June Lake Advocates Updates

Good News!

2008-01-07T14:08:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year to all our members!

First off... Good News!
We have finally succeeded in getting Mono Lake Committee support. (Link: Mono Lake Scoping Comments.)

Secondly...
At the January 2, 2008, Citizen Advisory Committee meeting, the County stated that the upcoming January 16, 2008, 6 to 9 PM, "Peer Review Meeting" will be the appropriate time for the public to address their concerns regarding the Proposed Rodeo Grounds Specific Plan. If at all possible your attendance and/or comments at this important meeting will be beneficial to the community. (Link: Peer Review Meeting.)

Again, thank you for your support. This is going to be a very important year in regards to the potential development of the Rodeo Grounds, and we will keep you as up to date as possible on all the news. It will also be an important year to be as involved as you possibly can. If you cannot make this January meeting, there will be two more of these peer reviews, the next one tentatively set for February 12th.

You might want to plan to attend that one and also get in a little skiing! We just got dumped on with snow.

Recent JLA Activity

2007-12-09T13:49:00.001-08:00

In the last week, the June Lake Advocates has communicated responses and concerns over the June Lake Rodeo Grounds Proposed Specific Plan Environmental Scoping to area agencies. Three letters have been published in this blog space for you to review. They may be downloaded as pdf documents. They are:

Official response by the JLA to the environmental scoping. (PDF LINK)
Secondary concerns and response. (PDF LINK)
Letter to the USFS (Forest Service) identifying environmental concerns over water resources. (PDF LINK)

In summary, the Plan appears to ignore and violate the Mono County General Plan, the June Lake 2010 Area Plan and the June Lake Design Guidelines, and claims precedence over the General Plan. At this time, we are very concerned about the preservation of the scenic and environmental health of the June Lake Loop.

Letter to USFS-Water Drilling

2007-12-09T13:47:00.000-08:00

United States Forest Service
District Ranger Inyo National Forest
Jon Regelbrugge
P. O. Box 148
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
December 9, 2007

In accordance with stated California Environmental Protection Agency, states Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Environmental information for petitions, it is believed that a comprehensive California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or National Environmental Protection (NEPA) is required before numerous known water drilling projects shall be authorized within the June lake Loop.

According to the General Manager of the June Lake Public Utility District (JLPUD), they have requested authorization from the USFS to drill water wells in the Fern Creek headwaters area to supplement a current shortage in the Fern Creek water supply system. Additionally, the JLPUD will be requesting authorization to drill water wells in the Snow Creek watershed area to supplement anticipated shortages in the Snow Creek water supply system servicing the June Lake Village area.

In addition to the aforementioned JLPUD water drilling plans, the June Mountain Ski area (JMSA) has numerous ground water drilling plans. According to the manager of the JMSA, they have requested authorization from the USFS to drill numerous water wells around the JMSA including in the Snow Creek watershed area. As stated, this increased water well drilling is to enable the JMSA to increase their snow making capacity by several hundred percent. They estimate that they will need approximately 500 afa which is more than the JLPUD uses to support the entire June Lake Village. The JMSA manager stated that they anticipated authorization by January 2008 and expect to start drilling by summer 2008.

The JMSA manager did state that an Environmental Impact Report was required and would be completed. The JLPUD General Manager, however, stated that there were no restrictions on ground water drilling except to drill deeper than 75 feet.

All of this planned ground water consumption coupled with Intrawest’s recently drilled wells to support the planned Rodeo Grounds development project is extensive and will have a significant and unknown impact on the entire local watershed.

Based on the aforementioned significantly extensive cumulative planned water consumption expansion, the June Lake Advocates (JLA) believe that a comprehensive EIR and/or a CEQA or NEPA is absolutely necessary to determine the impacts on the entire June Lake Eco system, watershed, riparian vegetation, aquatic life, macroinvertibre and fisheries. Additionally, impacts on downstream watersheds including Mono Lake must be determined.

The JLA believes that the planned extensive ground water consumption will be detrimental to both the future of the June Lake Loop’s economic and recreation basis.

The June Lake Advocates believe that both the USFS and the State Water Resources Control Board should not authorize any ground water drilling or additional surface water permits until a cumulative or EIR and or CEQA or NEPA is completed.

It is also believed that other water shortage solutions including outside of the area source and growth controls or moratoriums shall be considered.

Sincerely,

Al Heinrich, President
June Lake Advocates
P. O. Box 610
June Lake, CA 93529

CC: Deputy District Ranger Mike Schlafmann
State Water Resources Control Board
LADWP

New Response to the Rodeo Grounds EIR Scoping

2007-12-09T12:09:00.000-08:00

Additional response to the EIR Scoping of the Rodeo Grounds Specific Plan:

To: Mono County Planning Department, Planning Division
Subject: Public Comment Regarding the June Lake Rodeo Grounds Proposed Specific Plan Environmental Scoping
Date: December 7, 2007

Exhibits: (1) Letter to Bureau of Land Management, Edward Hastey, State Director, CA-23710, 5430, dated December6, 1990 from Carl Tompkins, Director, Lands and Real Estate Management, page 2, paragraph (E)

Exhibits: (2) Land Patent 04-91-0013, Serial No. CACA 27483, Vol. 0577, page 183, dated January 24, 1991, signed by Nancy Alex, Chief, Lands Section California State Office, page 2, last paragraph

I attended the subject meeting on December 4, 2007, voiced several issues and herein submit my environmental related issues that I believe need to be included in the forthcoming Environmental Impact Report (EIR):

1. Building Heights Limits:
In general, the County Planning Division shall insist that the Rodeo Grounds developer comply with the specifics outlined in the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, the current General Plan and the June Lake Design Guidelines. These plans were developed by the Mono County Supervisor for June Lake, the President of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Intrawest Vice President and numerous other community leaders and members. These plans were also approved by the Mono County Board of Supervisors.

Provisions of these plans, including building height limits of 35 feet for residential and 60 feet for commercial, shall be strictly adhered to. Additionally, the June Lake Coalition votes, also approved by the Mono County Supervisors, limited building heights to 60 feet.

It appears that the carefully designed building height limits contained in these plans are supported by both political and community members and shall not be compromised for a developer by the county.

2. Historic Site:
The Rodeo Grounds is a historic site where both Native Americans and later, early settlers, convened rodeos and fandangos in the adjacent meadow and hillside areas.

The planned Rodeo Grounds project, although not directly in the old rodeo arena, because of its close proximity, poses a serious threat to the historic well being of this sacred place.

Major precautionary efforts need to be designed to protect this area from destruction and possible future sanctuary or exploration.

3. Aircraft/Helicopter Safety:
The June Mountain Ski Area parking lot is utilized as a heliport for training and rescue efforts. Adjacent high buildings and the proposed over-the-highway gondola may pose serious safety issues for airport landings and take offs and needs to be reviewed and approved by the Federal Aviation Authority. This issue was presented by a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee last summer.

4. Public Access to Gull Lake:
Assure compliance with exhibit (1) and (2) that states “Reserving of the United States and its assigns, a right-of-way for an existing road known as Gull Lake road, Forest Service number 2S35… and runs toward Gull Lake.”

The United States and the public have been guaranteed access to Gull Lake in accordance with exhibits (1) and (2).

5. Construction Caused Road, etc. Damage:
I am aware of law suits, like one at Copper Mountain, Colorado, wherein the developer promised to repair all damages resulting from construction and then reneged. The County shall take proactive precautions to prevent possible costly future suits.

I suggest that the developer will be required to fund an assurance type bond in the amount of at least $20 million before the project is approved to cover all, after constructions repairs.

6. Construction Worker Housing:
Where will all of the construction workers be housed? According to the developer, construction will take between five and fifteen years. Provisions need to be arranged to provide for this tremendous increase in workers on the immediate area and all services.

7. Hospital:
With a development project this large, what is the plan for hospital and emergency care for a larger population?

8. USFS Land Access:
In addition to paragraph (4) above, the public shall be granted right-of-way access to other historic trails to the Gull Lake area and to the Snow Ponds on Reversed Mountain starting on the northwest portion of the Rodeo Grounds property.

9. Quantity of People/People at One Time (PAOT):
I have heard a PAOT of 2,600 to 7,400 for the Rodeo Grounds project. Considering the small population, of approximately 500 people, in June Lake, and given the delicate limited resources throughout the June Lake Loop, these tentative quantities appear to be significantly too high for this area. The county shall evaluate the quantity of people that the Loop can accommodate without destroying Loop resources. Additionally, there is a lot of new construction both in process and planned for available property. These calculations need to be incorporated into the entire buildout calculations.

10. Sewage Impact On Mono Lake:
The County shall conduct an analysis to determine the impact of increased processed sewage on Mono Lake. It is well known that Mono Lake has no outlet or flowing water that would help filter grey water.

11. Sewage Expansion Impact On Paiute Gravesite:
I understand that there is a Paiute Gravesite located adjacent to the existing sewage line in the general proximity of the sewage plant area. This line will undoubtedly need to be enlarged to accommodate planned buildout and the Rodeo Grounds project.

Native American involvement and authorization shall be obtained prior to and during any surface or sub-surface ground-disturbing construction.

12. Financial Impact to Property Owners:
The County shall guarantee, in writing, that no costs; utility, taxes, etc. will be levied on property owners to cover any expenses caused directly or indirectly by the Rodeo Grounds developer or development.

13. Legal Liability:
What is the legal liability of the Mono County Planning Division, Mono County Supervisors or other government personnel who approve Rodeo Grounds project parameters that are not consistent with the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, General Plan or the June Lake Design Guidelines?

14. Future Legal Liability:
What is the legal liability of the Mono County Planning Division, Mono County Supervisors or other government personnel who approve Rodeo Grounds project parameters that cause degradation of the June Lake Loop stream and lake waterways and dependants and community members and property?

15. Construction Noise:
Mono County shall ensure construction work shifts comply with the normal single shift, 5 days a week schedule. This is believed to be 7:00AM to 4:00PM, five days per week. Night shifts and weekend work shall not be approved to afford residents and property owner’s quiet/non-life style interference time.

16. Siltration:
Given the past need to dredge Silver Lake of accumulated silt and sand buildup, probably caused by upstream construction, the County shall design siltration preventive measures to prevent further build-up.

Normal siltration prevention systems including sand traps and settling ponds, that can be dredged removing and relocating sand and siltration, shall be constructed.

17. Mature Trees:
I have heard that several Jeffery Pines located in the planned Rodeo Ground area are between 250 and 350 years old. What is the County’s plan to guarantee that these historic trees are not removed and will be protected for future generation enjoyment?

In closing, I sincerely hope that the County and the Board of Supervisors, when making their recommendations and authorizations, do not forget why they are in their respected positions and who they are representing. Their decisions will not only affect the current state of June Lake but will have a major irreversible impact on future generations in the area.

Respectfully,

Patti Heinrich, June Lake Resident

Response to the Rodeo Grounds EIR Scoping

2007-12-09T11:49:00.000-08:00

An Adobe pdf of the response may be downloaded here: (LINK)

December 4, 2007
To: Mono County Planning Department
From: June Lake Advocates
Subject: Public Comment Regarding the June Lake Rodeo Grounds Proposed Specific Plan Environmental Scoping

Exhibit:

Letter to Mono County Community Development Department, attention Scott Burns from Stanford Legal Clinics, Deborah Sivas, dated December 22, 2005
LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT R5-5400-150 between United States of America and Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, dated November, 1987
Letter from Dept of Fish and Game to Dennis Martin, Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, dated June 12, 1989
Letter from Scott Burns, Mono County Community Development to Bill Bramlett, USFS, dated October 18, 1988

We appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of the June Lake Advocates, whose membership is comprised of 618 members, to review and comment on the environmental aspects of the Rodeo Grounds Proposed Specific Plan (PSP). The June Lake Advocates membership consists of full and part time residents, property owners, business owners, and visitors to the June Lake area who are the significant core contributors to the economic base of June Lake.

Our comprehensive review and comments from our membership, for the most part, have been consolidated into this document.

The PSP appears to ignore and violate the Mono County General Plan, the June Lake 2010 Area Plan and the June Lake Design Guidelines and claims precedence over the General Plan. The County needs to state that the PSP violates the current General Plan and that the General Plan will have to be changed. Also, clarify that the General Plan has precedence over the (PSP). Will the County initiate a referendum process for voter approval of a General Plan change?

Additionally, we have not found any reference to the Community Design Guidelines that carefully assessed the balance between the unique mountain character and the Rodeo Grounds development. We expect the County Planning department to identify and mitigate the differences.

The PSP must comply with state and local regulations, to wit:

In Accordance with Government Code Section 65450-65457, and the Mono County General Plan, Land Use Elements, Specific Plan sections, II-2, the Specific Plan must be consistent with the Mono County General Plan/June Lake 2010 Area Plan and the June Lake Design Guidelines.
Comments regarding other aspects of the PSP deficiencies will be submitted during the public review and comment phase of this project.

In addition to the environmental legal requirements outlined in Exhibit (1), the June Lake Advocates are certain that it is necessary to additionally include the following environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject planned development in order to determine the supportable size and scale of the Rodeo Grounds Project:

1. Ground Water:
Determine the cumulative impact of additional planned and anticipated ground water well extraction on the June Lake Loop ecosystem, fisheries, riparian vegetation, watershed and water supply including the impact on Rush Creek and Mono Lake.

Currently we are aware of four planned ground water well drilling projects:

Two wells for the Rodeo Grounds development
One well for the June Lake PUD to supplement current shortfalls for the June Lake Down Canyon area
One well for the June Lake PUD to supplement anticipated shortages for the June Lake Snow Creek Village system
Numerous wells to provide water for major expansion planned for the June Mountain Ski Resort snow-making facilities

It is anticipated that most of these water extractions will require US Forest Service approval, ownership determination, LADWP authorization and affected downstream dependant approvals. Approvals should only be made on an assessment of total environmental impact, not on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis.

The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) required under SB610, must state whether the ground water basin has been adjudicated, whether the proposed related withdrawals will result in over draft of the basin and must describe any efforts to eliminate any long-term overdraft in the basin. Ground water extraction can lead to depletion of surface water sources, a primary resource for the Loop’s economy; e.g., the influx of tourists and visitors during the fishing season.

Since records of the amount of ground water extracted from the basin appear to be vague or non-existent, it is critical to determine the amount of available ground water in the basin. Accurate estimates of consumption and volumetric replenishment rates need to be addressed before use authorizations are granted. “Substantial evidence” shall be compiled to prove there is enough water to support buildout. These specifics need to be included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The June Loop is a glacier formed moraine not volcanic. If the origin of underground water basins is from June or Gull Lake, Snow, Fern, Reversed or Rush Creeks then extracting this ground water is the same as taking surface water which will deplete streams and lakes. This may require new licensing authorizations from the LADWP.

2. 25% OPEN SPACE:
Exhibit (2) page 15, paragraph H, Land Trade Agreement between the United States of America and Mammoth Mountain, stipulates that "Under Alternative A, the 90 acres within the Rodeo Grounds would be open for development within the constraints placed upon the site by power line and highway easements and zoning requirements that call for at least 25% of the land to be left as open space”.

Mathematically, 25% of 90 acres leaves 67.5 acres for development. However this must be further reduced by 3.5 acres for SCE, thereby yielding only 64 useable acres.

This means that at 10 units per acre, the maximum development can only be 640 units.

3. SNOW MAKING:
Snow Making needs to be addressed in the PSP. Determine the impact of planned extensive expansion of snowmaking capacity for June Mountain on the June Lake Loop ecosystem, fisheries, riparian vegetation and water supply including impacts on Rush Creek and Mono Lake.

There are documented adverse affects of snow making on the environment. “Downhill Slide” authored by Hal Clifford, pg 182 states "Snowmaking, in other words, creates or exacerbates drought conditions in streams, sometimes prolonging normal late-summer low flows for months." Page 184 further states that "Snowmaking is creating deserts out of our rivers," per David Carle, executive director of the New Hampshire environmental group Conservation Action Project."[Water withdrawals have] been found to be harmful in every industry except skiing, …"

Snowmaking is also a polluting activity. Most equipment is powered by air and noise pollution-generating diesel generators. Limits should be established to prevent over pollution.

Minimum stream flow limits shall also be established to prevent total dewatering or surface water reductions caused by snowmakers in order to sustain trout fishery and healthy water systems.

4. INCONCLUSIVE WATER STUDIES:
The water studies conducted by ECO:LOGIC and Wagner Bonsignore in June 2006, appear to be inconclusive and lack “supportable evidence” as required by SB221 and SB610 as far as determining, with scientific proof, the impacts of using ground water wells and surface water on down stream water supplies. A more thorough analysis, including comprehensive isotope testing, is believed necessary in order to determine exact water flow dynamics.

Formal water agency, June Lake Public Utility District and Los Angeles DWP, service agreements shall also be in place prior to project construction start.

The ECO:LOGIC water studies were only based on 499 units and need to be reevaluated based on the latest proposal for 833 units or latest revised quantity.

Numerous water study disclaimers need to be quantified and resolved to the satisfaction of the concerned community. For example, the water studies state: “Snow Creek is insufficient for all months”, “Flow in Fern Creek…do not appear to be sufficient during low flow periods”, “Snow Creek flow appear to be insufficient to meet projected increased demands associated with buildout”.

If the developer is unsure about an adequate water supply for this project, which appears to be the case based on all of the disclaimers stated in the ECO:LOGIC Technical Memos, the Developer and County should request assistance from the State Water Resource Control Board for additional analyses.

5. METHODOLOGY/MODEL-BUILDING WATER ESTIMATES:
Again, the June Lake Advocates is requesting to be included in both the development of forecast models and water consumption estimates based on population (per capita), not acreage. The 2006 Water Technical Memo parameters appear to have used water usage calculations significantly below State, Mammoth and Mono Lake court ruling standards.

6. CLIMATE CHANGE:
The global warming solutions act (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05 both outline the serious threat to California’s welfare posed by climate change. The EIR should thoroughly evaluate both the project and the projects alternatives’ to determine the impact on climate change due to their greenhouse gas emissions. Development of the project should be in a manner consistent with achievement of AB 32’s goals. The EIR should also consider the likely impacts of climate change on the project and its alternatives other impacts. Areas of particular concern are the impact of reduced snowpack, changes in availability and timing of water supplies, increased wildfire hazards and anticipated increased gas emissions resulting from additional automotive traffic locally and from Southern California to new Rodeo Grounds housing.

7. ELECTRICAL/PROPANE DISTRIBUTION:
Evaluate the impact of the tentative substation, distribution system and the site on the environment including safety precautions. An EIR is required to determine the impacts and mitigation prior to the development of the substation and distribution system.

Considerations for utilizing geothermal, biofuel and natural gas for heating and power should be thoroughly analyzed for inclusion into the EIR.

Disclosure of plans for Propane Tank Farms and distribution with legally safe specified distances shall be provided for public review.

8. SCENIC HIGHWAY:
In relation to the tentative future over-the-highway 158 ski-lift gondola, appropriate Federal, State and County agencies shall be consulted to ensure compliance and consistency with Scenic Highway/ Corridor designation regulations and preservation of scenic values.

9. DEER HABITAT:
In accordance with Exhibit (3), paragraph 2, “Off- site mitigation to compensate for the loss of summering deer habitat can readily be accomplished on the adjacent June Mountain Ski Area through a variety of means to increase carrying capacity through meadow preservation/enhancement, herbaceous seeding, and increased fawning cover, etc.” Adverse impacts on Deer fawning and migration shall be mitigated to reduce wildlife-human conflicts and loss of habitat. There needs to be an in-depth plan, approved by the Department of Fish and Game, to mitigate the loss of fawning habitat and migration routes.

10. SPRING PROTECTION:
In accordance with Exhibit (3), paragraph 1, “The spring and its immediate surrounding area will be left undeveloped and set aside as a natural habitat niche to be maintained for salamanders, small birds, and mammals, and for use by other wetland species”. The spring is located east of Northshore Drive near Highway 158. A specific detailed plan needs to be developed to safeguard the undeveloped natural habitat for salamanders, small birds, mammals and other wetland species.

11. VISUAL ENVIROMENT/RIDGELINE:
A favorable feature of the June Lake environment is it’s striking natural beauty. What measures will be taken to mitigate unsightly and unnatural views imposed by project elements from various locations and avoid ridgeline building? Area 2 and 3 in the proposed PSP show lots on and near ridgelines. Exhibit 4, page 2, states “Preservation of scenic view associated with ridge lines and shorelines area through the usage of landscaping, site planning and design standards”. How is the County going to enforce the no ridgeline building requirements? Detailed adverse impacts on ridgeline vistas needs to be disclosed on a building-by-building basis. Computerized renderings of visual sight lines from various places based on building heights need to be provided in order to adequately evaluate the proposed plan.

12. ENVIROMENTAL FRIENDLY:
The PSP states that the Rodeo Grounds will be an environmentally friendly project, but leaves that definition and task discretion to the developer. This appears to be ambiguous and the public needs to be included in the process.

13. PEOPLE AT ONE TIME (PAOT):
The PSP must make a clear, definite, and accurate statement of density in terms of PAOT, which shall not exceed that allowed by the June Lake Area Plan.

The average and maximum PAOT must be stated and known in order to provide for:
• Completion of a valid EIR
• Consistency with the June Lake Area Plan and County General Plan
• Correct calculations of water usage
• Accurate estimates of sewage flow
• Adequate traffic circulation plan
• Adequate parking
• Assess public safety-police and fire protection
• Mitigation of impacts on environment and wildlife

14. “TRANSFER OF DENSITIES”:
The “Transfer of Densities” statement language in section 5.2 of the PSP shall be removed and the developer shall follow the legal densities as outlined in the local Area Plan.

15. BUILDING HEIGHTS:
As stated in the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, Mono County General Plan and the June Lake Citizen Design Guidelines that were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2002, building heights are restricted to 35 feet residential and commercial to 60 feet. Given the spectacular scenic resources throughout the June Lake Loop, it appears contrary to public interest to authorize building heights exceeding those adopted in the General and Area Plans. The proposed skyscraper high rise building heights and masses do not fit the unique mountain character of June Lake and the PSP needs to be revised to comply.

As stated in the PSP, 1.1, page 5 of 46, the PSP is out of compliance because it requires a General Plan amendment for building heights that exceed allowable limits.

Benno Nagar, Intrawest, Vikki Magee-Bauer, Supervisor, Carl Williams, June Mountain, Dan Roberts, Dale Bromberger, Rob Morgan, Jerry Allendorf and others were members of the community who developed the 2002 June Lake Citizen Design Guidelines that the Mono County Board of Supervisors adopted in 2002 that limits building heights to 35 feet (June Lake Design Guidelines, page 27).

16. CULTURAL:
How will the potential impact to Historic Site 05-04-590 and/or 05-16-51-590, that the Forest Service finds to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, be mitigated? (CEQA 15064.5) A certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American must monitor ground-disturbing activities of this project.

17. TREES:
The tree replacement policy appears to allow the developer to cut down trees and pay only the “timber” value of the tree. Since the value of the trees to the community has no relation to timber value, this option should be eliminated. Who approves the policy? Why not require a one for one replacement, taking size into account, with the number of replacement trees based on a ratio of the size of the tree removed to the size of the replacement trees?

Enough new trees need to be planted to absorb more than the total new emissions caused by this large project.

18. WOOD STOVES:
We were advised by the developer that there would be no stove or fire places in the development. Where is this called out in the PSP? If these statements are not accurate, where will wood burning facilities be located and what volume of emissions will result?

19. GREY WATER:
Appendix 1, A3 Grey Water, A3.4.4, states that gray water will enter the river and wet lands. This plan needs expert analysis and voter and LADWP approval.

20. WATER QUALITY:
Coordinate with Sierra Nevada Alliance to mitigate poor water quality documented in their March 2006, State of Sierra Waters, A Sierra Nevada Watersheds Index.

21. WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE:
In accordance to Exhibit (4), page 2, paragraph 9, “Documentation that confirms that adequate water supplies and sewer facilities exist over and above the capacities needed to serve buildout of the Village and Down Canyon, prior to commencing construction in the West Village and Rodeo Grounds. New construction shall take place only after provisions for adequate water supplies and sewer capacities are developed”. The sewer and water expansion construction shall be completed prior to Rodeo Ground project start.

22. SUMMER SEASON OVERLOAD:
According to our County Supervisor, it is our understanding that Resorts, boat rentals and support facilities are currently at capacity during summer months. Specifically, what are the negative impacts to our natural resources with the influx of the masses, resulting from this large development, to our shorelines, trails and wildlife habitat? What are the plans to mitigate the dilemma of people exceeding natural resource habitat during the summertime?

23. EXPRESSED SOLIDARITY:
The PSP states that the PSP supports the goals and objectives of the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, however, nowhere does the plan indicate specifically how the PSP will comply with the many details of the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, General Plan and Design Guidelines. The County shall insist that the PSP is specific in compliance with germane elements of these plans.

24. EMISSIONS:
Low emission vehicles shall be stipulated for use during construction and ongoing transportation to help offset the increase of emissions generated by this large project.

We are sincerely optimistic that the Mono County Planning Division will support the people whom they represent and enforce the aforementioned plans and guidelines developed by the community, developers and consultants which were approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Please guarantee that the Proposed Specific Plan does not compromise the scenic qualities and rural lifestyle which is the basis of our economy and way of life.

On behalf of our members, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in the public EIR process for the proposed Rodeo Grounds project. We hope that the decision makers, after reviewing all of the submitted comments, will come to a conclusion that represents the voice of the whole community and not just a few business owners. We are major stake holders in this development and preserving the future of the June Lake Loop.

Sincerely,

Al Heinrich, President
June Lake Advocates

Rodeo Grounds Specific Plan -Site Plan

2007-02-24T13:36:00.000-08:00

RODEO GROUNDS SPECIFIC PLAN - EXHIBIT C: SITE PLAN

Below is a modified Exhibit C, which shows the footprint of the proposed Rodeo Grounds development for 499 units and 30,000 square feet of commercial space west of Gull Lake superimposed on a Google Earth image in the area of concern. Consider the impact if Intrawest pursues the BOS-recommended project for 900 units. Furthermore, consider traffic congestion, parking issues, and associated water, electrical, and sewage utility impacts and the distinct possibility of increases to your taxes to support this infrastructure expansion. Also, consider that these infrastructure improvements do not necessarily support a year-round increase in tourism, but are primarily aimed at winter visitors.

Spring Newsletter-Published!

2007-02-24T13:31:00.000-08:00

Here are links to the spring newsletter, In The Loop. The print version is 2.2 mb. The Web version is smaller. We appreciate your interest and support!

Click here for the print version (pdf)

Click here for a smaller Web version (pdf)

Spring Newsletter

2007-02-20T14:05:00.000-08:00

Look for the new June Lake Advocates newsletter, soon.

Public Forum-June 29, 7:00 P.M.

2006-06-20T10:44:00.000-07:00

The June Lake Advocates will hold a public forum June 29, 2006, at the June Lake Community Center. The forum which is scheduled to begin 7:00 PM, will provide the community with a status report of the JLA's activities and an opportunity to discuss important issues affecting the community. Everyone is welcome.

Newsletter Correction

2006-04-04T09:33:00.000-07:00

The mailing address for Supervisor Byng Hunt was incorrectly stated on the spring newsletter. With apologies, the correct address should be:

Byng Hunt
Mono County Supervisor, District 5
P.O.Box 2608
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
760-934-6643
Fx 760-934-2468

Supervisor Hunt is looking forward to hearing from the residents and friends of June Lake!

-JLA Newsletter Committee

IN MY OPINION...

2006-03-21T14:12:00.000-08:00

The old line goes something like “a funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum,”—that’s not exactly how it went for me a couple of weeks ago but close. It should read “a really sad thing happened to me AT the forum.” As everyone in the County knows by now and a topic that has been discussed from many different points of view, Rusty Gregory is considering closing June Mountain 3 days a week during the 2006-2007 ski season for financial reasons. Having lived in June Lake since 1975, this really came as no huge surprise to me. June Mountain has never been wildly successful midweek operation—bottom line corporate thinking of course would look at this fact in a hard and rational way. As the rumor mills began to grind in June Lake, the strangest opinion began to take form—the June Lake Advocates was somehow responsible for this decision which would lead to the ruination of June Lake. Aside from the silly standpoint (does the JLA really have this kind of power and influence--I think not), this was yet another way to discredit a 2-year old organization and further divide our fractured little community. The JLA, since its formation, has only worked to protect June Lake from outlandish development, ensure there is enough water, and protect the environment from thoughtless defilement. After a couple of encounters with friends who seemed to me to be in the JLA is to Blame camp, I decided to write a letter to the editor and once again try to explain what the JLA is and what it is not.

As the meeting of the June Lake Citizen’s Advisory Committee was coming up, I decided I would present these thoughts to the committee members and those assembled. Let me tell you, it was a packed house that I faced that night. I should have expected an unfriendly reception, given that the JLA has been met with hostility and maligning by the CAC from the first day it appeared before the Committee and dared to present a dissenting opinion. While I am an original member (and the person who keeps the membership records) of the June Lake Advocates, this presentation reflected my personal thoughts—not party-line speechifying. I began by introducing myself, telling the folks the different jobs I have held in June Lake and the County during my time in June Lake. Because many people never seem to hear the part about the JLA wanting sensible development (NEVER once have we said we wanted no development, but that theory continues to be the pervasive belief of many June Lake businesspeople), I decided to briefly reiterate what the JLA is all about. I began by stating that “the JLA is a group of 528 residents, second home owners and friends of June Lake who have”...when someone in the audience began yelling at me and basically calling me a liar—“show us that list of members”, “why aren’t they here speaking for themselves?”—others chimed in and on and on it went. I also noticed that many of those who weren’t yelling had the look of what I can only describe as pure hatred on their faces. I was given the floor to make my presentation at a formal and official meeting of a county organization and ended up facing an enraged mob.

Was I scared? You bet I was, and I’m not easily cowed, as many locals know. That moment of chaos probably only lasted a few seconds, but to me, it seemed like an eternity. Order was eventually reestablished, and I continued with my presentation.

And, for the record, I want to reiterate that the number of 528 members is absolutely correct (I can’t hear the screaming and feel the hatred in this format). I am not a liar. It frustrates me that the most vocal and most angry people in June Lake have formed opinions about the June Lake Advocates without ever once picking up the phone and asking Igor or me what the JLA is all about and hear the organization’s long-held goals for the June Lake Loop.

But back to that night--I went on to present some of my thoughts on the economic situation in June Lake, and what we might do to enrich it and to praise June Lake’s second home owners, another bone of contention in this debate. My final paragraph went something like this—“But wherever the truth may lie, I absolutely believe the time has come for all June Lake groups to sit down together, at a round table with no one in charge, each suggesting agenda items, and then begin to identify those different areas in which we can find some consensus. (Note: the JLA has suggested this in the past but it apparently has fallen on deaf ears.) Perhaps then we can actually begin to work together to preserve and protect June Lake AND improve the economy at the same time. This is a time for cooperation not confrontation.”

I really don’t know where all this is going to lead us—I know I was truly frightened, agonizingly saddened and frustrated beyond belief at the CAC meeting. I do know that we all must find areas on which we can agree, or I see no end to this hurtful and angry debate. Some people have said it was a set-up aimed at discrediting the JLA once and for all, but my presentation managed to diffuse the situation by speaking of cooperation and understanding. Again, who knows where the truth actually lies? I know I am not going to open up the JLA’s membership list for the business community to examine. We have members who actually own businesses here and others on our roster who are afraid of repercussions from this same group, and we are obligated to protect their names. Rusty Gregory and Paul McCahon both remarked that it IS in fact time for everyone to sit down together and following this really awful meeting our supervisor, Vickie Bauer, has suggested that a new group be formed—the June Lake Collective—including representatives of all the groups with an interest in the development in June Lake. I can only hope that this will actually take place.

Someone said that “June Lake is a dying town” and after talking with her following the meeting, we have agreed that June Lake is a “changed” town from what we both remember from the “old days.” Back in those good old times people seemed to move to June Lake to make a decent living, raise their children and enjoy the natural beauty and outdoor activities the Loop so generously provided. The change is that now some people move here as a financial investment. I personally don’t think these folks have done much research prior to becoming business owners in June Lake—it’s just not a spot to make a financial killing. Yes, there are fewer business establishments, but the old, tried and true ones are still here. Yes, there are no gas stations left in June Lake—could that be because newer cars can go as far as 500 miles at a pop; or maybe that large fuel companies no longer support the mom and pop type service stations and keeping up with governmental regulations has become prohibitively expensive; or that gas prices have skyrocketed, especially in our neck of the woods, or might it be that when most of the June Lake locals typically go out of town to do their shopping (Mammoth, Bishop, Reno, Carson City, wherever) they fill up because prices are lower and sometimes considerably lower. Off the top of my head I remember we had a barber shop (Andy retired), a hardware store (the Powers moved), a couple of beauty salons (the owners moved), some other restaurants (Mexican, the Old Dutch, the Green House), a fabric store, my own little Arts and Crafts consignment store, a medical clinic, a couple of banks and probably many others that I’ve forgotten. Some people harken back to those times to prove that June Lake is going downhill. Very few of these businesses however were operating concurrently; in fact, many of them occupied the same building at different times. People try new businesses; some fail, and some succeed. Some people are good business people, some aren’t. And some just simply move on.

But the unique and precious environment that is found on the June Lake Loop should be allowed to flourish and deserves to be protected, and that’s why I’m going to stay in this fight (way out of the limelight, you can bet on that)—to make certain that whatever development plans come down the pike and onto the June Lake Loop, there will be watchdogs to ensure that the development is done in a reasonable and sensible manner and with water sufficient enough to provide for everyone’s needs.

-Lee Vorobyoff

In Response to Mountain Plans

2006-03-07T13:30:00.000-08:00

Often when people are angered or frightened, blame may be the only response they are able to muster. I can truly understand this but am hoping that something more positive may eventually be found. Following the announcement at June Mountain last week, there has been much blame issued, much finger pointing and much anger in June Lake regarding the Mountain’s operating schedule for the 2006-2007 season. There is clearly no doubt in anyone’s mind that June Mountain’s employees are the real victims of this decision, but corporate “bottom line thinking” seldom takes into consideration the needs of its employees and the local economy when it comes to making money. While for the first time in many years the Mountain has enjoyed several seasons of profitable operation, in the corporate mind you can never have enough “profit.” Some of the aforementioned blame and finger pointing has been aimed directly at the June Lake Advocates. This not only saddens me but is inflammatory and inappropriate. The JLA had no influence or input into the decision made by Starwood. In an odd sort of way it’s flattering and surprising to find that some people actually believe we have that kind of power. Could this be a ploy to initiate a “blame-game” strategy to further divide our small community? Could this possibly be a threat that if June Lake does not get in line with the corporate plan, they will in fact shut the Mountain down for good? Who knows?? But I promise you none of this is the June Lake Advocates doing.

Someone recently asked me “why couldn’t the JLA just have ignored the whole thing and let Intrawest do what they wanted to do in the first place? Then none of this would be happening now.” Well, the short answer is that we couldn’t ignore it. The June Lake Advocates is a group of 528 residents, property owners and friends of June Lake who have banded together to watch over future development on the Loop. We have never said that we want no development in June Lake. Remember our mantra “We’re not saying NO, we’re only saying HOW.” We simply seek to ensure that any future development is done in a sensible manner and does not harm June Lake’s beautiful and unique environment; additionally, we want a clear and accurate study of our water situation as we believe that all development will hinge on water availability findings; and thirdly, we respectfully request that the voice of the overwhelming majority of those same June Lake residents and property owners be heard by the decision-making bodies of Mono County. This voice of the majority was stated loudly and clearly in a survey sent out prior to the JLA’s existence. Neither Intrawest nor Starwood has ever expressed an interest in these surveys.

June Lake business owners feel they have been betrayed by this announcement; however, a look back over many years clearly indicates that while June Mountain is now making a profit, it has never been particularly successful during midweek operation. The costs directly related to skiing, food and housing during ski vacations generally prohibit discretionary spending for most families. Additionally, I believe that our local businesses suffer owing to the fact that June Lake residents seldom support these same businesses—they prefer to shop in Mammoth, Bishop and the Reno/Carson City area.

Another response to the announcement has been anger toward our second homeowners. I have heard that June Lake’s second homeowners do not have the right to interfere with the politics and general issues involving June Lake. That is simply not correct. Second homeowners pay property taxes, they do in fact support local businesses when they are in town, and are walking-talking free advertisements for our community. Instead of maligning our second homeowners, we should honor them as an important part of June Lake’s economy.

I believe that to rely on one business for the success of an economy is really a mistake; it’s like putting all our eggs in one basket. Rather than looking solely to the Mountain to improve the Loop’s economic health, we need to support our Supervisor’s ongoing effort to introduce more affordable housing. Permanent middle-income residents employed locally (in education, law enforcement, USFS, as examples) will actually support the local economy on a year-round basis. We need to look at the educational issues that have driven many residents away over the past years. We need to talk for ourselves on behalf of June Lake, rather than letting some corporate interest do the talking and then reap all the benefit.

Wherever the truth may be, I absolutely believe the time has come for all June Lake groups to sit down together at a round table with no one “in charge”, each suggesting agenda items, and then identify those different areas in which we can find some consensus. Perhaps then we can actually begin to work together to preserve and protect June Lake AND improve its economy at the same time. This is a time for cooperation not confrontation.

JLA STATUS REPORT

2006-03-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

February 20, 2006

Just a note to inform JLA Board members and Advisors about recent items of interest:

1. December 20, 2005; met with the LADWP in L.A. to discuss numerous concerns about the amount of available water and diversion rights and basically brought them up to speed about what is happening in the Loop. They agreed to meet with us when they meet with the Save Mono Lake Committee usually monthly.

2. December 22, 2005; Stanford Law Clinic, on behalf of the JLA, submitted a letter to the Mono County Planning Department stipulating what should be included in the Intrawest Water Study.

3. January 23, 2006; I briefed the Regional Transportation Board (Comprised of three Mono County Supervisors and two Mammoth City Officials), about our primary concerns with the June Lake Transportation Plan. The Board directed the Planning Department to prepare a point-to-point response to the JLA and advised the CAC that our concerns need to be resolved by the CAC/JLA.

4. January 30, 2006; the JLA filed a complaint with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on the June Lake PUD stating the following appeared discrepancies:

a. Misplaced, damaged, destroyed and unknown location of records.
b. Not complying with SWRCB 2002 inspection findings denoting water diversion right applications that expired in 1995 and reduced combined diversion water right limits.
c. The 2004 Master Water Plan Update does not reflect combined diversion rights limits: the PUD thought they had 666 acre feet of diversion rights when they only have 281 acre feet and the buildout estimate is 430 acre feet.
d. Some metering is not being performed in compliance with water application regulations.

5. February 8, 2006; met with the owner of the June Lake Marina who is very concerned about the level of June Lake. Basically, during the last 10 years the lake has fluctuated between 2 _ and 4 feet below the prior 25 year average. Seasonal fluctuations in the lake were normally only 6 to 7 inches. He wonders why June lake has dropped 2 _ to 4 feet while Gull and Silver lakes fluctuate seasonally and have not dropped.

6. February 8, 2006; we met with the USFS to discuss our concerns with the USFS lease with June Mountain and requested a position paper from the USFS to settle the unrest caused by Rusty Gregory's statement that "if he doesn't get enough warm beds in the Rodeo Grounds development he will close June Mountain."

Stay Informed: County Planning Updates

2006-01-06T07:26:00.000-08:00

Here is a handy link to the Mono County Development Department:

Current Updates for the Status of the June Lake Intrawest Rodeo Grounds Project

This link will transfer you to the Current Updates for Rodeo Grounds Project. You may download documents related to the project and its potential impact upon the June Lake Loop.

Stay informed!

June Lake Advocates Holiday Greeting

2006-01-01T07:06:00.000-08:00

Welcome to 2006!

Here are a couple of updates to JLA leadership: President Scott Davis is out for a period of time, and Al Heinrich is filling in as President in his absence. Ricky Graham is our Vice President. Igor Vorobyoff will continue as a member of the board.

We look forward to a productive new year of service to the June Lake Community.

Bulletin #12

2004-11-30T15:52:00.000-08:00

“MAJOR SAN FRANCISCO LAW FIRM AGREES TO BECOME PARTNER WITH JLA AND STANFORD LAW SCHOOL”

We are pleased to announce that the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP has been retained by the JLA to work with the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford University in order to help the JLA with strategy and guidance as it pertains to the proposed Intrawest development at the Rodeo Grounds. Having both legal firms partnering with the JLA will help insure that the development process proceeds properly. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger are nationally respected experts in the initiative and referendum process as used in conjunction with keeping environmentally sensitive developments in accordance with community guidelines.

We welcome Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger as part of the JLA team.

Bulletin #11

2004-10-30T14:13:00.000-07:00

Letter to Members No. 11

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL AGREES TO REPRESENT THE JUNE LAKE ADVOCATES

One major goal of the JLA was to obtain competent counsel to advise our organization as to the propriety of the Rodeo Grounds development by Intrawest. We are pleased to announce that the Environmental Law Clinic of the Stanford Law School has taken the JLA as a client and will represent our interests. They have been sent relevant documentation regarding the project. It is important to note that this will benefit June Lake residents/property owners by insuring that the development process proceeds properly. We will meet with them shortly to develop an overall operating strategy. In conjunction with the Law Clinic, we are also in discussion with a law firm specializing in the initiative and referendum process.

We welcome Stanford Law School as part of the JLA team.

MAMMOTH TIMES CLAIMS HEIGHT LIMIT ISSUE WIN FOR JUNE LAKE CITIZENS

Mammoth Times Staff Writer Wendilyn Grassechi wrote in the October 21-27, 2004 issue that "since the project [Intrawest's Rodeo Grounds development]...has the potential to seriously impact the tiny community, citizen interest and involvement in the planning process has been extremely high, with June residents literally looking over Intrawest's shoulders at every stage of the game. Their effort is paying off. As of this past week…the citizens of June Lake won a hard-fought attempt to keep the project's proposed height limits within the specifications of June Lake's specific plan."

In a related article she writes "the group [the JLA] has already had an impact on at least one June Lake development proposal, recently helping to convince Intrawest to withdraw an increased height amendment to the June Lake Specific Plan [here and above, the reference is to the June Lake Area Plan; the Specific Plan is Intrawest's proposal].…"

It remains to be seen whether this is a real victory, or a contrived concession by Intrawest having the objective of making a 60 foot height limit, allowed under certain conditions by a Mono County Zoning and Development Code provision, more palatable to the local community. While we are encouraged by Intrawest's downsizing, in keeping with members' wishes we will continue to fight for the 35 foot height limit.

JLA JOINS CALTRANS ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY PROGRAM

In its effort to increase public exposure, the JLA was successful in obtaining a section of the June Lake Loop under the Caltrans Adopt-a-Highway Program. Our signs will read "JuneLakeAdvocates.org; Preserving the Loop". The two-mile stretch extends south on Highway 158 from its north junction with US 395. We will be calling for volunteers to clean the highway after the snow melts.

September Newsletter

2004-09-12T10:39:00.000-07:00

The June Lake Advocates newsletter, In the Loop, September, 2004 edition, is now available on the Web. There is a link to the file on our Links page.

This newsletter features a reprint of the article in the Mammoth Times that describes the August meeting of the CAC.

You can get a copy of the newsletter by clicking here.

Bulletin #10

2004-08-20T19:07:00.000-07:00

FIREMEN'S BBQ: The August 14 June Lake Volunteer Firemen's BBQ was a resounding success. Thanks to member contributions, the JLA presented a total donation of $1,525 to Chief Mike Bauer at the BBQ as a gesture of commitment of JLA members to the community.

PUD -- SEWER RATE INCREASE, WATER METERS: Playing catch-up with increasing costs after many years of no rate increases, the June Lake Public Utility District Board voted to approve a 14% increase in the sewer rate at its August 18 meeting. The PUD is also continuing its 5-year process of installing water meters. Large water users are more likely to be on the top of the installation list.

INTRAWEST SALE OF COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS: Intrawest recently announced the sale of commercial properties (restaurants, shops, etc.) at nine of its developments, including the Village in Mammoth Lakes. Please visit our web site for the full story under Current Events. While the impact of this sale on the Rodeo Grounds development is uncertain, speculations are that it is the cause of the delay in the EIR [Environmental Impact Report] process. Intrawest has not been in contact with the Mono County Planning Division since June 3.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOES BEFORE SUPS…: The June Lake Chamber of Commerce went before the Mono County Board of Supervisors on August 17 with a Position Paper stating the COC's position on development in the June Lake Loop.

Adhering to its mission "to energetically and actively promote and enhance the commerce of the June Lake Loop," and approving "development as a way to enhance our economic well being," but cognizant of the pitfalls of overdevelopment, the Chamber stated: "We the business community did not want to experience what occurred in Mammoth and other resort areas." Addressing developers, the COC states: "The Chamber wants the developer to adhere to the 2010 June Lake Area Plan as written." Reading further, "We want the developers to recognize the uniqueness of our area and to continue to support the uniqueness. We want the developers to acknowledge the close-knit community we have and work within that framework in order to maintain it." And finally, "The June Lake Loop Chamber of Commerce supports development within the area plan guidelines to help contributing to a healthy economic environment."

While there is a full range of opinions among members of both the JLA and the COC regarding the degree of development that should be allowed, consensus is growing in the community that Intrawest must abide by the area plan.

The full text of the Position Paper will be posted on our web site.

… BUT VIGILANCE IS STILL WARRANTED: JLA Outreach Committee Co-Chairperson Patti Heinrich received the following chilling e-mail message from former Snowmass Mayor Jeff Tippett regarding the Intrawest development there. There's good reason for the JLA to keep a close watch on the Rodeo Grounds development process. You will be interested in visiting the web site of Snowmass's JLA counterpart, Citizens for Responsible Growth. Check all of their pages, especially the mission statement. It's definitely deja vu. Go to http://www.snowmasscitizens.com/index.htm.

"To: Patti Heinrich
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Intrawest

"Dear Patti,
Your e-mail was forwarded to me by Jason at the Denver Post. I am part of a small group that includes three former mayors and a former councilmember of Snowmass Village. We have been protesting at public meetings for three years to no avail. Intrawest has co-opted our elected officials and spent thousands to try convert the community to their grossly over-sized plan. Our group lost an initiative election in March that would have limited the council's authority to grand height and density variations by 54% to 46%. We plan to file a referendum as soon as the council grants vested property rights. That will be November or sooner. You can keep posted by checking our local newspaper at www.snowmasssun.com. Also look me up on Google. Some of the letters and guest editorial I have written in the last year should still be there.
Intrawest is bad news. The have just one plan. They do not care what the community wants. They won't hesitate to propose 2x the density and 3x the height in your master plan. When it comes down to mitigation of road impacts, employee housing they will attempt to avoid every expense they can.
I can't figure out how they co-opted our elected officials. I've know some of these people for years and they have just caved. They agree to everything IW wants and have know shame.
My advise is to raise hell. Attend and a speak at all meetings. Write letters to the editor. Organize in the community with neighborhood parties. IW will be doing the same and they will be better organized and they will spend more money. Use your right of recall, initiative, and referendum. We were too "nice" to recall a few of our elected officials a year ago and I now think this was a mistake. We lost an initiative and now it all comes down to a referendum.
Good luck and work hard.
Jeff Tippett"

Citizens' Advisory Committee Meeting Report

2004-08-14T10:34:00.000-07:00

The following is reprinted here with the permission of the Mammoth Times:

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:12 AM PDT

June Lake Advocates State Their Case?
"We don't want to be like Mammoth!"

By Wally Hofmann
Managing Editor

It's a good thing the June Lake fire marshal stayed home from the Citizen's Advisory Council (CAC) meeting last week. If these anti-development meetings get any more people they're going to have to start building bigger places to meet.

"We don't want to be like Mammoth," was the chorus from the June Lake Community Center. The lyrics would have received a standing ovation, but that half the audience was already standing in the back.

"We're not tree-huggers, NIMBYs, or anti-development whackos," said Scott Davis, president and/or board member of the June Lake Advocates (JLA). "We want development done in an environmentally-sensitive manner and a development that is consistent with the General Plan and the community."

Davis was making a 10-minute presentation that laid out the position of the local advocates who said they represented 400-plus June Lake residents who are demanding compliance with June Lake's Area Plan with Intrawest's "Rodeo Grounds Specific Plans" to build a 900-unit, 90-acre resort across from June Lake Mountain Area. The project includes single-family units, duplexes, fourplexes, and the option for secondary, or "mother-in-law" units. In addition, the project could include up to 50,000 square feet of commercial space and a gondola crossing Hwy 158. The most contentious topic is the potential of 90-foot structures and a claimed density of 2,610 people.

The project is the vision of Intrawest, developers of The Village at Mammoth Lakes.

Representatives of JLA say they sent out 900 surveys asking June Lake homeowners, basically: Do you agree with Intrawest's plans for development in June Lake?

The JLA received back about 435 replies. About 400 rejected Intrawest's plans, although it's not clear what details the respondents were rejecting. Other than heights and densities, specifics of the plan were not provided to respondents. However, it was clear from the survey's numbers, and Davis' comments followed by rounds of supportive applause, that he represents a collection of concerns about how development in June Lake could change the face of life in an undesirable way.

Danny Roberts, the June Lake CAC chairman for more than a decade, reminded the audience that Intrawest's plan was only a wish list, and that it was much too early to be alarmed.

"All we want know," asked longtime resident and JLA board member Igor Vorobyoff, "is, Will you represent the wishes of a majority of June Lake residents?"

At first, the answer was indirect, yet determined. "Of course, it is my job to be responsive," Roberts said.

CAC board member Vicki McGee-Bauer tried to add clarity, saying, "We come to these meetings day-in and day-out to listen to the community. Of course we'll represent you. And if the community's wishes and (Intrawest's) plan are compatible, there won't be a problem."

"The (June Lake 2010: June Lake Area) plan already represents the community after many hours of work over a long period of time," Roberts added. Indeed, the June Lake 2010 Plan represents more than 16 years of residents developing guidelines for future land use.

Scott Burns, Mono County Community Development Director, explained to the crowd that the planning process for this project could take more than a year. "First, Intrawest submits an application, then makes a sizable deposit, and then the County hires consultants to study the application," Burns said. "Then an Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Assessment, and a draft plan will be prepared, followed by a two-month public review. Written comments will be accepted and the consultants will be asked to respond to these comments in writing. A final draft will be published, the CAC will function as a design review board to insure that the proposal complies with the June Lake Design Guidelines, and then the Planning Commission will make their recommendation to the (Mono County) Supervisors to either adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt."

Burns added that the Supervisors will hold at least one public hearing, as well.

He also explained that the CAC is simply responsible for advising the Planning Commission. "They're job is to be sure that the proposed plans are, indeed, in compliance with the June Lake Area Plan."

Magee-Bauer echoed Burns' sentiments, saying, "It's all very early still. All we've done is to scope the plan."

As with other area plans, all of the policies are not spelled out definitively, there is room for variances. The height limit can be increased with a Use Permit, which in Mono County can, and has, allowed buildings up to 60-foot heights. Heights beyond the 35-foot limit will need to be mitigated, however, to reduce the visual impacts.

Pam Rake, a longtime June Lake resident, one of nearly 500 residents who didn't return the Advocate's survey, said she disagreed with it. Rake, who's husband Don Rake is a former Supervisor, said, "I want to comment when Intrawest has a more specific plan of what they want to build, not a wish list."

Down-canyon Double Eagle Resort owner and CAC board member Ron Black held up a copy of the June Lake Area Plan and said he too would study Intrawest's proposals in the light of the plan. "But we haven't heard all the evidence," he said.

Dwight Hoelscher repeated those words as he left the standing-room-only building. Hoelscher, a 22-year June Lake second homeowner makes the trek to this sleepy "Diamond in the Sierra" resort about a dozen times a year for a cool respite from his Rancho Mirage residence near Palm Desert.

"It doesn't look like much is going to be accomplished here tonight," he said in the starlit parking lot. A Mono County sheriff officer recognized the part-time local. "What kinda trouble you causing, Dwight!" said the green clad officer. The good- natured ribbing and clear air outside were a welcome relief to the tensions and contentious air inside.

"There are lots of people moving here from Mammoth because they're tired of the congestion," Hoelscher added. "I think we should buy the land and give it back to the US Forest Service."

Although some June Lake Advocates claimed that rejection of Intrawest's plans (for a 90-foot limit and 2,610 density numbers) was a unanimous refrain, there were those at the meeting who, publicly and privately, voiced their concerns that the Advocates were getting too confrontational, too fast.

"Hiring lawyers already? Give me a break! Have we sat down with Intrawest and told them, specifically, what we even want?" asked one resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I didn't return the survey because I don't want to create friction between my family and my neighbors. And more residents didn't return the survey than those who did? What does that say? I love this town just as much as anyone here, but not everyone here has the same idea of what should happen in June Lake. We're all different. I don't like the idea of a group going off like this? we should be more patient, learn what Intrawest is asking for, and then make our wishes known."

At the end of the night, it became increasingly clear that both groups, or the many viewpoints represented, wanted the same thing: A community that maintained June Lake's unique character.

Intrawest's proposed Rodeo Grounds Specific Plan is available for review on the Mono County web site: www.MonoCounty.ca.gov (see Community Development Department/Planning Division). Larry K. Johnston and Burns of the Mono County Planning Department are both familiar with the project.

The June Lake Advocates web site is: www.JuneLakeAdvocates.org.

Copies of Intrawest's proposal may also be purchased for $12 at the Mono County Planning Division, 437 Old Mammoth Rd., Suite P, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546, or phone (760) 924-1800. -MT

Wally Hofmann
Managing Editor, Mammoth Times
Sierra Center Mall, 2nd Floor
452 Old Mammoth Road
Box 3929, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
760.934.3929 w
760.934.3951 f
760.937.3929 c
Wally@MammothTimes.com

Associated Press on Intrawest plans...

2004-08-13T16:45:00.000-07:00

August 13, 2004

CALIFORNIA
Intrawest to Scale Back Its Interest in Resort Properties

From Associated Press

Intrawest Corp. said Thursday that it would sell a majority interest in its commercial properties at nine resorts — including Mammoth Mountain and Squaw Valley in California — to a real estate investment trust in a transaction valued at $160 million.

The agreement calls for CNL Properties Inc. of Orlando, Fla., to acquire an 80% interest in the resort operator's commercial properties. Intrawest will continue as property and leasing manager and retain a 20% stake. The deal is expected to close by December.

Intrawest would receive about $135 million in net proceeds, said Daniel O. Jarvis, president and chief executive of its leisure and travel group.

The transaction fits with Intrawest's long-range strategy to shift from a capital-intensive to a management-intensive structure, he said.

Intrawest already is in talks with CNL to see if it would be feasible to broaden the partnership to other parts of its business, Jarvis said, adding, "What we have here is really the prototype for the structure that we intend to use as a company going forward, not just for this business but for other parts of our business as well."

Besides the Sierra ski resorts at Mammoth and Squaw Valley, the deal would affect properties at Copper Mountain, Colo.; Whistler Blackcomb in British Columbia; Sandestin Golf and Beach Resort in Destin, Fla.; Lake Las Vegas Resort in Las Vegas; Blue Mountain in Collingwood, Canada; Snowshoe Mountain, W.Va.; and Stratton, Vt.

Shares of Vancouver, Canada-based Intrawest closed up 10 cents at $15 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Bulletin #9

2004-08-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

FIRE DEPARTMENT DONATIONS: If you haven't sent in your donations to be presented to the fire department on your behalf by the JLA at the August 14 Fireman's BBQ, and still wish to do so, they can still reach our mailbox from most points in California and Nevada by Saturday if you mail them tomorrow. Please make checks out to the June Lake Volunteer Fire Department and send them to the June Lake Advocates, P.O. Box 610, June Lake, CA 93529. These donations are to be a gesture of our commitment to community support.

FIREMAN'S BBQ: Plan to enjoy the best tasting BBQ of the Eastern Sierras, and to win marvelous prizes, including a 32 inch color TV, in the several raffles to be held in late morning and afternoon at Gull Lake Park this Saturday the 14th. JLA member Ken Harrison of Comedy Traffic Schools has just donated two free class certificates for the raffle.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPPORTS AREA PLAN: The June Lake COC is in the process of drafting and approving a position paper scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors at 1 p.m. Tuesday, August 17 in the County Courthouse in Bridgeport. Among several issues addressed in this paper, we are pleased to see the inclusion of a commitment to support the June Lake Area Plan as written in any development that occurs in the June Lake Loop. Please plan to attend this meeting, and to demonstrate your support for the COC's position. Look for a copy of this position paper to be posted on our web site in the near future.

PUD TO PRESENT MASTER WATER PLAN: The June Lake Public Utility District, which postponed its regular meeting to next Wednesday, August 18 at 7 p.m. at the Firehouse, will present its Master Water Plan on that date. One of the items is a proposed 14 percent increase in water rates to $16.58 monthly for residential consumers as of August 2004. In 1979 the rate was set at $7.00 and not changed until May 1995, when it was raised to $11. Since then, the PUD has been playing catch-up to bring rates in line with increasing costs, raising them to $11.33 in 1997, $12.75 in 2002, and $14.54 in 2003.

FIRE COMMISSION SEEKS CONSTRUCTION LOAN: The June Lake Fire Commission is currently shopping for loans to build the Down Canyon firehouse. Pending final approvals, groundbreaking is anticipated in Spring, 2005.

EMERGENCY SERVICES: The June Lake Fire Commission urges property owners to check with the administrative offices of the Mono County Sheriff's Department (don't call 911!) to ensure that your phone number and address in the 911 system are up-to-date. Call (760) 932-7549. It is also the responsibility of property owners to put up house numbers readily visible to emergency services.

JLA Alert 1

2004-08-10T09:52:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,

Events are proceeding in a positive channel. Our voice is being heard and responded to by other segments of the community. Our next step is to build consensus within the community so that we could approach Intrawest as a united front. The ball is in our court. We need to demonstrate to persons outside our membership that we have a stake in this community.

There are many ways of doing this, which I will discuss at a later time. For starters, it is our suggestion that you show your support to the June Lake Volunteer Fire Department by sending a donation to it care of the JLA (P.O. Box 610, June Lake, CA 93529) immediately. The proceeds will be presented to the department, as a gesture of goodwill, at the Firemen's Barbecue this Saturday, August 14. Donations need to be in the mail by Wednesday, August 11 to reach June Lake before the barbecue. And if you are in the area on Saturday, come to Gull Lake Park for some of the county's best BBQ and top-class raffle prizes. I'll be the one with the funny hats, selling raffle tickets.

It is my contention that had we made more of an effort to support and participate in the community all along, the problems we face with Intrawest may have been avoided. It is now time for us to make amends.

Thank you for your support.

Igor Vorobyoff, Board Member
June Lake Advocates

Powerpoint Presentation

2004-08-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

The Powerpoint presentation from the August 3rd CAC meeting is now posted. One can view the html version of this presentation at:

http://www.junelakeadvocates.org/powerpoint/jla.htm

It may be used as a reference from our meeting.

Presentation to the June Lake CAC

2004-08-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

Thanks to everyone who came to the Tuesday, August 3 meeting of the CAC! Scott's presentation will soon be listed on the Web site, and a link to the presentation will be posted here.

We also apologize for not posting the time and place of the Advocates meeting on August 4. In the future we hope to post meeting date reminders here in the blog.

Thanks for all of your support and generosity!

Welcome!

2004-07-30T16:11:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the June Lake Advocates blog. Often, a Web site will become out of date. This Web Log is intended to give up-to-date information about the latest events in June Lake and actions of the Advocates in promoting the voice of the community. We welcome feedback and support as we work to support county planning that respects community resources and stakeholders.