theSheetNews.com

“It’s always politically charged when you talk about supervisor’s salaries,” said Mono County Supervisor Vikki Bauer at Tuesday’s regular Board meeting in Bridgeport.

Her fellow Supervisor Hap Hazard was looking for consensus to continue the current freeze on Board salaries His goal was to show support for the employees who have also been on a pay freeze for the past few years.

Supervisor Larry Johnston took Hazard’s idea one-step further and suggested that the Board also take a 4.3 percent reduction in pay.

Johnston has already taken a voluntary reduction in his pay by choosing to refund 25 percent of the car allowance available to him per month. This allowance is considered part of the supervisor’s salary.

Ultimately, each supervisor may choose what to do with his or her salary, according to County Counsel Marshall Rudolph, which meant that the Board’s discussion on Tuesday was non-binding.

As Hazard stated, “we are just making good faith motions.”

Plus, any changes the Board came to consensus upon would only be in relation to future terms. No current seat or current candidate for a seat on the Board would be affected by the Board’s decision on Tuesday.

“When you file candidacy paperwork you are essentially accepting the current ‘contract’ for the Board of Supervisors,” Rudolph explained.

The soonest any change would be enforced would be two years down the road.

Rudolph added that irrevocably waiving pieces of salary, such as Johnston had, makes that portion of the salary non-taxable.

“You never receive the pay so it isn’t taxed,” Rudolph said.

“I’m glad to take a 5 percent cut to show we’re serious,” said Supervisor Tim Hansen.

Supervisor Byng Hunt, however, referred to the 23-county salary survey the County has been using as a reference point to compare its salaries to other counties throughout the state.

“We are right in the middle of the survey pack,” Hunt said. “We’ve shown we’re serious. Really this begs the bigger question of what supervisors should be getting.”

Johnston made a motion to reduce pay but it failed 3-2 with only Hansen voting with him in support.

According to the salary survey, which was compiled earlier this year, according to Mono County CAO Jim Arkens, Mono County supervisors make $4,109 per month which includes all of their benefits, car allowance, PERS, etc. (Note: According to Supervisor Larry Johnston, however, that $4,109 is the base pay for a normal supervisor. The Board Chair receives a slightly higher salary and car allowance according to Johnston. Supervisors receive PERS, health benefits and a car allowance on top of this base pay, but that’s where it gets tricky. Each supervisor can choose to take or not take the benefits available to them. “It is confusing,” Johnston stated.)

In comparison, El Dorado supervisors make more than $6,000 per month while Tehama County supervisors collect just a little more than $1,000 per month. The average pay, according to the survey is $3,997.

The Board ended up breaking their remaining votes into three separate motions.

First, it voted 3-2 to continue the freeze on its salaries. Johnston and Hansen voted no because they wanted to see a cut in salary, not just a continued freeze.

Second, the Board voted 3-2 to not increase its pay until employee’s pay could also be increased. Again Johnston and Hansen voted no.

“I’m voting no because this is completely nebulous,” Johnston said.

“It’s no less nebulous then making a motion to reduce our pay that can’t be enforced for two years,” Bauer said heatedly, referring to Johnston’s earlier, failed motion.

The Board was able to unanimously agree, however, on the final motion to take up the salary discussion again whenever the salary survey changes.

“I love it when we end the day with all of us agreeing,” Bauer concluded.

When Americana author Laura Ingalls Wilder coined the title for her book series, she had no way of knowing it would come back as a buzzword for what could be an addition to Mono County’s building code.

That addition might stem from a little known part of California Regulations called “Limited Density (LD) Owner-Built Rural Dwellings.” During the Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday meeting, a workshop by Mono Community Development’s Brent Calloway explored the potential for a possible “LD” ordinance in Mono County, which would allow for a “relaxed building standard” in certain rural areas.

With so much undeveloped land in Mono County, LDs would potentially make building small, less intricate buildings easier, cutting down on staff time for plan approvals, permitting, inspections, etc.

The LD ordinance can trace its lineage back to the counterculture movement of the 1960s, and was born, figuratively, in a cabin in Mendocino County that served as the springboard for what became statewide legislation. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Bay Area refugees seeking a more “organic” way of life caused an influx of population.

As one might expect, some conflict arose between the older established population, and the new counterculture denizens putting down roots, literally, in the more rural environment. The new owner-builder community that sprang-structured up soon found itself targeted by county inspectors, even though those same inspectors weren’t red-tagging the established residents, who were themselves also in flagrant violation of code.

That led Governor Jerry Brown (during his earlier term, before limits) to enact the Class K Code, a less prescriptive building code that relies more on the touchy-feely assessment of building department officials, rather than just strict, written code. Drawings and structural analysis aren’t required unless a structure is deemed very complex. Reasonable judgment is used to determine compliance with basic safety and other standards. The code doesn’t, however, allow neglecting any responsibility to national water and power standards.

Calloway pointed out the ordinance is designed to be flexible, and fit with the density and zoning in any given specific area. But the proposed ordinance won’t come together without meeting some challenges. First, the County’s General Plan doesn’t encourage development of remote property. It would also have to conform to environmental health requirements for approved water, septic and power, as well as fire and access requirements, including Title 24 green sprinkler standards. And Calloway didn’t discount other yet unknown legalities.

Class K has since been folded into the state’s Title 25 Housing and Community Development Codes, which regulate mobile home, as well as LD construction.

Supervisor Tim Hansen, while not opposed to the idea, posited that on one hand, LD could be construed as encouraging off-the-grid type building. On the other hand, Hansen suggested the hippie, unapproved commune buildings that don’t meet any codes could be perceived as a form of “class warfare” against those who are building within existing code.

Supervisor Byng Hunt wasn’t so pessimistic. “It could be something that would fit our character … a few small hunting or ski cabins, but I’d like to limit that and specify the areas,” he said.

“I see safety factors in it … finding one of those cabins in a big storm could keep people alive until we can get some SAR teams to rescue them,” Board Chair Hap Hazard added.

Calloway outlined four scenarios: 1.) Use existing code right out of Title 25, though the code wasn’t written with Mono County in mind. 2.) Develop a “prescribed code” with maximum sizes and locations, though that could take a lot of staff resources to develop. 3.) Allow the code to develop over time, which demand more staff time as it evolves, and could lead to more conflicts than it solves. 4.) Develop a code specific to a case-by-case scenario, though how legal that process would be is debatable.

Title 25 does give the County the ability to define snow loads and other standards. Hazard pointed out, however, that certain disclaimers would need to be added for clarity, including exact specifications and the fact that in remote areas there’s no fire protection.

Geographically, the LD code provides some latitude for defining “rural” and how it’s applied countywide.

Suggestions for a so-called “little house on the prairie” approach included exploring a 500-square foot size, and perhaps a five mile between homes distance allotment, among other ideas to limit the buildings to a sort of bigger ski hut type of dwelling.

“I don’t think there are going to be that many built, but we should at least have the option for them,” Supervisors Larry Johnston added.

Supervisor Vikki Bauer was still uncomfortable with the idea. “I’m having backwash already,” she said. “I’m beginning to think there are unintended consequences of this we can’t even begin to imagine.”

Consensus was reached to have Calloway add more specifics and bring back a more refined draft of what the ordinance might look like for future review.

Mono Supes blast BLM, proposed WSA legislation

Salt in an open wound. A paper cut with lemon juice on it. Call it what you will, but after all the hoopla and gnashing of teeth that came as part of an earlier push for release of the Bodie Hills Wilderness Study Area, the last thing Mono County’s Board of Supervisors wants to take up at the moment is anything having to do with wilderness.

Nonetheless, the Board did just that earlier this month, in the form of a pair items pertaining to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The first was a letter from James Wesley Abbott, Acting State Director for the BLM California, regarding a proposal by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar for a bipartisan wilderness agenda to designate areas of public lands that have strong local support for permanent protection as wilderness under the Wilderness Act.

The second was what, if anything, to say in response to H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011, currently circulating through the U.S. Congress, which if passed would release millions of acres of wilderness study areas nationwide, including the Bodie Hills in Mono County.

Abbott’s letter relayed an idea from U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking states, tribes and local communities to identify so-called “crown jewel” public lands, specifically administered by the BLM. The lands would then be forwarded to Congress for consideration as new “wilderness” areas. Several Democratic and Republican congressmen have already lobbed in ideas for lands in various states, including some in California by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49th District.).

Salazar said in a separate letter that he planned to take any lands submitted for the overall list to Congress on Oct. 15, leaving the Board only a handful of weeks to mull submittal of any lands and vet those through public process … hardly enough time, the Board generally concluded.

The Board, however, slammed the brakes on joining that process, particularly regarding the Bodie Hills WSA.

“Bodie Hills isn’t a crown jewel wilderness. Congress has been reluctant to do its job and has been complacent these many years,” District 4 Supervisor Tim Hansen posited. “People use them for enjoyment but one day it’ll be locked up and people will say, ‘Wow, we should have done something about that.’”

As to H.R. 1581, only Hansen was vocal in his support for the sweeping measure. “I’m for 1581, because I think most of my constituents support it, and it’s widely supported across the U.S. WSAs are being misused to lock up these areas,” Hansen said, reiterating his previously stated positions on the matter.

Supervisor Byng Hunt also reaffirmed his stand, but in the negative. “I stated my case four weeks ago. I’m totally opposed to 1581; it’s too blanket, universal and one-sided,” Hunt said. As to Secretary Salazar’s issue of ‘jewels,’ Hunt indicated he thought Salazar’s intent was essentially good. “I think he wanted to get a handle on some areas that are relatively non-controversial trying to get more information out of local communities. Either the communities are behind it or they’re not,” he posited. “That said, it’s not appropriate for us to take any action.”

Board Chair Hap Hazard was against generating any response to either item. “Both are out of town, out of this area,” he reminded his fellow supervisors. “If [Secretary Salazar’s plan] is a chance for us to say we want to be given an assurance that if we work together and have a stakeholder interest, then he should give us a period of time, and a commitment that [Congress] is going to follow through and resolve it. Otherwise, I’m not interested in going backwards.”

“My preference is to oppose 1581,” Supervisor Larry Johnston remarked. “I do appreciate Secretary Salazar’s letter … sometimes these decrees are just handed down from the government. At least this is an ‘asking’ thing. That said, I don’t’ think I’d like to nominate something that hasn’t been vetted through public process. And I don’t think we should have to ask permission from the federal government to preserve things we think are worthy.”

“I don’t think federal officials can give anyone assurance they’re going to act on anything, especially at the county level,” Sally Miller said during public comment on the items. “I don’t see that the public is banging on the doors to negotiate another Hoover-style blanket piece of legislation.” Miller added that, given what she thinks is a historically controversial topic of wilderness vis a vis the Board and the community, there should be more “responsible constituent-level conversation between parties who don’t necessarily agree with each other.”

“There’s work to be done, and it truly has to happen from the ground up before it comes before the board again,” she concluded.

The Board came to consensus on no reply to either item, except, as Hunt suggested, on an individual basis between elected representatives, without speaking on behalf of the Board or the County.

The Inyo County FY 11-12 Budget Hearing on Aug. 12 in Independence was less doom-and-gloom than one might have been expected, considering this year’s recommended budget marked a $1,206,287 (1.5%) decrease from the FY 2010-11 approved budget.

However, the recommended budget was received with appreciation rather than anger in part because it required no cuts to staff; although three positions were eliminated, said CAO Kevin Carunchio, “The positions that remain are functioning at full capacity. We’re not cutting any services.”

On the other hand, there’s also no money left over to set aside for a rainy day.

Carunchio noted at the beginning of the hearing that FY 2008-09 had marked the “zenith” of Board approved expenditures; since then, the county budget has shrunk by 6.4%, or $5,333,819.

This year the total recommended budget comes to $77,865,291, with $49,421,830 in General Fund expenditures, down $251,511 from last year, and $28,443,461 in Non-General Fund expenditures. General Fund revenues were projected at $45,828,056, while Non-General Fund revenues were projected at $24,516,171.

These revenues have decreased 9.68% since the ‘zenith’ in 08-09, in part because of a recent decrease in LADWP property tax payments, as well as decreases in unsecured property tax revenue.

To balance the deficit between General Fund expenditures and revenues, the recommended budget is looking to use $3,799,535 of the General Fund balance (or rollover) available from FY 2010-11, a move that made some supervisors at Monday’s meeting nervous.

District 2 Supervisor Susan Cash referred to this annual General Fund rollover as a “drip line” the county needed to wean itself off of. “We could do it in baby steps,” she suggested: “say next year we’ll only rely on 3.5 million; the next year only 3.4 million, and so on.”

Currently, the County uses every last drip available.

But as Carunchio noted, reliance on this rollover (accrued when positions go unfilled or when anticipated projects get shelved for some reason) is nothing new to the county, nor is it unusual for other counties, cities and states.

“My dream if we weren’t using the Fund Balance is we could actually start budgeting earlier,” he said after the hearing. “We could potentially get the budget done as soon as June.” The county waits to complete its budget until September not only because it takes the state that long to “get its act together,” but also because the county is relying on the Auditor-Controller to certify the General Fund Balance.

Not using the Fund Balance this year would mean more than $3.5 million in cuts – inevitably to staff and services.

The county’s self-described conservative approach to budgeting has allowed it to avoid these cuts so far. Even Supervisor Cash admitted “the belt’s been tight since I was a county employee 15 years ago.”

The recommended budget was received favorably for the most part by Supervisors and the assembled public. One voice of dissent came from County Coroner Leon Brune, who requested the Board consider giving his employees a raise. But the recommended budget will not have the funding to approve any Department Requested Personnel Actions this year, including requests for employee equality adjustments, career ladders, and reclassifications. Carunchio was sympathetic to Coroner Brune’s request, and stated, “I don’t have any issue with what he’s recommending, other than that I’m not recommending any personnel adjustments.”

The Board promised it would do its best to accommodate the request in the future, when it had a chance to look at overall classification issues in January.

Considering that state revenues are already 10% lower than projected, “trigger cuts” from Sacramento seem inevitable come December and could create mid-year adjustments.

Carunchio pointed out in his 50-page budget message, “one must consider whether the county could ever hope to have adequate contingencies for the level of carnage the State’s ongoing fiscal drama has the potential to visit on county finances.”

“It’s the uncertainty that makes it tough,” Carunchio continued. “The county has to provide services, but when the state baits and switches, for instance with reimbursable public safety grants, the county can get left footing the bill.”

Nevertheless, said District 3 Supervisor Rick Pucci, “I think this budget is a very good document. This is a very difficult time as we all know for economic stability, and I think you have to be self-sufficient as much as possible. I think that’s what this staff is trying to do.”

The budget is expected to be adopted Sept. 20. For more information visit www.inyocounty.us.

Supes back air subsidy afterall

Mono County’s Board of Supervisors took to the air on Wednesday, beginning deliberations on the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget. The three-day process offers a comprehensive review, department-by-department and line-by-line, giving the Board a last chance to make any changes, before voting on the final budget to be enacted.

According to a briefing by Mono County Finance Director Brian Muir the total budget amounts to $63 million, including $37 million in general fund expenditures and $26 in miscellaneous other funds. The total is a decrease of $8 million from last year overall and $4 million in general fund spending.

In an unexpected deviation from its previous flight plan, however, the Board changed policy course when it came to the turbulent issue of air service subsidies. Last year, the Board made a much haggled over $45,000 commitment to put some critical lift under the wings of the “shoulder season period” for commercial air service at Mammoth Yosemite between the end of summer and mid-December. Earlier this year the Mono Tourism Commission and other air service partners including Mammoth Lakes Tourism, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, had hoped to boost that commitment by as much as $215,000 to help fill the gap left by MMSA, which is focusing on fully subsidizing winter air service, its busiest time of year.

That $215,000 figure, however, initially met with considerable resistance from four of five Supervisors.

On Wednesday, Alicia Vennos from Economic Development, and Mono County Tourism Commissioners Danna Stroud and Chair Jimmy Little, lobbied for at least some amount in Horizon Air subsidies. No one on either side of the dais, however, had any illusions that it would be anything close to $215,000. Vennos also said the County has been invited to be a player in the revived concept of an Eastern Sierra Air Alliance (ESAA), which would include the Town of Mammoth, Mammoth Lakes Tourism, MMSA and other stakeholders.

Perhaps the biggest, most significant shift in position was that of Board Chair Hap Hazard. Yes, he reiterated previous concerns about not only the expense but the fundamental concept of the County’s backing air service. Ironically, however, it was Hazard who pitched the notion of an increase that started the discussion down the runway.

Regardless of any related anecdotal success stories, Supervisor Larry Johnston, along with Supervisor Tim Hansen, would like to see non-anecdotal, hard numbers indicating the bang the County’s getting for its buck.

Hunt asserted that the County should want to have a seat at the ESAA table, and Stroud echoed that point, emphasizing what she said were millions that are being spent by airlines and destination marketing organizations on emerging markets such as China and Brazil, and having year-round access to the region can only help bring more travelers to Mono County.

Muir was critical of the subsidy, at least for now, positing it was essentially giving money away to a “private enterprise,” which it must be assumed is already profitable. He recommended deferring any action to mid-year, saying if there’s evidence of TOT or other revenue gains, the Board can act at that point. Hansen agreed. “I’m all for air service, but we should let this thing grow on its own, and determine how valuable it is, instead of just throwing money at it,” he commented.

Little waited patiently during the initial discussion, but commented that he sees it as purchasing a service, not purchasing “seats,” equating the potential of air service to that of any other startup business. Instead of a cart before the horse scenario — last time, service was committed to with no plan — this year he said a plan is being developed to frame the commitment with marketable data. Next year, if service continues, he suggested the County can promote it immediately, and travelers will be able to plan and book ahead.

“I think [Mammoth Lakes Tourism Director John Urdi] is doing a good job, many questions are being addressed and we’ll have statistics this year that we didn’t have last year,” Hazard said. “I do think we got the return on our $45,000, and am willing to increase that by $40,000, which will get us through to January. Do I think we have a good deal and good relationship with the rest of the partners? Not yet, but I’m willing to put $85,000 on the table to further the discussion.”

The $85,000 would be in the form of guarantees, but only the amount owed at the end of the season would be charged against it. At that point, any amount left over, even if it were the whole amount, could be transferred into the contingency fund or turned around and spent for additional marketing, over and above that generated by the airline for promotional materials.

That amount, Stroud indicated, could result as much at least $265,000 in the form of in-kind promotion and collateral material from both Horizon Air and Mammoth Lakes Tourism. (That figure was based on the calculated return from last year’s $45,000 commitment.)

“In any case, we need to have skin in this game and remain a partner with a seat at the table,” Supervisor Vikki Bauer noted. That, she said, means showing a commitment and in turn means increasing participation, both points on which Hunt agreed.

Johnston cautiously supported Hazard’s $85,000 compromise, on the condition that it remained a placeholder in the budget and no checks needed to be cut until January’s mid-year review.

The policy change passed 4-1, with Hansen dissenting largely on the grounds that “District 4 benefits least by far from air service.”

Budget in brief

Muir said the budget will require a an additional $1,250,000 in General Fund department trims to bring it into balance. No employee step increases or cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increases were budgeted.

After balancing the proposed budget, there is a remaining General Fund balance of $500,763 available to fund policy items and contingency, without appropriating any funds from the General Reserve. The General Reserve funds available are $2,273,212. A policy item is included to establish a contingency at 1% of General Fund expenditures per the Board’s budget policy.

In addition, a policy item is included to loan an additional $750,000 to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to make up for the shortfall that occurred between the start of last fiscal year and the recent implementation of a tipping fee increase.

Looking ahead, Muir said he doesn’t see a lot of major change in the County’s budget forecast. Property tax revenue projections indicate a flattening trend, or at most a 2% decline. The budget was set for final changes and a Friday vote. For updates, visit www.thesheetnews.com.

It’s not very often you get an agenda item about “agenda items,” but on Tuesday, Mono County’s Board of Supervisors took up exactly that, an item discussing the process of agendizing items requested by Board Members, citizens or entities outside of County government.

The item was likely spurred by a comment made by Supervisor Byng Hunt during last week’s Bodie Hills WSA release discussion, which hinted at his frustration with seeing the issue brought up again so soon in the wake of previous, similar items only weeks or months earlier.

“I don’t like the idea of limiting what can be brought forward, but I’m concerned that some things get out there ahead of the public,” Board Chair Hap Hazard, the item’s sponsor, observed. “I was getting nastygrams on my voicemail and very pointed e-mails about this item and it hadn’t even gone through a review yet.”

“The policy we’ve operated under is that if someone comes to us from outside the county and requests an item, we usually refer them to the appropriate department head,” Clerk of the Board Lynda Roberts explained to the Board. “If it’s directed to a specific supervisor, I direct them to the appropriate one. It’s been policy that if a supervisor wants to sponsor an item, they can bring it forward. We don’t just put things on the agenda.”

Oddly enough, little if any of this policy and indeed perhaps several other current procedures are covered in the Board’s “Rules of Procedure” book, which apparently hasn’t been updated, according to County Counsel Marshall Rudolph, since 1978.

“The rules I’ve found don’t really do anything, other than encourage people to be courteous and outline basic rules of order, and so on,” he related.

And people can’t just put themselves on the agenda, Rudolph said. “I have to approve it, [County Administrative Officer] Jim Arkens has to approve it. You have to approve it. This is your agenda.”

A bit vague, however, is the “understanding” that a minority voting member can’t bring an issue back prior to six months after the vote has taken place, but a majority voting member can.

Supervisor Tim Hansen, who sponsored the most recent Bodie Hills WSA item at the behest of the Bridgeport Regional Planning Advisory Committee, suggested there should be more definition in terms of what actually constitutes the agenda process. “There was a lot of e-mail blasts and buzzwords that came out of it, but that’s what it was,” Hansen pointed out. “I thought I was representing my RPAC; I guess democracy’s a bitch.”

Bauer supported Hansen’s bringing forward the RPAC resolution in favor of release of the Bodie Hills WSA, and pushed back against any kind of censorship, perceived or otherwise. “I don’t care if it’s ugly, I’m good with it,” she opined. “We represent the people and if they want us to bring something forward, we owe it to them to do that. I don’t think we should have barriers; that would be artificial.”

“I don’t think Supervisor Hansen had a choice,” Supervisor Larry Johnston commented. “It’s what his RPAC wanted and he was bound to represent them.” Johnston also echoed Supervisor Hunt’s suggestion that the rules should incorporate the present method of how things get on the agenda.

Hazard said his only real issue with Hansen’s item was one of timing. “It was out there for two weeks, but we were on a three-week break. It should have been given a head’s up in board reports at least.” Bauer took his point, adding that most of the Board only gets to see formal agendas roughly six days ahead of meetings.

Rudolph suggested his office add current protocols to the Board’s Rule Book. Roberts further suggested copying all the Board members, in addition to the Board Chair who sits on the agenda review committee, on draft agendas that are at their feet as much as two weeks in advance.

Supes sullen on Bridgeport Bodie Hills WSA resolution

A clearly miffed Mono County Board of Supervisors took no action on Tuesday regarding a resolution drafted by the Bridgeport Regional Advisory Planning Committee expressing support for a sweeping piece of legislation making its way through the nation’s capitol, and more specifically the release of the Bodie Hills from Wilderness Study Area status.

Sponsored by Supervisor Tim Hansen, who took the gavel as acting Chair of the agenda item, the RPAC’s resolution supported the release of the Bodie Hills Wilderness Study Area, one of a group of 13 such WSAs in Mono County (and others in Inyo County), as well as HR 1581, a bill that would release all Wilderness Study Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas, which have been recommended or evaluated as not suitable for wilderness by the Bureau of Land Management.

Introduced by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), HR 1581 would release land deemed unsuitable for maintaining WSA status. This however translates into more than 6 million acres of wilderness study areas (WSA) that the BLM claimed in the 1980s had wilderness characteristics but recommended as not suitable for wilderness designations, after considering local input, mineral potential and mining claims, among other issues.

The legislation would also require the Forest Service to lift protections on some 36 million acres of inventoried roadless lands that it has not recommended Congress designate as wilderness, according to the bill’s sponsors.

“[Bridgeport] doesn’t think its voice has effectively been heard,” Bridgeport RPAC Chair Janelle Mills commented. “The WSAs are at our back door. What does or doesn’t happen to the WSAs affects Bridgeport.”

“For anyone to think [supporting HR 1581] is a total off the wall wish, it’s not. A lot of folks support it,” Hansen stated.

And a lot of folks oppose it. Opponents of the legislation — which has been dubbed the “Great Outdoors Giveaway” — and the RPAC’s resolution asserted that, while there is no mention of mining or large development, the language leaves the door open to them, and charged that the land is already open to multiple uses.

Much of the Board was clearly peeved at seeing Bodie Hills on the agenda yet again. “We’ve heard this at least a half-dozen times over the last 10 years. We put it behind us and later it’s on the agenda again,” Supervisor Byng Hunt carped. “I’m against Bodie

WSA release and against HR 1581, period. It’s the most absurd legislation I’ve ever seen.” Hunt also groused about what he said were six people sitting around a table in Bridgeport, who generated thousands of letters and emails [2,462 to be exact] in opposition.

Board Chair Hap Hazard was also in opposition. “To say I’m frustrated and angry about [seeing] this agenda item is an understatement,” Hazard blasted. “I [previously] brought an item forward that addressed this, and was roundly criticized. As far as I was concerned this was a closed, dead issue.”

During the Board’s March 8 meeting, Hazard floated a proposal he considered a last-ditch attempt at appeasing both sides, releasing the WSA, but setting aside both a sphere of influence for mining company Cougar Gold and establishing new wilderness north of Bodie State Park. The proposal was shot down, and Hazard washed his hands of the whole Bodie Hills issue. On Tuesday, he called HR 1581 an overly broad national piece of legislation into which Mono County had no business sticking its nose.

Critics of WSAs, such as Bridgeport local Ed Inwood, reiterated that WSAs were intended for short-duration study and therefore transitory by definition. Several said they’re not necessarily in favor of mining, but suggested the Bodie Hills might be better utilized for tourism and recreation, and perhaps even as a national monument.

“I don’t know if mining’s going to happen out there, but if we don’t get to the point where we can decide what we can do with the Bodie Hills, we’ll never have local control,” Bob Peters posited. “It has to be released.”

In Washington D.C., BLM Director Bob Abbey recently testified before the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee that, although the agency had previously determined that more than 6 million acres of the total 12.7 million acres of WSAs were unsuitable for wilderness, those recommendations are out of date and do not reflect current circumstances. Abbey said the BLM would likely recommend more areas as suitable for wilderness designation; however, he didn’t elaborate as to which WSAs would be recommended.

The RPAC was left to forward a letter of support on its own initiative, should it so choose. What fate awaits HR 1581 is yet to be decided. The bill is in the first steps of the legislative process.

Opponents of releasing the Bodie Hills from Wilderness Study Area status got their way on Tuesday, but so did supporters in a way, when the Mono County Board of Supervisors took no action on a resolution drafted by the Bridgeport Valley Regional Advisory Planning Committee that expressed support for a sweeping piece of legislation making its way through nation’s capitol.

Sponsored by District 4 Supervisor Tim Hansen, who took over the gavel as acting Chair for the agenda item, the RPAC’s resolution supported the release of the Bodie Hills Wilderness Study Area as well as HR 1581, a bill that would release all Wilderness Study Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas across the country that have been recommended or evaluated as not suitable for wilderness by the Bureau of Land Management.

Introduced by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), HR 1581 would only release land deemed not suitable for maintaining WSA status, but that translates to the release of more than 6 million acres of wilderness study areas (WSA) that the BLM claimed in the 1980s, had wilderness characteristics but were not recommended as suitable for wilderness designations. The determination was made after considering local input, mineral potential and mining claims, among other issues.

The legislation would also require the Forest Service to lift protections on some 36 million acres of inventoried roadless lands that it has not recommended Congress designate as wilderness, according to the Bill’s sponsors.

Opposition was plentiful at Tuesday’s meeting in the Bridgeport Courthouse, though several interesting supportive comments did catch some supervisors’ attention. In the end, however, the Board did not back the RPAC’s resolution, largely on grounds that it was a national piece of legislation into which Mono County had no business sticking its nose. The RPAC, however, was left to forward a letter of support on its own initiative, should it so choose.

For more on this story, pick up a copy of the print version of The Sheet, on newsstands Friday.

Supes uphold rejection of celltower for Crowley

It seems that a bird in the hand isn’t worth two in the bush anymore, at least not when it comes to Crowley cell service. On Tuesday night, the Mono County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal filed by cell tower developer Incline Partners, which sought to overturn a previous use permit denial by the County’s Planning Commission.

Incline Partners had hoped to erect a controversial pair of 60-foot so-called “mono pine” cell towers on a .46-acre, commercially zoned lot owned by Tommy Czeschin. The property is surrounded by residential homes.

Like the April 14 Planning Commission meeting, the Crowley Lake Community Center was packed once again with those for and against the towers. The Planning Commission denied the Use Permit (10-008) by a narrow 3-2 margin, though some opponents at Tuesday’s Board hearing pointed to comments made at the time by the two dissenting commissioners, which indicated that had their been other alternatives, they might have also voted to deny.

The original denial was based on lot size, which was deemed inappropriate, and an inability to find that the project was not detrimental to private property (the towers would be visible by three and in the direct viewshed of one home, creating substantial visual impacts), as well as other conflicts with the General Plan, particularly aesthetic impactsof the towers and gross violations of design guidelines.

As with the Planning Commission’s deliberations, the Board was prohibited from making any decisions based on any health or EMF-related issues. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prohibits local governments from using EMF radiation or transmission as a criteria to deny putting up such facilities.

Incline Partners executives Mike Flynn and John Peterson made a very polished pitch on just about every aspect of the project, including concessions for higher wind tolerances, new photo simulations, timelines, tenant lease terms and improved tower aesthetics.

When the aisle resembles a chasm

“One of the announcements I didn’t have to make was please turn off your cell phones,” Hazard quipped. But apart from Rick Phelps’s comments, which included a quote from The Doors’ “Light My Fire,” the divided community found little else amusing during a contentious public comment period.

Supporters thought Incline did a better job presenting its project this time, as opposed to the Planning Commission meeting, and many proponents suggested that, a la the community’s recent water tank, cellular is “necessary service” and called for the community to step into the 21st century. Denying the project on some “slight visual impacts” was called “unreasonable.”

One of the most convincing notes of support came from Crowley Lake Community Center Coordinator Abigail Don. “The biggest complaint from tourists is no cell service,” she observed. Don also blasted what she perceived as a lack of civility on display at the April Planning Commission meeting. “I think the community divided itself at that meeting and many unnecessary, inappropriate things were said, and people were thrown under the bus. We can do better.”

But Incline’s gussied up presentation didn’t cut any ice with opponents, including John and Victoria Rawson, who stuck to their previous complaints of viewshed impacts to their home, which is within 150 feet of the proposed tower site. “We shouldn’t have towers in the geographic center of town,” they stated. [Note: a 63-foot natural pine tree, located on the corner of the Wash-All site, is already visible in the Rawson’s viewshed.] Mr. Rawson also resubmitted what he said were expert opinions from realtors pointing to diminished property values if the Incline project was allowed to proceed.

One of the Rawson’s staunchest allies, Pam Bold, whose house is also on Juniper above the site. She called for the Board to uphold the Planners’ denial, pointing out that the commissioners are Board-appointed and not chasing re-election. Other sites were not adequately presented in the previous meeting, and weren’t included in the original application. Bold also criticized the new photo simulations, saying they were taken when the Aspens were in full bloom.

Opponents were also united in their disdain for what they maintained were gross violations of setback guidelines. According to County Assistant Planner Heather deBethizy, the 40’ x 60’ building planned for the site met the “hard and fast setback guidelines” as specified by County code, though she did acknowledge that it failed to comply with “design guidelines.” Roughly 100’ to 150’ of recommended setback would have been reduced to 10’ or 15’,  which detractors considered excessive.

Incline’s Peterson disputed the Planning Commission findings, saying the design guidelines are not mandatory. “Requirements of 1.5 and 2.5 times the tower heights would eliminate any such cell structures in the Crowley urbanized area,” he said. “The Planning Commission erred.”

Peterson and cohort Flynn also railed against opponents’ insistence that aesthetics and visual impacts would lead to reduced property values and degradation of the neighborhood’s character. “There’s no clear evidence that property values would be diminished. Commercially zoned areas have impacts,” Flynn said.

Project supporters made conspicuous mention of health and safety concerns, making the case that better cell service could make the difference between life and death, and aid first responders in crisis situations. But opponents such as Daylight Kerwin lamented not being able to discuss other health concerns. “It’s interesting we can talk about health and safety issues of not having cell service, but we can’t talk about long-term health issues [associated with cell towers],” she pointed out.

Viva la Vista Towers?

The view from the Shelton’s property of the lot. “Wood” two more “trees” have marred this view any more than the phone poles, power lines and piles of cut lumber? (Photos: Lunch)

Dead as it might be, the Incline project isn’t the last hope for Crowley cell service. As Yoda said, “There is another.” Allowed to speak during the evening was Robert MacLachlan with Tustin-based Vista Towers. Just within the last week, he filed a use permit application with the County for a proposed “Vista Verizon Tower Site” near Hilton Creek, which DeBethizy said is being evaluated. “[Vista] only came back in light of the original denial because there was enough interest from the town in an alternate site.”

Board Chair Hazard said he didn’t want Vista to become a “sideshow” and distract from Incline’s appeal, which was the singular focus of the evening’s agenda, though MacLachlan’s impact on the evening’s events would be clearly felt later on.

MacLachlan said he is currently in discussion with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) on terms for a possible 25-year lease. LADWP, he said, called Vista upon learning of the Planning Commission’s denial of Incline. An agreement, he said, could be done in as little as three months.

Even if LADWP agrees to lease the property, the cell site comes with unknowns, including environmental impacts on nearby hiking trails, plants and wildlife. Opinions vary on the coverage maps. Verizon and LADWP seem to think the site provides “excellent coverage,” though AT&T’s RF engineers reportedly said the location was “a no go.” He said Verizon performed a site walk within the last 10 days, and concluded it was “superior” to the Czeschin site. “I think the Sherwin Summit is better served by the location at Hilton Creek,” he opined.

Vista’s tower, acknowledged MacLachlan, would be visible against the hillside. “There will be some visual impact,” he said.

At the time of the Planning Commission ruling, the Vista project essentially didn’t exist as a formal option for the County to consider. “It’s an alternative, but is it viable? We don’t know that yet,” Hazard cautioned. He also echoed the point that the naked terrain wouldn’t leave so much as a fig leaf to conceal the tower. “The Hilton site is a good one, but [I consider it] a very high risk venture at this point.”

Board baffles bettors

The final vote played out like a stop on the World Poker Tour. Attendees were on the edge of their seat. Any hopes that Incline might withdraw its appeal and opt to come back in six months for another run at the project after the Vista site had been further vetted faded quickly as Flynn and Peterson went all in, hoping for a reversal of fortune.

Flop and turn cards played out rather predictably.

“It’s a commercial site, but it’s surrounded by residential. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? The bird is in the wrong place,” Supervisor Larry Johnston concluded. “Shame on us if we don’t allow this and [the Vista] project falls through,” Supervisor Vikki Bauer remarked. Supervisor Byng Hunt said that for him it came down to location and the possibility of a viable alternative in a better location. “I’m hesitant to reverse a decision Planners considered very carefully.” Hazard spoke of Oasis, which has never even had landline service, and other outlying areas craving cell service, and lamented a lack of movement toward consensus. That made it 2-2

The river card vote came down to Supervisor Tim Hansen. “It’s inappropriate for Vista to present that project; it sandbags Incline Partners’ project. We have to judge [the Incline project] on its merits. I understand the importance; two-thirds of my district doesn’t have cell service.”

Then came the surprise.

“That said, the setback doesn’t change the height of the towers, but if one person’s property rights are violated, I can’t support it.” It was over, 2-3.

“That could be it,” Hazard assessed. “My fear is we may doom ourselves to no cell service.” Alex Millan, attending his very first public meeting, was more upbeat about the outcome. “There’s another option out there and it could be better and one that more of the community can get behind,” he summarized. “We waited this long, we can wait a little longer. Time to move on.”