theSheetNews.com

Governor Jerry Brown now has more riding on his tax initiative package passing in November then ever. Brown is counting on voters to pass the package to close a rapidly growing deficit, which as of his May revised budget now sits at a whopping $16 billion, far larger than the $9 billion he predicted in January.

Earlier this week, Brown released a plan to close California’s rapidly growing deficit by switching state offices to a four-day week, slashing welfare benefits and healthcare for the poor, along with a variety of short-term fixes — all in the hopes that voters would give the state some breathing room by raising taxes in November.

Critics of the tax initiative, including virtually all Republicans in the legislature, say this amounts to scare tactics to raise more tax revenue, but needlessly pummels education and does nothing to restructure spending and reform entitlements.

Even with the world’s ninth-biggest economy, California has lost more than 1 million jobs since the recession started in 2007, reducing the most populous U.S. state’s revenue by 24 percent. Brown’s plan would “temporarily” raise the statewide sales tax, already the highest in the U.S., to 7.5 percent from 7.25 percent. It would also boost rates on income starting at $250,000. Those in the Kardashian bracket making $1 million or more, now taxed at 10.3 percent, would pay 13.3 percent, the most of any state.

His $91.4 million revised budget does, however, fly in the face of interests that are supporting his tax campaign. Public labor unions are liable to push back at proposed reductions in the state workweek and a related 5% cut in payroll costs. And Democratic legislators have so far refused to accept steep cuts in social services.

Can’t afford to buy-in to Facebook’s Initial Public Offering? No worries, you might soon own a piece of it as a taxpayer. Brown’s plan is also predicated in part on a $1.5-billion boost from Facebook’s Wall Street debut, which the state’s buying into. Also a sharp uptick in new home construction, and (hope you’re sitting down for this one) the sale of $3.5 billion in voter-approved bonds to fund the first segment of a bullet train linking Southern California and the Bay Area are part of the plan. “We’re going to have high-speed rail,” Brown said.

Facebook also came under the microscope this week, the target of a Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting its current advertising model is highly overvalued and overrated. General Motors, for example, questioned the intrinsic value of its placing ads on the social media site, and pulled its advertising. Speculation posits that new shareholders could be in for a dividend disappointment unless Facebook uses its IPO revenue to revamp its advertising approach, add more media outlets and diversify its marketing platforms.

U.S. Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-22nd District), who represents Kern, San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles counties, told Fox earlier this week he’s concerned about yet another mass business exodus to other states with more favorable tax environs, pointing to thousands of job and small business losses logged between 2008 and 2009.

Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard said he’s dismayed with the state’s “hold the line, it will all come back” mentality and a lack of political will. He went on to criticize the various unions and special interests that are not willing to allow any changes, and politicians in Sacramento who cave to them.

“Things ARE improving, just not at the level we need,” he said. “Keep in mind that this is politics.”

The Legislature must pass the budget by June 15 so it can go into effect at the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.

How compliant does Mammoth-Yosemite have to be? 

Mammoth Lakes’ Airport Commission met Tuesday afternoon to hear a breakdown of the third-party peer review of the Town’s Draft Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative.

Prepared by the architecture and design firm of Mead & Hunt, the report evaluated the status of aviation forecasts, as well as airfield modifications and terminal expansion designs.

According to Mead & Hunt, the Narrative Report is fully “in conformance with aviation industry and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards.” It did acknowledge that the Narrative is “more extensive than is common,” falling somewhere between a typical narrative and a full Airport Master Plan.

Mead & Hunt consultant Jeff Hart opined that the Narrative’s aviation forecast component is “aggressive, but not unreasonable,” when measured against a peer resort such as Aspen. Other criteria being similar, Mammoth is currently running about 200,000 enplanements behind Aspen, but by that same token has considerable growth potential.

“Resorts usually tie in their business plans with enplanements,” Hart noted. Commissioner John Walter, however, said he remains critical of the forecasting, which he suggested was based in part on 100 percent success rates that are “overly optimistic.”

A major focus of the Narrative, said M&H’s report, is how to address airfield features that don’t meet FAA standards for C-III aircraft. Most airports have “non-standard” conditions, which are due to the “evolving role of an airport, and/or the result of the FAA changing or adding standards over time.”

While the FAA doesn’t grant permanent modifications or waivers for such conditions, temporary or “bridge” waivers might be allowed to buy time for corrections.

“A lot of ‘fixes’ don’t seem financially feasible, let alone easy,” commented M&H Senior Planner David Dietz. “It’s going to be a lot more of the FAA deciding what are the important bits and how much they’re going to fund to accomplish them.”

Rejection of the ALP altogether is, he added, unlikely. The FAA, he elaborated, might ask to “show” a possible feature, but without a specific timeline if it’s deemed unlikely to ever happen. MMH, for instance, meets the standards for one feature most important to the FAA: the runway safety area (RSA). Sonoma County Airport, for example, is facing $40 million in RSA correction issues.

Mead & Hunt said MMH is facing its own challenges, but nothing on that scale. If it were, given a 10% match from the Town, “$4 million is a lot to come up with,” Dietz pointed out.

Dietz also outlined his take on the FAA’s role in the Airport going forward. “[The Town and Commission] have already established your vision,” Dietz said. “The FAA has no regulatory authority over the airport. It’s more of a soft, advisory or guideline type input, more zoning than code. But, if you take their grant money, then you have to do what they want.”

“It’s good to know that the RSAs are in compliance,” Commissioner Lee Hughes said, but added he wonders about including taxiway and hanger locations in the ALP at this time.

Commissioner Walter said he’s also concerned about disregarding the FAA’s previous informal [Narrative] comments. “We might be making it harder to [address] them if the FAA requires them in the future,” he said.

“It’s a tough issue at a lot of airports,” Dietz replied. “We didn’t find any practical alternatives [to hangar relocation and similar issues]. You might be asked to drop things from the ALP to keep the options open and keep things on a certain level of ‘non-standardness.’ The question will be is the FAA interested in half a cake?”

Hangar locations, Dietz submitted, aren’t likely to be an issue. “Worst case for upgrading from B-III to C-III aircraft classification is you need to run a grader and remove some brush.” MMH, he added, is already technically operating at C-III status anyway, with daily service by C-III class Bombardier Q400 planes already in existence.

M&H’s report indicated that for the next 15 years or so, it’s highly likely that MMH would continue to be served by Q400 and CRJ-700 aircraft. They also posited that market conditions and financial arrangements might also bring in slightly larger, but compatible aircraft such as the Airbus 319 (American has ordered 100) and the Boeing 737-700 or -800 models.

He also told the Commission it’s not about the runway, which he said is not an issue, but rather the terminal. “It’s all about peak loads, not daily but hour by hour. Can you handle 125 passengers on any given plane, as opposed to 75?” Dietz asked rhetorically. “The terminal needs to be expandable into the future. It’s not crazy to err on the side of flexibility.”

During public comment, Stephen Kalish questioned what happened to a 2006 ALP and whether it was rejected by the FAA at the time. He also questioned whether the RSA areas near the runway and their related grading conform to FAA standards.

Dietz responded that RSAs are typically fully vegetated, which isn’t the case in Mammoth and never will be. “An RSA isn’t intended to be like the runway,” he said, adding that only obstructions are to be removed. As to the 2006 ALP, Dietz replied that older ALPs don’t typically inform newer ones. “They’re a snapshot of where we are today … what’s the vision of the future.”

According to Airport Director Bill Manning, the ‘06 ALP was not really a plan, but requested by the FAA as part of an Environmental Impact Report process begun in 2005. It was, he added, “not rejected … it was just never signed.”

The draft Narrative Update will undergo changes from several comments along with basic corrections, and a version for approval will then be taken up by the Commission. From there it will be submitted to the FAA for its review.

“Once the ALP is approved, that will determine what projects are fundable,” Dietz explained. “The only question at that point will be whether to use FAA grant dollars or go for discreationary funding, which you’ll have to compete for on a regional basis.”

Walter said he would “reluctantly” support the draft Narrative, though “it’s more gamesmanship than laying out where we’re going to be in a few years.”

BrightSource Energy presents solar plan

BrightSource Energy is seeking approval from the California Energy Commission to build two 250-megawatt solar power plants in Inyo County on the 3,200 acre Hidden Hills Ranch near the California-Nevada border. BrightSource filed an application with the Energy Commission in August, and the Commission held its first formal hearing regarding the project at the Tecopa Community Center earlier this month.

The proposed Solar Energy Generating System (SEGS) would begin generating energy as early as 2015, producing enough energy to serve more than 178,000 homes in California during peak hours.

According to a preliminary economic study, the project would create more than 1,000 construction jobs at its peak, and approximately 120 operations and maintenance jobs. Although BrightSource has noted its track record of using local union labor for its projects, it remains unclear how many local workers the company would employ for the construction, operation and maintenance of the two facilities. Regardless, BrightSource maintains that the influx of construction workers would provide an economic boost for the local community. The economic study also indicated that over the plant’s 25-year life, construction wages are expected to reach nearly $160 million, with total employee earnings estimated at nearly $390 million.

So far community reception of the project has been ambivalent. The Tecopa hearing attracted residents from Inyo County as well as Pahrump and Las Vegas, and District 2 Supervisor Susan Cash reported a mix of responses from those assembled. The most oft heard phrase, she said, was “We’re for renewable energy, but…”

That “but” was in regards to both environmental and aesthetic concerns.

BrightSource has pointed out that the Hidden Hills SEGS would use a new plant design, which, for utility-scale solar projects of similar capacity, reduces land use by 33% or more compared to a typical photovoltaic (PV) farm and parabolic trough solar thermal plant.

However, the proposed 85,000 heliostats (components of a more efficient energy system made up of mirrors which track the sun) focusing solar rays on a 750-foot power tower at each site might still be considered an eyesore by some adjacent residents.

The heliostats would be placed on individual poles anchored directly into the ground, allowing the solar field to be built around the natural contours of the land and avoid areas of sensitive vegetation. Other solar technology system designs often require extensive land grading and concrete pads.

Clay Jensen, Director of Project Development, said that BrightSource won’t clear cut the land at Hidden Hills Ranch, and that thus far environmental studies have shown the area to be of low desert tortoise quality habitat.

BrightSource has already secured two power purchase agreements for 2,600 megawatts with Southern California Edison and PG&E, and the Hidden Hills SEGS would provide power to BrightSource’s existing customers under these power purchase agreements. The specific details are currently confidential, but will be made public in coming weeks.

Meanwhile power transmission is dependent upon the extension of a transmission line east into Nevada to Highway 160, and a possible partnership in the transmission with Valley Electric Association, which has filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 500-kilovolt power line that would extend to the Eldorado substation south of Boulder City.

The next step for BrightSource: negotiate a development agreement with Inyo County as they near the end of the permitting process with the California Energy Commission. Hidden Hills Ranch sits within a Charleston View Solar Zone, an amendment to the Inyo County general plan intended to encourage solar development by providing the proper zoning already. Meanwhile the Energy Commission will continue to review the environmental and cultural studies submitted by BrightSource. The Commission is expected to come to a decision by late 2012.

The Airport Commission met Thursday afternoon in Suite Z for the first study session on the Draft Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update Narrative. “The purpose of today is to share information and ask questions,” said Chair Pam Murphy. “We’re not here to take action or debate.”

Airport Manager Bill Manning explained that the current plan for development projects 148,692 enplanements annually by 2030, with service provided by aircrafts like the Boeing 737-500 or Q-400 that have a wingspan of 100 feet (currently the airport is served by aircrafts with a 93-98 foot wingspan) and 124 seats (current aircrafts have 66-76 seats). The 20 year plan would include a new terminal and 1,200-foot runway expansion, and would seek to upgrade the current MMH ARC (Airport Reference Codes) from B-III to C-III.

Some of the concerns and questions raised by the Commission and the public: what kind of growth-inducing impacts might the ALP have on the town in the next 20 years, with 148,692 annual enplanements? Would the ALP expansion go against the General Plan Land Use Element, which states that the town must “Maintain [its] compact urban form, protect natural… resources, and prevent sprawl?”And what might the growth-inducing impacts be on surrounding communities, like Crowley?

Another question: is the growth rate from the current 25,000 enplanements to 95,000 enplanements in 5 years, and 148,692 enplanements in 20 years, too dramatic? “25,000 to 95,000 is a tremendous growth rate,” said Commissioner John Walter. “It doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I think the methodology for this number should be given in the Draft ALP.”

Walter also wondered about the plan to seek improvements that would allow MMH to upgrade from a B-III to C-III airport. “We’re a ARC B-III airport, but we don’t meet the B-III requirements entirely yet,” he said. “Where does that actually leave us?” Currently MMH maintains its B-III status through a number of deviations from standards granted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As local Owen Maloy put it, “We’ve got a substandard airport and we can’t afford to fix it. I don’t think this is the way to go about this, trying to find what requirements we can avoid.”

Trail closures still being debated

It might have looked something like a summit or meeting of the minds, but user groups and the Forest Service were clearly still at odds during an Oct. 20 Mammoth Lakes Trails meeting at the Mammoth Library. Inyo National Forest Trails Coordinator Marty Hornick attempted to present an update about motorized issues, including the recent implementation of the Inyo National Forest’s Travel Management Decision (TMD), but that got derailed early on when public comment grabbed the spotlight, and refused to cede it.

The decision, which was signed in 2009 by then Inyo National Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch, has drawn criticism from several forest road users who object to the massive amount of road closures recently put into effect.

One new revelation from Hornick addressed safety concerns regarding barricades that some user groups considered winter hazards to snowmobilers. Roads are open to non-motorized use, i.e. mountain bikes, Hornick said, and new safety measures are being implemented to lower blockade materials to no higher than 18 inches. “We’re trying to work on techniques as we go and we’re taking suggestions,” he said. ”Where we have situations such as that, where we have mountain bike use, let’s work on those. It’s critical that we get adequate disguising on some of these trails, so they will start recovering and it becomes clear that it’s not a legitimate road.”

Vertical mulching and brush installation is thought to be an alternative that would eliminate the need for any barricades on many closed trails. Hornick said roughly 2,500-2,600 sections are still to be closed, but that the INF is open to ways to improve things. “It seems like there’s never enough time to do an absolutely thorough job,” Hornick said.

Joe Parrino and James Connolly balked at what they perceive as a divide between motorized and non-motorized, and emphasized their perception that Friends of the Inyo, which was contracted by the Forest Service to help with on-the-ground implementation, used its voice to get the business of closing trails, while saying they are pro-motorized. “That’s the same as motorized users lobbying to close hiking trails,” James Connolly analogized. “I can walk through Vons, but that doesn’t make me a hiker. They can say they’re pro-motorized, but the proof is in the pudding.” Hornick countered that FOI got the contract because they had the organization to execute it.

Support from new INF Supervisor Ed Armenta was one of the few things that sat well with Parrino. “At least he’s motorized,” Parrino observed, as opposed to Upchurch, who Parrino charged wasn’t. “[Armenta’s] very interested in working with folks,” Hornick said. “He’s been riding around on rhinos and is open to ideas.”

Hornick was candid that it’s one thing to see the TMD on paper, and another to see a familiar route closed in front of you. “There are perhaps cases where we made some mistakes; it’s not necessarily perfect document,” he admitted. Hornick also defended FOI’s work, saying the group “has frankly done more to help highlight routes than all the other user groups combined. We’ve caught wrong signs and route closures, but we find out about these errors quickly and can get on it, even before the public knew it happened. People don’t know how much GPS data is going into this.”

He said that the so-called “spaghetti bowl” map layout is confusing to users, and that “there is some cleanup to do there.” Meanwhile, he called volunteer groups tearing out what the Forest Service has put in place “not productive.” That action requires money to put back what is still considered illegal, he added, and puts the USFS in a law-enforcement mode, strains relationships, and takes away from education and cooperation.

During the next year, Hornick said the next phase would address what happens to the closed routes. Some, he described, could become part of the Mammoth trails system, horse trails, bike trails. Others could be restored, abandoned, rerouted for water, or even added back in for motorized use.

Can’t spell Harris without an “S”

Dear Editor:

Americans are an interesting lot.  We are unique in the world with our desire for absolute freedom.  We have preserved to ourselves the right to be free to form our own ideas and speak our piece/peace.  That said, we are intelligent enough to realize that we must balance this idea of freedom with self regulation; the greatest good for the greatest number.  We may have given up our freedom to be free from most regulation but have yet to give up our right to be free from abuse.  Measure “S” is abuse by one neighbor upon another.  It is morally reprehensible.  It is a rigged taxing measure.

Maybe I missed it, but I Googled the words “Measure S” and “Notice” and found nothing that put the two words together with a notice to the 9000 property owners that the MUSD wants to tax. In fact, I could not find any combination of those words except in my own prior complaining.  Measure S is our democracy’s original sin- “taxation without representation”.  The Measure has been rigged to accomplish this result.

In an effort to stop the abuse of these unnoticed special elections, I have previously attempted to appeal to your sense of right and wrong, and I have provided facts about the District that should put any fair thinking person on the path of questioning the finances and management of the District rather than supporting “S”.  Every person to date who wants you to vote for Measure S belies the true financial condition of the District, cries “Wolf”, and appears to simply want more money for the already exaggerated income of the District.  There is a better way, than passing Measure “S”, to raise money for the District.

Most properly run school districts have created a non-profit corporation to invite donations.  As I previously revealed, the district within which I live in San Diego has the PTA run the non-profit corporation and raises enough annually to make the District immune to state financial incompetence.  I’m sure that one of the Mammoth Lakes attorneys will volunteer their time to create the corporation.  It is a simple process.  Solicitations for donations could then be sent by the non-profit corporation to each property owner.  I would certainly “volunteer” a donation each year.  Also, each year the parents of children using the school could be asked to donate. Local businesses also realize the importance of good schools would donate.  This way, everyone can exercise their freedom to support their local school.

At the same time I would demand that the MUSD make changes.  The effort of the District to abuse 9000 property owners is nothing more than an effort to preserve the bulging budget that supports the continuing top heavy administration costs.  We now know from the California Teacher Association  [CTA] and State Legislative Analyst Office [LAO] that the state will fully fund K-12 education next year so voting “NO” on Measure “S” will probably not be enough to cause the District to cut its waste. The District can actually pay these salaries without the Measure S income.  Getting your after school programs and sports programs fully funded will require everyone to put pressure on the District to freeze salaries [to bring them back to near the state averages], cut at least one principal or the superintendent position [1,100 students is actually one small school that can be run by a principal and assistant], and cut the number of teachers [an average class size of 20-25 is reasonable-not the current 16].  Reducing teacher salary and benefits closer to 55% of revenues received (as mandated by the CTA) rather than the 66% now spent by MUSD saves about 1.7 million annually, which more than makes up for the Measure S revenue and also provides revenue for after school programs.

Measure S also contains two curious provisions that warrant further discussion.  Art. 3, speaks of reducing the parcel tax if adding the amount of the tax causes less money to be received from the state or federal governments.  Why this?  Well, the shell game being played by the legislature with school funds takes into consideration the total property taxes collected within a school district.  The “S” tax is a tax on property.  So if the total tax from the state to the MUSD is to be reduced by the amount of the Measure S parcel tax then why are we even discussing this bogus Measure?  Is the District playing its own shell game?  Please note, money raised by a non-profit would not fall within this reduction provision.

Next, is the “Senior Citizen Exemption”. Clearly a discriminatory provision.  The provision does not apply unless that senior has a “primary residence” within the District. I have yet to see this “primary residence” qualification used in Mono County for any lawful purpose.  With this provision, “S” provides unreasoned discrimination between seniors living within the District.  If two seniors are living side by side and one lives in his Mammoth residence 183 days in the calendar year, he qualifies for the reduction but his neighbor who lived there 182 days does not.  Does that provision make any sense to anyone?

I hope I have provided several reasons to vote NO on “S” and to then question the MUSD budget.  Whenever government wants more it is a progressive invasion of our freedom to be left alone.  For the teaching of only 1,100 students, the District needs to explain why it spends 50% more than the state average on each student.  Also, why does the District need a Superintendent, two principals, adequate staff multiplied by three, and 69 teachers (this figure seems to jump between representations of 65 and 69).  Especially when all teachers are paid 12 to 15% more than state averages and more than the average income of Mammoth Lakes property owners.  The District also needs to explain why 66% of all revenue received is spent on teacher salary and benefits instead of “only” 55%.   If it can, the District has taken the first step in justifying a need for Measure S.  Until then Vote “NO”.  Until the District has the courage to give those who are being asked to pay the tax notice and an opportunity to vote the issue, Vote “NO”.

Jean Harris
Mammoth Lakes voter

Ed. note: While I have been reluctant to weigh in until this point, I have to admit that paragraph four pushed a button, as it shows a lack of familiarity with the community in which he owns a residence.

This community has plenty of non-profit organizations devoted to helping support our schools, and many folks donate several times the amount of the $59/year parcel tax each year.

As just one example, Tom Cage said the Mammoth Chevron fundraiser during the last week of September raised nearly $3,000 for the MHS Boosters sports programs.

The insinuation that Mammoth residents create tax measures to shirk their responsibilities in order to dump the burden on second homeowners is just not accurate.

And his suggestion that district budgets be entirely balanced through a gutting of teacher salaries and benefits is … offensive.

Senior dinners serve success

Dear Editor:

Thank you for giving so much support to our Senior class. We very much appreciate that you were able and willing to help us advertise our Senior class dinners while also attending them. We were capable of raising a lot of money that will be a huge impact in decreasing the cost for our Senior class trip. Without your contributions we would have never been as successful.

The Mammoth High School Senior class of 2012 thanks you so much!

Erin Le Francois, Dept. Head
Mammoth High School Social Studies

Ed. note: Shogun Restaurant’s Robbie Tani said he served 1,200 dinners over the span of four days.

A toast to Trails Master Plan

Dear Editor:

On behalf of the Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access Foundation (MLTPA) staff and Board of Directors, I’d like to extend a huge thank-you to the community members who shared in our Trail System Master Plan (TSMP) adoption celebration on Saturday night, Oct. 22.

A great turnout filled the rooms so graciously donated by the Westin Monache Resort — our newest partner in the Mammoth Lakes Trail System — and we were proud to raise a glass of bubbly in tribute to the hundreds of volunteers without whom the TSMP update couldn’t have been completed.

Now that it’s adopted and the EIR has been certified, the TSMP can begin playing its true role as the master development plan for the Mammoth Lakes Trail System (MLTS). The opportunity for the necessary long-term commitment to the MLTS by the Town of Mammoth Lakes is on the horizon, as is a strong partnership agreement between the Town and the Inyo National Forest that will protect, improve, and sustain the MLTS for generations.

If you have any questions, we can be reached at info@mltpa.org or by calling 760.934.3154.

Kim Stravers
MLTPA Foundation

Blood simple

Dear Editor:

On behalf of United Blood Services, I would like to thank Joanne Hunt and the Mammoth Rotary for sponsoring the Mammoth Lakes Community drive on Oct. 18-20.

There were 207 units of blood collected during the drive. Since our laboratory is able to make up to 3 products from each donation, your drive will help save the lives as many as 621 patients in the 22 hospitals we serve. I would say this is pretty awesome!

My appreciation to the volunteers who made calls to donors, baked cookies and helped at the drive. I truly enjoy working with all of you!

I look forward to our next drive with the Rotary Club on Oct 23-25, 2012. Have a wonderful winter, Mammoth, you always come through for us.

Jan McKee
Donor Recruitment Representative for United Blood Services

Cinnamon Bear hug

Dear Editor:

The Cinnamon Bear Inn hosted Mammoth Chamber’s October Mixer, and they outdid themselves. A great time was had by all! Thanks to Russ Harrison, owner, and Pam & Jim Maisey, managers, for the fantastic food and tours of the newly remodeled rooms. Don’t miss the November Mixer at Second Chance, Tuesday, Nov. 8, from 5-7 p.m.

Linda Wright
Mammoth Lakes Chamber Member

Spinners Bike MS Bay to Bay

Dear Editor:

On behalf of our team, the Mammoth Spinners (Brian and Kathleen Knox, Donna Feix, Jean Drummond, Sara Morra and Rachel Georgeson), thanks for getting behind us on our Bike MS Bay to Bay ride last weekend. More than 100 local folks coughed it up and helped us walk the talk; we raised almost $8,000! We saddled up with 2,300 new friends, all with a relationship to Multiple Sclerosis, personally or through friends and family, and banked $1.8 million towards improving treatments and finding a cure.

We felt the buzz of being around so many people pulling to move the unmovable.

And it’s not over yet! Our team will continue landing contributions until Dec. 2. Google “Bike MS Bay to Bay” then search for our team members by name. You can also call any team member or stop in Access Art & Business Center to add to our total.

Brian Knox
Mammoth Lakes

Airport Layout Plan needs to be better defined; peer review pending

With so much riding on air service and a pending expansion of the Mammoth Yosemite Airport terminal complex, during its Wednesday meeting, the Airport Commission decided upgrades to the body itself were way overdue. Gone: the rather relaxed meeting and agenda format, replaced by Town of Mammoth Lakes agenda templates, and more formal interaction with support staff.

Commissioners were previously given a refresher course on Brown Act rules of public meeting transparency and conduct.

Changed: the regular meeting time, day and location, now scheduled for every fourth Tuesday at 3 p.m. in Suite Z, which also hosts Town Council, Planning and Recreation commission meetings.

Also on the agenda, the Commission directed Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw to proceed with issuing a Request For Qualifications to select a qualified individual or company with the right credentials in airport layout and terminal design to conduct a peer review of the Airport Layout Plan, which is currently in draft form.

The need for a peer review, Wardlaw indicated, is based on a series of very extensive, and in many cases highly technical, comments that have been received on the draft ALP.

He said there is at least one company on the targeting list, Alexandria, Va.-based Airport Consultants Council, and the Town will be sending out queries to other airport consultants who have regional experience with Eastern Sierra airport facilities, such as the Bishop Airport. Wardlaw said he expects to have a field of about 3-4 candidates to interview, and added that comparisons of resume quality versus cost would be part of the evaluation criteria.

Airport senior staff, including Director Bill Manning and Assistant Director Brian Picken will be called on to work with the consultant and provide technical support once the review begins.

Commissioners generally agreed there would be some key questions that need to be addressed before handing the review materials to the consultant. “Where are the descriptions of the parameters of what the airport should even be,” Commission Chair Pam Murphy posited. Commissioner John Walter agreed. “There should be an assumption made by the Town or by someone before the consultant is brought in,” he suggested. “The enplanements forecast model also needs going over; everything seems to flow from that.”

Naturally the agenda also included an update on the so-called “sprung structure” holding area now being erected outside the main terminal building. In a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration dated Sept. 7, the agency issued a “categorical exclusion” for the structure with regards to NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, saying no further environmental disclosure documentation is necessary.

Projected completion of the temporary waiting area, which is very similar to the Eagle Lodge sprung structure, is Dec. 9. Town Council is expected to award an outside contractor the job during its meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 5.

Manning said that utilities have been installed within five feet of the building site, and he and Town Planner Ray Jarvis said they are confident the building will be ready to go by the advent of new winter service, with seven take offs and landings per day. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area will take over all food service provisions.

Talk of the structure, however, didn’t come without at least one pointed comment from Commissioner Thom Heller, who reminded his fellow commissioners and staff that the sprung structure is to be built in direct conflict with the way such annexes are called for in the draft ALP Narrative. “We kind of put our foot our own mouth,” Heller observed. “It does the opposite of what we first said we were going to do, and lends credibility to public comment.”

Murphy agreed, indicating the public can expect more specific language and a better definition of terms in the final draft ALP.

Some of that language will likely surface as part of a Special Study Session scheduled for Thursday, Nov. 3, at 3 p.m. in Suite Z. The idea, Murphy said, is to develop a “community plan” for “what we want future air service to look like,” including a 10-20 year expansion plan, environmental impact studies, and other relevant issues and factors.

One possible agenda item for the Commission’s Oct. 25 regular meeting could be a proposal from Mammoth Lakes Tourism Director John Urdi and Town Recreation Manager Stuart Brown regarding how to best relay public information. Murphy’s concerns weren’t so much about day-to-day news or general press releases, but how to work with various agencies on communicating late breaking or emergency events.

As a follow up to Bob Tanner’s concerns last week regarding the Devils Postpile General Management Plan and the effects of its wilderness designations on commercial use at the Postpile, The Sheet spoke with Postpile Superintendent Deanna Dulen.

According to Dulen, there aren’t any newly proposed wilderness designations in the GMP. The issue lies in the fact that this is the first time a General Management Plan has ever been done for the Postpile in its 100 years of existence.

“Many issues have never been addressed,” Dulen explained.

The issue concerning wilderness stems from the Wilderness Act, which states that commercial services in wilderness areas are only allowed to the “extent necessary” to have a wilderness experience.

Devils Postpile sits on the very edge of the wilderness boundary, so the park is required by law to review what the “extent necessary” means for this area. Determining the “extent necessary” is tough, as it doesn’t have a clear definition and is open to interpretation.

So the Parks Service is throwing out ideas to see which one sticks. For example, Boundary Creek near Rainbow Falls is the boundary to the wilderness, so one alternative might be that visitors enjoying a horseback ride would need to tie their horses at the boundary, and then walk the two-tenths of a mile to the overlook for the falls. Another option is to build a stock-only trail to decrease the congestion between hikers and stock.

Dulen pointed out that any commercial trips that simply pass through the park would be unaffected, as would private stock use.

“We have a range of options analyzing what ‘extent necessary’ means for us,” Dulen explained. “The National Park Service is not advocating any of the options, we are just going through the process required by law.”

Part of the analysis is the public scoping process, currently in progress.

“We want public feedback to know its opinion of the ‘extent necessary’ as well,” Dulen said. If the final determination of the ‘extent necessary’ is ever challenged in court, this public input is important to have on record.

In an effort to allow the public to weigh in as much as possible, the Postpile added an extra step in the GMP process. Currently, the preliminary alternatives on the table can be mixed and matched.

“We are not asking the public to say which of the preliminary alternatives it wants right now,” Dulen said. “We want them to provide input on what aspects they like in each alternative and then we will create a hybrid.” That hybrid should be available for review next summer.

The comment period on the preliminary alternatives is open through Sept. 30. Dulen said that approximately 20 people showed up at last week’s open house in Mammoth, and about a dozen comments have been received so far. You can provide comments at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/depo.

Tanner’s concerns

I spoke with Bob Tanner of Red’s Meadow Pack Station this week about his concerns over the Devils Postpile General Management Plan.

Alternatives B-D (Alternative A is the No Action alternative) in the literature for the General Management Plan indicate new wilderness restrictions at and around the monument.

“We don’t need wilderness at the monument,” Tanner explained. “It’s only one mile long and one-half mile wide, and it’s surrounded by wilderness. We need to use it for what it is, an attraction.”

The wilderness restrictions would limit fishing and horseback riding, which according to Tanner, who operates Reds Meadow Pack Station, doesn’t make sense.

“They are attempting to limit things, but the number of visitors is not going down,” Tanner said. “Forty percent of campers fish, and horseback riding is part of the Americans with Disabilities Act so that people can get around.”

Tanner felt that there are more alternatives possible than are being proposed, but that this was a typical case of government not thinking beyond its boundaries.

“This is a huge recreation area so we should be focused on making it a better recreation area,” he said. “We shouldn’t adversely affect the tourists. You can’t wear out the falls [Rainbow] and the Postpile by looking at them, and you’re not going to wear out the dirt.”

“I’m glad you called,” Tanner concluded, “because people need to know there is more to this proposal than meets the eye.”

An open house was held on Thursday, Sept. 15 to receive input on the alternatives, which are described as preliminary. The comment period for these alternatives runs through Sept. 30. To learn more about the GMP, read through the alternatives, and comment, visit http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=296&projectID=26581&documentID=42099 and download the PDF titled “Newsletter 3 Preliminary Alternatives.”

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors made a difficult and potentially game-changing decision on Monday in a Special Meeting at the BOS Room in Independence to revoke their Renewable Solar and Wind Energy General Plan Amendment (GPA). The reason? A Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) lawsuit alleging the county should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to approve the GPA.

In essence, the GPA was a tool constructed by the county to narrow down the 90% of Inyo County open to renewable energy development under the current General Plan into 5-10%. Getting from 90% to 5-10% took a process based on input from public officials, members of the public, alternative energy developers, public agencies, the U.S. Military, local tribes, and others, as well as a series of public outreach meetings.

Ultimately the GPA produced 15 Overlay area maps representing 5-10% of Inyo open to potential development. The county looked at the following criteria when determining the Overlay maps: 1) areas with known interest in renewable wind and solar energy development, 2) proximity to transmission and electrical conveyance facilities and 3) appropriate terrain, which included flat spaces for solar, and ridgelines for wind. Inyo County Planning Director Joshua Hart also noted that the Overlay areas took into account viewshed requirements, sensitive species and designated Areas of Environmental Concern (ACES).

But one thing the county didn’t do was complete an EIR for the Overlay areas, something Hart maintained “is not required. We could speculate about the impacts of certain projects, but that’s discouraged in CEQA. We didn’t feel it was appropriate and moreover, an EIR is expensive.”

In many cases, an EIR is completed by the developer wishing to build a project in a particular area. However, Mark Bagley, Sierra Club Representative for the Lower Owens River Project, countered when asked about Hart’s comments that “leaving all environmental analysis to a future project-by-project basis is not the way it’s supposed to be done.” He added that “it is not at all unusual to have to do an EIR on a General Plan.” Bagley and the Sierra Club believed that in creating the GPA, Inyo County violated environmental laws. They sued the county accordingly.

The Sierra Club’s primary fear was that, by designating these Overlay areas, the county was encouraging development that could still have a detrimental impact to native populations like the common ground squirrel. That the maps made note of Overlay areas within Mojave Ground Squirrel Management Areas, as well as areas with a proximity to ACES and traditional Timbisha-Shoshone lands, was considered too little too late by the Sierra Club.

“We feel that the general idea of determining some areas might be better than others for renewable energy development is a good one,” Bagley said; “but not well-executed here.”

The county saw it differently. Said CAO Kevin Carunchio at Monday’s meeting, “The true irony of this situation is it was the county’s own initiative to provide another layer of environmental protection that doesn’t exist in federal and state regulations.” By stripping away the GPA, the Sierra Club and CBD have reopened 90% of Inyo to development, much of which the county’s studies found to be unsuitable for economic, cultural, and environmental reasons.

Though the County participated in mandatory settlement negotiations with Sierra Club and CBD, they couldn’t reach a solution that would allow the GPA to remain adopted by the Board. The threat was then a financial one: should the county lose a single issue in the case, it would be vulnerable to paying attorney fees, which could range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Inyo County Counsel Randy Keller explained, “All they need is one expert to your 10, and they have a fair argument about environmental impact. There’s no guarantee we could prevail. If there were, the decision would have been different.”

“We’re in a difficult spot,” agreed District 1 Supervisor Linda Arcularius. “And I’m disappointed that there’s not anyone here to speak to why we have to do this.” No Sierra Club or CBD members were in attendance.

Litigation has become an increasingly popular tool among environmental groups, particularly the Tuscon, Ariz.-based Center for Biological Diversity. Founder Kierán Suckling boasted in an interview with High Country News this year that the company “engages in psychological warfare by causing stress to already stressed public servants.”

Recently an Arizona rancher, Jim Chilton, won a lawsuit against CBD by proving that photos the Center used to claim his grazing allotment was cow-denuded were actually photos of a campsite and parking lot. In other words, CBD may not always be known for playing ‘green.’

Still, Bagley maintained, “this is how CEQA gets enforced primarily; citizen challenge county or state actions. This is the way the system works.”

Planning Commissioner Sam Wasson summed up the sentiments of many in attendance at Monday’s meeting: “When you reach a stage where you have to have an EIR to determine whether you need an EIR, I don’t know what this country’s coming to.”

The only bright side? “This study doesn’t go away,” said District 3 Supervisor Rick Pucci. “The research is still available to help either residents for or against particular projects. So I think it wasn’t a waste.”

The Mammoth Lakes Planning Commission meets today at 2 p.m. in Suite Z to discuss the Draft Downtown Neighborhood District Plan Report. The Report has already been circulated through the Tourism and Recreation Commission, and will be reviewed by the Mobility Commission as well on July 20 at 4 p.m. in Suite Z.

The Downtown Neighborhood District Plan revolves around making Main Street/Hwy 203 friendlier for pedestrian mobility, as well as giving the entrance to the Town of Mammoth Lakes a distinctive gateway. It is still undetermined how best to accomplish these tasks, which is why the Report is being circulated through several commissions in order to give the public plenty of time to comment.

The Draft DNDP Report and PowerPoint presentation for these meetings are available for your review on the Town’s website.  The Draft Report is also available at the Town Offices and Library.