Some members of the community remember previous ESUSD Boards of Education earmarking some of this funding for a gym. Superintendent Don Clark, who was hired two years after Measure E was approved, however, stated at Wednesday night Board meeting held in Benton that while discussions had been had among previous Boards to this end, no formal resolution or vote was taken.

The proposition itself does not specifically mention a gym for Benton either. The ballot language back then stated “Eastern Sierra Unified School District Bond Measure E: To accommodate growth; repair and renovate aging electrical, plumbing and air-ventilation systems; modernize classrooms; improve technology to meet the demands of a 21st century education; become eligible for millions in state matching funds; improve student safety; all through a comprehensive plan.”

The question remains whether or not the discussions held by previous Boards were enough to constitute a commitment to the project. Current ESUSD Board members were divided.

“We need to revisit this using a portion of the bond money,” said Board member Melinda Melendrez, who represents the Benton area. “We probably couldn’t complete the gym but we could get it going and then use other money. We’re not investing in this school and it’s dwindling away.” Melendrez explained it as a vicious circle, comparing it to an experience she’d had while working at the Home Depot.

We weren’t making sales because we didn’t have enough people in the department and we couldn’t hire more people because we weren’t making sales, she explained. It was a vicious circle.

“We need to throw an investment into the school and make good on promises,” Melendrez added. “There are two local contractors who want to build a gym here. We just have to take the first step and invest in the school.”

Melendrez said Benton was just looking for a 6,000 square foot outbuilding where the children could play sports in the winter.

“If anyone has a legitimate reason why this school shouldn’t have a gym let me know and I’ll fight you for it,” Melendrez said.

“Can we revisit the bond to see what’s there and see if we can get some money out,” Board member Gabe Segura asked Clark. The answer was yes.

“We need to reprioritize projects and bring some money back to the gym,” Melendrez said.

Since the agenda item stated that the discussion would cover what other options the Board had to explore for funding the gym, Segura asked Clark what the other options were.

“There are four viable sources that I can think of,” Clark said. “Another bond specifically for a gym, a parcel tax, donations, and grants. But there aren’t any grants out there that I know of that would do this [build a gym].”

“We need to review which projects are priorities,” Segura said.

Board Chair John Peters, however, had a different opinion.

“We have spent more time on the gym than any other item,” Peters said. “It’s not exhausted but it’s been thorough. Nobody doesn’t want to see a gym here but I don’t see how a gym you’re describing is feasible with the remaining bond money.”

According to Clark, there is approximately $4 million left in the bond. He said that the money that has been used so far has gone to renovations at all campuses in the ESUSD, including approximately $2 million in Benton. The only school that hasn’t receive bond money is Lee Vining High School because it was completely rebuilt anyway after burning down 10 years ago, Clark said.

“We need something new at the table, funding-wise, to get the wheels turning,” Peters continued. “You can’t just start it hoping to get the money. Other sources need to be identified first.”

Melendrez disagreed, claiming that people need to see the District invest in the school and then other funding sources would be easy to find.

“There is $1.5 million [from the bond] that could have been allocated and would have built something, we can do something with this,” she said. “We can build a smaller gym with room for growth. All we need are four walls, a roof and a floor for now.”

She added that she refused to ask for another bond or a parcel tax at this time.

“We have to look at the whole district and its needs, and the amount of money remaining in the bond,” Peters argued.

When an idea of somehow partnering with Mono County was thrown on the table, Supervisor Fred Stump, who attended the meeting, took the podium.

“I’m getting complaints about this process because people don’t trust you,” Stump said to the Board. “They don’t trust you because they don’t have a clue as to what you’re doing. You need to send a letter to residents to explain your thought process. They haven’t seen the thorough process your describing.

“If promises must be broken, you need to explain why really well,” he said.

Stump addressed the idea that has been thrown around to turn Benton’s community center into the gym.

“The community center is off-campus and I’m not sure a conversion would do you any better,” he said. “If you’re serious about getting the County involved, let me know. I don’t think the community center idea is doable.”

Segura suggested that the Board add the discussion to its next agenda as an action item (Wednesday’s discussion did not allow any action to be taken).

“We haven’t exhausted every avenue,” Segura said. “I’d be willing to do some legwork and I’m sure Melinda would too. We need to exhaust everything.”

The TBID proposes to levy a 1.5% assessment on gross monthly revenue of restaurants and retail, a 1% assessment on gross monthly lodging revenue and a 2% levy on ski lift tickets and ski school.

At Wednesday’s Council meeting in Suite Z, MMSA CEO Rusty Gregory said 2% of all bike park ticket revenue should also be assessed.

The TBID, designed to raise money to support commercial air service and additional marketing, is considered a self-imposed assessment of local businesses, and not a general tax.

The assessment is proposed to be tiered based upon certain criteria. Those businesses which have at least $150,000 in annual revenue with at least half that revenue coming from visitors, as determined by credit card receipts, would be subject to the above assessments. Business that don’t meet the threshold would pay a flat $500 fee.

Mammoth Lakes Tourism Executive Director John Urdi said Wednesday night that the TBID had 68.35% support.

Of the top 68 revenue generators in Mammoth representing 81% of the total business, “we had 65%,” he said. This despite having 11 national chains on that list which didn’t respond, so therefore didn’t vote, so therefore counted against.

But what turned a rote discussion into an interesting one was the testimony of Derek Johnson, owner of Crystal Crag Lodge in the Lakes Basin.

Johnson was particularly critical of what is essentially a tax being imposed on a sales-weighted basis. Is it constitutional? he asked. And if it is constitutional, well then, is it proper?

He then discussed the cumulative impact of taxation and wondered about the loss of business due to pricing out the customer which we’ll never be able to calculate.

He said there is more opposition to the TBID than supporters would lead you to believe and that many business owners disagree with it, but they have chosen not to speak out because they don’t see the point.

Johnson extracted the following from Urdi: That of 636 businesses eligible to vote, just 71 voted for the TBID. Doing the math, that means that 11% of the voters controlled 68.35% of the vote, with Mammoth Mountain controlling 40% of the vote all by its lonesome.

Speaking in support of the TBID was MMSA CEO Rusty Gregory, who promised that in addition to MMSA’s participation in the BID, that the company will significantly increase its own marketing efforts over the next three years. Already, he said, MMSA has opened a new marketing office in El Segundo which it plans to staff with up to six employees.

As Gregory said, “Ask yourself why Vail puts so much into marketing?” Editor’s note: He didn’t answer his own question, but I suppose the answer would be, ‘Because it works.’

“We have a much better product,” he continued, “but we’re shrinking like a has-been.”

Gregory added that the RFID technology the Mountain installed to gather data and track customers shows that there are a lot more customers who come a lot less often than they used to.

For the BID to become adopted, a few more hurdles still need to be cleared. 1.) a 45-day protest period, which began Thursday, followed by 2.) a public meeting before Town Council on June 5 and a public hearing on July 3. The BID could be implemented as early as August 1. Protests can be lodged with Town Clerk Jamie Gray or Mammoth Lakes Tourism Exec. Director John Urdi.

In the case of Police Chief Dan Watson, very creative.

Creative to the point where Mammoth Lakes Tourism Executive Director John Urdi might feel a wee bit threatened.

In a memo to Council, Watson suggested that it would make fiscal sense if the Town moved his department into MLT’s building next to the USFS Welcome Center along Hwy 203.

Under Watson’s proposal, Urdi’s organization could be moved to the former Finance Department offices (now vacant) on the second floor of the Minaret Mall.

Watson points out that the MLPD is paying about $60,000 annually for the privilege of operating out of its current rabbit warren on Old Mammoth Road.

The current department building “has been a short-term solution [for housing the department] for 27 years,” deadpanned Watson.

Meanwhile, the MLT building is paid for and MLT pays rent of just $1/year to the Inyo National Forest.

According to Watson, local Forest Supervisor Jon Regelbrugge said the building is required to be used for Town business according to the terms of the lease, and that a police station would be consistent with those terms.

“I fully expect John [Urdi] to object,” said Watson, “and two Councilmembers I’ve heard from so far don’t like the idea … but my responsibility is to make recommendations to Council … that are efficient, effective and save money.”

The Chief says the MLT’s building could accommodate a department of up to 30 personnel. “It’s large enough to house at least what we were before,” he said. And though not designed as a police building, Watson believes it could be converted relatively inexpensively.

When reached for comment, Urdi responded by saying “I’m opposed to it slightly … with every fiber of my being.”

Urdi said the funding that built his headquarters came from tourism dollars or grant dollars via tourism.

Mayor Matthew Lehman, who is opposed to the idea, believes moving MLT would constitute “an improper use of Measure A [tourism] dollars.”

“I respect the Chief [Watson] for coming forward,” added Lehman, “but I don’t think it’s an appropriate place [for the Police Dept.].Financially, he said, it also doesn’t make sense in the near term because the MLPD has four years left on its lease – so if you play musical chairs, you’re still left with space that’s still sitting fallow.

Councilmember Michael Raimondo, also against the idea, commented, “Having a police station as the first thing you see upon guest arrival doesn’t send the most welcoming message.”

He would rather see the Town sublease the former Finance Dept. space.

The Association seized the opportunity to present the Supervisors with ideas of its own, hoping to sway the legislative body to look at giving the department more money from other pots, and actually charge for services rendered rather than cut back on personnel as Fitch had suggested.

At Tuesday’s regular Board meeting, Association President Rick Mitchell came before the Board in the workshop format with thoughts on a cooperative planning effort between the County and the Association. All of the Paramedics had reviewed Mitchell’s presentation and had the opportunity to comment on it, leaving Mitchell with the impression that it fairly represented the entire Association.

Mitchell explained that the medics were in favor of helping offset the $2.7 million burden the program puts on the County’s General Fund, but that they preferred to do so through revenue-raising methods, rather than cost-cutting.

“Fitch had a different focus then what should happen,” Mitchell said. “They wanted to cut personnel but then also wanted a lot of new programs. We want to avoid their ‘cut it to fix it’ approach.”

The Fitch Report suggested changing the system so that an EMS rig would be manned with one EMT and one Paramedic, rather than the current setup of two medics. This switch would be done over time through attrition. The Report also suggested that the County look at starting a Paramedicine Program. However, without enough or any input from vested parties and the community, the report left many, including the previous Board, with a bad taste in their mouth.

Mitchell wasn’t kidding when he said the focus of his presentation was on ways to raise revenue. He presented three ideas to cut costs, and about a dozen ways to generate revenue.

The three cost cutting measures were: cutting A-87 indirect costs, first responder funds, and removing the Fitch Consultant line item of $65,000 from the Paramedic’s budget.

Then he switched gears to revenue enhancement. Seemingly the most controversial idea he threw out was a rearrangement of the County’s Prop 172 funding. Prop 172 was a permanent sales tax increase approved by the voter in 1993 for first responder services.

“I realize this idea would just be taking money from one pocket and putting it into another,” Mitchell said.

Currently the medics don’t get a dime of this funding.

“It all goes to the Sheriff’s Department and the DA’s [District Attorney] office,” Mitchell said. “Twenty percent could justifiably go to the medics.” A number that Supervisor Fred Stump said he and Mitchell had discussed.

In 2012/13 the County received $1.2 million from this funding source. The language in the measure is loose enough that the DA’s office has been able to qualify to receive the funding over the years.

“172 was written to support emergency services and included law enforcement,” said Supervisor Stump. “It was oriented to any vehicle with emergency lights.”

“It [the fund distribution] can be changed,” said new County Finance Director Leslie Chapman. “It is at the County’s discretion.”

However, taking this money from the Sheriff’s Dept. and the DA could leave the County simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Sheriff’s Dept. and DA may require backfilling from the General Fund if this change occurred, leaving the Board back where it started.

Other ideas included a resident subscription program where a family would pay a fee that exempts them from the out of pocket expenses of an ambulance ride.

“Emergency services are usually covered by insurance companies, so it would only apply to non-emergency situations,” Mitchell explained. “But it would be a good tool to get in the door and educate people.”

Billing for service rendered was another idea. Currently, according to Mitchell the following services rendered by the Paramedics are currently not billed: CARE FLIGHT transfers, diabetic emergency drug treatment, SVT cardiac emergency treatment, asthma and other breathing treatment, and fire camp and fire line stand-byes. Mitchell suggested the Board consider a substantial base service fee, pointing out that some of these medications cost between $800-$1,000.

One criticism of the program has been that the paramedics aren’t kept busy enough so Mitchell suggested the County stop contracting with a private company for Mental Health Transfers and have the medics do it instead. These are mental health transfers requiring an ambulance, and currently the contract cost is $78,000.

Mitchell’s presentation also suggested an optional, Euro-style Ski Area Subscription Fee. When purchasing a ticket, skiers and riders would have the option to buy some insurance for the day with a dollar or two added to their ticket price.

Supervisor Byng Hunt said that was a good idea, but he wasn’t sure Mammoth Mountain CEO would go for it right now, since a new tax is already going to be placed on lift tickets once the Business Improvement District in Mammoth is in place.

“Even though it’s optional, there’s still the administration of it,” Hunt said.

Lastly, claiming that it was one of the very few things he agreed with Fitch on, Mitchell pointed to raising ambulance fees as another way to increase revenue for the program. Fees were last raised seven years ago.

All of Mitchell’s numbers added up to a savings of approximately $1.1 million to the Paramedic Program’s bottom line.

Mitchell also suggested structural changes to the department for long-term viability and accountability.

“Ambulance fees are the department’s single largest funding source at $1.2 million,” Mitchell explained. “Raising the number of transports to the hospital would raise revenue.” He suggested revisiting an idea that had been discussed with Gary Myers, former CEO and current Acting CEO at Mammoth Hospital regarding incorporation of the hospital’s two ambulances into the Paramedic Program.

Mitchell also suggested creating a Paramedic/Fire District on lands outside any existing fire district such as Swagger Creek, Devil’s Gate and Conway Ranch.

“If incorporated into a County or special Paramedic/Fire District, fire mitigation fees could be collected and divided with the nearest FPD [Fire Protection District] paying them something for the services they now provide for free,” stated Mitchell’s report. “A small percentage of property tax arising from those inside a new district could be divided between the Paramedic Program and the closest FPD who would now, by contract, provide the same structural fire protection services they had previously been providing under a Sphere of Influence obligation.”

“Some of these ideas are complex and may not be logistically feasible,” Stump concluded.

“It’s going to have to have a General Fund Subsidy,” Supervisor Tim Fesko said. “It just comes down to how much. Let’s keep the momentum going.”

By Jacob Penderworth

After years of displaying the latest and greatest of Hollywood using film reels and analogue projectors, things are finally going fully digital over at Mammoth’s Minaret Cinemas, and it’s going to cost the owner $102,000.

Film studios are expected to go fully digital by 2014, so Minaret Cinemas owner Bill Walters feels it is finally necessary to make the jump. He’ll be installing state-of-the-art Christie projectors combined with servers containing 4 TB of storage each — these store the film files. It’s quite the venture.

“Why go to this great expense?” said Walters. “On a wide release, which goes to 3,000+ theaters, the average cost is about $1,500 per print. With digital, the first hard drive is probably $5,000 and the rest are $2 a piece. So, the expense goes to the theater and the savings to the studios.”

Theaters around the world are currently having to purchase new equipment in order to keep up with the times. In small towns especially, it’s hard to see why such an investment is worth the time. Everything works fine right now, but studios are moving content to hard drives and server racks. Cinemas have two choices: change with the times or go out of business. “After almost 24 years, I could probably walk away, but I don’t want to see the town without a movie theater, and I like the industry,” Walters said.

“We’re upgrading the whole theater. We just put new carpet in, we’re hoping to put new seats in this fall, and we’re going to install a new heating and ventilation system soon.”

Walters added, “Some people like the grainy look that traditional film has, and the reality of going digital is that they’ll be watching a huge high-definition TV.” Thankfully, there won’t be as many issues with the picture or audio and if there are, the new system includes 24/7 support. That means Walters and his team no longer have to troubleshoot things while viewers wait impatiently. Instead, they can quickly contact support to work with them on the problem at hand.

If all goes according to plan, Minaret Cinemas will be furnished with a fully digital projector, its accompanying servers, and other necessary equipment by Wednesday, May 22. So, if you enjoy seeing grain and prefer a vintage experience, make sure to drop into the theater this weekend.

2013 marks the 40-year anniversary of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), an event both commended and critiqued at the third SNARL (Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory) lecture on Tuesday night at the Green Church off U.S. 395. On hand to discuss the history of the ESA, and species conservation in the United States, was University of California, Santa Barbara Assistant Professor Dr. Peter Alagona.

Dr. Alagona opened the lecture with a question to the audience: “who’s heard of environmental history?” he asked. By the crickets in the room, he had his answer. Dr. Alagona explained that his field, environmental history, emerged from the environmental movement in the 1960s and 70s as a study of environmental policies and practices over time. Environmental history focuses on social, political, and scientific approaches to the natural world.

The ESA offered a perfect example of an environmental policy within a historical context: “The landmark ESA passed in 1973 with nearly unanimous Congressional support,” he explained. “By the end of the 1970s, however, it became one of the country’s most controversial laws.” Much of that controversy stemmed from bitter struggles to classify, or resist classification, of endangered species. Dr. Alagona argued  that these “endangered species debates are as much about the politics of places as they are about the creatures that live there.”

Dr. Alagona proceeded to illuminate the history of species conservation in the United States, beginning with a debate between eighteenth century naturalists over whether species could even become extinct. “By the 1880s, it became abundantly clear that human actions, not just natural forces, could drive species to extinction,” he said, demonstrating with a sobering image, circa 1870, of a colossal pile of bison skulls in the American Southwest.

He pointed to another example, the California grizzly, noting that in 1848, the state boasted one grizzly to every 11 settlers. By the 1880s, California grizzlies were rare; the last recorded sighting of a grizzly was in 1924. “The decline of the grizzly helped inspire the State’s first grassroots conservation movement,” said Dr. Alagona.

Conservation, a concept crucial to the Endangered Species Act, “is an idea that [nature] reserves could be store houses for biological diversity,” he said. He dated the concept “from around 1880.” The notion of conservation expanded in the 1930s under the New Deal with the formation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Roosevelt’s “tree army,” which was intended to promote environmental conservation among other projects. “By the 1960s, the notion that habitat conservation should form some part of any environmental movement was widely accepted,” he said.

Today, conservation is one of the principle goals of the ESA, and one of its primary tools for protecting endangered species from extinction. The ESA requires a habitat conservation plan (HCP) for any area inhabited by a species listed as threatened or endangered, should private citizens, Native American tribes, State, or Federal organizations wish to develop property in that area. Here in the Eastern Sierra this requirement, along with requirements by California statutes like CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), present a challenge to renewable energy and other interested developers. That challenge is both good and bad, Dr. Alagona argued; it gets to the core of why the ESA remains controversial.

“Reserves are no panacea for complex social and ecological problems,” Dr. Alagona argued.

California, an area along with Arizona, the Desert Southwest, Florida, and the Southern Appalachians, of high biological diversity, has 14,000 protected areas of some kind, said Dr. Alagona. This land is set aside for the preservation of endangered or threatened species like the California golden eagle, San Joaquin kit fox, Mojave Desert tortoise, and Mountain yellow-legged frog. California has the second highest number of endangered species, 303 listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the largest number of at risk species in the country, Dr. Alagona said.

So how has the ESA worked out for the endangered species it seeks to preserve?  Of the nearly 1500 species ever listed under the ESA, Dr. Alagona said, just 10, or .6%, have gone extinct. But only 29, or 1.9%, have been delisted due to recovery. “De-listing efforts have been controversial; how recovery is measured is not certain; not to mention, 40 years is not enough time to expect full recovery,” Dr. Alagona said. Nevertheless, he argued, while the ESA has done much to prevent the extinction of endangered species, “it has done much less to aid recovery.”

He noted the challenges of aiding the recovery of endangered species with complex habitat issues, offering the example of the Steelhead trout, listed as threatened and endangered all along the West Coast. “Many factors have effected the Steelhead population, but none more than the loss of habitat due to dams,” he said. Of the 1400 named dams in California, most were built for a different kind of conservation: the conservation of water. Given the importance of water to this state, there is therefore no easy solution to the Steelhead’s habitat problems.

Meanwhile the Mojave Desert tortoise, which has an area the size of Massachusetts set aside as protected habitat in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, “has continued to decline due to complex, synergetic factors,” Dr. Alagona said. Some of these factors include disease, the introduction of exotic species, and climate change.

His final argument: the ESA represents a historic shift in our nation’s approach to protecting the environment. Yet, like any system of thought, it belongs to a particular historical period. After 40 years, he said, it’s time to reassess the policies and practices put forth by the ESA.

“The traditional approach to conservation starting in the 1930s has been to protect species by setting aside nature preserves,” he said. “It’s time to rethink the meaning of habitat, itself.” The future of conservation requires not just creating more habitats, he argued, but reconsidering ‘habitat’ “not so much as protected places, but as protected processes. This will require creating not just more habitats, but creating more sustainable landscapes.”

On Monday, May 6, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that may end the tax-free online shopping experience in all states.

The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 was approved Monday by a margin of 69 to 27. This new proposal, should it be made a law, will require online businesses reporting more than $1 million per year in revenue to secure sales tax from all customers, regardless of the state in which the company resides. The one exception is that residents of the five states without statewide sales tax, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, will not be required to pay this levy on any items shipped to their home state. Businesses based in these territories are not exempt.

Up until now, customers have been asked to pay Internet sales tax on their yearly returns, but the government has observed that, in past years, very few actually have. With the introduction of the Marketplace Fairness Act, all that may change soon.

Currently there are several major online companies that support the bill. Amazon.com, a corporation known for sidestepping sales tax as long as possible, is the largest new advocate of the MFA. The Seattle-based company has been preparing for the inevitable uniform sales tax model to reach the Internet ever since Arkansas passed a bill to collect in that state. However, until this latest proposal was made, Amazon.com was firm in its belief that sales tax did not need to be collected since it was headquartered in Washington, an exempt state.

Greg, an office assistant at Footloose Sports in Mammoth, said, “I believe the bill will level the playing field for local businesses. It should bring back the customers who were lost when they found out that they could shop tax-free online. If it doesn’t completely level the playing field, it will definitely make things a lot closer.”

Most people have grown accustomed to shopping digitally because of the convenience and cheaper prices. Still, the one thing online stores do not offer is instant delivery. They’re getting closer, with subscription services like Amazon Prime, but UPS can still only move so fast.

Going forward, the proposal must pass in the House and then be approved by President Obama. The President’s support is very likely, as the White House said in a statement on April 22 that it “strongly supports provisions in [The Marketplace Fairness Act] that would directly address concerns by granting only those States and localities that have simplified their sales tax systems the option to require all retailers, including those located out-of-state, to collect sales and use taxes already owed under law.”

If the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 passes on all levels, the soonest it will be implemented is October 1.

Sources: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/web/internet-sales-tax/index.html)

The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INTERNET_SALES_TAX)

The Mono Lake Committee, US Forest Service, Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association, California State Parks and the Bodie Foundation are teaming up to sponsor the 10th season of the volunteer program at Mono Lake this summer. Volunteers will have the opportunity to meet people from all over the world and share their knowledge of the Eastern Sierra. Participants may staff information desks and/or rove and answer questions at the lakeshore. Free training will be held on May 22, 23, 29 & 30 and  June 5 & 6 in the Mono Basin.

Please contact Janet at 760.709.1162 for more information or to sign up. You will be sent details and a training schedule.

Planning and Economic Development Commissioners were in favor of what they considered relatively minor changes, some to reconcile differences between the 1991 plan for the golf course and residential projects, and the current layout of the golf course and residential projects. To date, some 434 units have either been built or entitled in the Lodestar Master Plan, which leaves 829 units, including a 500-unit hotel, remaining for development.

However, Commissioners expressed concern with Area 5 in the Lodestar Master Plan, which includes the potential for 200 single family homes, the 500-unit hotel, and 80,000 square feet of resort-related commercial space. Their concern stemmed from the 200 single family homes, which, due to vagaries in language, could potentially take over the entire Area 5 development.

Said Commissioner David Harvey, “My concern is for the hotel property. It would please me if the area for the hotel was singled out. We’re limited on TOT [Transient Occupancy Tax]-producing property, and I would hate to inadvertently do something that would put in jeopardy a 500-room product that has always been contemplated for this site.”

Harvey characterized single-family dwellings as “trophy homes,” and said that they “don’t help the Town of Mammoth Lakes at the end of the day with potential TOT generation.”

John Hooper of the Solstice II project, 2.41 acres contained in Area 5, clarified that the single family dwelling amendment to the Lodestar Master Plan was intended only for Solstice II. “We never contemplated that this entire zone would be single family homes,” he said. This explanation satisfied Commissioners, who made a note of containing single family dwellings within the Solstice II project, and offered their overall support for the Lodestar Master Plan Amendment. The Amendment now goes to Council for final approval.