MORATORIUM ST’RS ANXIETY

A virtual “Luncheon” took place Thursday, November 2, to discuss the implications of the recently passed short-term rental (STR) moratorium in Mammoth Lakes. More than 70 participants joined the Zoom call, highlighting the importance of the issue within the community. 

Realtor Mickey Brown facilitated a brief overview of the historical context of STRs in town. She explained that zoning regulations in Mammoth Lakes have not seen significant changes since 2014 when the town updated its 2007 general plan. Brown emphasized that “extensive” community input had shaped these regulations, and led to the current zoning codes, including zones determining one’s legal ability to operate STRs in town.

On October 18, Mammoth’s Town Council adopted an urgency ordinance establishing an initial 45-day moratorium on the issuance of new short-term rental registration certificates. The moratorium does not apply to housing units in the Resort Zone, North Village or Clearwater Specific Plan areas or to any unit in escrow as of October 18. The areas of greatest potential impact are those who do not currently have a TOT rental certification and are located in RMF-2 zoning. There are currently 3,642 units in the RMF-2 zoning district with 52% having an STR certificate.

Community members were confused as to why “Resort Zoning” was left untouched by the moratorium. Resort zoning is currently not covered under the restriction of new nightly rentals, which some residents deem “preferential.” 

Resort zoning applies to properties that are more than 20 acres, and usually occurs when a developer comes in with a masterplan for a multi-use project, explained Mammoth Lakes attorney Jeremy Ibrahim. These agreements can supersede general zoning rules. Ibrahim explained that there may be agreements in place prohibiting the town from interfering in those zones. 

Ibrahim said that the area by Canyon Lodge was originally intended as  “hot beds,” or condo hotels hosting tourists for short-term stays. The architecture does not fully support storage for long-term living, and every complex has a rental office, Ibrahim said. Canyon Lodge could be rezoned through a process, though a lengthy one, and that was something community members suggested. However, no matter what zone your property is designated, an HOA can limit nightly rentals, and there are several places in town that prohibit them altogether. 

“It sounds like the original plans for the mountain included a plan for employee housing that was never followed through with,” said resident Rachel Sciacca. 

“Mammoth Mountain has added extensively to their housing this year,” Brown responded. The one new employee housing project is going for $1,500 a bed according to the Mammoth Mountain Employee Housing office.

The discussion took an interesting turn when Kimberly Helzer said, “What about limiting the number of permits an owner can have or putting a requirement that an owner needs to be a resident of Mammoth Lakes in order to operate.” The proposal prompted Council Member Bill Sauser to highlight that a committee had been appointed to address these concerns.

*The committee meets for the first time on Monday, Nov. 13 @ 5 p.m. in Suite Z, Minaret Mall. 

Greg Newbry, a transient rental owner, raised the idea of taxing rental properties an additional 2%, a proposition that could generate an extra $4 million per year for the town, adding, “The people I rent to wouldn’t mind.”

“I think the biggest issue is what is the town taking,” Ibrahim said. He explained various aspects of “taking” in property rights, distinguishing between absolute and partial taking. Absolute taking would be, Ibrahim explained, if the government came in and took your property for some kind of project. In town, what is happening is considered a partial taking. One of the things it comes down to is if the government has taken enough of the property that it cannot be used. Owners are saying they cannot use their properties for the purposes they intended, but Ibrahim explained that argument will likely not prevail in court, as the property can still be used in some capacity.

Ibrahim emphasized that the town has the authority to ban STRs completely, and noted that challenging such bans has had limited success in the past – example South Lake Tahoe, Palm Springs. 

The one exception Ibrahim explained is taking in regard to vested rights. If your deed permits STR rentals and town code is changed prohibiting it, an owner may have a case there.

Tony Taylor raised a question about business licenses for long-term rentals, to which Brown responded that they were not required, drawing attention to the disparity in regulations.

Kimberly Helzer asked, after the moratorium ends, if the Town Council limits the number of licenses per owner, are those voting decisions. Ibrahim explained that any decisions the Town Council makes will be noticed in the manner required. If they chose, the town council can enact any restrictions  it wants. 

Timothy Hogan questioned whether the town could revoke a TOT license without major zoning changes, and Brown affirmed that altering the zoning code was an involved process. There were questions about residents having licenses in business names rather than an individual’s name, and no clear answer provided. 

Several participants inquired about the number of STR licenses in circulation and Hogan asked if existing licenses could be revoked. Ibrahim clarified that the town has the power to both revoke existing licenses and limit the issuance of future licenses.

The event highlighted the complexities and varying opinions surrounding the STR moratorium and its implications for Mammoth Lakes residents.