A VILLAGE IN THE TREE
Published in the June 13, 2026 issue.
As I sat in Suite Z watching the madness unfold on Wednesday morning, I couldn’t help but think of the late Skip Harvey, Nancy Walter, John Walter, Evanne Jardine, John Cunningham … and the Keebler Elves.
Because during the Town’s General Plan update of two decades ago, the Advocates for Mammoth hit upon a terse phrase which described what they envisioned for Mammoth’s future – a Village in the Trees. The idea being that the built environment would not subsume the natural one.
But since that time, Mammoth’s Planning Commission has been renamed the Planning and Economic Development Commission, whose longtime chair (Michael Vanderhurst) has been an unabashed tourism (he works for Mammoth Lakes Tourism) and development booster.
And successive Town Councils have stripped away any pretense of the Town caring about the natural environment.
So what you get is what happened Wednesday, a development plan which calls for the removal of almost 600 trees on the 7.7 acre Woodsite (bordering Minaret Road just down from the Main/Minaret Intersection). In its clear-cut stead, there’ll be 67, three-story housing units encompassing 255 rooms which will comfort those suburbanites who are deathly afraid of the unfamiliar.
The vote was unanimous – 4-0.
The developer talked about preserving the site’s “alpine character” and even mentioned the salvation of one 60” diameter tree along Minaret.
I can’t help thinking that’s where the Keebler Elves will hole up. A Village Among the Tree.
Affordable housing mitigation will not be built on-site. Developer Mark Rafeh will pay an in-lieu fee instead. Why wouldn’t he? The total housing fee he’ll have to pay is approximately $600,000.
It’s worth it at this juncture to take a detour to discuss how the Town continues to let developers get away with highway robbery in regard to affordable housing mitigation.
As Community Development Director Nolan Bobroff explained in the NVSP (North Village Specific Plan) Housing Policy Memo attachment in the staff report:
“The 1999 NVSP Amendment contained the entire text of the AHMRs (Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements) within the body of the specific plan and required each project within the NVSP area to provide housing units for 58.5% of the full-time employees (FTEs) generated by the project, with at least 50% of those units provided onsite and up to 50% provided offsite.
The adopted housing policies were then applied to each development project that was proposed shortly thereafter adoption, including the Village at Mammoth and the Westin.
The Town’s AHMRs described above were in effect from late-2000 up to mid-2004 when the Town adopted an update to the AHMRs. The update adjusted the number of housing units that needed to be provided from 58.5% of FTEs generated to 100% of FTEs generated, but reduced the multiplier for determining the number of FTEs by roughly half (0.5 FTEs per hotel room to 0.225 FTEs per hotel room).
… The 2009, 2014, and 2015 amendments moved away from an FTE standard to a standard based on a percentage of units, and ultimately allowed in the 2015 amendment for the entire obligation to be satisfied with the payment of in-lieu fees or an equivalent amount of on-site housing, off-site housing, or conveyance of land that could be used for housing development. This had the effect of making all mitigation options equal.”
Unfortunately, the current in-lieu fee is a mere $9,000 per unit, and Mammoth’s Council can’t seem to prioritize updating its DIF (Development Impact Fee) schedule.
“We’ve requested a workshop [with Council] to talk about DIF fees,” said Commission Chair Michael Vanderhurst. Classic. Let’s fix the latch now that all the horses have left the barn.
Developer Mark Rafeh tried to assuage the Commission that he is committed to building workforce housing and has acquired a large parcel for that purpose. His goal is to build 100 units, he said, for the “missing middle.”
Of course, that’s a separate idea having nothing to do with this project.
On a positive note, even though 582 trees are proposed to be removed, 256 will remain! And the developer promises to introduce 230 more.
Hilariously, Commissioner Lana Grand tried to make the argument that less trees is better because it will reduce fire risk and allow people to more easily obtain insurance.
In his public comment in opposition to the project, Hidden Valley resident Scott Strom complained that the project does not maintain the area’s forested nature and character.
The plan dominates the site versus being subordinate to it, he said.
“It’s called the Woodsite,” he reminded.
He also noted that the trees that are being preserved are along the perimeter of the project. More than 80% of the trees in the middle of the site will be removed.
This fell on deaf ears. “We’ve done as good as we can to get to the point where we are,” said Rafeh.
A self-described business owner named Ryan spoke in support of the project. He believes more housing is good for the rest of town and will reduce demand for nightly rentals elsewhere.
Commissioner Dawn Vereuck acknowledged that her hands were tied when it came to a project that checked all the boxes, no matter how cookie-cutter and nondescript it promises to be.
Long live the mediocracy!
