ADVOCATES FOR MAMMOTH INFORMATION BULLETIN & ALERT

OLD MAMMOTH PLACE PROJECT (FORMERLY CLEARWATER) -
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON THE OLD MAMMOTH PLACE PROJECT WAS FILED WITH THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES ON MARCH 25, 2010 AND SHOULD BE ON THE TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA FOR A DECISION WITHIN 45 DAYS. THE ADVOCATES FOR MAMMOTH SUPPORT THIS APPEAL.

PLEASE MAKE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AWARE OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS DECISION. THEIR E-MAILS FOLLOW THIS BULLETIN & ALERT.

On March 11 the Planning Commission voted (4 to 1, Commissioner Sharon Clark dissenting) to approve the Old Mammoth Place project on the corner of Old Mammoth Road and Sierra Nevada Road.

The Planning Commission recommendations included a code amendment to increase height up to 69 feet, a density increase from 40 units per acre to 80 units per acre (a total of 488 rooms), a decrease in the required parking requirement from 748 spaces to 619 spaces, a decrease in the required affordable housing requirement from 27 units to 8 units and total elimination of the DIF (Developer Impact Fees) - on the grounds that the amenities the developer plans will provide benefits to the Community that greatly outweigh his DIF costs.

In addition to the unwarranted increases in height and density in what is now a residential area, we also object to the decrease in the parking space and affordable housing requirements, and particularly in the elimination of DIF (a loss of $3.6 million to the Town) in return for “amenities” that the Community has made clear it does not consider benefits.

For the complete Final Staff Report – www.ci.mammoth-lakes.ca.us/PlanningCommission/pcagendas/2010/3-10-10/StaffReportFINAL.

As it stands now, the code amendment for height will have to be heard by the Council and does not require an appeal. The recommendations regarding deferral of DIF and changes in housing policy have been deferred. In order for those changes to take effect, the applicant will have to file a subsequent application to be heard by the Council.

However, the issues of water supply, density, incentives, public benefits, and environmental compliance (CEQA) as applied to this project are not required to be approved by Council and would have become final without the Appeal. The Appeal is based on these issues and is included in its entirety below following this bulletin. THE ENTIRE APPEAL PROVIDES FURTHER DETAIL ON THE FOLLOWING OMISSIONS AND ERRONEOUS INFORMATION UPON WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS BASED.

1. Failure to meet the General Plan requirements for identification of community benefits and approval of density increases.

2. Failure to make and support the detailed findings required under the Community Benefits/Incentive Zoning Policy (CBIZ).

3. Failure to identify community benefits as required under the Clearwater Specific Plan.

4. Failure to make appropriate findings under the Project Impact Evaluation Criteria (PIEC).

5. Failure to comply with the air quality analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Advocates for Mammoth is supporting this Appeal in conjunction with former Councilman Kirk Stapp and others. This Appeal is expected to come before the Town Council within approximately 45 days and we encourage you to let them, and the Planning Commission, know how you feel about the decisions that have been made and that are slated to be made about this project. E-mails are below.

Town Council Members
Skip Harvey – basecampcafe@yahoo.com
John Eastman – eastmanhs@uneedspeed.net
Wendy Sugimura – wendy_sugimura@yahoo.com
Neil McCarroll – neilmccarroll@verizon.net
Jo Bacon – j.bacon22@verizon.net

Planning Commission Members
Sharon Clark – srclark@npgcable.com
Elizabeth Tenney – e10ney@npgcable.com
Tony Barrett – barjur6@gmail.com
Rhonda Duggan – rduggan@mammoth-mtn.com
Jay Deinken – jdeinken@hotmail.com

APPEAL TO MAMMOTH LAKES TOWN COUNCIL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS ON OLD MAMMOTH PLACE

March 24, 2010

Mark Wardlaw, Community Development Director
Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
Neil McCarroll, Mayor
Town of Mammoth Lakes
P.O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546

Subject: Appeal of VTTM 2009-03 and UPA 2009-03, Old Mammoth Place

Dear Mr. Wardlaw, Ms. Gray, and Mayor McCarroll,
We, the undersigned, are hereby appealing the March 11, 2010 Planning Commission approval of the subject Use Permit Application and Vesting Tentative Map for Old Mammoth Place under the authority of Municipal Code Section 17.68.10. As the first development project to be approved using both the Community Benefits/Incentive Zoning Policy and the Project Impact Evaluation Criteria, this approval will be used as precedent for all future uses of these policies. For this reason, we believe that a detailed and accurate analysis following closely the adopted policies of the Town is critical. The approval of Old Mammoth Place by the Planning Commission did not provide the level or type of analysis required by Town policy and; therefore, should be overturned.

This appeal is based upon the following five points, but does not exclude such other issues as may be raised during the appeal process:

1. Failure to meet the General Plan requirements for identification of community benefits and approval of density increases.

2. Failure to make and support the detailed findings required under the Community Benefits/Incentive Zoning Policy (CBIZ).

3. Failure to identify community benefits as required under the Clearwater Specific Plan.

4. Failure to make appropriate findings under the Project Impact Evaluation Criteria (PIEC).

5. Failure to comply with the analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The detailed issues are:

1. Failure to meet the General Plan requirements for identification of community benefits and approval of density increases.
General Plan Policy L.3.F requires that the Town “Ensure appropriate community benefits are provided through district planning and development projects.” This policy includes 4 actions. Three of the General Plan Actions were not followed in the application of the CBIZ policy to the Old Mammoth Place Project:

Action L.3.F.2 directs the Town to “Develop formula-based methods and standards for community benefits applicable to projects of a certain size.”

Action L.3.F.3 directs the Town to “Develop and maintain a list of uses, facilities, infrastructure, programs and services for use as community benefits.”

Action L.3.F.4 directs the Town to “Develop size, space and program characteristics and criteria for uses and facilities deemed as community benefits.”

These actions were to have been implemented in the 1 year and the 2-5 year time horizons. Beyond the initial inclusion of the Community Character opportunities under Policy L.5.G, these actions were never completed.

Absent the implementation of these actions, the density increase fails to comply with the direction of Policy L.5.G regarding consistency with the “…rules, processes, and findings as may be adopted by the Town Council in its sole discretion.”

Most critical is Action L.3.F.4. The development of criteria for uses and facilities deemed as community benefits is essential to making an informed decision about the appropriateness of any benefit or group of benefits as applied to a development project. Absent this analysis, there is no basis for determining the correct location or amount of benefit.

2. Failure to make and support the detailed findings required under the Community Benefits/Incentive Zoning Policy (CBIZ). The CBIZ Policy adopted by the Town Council is a powerful, but complex tool for achieving community goals not otherwise achievable. It does not direct simple or conclusory solutions. CBIZ includes that numerous findings and analyses be made in order to grant additional density. The economic value of the benefits is only the first threshold to be crossed on the way to density bonus approval. Analyses that were missing or incompletely applied include:

a. No “town-wide” or “place-based” priorities were developed to determine which benefits in what amounts are appropriate on this site at this time. How much retail is needed/wanted and why. What impact would the creation of additional retail and restaurant space have on existing restaurant and retail properties at a time when there is substantial vacant commercial space? How is this justified?

b. The determination that the mid-block connector, Old Mammoth Road widening, and plaza spaces, and underground parking for the condo hotel units would not have been required under existing rules or applicable planning processes. Similar features were required of the Village at Mammoth without provision of density increases.

c. An analysis of incentives other than density is required by CBIZ policy C.1. This specifically prioritizes incentives with building envelope adjustments being reviewed first, financial incentives second, and height, square footage, and density offered last. No analyses of methods other than density to achieve community benefits on this site were evaluated. Incentives are to be granted incrementally commensurate to the criteria in CBIZ Section D. There was no evaluation of incremental incentives or a density incentive less than double the base density.

d. Policy D.2.b. requires an assessment of the economic value of the proposed development incentives to the applicant. This is more that a bare bones residual land value calculation, yet that is all that was provided.

e. The “reasonable nexus” between benefits provided and incentives granted that is required by CBIZ policy D.2.d was not provided. This nexus is not simply an economic argument (that is covered in D.2.a.); rather, it is an analysis that also includes the social and environmental benefits compared to the impacts of the increased density and type of use. This analysis was not provided.

f. The incremental cost of providing public access to plaza areas, midblock connector, and Old Mammoth Road widening compared to the cost required to complete those areas for project only use should have been the economic basis of the benefit value. Instead, full development costs were assigned to these benefits.

g. Because the CEQA and PIEC analyses were incomplete, the last finding under Policy D.4. regarding unacceptable environmental or other impacts cannot be met (see below).

3. Failure to make appropriate findings under the Project Impact Evaluation Criteria (PIEC). The Project Impact Evaluation Criteria were adopted to move away from a rigid population cap approach to development and density review and instead to move to an impact based approach meeting the intent of Town Council

Resolution 07-53, approving the General Plan; specifically, Finding E and CEQA Findings regarding the selected alternative and reduction of impacts. In order to maintain the integrity of the General Plan EIR and adoption resolution, the correct evaluation under PIEC should have been the cumulative impacts at build-out of the General Plan plus all project and previously granted density bonuses. Instead, the evaluation was based on existing development plus “reasonably foreseeable” projects. This is a much lower threshold and means that the build-out impacts become a moving target unless the Town commits to stopping all development once the identified impact levels have been reached. The incremental approach taken in the Old Mammoth Place PIEC analysis makes long range facilities planning impossible unless maximum development under the double density policy is assumed.

To use PIEC properly, mitigation measures should have been incorporated into the project approval to assure that cumulative impacts at build-out would remain below those that would result from build-out of Alternative 3.

4. Failure to identify community benefits as required under the Clearwater Specific Plan (CSP). Section 3.6 of the CSP lists items which may be included in an application for community benefits. Section 5.2.3 goes on to state that “The final community benefits will be determined pursuant to future policy and applied during use permit application.” No policy was adopted identifying final community benefits and no policy guidance was provided for the use permit process.

5. Failure to comply with the analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Air Quality section of the CEQA Conformance Report states that the project “…would not result in any significant air quality impacts.” On February 17, 2010, Ted Schade from the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District made a presentation to the Town Council on the increase in the number of days during which the town has violated the state standard for PM-10. Any project related impacts which would increase PM-10 should have been treated as a significant environmental effect. This information was presented to the Town after the certification of the Clearwater Environmental Impact Report and before adoption of the Conformance Review and, as such, was new information that should have been evaluated in the CEQA analysis for the project. Cumulative impacts to water supply, traffic, infrastructure, and possibly other environmental components should also have been revaluated in light of the approval of the Mammoth Crossings amendment to the North Village Specific Plan as this approval occurred subsequent to the approval of the Clearwater Specific Plan and certification of its EIR.

We look forward to the review of the Old Mammoth Place tentative map and use permit approvals by the Town Council. Based upon the deficiencies in the approval process for Old Mammoth Place, we ask that the Town Council void the Planning Commission action and direct that the project be re-heard by the Planning Commission after receipt by the Commission of the information and analyses described above. If the restrictions of the Permit Streamlining Act do not permit the additional time necessary to complete the requisite work, we ask that the project be denied without prejudice so that the applicant may re-apply once all the appropriate policies and studies have been prepared.

Finally, because this appeal is filed in the public interest and not in the interest of any one affected party or property and because the issues being addressed include significant town-wide policy considerations, we request that the Town Council waive the filing fee and that the funds deposited be turned to the appellants.

Page last updated Friday, May 28, 2010

Information Bulletin

OLD MAMMOTH PLACE APPEAL

OLD MAMMOTH PLACE PROJECT (FORMERLY CLEARWATER)

MAMMOTH CROSSING