Ruining of Mammoth... The Question is Do you Care?

Gordon Alper former Mammoth Mayor submitted this to our Mammoth Messenger, The Sheet and Mammoth Times Editors.

While everyone was at home last night in the comfort of their warm homes, enjoying dinner with their families, watching a favorite TV show, or helping the kids with homework, your Town’s staff under the watchful eye of your Town Council was trashing our town.

We all thought that we had a Vision of our future and a set of guiding principles, called the Town Vision Statement, a general plan update, and enacted ordinances. Well think again. Mark Wardlaw, our chief protector of this vision, suggested or instructed, I don’t know which, Mammoth Mountain to design a structure at the top of Meridian that would ignore our values to create an “iconic structure”. This they have done. We will have a building that rises some 102 feet over two stories of underground parking that majestically steps down to 85’ and then finally to the ground. It will house all sorts of wonderful things. A neighborhood grocery, great restaurants, five star hotel and condominiums, an ice rink, a convention facility, and whatever else you can stuff in a 300,000 square foot structure, or something like that. This is after the Town staff supported another developer, who asked for a taller project that would also reduce set backs and increase his allowed density. This is after granting homeowners who request similar favors so that they can build their mountain mansion, or whatever. All of this while the nodding heads, Our Town Council, fall allover themselves in their praise of all things great and large.

What happened to our vision of a town where” development takes place in a way that respects the natural and social resources and enhances the quality of life…”, or where”… there is a small town image with architecture that reflects its mountain settings.” What happened to our ordinances that restrict the height of buildings to further this fine vision? What happened to the well thought out densities that are part of our accepted overall plan? I think it is safe to say that they are gone.

This only the beginning, this is just an ongoing escalation to see exactly how inattentive we really are. The planning is being done to propose a 200-foot Hotel complex somewhere inside the Sierra Star area. Should that not get your attention, look forward to the Mammoth Lakes Foundation master planning their property to house a whole new town, complete with what. Just stay tuned.

I think the real question is, do we care? I’ll bet the town council is banking on our continued unwillingness to protect our best interests. After all they have written off all previous attempts by interested citizens and groups to influence the process. Maybe they have it right! Maybe we just don’t care. Give us a little candy bar and shove us into a corner. I just wonder if that is really the way it is. Would you mind taking a few minutes to email your thoughts? Do you care? If the answer is yes, what should we do? Send email to:

Whocares93546@hotmail.com

Gordon Alper

Variances as a Rezoning Mechanism

November 11, 2006

To: Honorable Mayor Kirk A. Stapp and Members of the City Council

The following is a letter which we have sent to the Sheet. I ask that you consider our points for any future projects including the Lodestar matter.

Dear Editor:

Variances as a Rezoning Mechanism.

As one of many property owners and part-time residents of Mammoth Lakes, I have both a strong interest in, and less than perfect understanding of, the political catharsis that seems to be plaguing the General Plan review process. Apparently, we are still a long way from even the EIR for a General Plan Amendment, if one is to be forthcoming. So what is the current status of the directives and mandates of the existing General Plan?

The General Plan (GP) is the law and remains so until amended. All zoning and “discretionary” planning decisions must comply with the GP directives. Any zoning ordinances passed in compliance with the GP become the law as well. Projects that ask to vary from the GP must be denied as there are no “variances” allowed from the GP directives. Any variance that is to be granted from zoning requirements (like increased heights or coverage or decreased set-backs or the like) may only be granted if there are facts in the record before the City Council to allow the Council to make ALL of the following findings of fact (Gov. Code Section 65906, applicable to all cities):
1. The parcel must have special circumstances such as shape, topography or surroundings that are unlike properties in the area;
2. The parcel must be found to be one that will suffer a unique, non-economic hardship if the zoning rules are enforced that will deny the parcel benefits enjoyed by other parcels in the area;
3. It must be found that, by granting the variance, the parcel will not enjoy privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the area; and
4. The use of the property by way of the grant of variance must still be consistent with the directives of the General Plan.

If these requirements sound like a tall order to fill, they are and the cases in court that have interpreted this section have often determined that the variance requested does not have the facts to support all of these findings and, thus, must be denied.
The granting of variances may only occur in very unique instances and only when all four findings are supported by indisputable facts. That is a rare occasion. But sometimes cities get into a mode of ignoring the GP and zoning constrictions and grant variances without good foundation. That is the same as no planning and examples of the lack of planning abound in the unicorporated but urbanized areas of Southern California. Those unplanned areas from the 50s, 60s and 70s are now real headaches for the counties or the cities that incorporated around those areas.

What bothers those of us who are watching the evolution of projects in Mammoth that seek very significant variances is that the developers are not being deflected from seeking such variances at the outset of the process. While we cannot say for sure that they are “encouraged” to plan projects reliant on variances, we see that it is a common part of the request for variance that the developer claims it “has invested so much in the planning process” that denial of the variance will cause a severe hardship and might kill the project. What gave these very saavy people the initial idea that the variance would be granted at the end of the process such that they bet such those funds that the variance would be granted?

From where we sit, it looks like there is a serious lack of commitment to enforcement of the existing zoning. That can reveal itself in developer meetings with staff members, from one-on-one preapplication meetings with both Planning Commissioners and Council Members and in a general feeling that Mammoth will cave to the project presented. The City has in the pipeline several projects that will depend on very significant variances, including Lodestar on Minaret Road and the Cardinal “hotel/condo” project proposing an eight story monolith on Minaret Road at Mammoth Creek. Neither of these projects are supportable by application of current zoning without granting significant variances.

The residents and property owners of Mammoth Lakes have invested here based on zoning that comports to the GP. We are reasonable people that expect reasoned development. If there is to be change in the direction of this town, it may only be after the citizens and then Council take affirmative action to change the GP and then look to changes in the zoning ordinances. “Spot zoning”, which has been illegal in California for three decades, should not and legally cannot be accomplished by whole grants of variances. It is bad planning, bad government and a bad breach of the trust with the people. The Council should go on record that variances will be granted only in very rare instances and may not be used to “rezone” a property to suit a particular project. Then, such variances should be denied to developers who decided to roll the dice and gamble the future of our neighborhoods.

Respectfully submitted,



Bill Fischbeck

Town Council debates, but aims to make no decisions

Town Council debates, but aims to make no decisions
By Lara Kirkner Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Mammoth Times Staff Writer

"Why would we give up our quality of life to get things we can get anyway? Why bend over to developers, if you will?" -Gordon Alper The voters of June 2006 seem to have done a good job in picking a diverse collection of people for Mammoth Lakes' Town Council. The different insights they bring to the dais at every Town Council meeting make nights like last Wednesday bearable.
A lively discussion took place about what else-the General Plan Update. The council began a workshop discussion that ended up spilling over into an additional meeting the following night. The purpose of the discussion was to review the Town's vision statement as well as the policy items that have been brought forward by the Advocates for Mammoth, Mammoth Stakeholders as well as other groups in the community. The Town Council felt it was time to put their thoughts on the table in order to supply the Planning Commission with further ideas as they go through the General Plan Update. At the onset of the discussion Mayor Kirk Stapp and Councilwoman Wendy Sugimura stated that they had been working together to try and decide which policies should be removed from discussion in order to simplify the decision-making process, and to use the vision statement to provide a framework for discussing unresolved policies. The workshop was not, however, a place for council to make decisions on policy matters.
Sugimura stated that she and Stapp had worked on these items together, but both had come from a completely different viewpoint. It was interesting to work with such differing opinions. And the different views didn't end between Stapp and Sugimura.While Councilman Skip Harvey felt pieces of the vision statement should be recrafted, (for example instead of saying, "Mammoth Lakes is a year-round destination resort community based on diverse outdoor recreation and tourism," he felt the word tourism should be taken out and replaced with "multi-day events, use of alternate forms of energy and ambiance that attracts visitors,") Councilman John Eastman, and members of the audience, felt that use of alternate energy would work better in an earlier segment of the vision statement that talks about a high quality of life.
When discussion came around to density, it was clear that the diverse views of the Council leaked over into the audience as well. Some felt that density should not be given in order to get needed amenities out of developers. "Why would we give up our quality of life to get things we can get anyway," asked Mammoth local Gordon Alper. "Why bend over to developers, if you will?" Developer Chuck Lande surprised some with his views on density. "If a developer is allowed 48 units and they are asking for 72, it doesn't mean that you have to give it to them. It just means that leaders need to lead and say the rules are the rules." Harvey seconded that by saying, "We can't use amenities as negotiating tools; rules are rules and we can't bend them." As the conversation rolled around to the next obvious point-People at One Time (PAOT)- Stapp stated that they needed to decide whether or not a number should be picked or the town should just wait for development and planning to dictate how many people could fit into town at one time. Again, the workshop was not a time for decision-making, but the Council did want to get through all the policy items before their Peer Resort Tour, which they are attending this week, so that they would have questions to ask other resorts when they visit them. Other TC news Updates were presented for progress on Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access (MLTPA), the Mammoth Lakes Fire Department's Strategic Plan, and the Town's air quality monitoring from the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District. Most noteworthy was the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District's request for financial assistance from the Town for the PM10 monitoring the District does for the Town at no cost at this time. Mammoth Lakes continues to exceed state standards for air quality but is meeting national standards, according to Ted Schade of the District. Council approved, 5-0, to authorize the Town Manager to execute a consulting agreement with PCR (a consulting group) to enable Town staff and PCR to complete the response to comments and final EIR for the General Plan Update by mid-December. Lastly, Council appointed Sugimura to represent them at MLTPA's Summit Conference the first weekend of November. Sugimura will be the official representative even though other members of the Council plan to attend.

Mammoth Lakes' Vision Statement as it reads today (remember, this is what the Town aims to be)
"Surrounded by uniquely spectacular scenery and diverse four-season recreation opportunities, the community of Mammoth Lakes is committed to providing the very highest quality of life for its residents and the highest quality of experience for its visitors.

I. The Mammoth Lakes community places a high value on the sustainability and continuity of our unique relationship with the natural environment. As stewards, we support that relationship with visitors as one way of maintaining our high quality of life.

II. Mammoth Lakes is a great place to live and work because it is a strong, diverse yet cohesive, small-town community that supports families and individuals by providing a stable economy, high quality educational facilities and programs, and a broad range of community services including a participatory Town government.

III. Mammoth Lakes has adequate and appropriate housing that its residents and workers can afford.

IV. Mammoth Lakes is a year-round destination resort community based on diverse outdoor recreation and tourism.V. Mammoth Lakes has limited its urbanized area to protect its environment and to support its small-town atmosphere.

VI. Mammoth Lakes has maintained high standards for development and design while allowing for a variety of styles that are complementary and appropriate to the Sierra Nevada alpine setting.

VII. Mammoth Lakes has a variety of transportation options that emphasize connectivity, convenience, and alternatives to personal vehicle use with a strong pedestrian emphasis.

Are the Powers In Mammoth Listening To What They Do Not Want To Hear?

John Bisnar a long time Visitor to Mammoth Wrote

You can share what I wrote with whom you want. You can use my name, just do not give them my email address. I get enough junk as it is. You can share and post the following:

Our family tradition for the last 23 years is to have two, 7-8 day trips, some mid-week trips and a few weekend trips to Mammoth each year. Before the children I skied Mammoth thirty to sixty days a year. My wife and I will usually enjoy a ski trip each month during the season. Our children started skiing and then snowboarding from the time they could walk. Over the years, friends, relatives, children's friends and then spouses have joined us.

It has become much to expensive for the family even when we are paying for accommodations and feeding them. They do not want their parents to have to pay for everything so that they can come along and have fun. Mammoth, at least for our family, is no longer a family friendly place to enjoy winter sports. It is just to expensive. During the high season, a good number of the Mammoth lodge keepers, service providers and eating establishments seem to have developed an attitude about us "flat landers" coming to "their mountain". Notice I said, "good number", some of the establishments are great no matter how busy they are.

For my wife and I, the increase is not as impactful. However, for the rest of the family it is a killer. It use to be that we all had season tickets. However, once we skipped a year of the season ticket, we could no longer purchase them in the Spring. What does it cost for a family of eight adults to ski for the day?

When you count the grueling and dangerous drive (is anyone aware of how many accidents and deaths occur to and from Mammoth each ski season), the outrageous accommodation prices (most of which are old, tired and seriously outdated), the price of lift tickets and food, the fun is seriously dissipated.

The last two seasons we have been mixing up where we ski. We found that it was less expensive and easier to get to Utah and Tahoe. We flew. We had our deposit down to purchase a half-million dollar time share in Mammoth when we seriously started investigating other resorts. We pulled our deposit and bought in Tahoe.

Especially now that some of our children are no longer in Southern California, it is much easier to fly into Reno than to try to get to them to Mammoth. With season ticket prices in Tahoe so reasonable compared to Mammoth, day tickets being less expensive, with accommodations more reasonable, with more entertainment, we have moved on. We will always love Mammoth Mountain for its varied terrain and our wonderful memories.

We have heard that the powers in Mammoth want to model Mammoth after Vail with its price exclusionary unspoken policy which caters only to the very wealthy. If it is true, they are doing a good job of it. Not everyone who can pay, will play that game however. The town's accommodations on a whole do not support the prices being charged for lodging and lift tickets.

Price gougers are the first to be hurt during weak economic times.

John Bisnar

Developer Spin or Story Poles... who’s telling stories about proposed Mammoth Developments?

This evening the Mammoth Town Council will be discussing instituting a policy of requiring developers to erect Story Poles on the site of a proposed development so the height, mass, density and sets backs of buildings can be evaluated and the impact be sorted out on a more real and accurate scale. Second home owners and residents want Town Council to know what they think of Story Poles so they sent the members of the Mammoth Town Council these letters prior to tonight’s meeting.

Click on Comments and let us know what you think about Story Poles?

October 3, 2006

Sent by Facsimile and U.S. First Class Mail

The Honorable Mayor Kirk A. Stapp
Members of the City Council
City of Mammoth Lakes, California
P.O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546

Re: Story Pole Policy

Dear Mayor Stapp and City Council Members:

I urge the City to adopt a requirement that story poles be erected to show the outline and heights for any property for which any variation from permitted heights is requested, whether by variance, specific plan, or otherwise. Story poles play an important role in making a determination of the actual impact a project will have on the surrounding properties and public streets.

My attention has been drawn to this for Mammoth Lakes in that I am a part time resident of Mammoth Creek. The Cardinal Investments project under discussion next door has been suggested to be in excess of the thirty-five foot limit. Heights that have been suggested running from forty-three feet to fifty-five feet to sixty-three feet and now discussions of an eight story building. However, height is only a part of the issue inasmuch as this project is proposed to be condensed with all of its density in a small area closest to the surrounding properties. Thus, the combination of mass and height is difficult to picture without the help of story poles.

Also, I recommend that the City employ a policy that requires such a project to include accurate digital photos taken from strategic points on the surrounding properties as well as from the public streets with the project superimposed so that this massing impact of both height and breadth can be visualized.

I have been involved in land use work for 25 years in Southern California. I can tell you that story poles were reluctantly accepted in some cities but now have become the norm in those cities relied upon by planners, developers and the community. This is a logical step for Mammoth to take given the type of developments that seem to be in process or under review.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

William L. Fischbeck


Dear Mammoth Lakes Town Council Members and Mammoth Lakes Planning Commissioners:

I am the Vice President of the Board for the Snowflower Homeowners Association of Mammoth ("Snowflower"), in addition to being the lead participant on behalf of Snowflower in the collective discussions amongst our Association and those of Mammoth Creek and Sunrise relative to the proposed development of the "Mammoth Creek site" by Cardinal Investments ("Cardinal").

It has come to our attention that at your October 4, 2006 Town Council Meeting, an agenda item slated for discussion is the possible suggestion/recommendation that Cardinal place story poles on the Mammoth Creek site delineating the scale and scope of their intended development. We would strongly encourage such a request to be made of Cardinal at this time. Should I be mistaken and the agenda item relative to story poles is generic, then I apologize for the misunderstanding and would therefore strongly encourage that story poles be used on all development sites throughout Mammoth seeking a change in the height allowance; including and starting with the Mammoth Creek site.

Given the various development schemes contemplated by Cardinal, we would promulgate that multiple color coded story poles be used at the Mammoth Creek site and placed there for a period of not less than 120 days.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the herein contained request.

Tom Cherry


Skip Harvey Mayor Pro Tem & Town Council

I see your name on the Story Pole Policy agenda item. I am writing to ask the Town Council to adopt a story pole policy that requires developers to install story poles on proposed development properties starting with the ADP process running through the public hearing process. It is my opinion the planning staff and planning commission should not take on the review of any proposed developments that do not meet current general plan zoning height limits, setbacks and density requirements. It is an ineffective use of time and town resources. The council should instruct town staff to hand back to Developers any plans submitted that do not meet current general plan zoning height limits, set backs and densities.

If the town staff and planning commission takes on the review of projects that do not fit in the zoning, I believe the council should require developers to put up Story Polls if the proposed development exceeds current general plan height, setback and density zoning. I feel Story Poles should remain up a minimum of 120 days allowing residents, visitors and second home owners the opportunity to evaluate whether or not the proposed height, building mass and setbacks meet the current zoning that states “Only those uses are permitted that are complementary to and can exist in harmony with such residential developments.” (Ord. 93-10 1 (part), 1993).

Story Poles will tell the true story about the scale of proposed development and whether or not it is “complementary to and can exist in harmony with such residential developments.” Developer artistic renderings are more spin than substance and do not adequately show the impact their proposed project will have on town and neighborhoods in town. The Village and 8050 are perfect examples. They looked good on paper but now that they are built, I hear things like “how could they let them build something like that.” Keep Resort Corridor Village type projects in the Village.

As you know I have been a reservation business owner in Mammoth since 1981 and a thread that has been running through conversations I have had with my rental guests the past few years has been “I do not like what has been happening in Mammoth and I do not like coming to Mammoth as much as I once did.” I want residents, second home owners and visitors to our community to see what is being planned and encouraged to comment on the story the poles will tell. I urge the council to implement requiring developers to install story poles so we can more accurately see what is proposed and truly hear what people think about the proposed developments. I am on the front lines of helping our visitors enjoy all Mammoth has to offer and they are commenting on the direction of Mammoth and they do not like where we are headed. I believe I am hearing our Visitors correctly, what the town is doing is beginning to have a negative effect on the quality of our visitor’s experience when they are in Mammoth. There is a problem starting to develop out there we can not ignore please put up story poles and tell the whole story. I ask the council to require developers to erect Story Poles so you too can start hearing the complete story.

Steve Schwind
Mammoth Resort & Recreation Real Estate Since 1981

Proposed Development Old Mammoth Rd & Minaret Rd

Newt Waldman a Mammoth Second Homeowner Since 1981 wrote us this letter.

Re: Cardinal Development

I have been an owner in Mammoth Lakes since 1981. I am not a NIMBY and have written to the Mammoth News in opposition to the people who want Mammoth Lakes to remain in a time warp of fast food outlets and tee shirt shops. I have never been concerned about rezoning because the Town of Mammoth Lakes Vision Statement calls for new construction to be compatible with the area to be built in.

Perhaps the Planning Commission can explain to me and others how a 70 or 80 foot high building is considered compatible with the surrounding complexes. If the proposed height were not enough of an outrage, the proposed building is completely out of place in the proposed area. It looks like something one would see in Disneyland or in Los Angeles as a Law or Medical building.

It would appear that Cardinal Development over-paid for the property and is now seeking the Planning Commission’s help in bailing them out. I do not believe that is the role of the Commission. I asked myself the following questions;

1. Why is the Commission ignoring present zoning for the proposed construction site?

2. Why is the Commission ignoring the Mammoth Lakes Vision Statement?

3. Can the Town itself be trusted when future buyers relying on the zoning in place when they buy are subsequently confronted with outrageous changes or non-conforming variances next door?

4. Does the Commission as a whole or do individuals on the Commission have some vested interest in the Cardinal project that is or might color their decisions, and

5. Is the Commission prepared to bail out by zoning changes or variances anyone who has overpaid for a particular property in Mammoth Lakes?

I do not know the answer to any of the questions propounded. However, I do know this; there is no logic in approving a project, any project which is so out of place with the surrounding area without some ulterior and suspect motivation. The lot remained unsold for years and years because much of the lot is unusable. It is not the job of the Planning Commission to turn a “sow’s ear into a silk purse”. It is the job of the Commission to protect the Town of Mammoth Lakes and its homeowners and see that development progresses in a rational and orderly manner compatible with the Mammoth Lakes Vision Statement. You have taken it upon yourselves to turn Mammoth Lakes into some thing it is not. I consider your actions self-serving and selfish in the least and perhaps actionable in the main.

Newton I. Waldman, Sunrise homeowner since 1981.

Visit Meadow Stables and Turn Around

This letter just in from Julie Beck, who's been visiting Mammoth regularly for over 40 years and owned several pieces of property in Mammoth for much of that time:

As this debate over views and height restrictions regarding the development of the Minaret and Meadow Lane corner evolves through the politics of Mammoth Lakes residents and city representatives, it might be beneficial for all to make a trip out to the meadow stables, turn around, face Mammoth Mountain and take in the view of the surroundings. What you will see are 2 and 3 story developments. From this point of view, even the height of The Village - the ONE exception for height restrictions as promised by the town leaders - seems to blend into the surroundings because of one thing and only one thing - its location on the upside of the hill above town. As your eye travels left and right, all you see are 'mountain' inspired buildings, open spaces and the lovely vistas of Sherwin Mountain, Mammoth Mountain, and the others.

No where do you see a massive 7 or 8 story glass, stucco, view-blocking condo-hotel tower. Vertical slabs of a sky-high condo-filled building stacked to the skies would obliterate the once all-scenic mountain views.

The people at Cardinal Investments should be ashamed of the themselves. Property is private and open spaces are public. You are not only destroying the ambiance of the entire area, you are creating an eyesore equal only to the disgusting high-rises found in Miami Beach - NOT Mammoth Lakes!!! And, it is not only an eyesore for the immediate surrounding area, but for the entire town.

I have several friends who are more than willing to shuttle these malignant view blocking vultures, power point presentations and all, to the airport, bus station or car rental agency and out of our town!! There are plenty of flights from LAX, John Wayne, Long Beach, Burbank, San Diego, etc. to cities who, over the last decades, have embraced greedy investors and builders. I'm sure that they would be welcome in any of these concrete jungles - just not in Mammoth Lakes. If we, as visitors and residents, wanted to live or visit another high rise, we wouldn't make the 6-hour drive to a place of wonder - trees, mountains, and lovely vistas - sans the high rise condominiums.

So, to the City Council, the Planning Commission, etc. - do the job that you were elected to do. Stop this ridiculous development in its tracks. That property was clearly zoned with a maximum of units and height. Show Cardinal and any other investment company that Mammoth Lakes can't be bought, threatened or conned into changing zoning just to insure their profit margins. Owners and visitors come to Mammoth Lakes for what Mammoth Lakes is - an escape from the rampant urban defiling of nature and its beauty. Keep it that way!

Amen.

Keeping The Town on its toes

Commentary
Keeping the Town on its toes
By Lara Kirkner Monday, September 18, 2006 5:16 PM CDT
Mammoth Times Staff Writer

No decisions have been made, no variances given, but people in the Town of Mammoth Lakes are nervous. So nervous in fact, that talk of Town staff allowing developers to run rampant fills conversations, even though many of the major projects have not even been through official public hearings, let alone been finalized. I understand the concern and I too get caught up in the fear of skyscrapers in Mammoth, so when neighbors of the Sherwin, a condo-hotel project that is being discussed for the corner of Old Mammoth Road and Minaret Road, expressed their concern that Town officials are breaking away from the vision of Mammoth and not listening to the community, I listened and began to believe... and then I made a call to Chair of the Planning Commission Roy Saari.
A calming presence on any occasion and a very levelheaded man, Saari explained that he didn't even have an opinion of the project yet, much less a final decision."Cardinal Investments (the proponent of the Sherwin), has gone back to the drawing boards and won't be presenting the project again to the public for another month or two," Saari said. "People around the project want sprawl and not height, but sprawl may not be accessible for the public. I need to hear public comment because as of now we have only heard from the neighbors of the property, not the whole community."
Yet the neighbors of the property speak with a strong voice-approximately 60 of them showed up at a neighborhood meeting regarding the Sherwin on Aug. 4, according to Janna Kiraly who owns a condo at Mammoth Creek Condos with her husband Karch." When I bought my condo, my real estate agent told me it was zoned for 35-foot [high] condominiums," Kiraly said. "I believed I would never lose my Mammoth Mountain view." At this point Kiraly says she feels very ripped off by the Town.
"They are allowing the builders to make money and I will lose money," she said. Local realtor and resident at Sunrise Condos, another neighbor of the Sherwin property, Steve Schwind, who has been in Mammoth since 1981, claims that the "major heartburn we are having is that nothing else in the area is above 35 feet. The property should be laid out comparable to the rest of the area." When asked how he would lay out the Sherwin, Schwind said, "Mammoth Creek Condos have a great layout on a piece of land that is about the size of the Sherwin lot. Mammoth Creek has 60 units and the Sherwin is zoned for 63, so I would probably lay it out similarly to Mammoth Creek." Schwind emphasized that the neighbors around the Sherwin are not opposed to development on the lot, and Kiraly seconded the idea when she said that she always knew something would be built there." We believe in private property rights but we also believe in following the guidelines," Schwind said. The catch in all of this is that Cardinal Investments is asking for the height variance in exchange for offering open space around Mammoth Creek for the public. Basically dangling a carrot in front of our noses in order to get what they want." To get a variance you have to offer something to the community," Saari said, and I'm not sure yet if the height they are asking for is a good tradeoff for the open space. Schwind adamantly feels it is not. "We are surrounded by open space, they (Cardinal) shouldn't get extra height for it." Cardinal Investments requested a maximum height for the Sherwin project of 75-85 feet at a Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 9 in order to keep 45 percent of the property available for a conservation easement. What we all have to remember is that things have not been set in stone yet. Luckily (in this case) our Town government moves at a slow pace and major projects such as the Clearwater, the Sherwin and Mammoth Crossing still have a long way to go before they are finalized, and will definitely go before the public first. It's hard to say at this point whether Town officials are turning a deaf ear on the public and straying away from our vision statement when they haven't made any major decisions yet. It is great to know, however, that our community is paying attention and is not afraid to speak its mind since Town officials are taking these major projects into consideration. Now is the time to make concerns known. Let's keep sending them back to the drawings boards until they get it right.

Mammoth Times Report

On August 9th, Jesse Langley and Kyle Ransford of Cardinal Investments made a second presentation regarding the 5.24 acre Sherwin parcel to the Mammoth Lakes Planning Commission. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Mammoth Times report (by Lara Kirkner, Aug. 17-23, 2006 edition, bold emphasis added by us) about the event:

The Sherwin Lands again

Jesse Langley and Kyle Ransford of Cardinal Investments brought updated information to the Commission regarding the Sherwin project, which is still in the pre-application process. Aug. 9 was the second workshop for the project planned for the 5.24-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Old Mammoth Road and Minaret Road.

Since the first workshop on April 19 the proposed project has been shown to neighbors surrounding the property in order to receive their feedback. One of the biggest problems with the project when it was first presented was the wall of three- to four-story buildings that it planned to create. The unit size and number, site configuration and building orientation of the project drove the long wall, according to the Town's Advisory Design Panel (ADP).

With 45 percent of the site being planned for a conservation easement, plus the need for setbacks from Mammoth Creek, Langley and Ransford stated they are looking at a challenging location with a buildable area of 35 percent once all is said and done. According to the two men, they could balance the setbacks on the site by going higher with the structures. Instead of three to four story buildings, they are now opting for seven- to eight-story buildings, which, while breaking up the wall effect they had at first, would make the height of the buildings between 75 to 85 feet. A maximum height of 45 feet with a parking inducement is allowed at the site.

Bill Fishbeck, speaking on behalf of the homeowners surrounding the project site, stated that the project looks like a prime example of the tail wagging the dog. According to Fishbeck, the site is zoned for condominiums, not condo-hotel as the applicants are designing it.

"Sixty-three units are allowed under the condo zoning, which would put the project at 95,000 square feet," Fishbeck said. "The applicant is proposing 93 condo-hotel units," which would put the project at over 100,000 square feet. Basically the applicants are putting twice the mass on half the lot compared to half the density on the entire lot, he added.

"Now is the time to let developers know what you want and that this is not acceptable," Fishbeck said.

Again, the plans are still in study session mode. Dr. Anthony Nagy pointed out that the type of height being proposed may not even be feasible and stated that a group called Test America was actually drilling at the site to test the water levels in order to make sure that the ground could handle the mass of the project.

Note that Cardinal Investments wants to build a seven- to eight-story hotel with bar and restaurant, which would be utterly out of character for this part of Mammoth Lakes. This area instead is composed almost solely of condominiums.

Neighborhood Meeting with Cardinal Investments

On August 4th two men from Cardinal Investments made a presentation to neighbors regarding their proposal to develop the 5.24 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Old Mammoth Road and Minaret Road. Several of us attended this presentation and here are some of the impressions we came away with:

1. 
   

First Light

Almost up and running, testing a post and a picture here.