theSheetNews.com

Imagine you are Mammoth Lakes Town Councilmember Jo Bacon. Now, imagine you are Bacon looking up and finding yourself under a political bus, asking yourself, “How in the heck did I get here?” Good question. The answer: former Town Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw.

Well, not Wardlaw himself, but rather local developer and entrepreneur Jim Demetriades. It seems that recently the development-conservative Bacon was mentioned in a “Comments” exchange on The Sheet’s website between Demetriades and local Ken Warner over an item The Sheet published regarding Wardlaw’s resignation from the Town to take a new post with the County of San Diego. (He finished his tenure with the Town on Thursday.)

What seems to have triggered the exchange was a note by Sheet Publisher Lunch that read, “Editors Note: On the downside, it took about 60 public meetings to shepherd through the Old Mammoth Place project, which never got built  — a fair microcosm of Wardlaw’s tenure.”

Old Mammoth Place developer Demetriades took issue with that point, and championed Wardlaw in a reply, saying in part, “Mark Wardlaw did a great job on Old Mammoth Place. And as the owner I was very happy with his work. The issue is with those that call themselves the Advocates (I call them the UNadvocates), including people like Jo Bacon and that destroyed Mammoth. They tried to shut down every project they could and chased away all the possible revenue there was. Hence, nothing got done nor will it, until people appreciate development. More June Lake, anyone?”

Warner chimed in, supporting Bacon, writing, “And thank God for people like Bacon and the UNAdvocates who see through the lies and empty promises, and do what they can to protect us from big money, special interest carpetbaggers … It’s not development that is bad. It’s bad development that is bad, and your Old Mammoth Place was B. A. D. and was a great example of how to destroy a neighborhood.”

Dating back almost three years prior to Bacon’s election to Council in 2008 (after serving on Mammoth’s Planning Commission), OMP first debuted as The Clearwater, but subsequently went through the hands of different architects, partner changes (former partner Rick Rosenberg was ousted) and a name change to Old Mammoth Place. Almost from the outset, the project drew a raft of criticism, not only with regards to zoning, but also height (and its potential viewshed impacts on the nearby mountains and other scenery) and density.

How did Bacon end up in the line of fire? She has no idea. “I don’t know where this is coming from,” she said. “I voted on the Neighborhood District Plan for that area, but that was more community centric. I recused myself on any voting on his specific project, since I have property close to it, well within the margin establishing conflict of interest.”

In June 2009, when Council initially approved a maximum height for the site of 55 feet, site considerations and an architectural “oversight” prompted Demetriades to request an additional 9.5 feet of height for some proposed buildings.

Late Councilmember Skip Harvey didn’t care for the rationalizations. “This is about a manmade structure dominating the landscape,” he said. “This project will be 30 to 40 feet higher than surrounding properties … I need to show the people of this community I take our General Plan seriously.”

In April 2010, Demetriades weathered a major hurricane, when he and attorney Mark Carney, the project’s legal counsel, persuaded Town Council to reject an appeal of the use-permit and tentative tract map during a contentious four-hour meeting that involved lots of heated public comment. Bacon abstained. In December 2010, after numerous appearances before Planning Commissioners and Council for a variety of issues, Council voted 3-1 to uphold a 4-1 Planning Commission decision to grant a District Zoning Amendment. The most controversial part of the DZA was the part about measurement of height. Bacon again abstained.

Cut to present day and in the current economic environment, any such major development as OMP is completely at a standstill. That, however, doesn’t mean that as a conversation piece development is a totally dead issue, just dormant. After all, once the MLLA settlement is put to bed, development will almost certainly be revived as topic of conversation again.

“We all want Mammoth to succeed,” Demetriades noted, but added that there is a difference between grand ideas [i.e. year round Olympic class ice rinks, Olympic aquatic training facilities, etc., as suggested by Warner] and reality.” Individual big name donors build those types of multi-million dollar amenities in resort locations that can sustain them, Demetriades indicated. “There’s no money for those,” he went on to say. “Do you think the Town has the money? Do you think June Lake has the money? And if you do have that kind of big money, why would you go to Mammoth first? We have to grab the bull by the horns and quit living in fantasy land.”

The crux of the issue is development and its future, as well as what that means to the next generation of job seekers. “My big concern: all those college kids with four-year degrees, none of whom can make a mortgage payment,” he stated.

He’s bearish on development scene, calling for a flat market at best for the next few years, barring some significant changes. “If Mammoth Mountain Ski Area is sold in the next 12 to 24 months, and there’s say $100 million in improvements put into the Main Lodge and so on, then all bets are off,” he opined. Failing that, if President Obama is re-elected, he’s not optimistic about anything happening until the administration after that. And if Mitt Romney is elected, he says only, “We’ll see.”

As for Bacon, she said she welcomes any new discussion, and in fact agrees with Demetriades on at least one point. “It has to sustainable, and in keeping with the reality of the market today, as opposed to what it was five or six years ago,” she told The Sheet. If some of that involves taking another look at entitlements for stalled hotel/condo projects, so be it. “Look at the Altis project, as an example. They came to the Town and said we can’t build it and get it to pencil without adding single-family homes. Great, go for it,” she added.

Town to developers: If you push, we’ll play dominoes

In an effort to “get everyone on the same page regarding plans and work programs,” the Town of Mammoth’s Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw and Public Works Director Ray Jarvis pulled together the Town’s commissions on Wednesday to review the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP).

“The CIP is a short to mid-term plan and the PFFP is long-range,” Wardlaw explained to the commissioners.

The CIP is a thorough and comprehensive approach to planning for asset management and capital improvement projects while the PFFP will describe the scope, available financing tools and opportunities, priority, and timing for each individual project or facility.

“The PFFP integrates and reconciles facilities cited in varies planning documents,” Wardlaw said. “It will help determine the best financing and implementation tools and will serve as the basis to recalibrate DIF.”

DIF needs to be recalibrated because one of the purposes of all of these exercises is to prepare Mammoth to emerge from the recession and the still unknown outcome of the lawsuit settlement ready to attract investment.

“We want to build a more collaborative process,” Wardlaw said. “We want to end up with a program that is prioritized and get a return on investment. We need to focus on a long-term fiscal strategy.”

Chuck Lande of Snowcreek Resort attended the meeting and found the plans energizing, but the timeline too long.

“It’s great that we are getting Mammoth ready to take advantage of opportunities as we emerge from the recession, but the timeline doesn’t really get things started for eight months,” Lande said. “We need to get developers engaged sooner. It’s critical to tell the public that we have changed and want to incentivize.”

Wardlaw explained that staff would be moving the process as quickly as it could, and that he believed it would be receiving direction from Council by January or February 2012.

For now, each commission will be responsible for reviewing the portions of the CIP and PFFP projects and facilities specific to its expertise and focus, i.e. the Recreation Commission will responsible for reviewing recreation projects and facilities such as the Whitmore Pool and the Community Tennis Courts.

The commissions will work to understand the facilities that the Town already has, and will try to determine how to improve and prioritize them.

“We need to come up with this list before we determine how to pay for it,” Jarvis explained of the order of the process.

The commissions’ pieces will then be funneled up to the newly appointed Capital Facilities Committee, which will integrate all of the pieces together and work to come up with financing options.

The Town Council approved the Capital Facilities Committee at its Oct. 5 meeting. It is made up of Mayor Jo Bacon and Councilman Rick Wood, Planning Commission Chair Jay Deinken, Airport Commissioner Pam Murphy, Mobility Commission John Vereuck (and/or Sandy Hogan), Diane Eagle, Dan O’Connell, Chuck Lande and Jim Smith.

All that’s required: $6 million in public assistance

Kenny Rogers knew when to hold ‘em and knew when to fold ‘em.

Maybe we should hire him as a consultant.

Because no matter what we do in Mammoth, no matter how we try to clarify our building codes or recalibrate DIF (Development Impact Fees), the point is, when a developer wants to do business here, it’s gonna turn into a bazaar, a bizarre, an arm wrestle with Sly Stallone, a medieval joust. You can throw out every rule you’ve ever invented when a guy with deep pockets swings by with a cart full of produce when your cupboards are bare.

Mammoth View is the latest developer to come to the table, in search of a development agreement with the Town.

Mammoth View insists it wishes to build.

The skeptics insist the company is just after entitlements it will ultimately sell to the next guy.

You probably know more about Mammoth View than you think you do. The owner is Britannia Pacific. The project is located on Main Street just up from Norco and encompasses the Swiss Chalet, the former Cervino’s site and the former Ice Creamery site. Brittania Pacific is responsible for the geothermal drilling at Alpine Circle.

The particulars

A 54-room “boutique” hotel, 24 townhouse condos and 28 freestanding condo “cabin” units are planned on the 5.51-acre site.

According to the feasibility study prepared by consultant Walter Kieser, a restaurant, a whopping 1,000-square feet of retail and a small spa featuring two treatment rooms are among the included amenities.

The study contemplates the project fetching $700/square foot for the residential condo units, though the current market price for high-end condos, according to one local expert, tops out at $450/square foot.

The hotel would be situated along Mountain View Blvd., and curl left past Z Bar Ranch up towards Alpine Circle.

The residential units would be located atop the hill.

Total building area: estimated at approximately 170,000-square feet.

Total building cost: estimated at approximately $75 million.

Total estimated profit margin to the developer (calculated by Kieser) if everything goes as planned: 2%.

It’s the last number which prompts the conversation about a Development Agreement. The developer is requesting up to $6.1 million of financial assistance from the Town of Mammoth Lakes in the form of fee reductions and tax credits.

Padding the bottom line by $6 million would increase the developer’s anticipated profit margin from 2% to 10%.

The question Councilmember Jo Bacon asks is “How do you give away money you don’t have?”

Simple. You essentially waive a few million in development fees and grant a “tax holiday” for the rest.

Meaning, the hotel would collect T.O.T. and give it to the Town … but then the Town would just play a neat accounting trick and give it all back.

The hotel is projected to kick off about $630,000/year in room tax.

As part of the deal, mandated off-site improvements (sidewalks, undergrounding of utilities, et. al.) would receive future tax credits

The proposed holiday would be anywhere from three to five years.

Councilmember Matthew Lehman is torn about the D.A. On the one hand, he’s concerned about precedent. Other developers are bound to ask for the same concessions. On the other hand, you have to weigh three-year tax holiday against a future income stream. “If we don’t help them, do we have that income stream three years down the road? They’re all lofty ideas until someone puts a pick in the ground.”

Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw is supportive of a D.A.

As Wardlaw says, our fee structure for construction is entirely backward, as we disincentive the type of projects (hotels) which actually generate revenue for the town by charging higher fees.

“The tax holiday is not a policy … we’re ‘trying to seed the investment pool.’  This [Brittania] is a big-time company. If Mammoth View proceeds, it will establish momentum and show the world that Mammoth Lakes is a good place to conduct business (as opposed to Truckee, Napa, et. al.) … we’re shifting from preparing for investment to attracing investment. ”

Sheet: Would this [a tax holiday] be precedent setting?

Wardlaw: It takes the discipline of the Town to determine if and when tax holidays should be considered.

This type of D.A. deal is not without precedent. A May 4 story in the L.A. Times talked about how the downtown J.W. Marriott, which opened last year, negotiated $270 million in tax breaks through the year 2035 as a condition for building.

The proposed D.A. has provoked skepticism from many in the community, particularly those in the lodging industry.

As Ward Jones said wryly, “Let me think about [building] Holiday Haus if you’ll give me the same terms. Wouldn’t it behoove you to do [pursue] something that’s already entitled?”

“The only way it makes sense is if a shovel gets put in the ground within 12 months.”

The Sheet attempted to reach Eva Hill, President of Brittania Pacific, to ask if Brittania could agree to such a condition, but was unsuccessful.

Other skeptics included Bacon – “I haven’t seen anything in it to say it’s worth what they’re talking about. It looks like a giveaway to me” – and John Walter – “I get tired of fighting projects that are straw dogs.”

One realtor asked, “Have they [Brittania] asked the county for an abatement on property tax? Have they asked the state for an abatement on worker’s compensation?” His point being that when people are out there looking for handouts, they always approach the Town of Mammoth first.

To take you on a trip down memory lane, when Dave Harvey initially got entitlements in 2003 for a Private Residence Club/condo-hotel project situated approximately in the same location (minus the Ice Creamery piece) as part of Kern River Development, the project called for: 23 Private Residence Club units, 48 condo/hotel units, 37 off-site affordbale housing bedroooms, 233 underground parking spaces, a private restaurant/lobby, spa, meeting rooms, office areas, $2.5 million in off-site improvements and no variances.

Incomplete Pass

Caltrans District 9 Supervisor Tom Hallenbeck spoke at the Lions Club luncheon on Wednesday.  The target date for the opening of Tioga pass is June 30. Sonora Pass should be open by Memorial Day weekend.

Hallenbeck also announced that Caltrans is scheduled to widen the road shoulders near Topaz next summer. This will trequire closing 395 for 12-hour periods over a span of several weeks. It’s that or just shut the road down completely for two weeks, which isn’t realistic.

As most taxeaters are wont to do, Hallenbeck couldn’t help but bitch about the Caltrans budget. Caltrans is funded entirely by an .18/gallon gas tax, regardless of whether gas is priced at $1 or $5/gallon. And the higher prices affect consumption, which hurts the bottom line even more. “When you’re at $4 or $5 per gallon, what’s another nickel?” was his reasoning as to why the state gas tax should be increased.

A lot of us would say that extra nickel might cost $75/year. It ain’t chump change.

‘Course, this is the same organization which won’t approve wildlife signage on Highway 203 and claims that only seven deer and one bear have been hit on 203 in the past decade. As Councilman John Eastman said this week, “sometimes, seven deer get hit in a week.”

This just in courtesy of Cheryl Witherill: Darlene Minnie Benson (Lamfers), 63, a resident of Bishop and Mammoth Lakes for 38 years, passed away on May 17 at Bishop Care Center after a battle with cancer. Darlene worked at The 1849 Condominiums for more than 35 years. She moved to Bishop because she loved her flowers and garden more than the snow. Memorial services are TBD. Donations to ESBCA, Bishop Care Center and Mammoth Hospital Cancer Outreach Program would be appreciated. A full obit will run next week.

And from Geisel’s desk …

The Mono County Redistricting Committee, established by the Board of Supervisors earlier this month, held its first meeting on May 16 to establish its methodology for balancing the the county’s five supervisorial districts pas per the new 2010 Census totals. The 10-person committee (two from each district) now plans to launch a series of public meetings to involve the public in the redistricting process, and the first of these are set for this coming week. The first two are on May 23 in Mammoth at Suite Z, and May 25 in Lee Vining at the Community Center. More meetings are scheduled for June. We’ll have those dates in our next issue. Meetings are from 6-9 p.m. Agendas will be published in advance on the County’s site: www.monocounty.ca.gov. Spanish translation will be available. For more information, call C.D. Ritter at the County offices in Mammoth, 760.924.1804.

Those in attendance at Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting in Mammoth had to duck to avoid the snippy crossfire between Community Development Director Scott Burns and some of the Board members.

Burns took to the podium to pitch reshuffling of the CDD, asking to fill a vacant Permit Technician position, and replace the other four vacant CDD positions (assistant community development director, building official, senior planner, and FTS IV) with a new Permit Manager position (at will), and part-time clerical help (up to 30 hours per week for permit counters), among other changes to the building inspectors roster. He pushed his plan with gusto, but quickly ended up on the defensive against mounting resistance from Supervisors Larry Johnston and Tim Hansen. Supervisor Hansen said he’s flatly against any new hiring, especially given the current hiring freeze and diminished Board reserves. And Supervisor Johnston railed at increasing the Permit division, especially in light of the slow economy. Johnston added that the division was able to handle more than 80 permits a year during better economic times with just a Manager and a Tech.

Burns countered that more hands would allow them take on more tasks, including handling of environmental and other documents, but Johnston stuck to his position that more permitting staff just isn’t needed in a recessed economy with an average of just 1 permit per month being pulled.

As Board Chair Hap Hazard summarized, while the Board was generally sympathetic to where Burns was headed, the raft of items was deemed too complex and missing too many pieces for a simple up-or-down approval. Supervisors want more time to study some of the plans, how they would jibe (or not) with the forthcoming 2011-2012 budget, and what, if any changes would mean in terms of consistency, levels of service and overall efficiency between departments.

“We want to make sure the jobs get done,” Hazard said.

The Planning Department has been at the heart of some controversy since the departures last year of Public Works Director Evan Nikirk and Building Inspector Rick McManis, whose job is being covered by two previously lower-level inspectors splitting north and south county territories. Meanwhile, Interim Director Jeff Walters said he would remain at the post for at least another month or so until the Board can revisit Burns’ proposals.

Johnston says slash fees, spur development

Stimulus packages aren’t just for big government, and during Tuesday’s regular Board meeting in Mammoth, District 1 Mono County Supervisor Larry Johnston rolled out a Construction Stimulus Proposal to spur local building and development.

Johnston’s plan was made up of three parts: (1) elimination of Development Impact Fees (DIF), which was a plank in his platform while running for office; (2) elimination of building permit fees for energy-related improvements, such as solar panels, energy-efficient water heaters, window replacements, insulation, etc.; and (3) for a limited time period, such as 12 months, waive building permit fees for single family (stick-built) homes completed within an 18-month period.

“There’s a great sense of despair in the construction sector of the economy, which is probably the lowest it’s been in 20 years or more. People have had to leave town, it’s been very destructive,” Johnston said in his presentation remarks. “I believe this is something government can do and with minimal cost. If we can get some projects on the tax rolls, that would employ people, including some who would otherwise leave the area.”

New construction is to some degree based on national as opposed to local trends, but Johnston is convinced that some changes in the building code would help get shovels into Mono County ground. “Lack of development has as much impact on the [economy] as overdevelopment.”

Supervisor Byng Hunt was wary of scrapping DIF. “If we eliminate it, we have to refund the money already collected,” Hunt said. “If done properly, DIF has proven to be a benefit to many communities around California. There is definite value in having fees in place to offset the costs of development.” Hunt charged that Mammoth Lakes has dramatically dropped its DIF fees, and seen little or no effect on housing starts.

None of the capital projects which were slated to have been paid for in part by DIF revenues are going forward, Johnston said. At the rate things are going, he theorized it could take literally hundreds of years to collect enough fees to fund waiting projects.

He also railed at a later agenda item regarding updating the fee schedule. “Why should we spend $20,000 to update it? Is the fee going down with a new Capital Improvement Program? It’s only going to go up,” he said. Taking issue with Hunt’s note about refunding money, Johnston pointed out, “It’s not our money; it never was.”

“The reason for the slowdown is the economy,” Supervisor Tim Hansen opined. “We could be shooting ourselves in the foot and lose what little building fees we are getting. Maybe we have to define ‘impact.’ Subdivisions generate impact. I just think we can’t dump the whole thing.”

Supervisor Vikki Bauer restated her long-running stand against DIF fees, and reminded Hansen that the community of Lee Vining recently fought tooth and nail to be exempted from DIF. “And I don’t support spending money to revise [the fee schedule],” Bauer stated. “It’s going to be a money pit and a bureaucratic quagmire. We have, what … enough money to put in half a curb down about half of one side of a street?”

Chair Hap Hazard, however, has a different perspective. His district has roughly 250 lots approved for building, and with that in mind posited that the County’s approach to DIF is not ill-conceived, though he acknowledged it hasn’t been done appropriately. “I’ve got lots approved for building. Those homes are going to put a demand on the County for services,” Hazard said. “I’m not supportive of moving away from DIF as a whole. I think we need to look at what we need countywide.”

Tim Flynn, new Mammoth Contractors Association President, said the key word is stimulus. “You have to have a project to apply the fees to,” Flynn said. “The current fees aren’t doing anything anyway. From the private sector, I’d rather work than not. [The fees] are affecting whether people are building; numerous costs are going up.” In Mammoth, Flynn pointed to a preponderance of remodel projects, though he said there are some new homes pending, estimating that about 5 single-family permits have been pulled.

A $20,000 update of the DIF schedule met with some pushback, at least in terms of where the money’s spent. The majority of the Board seems to be banking on building and development coming back, splitting 3-2 on whether the schedule should be revised, with Bauer and Johnston dissenting. Having directed staff to proceed with the revision, that move was tempered by the consensus that the money would be better spent in-house, as opposed to hiring a consultant.

County Counsel Marshall Rudolph advised that the County also is prohibited from using any of the already-banked $296,000 in DIF to fund the revision, last updated in 2005. If the County is going to file a revised schedule, it has until the end of this fiscal year, since the 5-year legal window is getting ready to close.

Given the new CalGreen Title 24 standards that went into effect Jan. 1, the Board directed staff to proceed with developing language for Johnston’s green building proposals in items 2 & 3.

Chair Hazard also asked to add housing mitigation for removal consideration, which according to Rudolph technically qualifies as a form of DIF. “Let’s put a freeze on housing mitigation costs and process,” Hazard suggested. Bauer scoffed at the idea, saying that affordable housing fees amount to $300, a pittance compared to DIF, which can run $5,000. Affordable housing fees, she cited, only make a difference when building homes with a square footage of 2,500 or more. Housing mitigation is set for an April 19 Board review.

As for refunds, staff is also working on digging through building permit records to figure out who paid what; however, per the Board, it appears that no refunds will be issued until the fee schedule revision is completed.

By Jack Lunch

Rest assured, Mammoth. The rest of the country is just as dysfunctional as we are.
I flew back east last week to spend time with family in New Hampshire. As I was driving from the airport, I tuned in a local talk radio show. The topic: unemployment insurance.
There’s a new state law in New Hampshire which redefines “gross misconduct,” which, according to the Concord Monitor, is “a standard used to deny a fired employee unemployment benefits.”
The new law defines gross misconduct in the realm of stealing to thefts of $500 or more.
Meaning an employee can steal up to $500 from an employer, and if the employer catches him/her in the act and lets that person go, that person can still collect unemployment benefits.
State Senate candidate Andy Sanborn of Henniker was quoted in the Monitor as saying, “Governor Lynch says stealing is okay, just don’t take a lot, but if you do steal and get caught, don’t worry, the state will take care of you.”

Onto dubious efforts at belt-tightening and “efficiency.”
Friend, subscriber and occasional Sheet contributor Bruce Sacerdote teaches in the Economics Department at Dartmouth College. About a month ago, without forewarning, he and his colleagues arrived at work to discover that all their trashcans had been confiscated and replaced with cans the size of 44 oz. 7-11 Big Gulp cups.
An internal memo was then circulated which informed faculty members that in the interest of reducing waste, their trashcans had been downsized and from that point forward, they would have to empty their new Big Gulp cans in the dumpster located outside the building.
An excellent use of well-paid faculty time, n’est-ce pas?
A week into the experiment, the janitorial staff became so annoyed at the overflowing Big Gulps that they began surreptiously emptying the department’s trash at night.
By a week later, virtually all of the Big Gulps had been transformed into travel mugs and a junior faculty member was sent out to procure new trashcans.
So instead of reducing trash, the new policy actually ended up creating the need for 10 new trashcans. Nice. I expect they’ll be asking for an alumni donation any day now.

Then there was my firsthand look at the Upper Valley Aquatic Center. The 37,500 square foot facility opened last year in Hartford, Vt. It houses a 10-lane, 25 meter x 25 yard competition pool, a separate warm-water instructional pool, a splash park with water features and waterslide, state-of-the art fitness center and group fitness studio with a Kinesis Wall.
Executive Director Tim Rollings told me that the facility had recently hosted the Vermont state swim championships, featuring approximately 700 competitors.
Rollings then told me about the dedicated group of civic activists who tirelessly worked for years to make the Aquatic Center a reality.
“How’d you fund it?” I asked.
That’s when I learned about the $20 million anonymous donation.
So it’s nice to plan and have big dreams, but it’s even nicer when $20 million just drops out of the sky. And no, I didn’t ask any follow-up questions about what percentage of the project was paid for by development impact fees.

Mammoth has long been accused of being a resort in search of an identity. This lack of an identity, critics say, has made us look outward – that we wish to model ourselves after some other resort versus creating our own vision.
Well, those concerns can now be laid to rest, thanks to the organizers/promoters of Mammoth’s best new big-time “event,” Mammoth Rocks.
Mammoth Rocks, which takes place in the Village next weekend, was headlined by the Neil Diamond cover band “Super Diamond” last year. This year, they’ve expanded the lineup to include eight cover bands of rock icons such as the Rolling Stones and U2.
So the reason this event fits Mammoth so well is because WE ARE the derivative resort, featuring the very best in derivative entertainment, and perhaps by celebrating our derivativeness, we become anti-derivative. We are the unabashed celebrators of cheese. The Sears and Roebuck of cheese, if you will. Dave McCoy (and a happy 95th to Mr. McCoy this week) always talks about having fun. And cheesy tribute bands are fun. Give us your huddled masses and we’ll sell them t-shirts and beer and a stroll around the food court and maybe even hand them a cheap, tawdry and free tabloid newspaper that they can also use as a parasol.
I like it. Don’t give me the “1” hotel. Give me the “6” – Motel 6. Don’t give me the Ritz-Carlton. I only want a Ritz if it’s got cheese on it. And forget some knockoff of Vail’s Main Street plan. I want Bob Segers’s Main Street. Which means, I suppose, that I’ll have to lobby Mammoth Rocks to hire the Sam Morrison band (a Segers tribute band) for next year.
Mammoth does rock. Have a great time next weekend. Just keep your daughters a safe distance from the Wayward Sons.
One brief additional note. Say goodbye to Mike McKenna next Thursday evening at the Clocktower Cellar beginning at 6 p.m.
And from Geisel’s desk …

She’s baaaack …

Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting saw one of those little consent agenda items garner anything but consent.
Supervisor Hap Hazard pulled an item entitled “Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Application.” Hazard told his fellow Board members that the way he reads the language, the grant would essentially mean that the $300,000 Mono County would get from the $66 million, three-cycle grant would amount to Mono’s de facto support of AB 32, aka the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which has been decried as California’s version of a “cap and trade” energy bill.
“The language makes it pretty clear that we’d be going down that road and endorsing this [AB 32] thing,” he stated.
The grant also contains the phrase “promoting equity,” but isn’t specific as to how “equity” is defined or what it applies to. Community Development Director Scott Burns, who co-authored the staff’s item (along with department analyst Wendy Sugimura), defended the application. “What we’re faced with is the greenhouse gas issue; either way we’re going to have to deal with it,” Burns said. He went on to suggest that the  “sustainable communities” part of the grant is consistent with Mono County’s General Plan. “If we update the General Plan, and don’t buy into any of this, we’ll have to conduct an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) to justify taking that position. We can use it to update the General Plan, which we have to do anyway. In the past we’ve always applied for grants to help pay for General Plan updates.”
True. This grant, however, smacks of a sort of political extortion. Red flag: the Sustainable Communities grant requires no matching funds, which can work for and against the applicant. Cashing the check means instant money, but can also mean a binding agreement with the state, leaving the County vulnerable to whatever mandates are handed down.
“You take their money and it’s very attractive, but when the state starts implementing things, they come back and tell you that you’re on the hook,” Hazard pointed out to the Board.
Board Chair Byng Hunt appeared to agree. “On a practical level alone, submitting bills for reimbursement, given the state’s economic situation, seems problematic,” he observed.
Another bone of contention is another avalanche of meetings that will result from the grant, which agitated Hazard even further. The grant will, if finalized, fund “public outreach and participation” and “workshops and meetings with RPACs, the Planning Commission and Local Transportation Commission.”
Great, just what county residents need … $300,000 for more meetings. This, however, makes sense, since all that extra process is manna to co-author Sugimura. Sheet readers will remember her as Mayor Velveeta from her time on Mammoth’s Town Council. Henceforth, perhaps we should redub her “Leia, the Princess of Process.”
Supervisor Tom Farnetti suggested deferring the matter for review by County Counsel Marshall Rudolph, which was fine with Hazard, who added that the item really needed “some discussion or debate on the policy issue rather than a simple consent approval.” The questions, he said, needed answers not just a rubber stamp. Supervisor Vikki Bauer asked that Staff look into whether the grant comes with “strings attached.”
Chair Hunt rolled the item over to be taken up again sometime during the budget discussion meetings, which are set for this coming Monday through Wednesday in Bridgeport. The deadline for filing for the grant is the end of August. A ballot measure, Prop 23, which will let the electorate decide whether to suspend or repeal AB 32, is set for a vote in the upcoming November 2 General Election.

By Kirk Stapp

June 17, the Town Council unanimously approved the Snowcreek Development Agreement (DA). There were smiles, congratulations and handshakes all around. The approval came after two years of consultants, financial analyses, committee meetings and a campaign vilifying the Town’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Affordable Housing fees as the cause of a nationwide real estate downturn. The mayor proclaimed that fees were too high, we look like fools to capital markets; there has been no new major development in five years, zero percent of zero (no new development, no DIF) is zero, we need to lower our fees to make Mammoth competitive with other resorts.

There are always two sides to every story. This story begins a few years after 2000:

1) A very smart developer comes to Town and does his due diligence: evaluates school fees, water district connection fees, fire district fees, and the Town’s DIF and Affordable Housing fees. The developer also evaluates land and construction costs.

2) The developer is fully aware of his risks with Mammoth Lakes’ land, construction and fee costs and that there is a short building season.

3) The developer makes a conscious decision to invest–a developer’s risk.

4) The developer’s initial condo products sell well.

5) In 2006 the real estate bubble begins to leak, in 2007 the bubble pops. Sales slow to a standstill.

6) The Town’s budget is overextended from leveraging state grants while relying on new development fees that never materialize for matching funds.

7) The federal government begins its bailout of Too Big to Fail. The country tightens its budget belt.

8) The Town cuts its budget using furlough days and early retirements.

9) As real estate values plummet, the developer’s investment risks substantially increase.

10) The Town Council is under pressure to fix the “worldwide economic crisis” and get development moving.

11) The Council springs into action and creates a committee, appoints the developer to the committee and starts hiring consultants.

12) The committee eventually recommends and the Council adopts cutting Development Impact Fees by 50 percent and Affordable Housing fees by 60 percent.

13) To backfill the $90 million in reduced DIF, the committee and consultant recommend the “Community Investment Strategy,” which the Town Council won’t discuss or evaluate until June 2011.

With the Town Council’s adoption of the Snowcreek 20-year DA, Council locks in Snowcreek’s DIF reductions from 2007′s $39.6 million in fees to 2010′s $19.1 million in fees, a reduction of $20.5 million, and Snowcreek’s Affordable Housing reduction from 2007′s $45.3 million to 2010′s $8.7 million in fees, a reduction of $36.6 million. In other words, the developer walked out of the Council meeting with $57.1 million in reduced fees.

The elephant left in the room: Where is the money going to come from to backfill these reduced fees? The consultant identified Measure R and U as two possible revenue backfill sources.

In defense of the Snowcreek DA, the Council, consultant and Town staff argued:

1) “Additional” TOT, sales and property tax revenues will flow into the Town’s general fund which then can be used to backfill the reduction in DIF and Affordable Housing fees.

2) The DA’s Greater Community Benefits of $10 million in Additional Financial Contribution, which can only be spent in Snowcreek’s sphere of influence, wouldn’t occur without a DA. Of course, when Rick Wood asked Town staff to provide a list of projects the $10 million could be spent on, staff’s response was “anything the Council chooses,” a non-answer.

3) Other Greater Community Benefits include a championship golf course, open space, additional access roads, public egress from the Sherwin Range, public spaces and the Great Lawn and Outfitter’s Cabin, all “Greater Community Benefits” which also substantially increase the value of the Snowcreek development.

With the adoption of the Snowcreek DA, the final legacy of the 2008-10 Town Council will be a humongous deficit or a hole in the Town’s General Plan Vision of becoming a destination resort. The Snowcreek DA also sets a precedent for future developer requests and perhaps a record for a developer subsidy. Other resort communities will look upon Mammoth Lakes with awe.

Planning Commission okays D.A. with Chadmar

When you’re a large-scale real estate developer accustomed to gambling tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on an investment, I suppose you become accustomed to the many zeros attached to the end of some numbers.

But to be able to sit quietly without flinching while a bunch of clueless Mammoth Lakes Planning Commissioners debate whether or not to grant you what amounts to a $5 million tax break … now that takes some cojones.

All in a day’s work for the Chadmar Group’s Chuck Lande and son, Chad.

Mammoth Lakes Planning Commission approved a 20-year development agreement with the Chadmar Group at its regular meeting Wednesday for Snowcreek VIII.

As part of the rather complex agreement, Chadmar agreed to an “Additional Financial Contribution” (AFC) intended to provide greater “community benefits” to the Town.

Some, like Council candidate Kirk Stapp, view the AFC as a sop to the Town for gutting its housing mitigation requirements.

On Wednesday, Planners gutted the sop to the gutting.

Let me explain.

Smartly included by Lande in the development agreement was a clause which said that the approximate $10 million AFC “shall not be subject to a COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) to adjust for inflation over time.”

As the AFC is only collected at the time of issuance of building permits (for residential units) and upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy (for resort hotel rooms), the Town will only see that AFC in increments, with the initial payments likely several years down the road.

Commissioner Sharon Clark recommended that the AFC be subjected to a COLA (after all, 2010 dollars are not worth the same as 2030 dollars) and Commissioner Elizabeth Tenney quickly agreed with her.

Commissioner Tony Barrett argued in the other direction, supporting the D.A. as is. “The benefits there [in the D.A.] are better than whatever we’ve negotiated in the past.”

He said the people who spoke out against the D.A., namely Stapp, are responsible for the failed D.A.s of the past.

“What’s been brought up by my fellow commissioners [COLA] could be detrimental to the success [of the agreement],” he concluded.

So Tenney asked Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw what the Town stood to lose by not adjusting the AFC for inflation.

Wardlaw said he couldn’t make that calculation off-hand.

Interestingly, The Sheet could, and did, in a matter of seconds, using the Rule of 72.

According to the Rule of 72, which  is a math formula that tells you how long it will take to double the value of the money you invest (and believe me, I have no clue regarding the methodology, but I remember my father yammering about it at some point in my distant childhood), the amount of time it takes for money to double is 72 divided by the interest rate. Or, if you’re trying to calculate how long it takes for today’s dollar to halve in value, divide 72 by the inflation rate. The historical inflation rate over the past 100 years is 3.4 percent. Meaning money halves in value every 21 years. Meaning $10 million today would be worth about $5 million when the Snowcreek D.A. expires.

Another area of disagreement lies in the negotiated housing mitigation proposal, which Stapp and fellow Mammoth Lakes Housing Board member Bill Taylor go into in some detail in this week’s letters section.

Back in November, Mammoth Lakes Housing determined that the financial “gap” to build an affordable housing unit was $209,000 (the difference between what a typical unit would cost to build and what a typical workforce housing applicant could afford to pay).

The Development Agreement lowers that number to $80,000.

The D.A. also calls for the “affordable” units Lande plans to build on-site be priced for buyers who make 175-200 percent of AMI (Area Median Income).

The higher the AMI benchmark = the more Lande can sell the units for = a smaller financial “gap.”

Which is great for Lande, but as Taylor points out in his letter, it does nothing to serve Council’s targeted housing needs population which makes between 80-120 percent of AMI.

Stapp says that by the time you get through all the housing giveaways, the juicy $10 million carrot (the AFC) Lande has proferred will already have been chewed down to the nub just backfilling it all.

The Town’s Economic consultant Walter Kieser, however, determined that the housing proposal was reasonable.

In so many words, local resident John Wentworth said he doesn’t think much of Kieser these days.

“Mr. Kieser is starting to smell like a hired gun. His name always comes forward in connection with something that doesn’t smell right … There’s a lot of fuzzy logic and fuzzy reasoning coming out of Mr. Kieser.”

When Commissioner Tenney asked for an example of this fuzziness, Wentworth said Kieser has tried to define trails as a greater community benefit when they’re already part of the Master Plan.

In other words, good works shouldn’t get you double the extra credit.

Wardlaw hotly defended Kieser. “It’s always difficult when someone attacks the professionalism of [our] consultants. If he was wrong, we wouldn’t hire him.”

The D.A. was approved as is, save for a final look at housing. MLH Exec. Director Pam Hennarty and Mr. Lande said they would work out some mutually agreeable amendment to what is already on the table (Hennarty suggested less units priced at a lower AMI as one possibility).

I’d gamble that Lande will negotiate a pretty good deal for himself.

Old Mammoth Place wins approval at 56th meeting

There was a point during Wednesday’s Planning Commission hearing on Old Mammoth Place when project developer Jim Demetriades sat down next to me and expressed surprise at the relative lack of public comment. He asked me what I attributed this to.

“Fatigue.”

At the 56th public meeting held regarding the proposed development since 2005, the Mammoth Lakes Planning Commission approved, with conditions, a use-permit and tentative tract map for Old Mammoth Place.

The formerly named Clearwater project is planned for a six-acre site bordered by Old Mammoth Road on the east and Laurel Mountain Road on the west. It currently houses the Sierra Nevada Lodge, Rafters Restaurant and Frosty’s Mini-Golf.

Demetriades appeared to get virtually everything he wanted at the hearing, which lasted all day Wednesday and much of Thursday. The following is a brief summary of key issues and decisions:

Density

Old Mammoth Place was approved for 488 rooms of density. The site had been previously zoned for 240 rooms (or 40 rooms per acre).

Current Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) Board member Earl Henderson and past Board member Pat Eckart both expressed concern about how increased density would affect MCWD’s ability to deliver water.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) analysis showed that the project would increase projected water usage at the site from 20 to 51-acre feet annually.

Henderson said the District is building infrastructure and capacity to reflect water needs expressed in the Town’s 2007 General Plan Update.

“You have to acknowledge our forewarning,” he said.

The Sheet interpreted the warning as: Don’t be the last developer in the pool.

Height

Commissioners (and be advised, every vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Sharon Clark in opposition) approved the new height definition as conceived by the developer and staff.

Essentially, this is how it works. Try to imagine a gently sloping property with a 14 foot horizontal sandwich stuck inside it.

At the highest (northwest corner) point of the property at Laurel Mountain Rd., the top of the sandwich is 4 feet below ground and the bottom is 18 feet down.

By the time you slide down the slope and burrow through the PB & J, the top of the sandwich is 9 feet above ground and the bottom is 5 feet below ground.

Meaning some of the 55 foot building will actually end up 64 feet above ground.

The architect, John Ashworth, said the garage podium was designed to dovetail with the street level retail on Old Mammoth Road.

Ashworth also said the 35 foot height at street level essentially renders the height in the interior of the project a moot point.

“The height issue is something you can’t see, taste or smell,” he said.

“I thought the commitment was for 35, 45, and 55-feet,” said dissenting Commissioner Sharon Clark. “A talented architect can build to the standard given.”

CBIZ

Here’s one of the tricky details. Reconciliation is required between Community Benefits/Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) policy and existing ordinances in place.

In other words, the developer has offered to mitigate development impacts by creating a whole slew of project-specific goodies that may be attractive and valuable but don’t address community-wide impacts like housing.

So you may have a Rolls-Royce, but where are the eggs and the English muffins?

Mammoth’s Town Council will have to amend ordinances so that CBIZ is not in conflict. As Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw said Thursday, “Ordinance trumps policy.”

Kieser

The financial analysis I reported on last week that claimed that 244 more rooms of density only added about $2.5 million in land value to the property has bugged me ever since, so I took the opportunity to corral Economist Walter Kieser (who did the peer review of the project’s financial analysis for the Town) in the hallway as he was leaving.

Sheet: 244 rooms for $2.5 million? How is that possible?

Kieser: Higher density presumes value, but the relationship is not linear. Just because you have more units to sell doesn’t mean you’ll be able to sell them at the price you want.

Sheet: Why would someone assume so much risk building all those units for so little apparent return?

Kieser: On a return basis, it’s better to leave the place alone. That was my advice. The notion of rationality in decision-making is an illusion.

Sheet: So my logical/rational assumption that a developer isn’t absolutely fixated on the bottom line is wrong?

Kieser: After I got done with my analysis, I triple-checked the numbers just because I was so surprised … but I’m glad there are people in the world willing to take this kind of risk … If there weren’t people like this, we’d still be living in caves.”

Ultimately, Demetriades has either won over or worn down the opposition. Take your pick. As Sally Gessford, a neighboring property owner at Timberline, said, “What goes along Laurel Mountain Road is important to me. I walk that street every day … I’m convinced that the motive behind the new project embraces the community. I believe you will be true to your word.”

It appears Demetriades and company are poised to shatter Joltin’ Joe’s 56-game hitting streak when Old Mammoth Place comes before Town Council on April 7.

The crane, which you can see behind the building, represents the roof line of the proposed Mammoth Crossing project. (Photo: Thies)

Mammoth drops a few more staff, but nothing’s free

They’re getting there. Maybe via a circuitous route without a map, but they’re getting there.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council made another round of staff cuts at its regular meeting Wednesday in the hopes of finally balancing a budget, but again, the cuts were made more out of convenience than necessity.
Of the four eliminated positions, one police sergeant (Hugelman) got “terminated” presumably based upon recent off-duty antics in Las Vegas and Bishop, one person in the finance department moved away, and two staffers (Town Clerk Anita Hatter and Cay Lepre at the Visitor’s Bureau) took early retirement offers.
Town Finance Director Brad Koehn estimated that the early retirement buyouts will cost the Town approximately $6,000/year. The retirements become effective December 31, 2009.
The Council will readdress its budget and possibly make another round of staffing cuts in November.
One interesting exchange did take place during Council discussion when the subject of employee furloughs (set to expire in 2010) came up. Town Manager Rob Clark said the furlough issue would be addressed as part of the 2010-2011 budget process.
No, no replied Councilmember Jo Bacon, who expects the furlough issue to be tackled as part of the ongoing staff restructuring process.

Council Briefs

So what’s that crane doing behind the White Stag? It’s meant to serve as a height demonstration for the proposed Mammoth Crossing project. The height demonstration will continue Friday, Sept. 4 and Saturday, Sept. 5. Sheet photographer Andy Thies says he fielded a lot of unsolicited commentary while he was out shooting pictures, most of it along the lines of, “Wow, that’s really … tall.”
Council finally approved its 12-year lease extension at the Minaret Mall after gaining a crucial concession from its landlord. In short, if the Town’s sublessee, Mono County, moves out, the Town will not get socked with an automatic 15% rent penalty.
In regards to the Old Mammoth Lift route, Red Fir Rd. residents successfully lobbied Council to remove the route from their street. The route’s turnaround will now take place opposite Le Verne in the Bluffs (at the winter closure area for Old Mammoth Rd.) Which may reflect an ‘all’s well that ends well’ outcome. Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access (MLTPA) and other recreation enthusiasts have consistently pushed for public transit access to recreation nodes.
Nevertheless, the decision could not be finalized without a few parting shots. Old Mammoth resident Mel Lewin said, “The better you connect with the community, the lesser the friction [you’ll create].”
A somewhat frustrated Public Works Director Ray Jarvis implied that if the initial plan had been implemented for a turnaround at lower Red Fir, none of this controversy would have ever been stirred up.
“You have a professional engineering staff. Use us, “ he said.

Bears

Council convened a special emergency meeting Thursday to discuss the ongoing bear situation and how to handle it. Blondie the bear, as many readers may have guessed, was at the center of the back and forth between the public and Council.
For starters, Mammoth Lakes Police Chief Randy Schienle confirmed that the recently issued depredation permit issued on Blondie has expired, Schienle added that at this time there are no plans to renew it, as well as no other applications currently filed for such a permit.
Councilmember John Eastman picked up on that ball. “Since that’s the case, I don’t see any immediacy,” he said, suggesting that gives everyone time to explore options on a diplomatic level, including sending Blondie (if she’s spotted and captured) to the Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) facility in Rancho Cordova for health and other inspections.
Mayor Neil McCarroll, however, isn’t so touchy-feely about Blondie. “I abhor that she’s even been given the name Blondie,” McCarroll opined. “She’s a bear. She’s not cute and cuddly, or a ‘cat burglar.’ She’s dangerous, a wild animal and deserves to be treated that way.”
McCarroll, who’s had up close encounters with Blondie in his own kitchen, went on to relate another recent brush with the bear, who he said charged one of his neighbors. “And it wasn’t a bluff, either. If they hadn’t had access to a nearby door, they’d be in pieces,” he said.
McCarroll said he wanted to explore the use of “cross-delegation,” a legal practice that allows sworn peace officers to handle issues with other humans on Forest Service land without the need for a ranger to be present. There could be, he thought, enough of a broad interpretation of that legality to allow an Animal Control Officer to have similar leeway when it comes to critters, even though they aren’t officially sworn peace officers. Eastman said he’d be interested in getting Schienle’s authorization to a depredation call on scene, and find out what Wildlife Specialist Steve Searles would need to be “certified” on a state/federal level.
While cross-delegation could give Searles more of an ability to do his intended job without so many restrictions, Town Attorney Peter Tracy must vet it legally, especially given previous DFG conflicts that have several times prevented Searles from taking any action outside the Town limits.
Council member Wendy Sugimura flatly refuted some public perception that the Town isn’t working with the Forest Service and DFG. “They’re at the table with us constantly. We have a good working relationship with them. That doesn’t mean things area going smoothly the whole time,” Sugimura stated.
Bear-With-Us spokesperson Marianne O’Connor again made her case for “translocation” of Blondie to the Wild Animal Sanctuary (WAS) in Colorado, essentially putting the bear in a sort-of “free-range” incarceration. That goes against the stated position of the DFG by Bruce Kinney, who previously said she’s not a likely candidate for such a transfer. Sugimura further added that it’s not the state’s policy to transfer our bear burdens on other states.
Searles said there have been other cases of translocation involving bears and other animals that could be viewed as a precedent of sorts as well, citing the incarceration of Arthur the bear.
Council took no official action.