 Table 17: Households Experiencing Housing Problems, ≤ 100% HAMFI, 2017-2021............. 50 Table 18: Estimated Short-Term Rental (STR) Inventory, Eastern Sierra Region....................... 55 Table 19: Residential Development Pipeline, by Property, Unit Size, and Income Level, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2025.................................................................................................... 56 Table 20: Example Subsidy Requirements for New Construction For-Sale Housing.................. 59 Table 21: Example Subsidy Requirements for New Construction Rental Housing .................... 60 Table 22: How likely would you be to move to Inyo or Mono Counties, if housing that meets your needs became available in your price range?...................................................................... 76 Table 23: Unmet Housing Demand from Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size...................................................................................................................... 87 Table 24: Unmet Housing Demand from Seasonal Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size...................................................................................................................... 88 Table 25: Unmet Housing Demand from In-Commuter Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size...................................................................................................................... 89

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Eastern Sierra Region....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Total Resident Population, 2025..................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Total Population, 2010 to 2025 ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Total Population by Census Tract, 2019-2023 Five-Year ACS....................................... 5 Figure 5: U.S. Postal Service Change of Address Requests, Mono County, 2019-2022............ 8 Figure 6: Projected Total Population, 2025 to 2035 ..................................................................... 9 Figure 7: Year-Over-Year Population Change, 2025 to 2035........................................................ 9 Figure 8: Age Distribution, 2020 ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 9: Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, 2019-2023............................................... 10 Figure 10: Family and Non-Family Households, 2020................................................................. 11 Figure 11: Housing Units by Tenure, 2020................................................................................... 11 Figure 12: Percent Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS............................... 12 Figure 13: Percent Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS .............................. 13 Figure 14: Household Income Distribution, 2019-2023 ACS...................................................... 15 Figure 15: Median Household Income by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS ............................... 16 Figure 16: Total Labor Force, Inyo and Mono Counties and the Eastern Sierra Region, Annual Average, 2010 through 2024 ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 17: Resident Employment and Resident Unemployment Rate,...................................... 19 Figure 18: Employed Residents by Census Tract, 2019- 2023 ACS........................................... 21 Figure 19: Employment Density, Primary Jobs, 2022 .................................................................. 25 Figure 20: Regional Commute Flows, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2017-2021 ........................... 26 Figure 21: Housing Concentrations, 2019-2023 ACS.................................................................. 28 Figure 22: Housing Stock by Units in Structure, 2025................................................................ 29 Figure 23: Net Housing Inventory Growth by Unit Type, 2010-2025 ......................................... 30 Figure 24: Units and Households by Size, 2019-2023 ACS and 2020 Census ........................ 31 Figure 25: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2019-2023 ACS......................................... 31 Figure 26: Housing Units by Year Built, 2019-2023 ACS............................................................. 32 Figure 27: Housing Units by Vacancy Status, 2020..................................................................... 33 Figure 28: Seasonal vs. Total Vacancy Rates, 2020.................................................................... 33 Figure 29: Housing Vacancy, 2019-2023 ACS ............................................................................. 34 Figure 30: Seasonal Housing Vacancy, 2019-2023 ACS............................................................. 35 Figure 31: Functional Vacancy Rate by Tenure, 2020 (a)(b)...................................................... 36 Figure 32: Change in Number of Vacant Units by Vacancy Type, 2010 to 2020....................... 37 Figure 33: Home Sales Volume Weighted by Price, 2025........................................................... 40 Figure 34: Housing Problems, Owner-Occupied Units, 2017-2021 Avg. .................................... 51 Figure 35: Housing Problems, Renter-Occupied Units, 2017 – 2021 Avg. ................................ 52 Figure 36: What type of home is it? (Select one from the drop-down menu, or fill in the space for “Other”), Resident Respondents Only........................................................................... 69

v
Figure 37: How satisfied you are with your primary residence? Resident Respondents Only .................................................................................................................................................. 70 Figure 38: Have you experienced any problems due to a lack of available and/or affordable of housing? ................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 39: Please select the top three housing types you would most prefer to live in?.......... 72 Figure 40: Please select the top three places in Inyo and Mono Counties where you would most prefer to live?......................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 41: Which would you most prefer to have as characteristics of your primary residence?....................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 42: Which neighborhood characteristics are most important to you? ........................... 75 Figure 43: Employer Respondents, and Off-Season and Peak-Season Months........................ 77 Figure 44: How much does housing impact your ability to recruit and retain workers?........... 78 Figure 45: How much do the following issues impact Inyo and Mono Counties? ..................... 79 Figure 46: What type of housing would best fit the needs of your workforce and those you are working to recruit? ................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 47: Total Unmet Housing Need (in HHs/Units) by Cohort, ≤ 350% of AMI, 2025 ......... 82 Figure 48: Unmet Housing Needs by Income Group, ≤ 350% of AMI, 2025 ............................. 83 Figure 49: Unmet Housing Need by Unit Size and Income Level, ≤ 350% of AMI..................... 84 Figure 50: Unmet Housing Needs by Jurisdiction and Income Level, ≤ 350% of AMI .............. 85 Figure 51: Share of Households with HUD-Defined Housing Problems by Type and Tenure, ≤ 100 Percent of AMI, 2017-2021 CHAS ..................................................................................... 86

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2026 Eastern Sierra Housing Needs Study is a comprehensive summary and analysis of contemporary demographic and economic characteristics and trends as they relate to the demand for, and supply of, housing that is suitable for, and affordable to, resident workforce households in Inyo and Mono counties, referred to here as the Eastern Sierra Region.

Information for this research was collected from a wide variety of publicly available data sources, as well as through surveys of regional residents/workers and employers.

This research was commissioned by a Collective Housing Committee (CHC), comprised of representatives from Inyo County, Mono County, the City of Bishop, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG). Additional project support was also provided by SMR Development under contract with the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County. The purpose of this research is to inform preparation of a regional Housing Action Plan that identifies the steps to be taken to address the identified housing needs over the next three to five years. Actions outlined in the plan will include activities that participating jurisdictions can accomplish both individually and in cooperation with other agencies. This recognizes the regional nature of the ongoing housing crisis, as well as the observed variation in the ways that the housing crisis manifests within each participating jurisdiction.

Market Analysis Findings
The following are key findings from the socioeconomic and housing market analysis that may be used to better interpret the housing needs assessment findings reported below:

Population and Workforce Characteristics
- Population and household growth across the region has been flat to negative over the last decade, with Mono County experiencing the largest population loss. The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects the declines to continue, with slight population loss in Inyo County and significant and increasing losses in Mono County. o The data indicate that these dynamics were under way prior to the pandemic, with pandemic induced population movement exacerbating existing trends and driving a changeover of the population (i.e., existing lower-income households moving out with higher-income households and remote workers moving in). - Due to its remote location, the Eastern Sierra region is highly dependent on a resident labor force. The majority of both seasonal and year-round workers live in either Inyo or Mono counties, with only a small number of workers commuting into the region. o Nearly two-thirds of employers surveyed for this research report that housing availability hampers recruitment and retention, with businesses estimating

vii
they could grow 23 percent more over the next five years on average, if adequate workforce housing options were available.
o Employers cited a need for all types of housing, with a particular need for rental housing units, both apartments and single-family homes. - There is significant cross commuting within the region, with similar numbers of workers commuting back and forth between Inyo and Mono counties. o Anecdotal evidence indicates that this cross commuting mainly reflects Bishop area residents commuting to Mammoth Lakes, and residents of Chalfant and the Tri-Valley area commuting southward into the greater Bishop area for work.

Land Availability and Development Costs
- A lack of land available for new development, and the high cost of construction, both function to significantly limit the amount of new housing that can be produced. o Development costs vary widely depending on location, construction type, and market orientation, with low-end cost estimates of $300 per square foot for manufactured housing, to between $500 and $700 per square foot for market rate development.
o In Mammoth Lakes, total development cost for large scale tax credit affordable development at The Parcel averages $478 per square foot on the low end, to roughly $655 per square foot at the high end for multifamily housing with podium or garage parking. The recently completed Access Apartments in Mammoth Lakes had costs of approximately $850 per square foot, but this unique project that involved converting existing commercial space to residential use and is likely not reflective of typical build/conversion costs. o Rental rates and for-sale home prices that would be affordable to most workforce households in the region are unlikely to be sufficient to offset the cost of construction and provide necessary investor returns. o The estimated subsidy requirement associated with new construction can vary from as little as $50,000 per unit for low-cost manufactured for-sale housing, to $150,000-$315,000 per unit for newly built market rate rental units on urban sites, to as much as $650,000 per unit for deeply affordable tax-credit multifamily rental housing.

Existing Inventory and Development Pipeline
- Despite significant constraints, there are approximately 550 existing affordable housing units, 150 under development, and 432 new affordable housing units being considered for development in the region.
o The only large-scale new construction is occurring in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, where market conditions are least accommodating to the workforce.

viii
o The development that is planned and under way is primarily deed-restricted low-income housing at “The Parcel” project, including 80 units completed and 150 units currently under development, with approximately 220 units worth of remaining capacity.
o The City of Bishop also has three projects with a total capacity of up to 212 units being considered for development, including 60 tax credit affordable rental units, market-rate rental apartments, and market-rate for-sale townhomes; though all three are on hold or awaiting full project funding.

Housing Stock Utilization
- Limited land availability and the high cost of construction may require local governments to consider strategies to better utilize the existing housing stock. This could include, among other things, programs that fund the conversion of market-rate units to affordable housing, or programs to encourage conversion of short-term rentals to full-time occupancy.
o The 2020 Census reports more than 9,500 vacant housing units, and roughly 7,650 vacant second homes, located across the region, which represents an inventory that is two- to three-times the identified regional housing need. o There are approximately 3,400 short-term rentals (STRs) in the region, with the majority of the inventory located in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. Analyses prepared for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County found that while STRs likely do influence housing market conditions within the Town, the concentration of STRs in the unincorporated area is likely insufficient to represent a significant direct driver of housing market conditions. o As housing market conditions continue to deteriorate in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the remainder of the region is likely to experience increasing spillover demand for housing from the workforce, second home, and STR markets. - Nonetheless, the existing housing stock demonstrates a misalignment with a portion of the estimated need. Comprised of mainly larger single-family homes, the existing housing stock likely undersupplies smaller studio, one-, and two-bedroom units that better align with the needs of workforce households and are naturally more affordable.

Market Rate Housing Affordability
- Figure EX1, at the top of the following page, highlights which types of housing are affordable to households at different income levels.
- The data show that housing costs in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and to a lesser extent the Bishop area, are notably higher than the rest of the region.

ix
Workforce Housing
Preferences
- Residents and
workers surveyed for
this research
reported their top
five priorities when
searching for a new
housing unit are:
o #1 – General
affordability
o #2 – Good build
quality
o #3 – Newer
units
o #4 – Sufficient
indoor/outdoor
space
o #5 - storage and amenities
- When asked about the type of housing that they would prefer to live in, such as apartments, versus small lot single-family homes, versus large lot ranchettes, respondents generally expressed a preference for the larger detached single-family homes, often citing a desire for privacy, lots of storage, and private outdoor space. o However, these preferences often did not reflect economic realities.

Information on housing preferences should therefore be interpreted with caution as a general indication of preference that does not necessarily mean that the consumer would not also be content with another option. - Resident and workforce survey respondents generally expressed preferences for resident locations that were within easy driving distance of the major population and employment centers of Town of Mammoth Lakes and the greater Bishop area, including areas like Crowley Lake, June Lake, Wilkerson, and Mustang Mesa. - Survey respondents also expressed appreciation for neighborhoods that include mostly full-time residents, proximity to employment, safety, and access to outdoor recreation.

Quantitative Needs Assessment
In addition to the key findings summarized above, this analysis included a quantitative housing needs analysis that estimates unmet housing needs among resident worker households, seasonal worker households, in-commuters, and individuals experiencing homelessness. The Figure EX1: Income Needed to Afford Market Rate Housing by Type
Note: Area Median Income (AMI) reflects the value for each county as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Area Median Mammoth
Income (AMI) Lakes, Town Mono County Bishop, City Inyo County 350% For-Sale,
Single-Family
300%
250%
200% For-Sale,
Condo
For-Sale,
Single-Family
150% Rental,
Apartments
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
120% Rental
Apartments
Rental
Apartments
Rental
Apartments
100%
Jurisdiction

x
estimates should not be interpreted strictly as the number of new units that need to be built, but rather as the number of households that have unmet housing needs that may be met through a variety of approaches. Figures EX2-EX4 illustrate the distribution of estimated unmet housing need by income category, along with other household and unit characteristics.

Figure EX2: Unmet Housing Need by Income Category
Source: BAE, 2026.

Low-income households earning 80 percent of AMI or less are generally best served through direct subsidies and low-income tax credit affordable rental housing development. Moderateand above moderate-income households earning between 80 and 120 percent of AMI, and up to 150 percent of AMI in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, are ineligible for tax credit funded affordable housing, but often struggle to afford market rate housing. Households earning more than 120-150 percent of AMI can generally afford market rate rental housing, but may require assistance to break into the for-sale housing market, and/or may be interested in relocating to a less expensive portion of the region to access ownership opportunities.

As illustrated in Figure EX3 unmet housing needs in the Eastern Sierra region as a whole are most heavily concentrated among low-income households, earning 80 percent of AMI and below. However, due to the recent delivery a significant number of new deed restricted lowincome housing units within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the largest housing need cohort in the Town now falls into the moderate- and above-moderate income categories, earning 80

xi
percent to 150 percent of AMI. Figure EX4, meanwhile, illustrates the distribution of unmet housing needs by unit size, indicating that the majority of unmet housing needs are among households that may be best served by smaller housing units, like studios and one-bedrooms.

Figure EX3: Unmet Housing Need by Income Category and Jurisdiction Source: BAE, 2026.

Figure EX4: Unmet Housing Need by Income Category and Unit Size Source: BAE, 2025.
691
240
385
314
302
134
26 389
560
125 96 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Up to 80% AMI 80%-150% AMI 150%-200% AMI 200%-350% AMI
Uninc. Inyo County Uninc. Mono County
City of Bishop Town of Mammoth Lakes
524
621
245
377
281
458
199
311
52 92
40 62
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Up to 80% of AMI Between 80% and 150% of AMI Between 150% and 350% of AMI 857
1,171
484
750
1,767
1,248
151 96

1 INTRODUCTION
In October 2024, the Eastern Sierra Collective Housing Committee (CHC) issued a request for proposals (RFP) to prepare a Regional Housing Study and Action Plan. The CHC represents the combined interests of Inyo County, Mono County, the City of Bishop, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG). Consulting support for the purposes of issuing the RFP was provided by SMR Development under contract with Mono County. Following a competitive selection process, the CHC retained BAE Urban Economics, Inc., to conduct this research under contract with Inyo County, with the responsibility for providing funding for the research being shared by the participating jurisdictions.

As defined by the CHC, the purpose of the Regional Housing Study and Action Plan is to provide an up-to-date perspective on demographic trends, housing needs and preferences, and economic and housing market conditions throughout the Eastern Sierra region. This research builds on a variety of analyses conducted separately for Inyo and Mono counties, the City of Bishop, and the Town of Mammoth Lakes over the past decade and provides updated and consistent data that can be used to better understand housing needs and market conditions at both a community-level and from a combined regional standpoint.

The information summarized in this report is intended to support a robust, inclusive, and equitable Action Planning process through which stakeholders and decision makers will identify the steps to be taken over the next five to ten years to address the housing needs identified through this research. Where the key findings from this research will be presented to the community in the Fall of 2025, the Action Planning process will extend through 2026.

The Eastern Sierra Region
As noted above, this research presents the available data regarding demographic characteristics and economic trends in the Eastern Sierra Region. For the purposes of this research and the subsequent Action Planning process, the Eastern Sierra Region is defined to include both Inyo and Mono counties, which are located along Highway 395 on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, with the Minden-Gardnerville area located just outside of the region to the north, and the City of Las Vegas located to the southeast.

The study area for this research includes the Eastern Sierra’s two largest population centers, including the City of Bishop and the Town of Mammoth Lakes, as well as a wide variety of small unincorporated communities, known as Census Designated Places (CDPs) for data gathering purposes. The region also features a variety of native tribal communities, including the Bridgeport Indian Colony and Benton Paiute Reservation in Mono County and the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley, the Bishop Tribe, the Timbi-Sha Shoshone Tribe, the Fort Independence Community of Paiute, and the Lone Pine Paiute Tribe in Inyo County, which are also reflected in the demographic statistics summarized below per the U.S. Census Bureau.

2 Figure 1: Eastern Sierra Region
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census Tiger Files; BAE, 2025.

3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
The following section summarizes the available data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance (DOF) regarding population and household growth, as well as demographic and household characteristics. Due to the region’s remote nature and relatively low population densities, concerns exist regarding the relative accuracy and reliability of data published through the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) program, which relies on surveys completed by a relatively small sample of resident households each year, the results of which are then averaged over a five-year period and used to extrapolate estimates of the demographic and household characteristics of the larger universe of residents and resident households. For this reason, this analysis primarily relies on benchmark population and household estimates collected from the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census’ and the DOF E-5 and E-8 population and housing estimates, which represent more reliable estimates of population and household totals compared to the ACS. However, the Decennial Census asks a shorter set of questions focused on characteristics such has age, sex, race, and household tenure, while the ACS covers more than 40 different topic areas, including education, employment, income, housing, and transportation. Therefore, some types of attribute data are available only from ACS-based data products and not from other sources.

Please note that the 2019-2023 ACS data spans the peak of the global COVID-19 pandemic period, which resulted in extraordinary changes to local and regional demographic characteristics and trends, as well as to the region’s economic structure. For example, state and national travel restrictions resulted in an abrupt decrease in tourist visitation to the region, along with the temporary closure of many large regional employers, such as Mammoth Mountain. This resulted in a large, short-term decrease in regional employment. The pandemic also corresponded with an increase in the number of second-home owners residing full-time in their second-homes, which also corresponded with an abrupt increase in housing demand and for-sale home prices. Anecdotal evidence also indicates that some existing residents may have elected to relocate out of the region during the pandemic due to a variety of possible influences, such as increasing housing costs and employment disruptions. For these reasons, the five-year ACS data should be interpreted with caution. Stakeholders and decision makers should also continue to monitor the available data moving forward to ensure that newer data, that reflects post-pandemic characteristics, is being taken into consideration.

4 Population Trends
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of
the resident population as of January
1st, 2025, according to the California
Department of Finance. The data
indicate that Inyo County hosts
around 60 percent of the region’s
resident population, or around
18,800 people. The population of
Inyo County is largely disbursed
throughout the unincorporated area,
with only 3,850 residents living in the
City of Bishop. By comparison, Mono
County hosts around 40 percent of
the regional population, with the bulk
of that population, around 7,040 total
residents, being concentrated within the incorporated Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Figure 3
illustrates that
while the
resident
population of
Inyo County has
remained
relatively stable
over the past
decade-and-ahalf, Mono
County exhibits
a consistent
trend towards
population loss.

Additional data from the 2019-2023 ACS, illustrated in Figure 4, on the following page, indicate that most of the regional population is concentrated in southern Mono and northern Inyo County. The bulk of the population in Mono County lives in the Town of Mammoth Lakes; however, significant unincorporated population centers also include June Lake and Crowley Lake, as well as communities like Bridgeport, Lee Vining, Walker-Coleville, and Topaz. In Inyo County, the largest population center is the City of Bishop and the unincorporated area to the west of the incorporated city, including the West Bishop Census Designated Place (CDP), the Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek CDP, and on the Bishop (Paiute) Reservation.

Figure 2: Total Resident Population, 2025
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5; BAE 2025. 3,850
7,040
14,950
5,644
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Inyo County Mono County
Incorporated City/Town Unincorporated Area
18,800
12,684
Figure 3: Total Population, 2010 to 2025
Sources: California Department of Finance, Tables E-5 and E-8; BAE 2025. 12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
4/1/20101/1/2011
10/1/2011
7/1/20124/1/20131/1/2014
10/1/2014
7/1/20154/1/20161/1/2017
10/1/2017
7/1/20184/1/20191/1/2020
10/1/2020
7/1/20214/1/20221/1/2023
10/1/2023
7/1/2024
Inyo County Mono County

5 Figure 4: Total Population by Census Tract, 2019-2023 Five-Year ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 ACS (Table B01003); BAE, 2025.

6 Additional detail summarized in Table 1 reports total population change in greater detail, with breakouts for the City of Bishop and Town of Mammoth Lakes, according to the California DOF.

This data indicate that the Mono County population contracted by 10.7 percent over the last 15 years, with an annualized rate of around 0.8 percent per year. The Town of Mammoth Lakes led this trend with a total population loss of 14.5 percent, or around 1.0 percent per year. By comparison, Inyo County grew by 1.4 percent over the 15-year period, though the annualized growth rate remained quite low at only 0.1 percent. Nonetheless, the population living in the City of Bishop contracted slightly (0.7 percent) over the same period.

Table 1: Total Resident Population, 4/1/2010 to 1/1/2025 Sources: California Department of Finance, Tables E-5 and E-8; BAE 2025.

While the DOF only publishes data for counties and incorporated cities and towns, Table 2 on the following page reports data from the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census, for Census Designated Places (CDPs) located within the Eastern Sierra Region. The data indicate that while some communities lost population, others gained residents over the same period. Of those unincorporated communities that grew their populations between 2010 and 2020, the largest population increase, in absolute terms, occurred in unincorporated Inyo County. For example, the West Bishop CDP added 147 new residents over the decade, followed by Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek (135 new residents), Big Pine (119 new residents), and Furnace Creek (112 new residents). In Mono County, the communities of Crowley Lake (105 new residents), Topaz (100 new residents), and Mono City (52 new residents) also notably added residents.

Estimate City of Town of Eastern
Period Bishop Inyo County Mammoth Lakes Mono County Sierra Region 4/1/2010 3,879 18,546 8,234 14,202 32,748
1/1/2011 3,871 18,582 8,179 14,312 32,894
1/1/2012 3,878 18,617 8,054 14,181 32,798
1/1/2013 3,856 18,673 7,859 13,865 32,538
1/1/2014 3,858 18,771 7,723 13,712 32,483
1/1/2015 3,860 18,765 7,651 13,674 32,439
1/1/2016 3,860 18,876 7,509 13,412 32,288
1/1/2017 3,857 18,880 7,461 13,425 32,305
1/1/2018 3,845 18,906 7,373 13,319 32,225
1/1/2019 3,843 18,938 7,334 13,305 32,243
4/1/2020 3,855 19,016 7,220 13,195 32,211
1/1/2021 3,869 18,982 7,311 13,191 32,173
1/1/2022 3,867 18,921 7,252 13,102 32,023
1/1/2023 3,861 18,896 7,307 13,178 32,074
1/1/2024 3,854 18,852 7,145 12,888 31,740
1/1/2025 3,850 18,800 7,040 12,684 31,484
Change 10'-'25
Value -29 254 -1,194 -1,518 -1,264
Percent -0.7% 1.4% -14.5% -10.7% -3.9%
Annual Rate -0.1% 0.1% -1.0% -0.8% -0.3%

7 Table 2: Total Population, Census Designated Places (CDPs), 2010 to 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2025.

Census Designated Place (CDP) County 2010 2020 Number Percent Big Pine Inyo County 1,756 1,875 119 6.8%
Bishop (City) Inyo County 3,879 3,819 -60 -1.5%
Cartago Inyo County 92 62 -30 -32.6%
Charleston View Inyo County n.a. 45 n.a. n.a.

Darwin Inyo County 43 36 -7 -16.3%
Dixon Lane-MeadowCreek Inyo County 2,645 2,780 135 5.1% Furnace Creek Inyo County 24 136 112 466.7%
Homewood Canyon Inyo County 44 40 -4 -9.1%
Independence Inyo County 669 593 -76 -11.4%
Keeler Inyo County 66 71 5 7.6%
Lone Pine Inyo County 2,035 2,014 -21 -1.0%
Mesa Inyo County 251 275 24 9.6%
Olancha Inyo County 192 131 -61 -31.8%
Pearsonville Inyo County 17 8 -9 -52.9%
Round Valley Inyo County 435 482 47 10.8%
Shoshone Inyo County 31 22 -9 -29.0%
Tecopa Inyo County 150 120 -30 -20.0%
Trona Inyo County 18 11 -7 -38.9%
West Bishop Inyo County 2,607 2,754 147 5.6%
Wilkerson Inyo County 563 543 -20 -3.6%
Aspen Springs Mono County 65 70 5 7.7%
Benton Mono County 280 279 -1 -0.4%
Bridgeport Mono County 575 553 -22 -3.8%
Chalfant Mono County 651 660 9 1.4%
Coleville Mono County 495 419 -76 -15.4%
Crowley Lake Mono County 875 980 105 12.0%
June Lake Mono County 629 611 -18 -2.9%
Lee Vining Mono County 222 217 -5 -2.3%
McGee Creek Mono County 41 45 4 9.8%
Mammoth Lakes (Town) Mono County 8,234 7,191 -1,043 -12.7% Mono City Mono County 172 224 52 30.2%
Paradise Mono County 153 174 21 13.7%
Sunny Slopes Mono County 182 139 -43 -23.6%
Swall Meadows Mono County 220 178 -42 -19.1%
Topaz Mono County 50 150 100 200.0%
Twin Lakes (Mono County) Mono County n.a. 45 n.a. n.a.

Virginia Lakes Mono County n.a. 7 n.a. n.a.

Walker Mono County 721 704 -17 -2.4%
Decennial Census Change

8 Pandemic Relocation Patterns
While population growth patterns reflect an overall trend towards population loss, the data also indicate that parts of the region experienced a short-term increase in resident population in 2020 through 2022, followed by resumed population losses, which correspond with widespread population movement that occurred as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the associated impacts of remote work, stay at home orders, and temporary business closures. The DOF data indicate that during this period, while the unincorporated areas continued to lose population, the two incorporated jurisdictions temporarily added population.

To provide a more thorough evaluation of pandemic induced population and household flows, this analysis also considers data collected in 2024 from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) National Change of Address (NCOA) dataset. This information was previously collected as part of research prepared for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County, and unfortunately this data is no longer available for purchase from the original data vendor and is now only available at a much higher cost which is beyond the resources available for this research; therefore data are presented only for ZIP Codes associated with the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County, with data being unavailable for the City of Bishop and Inyo County.

Figure 5 illustrates
the significant
increase in
population and
household flows both
into and out of Mono
County between
2019 and 2020,
which implies a likely
changeover of a
portion of the
population. As time
passed, the net effect
was a significant and
increasing outflow of
residents from the
community over time.

As noted above, the
available DOF data
suggests that the
region resumed prepandemic population
trends as of 2023.

Figure 5: U.S. Postal Service Change of Address Requests, Mono County, 2019-2022
Sources: U.S. Postal Service, National Change of Address; BAE, 2025. (4,000)
(3,000)
(2,000)
(1,000)
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
2019 2020 2021 2022
1,079
2,479
2,025 1,828
(1,305)
(2,734) (2,830)
(3,196)
In-/Out- Flows
Moves In Moves Out
(1,500)
(1,000)
(500)
0 2019 2020 2021 2022
(226) (255)
(805)
(1,368)
Net Change

9 Population Projections
While there is limited
information available
on anticipated
population growth in
the Eastern Sierra
Region, the California
DOF generally expects
both Inyo and Mono
counties to continue
losing population,
similar to the observed
trend over the last
decade.

Figure 6 and Figure 7
illustrate projected
population change,
both in absolute terms
and in terms of yearover-year change.

Figure 6, in particular,
illustrates that the DOF
anticipates the ongoing
population loss to
continue, and that the
rate of population loss
in Mono County is
expected to accelerate
over time.

Age Distribution
Figure 8 illustrates the age distribution of residents living in the City of Bishop, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Inyo County, and Mono County, as of the 2020 Decennial Census. All four areas show similar shares of the population who were under the age of 18, suggesting that the youth population is fairly evenly distributed across the region. As is often the case nationwide, people living in incorporated communities in the Eastern Sierra region tend to be somewhat younger than the countywide average. As of 2020, 11 percent of people living in the Town of Mammoth Lakes were aged 65 or older, compared to 16 percent countywide. Similarly, 20 percent of the population living in the City of Bishop were aged 65 or older, compared to 24 percent of Inyo County’s population within this age cohort.

Figure 6: Projected Total Population, 2025 to 2035
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table P-2A; BAE 2025. 10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

INYO MONO
Figure 7: Year-Over-Year Population Change, 2025 to 2035 Sources: California Department of Finance, Table P-2A; BAE 2025. -1.4%
-1.2%
-1.0%
-0.8%
-0.6%
-0.4%
-0.2%

0.0%
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

INYO MONO

10 Figure 8: Age Distribution, 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2010 and 2020 (Tables P12 and P13); BAE 2025.

Race and Ethnicity
The two largest racial and ethnic groups in the region are non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic/Latino individuals. As shown in Figure 9, 60 to 65 percent of the population identified as non-Hispanic White as of 2020. Around 25 to 30 percent of the population identified as Hispanic or Latino. The other notable sub-population was Native American residents, who accounted for more than 11 percent of the population in Inyo County and just over one percent in Mono County. Additional data reported in Appendix A suggest that while non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic/Latino residents have maintained their share of the regional population as of the 2019-2023 five-year ACS, Native American residents account for a slightly increasing share of the population in Mono County at 2.2 percent, while they show a decreasing share of the population in Inyo County at 8.1 percent on average.

Figure 9: Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, 2019-2023 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2020 (Table P2); BAE, 2025. 20%
20%
20%
21%
56%
64%
61%
68%
24%
16%
20%
11%

INYO COUNTY

MONO COUNTY

CITY OF BISHOP

TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES
% OF TOTAL POPULATION
Under 18 18-64 65 or Older
33% 30% 23% 27%
60% 60%
58%
66%

11.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Town of Mammoth Lakes City of Bishop Inyo County Mono County Hispanic/Latino (a) White, Non-Hispanic Black/African American Native American Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Other Two or More Races
{ 6% { 10% { 7% { 8%

11 Household Type
Household type refers to the classification of households as either family or non-family households. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family household as a household with two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Data from the Decennial Census indicate that between 50 and 60 percent of all households in the Eastern Sierra Region communities were families as of 2020, which represents a modest increase from 2010. The data also indicate that while the incorporated jurisdictions show slightly lower proportions of family households, the difference from the countywide averages are relatively small, indicating that while the incorporated town and city appear to attract more young, nonfamily households, both communities continue to function as homes for large resident family populations.

Figure 10: Family and Non-Family Households, 2020
Sources: Decennial Census 2020 (Table P16); BAE, 2025.

Households by Tenure
Figure 11 illustrates the tenure breakdown for each subarea in the region as of 2020, while the Appendix provides additional data for 2010 and 2019–2023 alongside the 2020 values.

As of 2020, between 55 and 65 percent of households in the region owned their homes. The home ownership rate in both incorporated communities was notably lower than for the two counties, with 48 percent of households in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and 37 percent of households in the City of Bishop owning their own homes. The higher prevalence of renter households in the City of Bishop and Town of Mammoth Lakes reflects the lower age profile of residents, as well as larger inventories of available rental housing and higher housing costs.

Figure 11: Housing Units by Tenure, 2020
Sources: Decennial Census 2020 (Table H12); BAE, 2025.
60%
61%
52%
59%
40%
39%
48%
41%

INYO COUNTY

MONO COUNTY

CITY OF BISHOP

TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES
% OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
Family Households Non-Family Households
64%
57%
37%
48%
36%
43%
63%
52%

INYO COUNTY

MONO COUNTY

CITY OF BISHOP

TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES
% OF TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

12 Figure 12: Percent Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS Source: US. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 ACS (Table B25009); BAE, 2025.

13 Figure 13: Percent Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS Note: (a) The available data reflect excessive margins of error and are therefore not reported.

Source: US. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 ACS (Table B25009); BAE, 2025.

14 Household Size
As shown in Table 3, below, the median household size throughout the Eastern Sierra Region communities ranges from two to three persons. Nonetheless, the distribution highlights that the median household size is skewed upwards somewhat due to relatively small numbers of larger households. The data reflect that roughly 60 to 70 percent of households throughout the region include only one or two people. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), households with only one or two people can effectively occupy smaller housing units, like one-bedroom and studio units, without meeting the definition of overcrowding. Conversely, around 20 to 25 percent of households contain four or more people, indicating that they are likely to require larger housing units with more bedrooms.

Additional data summarized in Appendix A indicate that average household sizes decreased throughout the region over the last decade, with the exception of Inyo County, where the median household size increased modestly from 2.25 persons in 2010 to 2.28 in 2020.

Table 3: Household Size, 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2020 (Table H12); BAE, 2025.

Household Income Characteristics
Information on household incomes is no longer collected and summarized as part of the Decennial Census, but is one of the more than 40 different attributes summarized as part of the Census Bureau’s ACS data products. For the purposes of this analysis, BAE collected information on median household incomes from the 2011-2015 and 2019-2023 five-year ACS surveys, which is summarized in Table 4, on the following page. According to these data, the inflation-adjusted median household income in Inyo County grew by 19 percent, while the median income in Mono County grew by 15 percent. By comparison, the inflation adjusted median income for California as a whole grew by 18 percent over the same period.

Town of
Household Size Mammoth Lakes City of Bishop Mono County Inyo County 1-person household 28% 40% 29% 33%
2-person household 34% 28% 36% 35%
3-person household 14% 11% 13% 12%
4-person household 13% 9% 12% 9%
5-person household 5% 6% 5% 6%
6-person household 4% 3% 3% 3%
7-person household 2% 3% 3% 2%
Total Households 2,934 1,748 5,474 8,046
Median Household Size 2.41 2.11 2.35 2.28
% of Total Households

15 Table 4: Median Household Incomes, 2011-2015 and 2019-2023 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 & 2019-2023 (S1901 & B19013); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in California, 2024; BAE, 2025.

The inflation-adjusted median income in the Town of Mammoth Lakes grew by 18 percent between the 2011-2015 and 2019-2023 survey periods, while the median income for the City of Bishop grew by 51 percent. Notably, the inflation-adjusted median income for the City of Bishop was reported to be $54,416 as of the 2011-2015 ACS, which was below the countywide median, but increased to $82,205 as of the 2019-2023 ACS survey period, surpassing the Inyo County median of $72,432 and reaching parity with the Mono County value.

Figure 14 displays the distribution of households by income category. Inyo County and the City of Bishop show larger concentrations of households earning less than $100,000 per year; though the City shows a higher concentration of households earning $100,000 to $150,000 compared to Inyo County. Due to the concentration of households in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the household income distributions for Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes are similar.

Figure 14: Household Income Distribution, 2019-2023 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Tables B19001 and B19013); BAE, 2025.

Figure 15 on the next page illustrates differences in the median income throughout the Eastern Sierra. The data show that the more densely populated areas in Mono County and northern Inyo County also correspond with higher median incomes. In particular, the areas with the highest median incomes appear concentrated around Lee Vining/Mono Lake, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Crowley Lake, the City of Bishop, West Bishop, and Wilkerson, with slightly lower median incomes around Round Valley, Mustang Mesa, and Bridgeport. 2019 - 2023 Avg. Inflation Adjusted
Median Household Income 2015 Dollars 2023 Dollars 2023 Dollars Percent Change Town of Mammoth Lakes $55,799 $73,933 $87,121 17.8%
City of Bishop $41,069 $54,416 $82,205 51.1%
Mono County $56,944 $75,450 $86,953 15.2%
Inyo County $45,955 $60,890 $72,432 19.0%
2011 - 2015 Avg.
19%
27%
24%
37%
36%
35%
31%
27%
24%
20%
25%
16%
7%
6%
7%
8%
15%
11%
13%
11%

TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES

CITY OF BISHOP

MONO COUNTY

INYO COUNTY
Less than $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$249,999 $200,000 or More

16 Figure 15: Median Household Income by Census Tract, 2019 - 2023 ACS Source: US. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 ACS (Table S1903); BAE, 2025.

17 Household Income Limits
To facilitate comparison between household incomes and housing costs, as discussed in the Housing Market Conditions section below, the industry standard practice is to use the statutory income limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which are based on data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which is then adjusted using proprietary state-level data.

However, due to the significant mismatch between regional workforce household incomes and housing costs within the Eastern Sierra, BAE has also specified a variety of income thresholds above the levels typically specified by HCD, which better reflect the alignment between housing costs in the Eastern Sierra region and the income necessary to afford market-rate housing. These alternative income thresholds are termed “achievable income levels.” Table 5: HCD Statutory Income Limits and Achievable Income Limits, 2025 Notes:
(a) As published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (b) Based on the income needed to afford the median-priced market-rate unit within key housing type and tenure classes.

Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Listsource, 2025; Zillow.com, 2025; Local Property Managers, 2025; BAE, 2025.

HCD Income Limits (a) 1 2 3 4 5
Acutely Low-Income (15% MFI) $10,200 $11,700 $13,150 $14,600 $15,750 Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI) $20,200 $23,050 $26,650 $32,150 $37,650 Very Low-Income (50% MFI) $33,600 $38,400 $43,200 $48,000 $51,850 Low-Income (80% MFI) $53,750 $61,400 $69,100 $76,750 $82,900 Median Income (100% MFI) $68,050 $77,750 $87,500 $97,200 $105,000 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $81,650 $93,300 $105,000 $116,650 $126,000 Achievable Income Limits (b)
150% MFI $102,075 $116,625 $131,250 $145,800 $157,500
200% MFI $136,100 $155,500 $175,000 $194,400 $210,000
250% MFI $170,125 $194,375 $218,750 $243,000 $262,500
300% MFI $204,150 $233,250 $262,500 $291,600 $315,000
350% MFI $238,175 $272,125 $306,250 $340,200 $367,500
HCD Income Limits (a) 1 2 3 4 5
Acutely Low-Income (15% MFI) $12,450 $14,250 $16,000 $17,800 $19,200 Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI) $21,500 $24,550 $27,600 $32,150 $37,650 Very Low-Income (50% MFI) $35,700 $40,850 $45,900 $51,050 $55,100 Low-Income (80% MFI) $57,200 $65,400 $73,550 $81,700 $88,250 Median Income (100% MFI) $82,950 $94,800 $106,650 $118,500 $128,000 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $99,550 $113,750 $128,000 $142,200 $153,600 Achievable Income Limits (b)
150% MFI $124,425 $142,200 $159,975 $177,750 $192,000
200% MFI $165,900 $189,600 $213,300 $237,000 $256,000
250% MFI $207,375 $237,000 $266,625 $296,250 $320,000
300% MFI $248,850 $284,400 $319,950 $355,500 $384,000
350% MFI $290,325 $331,800 $373,275 $414,750 $448,000
Inyo County (Median Income $97,200)
Number of People per Household
Mono County (Median Income $118,500)
Number of People per Household

18 ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
This section summarizes the available data on labor force characteristics, unemployment, and jobs by industry from the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as well as occupational employment (i.e., employed residents) and commuting patterns from the U.S.

Census Bureau, among other related topics.

Labor Force Trends
As illustrated in Figure 16, below, both Inyo and Mono County host labor force totals of just over 8,000 workers each, for a combined regional workforce or 16,610 resident workers.

According to data from the EDD, the regional labor force experienced a sustained contraction since 2010. The labor force contracted sharply in 2020, corresponding with large-scale business closures during the pandemic, but has since recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

However, please note that it is not clear whether the labor force recovery observed in Mono County reflects workers employed or looking for work within the region, or if those resident workers are employed in or looking for work using a remote work format. Additional data summarized in Appendix A indicate that the labor force in the City of Bishop remained stable over the analysis period, where the size of the labor force in the Town of Mammoth Lakes fluctuated significantly year-to-year, with a return to pre-pandemic levels as of 2023.

Figure 16: Total Labor Force, Inyo and Mono Counties and the Eastern Sierra Region, Annual Average, 2010 through 2024
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Unemployment Rate and Labor Force; BAE, 2025.

Resident Employment and Unemployment
Figure 17 illustrates overall employment and unemployment trends for Inyo and Mono counties respectively. The data reflect a significant decrease in resident employment in Inyo 6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Inyo County Mono County Eastern Sierra Region

19 County in 2016 and 2017. Resident employment in Inyo County reportedly recovered somewhat through 2018 and 2019, only to face another significant decline in 2020. Since 2020, resident employment in Inyo County has steadily recovered back to 2018 levels. Mono County, by comparison, shows relatively stable levels of resident employment between 2010 and 2019, followed by an abrupt drop in employment in 2020 and a relatively quick recovery through 2023. Unemployment in both counties decreased steadily between 2010 and 2019, despite decreases in resident employment in Inyo County in particular. Both areas experienced a significant increase in the unemployment rate in 2020 and 2021, though the unemployment rate has since returned to the pre-pandemic trend as of 2022 through 2024.

Figure 17: Resident Employment and Resident Unemployment Rate, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2010-2024
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Unemployment Rate and Labor Force; BAE, 2025.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024 Inyo County

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024 Mono County
Employment Unemployment

20 Additional data on resident employment and unemployment for sub-county areas published by the EDD are available in Appendix A. According to that data, the unemployment rate in the City of Bishop has steadily declined over the past decade, with the exception of 2020 and 2021, which saw increases in unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of 2023 and 2024, the EDD estimates the unemployment rate in the City of Bishop at 0.4 percent, indicating a significant shortage of available labor. The unemployment rate in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, by comparison, has remained quite low over the last decade, with multiple years reporting zero unemployed persons living within the Town. As of 2022 and 2023, the EDD reported the unemployment rate in the Town of Mammoth Lakes at 2.4 percent, which increased to 2.6 percent as of 2024.

Employment by Occupation
Table 6 reports the distribution of employed residents by occupation according to the 2019- 2023 ACS. Due to the small sample sizes, the estimates reflect margins of error in many cases that exceeding 50 percent of the estimate. In these cases, the estimates should be interpreted with particular caution.

Table 6: Employed Residents by Occupation, 2019-2023 Avg.

Note:
(a) Totals may not match totals in other tables due to independent rounding. (b) The margin of error exceeds 50 percent of this estimate, as denoted with the following color:
(c) The margin of error exceeds 100 percent of this estimate, as denoted with the following color:

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table S2401); BAE, 2025.

Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Management 1,194 25.2% 297 12.8% 1,496 20.1% 1,057 12.4% Business/Financial 96 (c) 2.0% 107 (b) 4.6% 124 (b) 1.7% 362 4.3% Computer/Mathematical 0 (c) 0.0% 33 (c) 1.4% 160 (b) 2.1% 115 (b) 1.4% Architecture/Engineering 13 (c) 0.3% 60 (c) 2.6% 119 (b) 1.6% 206 2.4% Life/Physical/Social Science 88 (c) 1.9% 144 (b) 6.2% 143 (c) 1.9% 280 (b) 3.3% Community/Social Service 0 (c) 0.0% 51 (c) 2.2% 20 (c) 0.3% 313 3.7% Legal 72 (c) 1.5% 0 (c) 0.0% 74 (c) 1.0% 18 (c) 0.2%
Education/Training/Library 219 (b) 4.6% 13 (c) 0.6% 524 7.0% 374 4.4% Arts/Design/Entertainment 83 (c) 1.8% 124 (b) 5.3% 101 (b) 1.4% 161 1.9% Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 335 7.1% 326 (b) 14.0% 501 6.7% 583 6.9% Healthcare Support 182 (b) 3.8% 144 (b) 6.2% 277 (b) 3.7% 385 4.5% Protective Service 155 (b) 3.3% 153 (b) 6.6% 225 3.0% 495 5.8% Food Preparation/Serving Related 386 8.2% 159 (b) 6.8% 685 9.2% 444 5.2% Maintenance/Grounds Cleaning 408 8.6% 0 (c) 0.0% 545 7.3% 276 3.2% Personal Care/Service 204 (b) 4.3% 45 (c) 1.9% 285 (b) 3.8% 137 (b) 1.6% Sales and Sales Related 79 (c) 1.7% 123 (b) 5.3% 366 (b) 4.9% 584 6.9% Office/Administrative Support 289 (b) 6.1% 422 18.2% 451 6.1% 1,322 15.5% Farming/Fishing/Forestry 126 (c) 2.7% 7 (c) 0.3% 159 (c) 2.1% 38 0.4% Construction/Extraction 302 (b) 6.4% 0 (c) 0.0% 366 (b) 4.9% 548 6.4% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 153 (b) 3.2% 90 (b) 3.9% 280 (b) 3.8% 222 2.6% Production 230 (b) 4.9% 9 (c) 0.4% 292 (b) 3.9% 313 3.7% Transportation/Material Moving 120 (c) 2.5% 18 (c) 0.8% 255 (c) 3.4% 269 (b) 3.2% Total Employed Residents (a) 4,734 100% 2,325 100% 7,448 100% 8,502 100% Inyo County
Town of City of
Mammoth Lakes Bishop Mono County

21 Figure 18: Employed Residents by Census Tract, 2019- 2023 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table S2401); BAE, 2025.

22 Both Inyo and Mono counties show concentrations of employed residents working in management, as well as office and administrative support and healthcare roles. Mono County also shows concentrations of workers employed in education and food preparation. In both counties, most employed residents worked in ‘white collar’ occupations, which include administrative, managerial, or professional roles that take place in an office or similar setting. ‘Blue collar’ occupations, which generally involve manual labor, skilled trades, or hands-on work, still account for roughly 30 and 45 percent of all regional occupational employment, depending on the community.

Comparing each county’s respective share of regional employed residents versus population indicates that Inyo County and the City of Bishop are home to more than their fair shares of the region’s employed resident population, which corresponds with information on regional workforce commuting patterns presented later in this section. Figure 18, on the prior page, illustrates the distribution of employed residents by Census Tract, which shows concentrations in the northern half of the region, as well as in the southeastern corner near Death Valley.

Employment by Industry Sector
Where employment by occupation reports the types of roles that resident workers are engaged in, industry employment reflects the types of jobs that are available in the community. Please note that a job may be occupied by anyone, whether they live within the study area or not. For example, onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread proliferation of remote work jobs, which allowed people to live virtually anywhere while filling roles that had previously been tied to a specific location. In such cases, the job is counted at the headquarters location for the company, while the employed resident is counted in the community where they live.

Table 7 reports average annual employment by industry for 2018 and 2023 based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Across both Inyo and Mono Counties, the largest two employment sectors are accommodation and food services, and local government. In Mono County, accommodation and food services accounted for almost 50 percent of total wage and salary employment, while local government accounted for just under 18 percent. In Inyo County, the balance was reversed, with local government accounting for nearly 32 percent of all wage and salary jobs, followed by accommodation and food services at just under 18 percent. Other notable industries in the region include retail trade, construction, manufacturing, real estate, and the federal government.

The data reported in Table 7 indicate that total employment levels in Inyo County remained relatively unchanged between 2018 and 2023 with around 7,500 total wage and salary jobs countywide. While the distribution of jobs by industry shifted slightly, the overall employment profile of the county also remained roughly the same. Meanwhile, Mono County added 950 new jobs between 2018 and 2023, which reflects growth of around 13 percent, or around 2.5 percent per year. While the reported time period includes the COVID-19 pandemic, 2018

23 represents a pre-pandemic baseline, while the economy appears to have largely recovered as of 2023 from pandemic-induced job losses incurred in 2020 and 2021.

Table 7: Employment by Industry, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2018 and 2023 Notes: Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work, excluding self-employed persons. (a) Data are confidential under EDD disclosure rules if there are fewer than 3 businesses in a category. (b) May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

Sources: California Employment Development Department, QCEW, 2018 and 2023; BAE, 2025.Major Regional Employers % Change
Inyo County Number Percent Number Percent 2018-2023
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (a) n.a. 24 0.3% n.a.

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (a) n.a. 38 0.5% n.a.

Utilities 148 2.0% 148 2.0% 0.0%
Construction 239 3.2% 237 3.1% -0.8%
Manufacturing 309 4.1% 332 4.4% n.a.

Wholesale Trade 89 1.2% 93 1.2% 4.5%
Retail Trade 967 12.8% 866 11.5% n.a.

Transportation and Warehousing 40 0.5% 62 0.8% n.a.

Information 41 0.5% 41 0.5% 0.0%
Finance and Insurance 73 1.0% 61 0.8% -16.4%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 85 1.1% 66 0.9% -22.4% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 151 2.0% 185 2.5% 22.5% Management of Companies and Enterprises 6 0.1% (a) n.a. n.a.

Administrative, Support, Waste Management 80 1.1% (a) n.a. n.a.

Educational Services (a) n.a. 27 0.4% n.a.

Health Care and Social Assistance (a) n.a. 482 6.4% n.a.

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 144 1.9% 132 1.8% -8.3% Accommodation and Food Services 1,433 19.0% 1,315 17.5% -8.2% Other Services, except Public Administration 219 2.9% 150 2.0% -31.5% Federal Government 294 3.9% 302 4.0% 2.7%
State Government 363 4.8% 421 5.6% 16.0%
Local Government 2,388 31.7% 2,429 32.3% 1.7%
Total Employment (a) 7,535 100% 7,529 100% -0.1%
2018 2023
% Change
Mono County Number Percent Number Percent 2018-2023
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Utilities (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Construction 342 4.6% 454 5.5% 32.7%
Manufacturing 98 1.3% 142 1.7% 44.9%
Wholesale Trade (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Retail Trade 574 7.8% 530 6.4% -7.7%
Transportation and Warehousing 24 0.3% 36 0.4% 50.0%
Information 18 0.2% 32 0.4% 77.8%
Finance and Insurance 29 0.4% 27 0.3% -6.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 361 4.9% 376 4.5% 4.2% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Management of Companies and Enterprises (a) n.a. (a) n.a. n.a.

Administrative, Support, Waste Management 187 2.5% 244 2.9% 30.5% Educational Services (a) n.a. 43 0.5% n.a.

Health Care and Social Assistance (a) n.a. 73 0.9% n.a.

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 168 2.3% 145 1.7% -13.7% Accommodation and Food Services 3,475 47.1% 4,082 49.1% 17.5% Other Services, except Public Administration 224 3.0% 219 2.6% -2.2% Federal Government 210 2.8% 197 2.4% -6.2%
State Government 42 0.6% 48 0.6% 14.3%
Local Government 1,345 18.2% 1,486 17.9% 10.5%
Total Employment (b) 7,371 100% 8,321 100% 12.9%
2018 2023

24 Regional Principal Employers
Table 8 reports top 25 employers in both Inyo and Mono counties in 2025 according to the EDD Labor Market Information Division (LMID). The data clearly reflect that the region’s single largest employer is Mammoth Mountain Resort and its affiliated businesses. Rounding out the top five major employers in the region are Mammoth Unified School District in Mono County, as well as Death Valley National Park, the Oasis at Death Valley resort, and the Crystal Geyser Roxane Water company in Inyo County.

Table 8: Principal Employers, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2025 Sources: California Employment Development Department, LMID, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Employer Location County Industry Size Class
Mammoth Resorts Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 1,000 - 4,999 Crystal Geyser Roxane Water Olancha Inyo County Water Companies-Bottled/Bulk & Etc 500 - 999 Death Valley National Park Death Valley Inyo County Fire Departments 250 - 499 Mammoth Unified School District Mammoth Lakes Mono County Schools 250 - 499 Oasis at Death Valley Death Valley Inyo County Hotels & Motels 250 - 499 Bishop Paiute Gaming Bishop Inyo County Casinos 100 - 249 Carsons Tahoe Behavioral Health Bishop Inyo County Mental Health Services 100 - 249 County of Mono Mammoth Lakes Mono County Government Offices - County 100 - 249 Coso Operating Co LLC Olancha Inyo County Geothermal Htg/Cooling Equip/Systs-Dlrs 100 - 249 Department of Water & Power Independence Inyo County Government Offices-City/Village & TWP 100 - 249 Independence Courthouse Independence Inyo County Government Offices-County 100 - 249 June Meadows Chalet June Lake Mono County Skiing Centers and Resorts 100 - 249 Mono County Public Works Department Bridgeport Mono County Utility Contractors 100 - 249 Northern Inyo Healthcare District Bishop Inyo County Health Care Management 100 - 249 Southern Inyo Healthcare District Lone Pine Inyo County Health Care Management 100 - 249 Transportation Dept-CA Dist 9 Bishop Inyo County Government Offices-State 100 - 249 US Forestry Dept Bishop Inyo County Government Offices-Federal 100 - 249 Village Lodge Mammoth Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 100 - 249 Vons Bishop Inyo County Grocers-Retail 100 - 249
Vons Mammoth Lakes Mono County Grocers-Retail 100 - 249 Wanaaha Casino Bishop Inyo County Casinos 100 - 249
Westin Monache Resort Mammoth Lakes Mono County Hotels & Motels 100 - 249 Aqueduct System Bishop Inyo County Government Offices-City/Village & TWP 50 - 99 Bishop Care Ctr Bishop Inyo County Nursing & Convalescent Homes 50 - 99 Bishop Unified School District Bishop Inyo County School Districts 50 - 99 Double Eagle Resort & Spa June Lake Mono County Resorts 50 - 99 Edna Beaman Elementary Benton Mono County Schools 50 - 99 Hermonsa Hospitality Group Mammoth Lakes Mono County Hotel & Motel Management 50 - 99 Inyo County Sheriff Independence Inyo County Government Offices-County 50 - 99 Juniper Springs Resort Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 50 - 99 Lone Pine Unified School District Lone Pine Inyo County School Districts 50 - 99 Los Angeles Water & Power Dept Bishop Inyo County Construction Companies 50 - 99 Mammoth Elementary School Mammoth Lakes Mono County Schools 50 - 99 Mammoth Mountain Inn Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 50 - 99 Mammoth Ranger District Mammoth Lakes Mono County Ranger Services 50 - 99 Mammoth Reservations Inc Mammoth Lakes Mono County Vacation Rentals 50 - 99 McDonald's Bishop Inyo County Limited-Service Restaurant 50 - 99 Mono County Office Emergency Bridgeport Mono County Government Offices - County 50 - 99 Owen's Valley High School Independence Inyo County Schools 50 - 99 Owen's Valley Career Dev Ctr Bishop Inyo County Child Care Service 50 - 99 Perry Motors Inc Bishop Inyo County Automobile Dealers-New Cars 50 - 99 Sheriff Office-Finance Bridgeport Mono County Sheriff 50 - 99 Sierra Nevada Resort Mammoth Lakes Mono County Swimming Pools-Public 50 - 99 Stovepipe Wells Village Death Valley Inyo County Hotels & Motels 50 - 99 Tamarack Lodge Resort Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 50 - 99 Annett's Mono Village Bridgeport Mono County Resorts 20 - 49 Mammoth Five Star Lodging Mammoth Lakes Mono County Hotel & Motel Management 20 - 49 Mammoth Mountain Ski Area Mammoth Lakes Mono County Resorts 20 - 49 Mono County Sheriff Crowley Lake Mono County Sheriff 20 - 49 TOOMEY'S Mammoth Lakes Mono County Restaurants 20 - 49

25 Figure 19: Employment Density, Primary Jobs, 2022
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics (LEHD), OnTheMap; BAE, 2025.

26 Figure 19, on the prior page, illustrates the relative concentration of jobs throughout the Eastern Sierra region. In particular, the figure highlights the dominance of the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the City of Bishop from an employment opportunities standpoint.

Nonetheless, other notable job concentrations exist throughout the county, including places like Bridgeport, Lone Pine, Independence, and in Death Valley at Furnace Creek.

Commuting Patterns
The available data on commuting patterns for employed residents and workers in the Eastern Sierra region is quite limited, with different data sources offering sometimes conflicting data.

The best quality data currently available comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), which includes a special tabulation of ACS data focused on demographics, home and work locations, and journey to work travel flows. The most recent data currently available from the CTPP is for the 2017-2021 ACS survey period.

Figure 20 illustrates commute flows for employed residents in the Eastern Sierra region, as well as for persons employed within the region regardless of place of residence. Overall these data reflect the significant cross-commuting that exists between Inyo and Mono Counties, and highlights the region’s general reliance on workers living within the two-county region.

Figure 20: Regional Commute Flows, Inyo and Mono Counties, 2017-2021 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), 2017-2021; BAE, 2025.

27 Anecdotal evidence provided by ESCOG indicates that common commute flows are heavily influenced by the structure of the regional road network coupled with major employment concentrations. The data highlight that Bishop area (Inyo County) residents that commute outside of the area for work are generally more likely to commute into the Mammoth Lakes and June Lake areas (Mono County) due to the access provided by Highway 395. Meanwhile, the primary route for residents of the Chalfant/Benton/Tri-Valley areas (Mono County) to access larger population and employment centers is Highway 6 through Bishop. Other routes from Benton to the Town of Mammoth Lakes, June Lake, and Lee Vining, such as Highway 120 and Benton Crossing Road, often face seasonal closures which limit year-round mobility.

HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS
The following section summarizes housing supply characteristics for the Eastern Sierra Region, including housing type and size characteristics, as well as the age and vacancy status.

Housing Stock Concentrations
Per the DOF, there were 34,881 total housing units throughout the Eastern Sierra Region as of January 2025. Just under 60 percent of the total housing inventory is concentrated in Mono County, although the county hosts only around 40 percent of the total population. Inyo County, by comparison, features just over 40 percent of the region’s housing inventory, but around 60 percent of the region’s total population. This dynamic is made possible by the significant inventory of homes not utilized for permanent occupancy that are primarily concentrated in Mono County, and particularly within the Town of Mammoth Lakes and surrounding areas.

Within Mono County, just under 70 percent of the countywide housing inventory is located within the Town of Mammoth Lakes. In fact, the Town of Mammoth Lakes features roughly the same number of housing units as exist in all of Inyo County. Within Inyo County, only around 21 percent of the housing inventory is located within the City of Bishop; although according to data from the 2019-2023 ACS, the West Bishop Census Designated Place (CDP) accounts for another 11 percent of the countywide housing inventory. Figure 21, on the following page, further illustrates the relative concentration of the housing stock throughout the Eastern Sierra Region, showing significant concentrations that correspond with the population concentrations discussed earlier, with most of the housing stock located between the Town of Mammoth Lakes/June Lake and the City of Bishop.

28 Figure 21: Housing Concentrations, 2019-2023 ACS
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table B25001); BAE, 2025.

29 Housing by Units in Structure
The housing stock throughout the Eastern Sierra region is largely dominated by single-family homes at around 50 percent of the total housing inventory, with multifamily housing representing just over one-third of the regional housing stock, most of which is concentrated in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. Mobile homes also represent an important component of the regional housing stock, representing around 15 percent of the regional housing inventory.

Figure 22: Housing Stock by Units in Structure, 2025
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-8; BAE, 2025.

Figure 22, above, also illustrates that the structure of the housing stock differs across the region. For example, multifamily housing units account for around 51 percent of the housing stock in Mono County according to the DOF as of 2025. However, 94 percent of the multifamily housing inventory in Mono County is concentrated within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and the majority of that inventory reflects older multifamily condominium projects oriented towards the second home and tourist accommodations markets. By comparison, only around 12 percent of the housing stock in Inyo County is multifamily housing units, with the vast majority of those units being located in or near the City of Bishop. Similarly, mobile homes account for 15 percent of the regional housing stock with a total inventory of just over 3,500 units. Around 60 percent of those mobile home units are located in unincorporated Inyo County and another ten percent are located within the City of Bishop.

Housing Inventory Growth
According to the California DOF, the housing inventory in the Eastern Sierra Region has remained relatively constant, without major expansions or contractions over the last 15 years.

Aggregate data for the Eastern Sierra Region illustrated in Figure 23, below, indicate that the region as a whole lost 26 housing units over the period from 2010 to 2025, which represents a contraction of 0.1 percent. During that period, the region reportedly added 222 new singlefamily homes and lost 117 multifamily housing units and 131 mobile homes. While both counties reportedly added single-family homes, Mono County reportedly lost more than 150 multifamily units, while both counties lost large numbers of mobile homes, which represent an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing throughout the region. 29%
44%
62%
41%
50%
70%
37%
12%
51%
35%
1%
18%
26%
7%
15%

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES

CITY OF BISHOP

INYO COUNTY

MONO COUNTY

EASTERN SIERRA REGION
Single-Family Multifamily Mobile Homes

30 Figure 23: Net Housing Inventory Growth by Unit Type, 2010-2025 Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-8; BAE, 2025.

Housing Units by Bedrooms
Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of housing units by number of bedrooms according to the 2019-2023 ACS and the distribution of households by size as of the 2020 Census. The figure shows that around 68 percent of the housing stock is concentrated among housing units with two to three bedrooms. Only around 19 percent of the housing stock was studio or onebedroom units, on average, over the 2019-2023 ACS survey period. By comparison, around 67 percent of all households in the region as of 2020 included only one or two people, and only around 22 percent had three or four people. This illustrates the common tendency of households to overconsume housing by occupying units that are larger than they strictly need.

This is a common household preference, particularly among higher-income/wealth households, but is also influenced by the relative availability of housing on the market. This tendency is often seen in areas with limited inventories of smaller units, since households have relatively few options and must often live with what is available on the market. In areas with significant affordability challenges, communities can often be well served by prioritizing development of smaller units that are naturally more affordable and fit with household needs. -26
222
-117
-131
77 125
36 -84
-103
97 -153
-47

ALL UNITS SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY MOBILE HOMES
Eastern Sierra Inyo County Mono County

31 Figure 24: Units and Households by Size, 2019-2023 ACS and 2020 Census Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table B25041); BAE, 2025.

Figure 25 illustrates that the distribution of housing units by size in the region is not consistent. For example, both the City of Bishop and Inyo County have higher concentrations two- and three-bedroom units, and lower shares of studio and one-bedroom units. The Town of Mammoth Lakes, and Mono County by extension, show a larger share of the housing stock concentrated particularly among one-bedroom housing units. However, the Mono County figure is heavily influenced by the figures for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and additional analysis indicates that the unincorporated county is likely underserved by smaller studio and one-bedroom housing units.

Figure 25: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2019-2023 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table B25041); BAE, 2025. 4%
14%
33%
35%
11%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Units by Number
of Bedrooms
31%
35%
12% 10%
5% 6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Households by
Number of Persons
354 243
449 557
1,976
442
2,214
1,068
3,557
825
4,611
2,920
2,407
633
4,299
3,889
1,373
126
1,716
902
218
45 343 164
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Town of Mammoth Lakes City of Bishop Mono County Inyo County No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5+ bedrooms

32 Age of Housing Stock
Figure 26 illustrates the age of the housing stock by jurisdiction. The data illustrate that the housing stock in the City of Bishop and Inyo County is older, with larger concentrations of units built before 1949 and in the 1950s and ‘60s. Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes show larger concentrations of units built in the 1970s and ‘80s, as well as the 1990s and 2000s. Interestingly, Inyo County shows the highest concentration of housing units built in the 2010s or later, at around four percent of the housing stock compared to two percent in Mono County and only around one percent in both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and City of Bishop.

Figure 26: Housing Units by Year Built, 2019-2023 ACS
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Table B25034); BAE 2025.

Housing Vacancy Status
Residential vacancy represents an important metric in many rural resort-oriented real estate markets. Due to demand from second-home owners and short-term rental operators, the residential vacancy rate in many such communities is often elevated. As illustrated in Figure 27, there were more housing units identified as vacant than were occupied in Mono County as of the 2020 Decennial Census.1 Based on those figures, the estimated total vacancy rate in Mono County was almost 60 percent. The residential vacancy rate in Inyo County, by comparison, was notably lower, though still elevated by typical market standards, at roughly 15 percent. This general balance between vacant and occupied units also translates to the Town of Mammoth Lakes and City of Bishop with vacancy rates of 68.6 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively.
1 Additional data for the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2019-2023 ACS are provided in Appendix A. 27%
2% 18% 6%
25%
17%
25%
16%
31%
55%
36%
50%
16%
25% 18% 27%
1% 1% 4% 2%

0.0%

50.0%
100.0%
City of Bishop Town of Mammoth Lakes Inyo County Mono County 1949 or Earlier 1950 - 1969 1970 - 1989 1990 - 2009 2010 or Later

33 Figure 27: Housing Units by Vacancy Status, 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (Tables H12 and H16); BAE, 2025.

In rural-resort markets,
another important and
related metric is the
share of the housing
stock that is held vacant
for ‘seasonal or
occasional use,’ which
generally includes
second homes and
tourist rentals. Figure
28 illustrates the
seasonal and total
vacancy rates in the
Eastern Sierra Region,
as of the 2020
Decennial Census.

The data illustrate that both total vacancy and seasonal vacancy are higher in the Town of Mammoth Lakes compared to Mono County as a whole, and that seasonal vacancy accounts for more than 85 percent the vacant housing stock in both communities. Total vacancy was reportedly lower in both the City of Bishop and Inyo County, compared to Mono County, with seasonal vacancy accounting for between one-third and one-half of the entire vacant housing stock.

With high seasonal vacancy rates in certain parts of the region, it is important to consider the extent to which the vacancy rate reflects the amount of housing that is available for occupancy by households that are looking to either move within or to relocate into the region. Although professional opinions vary, economists generally agree that a functional vacancy rate of around five percent in the rental housing market, and around two to three percent in the forsale market, generally provides enough available housing opportunities to allow households to locate housing, while not placing too much downward pressure on housing prices. The 8,046
5,474
1,423
8,115
Inyo County
Mono County
# of Occupied Units # of Vacant Units
13,589 total
housing units
9,469 total
housing units

40.3% 59.7%

80.5% 15.0%
Figure 28: Seasonal vs. Total Vacancy Rates, 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (Tables H12 and H16); BAE, 2025.

59.1%

2.8%

50.8%

7.8%

68.6%

9.9%

59.7%

15.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%
Mammoth Lakes Bishop Mono County Inyo County
% of Total Units
Seasonal Vacancy Rate Total Vacancy Rate

34 Figure 29: Housing Vacancy, 2019-2023 ACS
Notes: (a) Data are suppressed due to large margins of error.

Sources: American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Tables B25004 and B25009); BAE, 2025.

35 Figure 30: Seasonal Housing Vacancy, 2019-2023 ACS
Notes: (a) Data are suppressed due to large margins of error.

Sources: American Community Survey 2019-2023 (Tables B25004 and B25009); BAE, 2025.

36 functional vacancy rate generally represents the amount of housing that is for rent or for sale during a given period, excluding housing that is vacant for seasonal use, housing for migrant workers, and housing that is vacant for ‘other’ reasons, such as housing that is part of an estate or that is undergoing renovation or other improvements.

Figure 31 illustrates the functional vacancy rate by tenure throughout the Eastern Sierra Region. The data indicate that the functional vacancy rate in the ownership market in Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes was in the range that most economists would consider healthy as
of the 2020
Decennial Census.

Please note,
however, that these
figures only reflect
the share of units
that are vacant and
do not account for
the mismatch
between the
available housing
and what home
buyers can afford to
pay. The vacancy
rate in the
ownership market in
Inyo County and the
City of Bishop was
particularly low at
less than one
percent on average.

More striking are the reported functional vacancy rates in the rental housing market throughout the region, and particularly in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County. The data indicate relatively high functional vacancy in the rental market, which does not align with the experience reported by local property managers. BAE anticipates that the data reflect significant impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, which corresponded with significant reductions in regional employment. Also, please note that the data may also reflect a significant number of housing units that are technically available for rent, but which are oriented towards the seasonal vacation rental market, and which are not otherwise available for full-time occupancy (i.e., many are priced well above the market rate for long-term rental housing). Additional data summarized in Appendix A from the 2019-2023 ACS suggest that the total all units vacancy rate in Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes remained Figure 31: Functional Vacancy Rate by Tenure, 2020 (a)(b) Note:
(a) The functional vacancy rate equals the amount of housing that was actively available for rent or for-sale, divided by the total amount of housing that was available, plus the amount that was rented or sold, and/or otherwise occupied by tenure. (b) Note that the functional vacancy rate in the rental housing market is likely influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Local property managers report an ongoing shortage of available long-term rental housing throughout the region, and particularly in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and parts of Mono County, as well as within the City of Bishop.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (Tables H12 and H16); BAE, 2025. 22.6% 6.1% 18.4% 6.5% 1.9% 0.9%2.0% 0.8%

TOWN OF

MAMMOTH LAKES

CITY OF BISHOP MONO COUNTY INYO COUNTY
Rental Vacancy Ownership Vacancy

37 stable over the period, but that the functional vacancy rate for rental housing may be trending downwards post-pandemic. The conclusion is that functional vacancy is likely to be quite low throughout the region, which limits the ability of new residents to find housing and puts upward pressure on housing prices, both rental and for-sale.

As a final note on housing vacancy rates, Figure 32 illustrates the change in the proportion of vacant units in Mono and Inyo County between 2010 and 2020. The data illustrate that the profile of housing by type of vacancy remained fairly stable in Inyo County over the decade, while the share of the housing stock held vacant for seasonal or occasional use in Mono County increased and the share that was available for rent decreased substantially. These trends are consistent with information obtained through interviews with regional property managers and real estate agents conducted as part of this research. Despite the high vacancy rate in the rental market noted above, BAE anticipates that the trends summarized below are more likely representative of the current market in the Eastern Sierra Region. Also, the large and increasing share of homes held vacant for seasonal use is problematic due to the associated reduction in the availability of housing for long-term occupancy.

Figure 32: Change in Number of Vacant Units by Vacancy Type, 2010 to 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census (Tables H5, H12, and H16); BAE, 2025.

Inventory of Deed Restricted Housing
According to data provided by the Eastern Sierra Continuum of Care, as well as by the four regional jurisdictions, there are more than 500 rental housing units located throughout the Eastern Sierra Region that are deed-restricted for occupancy primarily by households at or below 80 percent of AMI (i.e., low-income), plus approximately 80 homeownership units restricted to households earning anywhere from 50 to 200 percent of AMI. Eighty-eight percent of the existing deed restricted housing inventory is located in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, with six percent of the deed restricted units in Lone Pine, five percent in the City of Bishop, and around one percent in Bridgeport. The existing affordable housing inventory is

0.2%
-0.5%

0.0%

0.3%

0.3%

0.1%
-0.4%
-3.9%
-0.3%
-1.0%

1.4%

5.0%

0.0%

0.1%
-10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
For rent
For sale only
Rented, not occupied
Sold, not occupied
For seasonal, rec, or occasional use
For migrant workers
Other vacant
Change in Percentage Points
Inyo County Mono County

38 mostly composed of properties that were originally developed/restricted in the 1990s through the early 2010s. As shown in Table 9, most of the existing properties have expiration dates for their affordability covenants that fall well into the future, indicating that with the exception of the Glass Mountain property in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, which has an affordability covenant that expires in 2034, relatively few of the affordable properties are at risk for nearterm conversion into market-rate housing.

Table 9: Deed Restricted Housing Inventory, Eastern Sierra Region, 2025 Sources: Eastern Sierra Continuum of Care; Town of Mammoth Lakes; City of Bishop; Inyo County; Mono County; BAE, 2025.

Affordable Covenant
Name Address Jurisdiction Units Expiration
Access Apartments 238 Sierra Manor Rd Mammoth Lakes 13 2081 The Sawyer 62 Inyo St Mammoth Lakes 80 6/11/2079
Innsbruck Lodge 913 Forest Tri Mammoth Lakes 15 6/14/2078 Kingfisher TBD (The Parcel) Mammoth Lakes 75 2081
Glass Mountain 25 Mountain Blvd Mammoth Lakes 25 4/29/2034 Kitzbuhl 46 Berner St Mammoth Lakes 16 11/6/2042
Bristlecone 3072 Chateau Rd Mammoth Lakes 29 10/4/2051
The Chutes 3827 Main St Mammoth Lakes 100 5/30/2053
82 Mountain Blvd 82 Mountain Blvd Mammoth Lakes 2 7/20/2054 204 Sierra Manor 204 Sierra Manor Rd Mammoth Lakes 2 8/20/2054 Aspen Village Apartments 1700 Old Mammoth Rd Mammoth Lakes 47 9/3/2059 Jeffreys Apartments 312 Lupin St Mammoth Lakes 16 10/2/2061 Manzanita Apartments 44 Manzanita Rd Mammoth Lakes 14 10/2/2061 Star Apartments 1829 Old Mammoth Rd Mammoth Lakes 4 5/25/2066 Birch Creek n.a. Mammoth Lakes 1 n.a.

TOML Homeownership Scattered Sites Mammoth Lakes 80 n.a.

Bridgeport Junction 264 Highway 182 Bridgeport 5 n.a.

Valley Apartments 156 E. Clarke Street Bishop 19 n.a.

Willow Plaza 324 Willow St Bishop 12 n.a.

Mount Whitney Apartments 375 N. Mount Whitney Dr Lone Pine 34 n.a.

39 HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS
The for-sale housing market in the Eastern Sierra is highly diverse, with some areas oriented towards multimillion-dollar mountainside second homes and luxury tourist accommodations, and others more oriented towards workforce households and full-time residents. The following section summarizes current housing market conditions in the Eastern Sierra Region.

For-Sale Housing Market
Home Sales Prices
Table 10 reports that around 60 percent of all single-family home sales and 98 percent of all Eastern Sierra Region condominium sales occurred in either the Town of Mammoth Lakes or the City of Bishop. The unincorporated areas, by comparison, accounted for around 40 percent of all single-family home sales and only two percent of condominium home sales as of 2024. Home prices were notably much higher in the Town of Mammoth Lakes compared to the rest of the region, with the majority of the housing priced under $750,000 located in the City of Bishop or unincorporated Inyo and Mono Counties.

Table 10: Home Sales Distribution, 2024
Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2025.

Single Family Home Sales
City of Inyo Town of Mono
Home Sale Price Bishop County Mammoth Lakes County
Less than $500,000 31% 84% 2% 48%
$500,000-$749,999 48% 13% 8% 33%
$750,000-$999,999 17% 3% 19% 12%
$1,000,000-$1,499,999 4% 0% 42% 7%
$1,500,000 or more 0% 0% 30% 0%
Total, All Sales 71 31 64 58
Share of Region 32% 14% 29% 26%
Median Sale Price $601,000 $349,000 $1,297,500 $496,250 Per Sq. Ft. $335 $243 $574 $335
Condominium Sales
City of Inyo Town of Mono
Home Sale Price Bishop County Mammoth Lakes County
Less than $400,000 100% n.a. 4% 25%
$400,000-$599,999 0% n.a. 31% 50%
$600,000-$799,999 0% n.a. 23% 25%
$800,000-$999,999 0% n.a. 18% 0%
$1,000,000 or more 0% n.a. 22% 0%
Total, All Sales 4 n.a. 179 4
Share of Region 2% n.a. 96% 2%
SF Median Sale Price $277,500 n.a. $700,000 $535,500
Per Sq. Ft. $330 n.a. $683 $463

40 Figure 33: Home Sales Volume Weighted by Price, 2025 Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2025.

41 Table 11: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Inyo County, 2025 (Page 1 of 2) Sources: California Department of Insurance, 2024; CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Freddie Mac, 2024; Fannie Mae, 2024; Mono County, 2025; BAE, 2025. 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
Household Income (a) $68,050 $77,750 $87,500 $97,200 $105,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $1,701 $1,944 $2,188 $2,430 $2,625 Monthly Payments (b) $1,701 $1,944 $2,188 $2,430 $2,625 Principal and Interest $1,353 $1,546 $1,740 $1,933 $2,088 Homeowners Insurance $52 $60 $67 $75 $81
Property Taxes $197 $225 $253 $281 $304
Mortgage Insurance $99 $113 $127 $142 $153
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $11,632 $13,290 $14,957 $16,615 $17,948 Down Payment $7,846 $8,965 $10,089 $11,207 $12,106
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $3,786 $4,325 $4,868 $5,407 $5,841 Maximum Affordable Home Price $224,175 $256,130 $288,249 $320,203 $345,898 Household Income (a) $81,650 $93,300 $105,000 $116,650 $126,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $2,041 $2,333 $2,625 $2,916 $3,150 Monthly Payments (b) $2,041 $2,333 $2,625 $2,916 $3,150 Principal and Interest $1,624 $1,855 $2,088 $2,320 $2,505 Homeowners Insurance $63 $72 $81 $89 $97
Property Taxes $236 $270 $304 $337 $364
Mortgage Insurance $119 $136 $153 $170 $184
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $13,957 $15,948 $17,948 $19,939 $21,537 Down Payment $9,414 $10,757 $12,106 $13,450 $14,528
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $4,542 $5,190 $5,841 $6,489 $7,010 Maximum Affordable Home Price $268,977 $307,355 $345,898 $384,277 $415,078 Household Income (a) $119,088 $136,063 $153,125 $170,100 $183,750 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $2,977 $3,402 $3,828 $4,253 $4,594 Monthly Payments (b) $2,977 $3,402 $3,828 $4,253 $4,594 Principal and Interest $2,368 $2,706 $3,045 $3,383 $3,654 Homeowners Insurance $91 $104 $117 $130 $141
Property Taxes $344 $393 $443 $492 $531
Mortgage Insurance $174 $198 $223 $248 $268
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $20,356 $23,257 $26,174 $29,079 $31,409 Down Payment $13,731 $15,688 $17,655 $19,615 $21,186
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $6,625 $7,569 $8,519 $9,464 $10,222 Maximum Affordable Home Price $392,307 $448,227 $504,435 $560,421 $605,322 Household Income (a) $136,100 $155,500 $175,000 $194,400 $210,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $3,403 $3,888 $4,375 $4,860 $5,250 Monthly Payments (b) $3,403 $3,888 $4,375 $4,860 $5,250 Principal and Interest $2,707 $3,092 $3,480 $3,866 $4,176 Homeowners Insurance $104 $119 $134 $149 $161
Property Taxes $394 $450 $506 $562 $607
Mortgage Insurance $198 $227 $255 $283 $306
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $23,267 $26,583 $29,913 $33,229 $35,896 Down Payment $15,695 $17,931 $20,177 $22,414 $24,213
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $7,573 $8,652 $9,736 $10,815 $11,683 Maximum Affordable Home Price $448,416 $512,325 $576,497 $640,406 $691,797 - Continued on Next Page -
Achievable (>120%, ≤150% AMI)
Achievable (>150%, ≤200% AMI)
Household Size
Moderate Income (>100%, ≤120% AMI)
Median Income Income (>80%, ≤100% AMI)

42 Table 11: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Inyo County, 2025 (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the CA Department of Housing and Community Development-adjusted median family income of $97,200 ($2025).
(b) These figures are 30% of gross monthly household income, the maximum amount that a household can spend on housing expenses without being considered cost-burdened. (c) The average monthly interest rates for a 30-year fixed rate as of January 23, 2025 per Freddie Mac. (d) As quoted by mortgage brokers.
(e) Homeowners insurance estimates are based on an average of insurance premiums published by the California Department of Insurance effective as of May 2024.
(f) The property tax rate for tax rate area 010-006 in Inyo County.

Sources: California Department of Insurance, 2024; CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Freddie Mac, 2024; Fannie Mae, 2024; Inyo County, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Ownership Cost Assumptions
% of income for housing costs 30% of gross annual income Down payment 3.50% of home value
Annual interest rate (c) 6.40% fixed
Loan term 30 years
Upfront mortgage insurance (d) 1.75% of mortgage
Annual mortgage insurance (d) 0.55% of mortgage
Annual homeowners insurance (e) 0.28% of coverage amount Annual property tax rate (f) 1.05% % of home value

43 Table 12: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Mono County, 2025 (Page 1 of 2) Sources: California Department of Insurance, 2024; CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Freddie Mac, 2024; Fannie Mae, 2024; Mono County, 2025; BAE, 2025. 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
Household Income (a) $82,950 $94,800 $106,650 $118,500 $128,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $2,074 $2,370 $2,666 $2,963 $3,200 Monthly Payments (b) $2,074 $2,370 $2,666 $2,963 $3,200 Principal and Interest $1,649 $1,885 $2,121 $2,356 $2,545 Homeow ners Insurance $64 $73 $82 $91 $98
Property Taxes $240 $274 $308 $343 $370
Mortgage Insurance $121 $138 $155 $173 $186
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $14,179 $16,204 $18,230 $20,255 $21,879 Dow n Payment $9,564 $10,930 $12,297 $13,663 $14,758
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $4,615 $5,274 $5,933 $6,592 $7,121 Maximum Affordable Home Price $273,260 $312,297 $351,334 $390,371 $421,667 Household Income (a) $99,550 $113,750 $128,000 $142,200 $153,600 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $2,489 $2,844 $3,200 $3,555 $3,840 Monthly Payments (b) $2,489 $2,844 $3,200 $3,555 $3,840 Principal and Interest $1,980 $2,262 $2,545 $2,828 $3,054 Homeow ners Insurance $76 $87 $98 $109 $118
Property Taxes $288 $329 $370 $411 $444
Mortgage Insurance $145 $166 $186 $207 $224
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $17,016 $19,443 $21,879 $24,306 $26,255 Dow n Payment $11,478 $13,115 $14,758 $16,396 $17,710
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $5,538 $6,328 $7,121 $7,911 $8,545 Maximum Affordable Home Price $327,945 $374,723 $421,667 $468,445 $506,000 Household Income (a) $124,425 $142,200 $159,975 $177,750 $192,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $3,111 $3,555 $3,999 $4,444 $4,800 Monthly Payments (b) $3,111 $3,555 $3,999 $4,444 $4,800 Principal and Interest $2,474 $2,828 $3,181 $3,534 $3,818 Homeow ners Insurance $95 $109 $123 $136 $147
Property Taxes $360 $411 $463 $514 $555
Mortgage Insurance $181 $207 $233 $259 $280
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $21,268 $24,306 $27,345 $30,383 $32,819 Dow n Payment $14,346 $16,396 $18,445 $20,494 $22,138
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $6,922 $7,911 $8,900 $9,889 $10,681 Maximum Affordable Home Price $409,890 $468,445 $527,001 $585,557 $632,500 Household Income (a) $165,900 $189,600 $213,300 $237,000 $256,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $4,148 $4,740 $5,333 $5,925 $6,400 Monthly Payments (b) $4,148 $4,740 $5,333 $5,925 $6,400 Principal and Interest $3,299 $3,770 $4,241 $4,713 $5,090 Homeow ners Insurance $127 $145 $164 $182 $196
Property Taxes $480 $548 $617 $685 $740
Mortgage Insurance $242 $276 $311 $345 $373
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $28,358 $32,409 $36,460 $40,511 $43,758 Dow n Payment $19,128 $21,861 $24,593 $27,326 $29,517
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $9,229 $10,548 $11,866 $13,185 $14,242 Maximum Affordable Home Price $546,520 $624,594 $702,668 $780,742 $843,333 - Continued on Next Page -
Achievable (>120%, ≤150% AMI)
Achievable (>150%, ≤200% AMI)
Household Size
Moderate Income (>100%, ≤120% AMI)
Median Income Income (>80%, ≤100% AMI)

44 Table 12: Maximum Affordable Purchase Prices, Mono County, 2025 (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the CA Department of Housing and Community Development-adjusted median family income of $118,500 ($2025)
(b) These figures are 30% of gross monthly household income, the maximum amount that a household can spend on housing expenses without being considered cost-burdened. (c) The average monthly interest rates for a 30-year fixed rate as of January 23, 2025 per Freddie Mac. (d) As quoted by mortgage brokers.
(e) Homeowners insurance estimates are based on an average of insurance premiums published by the California Department of Insurance effective as of May 2024.
(f) The property tax rate for tax rate area 010-006 in Mono County.

Sources: California Department of Insurance, 2024; CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Freddie Mac, 2024; Fannie Mae, 2024; Mono County, 2025; BAE, 2025. 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
Household Income (a) $290,325 $331,800 $373,275 $414,750 $448,000 Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b) $7,258 $8,295 $9,332 $10,369 $11,200 Monthly Payments (b) $7,258 $8,295 $9,332 $10,369 $11,200 Principal and Interest $5,773 $6,598 $7,422 $8,247 $8,908 Homeow ners Insurance $223 $254 $286 $318 $344
Property Taxes $839 $959 $1,079 $1,199 $1,295
Mortgage Insurance $423 $483 $544 $604 $653
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One-Time Payments $49,626 $56,715 $63,804 $70,894 $76,577 Dow n Payment $33,474 $38,256 $43,038 $47,820 $51,654
Upfront Mortgage Insurance $16,151 $18,459 $20,766 $23,073 $24,923 Maximum Affordable Home Price $956,409 $1,093,039 $1,229,669 $1,366,299 $1,475,833 Ownership Cost Assumptions
% of income for housing costs 30% of gross annual income Dow n payment 3.50% of home value
Annual interest rate (c) 6.40% fixed
Loan term 30 years
Upfront mortgage insurance (d) 1.75% of mortgage
Annual mortgage insurance (d) 0.55% of mortgage
Annual homeow ners insurance (e) 0.28% of coverage amount Annual property tax rate (f) 1.05% % of home value
Achievable (>200%, ≤350% AMI)
Household Size

45 Affordable Home Sales Prices
Table 11 and Table 12, on the pages above, report the maximum purchase price that may be considered affordable to households at different income levels, based on the HCD statutory income limits and achievable income thresholds discussed on page 16, for Inyo County and Mono County, respectively. Based on a comparison between the estimated affordable home purchase prices reported in Tables 11 and 12, and the median home sales prices reported Table 10, BAE estimates that market-rate for-sale housing may generally be affordable at incomes ranging from as low as 120 percent of the area median income (AMI) in unincorporated Inyo County to as much as 250 percent of AMI in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Table 13: Relative Affordability of Market-Rate For-Sale Housing by Subarea, 2025 Notes: (a) Based on the home sales data reported in Table 9. (b) Based on the affordable home purchase price estimates reported in Tables 10 and 11.

Sources: Listsource; California Department of Insurance, 2024; CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Freddie Mac, 2024; Fannie Mae, 2024; Mono County, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Rental Housing Market
Rental Housing Prices
BAE used two different approaches to identify rental units and document market rate pricing for rental housing costs in the Eastern Sierra. The first approach included purchasing data from CoStar, a private data vendor, which identified a total of 663 rental housing units, which were mostly located in medium to large apartment complexes. The second approach included a review of private rental listings published to a variety of channels, including but not limited to Zillow.com, thesheetnews.com, mammothtimes.com, inyoregister.com, and thesierrareader.com. BAE also conducted interviews with local property managers and requested data on home rental listings and associated pricing.

Table 14 reports market rate asking rents for rental housing units, both multifamily apartments and private home listings, by subarea. Please note that the price points reported here reflect units that are available for occupancy on the market and exclude units that are already occupied, as units occupied by long-term tenants may exhibit suppressed rent levels compared to what prospective tenants may be likely to pay when occupying a new unit.

Median
Sale Price (a)
Required
Income (b)
Median
Sale Price (a)
Required
Income (b)
Unin. Inyo County $349,000 120% AMI n.a. n.a.

City of Bishop $601,000 200% AMI $277,500 120% AMI
Uninc. Mono County $496,259 150% AMI $535,500 150% AMI
Town of Mammoth Lakes $1,297,500 350% AMI $700,000 200% AMI Single-Family Homes Condominiums

46 Table 14: Market Rate Rent, Inyo and Mono County, 2025 Notes:
(a) No active listings were identified for rental housing units in this size category.

Sources: CoStar, Zillow.com, Local Property Managers, The Sheet News, The Mammoth Times, Inyo Register, The Sierra Reader, BAE, 2025.

Affordable Rental Rates
Table 15 and Table 16 report the rental rates that may reasonably be considered affordable at different income levels in Inyo County and Mono County, respectively, based on the income limits reported in Table 5. Compared to the data provided in Table 14, a typical long-term rental housing unit throughout the majority of the Eastern Sierra Region could be considered affordable to moderate-income households earning around 120 percent of AMI. However, due to elevated rental housing costs in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the average market-rate rental housing unit in the Town requires an income of closer to 150 percent of AMI to be considered affordable.

Please note, however, that rental rates can vary widely depending on location, size, and condition of the housing unit in question. The analysis provided above is intended to be generally representative of the market as a whole, but may not reflect the unique circumstances associated with specific rentals. Also, while this analysis estimates that some housing may be relatively affordable, these data do not speak to its relative availability within the market, with some areas reflecting more or less rental housing availability.

Unit Size
Studio $1,500 $1,500 n.a. n.a.
1 Bedroom $2,750 $1,800 $1,498 n.a.
2 Bedroom $3,400 $2,100 $1,650 $1,950
3-Bedroom $4,150 $2,825 $3,100 $2,125
4-Bedroom $5,000 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Weighted Avg. Rent $3,394 $2,106 $2,441 $2,055
Town of Mammoth
Lakes
City of
Bishop
Uninc.

Mono County
Uninc.

Inyo

47 Table 15: Maximum Affordable Rental Rates, Inyo County, 2025 Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD-adjusted median family income of $97,200 ($2025). (b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is published by the Stanislaus County Housing Authority for Southern California Edison Zone 16. Utility allowances assume heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Negative affordable rents for acutely low-income households reflect the utility allowance and indicate that the tenant cannot cover rent nor the full utility charge.

Sources: CA Department of Housing and Community Development; Stanislaus County Housing Authority; BAE, 2025. 2024 Income Limits (a) One Two Three Four Five
Acutely Low-Income (15% MFI) $10,200 $11,700 $13,150 $14,600 $15,750 Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI) $20,200 $23,050 $26,650 $32,150 $37,650 Very Low-Income (50% MFI) $33,600 $38,400 $43,200 $48,000 $51,850 Low-Income (80% MFI) $53,750 $61,400 $69,100 $76,750 $82,900 Median Income (100% MFI) $68,050 $77,750 $87,500 $97,200 $105,000 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $81,650 $93,300 $105,000 $116,650 $126,000 Achievable-Income (150% MFI) $102,075 $116,625 $131,250 $145,800 $157,500 Affordable Rents (b) Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Acutely Low Income
1-Person $22 -$24
2-Person $14 -$66
3-Person -$29 -$117
4-Person $7 -$81 -$165
5-Person -$52 -$136
Extremely Low Income
1-Person $272 $226
2-Person $297 $218
3-Person $308 $220
4-Person $446 $358 $274
5-Person $495 $411
Very Low Income
1-Person $607 $561
2-Person $681 $602
3-Person $722 $634
4-Person $842 $754 $670
5-Person $850 $766
Low
1-Person $1,111 $1,065
2-Person $1,256 $1,177
3-Person $1,370 $1,282
4-Person $1,561 $1,473 $1,389
5-Person $1,627 $1,543
Moderate
1-Person $1,808 $1,762
2-Person $2,054 $1,975
3-Person $2,267 $2,179
4-Person $2,558 $2,470 $2,386
5-Person $2,704 $2,620
Achievable
1-Person $2,319 $2,273
2-Person $2,637 $2,558
3-Person $2,923 $2,835
4-Person $3,287 $3,199 $3,115
5-Person $3,492 $3,408
Persons Per Household
Unit Size

48 Table 16: Maximum Affordable Rental Rates, Mono County, 2025 Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD-adjusted median family income of $118,500 ($2025). (b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is published by the Stanislaus County Housing Authority. Utility allowances assume heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Utility allowances assume heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Negative affordable rents for acutely low-income households reflect the utility allowance and indicate that the tenant cannot cover rent nor the full utility charge.

Sources: CA Department of Housing and Community Development; Stanislaus County Housing Authority; BAE, 2025.

Persons Per Household
2025 Income Limits (b) One Two Three Four Five
Acutely Low-Income (15% MFI) $12,450 $14,250 $16,000 $17,800 $19,200 Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI) $21,500 $24,550 $27,600 $32,150 $37,650 Very Low-Income (50% MFI) $35,700 $40,850 $45,900 $51,050 $55,100 Low-Income (80% MFI) $57,200 $65,400 $73,550 $81,700 $88,250 Median Income (100% MFI) $82,950 $94,800 $106,650 $118,500 $128,000 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $99,550 $113,750 $128,000 $142,200 $153,600 Achievable-Income (150% MFI) $124,425 $142,200 $159,975 $177,750 $192,000 Unit Size
Affordable Rents (c) Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Acutely Low Income
1-Person $102 $65
2-Person $110 $33
3-Person $77 -$6
4-Person $122 $39 -$40
5-Person $74 -$5
Extremely Low Income
1-Person $329 $292
2-Person $368 $291
3-Person $367 $284
4-Person $481 $398 $319
5-Person $535 $456
Very Low Income
1-Person $684 $647
2-Person $775 $698
3-Person $825 $742
4-Person $953 $870 $791
5-Person $972 $893
Low
1-Person $1,221 $1,184
2-Person $1,389 $1,312
3-Person $1,516 $1,433
4-Person $1,720 $1,637 $1,558
5-Person $1,800 $1,721
Moderate
1-Person $2,280 $2,243
2-Person $2,598 $2,521
3-Person $2,877 $2,794
4-Person $3,232 $3,149 $3,070
5-Person $3,434 $3,355
Achievable
1-Person $2,902 $2,865
2-Person $3,309 $3,232
3-Person $3,676 $3,593
4-Person $4,121 $4,038 $3,959
5-Person $4,394 $4,315

49 HUD-Defined Housing Problems
While most economists primarily rely on comparisons between household income and housing prices to gauge housing market alignment and relative affordability, HUD publishes a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, which includes data on the prevalence of certain HUDdefined housing problems among resident households. HUD generally tracks data on the prevalence of specific types of housing problems, including:
- Overpayment or High Cost Burden: Includes households paying more than 30 percent of gross household income on housing costs, with a severe housing cost burden defined as paying 50 percent or more of gross income on housing. - Overcrowded Conditions: Includes households with more than one person per room, with severe overcrowding defined as more than 1.5 people per room; although alternative definitions can also apply. A “room” includes living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation rooms, and enclosed porches suitable for year-round use, but excludes bathrooms, hallways, and half-rooms. - Substandard Housing Conditions: Includes households living without complete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities. Lack of kitchen or plumbing facilities are each considered housing problems independently, but are often encountered in together and reflect the presence of inadequate housing facilities and associated systems.

Overpayment for housing is generally the most common housing problem in California, followed by overcrowding, with substandard housing conditions being relatively uncommon in most communities. The prevalence of housing problems is typically greater among renter households, compared to owner households that often have greater resources. The prevalence of housing problems also reflects an inverse relationship with income, wherein the prevalence of housing problems decreases as household income increases.

Table 17 reports the number of households experiencing housing problems by jurisdiction in the Eastern Sierra, according to the HUD CHAS dataset. Please note that the data include households earning 100 percent of the AMI and below only. For the purposes of this analysis, housing problems are also ranged according to severity, with substandard housing being ranked the highest, followed by overcrowding and high housing cost burden, characterized as decreasing in severity. Please note that households can often experience more than one housing problem, particularly at lower-income levels. The data presented here reports households based on the most severe housing problem that they experience.

For additional details regarding the prevalence of each specific housing problem category by household tenure and income level for each jurisdiction, please refer to Appendix A.

50 Table 17: Households Experiencing Housing Problems, ≤ 100% HAMFI, 2017-2021 Notes:
(a) Households may have multiple housing problems, but, for the purposes of this table, they are counted under their most severe housing problem.
(b) “HAMFI” is the HUD Area Median Family Income.
(c) Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.
(d) Greater than 1.5 persons per room.
(e) 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room.
(f) Housing costs greater than 50% of gross income.
(g) Housing costs greater than 30% but less than 50 % of gross income. (h) Households where housing cost burden is not calculated due to zero or negative household income.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2025.

The data summarized in Table 17 indicate that a high housing cost burden is the most common housing problem faced by lower-income households in the Eastern Sierra Region.

However, the data also reflect 323 households living in substandard conditions (i.e., lacking complete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities), as well as 267 households experiencing overcrowding. While these conditions are indeed more severe housing problems, both reflect conditions that are often a function of the lack of available housing that is affordable based on the available household financial resources. While substandard conditions and overcrowding reflect the physical inadequacy of the household’s housing unit, a household’s choice to occupy that unit is often a reflection of a lack of material resources sufficient to afford the next best alternative. Overpayment should, therefore, not be discounted compared to the other housing problems as an important indicator of housing insecurity and displacement risk.

Figures 34 and 35 illustrate the relative share of households throughout the region that experience at least one of the four HUD-defined housing problems, for both renters and owners. The data indicate that owner households in southern Mono County and northern Inyo County, including the greater Bishop area, are more likely to experience housing problems compared to the rest of the region. Renter households in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and southern Inyo County are shown to be more likely to experience housing problems. Along with the geographic variability of housing problems, the reasons why a household would experience housing problems in Mammoth Lakes are likely to be very different than in Furnace Creek.

Housing Problems in
Order of Severity (a) Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Substandard Housing (c) 25 3.1% 200 15.7% 123 3.2% 200 8.5% 323 5.2% Severely Overcrow ded (d) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 0.5% 0 0.0% 19 0.3% Overcrow ded (e) 0 0.0% 70 5.5% 73 1.9% 175 7.4% 248 4.0% Severe Cost Burden (f) 285 35.9% 75 5.9% 950 24.9% 320 13.5% 1,270 20.5% Cost Burden (g) 270 34.0% 285 22.4% 800 20.9% 494 20.9% 1,294 20.9% Zero/Negative Income (h) 0 0.0% 45 3.5% 110 2.9% 85 3.6% 195 3.2% Subtotal, Households wit 580 73.0% 675 53.1% 2,075 54.3% 1,274 53.9% 3,349 54.2% Housing Problems
Total, Households ≤ 100% 794 1,270 3,820 2,363 6,183
All Households
City of Bishop Inyo County Mono County ≤ 100% HAMFI
Town of
Mammoth
Lakes

51 Figure 34: Housing Problems, Owner-Occupied Units, 2017-2021 Avg.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; BAE, 2025.

52 Figure 35: Housing Problems, Renter-Occupied Units, 2017 – 2021 Avg.

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; BAE, 2025.

53 Short-Term and Vacation Rentals
Although the concept of renting privately owned housing units on a short-term basis (i.e., for less than 30 days) is not a new concept in the Eastern Sierra Region, the rapid expansion of online booking platforms has expanded the pool of potential short-term rental (STR) owners and operators, facilitating transactions and drawing new players into the market. This observed growth has drawn concern among residents of many destination communities, who observe impacts to the availability and cost of housing, as well as increases in the prevalence of nuisance issues like noise, trash, parking, and traffic.

The following section summarizes key findings from two in-depth analyses prepared by BAE in 2024 on the relationship between short-term renting and the long-term housing markets in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and unincorporated Mono County.2 3 BAE also collected additional data from AirDNA, a private data vendor, to provide additional perspective on the number and performance of STRs in the Bishop area and the remainder of unincorporated Inyo County.

Empirical Research on STR Impacts
A review of more than 50 peer reviewed academic articles and industry publications on the relationship between short-term renting and conditions in the long-term housing market found consistent, quantifiable, relationships, although the strength of those relationships reportedly varies based on a variety of factors, including the relative prevalence of STRs in the market.

More fundamentally, the research provides quantitative statistical validation for the conclusion that the ability to earn income from a given real estate asset intrinsically impacts its value.

Impacts to Housing Markets
Within the academic literature, there is a strong consensus that STRs do impact the availability and cost of long-term housing, though the impact coefficients identified through statistical analysis vary widely based on the geography and the methods being used. The magnitude of the impacts range from marginal to significant; though one article notes that while some of the coefficients seem marginal, the size and rapid growth of the industry implies a sizable cumulative effect on underlying market conditions over time.

According to the literature, STRs impact the cost of for-sale housing by providing a revenue stream that potential investors and second-home buyers can rely on to cover at least a portion of their carrying costs. This not only increases what many potential buyers are willing to pay to purchase a housing unit to use as an STR, but also increases the pool of potential buyers by increasing purchasing power. In this way, STRs facilitate the consumption of housing 2 Town of Mammoth Lakes. (January 26, 2024). Short-Term Rental (STR) Study. Prepared by BAE Urban Economics. Available at: https://pub-townofmammothlakes.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId =35053
3 Mono County. (February 12, 2024). Short-Term Rental Housing Study. Prepared by MIG and BAE Urban Economics. Available at: https://monocounty.ca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_division/page/ 5732/mono_county_short_term_rental_study_final2.pdf

54 resources by the second home market and the tourism industry in what is sometimes called the “hotelization” and “commodification” of the housing stock. STRs then influence the rental housing market via a cumulative reduction in the available supply of rental housing.

Shortcomings of the academic literature include an overemphasis on larger urban markets and a lack of research focused on smaller destination resort communities like those in the Eastern Sierra Region. The professional literature fills this gap somewhat, though with less rigorous methods. The professional literature generally agrees that STRs do have an impact on local housing markets, though research conducted in markets where STRs account for a relatively small share of the total housing stock (e.g., San Luis Obispo County) determined that in those cases STRs do not represent enough of a demand driver to justify further regulation.

Impacts to the Hotel Industry
In addition to evaluating impacts on the housing market, the academic literature also includes research on impacts of STRs on the traditional hotel and motel sector. While the research findings are somewhat mixed, there is a general consensus that STRs likely do have an impact on occupancy and pricing among hotel and motel properties within the same market. The impacts appear larger with regard to pricing compared to occupancy. The impacts are primarily due to a variable increase in the competitive supply of tourist accommodations. The literature also notes that a larger competitive supply of STR units can create a disincentive to invest in hotel development and renovation. Because STR supply is ‘instantaneous,’ it can readily supplement hotel inventory during peak periods, reducing the need to make significant investments in new hotel inventory that may go underutilized during much of the year.

Nonetheless, recognizing the functional differences between STRs and traditional hotel units, some hotel operators are integrating home sharing-like attributes to more effectively compete with STRs, such as with the condo type units recently added at Outbound in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The region has also seen growth in the condo-hotel (a.k.a., condotel) market segment, which are often treated as STRs but which function as hotel units. The benefit of this to the hotel industry is that the operator can effectively outsource the capital cost of providing the hotel/STR unit by selling the completed units to individual condominium unit buyers while garnering ongoing income from property management operations.

Short-Term Rental Inventory
According to the best available data provided by the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County, as well as additional data collected from AirDNA, BAE estimates that there are around 3,400 active STRs located in the Eastern Sierra Region. The vast majority of those units (~95 percent) are located in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the surrounding area, as well as the June Lake Loop. This distribution is a significant contributor to the key findings of the 2024 short-term rental studies that were prepared for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County, which found that STRs likely do have an impact on housing market conditions in the Town, but that the concentration of STRs in the unincorporated county is likely insufficient to represent a significant market driver, with some exceptions, such as in the June Lake area.

55 The available data from
AirDNA indicate that there
are only around 130
active STRs located
throughout Inyo County,
which represents only
around five percent of the
total region-wide STR
inventory. Thus, BAE
estimates that the current
concentration of STRs
throughout Inyo County is
likely insufficient to
represent a significant
market driver under
current market
conditions. However, as
housing market
conditions continue to
deteriorate in the Mammoth Lakes area and southern Mono County, Inyo County and the greater Bishop area may be likely to experience increasing demand from the short-term rental and second home markets. It may be advisable for Inyo County, and the City of Bishop in particular, to consider establishing a clear framework for STR regulation in advance of anticipated growth in STR demand. Both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County have recently updated their STR regulations. For a comprehensive overview of common approaches to STR regulation among a selection of peer rural-resort communities, please refer to the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County STR studies highlighted above.

Residential Development Pipeline
With significant constraints to the development of new housing throughout the Eastern Sierra, ranging from high construction costs, and limited availability of construction labor and materials, to limited availability of land for new development, there is relatively little new housing either planned, proposed, or under construction throughout the Eastern Sierra Region.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
The only large-scale new construction occurring in the region is taking place in Town of Mammoth Lakes, with 255 new units either recently completed, under construction, or in the development pipeline. Most of those units reflect income-restricted housing developed at The Parcel site by the Pacific Companies using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) along with other gap funding sources, including The Sawyer (80 units) which was recently completed, and the Kingfisher I (75 units) which is under construction, and the Kingfisher II (72 units) which is funded and in predevelopment, with remaining capacity for 220 additional units at The Parcel.

Table 18: Estimated Short-Term Rental (STR) Inventory,
Eastern Sierra Region
Notes:
(a) Data provided by the Town of Mammoth Lakes, based on transient occupancy tax (TOT) receipts and active STR registrations.
(b) Data provided by Mono County based on TOT certificate and business license data. (c) Data collected from AirDNA, a private data vendor, that collects web scaped data pertaining to active short-term rental listings on AirBnB and VRBO.

Sources: Mono County, 2024; Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2024; AirDNA, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Total As of Source
Tow n of Mammoth Lakes (a) 3,193 Jan.-Sept. '22 Tow n of Mammoth Lakes Uninc. Mono County (b) 106 Dec. '23 Mono County
Mono County, All 3,299
Greater Bishop Area (c) 43 Nov. '25 AirDNA, inc.

Independence Area (c) 3 Nov. '25 AirDNA, inc.

Lone Pine Area (c) 87 Nov. '25 AirDNA, inc.

Inyo County, All 133
Eastern Sierra Region 3,432

56 Table 19: Residential Development Pipeline, by Property, Unit Size, and Income Level, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2025
Note: Excludes manager's units.

Source: Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2025; BAE, 2025.

57 Units recently completed at other sites are the Access Apartments with a mix of 13 low- and moderate-income units, and the Innsbruck Lodge with 15 very low-income supportive housing units, both of which were completed by Eastern Sierra Community Housing with financing from a mix of federal, state, and local programs.

City of Bishop
There are three new residential development projects currently under consideration in the City of Bishop; although it is unclear whether any of them will ultimately move forward towards construction.

Silver Peaks Apartments
The first is the Silver Peaks Apartments, which was recently awarded $26 million in funding through the California Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program and will be built by Visionary Home Builders. The affordable housing project will include approximately 60 multifamily rental units and 16 ownership townhome units on an approximately three-acre parcel at the corner of Mac Iver and Spruce Streets in the City of Bishop. Materials provided by the City of Bishop indicate that the project anticipates using nine percent tax credits (meaning it would serve low-income households), and is tentatively expected to break ground in December 2026.4
Bishop Commons Apartments
Foothill Partners is currently in pre-application for a roughly 100-unit market-rate rental housing project at 910 North Main Street in downtown Bishop. The project would include redevelopment of the former Kmart site, with three residential buildings and four retail pads (three pads of ~2,000 square feet and one of 8,500 square feet). The residential component would use a “living-shed” format with a large steel canopy housing modular studio apartment units and shared common areas. Foothill Partners anticipates that this approach may be able to offer significant development cost savings over more traditional stick-built construction.

Targeting studio units is intended to fill a gap in the market (e.g., the under-supply of smaller more naturally affordable housing units for single individuals and couples) and to help reduce the cost of developing new housing relative to larger housing units.

Back Alley Apartments/Townhomes
Another development team is also in pre-application with the City of Bishop for a new residential project on an approximately 0.7-acre site located behind the existing bowling alley.

The developers are considering either multifamily rental apartments (36 units), as well as forsale townhome units (16 units), with the intention of providing housing suitable and affordable to local workforce households. Developer representatives, however, cite high 4

58 construction costs and comparatively low rental rates and for-sale prices, resulting in feasibility challenges that are delaying movement of the project towards active construction.

Inyo and Mono Counties
Neither Inyo nor Mono County report any current proposals for new residential development.

Mono County has recently purchased five housing units for use as workforce housing by households earning 120 percent of AMI. Meanwhile, Inyo County and the Bishop Paiute Tribe are considering opportunities for either acquiring new housing sites or developing housing on existing tribal lands in proximity to the City of Bishop and associated infrastructure.

Residential Development Costs
Although there is relatively little market-rate housing construction ongoing in the Eastern Sierra Region, there are a number of projects currently being proposed for development, with a small handful of projects having recently been completed, as discussed above. To collect information on the cost to develop new housing in the region, BAE conducted interviews with eight individuals active in, or considering, the construction in the Eastern Sierra Region.

Cost Per Square Foot for New Construction
The type, size, and construction methods associated with each project varies significantly, ranging from mid-sized (e.g., ~1,600 square feet) manufactured homes, to moderately sized (e.g., ~1,000 square feet) stick-built townhome units, to micro (e.g., 500 square feet) apartments built using factory built modular building components. At the low-end, developers estimate the all-in development cost – including land, site preparation, hard construction, soft costs, financing, and developer profit – for manufactured housing to equal just under $310 per residential square foot, which offers the most affordable construction method evaluated for this research. At the high end, developers estimate the all-in development cost for stickbuilt townhome units at between $500 and $700 per gross residential square foot, with the high end of that range reflecting realized costs for a project that was actually completed in recent years. The developer currently considering micro apartment construction also estimates that their all-in construction cost may fall within the top of the identified range; however, it is worth noting that due to the units’ small size, the total cost per unit is estimated to be less than for other projects evaluated for this research, indicating that it is comparatively cost efficient. Conversations with tax-credit affordable housing developers indicate an average cost of $478 to $655 per gross building square foot and up to $850 per gross building square foot at the high end; although additional gap funding sources are available for deed restricted affordable housing projects that are not available to other housing types.

Estimated Housing Funding Gap Per Unit
To estimate the approximate subsidy that may be required to provide housing affordable at different income levels, Table 20 and Table 21 report the estimated amount that a typical household can afford to pay for for-sale and rental housing in the region, compared to the approximate cost of developing that housing, based on some simplifying assumptions.

59 For-Sale Housing Financing Gap
To calculate the required subsidy for ownership housing, this analysis compares the estimated maximum affordable purchase price identified in Tables 11 and 12 with the estimated all-in cost for developing new for-sale housing units, as discussed above. The analysis assumes an average unit size of approximately 1,000 square feet, which represents the low end of the range of unit sizes currently being considered for development in the Eastern Sierra Region by the local development community. To illustrate the range of potential development costs, the analysis considers both the low-end and the high-end estimates discussed above.

Based on this approach, BAE estimates that lower-cost manufactured housing, at a cost of just over $300 per building square foot, could be reasonably affordable to households earning 100 percent of AMI or higher in Mono County, or 120 percent of AMI of higher in Inyo County. By comparison, higher-end stick-built construction may only be reasonably affordable at relatively high-income levels (e.g., 350 percent of AMI), with households earning more modest incomes requiring subsidies of up to around $400,000 per unit if priced to be affordable at the median income. The required subsidy naturally increases as the targeted income level decreases.

Table 20: Example Subsidy Requirements for New Construction For-Sale Housing Notes:
(a) Based on the 2025 income limits published by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Assumes an average household size of 2.0, based on the average household size of 2.26 in Inyo County and 2.35 in Mono County, per the 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS), which was then rounded to the nearest whole number. (b) Affordable purchase prices are as calculated in Tables 11 and 12. (c) The all-in development costs per unit, meaning including land, hard and soft construction costs, governmental fees, and a reasonable developer profit, are based on conversations with local developers and evaluation of available market data. (d) Based on an all-in cost for manufactured homes of ~$309 per square foot, assuming a 1,000 square foot unit. (e) Based on an all-in cost for stick-built construction of ~$600 per square foot, assuming a 1,000 square foot unit. (f) Equal to the maximum affordable sale price minus the estimated development cost per unit.

Sources: HCD; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; Inyo County, Tax Rate Schedules; Freddie Mac; Local Area Developers; BAE, 2025.

INYO COUNTY
Household Max. Afford.

Household Income Category Income (a) Sale Price (b) Low (c) High (d) Low High Median Income (100% MFI) $77,750 $256,130 $309,000 $700,000 ($52,870) ($443,870) Moderate Income (120% AMI) $93,300 $307,355 ($1,645) ($392,645) Achievable (150% AMI)(b) $136,063 $448,227 $139,227 ($251,773) Achievable (200% AMI)(b) $155,500 $512,325 $203,325 ($187,675)

MONO COUNTY
Household Max. Afford.

Household Income Category Income (a) Sale Price (b) Low (c) High (d) Low High Median Income (100% MFI) $94,800 $312,297 $309,000 $700,000 $3,297 ($387,703) Moderate Income (120% AMI) $113,750 $374,723 $65,723 ($325,277) Achievable (150% AMI)(b) $142,200 $468,445 $159,445 ($231,555) Achievable (200% AMI)(b) $189,600 $624,594 $315,594 ($75,406) Achievable (350% AMI)(b) $331,800 $1,093,039 $784,039 $393,039 Financing
Financing
Development Cost (c) Surplus/(Gap)(f)
Development Cost (c) Surplus/(Gap)(f)

60 Table 21: Example Subsidy Requirements for New Construction Rental Housing (Page 1 of 2) Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), State Income Limits; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), Project Applications; Stanislaus County Housing Authority; BAE, 2025.

INYO COUNTY
Acutely Low Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Achievable Income (15%) Income (30%) Income (50%) Income (80%) Income (120%) Income (150%) Household Income Limit (a) $11,700 $23,050 $38,400 $61,400 $93,300 $116,625 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent Per Unit (b) $14 $297 $681 $1,256 $2,054 $2,637 Monthly Operating Expenses (c) $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 Vacancy (d) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Net Operating Income Per Unit (e) ($657) ($388) ($23) $523 $1,281 $1,835 Net Operating Subsidy from Other Sources (f) $657 $388 $23 $0 $0 $0 Monthly Supportable Debt Service Per Unit (g) $0 $0 $0 $419 $1,025 $1,468 Loan Amount (h) $0 $0 $0 $68,051 $166,473 $238,421
Affordable New Unit Development Cost (i) $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $480,000 $480,000 Financing Surplus/(Gap) Per New Unit (j) ($700,000) ($700,000) ($700,000) ($631,949) ($313,527) ($241,579)

MONO COUNTY
Acutely Low Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Achievable Income (15%) Income (30%) Income (50%) Income (80%) Income (120%) Income (150%) Household Income Limit (a) $14,250 $24,550 $40,850 $65,400 $113,750 $142,200 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent Per Unit (b) $110 $368 $775 $1,389 $2,598 $3,309 Monthly Operating Expenses (c) $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 Vacancy (d) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Net Operating Income Per Unit (e) ($565) ($321) $66 $650 $1,798 $2,474 Net Operating Subsidy from Other Sources (f) $565 $321 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monthly Supportable Debt Service Per Unit (g) $0 $0 $53 $520 $1,438 $1,979 Loan Amount (h) $0 $0 $8,608 $84,454 $233,549 $321,414
Affordable New Unit Development Cost (k) $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $480,000 $480,000 Financing Surplus/(Gap) Per New Unit (i) ($700,000) ($700,000) ($691,392) ($615,546) ($246,451) ($158,586) - Continued on Next Page -
Income Level
Income Level

61 Table 21: Example Subsidy Requirements for New Construction Rental Housing (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Based on the 2025 income limits published by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The analysis assumes an average household size of

2.0, which is based on the average household size of 2.26 in Inyo County and 2.35 in Mono County, as reported by the 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS), which was then rounded to the nearest whole number.
(b) Affordable rents equal 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is derived based on the 2024 figures published by the Stanislaus County Housing Authority, which prepares the calculations for Inyo and Mono Counties. (c) Based on the average operating expense for tax credit affordable housing units in California in 2025, according to Novogradac. (d) Based on industry standard assumptions for new development projects. (e) Affordable monthly rent minus operating expenses and vacancy. (f) Operating subsidy is necessary for units that generate negative net operating income based on the restricted rent level. (g) Net operating income, plus operating subsidy, divided by the debt coverage ratio: 1.25 (h) Assumes the following financing terms: Interest Rate – 6.25% Loan Term – 30 years (i) Based on a review of 2023 tax credit application for The Sawyer and development costs associated with market-rate development. (j) Total development cost per unit minus the per unit supportable loan amount.

Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), State Income Limits, 2024; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), Project Applications; Placer County Housing Authority; BAE, 2024.

62 Rental Housing Financing Gap
To calculate subsidy requirements for multifamily rental housing, this analysis compares the estimated maximum affordable rents identified in Table 15 and Table 16 with the estimated all-in cost for developing new for-sale housing units, as discussed above. The analysis assumes an average household size of two-persons occupying a one-bedroom unit. The assumed development cost for tax-credit affordable housing units is based on the average cost per unit at The Sawyer, as reported in the 2023 application submitted to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). The cost to develop market rate multifamily rental housing is based on conversations with local developers and project proponents. The assumed operating expense is based on the average per unit cost for tax credit affordable housing units in California, as reported by Novogradac, as well as conversations with developers. Financing assumptions are based on conversations with developers.

Based on this approach, BAE estimates that rental housing may be likely to require subsidy across all income levels, even at rent levels roughly representative of the current market rate.

As shown on Table 21, households earning 50 percent of AMI or less can contribute very little towards rent and operating expenses on an ongoing basis, and housing projects targeting this income level would likely require ongoing operating subsidies in addition to subsidies for construction costs. The average financing gap associated with provision of housing affordable at 80 percent of AMI is equal to between $600,000 and $650,000 per unit, on average. The estimated subsidy requirements for housing made available at rents affordable to households earning 120 percent to 150 percent of AMI are notably lower at $150,000 to $315,000 per unit, on average, assuming a higher supportable debt service and reduced development cost.

Residential Land Availability
Land availability is a significant known constraint to residential development in the Region.

Limited Private Land Ownership
According to public records, approximately 94 percent of the land in Mono County, and 98 percent of the land in Inyo County, is owned by federal, state, and local government agencies, with the largest single land holder being the federal government. Public lands in the region are primarily managed by the US Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Department of Defense (DoD), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the State Lands Commission, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Much of the federal land is managed as open space by the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests and the BLM to protect the natural resources, provide resource concessions (e.g., grazing, mining, timber harvesting, etc.), and for outdoor recreation. Local governments, including both Inyo and Mono County, have no planning authority. Much of the land owned by the LADWP is also maintained as open space to protect water resources. Local government agencies do have land use and planning authority over land owned by LADWP, except for activities directly relating to LADWP’s public utility purpose, such as water transport facilities and hydroelectric power generation.

63 Constraints to Development of Private Land
In addition to the scarcity of privately owned land, some of that land is also located in remote locations, hazard-prone areas (e.g., avalanche zones), areas with limited access, and locations with limited utility availability (e.g., roadways and water and power infrastructure). In some cases, legal access to these lands cannot be provided, developed, or acquired, for example when the lands are surrounded by public lands like national forests, and local government agencies may be unable to provide normal and expected public services. Some areas also feature low soil permeability, which limits the use of septic-based sanitary facilities, when public sewer systems are not available. The region also features sensitive environmental zones, which further limits the ability to build on the limited supply of privately owned land.

Inventory Lands Suitable for Development
Recognizing the need to increase the supply of housing that is available for full-time occupancy by regional workforce households, local governments in the Eastern Sierra Region should consider preparing detailed inventories of land that would be suitable for new residential development. Factors that should be considered as part of the inventories should include, but should not limited to, questions of access, topography, utility availability, environmental sensitivity, and proximity to existing communities and centers of employment and community services. Additional secondary considerations include land ownership category and the applicable general plan and zoning designations, among other factors.

Inyo County received a grant under California Senate Bill 2 in 2020 and is working with Helix Environmental Planning prepare a vacant lands inventory. BAE recommends that the other local governments in the region pursue preparation of similar analyses, if they have not done so already. The inventories should go beyond the level of effort involved in preparation of the Housing Element land inventories, and should first focus on identifying sites that are positioned for near-term development under existing conditions, followed by sites that could be activated through minimal infrastructure improvements, with sites that would require negotiation with regional public land owners representing lower-tier opportunities.

Negotiation with Public Land Owners
Land requiring negotiation with public land owners will be subject to the policies and procedures of the overseeing agency, which may or may not align with the needs of the community. For example, opportunities to acquire land from LADWP are limited by the agencies responsibilities as a utility provider and City of Los Angeles’ charter, which prohibits the sale of water rights (i.e., meaning that any land released by LADWP must be served by an existing community water system). Conversations with representatives from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service similarly found that while those agencies are sympathetic to community needs, there are limits on the land that can be designated as surplus. One agency representative also indicated that they lack the capacity to conduct a sites inventory and would require professional assistance from a qualified planning firm.

64 REGIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING SURVEYS
To collect information on housing conditions, workforce housing needs, and the impact of the workforce housing shortage on job creation and economic sustainability, this research included administration of two region-wide housing surveys: one targeted towards residents and workers (resident-workforce survey), and the other targeted towards employers, business owners, and managers (employer survey). The information collected is intended to help inform understanding of housing needs throughout the region.

The data will also be used to verify and fill gaps in the information that is available from other sources, like from the U.S. Census Bureau. For example, local jurisdictions requested the inclusion of certain questions regarding demographic and household characteristics with the goal of separately comparing that data to the available statistics from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), particularly for smaller Census Designated Places (CDPs) in the unincorporated areas, where either the Census data are unavailable, or appears to be unreliable based on available margin of error metrics. That analysis will be conducted separately from this research.

In addition to the analysis presented here, survey response data will be transferred to the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG), where it will be maintained and made available for use by local agencies, while also ensuring that respondent confidentiality is maintained.

Survey Administration and Outreach
BAE administered both the resident-workforce and employer surveys from June 2nd through August 15th of 2025. The surveys were primarily administered online using the SurveyMonkey web platform, though hard copy survey tools were made available upon request.

Survey Outreach and Marketing
Respondent recruitment was conducted using a wide variety of outreach channels, including:
• Press releases
• Email invitations
• Social media posts
• Newspaper ads
• Hard-copy flyers
• Hard-copy mailers
• Community partner outreach

65 Local jurisdictions and ESCOG were primarily responsible for conducting survey outreach, although BAE did also provide assistance with coordination. For examples of the outreach materials used for the purposes of administering both survey tools, please refer to Appendix B.

Survey Sampling Methods
Please note that this research applied a voluntary, non-probability, sampling method, and did not attempt to approximate a statistically representative sample of regional households, due to constraints related to project schedule and available resources (e.g., cost and staff time).

Survey Design and Development
The survey tools used for this research were loosely based on survey tools initially developed for the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation (TTCF) and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to help inform similar housing needs assessment research in the Lake Tahoe area.

However, the survey tools administered in the Eastern Sierra region were then highly customized and tailored in coordination with local government representatives and ESCOG to better reflect the needs of the local community.

For copies of both survey tools, please refer to Appendix C.

Response Screening Methods
BAE received a total of 993 unique responses to the regional resident-workforce survey, and 196 unique responses to the employer survey. Responses were screened to identify duplicate entries based on a comparison of IP addresses and response patterns. BAE also reviewed metrics and questions designed to identify potential responses by Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, including response duration (i.e., time to complete the survey), IP addresses, open ended response data (i.e., AI agents tend to respond to open ended questions in recognizable and consistent ways), and responses to trap questions (i.e., questions designed to elicit a certain response from human respondents, and a different response from AI agents), to identify computer generated responses. Based on BAE’s review, computer generated responses were determined not to represent a significant component of the response pool.

Resident/Worker and Employer Respondent Profiles
To facilitate analysis, BAE filtered responses to each survey tool based on respondent characteristics. For the resident-workforce survey, respondents were filtered to identify resident respondents (people who live in the region, regardless of if/where they work), worker respondents (people who work in the region, regardless of where they live), and in-commuter respondents as a subset of worker respondents (people who work in the region, but live outside of the region). Employer respondents were analyzed as a single cohort.

For a full summary of survey responses for each respondent group, please see Appendix D.

Please note that open ended response data are not included in the summary. To review open ended responses, please contact ESCOG to coordinate review of the desired data.

66 Resident Survey Respondents
The following are some of the key characteristics of resident respondents:
• 860 respondents indicated that they live, or have a home, in the region. • 48 percent live in Inyo County and 52 percent live in Mono County. o 20 percent live in the City of Bishop and 13 percent in the greater Bishop area. o 32 percent live in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
o Remainder live in smaller communities throughout the region. • 844 have their primary residence in the region.
o Nine percent have a second home somewhere outside of the region. • Resident respondents had the following household characteristics:
o Average household size 2.5 persons, with 0.5 children. o 48 percent of respondents lived in married family households o Weighted average household income of $112,777 per year. o Respondents generally ranged in age from 30 to 50 years old, with 15 percent being over the age of 65, and only 2.4 percent under the age of 24. o Respondents generally reflect the distribution of residents by race/ethnicity, with 72 percent Non-Hispanic White and ten percent Hispanic/Latino.  Indigenous/Native American, Hispanic/Latino residents, and nonEnglish speaking residents are likely underrepresented in the survey respondent pool.
o 21 percent share their home with someone other than a spouse or relative.

Worker Survey Respondents
The following are some of the key characteristics of worker respondents:
• 833 respondents indicated that they work in the region most of the time. • 45 percent work in Inyo County and 55 percent work in Mono County. o 28 percent work in the City of Bishop and eight percent in the greater Bishop area.
o 41 percent work in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and two percent in the greater Mammoth Lakes area.
o The remainder work in smaller communities throughout the region. • 64 percent report that they go to a physical workplace.

67 o Only 12 percent work remotely or from home, full-time. o 21 percent work a combination of on-site and remote.
• 45 worker respondents indicate that they commute out of the Easter Sierra Region to a work location(s), or live in the region but work remotely, for an employer located outside of the region.
o These workers primarily report workplace locations ranging from the San Diego and Los Angeles areas, to the greater Las Vegas area, and the San Francisco Bay Area, among a wide variety of workplace locations.
• The average worker respondent holds 1.4 jobs.
o 67 percent report having only one job; 26 percent report having two jobs; and seven percent report having three or more.
• 83 percent of worker respondents are employed on a full-time basis; 16 percent are part-time; and two percent work a hybrid or variable schedule. • 52 percent work on an hourly basis, while 38 percent are on salary. o Four percent report working on a commission basis.
o Seven percent are mostly self-employed or work on a contract basis. • 92 percent of worker respondents indicated that they work year-round. o Only ten percent reported working mainly on a seasonal basis. o This suggests that the data likely undercount seasonal workers, which account for roughly ten to 20 percent of regional wage and salary employment.

In-Commuter Survey Respondents
Workers that are employed within the region, but that live in the region part-time and/or who commute in from residence locations outside of the region are “in-commuters.” In-commuters are an important subpopulation of the regional workforce. In many rural-resort communities, the rate of in-commuting can be high as a result of high housing costs and the availability of lower cost housing options within a reasonable driving distance. Within the Eastern Sierra Region, this dynamic is shown by the cross-commute between the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Crowley Lake, and greater Bishop area, where high housing costs in the Town of Mammoth Lakes have pushed many worker households to choose to reside in other outlying communities that are within driving distance. To reduce reliance on in-commuter workers, it is important to provide workforce housing options that are suitably sized and priced to be affordable to current in-commuter workforce households. • 22 respondents (2.6 percent) reported working in the region, while primarily living somewhere outside of the region, based on reported work and residence ZIP Codes. o 19 reported having a place to live in the region, while they are here for work.

68 • 55 percent of in-commuter workers reported working in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and nine percent reported working in greater Bishop area. • 59 percent reported going to a physical workplace or being employed on a hybrid inperson and remote basis. o 32 percent reported remote work as their primary work format. • 82 percent of in-commuters reported holding only one job. • 59 percent report working full-time, while 41 percent report being part-time. • 50 percent report working on an hourly basis, with only 27 percent being salary. • 64 percent of in-commuters report working year-round, 36 percent are seasonal. • In-commuters are employed in a variety of industries, with the largest concentrations in sales occupations, entertainment and sports, and farming and forestry occupations. • Of the 22 in-commuter respondents, 68 percent indicated that they were “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to move to Inyo or Mono Counties, if housing that meets their needs became available in their price range.

Employer Survey Respondents
The following are some of the key characteristics of employer respondents:
• 196 employers responded to the employer survey.
o 36 percent are located in the City of Bishop and 35 percent are in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
o Other notable concentrations include the greater Bishop area outside of the City limits (5.3 percent), June Lake (4.7 percent), Mammoth Lakes outside of the Town limits (4.1 percent), and Lone Pine (3.5 percent). • 25 percent of respondents represented the hospitality industry, while 20 percent of responding employers were representing government agencies.

Current Housing Situation
The following summarizes the stated housing-related attributes and characteristics of resident and worker survey respondents, including topics like household tenure (i.e., renters versus owners), housing type, and housing costs. The analysis also summarizes data collected on housing problems faced by residents and workers.
• Resident and worker respondents were fairly evenly divided between renters and homeowner households.
o When asked whether they rent or own, some respondents selected “other”.

Among the open-ended responses given, most indicated that they either live

69 with family/friends or in a family-owned unit, live in employee housing, or rent a space in a mobile home or RV park, but own the unit itself. • Both the resident and worker respondent pools show similar distributions of respondents by current home type, with single-family homes (53 percent) and apartments/condominiums (23 percent) being the most common housing types. o Notable shares of respondents also reported living in -plex units (six percent) and mobile/manufactured homes (ten percent), which roughly aligns with the distribution of the housing stock by type throughout the region. • Both resident and workforce respondents reported a weighted average unit size of 2.4 bedrooms per unit. This notably compares to 2.5 and 2.6 persons per household on average for resident and worker respondents, respectively. o Based on the housing size standard of one person per bedroom plus one, this suggests that households are occupying larger units than needed on average, which corresponds with findings from analysis of the available Census data. • The weighted average unit size for both resident and worker respondents was around 1,400 to 1,450 square feet.
o The data show a significant concentration of resident and worker respondents (~84 percent) living in units between 500 and 1,999 square feet, and particularly within the 500 to 999 and 1,000 to 1,499 square foot categories (~54 percent).

Figure 36: What type of home is it? (Select one from the drop-down menu, or fill in the space for “Other”), Resident Respondents Only
Sources: BAE, 2025.
53%
6%
23%
1% 2%
10%
0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

70 • Respondents report living in their current home for a weighted average of eight to nine years.
o Only 13-14 percent of respondents have lived in their unit for less than one year; and 23-24 percent have lived in their homes less than two years.

Housing Challenges and
Concerns
The following summarizes responses to
questions pertaining to housing
satisfaction, as well as housing
challenges and concerns among
resident and worker respondents.
• As shown in Figure 37, around
70 percent of resident and
worker respondents indicated
that they are either “somewhat
satisfied” or “very satisfied” with
their current primary residence,
while around 15 percent were
somewhat or very unsatisfied.
o Nonetheless, 30 percent
of resident respondents and 34 percent of worker respondents indicate that they are actively looking for a new place to live.
o Among those that indicated they were actively looking for a new place to live, most indicated that they are always on the lookout for more affordable/suitable housing options. This option was particularly prominent among renters.
 The next most common response was among respondents who indicated that they are at least interested in purchasing a home for themselves.
 Other common responses included looking for larger homes and/or properties with outdoor space, as well as respondents that were living with roommates that want more private accommodations, renters acknowledging that renting is inherently unstable, and people who indicated that they intend to move out of the area altogether for a host of different reasons, ranging from high costs to “liberal policies”.

Figure 37: How satisfied you are with your
primary residence, Resident Respondents Only
Sources: BAE, 2025.
40%
32%
12%
10%
5%
Very Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
Unsatisfied
Very Unsatisfied

71 • On average, resident and worker respondents paid $1,739 and $1,859 per month on housing costs, respectively, including rent or mortgage payments, but excluding utilities, insurance, and taxes, etc.
o Only 13 percent of respondents indicated that they pay dues or other expenses as part of a homeowner’s association, with a weighted average annual cost of roughly $2,500 per respondent household.
• Among all respondents, roughly 50 percent spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which is the industry standard definition for overpayment, also known as a high “housing cost burden.” Thirteen percent of respondents indicated that they pay 50 percent or more of their income on housing costs, which is considered a “severe housing cost burden.”
• The resident-workforce survey asked respondents whether they had experienced any of a number of problems due to a lack of available and/or affordable housing. o Fifty seven percent of respondents indicated that they experienced at least one of the identified housing problems.
o Figure 38 illustrates the share of respondents that reported experiencing any of the identified housing problems by type of housing problem. • When asked about whether they have fallen behind on rent or mortgage payments within the past 12 months, or are at risk of doing so:
o Just under 80 percent indicated that they have not been and are not at risk of falling behind on housing payments.

Figure 38: Have you experienced any problems due to a lack of available and/or affordable of housing? (Select all that apply)
Sources: BAE, 2025.
7%
13%
19%
20%
22%
26%
29%
32%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Became unhoused/homeless
Lived in a non-traditional space (e.g., a garage, etc.) Lived out of a car/van/RV
Was forced to move further away from my job
Moved in with a friend or family member
Took in additional room mates to help afford…
Moved multiple times in a short amount of time
Took on a second/third job to help pay rent/mortgage
Had to give up other necessities, or not pay other bills,…

72 o While only five percent of respondents indicated that they have fallen behind, these households are likely at imminent risk of displacement. o Another 16 to 17 percent of resident and worker respondents indicated that they have not yet fallen behind, but are at risk of doing so, which also puts these households at risk of potential displacement in the near future.

Workforce Housing Preferences
The following summarizes the stated housing preferences of resident and worker respondents.

Please note that stated preferences often do not align with economic realities. For example, survey questions of this nature often find that households of all kinds prefer to own their own homes and often prefer large, detached, single-family homes over higher density housing options, like townhomes or apartments; however, many households often lack the financial resources to comfortably purchase detached single-family homes in their market. Therefore, the following stated preference
survey results should be
interpreted with caution.
• Resident-worker survey
respondents were asked
to identify their preferred
type of housing across a
range of different
structure types, ranging
from single-family homes,
to apartments, mobile
homes, independent
senior living, etc.
• Figure 39 shows the top
five preferred housing
types in the Eastern Sierra
Region. To identify each
housing type’s rank, BAE
added the total number of
respondents that
identified each housing
type as one of their top
three preferences.
• Figure 40, on the following page, reports the relative frequency with which worker respondents indicated their preferences for residence locations.

Figure 39: Please select the top three housing types
you would most prefer to live in? (Top Five Preferred
Housing Types)
Sources: BAE, 2025.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

73 Figure 40: Please select the top three places in Inyo and Mono Counties where you would most prefer to live? (Total Number of Selections) Sources: BAE, 2025.
0 0
0 1
1 1
2 3
3 4
5 12
15 25
32 42
44 45
52 58
71 247
287
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Homewood Canyon
Trona
Valley Wells
Charleston View
Keeler
Pearsonville
Tecopa
Cartago
Furnace Creek
Shoshone
Darwin
Olancha
Bishop Paiute Reservation
Independence
Round Valley
Meadow Creek
Lone Pine
Starlight
Mustang Mesa
Wilkerson
Big Pine
Bishop Area – Outside City Limits
Bishop City Limits
Inyo County
2 3
6 6
9 12
14 16
19 25
26 26
27 32
40 117
133
192
316
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Benton
Virginia Lakes
Topaz
Twin Lakes
Coleville
Mono City
Chalfant/White Mountain Estates
Paradise
Walker
Bridgeport
Aspen Springs
McGee Creek
Lee Vining
Swall Meadows
Sunny Slopes
Mammoth Lakes – Outside Town Limits
June Lake
Crowley Lake
Mammoth Lakes – Town Limits
Mono County

74 o Figure 40 generally reflects worker preferences to live in proximity to the major population centers of the Town of Mammoth Lakes and City of Bishop, including within the incorporated communities themselves and in more suburban areas in proximity to the two main population nodes, such as in June Lake, Crowley Lake, Wilkerson, Mustang Mesa, and the greater Bishop area, among other smaller neighborhoods.
o Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses describing respondents’ reasons for preferring these areas indicate that workers appreciate:
 Access to recreational opportunities;
 Proximity to employment;
 Proximity to family, friends, and tribe;
 Access to resident amenities, like community centers, grocery stores, and restaurants;
 Availability of desirable housing types.
o For respondents that prefer areas outside of the Town of Mammoth Lakes and City of Bishop, many respondents commented on themes similar to:
 More rural and less populated;
 More peace and quiet;
 Lower cost of housing and land;
 Separation from tourist activities.
• Respondents were also asked about the characteristics that they would most prefer in a housing unit and in the neighborhood in which they live. o Figures 41 and 42, on the following page, illustrate the relative preferences for different types of housing and neighborhood characteristics. o The data reflect common patterns with regard to housing preferences, including a desire for newer higher quality housing units, with ample indoor and outdoor space, as well as storage and common amenities. o However, the most commonly preferred attribute for housing units, according to both resident and worker respondents, was “general affordability”. o Among the top preferences for neighborhood amenities, respondents prioritize having a safe and attractive area first and foremost, followed by access to open space and proximity to employment.
 Respondents also highlighted a preference for neighborhoods that are comprised of mostly full-time residents.

75 Figure 41: Which would you most prefer to have as characteristics of your primary residence? (Total Number of Selections)
Sources: BAE, 2025.

Figure 42: Which neighborhood characteristics are most important to you? (Total Number of Selections)
Sources: BAE, 2025.
1 3
4 6
6 8
8 10
14 16
17 19
39 47
77 97
102
171
195
236
380
469
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Smart home features
Outdoor kitchen
Finished basement
High end bathroom finishes
Pool/hot tub
High end kitchen appliances
Large/walk-in closets
Accessibility features
Ground floor bedroom/bathroom
Wood/natural gas fireplace
In-law, lock-off, or accessory unit
Generator or battery backup
Solar energy system
Open/modern floor plan
Energy efficiency features
Abundant natural light
In-unit washer/dryer hookups
Enclosed garage/storage
Fenced yard/outdoor space
Allows pets/pet friendly
Good build quality/condition
General affordability
5 12
16 17
25 35
36 41
48 53
65 86
88 127
133
213
239
254
409
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Mostly second home owners
Access to other sports facilities (e.g., golf, tennis,… Access to a swimming pool
Short-term renting allowed
Access to a children's play area
Outdoor storage allowed
Ability to have poultry/livestock
Proximity to medical care
Proximity to public transit
Proximity to quality schools
Below the snow line
Short-term renting not allowed
Paved and unpaved trails
Walkable to restaurants/shops
Large lots (1/4 acre or more)
Mostly full-time residents
Proximity to jobs/employment
Access to public open space
A safe and attractive area

76 Relocation Potential (Non-Resident Workers)
To better understand the relocation and housing preferences of in-commuters, BAE also prepared a cross-tabulation of resident-worker survey responses for respondents that indicated that they work within the Eastern Sierra Region, but maintain their primary residence elsewhere. This information is important to the quantitative housing needs model, discussed later in this report because, due to a lack of information on the household characteristics of incommuters, data are otherwise not available through any publicly available data source. In particular, the quantitative housing needs model utilizes data collected using the residentworker survey on the stated likelihood that in-commuters would relocate into the Eastern Sierra Region if adequate housing options were made available in their price range. • There were 22 respondents that fit the definition of an in-commuter for the purposes of this research, which includes a stated work location located within the Eastern Sierra Region and a primary residence location outside of the Eastern Sierra region. • In-commuters were asked, “How
likely would you be to move to Inyo or
Mono Counties, if housing that
meets your needs became available
in your price range?”
• Sixty eight percent of
respondents indicated that they
would be “very likely” or “somewhat
likely” to relocate into the region, if
adequate housing options were
made available in their price range.

However, this finding data should be
interpreted with caution.
• In-commuters surveyed as part of this research were evenly split between renters and owners, recognizing that households that already own a home often prefer to purchase a home within a community they may be moving into.
• The housing preferences of in-commuters generally reflect the same characteristics as those of worker households, with some limited differences in the stated. o In-commuters put “general affordability” second, compared to the general worker respondent pool, followed by “good build quality/condition”. o The top five preferred residence locations among in-commuters include, the Mammoth Lakes and Bishop areas, as well as Lone Pine and Crowley Lake.

Table 22: How likely would you be to move to Inyo
or Mono Counties, if housing that meets your
needs became available in your price range?
Sources: BAE, 2025.

Response Options Count Percent
- Very likely 13 59%
- Somewhat likely 2 9%
- Neutral 1 5%
- Somewhat unlikely 3 14%
- Very unlikely 3 14%
Total, All 22

77 Employer Survey Responses
The employer survey primarily asked questions about the business climate, labor availability and retention, and the relationship between housing and the economic health. • 65 percent of respondents
indicated that they are mostly
year-round; 35 percent
reported having an off season.
o Figure 43 illustrates
the distribution of
respondents by
reported off-season
months.
o During their off-season,
employer respondents
have a weighted
average of 10.5 fulltime employees and

6.75 part-time
employees.
o 74 percent reported
having positions that
went unfilled, with a
weighted average of 2.2
full-time positions and

2.9 part-time positions.
• 59 percent of employer
respondents reported having a ‘peak season’ period.
o Figure 43 also illustrates is the distribution of respondents by reported peak season months.
o During peak season, employers report a weighted average of 22 full-time and 16 part-time employees.
o During the most recent peak season, 62 respondent employers (51 percent) reported having positions go unfilled during the most recent peak season, with a weighted average of 15 full-time and eight part-time positions per employer, which equals around 935 full-time positions and 350 part-time positions.  These figures are notably influenced by large employers, some of whom report between 100 and 350 unfilled positioned. If these are Figure 43: Employer Respondents, and OffSeason and Peak-Season Months Sources: BAE, 2025.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Off-Season
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peak-Season

78 removed, the average drops to seven unfilled full-time positions and five unfilled part-time positions per employer, for a total of ~400 unfilled full-time positions and ~200 unfilled part-time positions. • 53 percent of employers reported expecting at least some of their year-round workers to retire in the next five years, with a weighted average of eight per employer. • Of 119 employer respondents that completed this question, 79 percent reported having employee turnover, with a weighted average of 25 percent per year. • Eighty-two businesses reported that they expect their business to grow over the next five years, with a weighted average of 31 percent growth expected. o Another 21 respondents reported that they expected their business to shrink over the next five years, by a weighted average of ten percent. • Employers report relying on a range of worker types, with 57 percent of reported workings being year-round residents, and only 11 percent being foreign workers. • 45 percent of employer respondents report offering some form of housing assistance. o Of those, more than half provide rental listings to their employees; nearly half provide employee housing directly; and around one-quarter provide assistance with locating roommates, while ten percent provide a housing stipend. • A total of 19 employers reported providing housing for their workers directly, including a total of 306 reported housing units.
o 55 percent of those units are dormitory spaces, while 43 percent are dedicated apartment units, and three percent are single-family homes. • Of 92 employers that indicated they
do not currently provide housing
assistance, 17 percent indicated
that they would be somewhat
interested in doing so, and 22
percent indicated that they would
strongly consider it.
• 71 percent of respondents indicated
that housing availability impacts
their ability to recruit and retain
workers, either “somewhat” or
significantly,” as shown in Figure 44.
• Respondents indicated that they
expect their business would have
grown by a weighted average of 17
percent more over the past five
Figure 44: How much does housing impact your
ability to recruit and retain workers?
Sources: BAE, 2025.
10% 10% 8%
20%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

79 years, and expect that it could grow by a weighted average of 23 percent more than otherwise expected, if workforce housing were more available and/or affordable. • Respondents were asked to rank the extent to which the following issues impact Inyo and Mono County on a scale of “no impact” to “severe impact”. The values in Figure 45, below, reflect the number of respondents that selected each option. o Employers were asked to check all of the housing types that they feel would best fit the needs of their workers and those they are working to recruit (see Figure 46).
o The housing types that were identified as most needed were both year-round and seasonal rental homes, including both apartments and single-family units.

Figure 45: How much do the following issues impact Inyo and Mono Counties? (Select one ranking per topic, from "No impact" to "Significant impact") Sources: BAE, 2025.

No Impact
Minor
Impact
Moderate
Impact
Significant
Impact Severe Impact
Insufficient availability of housing 3 6 10 33 55
Lack of housing affordability 3 7 5 30 62
Shortage of year-round housing 1 6 12 36 51
Shortage of seasonal housing 11 9 27 29 29
Lack of rental housing 2 6 8 44 47
Lack of housing available for-sale 4 16 22 32 30
Lack of housing close to job centers 12 18 22 26 25
Transportation for workers/residents 13 29 35 10 17
Poor quality of available housing 8 19 31 18 27
Figure 46: What type of housing would best fit the needs of your workforce and those you are working to recruit? (Select all that apply) Sources: BAE, 2025.
14% 18%
26%
81%
64%
47%
38% 38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

80 QUANTITATIVE HOUSING NEEDS MODEL
The following section summarizes estimates of the order of magnitude of housing demand originating from existing resident, non-resident, and seasonal worker households, as well as homeless individuals. These estimates illustrate the relative magnitude of the mismatch between the available housing stock within the region and the types of housing and housing pricing that may best suit the needs of the region’s workforce. The estimates should not be interpreted strictly as the number of new units that need to be built, but rather as the number of households with unmet housing needs. Those housing needs may be met through a variety of methods, including new construction, but may also be met through alternative strategies.

For example, a portion of the estimated unmet demand comes from households that live in housing units with inadequate kitchen and plumbing facilities, which are overcrowded, or in households that are significantly overpaying for housing. Therefore, a portion of the estimated unmet demand may be satisfied through programs aimed at residential rehabilitation and towards improving affordability within the existing rental and for-sale housing units.

Nonetheless, a portion of the identified unmet demand, notably the demand from non-resident in-commuter workforce households and households associated with new employment growth, must be satisfied through the provision of new units that are made available either new construction or the opening up of existing second homes for full-time occupancy.

Modeling Approach
The quantitative housing needs model is focused on estimating housing demand among four distinct ‘cohorts,’ each of which represents a distinct need within the region:
• Resident Workforce – Resident worker households include at least one year-round worker that is employed either within or outside of the region. • In-Commuter Workforce – Households with at least one worker that commutes into the region but lives elsewhere.
• Seasonal Workforce – Resident worker households with only seasonal workers. • Homeless/Unhoused – People living, and potentially working, in the study area, without a safe, secure, and consistent place to live.

For the purposes of this analysis, unmet housing need (including people and households who are ‘inadequately’ housed, as well as those in need of housing) is defined to include a variety of different types of housing needs. For example, the definition includes households that significantly overpay for housing (i.e., greater than 30 percent of income), who live in overcrowded conditions (i.e., more than one person per room), and households that live in substandard housing conditions (i.e., without complete kitchen and/or bathroom facilities), as documented by the U.S. Census Bureau.

81 In addition to the resident workforce household cohort, the unmet housing needs estimated here also include households that contain workers who are employed in the region, according to the Census Bureau, and who indicated that they would prefer to live in the region as part of a recent regional resident and workforce survey, but who are driven to commute due to a lack of adequate and affordable housing options.

Due to the increasing prevalence of ‘working poor’ and ‘van life’ individuals within the regional labor force this research also identifies the number of homeless individuals living in the region, either on the street or in non-traditional types of housing, like living in vehicles or ‘couch surfing,’ as documented in the 2025 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count.5 Although homeless and unhoused individuals may, or may not, be active members of the labor force, their needs represent an important and extreme component of the regional housing need, and are therefore included as part of the workforce housing needs estimates presented here.

Due to the wide variation in housing costs that exist throughout the region, both for rental and for-sale housing, the model was designed to account for the alignment between household incomes and housing costs within each jurisdiction. More specifically, the housing needs estimates exclude estimated unmet housing needs among households with incomes greater than would be needed to afford market-rate housing within each jurisdiction. For example, the estimates include housing needs among households in the City of Bishop with incomes up to 200 percent of AMI, which is the income needed to purchase the median-priced single-family home. By comparison, the need estimates for the Town of Mammoth Lakes include housing needs among households earning up to 350 percent of AMI, which is the income required to purchase the median priced single-family home in that jurisdiction.

Data Sources
The Workforce Housing Needs Assessment relies on a variety of publicly available government data sources, which are then supplemented using data collected through the tailored regional resident and workforce survey (described in the prior chapter of this report) that BAE administered in coordination with local jurisdictions between June and August of 2025. The research leverages the most current data available at the time the analysis was conducted.

The following housing need estimates rely on data from sources like the 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS), the 2017-2021 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), the 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data sets published by the U.S. Census Bureau, and the 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data set published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The analysis also incorporates information on local homeless populations collected as part of the most recent available Point-in-Time (PIT) Count prepared by the Eastern Sierra Continuum of Care 5 https://easternsierracoc.com/point-in-time-count-pit/

82 (ESCoC). For more information on the data sources used for this research, please see the relevant section for each cohort of the estimated regional housing need below.

Total Unmet Housing Need
Figure 47 illustrates the total estimated unmet housing need in the Eastern Sierra Region is equal to 3,262 households or housing units. Again, meeting this demand may include a combination of constructing new units, as well as programs designed to improve affordability, address overcrowding, and mitigate substandard housing conditions. The estimates reflect the existing unmet housing demand originating from existing resident and non-resident worker households in the region. The data indicate that 2,239 existing resident workforce households with incomes of 350 percent of AMI and below are inadequately housed, accounting for just under 70 percent of the total unmet need. The housing needs model excludes households earning more than the income required to afford market-rate housing within each jurisdiction. Seasonal workforce households represent the second largest cohort at 606 households, followed by in-commuters at 293 households. The regional Continuum of Care also reported approximately 124 homeless individuals in the region as of January 2025.6 6 The PIT Count is notably conducted in January, per federal requirements, which likely impacts the number and relative visibility of homeless persons in the community.

Figure 47: Total Unmet Housing Need (in HHs/Units) by Cohort, ≤ 350% of AMI, 2025 Sources: BAE, 2025.

83 Housing Needs Bridge
Figure 48, below, illustrates the order of magnitude of workforce housing demand in the Eastern Sierra Region by major income category, including lower-income households (less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI) that may be best served by tax credit affordable housing development and other typical local, state, and federal affordable housing subsidy programs, moderate and upper-middle income households that are likely to be best served by marketrate rental housing projects and entry level for-sale housing projects, and upper income households that would likely be interested in participating in the for-sale housing market but which may lack the resources needed to do so within some submarkets.

Figure 48: Unmet Housing Needs by Income Group, ≤ 350% of AMI, 2025 Source: BAE, 2025.

Housing Needs by Unit Size
Figure 49, below, further summarizes the breakdown of unmet housing needs by unit size and income category. Note that unit size is determined based on household size, with households being assumed to occupy the smallest housing unit available without triggering overcrowded conditions. This recognizes that smaller housing units are often more affordable and that housing cost is a primary driver of housing needs within the region. The appropriate size of a housing unit was determined based on one of a number of definitions used by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which defines an appropriately sized housing unit as have one person per bedroom, plus one. Under this definition, a four-person

84 family household (i.e., two parents and two children), could occupy a three-bedroom housing unit or larger without triggering an overcrowded condition. By comparison, a one-person household would occupy a studio unit, while a two-person household would occupy a onebedroom housing unit. While BAE recognizes that many households tend to overconsume housing by occupying units that are larger than they might otherwise need, the purpose of this research is to identify the housing resources that are needed to meet the existing unmet need.

Therefore, assuming that households occupy the smallest unit available without triggering overcrowding appropriately prioritizes housing affordability as a key regional housing goal.

Figure 49: Unmet Housing Need by Unit Size and Income Level, ≤ 350% of AMI Source: BAE, 2025.

Housing Needs by Jurisdiction
Figure 50, below, illustrates the distribution of unmet housing need throughout the Eastern Sierra Region by jurisdiction and major income category. The data indicate that just over onethird of the total need comes from within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, with around 700 additional households in unincorporated Mono County also exhibiting unmet housing needs.

The City of Bishop, by comparison, shows the smallest jurisdictional allocation of unmet housing needs at 462 households. However, of the 931 households in unincorporated Inyo County that exhibit unmet housing needs, including in-commuters that might otherwise live there, BAE estimates unmet needs among around 600 households in the greater Bishop area, outside of the existing City limits. For more detailed breakdowns of the estimated housing needs by income level and need cohort for each jurisdiction, please refer to Appendix E. 524 621
245
377
281
458
199
311
52 92
40 62
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Up to 80% of AMI Between 80% and 150% of AMI Between 150% and 350% of AMI 857
1,171
484
750

85 Figure 50: Unmet Housing Needs by Jurisdiction and Income Level, ≤ 350% of AMI Source: BAE, 2025.

Interpretation In Light of Housing Problem Type
One way to further interpret the unmet housing needs estimates is to consider them in light of the distribution of households with housing problems by type of housing problem. While households may experience more than one housing problem, HUD also uses a rough hierarchy of housing problems, ranking them from most to least severe (substandard conditions being the most severe and cost burden being the least). Please note that households can experience multiple housing problems, and that the data presented here reflect only the most severe housing problem faced by each household. Figure 51 illustrates this distribution for renter and owner households earning 100 percent of AMI or less in the Eastern Sierra Region.

The data indicate that the most common housing problem among both renter and owner households is a high housing cost burden. Less common are overcrowding and substandard housing conditions, though the data do indicate an elevated prevalence of substandard housing conditions throughout the region compared to most other jurisdictions in California, with substandard housing conditions impacting around 11 percent of owner households and seven percent of renter households with identified unmet housing needs. Roughly five to ten percent of households with housing problems were overcrowded. Households earning greater than 100 percent of AMI are not reflected in these data; however, households at higher income levels are much less likely to experience the more severe housing problems of substandard conditions and overcrowding, but still often experience overpayment for housing, particularly in high-cost markets like the Eastern Sierra Region. 389
691
385 302
560
240
314
134
125
26 96
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Town of Mammoth Lakes Uninc. Inyo County Uninc. Mono County City of Bishop Up to 80% AMI 80%-150% AMI 150%-200% AMI 200%-350% AMI
1,170
931
699
462

86 Recognizing the magnitude of the unmet housing needs described above, and the various challenges that the region faces with regard to new housing production, regional stakeholders may consider these data as a way to better inform which housing needs to prioritize for near term action. For example, households in the region exhibit an elevated prevalence of substandard housing conditions. Therefore, community leaders may want to consider prioritizing the near-term implementation of programs aimed at improving housing quality and/or developing new housing units specifically aimed at providing alternatives for households living in substandard conditions. For more detailed information on the distribution of households by housing problem type, income, and jurisdiction, please refer to Appendix A.

Figure 51: Share of Households with HUD-Defined Housing Problems by Type and Tenure, ≤ 100 Percent of AMI, 2017-2021 CHAS
Sources: HUD, CHAS, 2017-2021; BAE, 2025.

Resident Workforce Housing Need
The unmet resident workforce housing demand estimates are based on the existing workforce housing demand from resident worker households in the region. This includes households that live in the region that include employed people, whether they work in the region, commute outside of the region, or work remotely for employers located elsewhere. Resident seasonal workers were identified based on the number of resident workforce households and the ratio between average monthly employment and peak monthly employment. Workers were translated to households based on the average workers per household by worker type, as published as part of the Census PUMS data for the Eastern Sierra Region.

11.2%

9.2%

74.0%

5.5%
Owners
Substandard Housing Overcrowded Housing Cost Burden Zero/Negative Income

7.1%

6.0%

80.6%

6.3%
Renters

87 The following section summarizes the unmet housing demand from the existing resident worker households in the region based on the share of worker households that experience at least one of the four housing problems tracked by HUD. Additional breakouts by jurisdiction are provided in Appendix E. The estimates are based on the number of resident worker households in each county by household income and household size, based on the Census PUMS data, multiplied by the proportion of households within each income category in each county that experienced any of the HUD-defined housing problems between 2017 and 2021, as reported in the HUD CHAS data. Households were translated to housing units based on the HUD definition for an appropriately sized unit (i.e., one person per bedroom, plus one).

Resident Workforce Housing Need
Table 23 shows the unmet demand by income level and unit size for existing resident worker households. There are an estimated 2,239 resident worker households that are inadequately housed. Around 48 percent of the existing resident worker households with unmet housing needs are lower-income households with household incomes less than 80 percent of AMI.

Moderate-income households with incomes between 80 percent and 120 percent of AMI account for 36 percent of the existing unmet need from resident worker households, while upper middle-income households with incomes over 120 percent of AMI represent 16 percent of the estimated need.

Table 23: Unmet Housing Demand from Resident Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a)
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2025; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); CA Dept. of Finance, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Seasonal Resident Workforce Housing Need
The PUMS data for seasonal worker-only households was used to convert from seasonal workers to seasonal worker households by income level. The unmet demand from seasonal workers is based on the workforce housing demand from existing seasonal workers by household income level, based on the Census PUMS data, multiplied by the proportion of households within each income category in each county that experienced one of the four HUDdefined housing problems between 2017 and 2021, as reported in the HUD CHAS data.

Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom
Up to 15% of AMI 78 43 17 23 161
Between 15% and 30% of AMI 51 89 36 56 233
Between 30% and 50% of AMI 56 87 34 55 233
Between 50% and 80% of AMI 113 171 66 104 454
Between 80% and 100% of AMI 112 185 81 123 501
Between 100% and 120% of AMI 71 113 48 78 309
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 35 57 25 41 158
Between 150% and 200% of AMI 23 42 18 27 110
Between 200% and 350% of AMI 17 29 13 21 80
Total 557 816 339 527 2,239
Unmet Need by Unit Size Total Unmet
Need (HHs)

88 Households were translated to housing units based on the HUD definition for an appropriately sized unit (e.g., one person per bedroom, plus one).

Table 24: Unmet Housing Demand from Seasonal Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size (a)
Sources: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Current Employment Statistics; U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2025; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); CA Dept. of Finance, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Table 24, above, reports that there are an estimated 606 seasonal worker households with incomes of 350 percent of AMI or less that are inadequately housed. Most of the seasonal worker households with unmet housing needs (73 percent) are lower-income households with household incomes less than 80 percent of AMI. Moderate-income households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of AMI account for 21 percent of the existing unmet need from seasonal worker households. Due to the smaller household sizes of existing seasonal worker households, most of the current unmet demand from seasonal worker households (approximately 63 percent) could potentially be met with studio or one-bedroom units.

In-Commuter Workforce Housing Need
BAE utilized the U.S. Census Bureau’s CTPP data set to estimate the number of in-commuting workers who are employed in the region but live elsewhere. Based on these data, there were a total of 1,326 workers commuting into the region on average. This figure was translated to worker households based on the average number of workers per worker household by county in the region according to ACS data (1.6 workers per worker household on average), yielding an estimated 832 in-commuter worker households. BAE then utilized the household income distribution for all worker households in the PUMS dataset to estimate the number of incommuter worker households by household income level and household size. The unmet housing demand from in-commuter worker households was then estimated based on the proportion of in-commuter respondents to the 2025 Eastern Sierra Resident-Workforce Survey who indicated that they would be ‘somewhat likely’ or ‘very likely’ to relocate into the region if adequate housing options were available (68 percent) in their price range. There were a total of 22 in-commuters that responded to the survey and provided necessary residence and Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom
Up to 15% of AMI 57 31 12 17 117
Between 15% and 30% of AMI 32 56 23 35 146
Between 30% and 50% of AMI 16 25 10 16 66
Between 50% and 80% of AMI 28 42 16 25 111
Between 80% and 100% of AMI 18 30 13 20 82
Between 100% and 120% of AMI 11 17 7 12 46
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 5 8 4 6 23
Between 150% and 200% of AMI 2 4 2 3 11
Between 200% and 350% of AMI 1 1 1 1 4
Total 170 214 87 134 606
Unmet Need by Unit Size Total Unmet
Need (HHs)

89 workplace location data, which is a relatively small sample. Due to possible sampling bias associated with the small sample size, the estimates should be interpreted with caution.

Based on this approach, this analysis estimates that the region would need to add approximately 293 units to accommodate demand for housing from in-commuter households, with incomes of 350 percent of AMI or less, as shown in Table 25 below.

Table 25: Unmet Housing Demand from In-Commuter Workforce Households by Household Income and Unit Size
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019-2023 Public Use Microdata Sample; CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2025; Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); CA Dept. of Finance, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Unhoused/Emergency Housing Need
Based on data from the 2025 PIT Count provided by the regional continuum of care, there are approximately 124 individuals experiencing homelessness in the region. Homeless and unhoused individuals are assumed to be synonymous with households due to limited information on household size. Due to a lack of information on income and household size, all homeless and unhoused individuals are assumed to be single individuals with incomes equal to 30 percent of AMI or less.

Percent of AMI Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom
Up to 15% of AMI 5 3 1 1 10
Between 15% and 30% of AMI 4 8 3 5 20
Between 30% and 50% of AMI 7 10 4 6 27
Between 50% and 80% of AMI 16 24 9 15 65
Between 80% and 100% of AMI 13 21 9 14 58
Between 100% and 120% of AMI 9 14 6 10 39
Between 120% and 150% of AMI 7 12 5 8 32
Between 150% and 200% of AMI 6 11 5 7 30
Between 200% and 350% of AMI 3 4 2 3 12
Total 70 108 45 70 293
Unmet Need by Unit Size Total Unmet
Need (HHs)

2026 HOUSING NEEDS STUDY
Town of Mammoth
Lakes
April 1, 2026

STUDY FINDINGS
1 1. Population Decline Continues

2. Need for 1,170 Workforce Housing Units

3. Greatest Need for Middle-Income Housing (560
Units)

4. Smaller Rental Units Most Needed

5. Lack of Housing has had Direct Impact on the
Economy

POPULATION TRENDS
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2010 2015 2020 2025
Population decrease by 1,200 (14.5%) since 2010
(approx.)
Population Linear (Population)
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Projected further 600 (8.75%) decrease by 2040
(approx.)

CHANGE IN

HOUSEHOLD TENURE
• From 2010-2023, Mammoth
Lakes lost 506 renter households
and gained 447 owner households
• The data suggest a recent influx
of new higher income resident
homeowners
• Increasing availability of remote
work has possibly contributed to
this trend
Change in Household Tenure, 2010 to
2023
447
-506
(600)
(500)
(400)
(300)
(200)
(100)
0 100
200
300
400
500
Owner Renter

389 Units
(33%) Low -…
560 Units
(48%) …
221 Units
1,170 Total Units (19%) …
≤80% AMI
80% -
150% AMI
150% –
350% AMI
• ~33% of the need at
80% AMI and below
• ~48% at 80-150%
AM
• ~19% at 150-350%
• Median priced single-family
home affordable at ~350%
Housing Need by Income Level

• Greatest need in the
80% to150% AMI
range
• Significant need for
smaller units
(Studio, 1bd)
Housing Need by Income and Unit Size
117 151
43 78
129
203
91 137
47 82
36 56
0 100
200
300
400
500
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Between 150% and 350% of
AMI
293
436
170
271

Deed-Restricted Housing by Income and Unit
Size
82 69
128 124
115
16 20 18
1 5
8 0
50 100
150
200
Studio One Two Three
Existing Deed-Restricted by Income and Unit Size
≤80% AMI 80% to 150% AMI ≥150% AMI
• Majority LowIncome units
• Pronounced
deficiency in One
Bedroom units

DEED

RESTRICTED
UNITS
• 88% in the Town
• 6% in Inyo County
• 5% in Bishop
• 1% in Mono County
Regional Deed-Restricted Housing Inventory
88%
6%
5%
1%
589 Total Units
Mamm
oth
Inyo

STATUTORY AND ACHIEVABLE INCOME
LIMITS, MONO COUNTY, 2025
HCD Income Limits (a) 1 2 3 4 5
Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $12,450 $14,250 $16,000 $17,800 $19,200 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $21,500 $24,550 $27,600 $32,150 $37,650 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $35,700 $40,850 $45,900 $51,050 $55,100 Low -Income (80% MFI) $57,200 $65,400 $73,550 $81,700 $88,250 Median Income (100% MFI) $82,950 $94,800 $106,650 $118,500 $128,000 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $99,550 $113,750 $128,000 $142,200 $153,600 Achievable Income Limits (b)
150% MFI $124,425 $142,200 $159,975 $177,750 $192,000
200% MFI $165,900 $189,600 $213,300 $237,000 $256,000
250% MFI $207,375 $237,000 $266,625 $296,250 $320,000
300% MFI $248,850 $284,400 $319,950 $355,500 $384,000
350% MFI $290,325 $331,800 $373,275 $414,750 $448,000
Mono County (Median Income $118,500)
Number of People per Household
For-Sale, SingleFamily,
Market Rate Rental
For-Sale, Condo

MARKET RATE
RENT, 2025
Market Rent Change since 2011
& Projections
Unit Market Rent
Studio $1,500
One Bdrm $2,750
Two Bdrm $3,400
Three Bdrm $4,150
Four Bdrm $5,000
Average $3,394
$1,159
3%

3.5%
$3,394

4.5%
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
2011 2017 2025 2030 2035 2040
Market rent increased
160% from 2011-2025

NEXT STEPS
10 1.Greatest Need for Middle-Income Housing (560
Units)

2. Smaller Rental Units Most Needed

3. Middle-Income Rental Development Model in
Process

4. Informational/Policy Items Forthcoming

MIDDLE-INCOME PRESENTATION

SCHEDULE
April 15th
Defining Middle
Income
Presentation
•Recap of need &
inventory
• Income definitions
•Rent definitions
May 6th
Financing Middle
Income Rental
• Market challenges
•Case Studies
• Bond financing
•Ownership
structure
June 3rd
Model Middle
Income Project
• Scope Parameters
• Design, Build,
Operate, &
Maintain
• Proposed project
timeline
June 17th
Middle Income
Project Resolution
•Recap
Presentations
• Discuss
Resolution and
Political
Commitment Page 120 of 283

QUESTIONS AND

DISCUSSION

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Receive a presentation on the North Village Specific Plan Regulatory Framework Council Meeting Date: 4/1/2026
Prepared by: Nolan Bobroff, Community & Economic Development Director Recommended Motion: This is an informational item only. Town Council can discuss and ask questions of staff.

Summary: The North Village Specific Plan (NVSP) establishes a set of land use designations and development standards which facilitate the development (or renovation) of the approximately 64 acres located around Minaret Road, Main Street/Lake Mary Road, and Canyon Boulevard and was adopted by the Town in 1991. Since then, the NVSP has been amended several times, with the most significant amendments happening in 1999 and 2009. The intent of the NVSP is to develop a cohesive, pedestrian-oriented resort activity node, and to provide a year-round focus for visitor activity within the Town. The NVSP is intended to achieve year-round uses and visitor activity, strengthen the existing winter visitor market, and improve Mammoth’s attractiveness to spring, summer, and fall resort visitors. The key objective of the NVSP, and consequently the Land Use Element, is to enhance the Town’s image as a destination resort community, through the creation of a high profile, pedestrian-oriented, resort activity center where lodging, restaurants, shopping, housing, and recreational opportunities are located within proximity to one another and easily accessible by transit.

This presentation will focus on the following:
 Purpose and goals of the NVSP
 Development rights for privately owned sites within the NVSP area  Circulation components of the NVSP
 Build-out potential of the NVSP area
 Prior environmental review of the NVSP project area and associated development projects

TOWN OF M A M M OT H L A K ES

TOWN COUN CI L
A PR I L 1, 2026
North Village Specific
Plan (NVSP) Regulatory
Framework

NVSP
Background Originally adopted in 1991 with major
amendments in 2000, 2009, and 2014
Development regulations for approximately
64 acres
Located around Minaret Road, Main
Street/Lake Mary Road, and Canyon
Boulevard

Purpose of NVSP
Types of uses within the
NVSP area
Public infrastructure
components of the NVSP
Development standards
for the various zones
within the NVSP
Implementation tools
(Financing, CIP Projects,
Mitigation Requirements)
“Provide land use framework for the North Village area which will enable development of a concentrated, pedestrian-oriented resort activity node with a year-round focus for visitor activity.”

Development
Status

NVSP Zoning
• Plaza Resort, Mammoth Crossing,
and Resort General zones are
intended to be developed with the
most intensive uses.
• Specialty Lodging is intended to be
developed as a buffer to adjacent
residential neighborhoods

Development Standards

PLAZA RESORT (PR) MAMMOTH

CROSSING (MC)

RESORT GENERAL
(RG)
• Centrally located
• Lodging and commercial uses at
the highest intensity
• Connected to MMSA via gondola
• Provide a “sense of arrival”
through higher densities and
taller buildings
• Visitor oriented facilities that
contribute to the critical mass of
the Village
• Connected to PR zone through
pedestrian circulation network
• Provide resort accommodation
uses (lodging, retail, restaurants,
etc)
• Integrated pedestrian network

Development Standards

PLAZA RESORT MAMMOTH

CROSSING
RESORT

GENERAL
• Density: 80 rooms/acre
• Building heights up to 75 feet w/
15-foot projections (up to 90’)
• Density: Aggregate of 80
rooms/acre over 3 sites
• Building heights up to 70 feet w/
10-foot projections (up to 80’)
• Density: 55 rooms/acre
• Building heights up to 56 feet w/
10-foot projections

Focus on pedestrian
connectivity and
movement
Move vehicles
expeditiously
through the site
Encourage use of
public transportation
Circulation

Relevant
Documents
North Village Specific Plan:
https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 5022/North-Village-Specific-Plan_12-3-14?bidId=
North Village Specific Plan White Paper (2008):
https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 403/North-Village-Specific-Plan-White-Paper?bidId=
North Village District Study:
https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/138/North-VillageDistrict-Planning Environmental Documentation:
https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/777/North-VillageSpecific-Plan

Questions

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: 2025 Year in Review
Council Meeting Date: April 1, 2026
Prepared by: Pam Kobylarz, Assistant to the Town Manager Stuart Brown, Parks and Recreation Director | PIO
Lara Kaylor, Communication Specialist
Recommended Motion: Receive a presentation from Town Staff on the 2025 Year in Review document.

Summary: Every year the Town produces a report highlighting the major accomplishments, new amenities and valued programs and services in a document called the Year in Review.

The Town’s goal for 2025 was to focus on all opportunities, remove barriers to action and execute our core services with a high degree of efficiency. Through the pages of this review, you will see countless examples of this hard work and dedication to the community, with a sense of urgency in the many accomplishments.

Facilitated by Town Council through their strategic priorities, they are focused on building a resilient, vibrant, and sustainable community. To achieve these priorities, Town Council directed Town resources to enhance municipal services, expand housing opportunities, and improve recreational offerings, ensuring a balance between quality of life and exceptional experiences for all.

The many accomplishments highlighted throughout this report reflect the quality, dedication and resourcefulness of Town employees. It is through their efforts that the vision and priorities of the Town Council and expectations of the community are accomplished.

Town Council and the entire Town team look forward to another productive and successful year in 2026, including a celebration with everyone at the opening of the Town’s new Town Hall this summer.

We hope you enjoy the 2025 Year in Review!

2025 TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 — Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 TownofMammothLakes.ca.gov TownofMammothLakes 760-965-3600 Photo: Josh Wray/MLT

INTRODUCTION

RECREATION AMENITIES

AND PROGRAMS
Sherwins Meadow Trailhead and
SHARP 3 Trail Construction
Expanded Town Host and
Stewardship Program
Winter Trail Grooming
and Recreation
Kids’ Pump Track
Parks and Recreation
New Membership
Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update

PUBLIC SAFETY
Wildfire Task Force
Eastern Sierra Climate and
Communities Resilience Project

MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Styrofoam and Plastic Bottle Bans
New Town Logo Adopted
Wildlife Outreach
Reds Meadow Road
Reconstruction Project
Summer Road Rehabilitation
and Multi-use Path Project
Public Works Maps
Slurry Seal Projects
Development Projects
Mammoth Lakes Police
Department Highlights
Airport Highlights

LEADERSHIP

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
Housing Now!
Measure L
Dave and Roma McCoy
Arts and Cultural Center
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES — 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW
Report Contents
1 3
5 8
9 11
12 13
15 14
16 17
4 10

CONTACT INFORMATION
Community Recreation Center
Interior Enhancements
Mammoth Creek Park Enhancements
Whitmore Ball Field 3 Rehabilitation
Shady Rest Park Improvements
2025 Summer Camps
7 18
20 21
22

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 1 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

INTRODUCTION
CHRIS BUBSER: MAYOR’S REFLECTION
As I reflect on 2025, a year defined by adversity and
tragedy but also by the resilience and strength of our
Mammoth Lakes community, I am grateful to have
had the opportunity to serve as your Mayor.

Mammoth Lakes is special. People come here for the
mountains, the lakes, the trails, and of course the
snow, but those of us who live here know the real
reason Mammoth feels like Mammoth is because of
the people who call it home.

In 2025, we continued to build toward the future
we want: a town that stays vibrant, welcoming, and
economically strong, but also remains livable for the
local community who are the heart of this town.

In 2025, the Town Council and our staff remained
focused on the priorities our community has
consistently elevated: expanding housing
opportunities, strengthening public safety and
emergency preparedness, improving infrastructure,
protecting our natural resources, and delivering
responsive, high-quality municipal services. In
increasingly turbulent times, we worked to protect
the Federal Lands that surround our town and make
sure they remain accessible to all by raising our voices with leaders from other mountain communities.

Below are some of the key highlights from the year:

Housing: Every conversation about workforce
stability, public safety staffing, school enrollment,
local business continuity, and community wellbeing
eventually comes back to housing. This year we
continued advancing the Town’s Housing Now!
program, pushing forward major affordable housing
developments such as The Parcel and supporting
Eastern Sierra Community Housing’s local
programs such as the Access Apartments, all
designed to create stability for the people who
keep Mammoth running.

Wildfire Risk Mitigation: As wildfire risk continues
to remain in the forefront for so many California
communities, we took the initiative to develop
the Mammoth Lakes Wildfire Task Force, a partner
effort between the Town of Mammoth Lakes,
Mammoth Lakes Fire Department, Whitebark
Institute, Mammoth Disposal, the Mammoth
Community Water District and other local partners.

Resilience and Preparedness: Living in the Eastern
Sierra means being prepared for storms, wildfire risk,
and sudden emergencies. In 2025, our community
again demonstrated strength and compassion when
challenges emerged, and I want to recognize the
extraordinary service of our first responders, Town
and County staff, nonprofits, and volunteers who
step up without hesitation.

Infrastructure and Community Experience: In 2025,
we also continued investing in the backbone of our
community: we broke ground on the Dave and Roma
McCoy Arts and Cultural Center, and the North Wing
of the Hospital. We saw the continued success of the
Community Recreation Center and saw how it has
enriched the life of our community.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 2 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW
I also want to recognize something that often goes
unspoken: the work of local government is carried out by people. Our Town staff deliver professional, responsive service day in and day out, often under intense pressure, and behind the scenes. They keep the Town running.

They make Mammoth safer. They provide stability and
structure. And they do it with deep pride in public service and love for this community. I’m truly grateful for them.

Thank you as well to our commissions, committees, and
volunteers; to our nonprofit and regional partners; and to every resident who takes the time to stay engaged.

Mammoth is not a community where people sit on the
sidelines. You participate, you contribute, and you care, and that is part of what makes this place special.
2025 wasn’t without the challenges we face as a
community who chooses to live in a remote and rugged
place. But we faced them together and continued to
move forward.

It was an honor to serve as your Mayor. Thank you
for trusting me with that responsibility.

Gratefully,
Chris Bubser
Mayor, Town of Mammoth Lakes
ROB PATTERSON: TOWN MANAGER
Our community is fortunate to have an amazing
Town staff that is focused on accomplishing the
priorities of the Town Council and the community.

Our goal for 2025 was to focus on all opportunities,
remove barriers to action and execute our core
services with a high degree of efficiency. Through
the pages of this review, you will see countless
examples of this hard work, our dedication to
the community, and a sense of urgency in our
accomplishments. This is of course facilitated by
our Town Council, who are focused on building a
resilient, vibrant, and sustainable community for
you. Through its strategic priorities, Town Council
directed Town resources to enhance municipal
services, expand housing opportunities, and improve
recreational offerings, ensuring a balance between
quality of life and exceptional experiences for all.

The many accomplishments highlighted throughout
this report reflect the quality, dedication and
resourcefulness of Town employees. It is through
their efforts that the vision and priorities of the
Town Council and expectations of the community
are accomplished. The entire team looks forward
to another productive and successful year in 2026,
including a celebration with everyone at the opening
of the Town’s new Town Hall this summer.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 3 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

PUBLIC SAFETY

WILDFIRE TASK FORCE
In the wake of the devastation from the 2025 Southern California wildfires, the Town took a hard look at wildfire risk in our community.

In partnership with the Mammoth Lakes Fire Department, Mammoth Community Water District, Mammoth Disposal, the Whitebark Institute, and the Inyo National Forest, the Town worked collaboratively on systems and response tactics to make the most meaningful impact in times of wildfire disaster.

In February 2025, the Town convened the Wildfire Task Force with the above-mentioned partners, with the goal of addressing growing wildfire threat.

As part of this effort, the Mammoth Lakes Fire Department began conducting curbside home evaluations for every individual home in Mammoth Lakes through the Fire Aside program. Reports from the evaluations include recommendations on defensible space and home hardening for each property to improve the home’s resilience to wildfire.

Throughout the year, more than 2,000 home evaluations were conducted with more than 13,200 personalized recommendations provided. Also, as part of the Task Force, green waste removal efforts took place throughout the year with seven tons of fuel removed.

To raise more awareness about wildfire resilience, the Wildfire Task Force held several community barbecues throughout the summer at different neighborhoods in the community. More than 2,000 hours of community engagement were recorded.

COMMUNITY
Join us to learn about Fire Aside and ongoing efforts in and around Mammoth Lakes to build wildfire resilience. Discover how you can contribute by hardening your home and creating defensible space. Green waste dumpsters will be available.

Questions? Contact Mammoth Lakes Fire: [email protected]

MAMMOTH LAKES WILDFIRE TASK FORCE
Help protect our community
from wildfire!
Sign up for Fire Aside
Friday 9/26 • 5-7pm Intersection of
Manzanita Road &
Dorrance Drive

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 4 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

EASTERN SIERRA CLIMATE AND

COMMUNITIES RESILIENCE PROJECT
The Eastern Sierra Climate & Communities Resilience
Project (ESCCRP) is a collaborative, landscape-scale
effort led by Whitebark Institute, the Inyo National
Forest, and local partners, including the Town of
Mammoth Lakes.

The project’s primary goal is to return forests
surrounding Mammoth Lakes, and across 65,000
acres of the Eastern Sierra, to historic densities
through ecological thinning, making both the
community and surrounding forests more resilient to
future fires. Some local projects included thinning in
the Lakes Basin. The Town supported project work
in the Lakes Basin with Town staff performing traffic
control around traffic and trail detours, posting
signage, and sharing outreach messaging. In 2025, the Town contributed $1.1M to the ESCCRP, including funding from the Tourism Reserve Funds,
as part of its commitment to protect the community
from the threats of catastrophic wildfire. The Town
also worked collaboratively with the Whitebark
Institute to develop three interpretive sign panels
to be placed along the multi-use pathway in the
Mammoth Creek parcel. This area was thinned as a
part of the ESCCRP, and the interpretive topics were
‘Know Your Local Forest,’ ’The Health of Our Forest,’
and ‘Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreaks.’ These panels
will be installed in summer 2026.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 5 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT

PARCEL UPDATE
Construction continued on Kingfisher 2.1 at The Parcel
with the four buildings going vertical in summer 2025.

Once completed, the four buildings will provide 76
units available to households earning at or below 80%
of AMI ($81,700 for a household of four). Construction
is expected to be completed in fall 2026. The
property manager will begin accepting names for the
interest list during summer 2026 (~three months prior
to construction completion). Potential tenants will be
selected through a lottery process.

HOUSING NOW!
In 2025, the Town began developing the framework for a missing-middle rental project that will target households earning up to 120% Area Median Income (AMI). This is a sector of the community that is largely excluded from projects that receive state or federal funding but remain priced out of market-rate units.

Kingfisher 2.2 at The Parcel was awarded ~$33M in
federal and state funding in December 2025 and the
Town committed an additional $7.2M to the project.

With the funding now secured, construction is
expected to begin in summer 2026. The project will
provide an additional 72 units of housing available to
households earning at or below 80% of AMI.

The initial two phases of The Parcel project (the
Sawyer and the Kingfisher) will provide a combined
229 units of affordable housing for the community.

Photo: Kingfisher Rendering Checked By
Drawn By
Project No.

Drawing No.
© Date
Drawing Title
Project
Seal

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

JK ARCHITECTUREE N G I N E E R I N G
www.jkaedesign.com
AUBURN | TAHOE CITY | RENO | SAN JOSE
Drawings and specifications prepared by JK Architecture and Engineering and consultants are for use solely with respect to this project. JKAE and consultants are deemed the authors and owners of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. These documents shall not be used by the owner for future additions or alterations to this project or for other projects without the prior written agreement of JKAE. Any unauthorized use of these documents shall be at the Owner’s sole risk and without liability to JKAE and consultants 6/7/2022 1:32:31 PM BIM 360://21-375 Mammoth-Parcel Ph2-Arch/21-375 Parcel Phase 2.rvt A8.1
KM
ML
21-375
04/01/2022

RENDERS
TPC HOUSINGTOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES - THEPARCEL PHASE 21699 TAVERN RDAPN 035-290-001 NO. DATE ISSUE
BUILDING 2E - SEE

COLOR SCHEME C
BUILDING 2D - SEE

COLOR SCHEME A
BUILDING 2C - SEE

COLOR SCHEME B
BUILDING 2B - SEE

COLOR SCHEME B
BUILDING 2A - SEE

COLOR SCHEME A
PHASE 2 SITE AERIAL
06/06/2022

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 6 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

LEASE TO LOCALS
The Lease to Locals program, operated by
Placemate, was launched in August 2024 and
aims to connect tenants with property owners
who wish to lease their properties on a seasonal
(5-11 months) to long-term (12+ months) basis in
exchange for a financial incentive from the Town.

Through the end of 2025, 24 properties have been
leased through the program thereby housing
59 people. The program will continue until the
initial allocation of funds has been spent.

SMALL-SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Town’s initial small-site development project
located at 60 Joaquin Road was completed in 2025
and the Town held a ribbon cutting ceremony on
March 5. The project features two duplex structures
containing a total of four residential units. The units were listed for sale in late 2025 at $505,000 and
are targeted at households earning up to 150% AMI.

The units are being sold through a lottery process.

Twelve households submitted applications in the
lottery and staff are working with the initial four
households to verify their income eligibility and
get the units into escrow. Sales proceeds will be
reinvested back into the Housing Now! program to
fund a future second small-site development project.

INNSBRUCK AND ACCESS APARTMENTS
These two Eastern Sierra Community Housing
(ESCH) projects were largely completed in 2025.

The Innsbruck Lodge project provides 16
affordable rental units, and the Access Apartments
project provides 13 affordable rental units.

Seven units were rented in Access Apartments
and all 16 units in Innsbruck were rented in
2025. One of these units is a manager’s unit.

BRIDGE PROGRAM
The Town, together with ESCH, launched the
Bridge Program in late 2021 with the goal of
increasing the number of affordable deedrestricted ownership units in the community. The program secures affordability deed-restrictions
on properties by providing a financial subsidy
to income-eligible households in exchange for a
deed restriction that caps the resale price at an
affordable level and requires the unit to be sold
to an income-eligible household. Five additional
units were sold in 2025 through the program,
bringing the total number of units sold to 13.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 7 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

MEASURE L
Passed by the voters in November 2024, Measure L increased the Town’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate from 13% to 15%, starting January 1, 2025. Town Council dedicated these funds, approximately $4M per year, to the Town’s multi-faceted Housing Now! program focused on expanding the availability of affordable workforce housing throughout the community. The Housing Now! program leverages federal, state and local funds to achieve new affordable housing development as well as convert existing, eligible market-rate housing into affordable housing.

DAVE AND ROMA MCCOY ARTS

AND CULTURAL CENTER
In 2025, the Town formally purchased the 8-acre
property from the Mammoth Lakes Foundation
to build the new Dave and Roma McCoy Arts and
Cultural Center. Following the purchase, the Town
awarded the construction contract and held a
ground-breaking ceremony for the community on
August 6. By the end of the year, much progress
had been made with extensive site and utility work.

The approximately 7,482 square-foot, 239-seat
performing arts theatre will support live theater,
musical performances, films, lectures, conferences,
and an array of community activities. The Town’s
Parks and Recreation Department will manage
the facility and coordinate the theatre’s annual
programming with several organizations including
Chamber Music Unbound, Sierra Classic Theatre,
Mammoth Lakes Repertory Theatre, Eastern
Sierra Community Chorus, and Mammoth High
School. The goal is to unify and strengthen the
arts and culture community by bringing everyone
together in one custom-designed auditorium.

Funding for the performing arts center was
provided by the project’s various partners.

Kern Community College District (Measure C)
contributed of $7.5M, $3M was contributed from
the Mammoth Lakes Foundation, $500,000
from the Tambour Foundation, and $5.82M from
the Town’s General Fund and Measure U.

To ensure the financial sustainability of the
performing arts center, the Town contracted with
the recently formed Mammoth Lakes Performing
Arts Foundation, a 501(c)(3), tax-exempt California
Benefit Corporation, to perform fundraising
activities and to administer an endowment fund
to support operations and maintenance of the
facility. To kick start the organization’s fundraising
efforts and to support on-going overhead expenses,
the Town is providing an annual contribution of
$25,000. With the formation of the Mammoth Lakes
Performing Arts Foundation, a generous private
donor has committed $250,000 as a matching
grant to develop a permanent endowment for this
purpose. This is in addition to an annual Measure
U contribution of $300,000 recommended
by Mammoth Lakes Recreation (MLR).

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 8 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

RECREATION AMENITIES

AND PROGRAMS

SHERWINS MEADOW TRAILHEAD AND
SHARP 3 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
The Town celebrated the completion of the new
Sherwin Meadows Trailhead with a ribbon cutting
on June 7, National Trails Day. The project delivers
formalized parking, a year-round restroom, picnic
tables, a bear box, trash service, interpretive signage, and a bike tool station, creating a welcoming and
functioning access point to Sherwin Meadows.

Building on this milestone, the U.S. Forest Service has officially approved the Sherwin Area Recreation Plan
(SHARP 3). This approval establishes a thoughtfully
designed, sustainable trail network that replaces a
patchwork of user-created routes that had caused
erosion and impacted sensitive habitats. SHARP 3
includes 9.8 miles of new trail construction and 3.3
miles of adopted user trails, along with restoration
of degraded segments and decommissioning of
unsustainable routes. The result is a system that
better serves hikers, bikers, and equestrians while
protecting natural and cultural resources.

This achievement reflects years of collaboration
among the Inyo National Forest, the Town of
Mammoth Lakes, Tribal partners, and the outdoor
recreation community. Public feedback throughout
the planning process was overwhelmingly
supportive, underscoring the community’s
commitment to stewardship and sustainability. To
date, Town staff has completed five miles of new
trail, scheduled to open in spring 2026.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 9 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW
The Town continues to manage the Over-Snow
Vehicle (OSV) program, providing more than 100
miles of groomed, motorized multi-use winter
recreation opportunities. The Town also grooms and
manages the non-motorized Shady Rest and Sherwins
winter trail systems, providing access for Nordic
skiers, snowshoers, fat tire bikers, and dog walkers.

Grooming operations now use tracking devices
through Nordic Pulse, allowing locals and visitors to
easily find fresh corduroy. The Nordic Pulse app is
free to download and provides real-time grooming
updates, alerts, notices, and groomer reports. The app
helps create a clear, reliable communication tool for
winter trail users.

EXPANDED TOWN HOST AND

STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
The Town expanded its Host Program to include the
Reds Meadow Valley and shuttle system. Hosts provide
on-the-ground guidance to help visitors recreate
responsibly and enjoy their experience. During peak
summer months in 2025, hosts interacted with more
than 15,000 users. Hosts are now deployed on e-bikes
to encourage responsible use of these devices and
proper trail etiquette, and are stationed throughout
the Lakes Basin, in Town parks, and at Town bus stops
to support visitors across the community.

Stewardship efforts also grew with the launch of the
Host Hounds program. Local and visiting dogs joined
the team by signing a “Paw-ledge” to stay leashed,
with owners committing to properly pick up and
dispose of waste. The Town now has 36 honorary Host
Hounds promoting responsible recreation.

These additions strengthen existing stewardship
programs, including Trail Days, Trashy Thursdays,
Wednesday work nights, Adopt-A-Trail, and Tangle
Free Waters. Collectively, these programs removed
2,412.8 pounds of trash and 2,034 feet of fishing line
from the landscape and contributed 747 hours of
volunteer service.

WINTER TRAIL GROOMING AND RECREATION

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 10 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The Town embarked on the development of a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) in an effort to be the best alpine recreation community in the country. While the values expressed in the 2012 Plan continue to be relevant, the goals, recommendations, and strategies need to be realigned with the public’s ever-changing and evolving recreation needs and expectations. The PRMP will be a community-driven document that will articulate a clear vision for the future, serving as a recreation “roadmap” for the next 10 plus years.

The PRMP will include:
• An inventory and analysis of existing parks, recreation facilities, and programs
• A comprehensive community engagement process
• A financial sustainability plan
• Conceptual site plans to enhance existing and new parks • Updated goals, policies, and projects designed to address local and regional needs
• A strategic action plan to guide implementation
The Master Plan is expected to be finalized for approval by Town Council in late 2026. Your Parks Your Recreation Your Say Take the survey today
at www.MammothLakesPRMP.com
Or scan the QR code
Whether you live, work, visit, or play in Mammoth Lakes — your input matters! Your feedback will help inform the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and guide the next decade of parks and recreation in our community.

COMMUNITY
SURVEY!
Parks, Recreation, and YOU - Let’s Plan What’s Next!
KIDS’ PUMP TRACK
Town staff built a small kids’ pump track
at the Community Recreation Center
to provide additional amenities for the
community, which was also utilized by
the Town’s summer/fall camps. It was a
huge success, and the Town is planning on
enhancing the pump track in 2026.

PARKS AND RECREATION NEW MEMBERSHIP
The new Parks and Recreation Membership Program launched in 2025 provides our community with the opportunity to purchase heavily discounted annual or monthly individual or family memberships to the ice rink, pool and summer RecZone with value-added member benefits. This initiative aligns with Town Council’s strategy to deliver high-quality, affordable and sustainable recreation programs and amenities, through access, availability and affordability. It allows members to skate, swim and play year-round with just one membership. This past year, 388 people purchased the annual membership, while 181 people purchased monthly memberships.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 11 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER

INTERIOR ENHANCEMENTS
At the end of 2024, the Town Council formally closed-out Phase I of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) and awarded the expansive $1.8M Phase II contract. Inside the CRC, enhancements completed in 2025 include the eagerly awaited elevated viewing area with seating for over 110 people, the new modular offices for staff and a small locker room/ meeting room. To enhance acoustics, the sound system was upgraded, including the installation of a wall above the Zamboni garage that now provides elevated storage, seamlessly integrated with the relocated scoreboard. And finally, based on community feedback and demand for ice sports, the Town converted the Olympic ice rink (100’ x 200’) to a regulation NHL-sized rink with a dedicated curling lane. Now ice hockey, skating lessons, open skate and curling programs can all flourish on two sheets of ice instead of just one. To celebrate these many milestones, over 200 people celebrated the holiday season at the Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 12.

MAMMOTH CREEK PARK ENHANCEMENTS
On October 15, Town Council celebrated the many improvements made to Mammoth Creek Park over the past decade. Mammoth Creek Park was boldly transformed to become the epicenter of recreation in Mammoth Lakes. The park delivers significant community benefit where locals and visitors come together igniting community spirit and pride. This year, the prefabricated climbing boulder arrived on September 8 in seven individual pieces, which were set by a crane onto the foundation. To improve the experience for users, safety surfacing was installed around both the large climbing boulder and natural granite boulders. Much needed shade structures were installed on the CRC deck, along with a 20’x30’ hip shade structure on the lawn providing our community a more welcoming shaded area for family gatherings and community events.

WHITMORE BALL FIELD 3 REHABILITATION
Performed entirely by Town staff, Whitmore Ball Field 3 (baseball field) received extensive renovations including excavation, regrading, and reinstallation of new infield material. Over the years, significant displacement and buildup had altered the field’s grade and alignment, creating uneven surfaces and overgrown edges. Improvements included reinstallation of the pitcher’s mound and the 1st and 3rd base lines, as well as Home and Visitor Dugout areas, and much more. During the fall, all the damaged backstop boards were also replaced by Town staff in preparation for a spring 2026 reopening.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 12 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW
2025 SUMMER CAMPS
Summer Camps – “Kid came home dirty and happy!”
This past summer, the Parks and Recreation Department
hosted 634 campers supported by 22 staff members over nine weeks of summer camps. These guest comments say it all:
“Great attentiveness to detail and communication – favorite camp by far!” “Loved the counselors, the variety, everything!” “Awesome Counselors!” “My favorite part is how your camps build the kid’s skills, confidence, and promotes teamwork.” The Town provided campers with a chance this summer
to explore the Sierra by biking, hiking, paddleboarding, skateboarding, swimming, and climbing all over the
region. Families continue to express excitement about
the quality and diversity of summer camp programs that
the Town provides. Mammoth Lakes summer camps are
truly on the leading edge of the recreation industry.

Our amazing counselors provided authentic experiences for campers while navigating ongoing construction this past summer at Mammoth Creek Park. Everyone loved the new
pump track and FreshparkTM portable and modular jump
features. In addition to the outdoor adventure sports that this region is known for, the Town provided outstanding visual and performance arts camps. Demand for our summer camps remains high with over 200 children on waitlists.

Local families were once again able to take advantage of the Tony Colasardo Scholarship Fund. Thanks to the generosity of our community, in 2025, 106 children were awarded scholarships for 172 programs, valued at over $14,000. Recipients enjoyed the UK International and Challenger Sports Soccer Camps as well as the Town’s signature summer camps and after school programs.

SHADY REST PARK IMPROVEMENTS
This fall, the many multi-use paths (MUPs)
at Shady Rest Park received fresh asphalt,
greatly enhancing access in and around
the park. The Town’s first skate park also
received fresh, new concrete and a new
feature, which was well-received by all
aspiring skateboarders.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 13 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

MUNICIPAL SERVICES

STYROFOAM AND PLASTIC BOTTLE BANS
This year, the Town continued to stand up for
Mother Nature by implementing and enforcing two
important prohibitions approved two years ago.

The first, a Styrofoam prohibition passed on July
12, 2023, prohibits take-out Styrofoam food-ware
containers from food service providers, lodging
facilities, and special event operators. This prohibition took effect on January 1, 2024 and the Town saw full
compliance with all affected businesses by early 2025.

The second, a single-use plastic water bottle
prohibition for bottles ≤500ml was passed on
December 20, 2023 and goes into effect in
two phases.

Phase 1 was effective January 1, 2025, and
prohibited Town government and all special events
(events requiring a Town permit) from using, selling
or distributing single-use plastic water bottles
≤500ml. This phase was implemented throughout
2025, with new special event conditions and
messaging sent to all special event operators to help
them comply with the new requirements.

Phase 2 will take effect on January 1, 2026 and will
prohibit all businesses within the Town from selling
or distributing single-use plastic water bottles
≤500ml. Throughout 2025, Town staff conducted
significant outreach efforts including in-person visits to businesses, and emails and letters to all businesses informing them of the upcoming changes, and
working in conjunction with the Chamber of
Commerce to ensure the community is aware of
this major change before it went into effect.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 14 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

WILDLIFE OUTREACH
In March of 2025, the Town Council amended Municipal Code Chapters 6.20, 8.12, and 8.13 as part of its efforts to strengthen current language in the Municipal Code related to solid waste spillage and other wildlife attractions.

The amendment solidified the Town’s intent to minimize conflicts between humans and wildlife and to ensure responsible humanwildlife interactions by imposing fines and penalties on violators.

This code amendment was in addition to public outreach and efforts provided by Town staff who proactively interacted with visitors every Saturday morning during the summer. From June 6 to July 12, 2025, Town staff conducted 10 days of outreach and education focused on bear and wildlife safety throughout the Lakes Basin.

During this period, staff recorded 1,334 individual interactions with campers and recreational users. The highest single-day engagement occurred on July 5, with 242 people contacted.

New flyers and stickers were created and distributed throughout the community, including to all camp hosts and private campgrounds.

Dumpsters received color-coded closure devices and how-to signage and stickers to help people better understand how to close them. Plus, new bear boxes were added at Horseshoe Lake and Main Lodge at Mammoth Mountain upon the Town’s request.

NEW TOWN LOGO ADOPTED
On February 19, the Town Council formally adopted a new official Town of Mammoth Lakes logo. According to the Town’s Municipal Code, the Town logo is a design used for the purpose of symbolically representing the authority of the Town and the capacity of its officers, employees, and agents as representatives of the Town and should not be used by anyone other than an officer or employee of the Town. Since the previous Mammoth Lakes logo is also used for marketing and is widely distributed, it did not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. The new Town logo relates to the Mammoth Lakes logo through colors, design elements and fonts, but gives the Town its own, unique logo identity.

Since adoption, the Town has been working on implementing the new logo and transitioning a wide variety of items and documents to include the new logo. Implementation work is ongoing.

BE BEAR AWARE!
ALWAYS:
• ALWAYS STORE FOOD, ICE CHESTS, AND

SCENTED ITEMS IN THE BEAR-RESISTANT LOCKER
PROVIDED AT YOUR CAMPSITE AT ALL TIMES.
• This includes items like toiletries, candy,
chewing gum, cooking utensils, empty cans
and bottles, wrappers, and pet food.

NEVER:
• NEVER APPROACH OR FEED A BEAR.
• Never leave food, trash, ice chests, and scented
items unattended at your campsite.
• Never store food or scented items
in your tent or vehicle.

PLEASE:
• PLEASE KEEP A CLEAN CAMPSITE AND
REMOVE TRASH FROM THE PROVIDED BEARRESISTANT LOCKER WHEN YOU LEAVE. • Please lock your vehicle and remove empty grocery
bags or empty coolers/ice chests from view.

HELP KEEP BEARS WILD
THANK YOU!

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 15 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

REDS MEADOW ROAD

RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Reconstruction of the Reds Meadow Road began in
the summer of 2025. The project is expected to greatly
improve public access and traffic safety for all who visit the area, reduce likelihood of vehicular accidents and
improve emergency response times. The mandatory
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority shuttle bus ran daily
from 7am to 7pm, as usual when the road was open.

Contractors expect to complete the project in 2026.

Upon completion of the project, the Town will be issued a Highway Easement Deed that authorizes maintenance
responsibility for transportation purposes of the
road. This action will provide the Town jurisdiction
for transportation purposes only, as ownership of the
road will remain with the Inyo National Forest. The Inyo National Forest and Town will work together in the
future to ensure maintenance and transportation use
objectives are met.

SUMMER ROAD REHABILITATION

AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECT
In the summer of 2025, the Town completed several
street rehabilitation and multi-use path (MUPs)
projects that required preventative maintenance.

The project scope of work included the
reconstruction of the following streets and MUPs.

Streets: Convict Drive, Rainbow Lane, Forest Trail,
Grindelwald Road, Panorama Drive, Ridge Way,
Holiday Way, a roughly 360-foot-long portion of
Lakeview Boulevard above the Voodoo Chute, and
the intersection of Majestic Pines Drive and Valley
Vista Drive.

MUPs: Repaired MUP railing between Sawmill
Cutoff and Visitor Center, basketball court and
paths within Shady Rest Park, as well as the
addition of a new paved path that will connect the
Shady Rest skate park to the public restrooms and
playground, from Eagle to Waterford Road, Sawmill
Cutoff Road and at Mammoth Creek Park East.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 16 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

PUBLIC WORKS MAPS
The Public Works Department created several
maps on the Town’s website that show status
updates for Public Works projects. The
first map highlights recently completed, in
progress, and upcoming construction projects.

The second is a map that specifically focuses
on road construction projects. Maps were
updated as projects progressed, so that the
public could follow along at its own pace.

SLURRY SEAL PROJECTS
Every year Town staff complete road condition
assessments of streets and MUPs throughout
Town. In 2025, several streets were prioritized
for fog seal and slurry seal, as well as striping.

Streets that received fog seal included
Commerce Circle, Laurel Mountain Road,
Red Fir Road, Mono Street, Dorrance Road,
Mountain Boulevard, Majestic Pines Drive (from
Meridian to Bear Court), Monterey Pine Road
(including all cul-de-sacs), Kelley Road, Silver
Tip Lane, and the College Connector Path.

Streets that received slurry seal included the
SHARP parking lot, N Frontage Road, Sierra
Boulevard, Snowcrest Ave, Pinecrest Ave,
Knob Hill Lane, Rusty Lane, Alpine Circle, Mala
Ulice, Berner Street, Holiday Way (including
Holiday Circle), Grindelwald Road (including all
cul-de-sacs), Vacation Place, St Anton Circle
(including Megeve Way and all cul-de-sacs),
Mammoth Knolls Drive (including Sestriere
Place and Garmisch Place cul-de-sac), St
Moritz Road (including all cul-de-sacs), Old
Mammoth Road, and Sawmill Cutoff Road.

Linear striping for fog lines, bike lanes,
center lines, etc. were applied to all roads
throughout Town. Pavement markings were
applied to roads that received either a slurry or
fog seal treatment.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 17 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

BUILDING PERMIT STATS
In 2025, 115 housing units were completed as compared to 48 in 2024. • 29 single-family residences or townhomes
• 4 accessory dwelling units
• 82 affordable apartment units

LIMELIGHT HOTEL
Limelight Hotel was completed in 2025 and is the first new hotel development in approximately 20 years. The hotel has 151 hotel rooms and 15 residential condominium units. A ribbon cutting ceremony was held by the Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce in November 2025.

RESIDENCE INN AND THE ROCKSPRING
Construction began on the Residence Inn and the Rockspring projects in summer 2025. The two projects will provide an additional 220 guest lodging rooms in the North Village area.

MAMMOTH HOSPITAL EXPANSION
Work began on the new wing of Mammoth Hospital. The 60,000 square-foot structure will replace the existing patient areas of the hospital and is expected to be completed in 2028.

NORTH VILLAGE CIRCULATION
Staff began developing the scope of work for a review of the circulation throughout the North Village area to ensure that current and future development does not overwhelm the circulation in that area.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 18 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

MAMMOTH LAKES POLICE DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS

TRUNARC HANDHELD

ANALYZERS
On February 19, Town Council
approved a resolution to purchase
two TruNarc handheld analyzers.

The TruNarc device works by
scanning through any clear
packaging by simply holding
the device up to the package
and can identify more than 530
narcotics and drugs. Officers
do not have to handle any type
of drug, they just operate the
scanner, then the drugs can be
booked or re-booked just as they
were seized. TruNarc identifies
dozens of narcotics, stimulants,
depressants, hallucinogens and
analgesics using lab proven
Raman spectroscopy. The
cost of the devices was split
three ways between MLPD,
Mono County Sheriff’s Office
(MCSO) and the Mono County
District Attorney’s Office.

NEW PATROL VEHICLES
During the summer of 2025, the Town purchased several new police vehicles to help modernize the fleet. The biggest change was transitioning to Chevrolet, from Ford, for patrol vehicles. Mammoth Lakes Police Department (MLPD) now has four new Chevrolet Tahoe Police Pursuits Vehicles (PPV) and two new Chevrolet Silverado 1500 PPV trucks. These vehicles will ensure that officers are equipped to respond to all types of emergencies in any condition.

NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
On August 5, MLPD held its first National
Night Out event, a nationwide initiative
that brings together neighbors, local police
departments, and community partners
to foster camaraderie, strengthen policecommunity relationships, and improve neighborhood safety. Several Mono and
Inyo County first responder agencies also
participated with information booths. The
event included emergency vehicle tours,
Eastern Sierra Working Dog Foundation
K-9 demos, free roller skating, a dunk
tank, food and cotton candy from the
MCSO & MLPD Explorer Post, and lots of
fun giveaways from all the participants.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 19 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFF-HIGHWAY

MOTOR VEHICLE GRANT
On September 18, MLPD was awarded a $39,652 grant from the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division for 2026. This funding will help to continue building the Agency’s Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) and Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) program, which was launched in 2021 with its first grant award.

This new award will be used to pay for a covered storage area to protect the vehicles, purchase additional safety and recovery gear to outfit the vehicles and staff, and to reimburse officers’ patrol plus administrative costs. Summer and winter OHV/OSV patrols allow MLPD to enforce speed laws in restricted areas, operation of vehicles and/or snowmobiles while impaired, verify green sticker registration, address encroachment/trespass issues, provide accident support, monitor dispersed camping, and educate the public. AXON UPGRADES This fall, MLPD upgraded its Axon
camera technology including the
latest model of tasers, the Taser
10, brand-new Axon body-worn
cameras, Body 4, and the installation
of Axon Fleet which are vehicle
mounted cameras. The TASER 10
energy weapon offers an extended
range (up to 45 feet) and increased
shot capacity, providing officers with
more opportunities for de-escalation
and reducing the need for lethal
force. Axon Body 4 provides better
evidence collection with a wider
view (160°) and sharper 5MP sensor,
which boosts officer safety via realtime livestreaming, bi-directional comms, and location tracking, plus
integrates AI tools like translation
and automated audits. Axon Fleet
provides an integrated in-car video
system featuring high-res cameras
(front/rear/interior). This package
also included a Virtual Reality (VR)
Training headset and modules
which provide realistic, unscripted
scenarios for de-escalation, empathy,
and use-of-force training, which can
be accessed anytime, anywhere.

LIVE 911
In August, MLPD purchased six
licenses to Live911 services,
which is maintained by the Mono
County Sheriff’s Office. Live911 is a
technology that streams live audio
and precise location data from 911
calls directly to officers’ devices.

It allows MLPD to hear the 911 calls
as they occur, which has greatly
improved response time by allowing
the officers to begin driving towards
the in-progress emergency calls.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 20 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

AIRPORT PARKING LOT

RECONSTRUCTION
The general aviation and terminal parking
lot at Mammoth Yosemite Airport was
reconstructed in 2025, with a grant from
the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Along with new asphalt, the
project included solar lighting and ADA
improvements. Fresh pavement is a
welcome upgrade for first impressions
of the airport, as well as being an inviting
surface to park on!

AIRPORT HIGHLIGHTS

AIRPORT LOGO
The Town worked with Mammoth
Lakes Creative to design the first ever
logo for Mammoth Yosemite Airport!
It captures the iconic view of Mt.

Morrison and the free spirit of flight
in Eastern Sierra skies. The new logo
will support brand recognition, airport
differentiation, guiding passengers, and
reflecting local identity. Implementation
of the logo for uniforms, vehicles,
buildings, etc. is expected in 2026.

GRANTS AWARDS FOR MAMMOTH

YOSEMITE AIRPORT
In 2025 the Town received four grants
from the FAA for the Multipurpose
Building Phase 1 site work. This project
includes an access road, vehicular gate,
and relocation of Taxiway A3. The cost of
construction for Phase 1 was separated
into three grants, totaling $2.55M. The
fourth grant is in the amount of $61,026
for Lighted X Runway Closure Markers.

These will be used during runway closures
for the Phase 1 project, and other runway
closure events. Construction will begin
on the road, gate and runway connector
relocation in May of 2026.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 21 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

LEADERSHIP

TOWN COUNCIL
Chris Bubser | Mayor
Amanda Rice | Mayor Pro Tem
Bill Sauser | Councilmember
Brent Truax | Councilmember
John Wentworth | Councilmember

PLANNING & ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Michael Vanderhurst | Chair
Dawn Vereuck | Vice Chair
Cynthia Fleming | Commissioner
Lana Grand | Commissioner
Billy Deaver | Commissioner

PARKS & RECREATION

COMMISSION
Dan O’Connell | Chair
Silver Chesak | Vice Chair
Greg Newbry | Commissioner
Scott Reif | Commissioner
Ben Wisner | Commissioner

TOWN ADMINISTRATION
Rob Patterson | Town Manager
Andrew Morris | Town Attorney
Nolan Bobroff | Community & Economic
Development Director
Stuart Brown | Parks and Recreation Director
& Public Information Officer
Dan Casabian | Police Chief
Megan Chapman | Finance Director
Jamie Gray | Town Clerk
Haislip Hayes | Public Works Director
& Town Engineer
Pam Kobylarz | Assistant to the Town Manager
Lawson Reif | Outdoor Recreation Manager
Sierra Waugh | Deputy Airport Manager

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES 22 2025 YEAR IN REVIEW

CONTACT INFORMATION
Address: 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 | P.O. Box 1609 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Main Phone: 760-965-3600
Mammoth Lakes Police Department: 760-965-3700
Public Information Line: 760-965-3612 (updated during emergencies) Notify Me: townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/list.aspx
Website: townofmammothlakes.ca.gov
Facebook: facebook.com/townofmammothlakes
Instagram: instagram.com/townofmammothlakes
Email: Initial of first name and last name @townofmammothlakes.ca.gov For example, John Doe: [email protected]

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Transient Occupancy Tax Collection and Certified Properties Update Council Meeting Date: 4/1/2026
Prepared by: Ben Manning, Revenue Accountant
Rob Patterson, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Information Item Only – No Action
Summary: Staff will provide an update on the status of Certified Properties application improvements and progress. This will include a demonstration of the additional data reporting and analysis that is available with the new program.

The Certified Properties application has been in a state of development for the last few years and is currently functioning with some significant challenges, causing issues for staff and operators alike. The Town has hired a consulting group who specialize in programming of QuickBase applications. This effort has been underway for approximately 8 months and is set to conclude by July 2026. Upon completion, staff expect all pain points and misfunctions to be resolved.

As staff have begun to capture returns through the new system, a wealth of information regarding rental activity, performance by unit and average daily rate (ADR) has been interesting to analyze and understand. Staff will show the calculation of ADR by rental complex as well as the seasonal changes that come with our unique seasons. Staff are continuing to work on utilization of this data to provide business insights.

In addition to Certified Properties, staff will cover a few recent enhancements to our rental monitoring software, Rentalscape. These new developments are using technology to improve identification of fraudulent reporting and help the enforcement team focus on identifying outliers to inform audit decisions.

TOWN OF

MAMMOTH LAKES
–

CERTIFIED

PROPERTIES

UPDATE MARCH
2026

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
UPDATE

CERTIFIED PROPERTIES

APPLICATION DATA

ADR BY ZONE

ADR BY COMPLEX

RENTALSCAPE

CERTIFIED PROPERTIES PAYMENT
PORTAL

RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM USERS
WORKING WITH 3RD PARTY

DEVELOPER TO REVAMP OUR

COLLECTIONS APPLICATION

SAVE PAYMENT INFORMATION

EASIER ADDING AND REMOVING

PROPERTIES

BETTER STABILITY

Transient Occupancy Tax Collection
Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun YTD 2021-2022 2,545,344 1,885,522 830,401 867,594 1,373,610 4,005,956 4,364,765 3,831,274 2,996,102 1,643,021 843,556 1,481,383 26,668,528 2022-2023 2,237,227 1,762,533 1,235,431 901,599 1,359,639 4,437,213 4,894,122 4,119,721 3,237,433 2,778,354 1,292,309 1,265,161 29,520,742 2023-2024 2,187,703 1,930,667 1,444,953 1,059,538 1,017,293 3,221,049 4,089,949 4,342,251 3,774,158 2,171,658 926,667 1,257,382 27,423,267 2024-2025 2,274,839 1,960,670 1,290,607 1,014,496 919,512 3,782,064 4,739,401 4,231,502 3,830,525 2,033,788 844,175 1,366,017 28,287,597 2025-2026 2,201,356 2,113,141 1,190,633 985,329 1,221,696 3,928,424 5,009,056 4,408,003 - - - - 21,057,639

Measure L Funds
Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun YTD 2024-2025 - - - - - - 344,251 519,925 524,787 302,084 127,376 198,326 2,016,748 2025-2026 334,526 294,771 176,076 149,173 187,953 604,342 770,475 677,728 - - - - 3,195,044

AVERAGE DAILY RATE

AVERAGE DAILY RATE (ADR) MEASURES THE

AVERAGE REVENUE EARNED PER ZONE, COMPLEX,
OR ROOM. ADRS DIRECTLY INDICATING PRICING

EFFECTIVENESS, PROFITABILITY, AND FINANCIAL
HEALTH OF THE AREA.

TRACKING ADR TRENDS OVER TIME HELPS TO

FORECAST REVENUE, PLAN BUDGETS, AND

EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF MARKETING

CAMPAIGNS, AND MAKE FUTURE DECISIONS FOR

SHORT TERM RENTALS

ZONING MAP HERE!

$269.31
$329.51
$269.71 $278.80
$201.11
$314.85
$606.75
$533.28
$245.88
$348.13
$422.72
$393.69
$339.38
$284.21
$432.97
$903.47
$725.67
$323.11 $309.99
$484.21 $483.05
$356.15
$303.63
$404.06
$814.08
$916.52
$481.65
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
6/1/2025 7/1/2025 8/1/2025 9/1/2025 10/1/2025 11/1/2025 12/1/2025 1/1/2026 2/1/2026 ADR by Zone
RMF-2 Resort NVSP

RMF-2
$269.31
$329.51
$269.71 $278.80
$201.11
$314.85
$606.75
$533.28
$245.88
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
6/1/2025 7/1/2025 8/1/2025 9/1/2025 10/1/2025 11/1/2025 12/1/2025 1/1/2026 2/1/2026 RMF-2 ADR

ZONE 1 COMPLEX

BREAKDOWN
6/1/2025 7/1/2025 8/1/2025 9/1/2025 10/1/2025 11/1/2025 12/1/2025 1/1/2026 2/1/2026 RMF-2 Complex ADR
Canyon Ski and Racquet Club Chamonix Discovery 4 Hidden Valley Village Horizons 4 La Residence IV La Residence V La Vista Blanc Lakeview Villas Mammoth Estates Mammoth Ski and Racquet Mountainback Mountainside Red Slate Apts. Seasons 4 Seasons Four
Sherwin Villas Sierra Park Villas Silver Bear Lodge Ski Run Villas St. Anton St. Moritz Villas Sunrise Condos The 1849
The Summit