Letters to the Editor
Open letter to the Mono County Board of Supervisors
Allison and I would like to thank you for taking into consideration our comments regarding the proposed Rock Creek Canyon development.
Our objection is limited to one critically important aspect of the otherwise fine project: the proposal to allow 6,219 SF of non-conforming structures to remain, to be altered, and even to be expanded. The nature of this failure to conform to the Mono County General Plan is abhorrent: These structures overrun the requirement of a 30’ setback from Lower Rock Creek. Not only do these crumbling structures fail the 30’ test, in fact, they are adjacent to, overhang, and even over-span the iconic waterway. Despite the developer’s demand, and a shocking Planning Department and Commission complicity, this objectionable grandfathering can be eliminated without compromising the viability and profitability of the project.
In a circumstance such as this where private land sits astride one of Mono County’s iconic natural resources, thoughtful planning is of paramount importance. This board has an opportunity to leave a legacy of wise stewardship, or to leave a legacy of neglect.
We fully understand and support the benefits this project will provide in terms of jobs and tax/fee revenue. The development should and will move forward. The question is whether or not we take this opportunity to remove this travesty of riparian intrusion in conjunction with the redevelopment of this property. The developer sees a unique business opportunity to bring to market luxury homes overhanging a scenic waterway, a market feature unavailable anywhere else in the Eastern Sierra. In reality, these home sites will be equally desirable with building envelopes conforming to the general plan.
While Chapter 34 of the General Plan entitled “Non-Conforming Uses” is written poorly, the spirit of ‘grandfathering’ is clear. A homeowner should not be unfairly damaged by new requirements. However, alteration and expansion are limited by the following:
1. Shall not change the primary use of the land.
2. Shall not prolong the life of the non-conforming use.
3. Shall conform to current standards if use has been discontinued for 180 days.
4. Only “minor” alterations are allowed.
5. Structures in the flood zone are mandated to be removed.
If any of these criteria occur, removal should be required. In fact, some or all apply to each of the 6 structures for which the developer demands grandfathering rights.
The argument has been made that such variances are commonly allowed. The chair of the Planning Commission stated: “we waive these requirements all the time”. Allowing a reduced setback to enable a property owner to build a home on a difficult lot is whole different animal than allowing a developer to build on and over Rock Creek. This would be akin to saying that because firewood gathering is allowed we can let you fell a bristlecone pine to enhance your profitability.
A second argument is that the proponent has spent a lot of time and money getting the proposal to this point. An EIR is expensive, but is merely the cost of doing business for an extensive project such as this. It is understandable that the developer would be frustrated by new-found objections. Yet it is reasonable and expectable that public awareness develops over time. The costs and duration of this planning process are not out of line, and do not justify failure to implement good and long-standing public policy.
A third argument is that other non-conforming structures have been removed. This is the keystone of the proponent’s fundamentally flawed demand for waiver of stream setback. A false claim has been floated that 7,500 SF of stream-side structures were removed. In reality, 10 RV pads were taken out. The developer’s map indicates 3,835 SF. These ‘structures’ were pieces of aging concrete flatwork which would have been removed in any case.
Allow me to briefly describe how each of the 3 lots with non-conforming structures fails to comply with Chapter 34:
1. Lot 8 has the old Paradise Lodge, variously described by Planning Commissioners as ramshackle, dilapidated, and ‘a shack’. The restaurant and bar sit astride Rock Creek. Part of the sprawling structure is more than 30’ from the creek, but 3,000 SF encroach on the setback. The proposal is to convert it to a home with guest quarters- a kind of duplex. Although the term “minor” remains undefined, there is no question that the alteration would be considered major. In addition, the front yard setback is approximately 4’ from the Lower Rock Creek Road, sitting on the outside of a hairpin turn prone to black ice. Access from the proposed public parking lot to the canyon trail would be pinched down to a few feet adjacent to the residence. These two factors should be considered a public safety hazard. Don’t fall for the red herring claim that the lodge is ‘historical’ and cannot be removed- the cultural resources consultant has not found this to be true.
2. Lot 10 has two cabins and decks within inches of the creek. Failing decks could be built up into a part of the new residence. New non-conforming expansion would be used to attach the cabins to a new home. Once integrated into the new building, the structure taken as a whole would then increase the non-conformance by the square footage of new construction. New foundation work alone should be considered a ‘major’ alteration.
3. Lot 11 is quite similar to Lot 10. In addition, these two cabins actually overhang the creek, and are within the 100 year flood zone.
You may ask why is there is such avid opposition to this development receiving the special privilege of having standard development standards set aside. First of all, we advocate for fairness. The 30’ setback from a waterway is reasonable, good public policy, and has been upheld consistently throughout Mono County since the requirement was implemented in the General Plan. Secondly, while we hold no animosity toward Mr. Hooper, his work to date on the property seems to indicate a disdain for the planning process. He has done a fine job of cleaning up the property, but some of the work done prior to approval has increased public scrutiny. The premature removal of the lower cabins, some of which were deemed historic by his EIR, seemed to be a trampling of protocol. The work that he has done on his own home is lovely, but signals his intentions as to ‘minor’ alteration of these structures which are too close to the creek. One other factor is that the last two Planning Commission hearings were poorly managed and those commenting were at times disrespected, badgered, and lectured rather than heard.
Thank you again for considering this point of view. Please remember that “Bad planning lasts for generations”. You have an opportunity to set a precedent one way or the other. These poorly placed and dilapidated structures can and should be removed in conformance with the objectives and policies of the General Plan. With a little creativity, this can be done without compromising the success or profitability of the project. The alternate is also true. If this board votes to approve this development as submitted, these 6,219 square feet of structures will violate the riparian zone into the foreseeable future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jay and Allison Jensen
Swall Meadows
“Tipping Point” clarification
Dear Editor:
I was interested to see the article on Mono County’s solid waste situation on thesheetnews.com. In reading your article titled “Tipping Point,” I noticed one area in particular that may need some clarification and/or correction to your readers. As the author of HDR’s report and in delivering the presentation, I indicated that HDR recommends that the County ultimately implement a long haul transfer station alternative.
This recommendation was based on the assumption that the County would haul waste to a landfill located in Nevada, namely the Lockwood Landfill. The article stated that “Urquhart cautioned against an out-of-state move, pointing out that “environmentally, it also might be better [handled in county] than other smaller landfills in other states you know little about, especially given new and more stringent air and other quality standards.”
In that portion of the presentation I was cautioning against using other smaller out-of-state landfills (other than Lockwood) as the smaller ones may have potential capacity and environmental liability issues.
Mark Urquhart
Senior Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Folsom, Calif.
Editor’s note: To summarize, if you haul out-of-state, use the big out-of-state landfill as opposed to smaller ones.
More words to the Supervisors on Rock Creek Canyon Project
The Board has received my letter following the December 10th meeting of the Planning Commission. I should apologize for the heated tone of the letter, but I was offended by the treatment I received as a public speaker by the chairman. I must also clarify a misnomer in that letter. I should have referred to them as “paid consultants,” not “Hooper’s paid consultants.” I know that Hooper pays for their work, but they are contracted by the County, and are supposed to be independent. Frankly, at that meeting it was hard to tell the paid consultants from staff and counsel, because they all sounded like paid advocates for the project.
It is hard to argue against firepower like that. It is even harder, for me, to be perceived as opposing someone like Paul Rowan, when I absolutely agree with his view; we do need the jobs, the County does need the revenue. We need this project, but cannot rush to approve it at the expense of the environment and the integrity of the Mono County General Plan.
My only objection is the permitting of nonconforming uses and structures, Exhibit D table 1.
Much has been made about how much John Hooper is “giving up” in exchange for certain concessions. He calls this “bartering”, a politician might call it “quid pro quo”, I will call it “horse trading”. We have been bombarded with square footage numbers that seem to support his argument, so let’s look at just two items.
The largest item is 3,835 sq ft of nonconforming RV spaces to be removed (if they, like the cabins, have not already been removed). These are not buildings; they are parking pads that would be removed regardless. What are you going to do, build a nice custom home, and retain a couple of old RV pads in the front yard? For this deleted square footage, the applicant proposes to be allowed to build 492 sq ft of new construction within the 30’ creek setbacks to expand and connect nonconforming cabins to future private residences on lot 10 and lot 11. The result would be new houses with wings that reach right down to the waters edge. This is not an overall reduction in nonconformance; to the contrary, it brings a whole new level of noncompliance into play. What complications then arise from flood plain issues, FEMA compliance and the like, if these nonconforming cabins are integrated into these new homes? As a horse trader, I would say no thank you. I would maintain the objectives and policies of the General Plan and vote for Option 3 (no connectors). If the developer wants to keep his nonconforming cabins, so be it. Let them stand alone, and prohibit this expansion of a nonconforming use.
The restaurant building is 3000 sq ft of nonconforming structure that has been in discontinued use for years. The applicant seeks to, quote, “remodel” and convert its use to a private residence. This structure, built some 80 years ago, has been added onto repeatedly and morphed into what it is today; a run down, ugly, unsafe hodgepodge, a shack (these are the words of the planning commissioners and the applicant, not mine). Any value as a “cultural resource” has been lost along with the cabins, and this dilapidated building is not worthy of preservation in its own right. So why has so much effort been made to try and invest it with such significance? In the strained attempt to justify the perpetuation of this most conspicuous example of a discontinued nonconforming use that should be terminated, Exhibit D states that, “it is an important historical resource that needs to be retained. The loss of the restaurant would be considered a significant impact.”
What exactly is being retained? The restaurant is gone forever, as is the rest of the old resort. Why would you not just tear it down and build the kind of fresh, beautiful house Hooper is applauded for? Because then it would have to conform to current standards. Calling it a remodel, or an adaptive reuse, is the only way the developer can get away with a private residence that bridges Rock Creek. Making the road-facing wall of the new house resemble the former restaurant is, by no stretch of the imagination, retaining an important historical resource. New construction of a private house that straddles a Sierra creek should be unthinkable, but that is exactly what this would be.
The impact of the old buildings removal would not be adverse, but positive in many ways. It would allow for a proper setback from Lower Rock Creek Road. It would allow for a conforming use of lot 8. It would provide a buffer between the project and the highway for the health and safety of the public, who now must walk between the guardrail and the busy road itself to access the Rock Creek Trail from the parking lot. Perhaps a pedestrian bridge could be provided approximately where the riprap covers the road culverts to enhance the safety of the hikers, fishermen and mountain bikers that use this popular trail.
The argument that the project represents an overall reduction in nonconformance does not hold up. It is like comparing apples to oranges. The gravity of the proposed new nonconforming uses and structures far outweighs the old sheds and RV pads the applicant is willing to part with.
The Board of Supervisors, before final approval, can and should require project modifications to eliminate, not perpetuate and add to, these nonconforming uses that create a bad precedent and are in conflict with the objectives and policies of the Mono County General Plan.
If you are going to horse trade, don’t get swindled!
Respectfully,
Jeff Vaughan
Swall Meadows
