NEW VOTE, SAME RESULT

This issue was originally published in the May 31, 2025 Editon

 Bishop Planning Commission reaffirmed its April approval of variances granted to Bud Miller and Eric Bissell’s proposed climbing gym project at its regular meeting on Wednesday evening. 

The proposed gym project will be located at 168 East Line Street. 

The initial approval had been appealed because some letters and information had not been included in the record and made available to commissioners. 

But unlike the April meeting, Wednesday’s meeting was packed – that’s what happens when an issue simmers for a month and the general public starts wondering if the fix may be in. 

As Allan Pietrasanta acknowledged during his public comment, a rift in the cllmbing community has developed over this issue. 

Chief opposition to the project was from Karen and Howie Schwartz, who own the only existing indoor climbing gym in Bishop. 

Ms. Schwartz also sits on Bihsop’s City Council. And her fellow councilmember Jose Garcia spoke against the project at the April hearing. 

Reading the tea leaves and gazing upon the packed house on Wednesday, Mr. Schwartz was more conciliatory in person than he was in a letter submitted to the city opposing the project (see page 13). In fact, he said he supported the project on Wednesday, though he believed the variance to allow parking at the front of the lot near the street was bad precedent. 

No parking variance, however, would torpedo the project. 

Citing the City of Los Angeles’s recent decisions not to renew leases, David Surber declared that “L.A. wants us to fail” and that if we’re going to succeed as a community, we have to help ourselves – supporting this project is helping ourselves. 

To naysayers who think there’s not enough business in town to support a new gym, Olivia Johnson said, “Let the market decide.” 

There was even a public comment from a woman, Shelma Jun, who received a masters in Urban Planning from UCLA (these climbers are so damn smart!). She was in support. 

During deliberations, Commissioner Harry Bhakta kept harping on how he wanted the proponents to try to work out a 

 compromise with the neighbor so they could share a driveway and put the parking at the back of the property. 

But it was unrealistic to expect a private homeowner to want to share a driveway with a business. And Bhakta voting ‘no’ in hopes this would send parties back to the drawing board and fuel compromise was just plain naive. 

But then, Chairperson Heather Lind switched her vote from the last hearing to ‘yes,’ so the variances did pass by a 3-1 margin. 

Maybe Lind saw all those young people in the audience and thought it might be bad for her political career to vote against them. 

She did annoyingly commend the audience for being so civil the whole hearing – like she was speaking to a roomful of children. 

*The Commander-In-Uncivility, btw, is an aging, angry Boomer. 

We thought we should include some exceprts from the Howie Schwartz letter, just because we’re sure the allusion to a “poorly developed business plan” must have lit a whole bunch of fuses. 

*Aside: It’s always less about the business plan and more about the character and determination of the business person. 

And the whole thing isn’t about Howie’s opinion of the business anyway. Who cares? It’s about two parking spaces and the location of the parking on the lot. Getting into the business’s prospects just make you look like a hater. 

From Howie:

The developer highlights in their Summary Letter that they are entitled to a variance in part on the basis that they will add a novel community asset using an idea that has “floated in the ether for years” but never come to fruition to date due to lack of projected profitability. 

There already exists a viable business in downtown Bishop (Sage to Summit) that has been doing exactly what the developers are proposing since 2018. There are 4 fitness training businesses, and 3 Yoga studios already in existence in downtown Bishop.

Such a significant variance granted for this development would be unfair to business competitors who have complied with development standards. When Sage to Summit started in 2006, it was required to rebuild the entire sidewalk, which it did as well as planting trees, which was not required, but done voluntarily to maximize the aesthetics of the space. The building owner spent massive capital to renovate the building which required the necessary destruction of a mural on the building. An alternate mural was re-created in its place. These are the costs of starting new businesses. This developer wants the City of Bishop, to help them curb their costs in order to assist them to outcompete the existing businesses who have complied and cooperated, at significant expense, to start their own businesses in accordance with the Commission’s vision and plan.

The Climbing Wall Association has studied the industry and recommended in 2018 that a minimum population of 100,000 was needed to have a viable climbing gym. They say the industry is currently receding, with climbing gyms closing faster than they are opening. One gym (The Monkey House) in a similar sized mountain town (Carbondale, Colorado – population 6800) started when Sage to Summit did, with a similar business plan to what these developers have proposed here. Despite being the first and only commercial climbing facility in the Roaring Fork Valley, it recently shut its doors after only 6 years in operation. It was trying to do too much for too few.

The developers plan to build another metal warehouse building in the downtown area. The developers are proposing this as a “purpose-built” structure. When/if they eventually close their business, an unsightly and use-specific building with granted variances from the City is likely to remain vacant with limited utility for subsequent businesses. 

And from Klusmire’s desk: 

Still marveling at the sight of 60-plus people packing the Bishop Planning Commission meeting Wednesday. It was part party, with plenty of smiles, fist bumps, hugs and catching up with friends, and part politicking. To summarize the scene, my little brain guessed at how a couple of national newspapers might have headlined the action: 

The scandalous tabloid New York Post: “Fresh-faced future leaders of Bishop arrived in force, decked out in Patagonia, Lululemon, tattoos and piercings.” 

The staid Wall Street Journal: “Crowd of supporters back their entrepreneurial friends’ project, which they pledge to patronize.” 

The first take could just be an old guy overreacting to the appearance of new faces, new energy and a hint of generational change in Bishop. Public comments were thoughtful, personal, fact-filled and even cited Chamber of Commerce talking points. Better yet, most speakers nailed the 3-minute time limit. Try that at home. 

Could Wednesday have been a turning point for the local climbing and outdoor crews to realize they can make a real difference and wield even more power in local politics? Time will tell.

And even if Wednesday turns out to be a one-off event where a vocal, well-organized constituency shows up to support a project they like and will use, that would be good, too. Just showing up is usually more than half the battle in city hall. 

Note: There is currently an opening on the Planning Commission!