Letters to the Editor
There are two letters this week regarding the proposed amendments to the Old Mammoth Place project. Mammoth’s Town Council is expected to vote on these amendments at its next meeting July 20.
Here we go again
Dear Editor:
The June 18, 2016 issue of The Sheet described a special meeting of the Mammoth Planning Commission to request amendments to the Clearwater (now called Old Mammoth Place) development project passed in 2009 after more than 56 meetings where public comments were taken. Here we go again! The developer wants more changes to their ‘Specific Plan’ that was already at odds with local zoning variances or code changes that many in the public vigorously protested. The following was approved in 2009:
-488 bedrooms.
-346 residential units.
– 17,000 square feet of restaurant space.
– 9,500 square feet of conference space.
– 597 (of 619 needed) “Underground” parking spaces.
– Buildings no higher than 5 stories or 55 feet.
– Building footprint 48 percent of overall site.
The following are the requested changes:
– Raise the building height to 65 feet (6 stories).
– Increase conference space from 9,500 to 14,500 square feet.
– Mitigate workforce housing requirements so none are on the property.
Town attorney Andrew Morris stated: “There is nothing in the law that compels us to protect private views.”
Mammoth Alliance of Property Owner Associations [MAPOA] Comment – This is wisely left to local jurisdictions by the State of California.
Some issues either not discussed or not mentioned in The Sheet June 18, 2016 article that the public fought from 2007 through 2010 were:
-The Sheet March 14, 2009 issue article: “Clearwater Petition Denied –Town Attorney dismisses petition on technicality.” This petition by local Mammoth residents would have resulted in a referendum (local Mammoth public vote), rather than a simple majority vote by Town Council, to approve the project.
-Underground parking does not mean underground, rather a podium above ground from which height is measured. In February of 2010 there was a special workshop to discuss this as reported in The Sheet February 2, 2010 issue: “Town Council approved max building height of 55 feet last year–when does 55 become 64.5? Well, leave it to a developer to make it all seem logical by suggesting that one measures from the average grade of 2 corners of a building not to exceed 9.5 feet above any other corner”.
Town allows up to 50 percent of “underground” parking to be above ground, resulting in the podium from which height is measured.
Definition of height does not include appurtenances such as solar panels, communication towers, and elevator shafts on the roof.
Story Poles should be erected on site to illustrate massiveness and height, in addition to, BUT NOT replacement for, engineering drawing, actual models, artist renderings, graphics, 3-D simulations, and animated “fly-bys”.
Where will water, electric, internet, and other infrastructure additions come from?
A Letter to the Editor from Steve Schwind (a Mammoth resident and business owner) in the March 20, 2010 issue of The Sheet opined: “Staff spends more time circumventing code than enforcing it.”
So here we go again. The developer wants even more changes to their ‘specific plan’ that were already at odds with local zoning and that many in the public vigorously protested. We hope the new Town Council will be receptive to Public Comments; Town Council in the 2007 through 2010 time frame clearly was not, as demonstrated by the significant opposition by the Mammoth public expressed in over 56 meetings.
What happens with Old Mammoth Place will likely set the standard for what developers will do in the future. The town can either enforce its own rules or placate the desires of developers. Increasing financial gains is not sufficient justification for changes.
Andy Ott
Mammoth Alliance of Property Owner Associations (MAPOA)
