|
Thursday, 15 May 2008 |
By Advocates for Mammoth
Mayor Pro Tem Sugimura's article in the Times does a good job of summarizing the complex issues involved in the appeal of the Hillside (currently called the Ritz) affordable housing mitigation plan by the Advocates for Mammoth. There are, however, a few points that were omitted or glossed over that we feel obligated to comment on.
The mitigation plan passed by the Town Council, and discussed in the Mammoth Times article, differed substantially from the plan approved by a 3-2 vote by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission version had no commitment or requirement as to when, where or how the housing would be built. The only restriction on use of the in-lieu funds in the Planning Commission version was that the housing would be aimed at households with less than 200 percent of the median household income, or about $132,000. (The current median household income is about $66,000.)
This is the mitigation plan that the Advocates appealed. It was necessary to appeal at this point or the issue would not have come before the Town Council.
However, before being brought before the Council the Planning Commission-approved mitigation plan was significantly altered. The new plan now included a mix of very low and low income housing along with moderate income housing (50 to 120 percent of median household income), and the housing was to be supplied within 5 years. This change answered one of the most serious objections we raised during the Planning Commission deliberations, and probably would have avoided the need, the time, and the cost of an appeal. Unfortunately this discussion was omitted in the Planning Commission minutes while they did include the favorable comments we made about Mammoth Lakes Housing.
Our other principle concern, which is confirmed in Sugimura's article, is that there has been no public vetting on where it is best to put the Hillside affordable housing, and probably more importantly, what should be the policy on future projects. A review of Mammoth Lakes Housing minutes reveals that all, or almost all, of the Hillside project deliberations were held in closed session. The Council did a good job of debating this issue and, based on the changes they made to the Planning Commission version, reached what is probably an appropriate compromise. However, most of the Advocates would have preferred a plan with at least part of the housing on site to accommodate the horde of chain installers, mechanized parking machine operators and bicycle valets that this project has been promising. We hope the Town and Mammoth Lakes Housing follow through on their verbal commitments to better vet the Mammoth Lakes Housing/Town relationship in the future, as well as the future affordable housing requirements and plans.
A few significant but secondary points are:
1) Incomplete and unapproved Planning Commission minutes were supplied to the Town Council for their deliberations;
2) The CEQA document on the plan was not included in the Planning Commission packet and is dated several weeks after the meeting;
3) One of the three commission votes supporting the Planning Commission version of the plan was cast by a commissioner whose conflict of interest has been questioned;
4) The original requirement was to have all of the housing (phase 1 and 2) available prior to project occupancy. The revised mitigation plan only addresses the phase 1 housing requirements.
On balance, the outcome may be a good one. However, there is a great deal wrong with a system that requires a group of citizens to gamble more than $1,600 on an appeal in order to get the Town Council to debate and ultimately make substantial changes in a Planning Commission decision.
Town Square is a timely, issue-oriented guest opinion column. Length limit: 1,000 words. Original ideas receive priority over responses to previous columns. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent policies and opinions of the staff or owners of the Mammoth Times. Reader response is encouraged. –MT
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 22 May 2008 )
|
