Town Council Agenda
Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members of the Town Council:
Mayor Lynda Salcido, Mayor Pro Tem John Wentworth, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Bill Sauser, Councilmember Kirk Stapp
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (760) 965-3602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 13.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Offices located at 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Mammoth Lakes website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
NOTE: All comments will be limited to a speaking time of five minutes.
NOTE: This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 which amends certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. While Suite Z is still open to the public, it is strongly encouraged that you watch the Town Council meetings on the Town of Mammoth Lakes' website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov , on the local government cable channel 18, or via Zoom. Public comments can be submitted to the Town Clerk at [email protected]. before and during the meeting.
ZOOM INFORMATION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device:
Please type in or cut and paste in this URL to join. https://monocounty.zoom.us/s/92958002088 Or join by phone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 876 9923
Webinar ID: 929 5800 2088
International numbers available: https://monocounty.zoom.us/u/acobwlnMsm Public comments can also be given through Zoom by logging in or dialing in and raising your hand.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment portion of the agenda provides the public with an opportunity to address the Town Council on matters not otherwise listed on the agenda. Under California law the Town Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Town Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Town Council will listen to all public comment, but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it. Requests for service from the Town may also be made at the Town offices during regular business hours.
Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Opportunity to add urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)2, if necessary.
5. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED)
6. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
6.1. Recognition of retiring Public Works Maintenance Worker Scott Meredith.
7. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
7.1. Update and Discussion on the Status of Broadband in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County.
7.2. The Parcel Year End Update.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
8.1. Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 2022.
8.2. Accept Payment Approval Report No. 22-27 in the amount of $1,821,726.36. Accept Payment Approval Report No. 22-28 in the amount of $714,068.58.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing Procedure.
The Mayor will open the public hearing and then: Statement and presentation by staff.
Statement and presentation by property owner or appellant. Questions from the Town Council. Call for testimony. Rebuttal to previous testimony by property owner or appellant.
Close the public hearing, terminating public testimony. The Town Council will deliberate the matter and arrive at a decision.
9.1. Consider adoption of an urgency ordinance making amendments to the Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill 9 related to urban lot splits and two-unit projects.
10. POLICY MATTERS
10.1. Receive Update on the Draft Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) for Years 2022-2031 and Adopt ACIP by Resolution.
10.2. Town Council Planning Goals and Funding for Mammoth Lakes Tourism FY 22-23.
10.3. Joint agreement regarding Mammoth Community Water District Fee Deferral for Mammoth Lakes Housing Access Apartments Project.
10.4. Update on COVID-19 Response, Statistics/Data and Management Actions.
11. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on committees, commissions, and organizations; general reports on Councilmember activities
12. CLOSED SESSION
12.1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, the Council will hold a conference to consider evaluation of a public employee: Town Manager.
13. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
14. ADJOURNMENT
The Town Council will adjourn to a special meeting to be held jointly with the Board of Mammoth Lakes Tourism on Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
15. MAMMOTH LAKES MUNICIPAL SERVICE COPORATION ANNUAL MEETING After the regular meeting of the Town Council, the Town Council will hold a meeting of the Mammoth Lakes Municipal Service Corporation.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Update and Discussion on the Status of Broadband in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County.
Council Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Provide comments and any direction to staff on Broadband presentation.
Summary:
Staff will provide a high-level overview of the current state of broadband throughout the County and Town, discuss the most significant aspects of legislation impacting broadband development in the area and pose some local policy questions which may lead to strategic direction for the future of broadband within the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
Broadband has been a long-standing topic of interest for Mammoth Lakes, dating back to 2013 when the Town was actively working with Suddenlink to improve service offerings which ultimately led to them bringing Gigabit speeds into our community. Since that time, the broadband landscape has changed throughout the country.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of entities offering effective digital services alongside municipalities ensuring that constituents have the capacity necessary to access those through high-speed and high-quality broadband offerings. While most of Mono County was well positioned going into the pandemic, challenges still exist – including within the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The lack of ubiquitous, quality service is certainly the case throughout most of the state and country - thrusting the topic into the spotlight and yielding landmark legislation alongside historic funding allocations dedicated to expanding and improving broadband.
2022 BROADBAND UPDATE
Federal, State, and Local Overview
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
January 19, 2022
Nate Greenberg
IT Director Page 5 of 155
AGENDA
• Background
• Legislation, programs, and funding overview
• SB 156 & 20-09-001
• Other State and Federal programs
• Local impacts & opportunities
• Policy considerations
•Next steps Page 6 of 155
Los Angeles Aqueduct : 1908 - 1913 2013 -
1930s
TRANSFORMATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN A REMOTE LANDSCAPE
National Average Mono County Average Overall Capacity
8mbps
1.4mbps
1gbps
13mbps
750mbps
10gbps
950mbps
18mbps
1.5mbps
DIGITAL 395 – THE NETWORK
• Sophisticated 100+ year network
• $110m | 620mi. fiber network – Reno <> Barstow
• Petabytes of capacity – 10% utilization
• 2021 electronics upgrade ($1.2m) – product/capacity growth • Middle-Mile Network
• Serves Government, Education, and Medical facilities
• Vital to Town operations
• Leveraged by most service providers for Last Mile
395 MANAGEMENT - CALIFORNIA BROADBAND COOP
• Structurally Solid
• 501(c)12 telephone cooperative
• 11-member Board since 2012
• Financially stable
• Positive Going Concern audits; cash reserves
• Future focused
• Strategic initiatives
• SB 156 opportunities
Digital 395 provides broadband service in
the form of ‘backhaul’ to providers
Providers utilize their ‘Last Mile’ network to
connect customers at home & work
Customers purchase service
from local providers
1 2
3 Fox Industries
FORMAL SUDDENLINK CHALLENGES
• Broadband is not a regulated utility
• Town has limited authority under DIVCA
• CPUC has limited authority aside from video & VoIP phone • Multi-Agency Collaboration (Rural Communities Coalition) • Mammoth, Truckee, Mono, Inyo, Nevada, Placer
• Recurring CPUC/Suddenlink conversations
• Formal comment filing
• General Order 133-D (Petition 21-10-003) – Sept. 29, 2021 • Minimum Service Quality Standards for broadband VoIP Page 12 of 155
SUDDENLINK ESCALATION PORTAL
SB 156: BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTRE INVESTMENT
Passed July 15, 2021 | Rulemaking 20-09-001 | Mono County Party Status • Middle Mile:
• $6b investment in Statewide open-access middle-mile network • Last Mile (Federal Funding Account):
• $6.3m - $13.2m allocation to Mono County for last-mile projects • Revises CASF:
• Allocating $2b to last-mile projects | 100/20mbps standard • Improves processes and removes some barriers
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB156
COUNTY/TOWN IMPACTS & OPPORTUNITIES
Golden State Middle-Mile
• Rulemaking Party Status (formal comments)
• Prioritize routes to extend middle-mile & create new last-mile opportunity • Eliminate any route segments coincident with existing Digital 395 route • Maintain the construction of the following route segments as proposed:
• Highway 203 from The Village at Mammoth to Mono/Madera County line (approx. 5 mi.) • Highway 158 from June Lake Village to June Lake Down Canyon (approx. 3.5 mi.) • Add the following route segments as extensions to the Digital 395 network:
• Benton Crossing Road from Highway 395 to Whitmore County Facilities (approx. 1 mi.) • Highway 203 from Mono/Madera County line into Reds Meadow (approx. 8.5 mi.) • Highway 158 from proposed segment end to Silver Lake (approx. 1mi.) • Twin Lakes Road from Highway 395 in Bridgeport to Fire Station #2 (approx. 13.5 mi.) • Lake Mary Road from The Village at Mammoth to Mammoth Community Water District Facility (approx. 3 mi.)
• Highway 120 west from Highway 395 junction to Yosemite National Park entrance (approx. 12 mi.) • Bodie Road from Highway 395 to Bodie State Park (approx. 13 mi.)
COUNTY/TOWN IMPACTS & OPPORTUNITIES, CONT.
Last Mile (Federal Funding Account)
• Rulemaking still underway (no comments filed by Mono) • Funding availability still being determined
• How to access, apply, and deploy funding still TBD
County Number of
Unserved
Households at 100
Mbps Download
U.S. Census
Bureau Rural
Definition
(11 Rural Counties)
OMB Rural
Definition
(21 Rural Counties)
RCRC Rural
Definition
(37 Rural Counties)
Mono 1,033 $6.29M $13.23M $8.07M
Inyo 1,517 $6.89M $17.09M $9.51M
Alpine 367 $10.62M $7.92M $6.09M
Kern 16,038 $25.02M $28.24M $40.86M
OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
• 30 + Federal and State programs
• Many overlapping
•Augmentation of existing
• CASF supplementation, etc.
• Various ways to leverage
• Most logical is to leverage CBC &
providers
TOWN BROADBAND CONSIDERATIONS
• Long-term involvement questions
• To what extent should the Town invest in broadband?
• What are most effective means of investment?
• Development standards (Subdivision and construction)? • Alternate provider(s)?
• Municipal vs Private networks?
• Funding resources?
• Franchise agreement(s)?
• Incremental approaches (Dig Once/Smart)?
NEXT STEPS
• Monitor existing broadband providers and service
• Track legislative and funding opportunities
• Comment when/where appropriate
• Establish clear objectives and priorities for broadband • Continue to educate leadership, staff, public
THANK YOU!
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petition to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal a
Regulation Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section
1708.5.
Petition 21-10-003
(Filed Sept. 29, 2021)
REPLY OF THE COUNTIES OF INYO, MONO, NEVADA AND PLACER, AND THE TOWNS OF MAMMOTH LAKES AND TRUCKEE (THE “RURAL COMMUNITIES COALITION”)
TO THE RESPONSES TO THE PETITION OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND GENERAL ORDER 133-D TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM
SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ALL ESSENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
November 15, 2021
Gail A. Karish
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
300 SOUTH Grand Ave., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 617-8100
[email protected]
Counsel for the Rural Communities Coalition
FILED
11/15/21
04:59 PM
- 1 -
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petition to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal a
Regulation Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section
1708.5.
Petition 21-10-003
(Filed Sept. 29, 2021)
REPLY OF THE COUNTIES OF INYO, MONO, NEVADA AND PLACER, AND THE TOWNS OF MAMMOTH LAKES AND TRUCKEE (THE “RURAL COMMUNITIES COALITION”)
TO THE RESPONSES TO RESPONSES TO THE PETITION OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND GENERAL ORDER 133-D TO ESTABLISH
MINIMUM SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ALL ESSENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
Pursuant to Rule 6.3(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the schedule established by the assigned Administrative Law Judge in an email ruling dated November 4, 2021 setting a revised date of November 15, 2021 for filing replies to responses to the Petition of the Public Advocates Office (“PAO”) for Rulemaking to Amend General Order 133-D to Establish Minimum Service Quality Standards for All Essential Communications Services (“Petition”), the Counties of Inyo, Mono, Nevada and Placer, and the Towns of Mammoth Lakes and Truckee (the “Rural Communities Coalition”) hereby submit this reply, and request party status in this proceeding.
I. THERE IS A FACTUAL PREDICATE AND INDEED AN URGENT NEED
FOR COMMISSION ACTION
The Rural Communities Coalition urges the California Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) to institute a rulemaking proceeding in response to the Petition.
The jurisdictions that comprise the Rural Communities Coalition collectively serve as home to over half a million permanent residents in rural areas covering nearly 10 percent of the territory of the State of California. In addition, popular tourist destinations that are a vital part of California’s tourism
- 2 -
economy lie within these jurisdictions and require support for millions of seasonal visitors.1 These are also regions that lie in high fire threat areas where the Commission has already recognized that a minimum level of service is critical to save lives.2 Reliable communications services are critical to the very survival and prosperity of these regions, and indeed communities across the State. As PAO noted, “Californians rely on communications services such as broadband, wireless (voice, texting, and data), Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) and traditional Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) (collectively “Essential Services”) for alerts and assistance during emergencies, to obtain information, to attend 1 For example:
Inyo County is a remote and sparsely populated county located in the heart of California’s “back yard” along the Eastern Sierra Nevada. Inyo County reaches across 10,192 square miles, and its dispersed small towns and communities are physically connected by a sparse system of roads and highways. Although home to only 19,000 full-time residents, Inyo County serves as a popular destination for millions of visitors annually. Death Valley National Park, access to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Mt. Whitney, the Alabama Hills, ten of California’s twelve 14,000 foot peaks, the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, the Owens River, and world class rock climbing areas are just a few of the many attractions that bring people into the region.
Mono County is a remote and sparsely populated “frontier” county located on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains. With scenic US Hwy 395 as its only main artery, Mono County reaches across 3,200 square miles. While home to only 14,000 full-time residents, Mono County’s population swells to more than 50,000 during annual periods of peak visitation and annual totals similar to visitation in Inyo County. The majority of visitors and part-time residents come from the Southern California area, but Mono County also hosts travelers from across California and around the world. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mono Lake, Bodie State Historic Park, Devils Postpile National Monument and the eastern entrance to Yosemite National Park are just a few of the many attractions that bring people into the region.
Mammoth Lakes is a mountain community located on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains. With a population of only about 8,300 residents and lying for the most part above 8,000 feet in elevation, Mammoth Lakes is small and remote.
The local economy is almost completely tourism-based, and Mammoth Lakes is one of the primary economic engines for the entire Eastern Sierra region. Most visitors come from Southern California, but other travelers arrive from all over the United States and many parts of the world to visit Mammoth Mountain Ski Area or to make Mammoth Lakes their base to explore the Eastern Sierra.
Placer County stretches northeast from the greater Sacramento area through the Sierra Foothills to the Lake Tahoe region.
Placer covers approximately 1,500 square miles with a population in 2019 of about 390,000. The geographic diversity of Placer County creates opportunities and challenges for its residents and visitors. While the more urbanized western portions of the County largely have a modern telecommunication infrastructure, the eastern rural and mountain portions of the County rely on much less developed infrastructure, and, in some cases, no infrastructure at all. This less developed infrastructure needs to accommodate local residents and visitors year round.
Truckee is a mountain community located in eastern Nevada County, just north of Lake Tahoe and not far from Reno, Nevada. With a population of only about 18,000 residents and lying for the most part above 6,000 feet in elevation, Truckee is small and remote. The local economy is mostly tourism-based, and Truckee is the economic hub of the North Lake Tahoe region. Most visitors come from Sacramento and the Bay Area, but other travelers arrive from all over the United States and many parts of the world to visit the numerous nearby ski areas or national forests or to make Truckee their base to explore the Lake Tahoe region. The community’s remoteness and heavy reliance on tourism make reliable and high-quality broadband service a necessity. In addition, the best available data indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic Truckee's population may have grown by 10%, as second homeowners have moved to Truckee full-time and new residents have arrived from more populated areas. This growth has further strained an already inadequate broadband and communications infrastructure. 2 D. 20-07-011; D. 21-02-029.
- 3 -
online classes, to work from home, to visit doctors remotely, to schedule vaccine appointments during a pandemic, to participate in the political process, to engage with community and society, and to keep in touch with family, friends, and loved ones.”3 This is especially true in rural communities.
Contrary to generalized industry claims that all is good and there is no need for Commission action,4 in the experience of the Rural Communities Coalition member communities, competition in the delivery of communications services, particularly broadband and Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone services, is not robust in their region, the quality of available services is wholly inadequate, and customer service is completely unreliable. The Rural Communities Coalition communities’ experience with Suddenlink Communications (“Suddenlink”), the largest provider of VoIP telephone and broadband services in their communities, is emblematic of the negative consequences that result from an absence of minimum standards for service quality and customer service. Below are some illustrations.
In Mono County, Suddenlink, has implemented a remote and decentralized approach to management, resulting in the overall quality of its service dramatically dropping over the last several years. Poor network performance, regular outages, lack of local or regional customer service, long lead times and no shows on scheduled service calls have led to hundreds of customer complaints, mostly fielded by Mono County elected officials and staff. The communities served by Suddenlink have called upon Mono County to “solve the Suddenlink problem”. That problem truly prevents portions of the county, including the more densely populated Mammoth Lakes area, from achieving reliable service, 3 Petition at 1.
4 Response of US Telecom – The Broadband Association at 2; Response of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association at 9-11; Response of CTIA – The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) at 1-3.
- 4 -
affecting not only day-to-day activities, but such critical functions as schooling during the COVID pandemic, government operations and emergency response. The Town of Mammoth Lakes shares many of Mono County’s concerns over the state of broadband within its territory. The community’s remoteness and heavy reliance on tourism make reliable and high-quality broadband and other communications services a necessity. The completion of the Digital 395 Middle-Mile project in 2013 dramatically improved broadband opportunities in the Eastern Sierra, but a number of challenges are still present. Suddenlink is the largest provider of broadband service in Mammoth Lakes and its remote and decentralized approach to management has resulted in the same deterioration in overall quality of its service , poor network performance, regular outages, lack of local or regional customer service, long lead times for service calls, and uncertainty over whether Suddenlink personnel appearing for scheduled service calls.
Numerous customer complaints have been received by Town staff, and residents, businesses, and visitors have demanded that the Town do something to improve the situation. The status quo of unreliable service, overburdened networks during peak visitation periods, and inadequate customer service affects not only day-to-day activities, but such critical functions as schooling during the COVID pandemic, government operations and emergency response, as well as the tourist economy upon which the entire community is dependent.
Nevada County has long struggled with consumer complaints about the lack of cable service which requires the county to routinely field consumer complaints and attempt to facilitate resolutions for the consumers. Nevada County’s problems with Suddenlink’s services go as far back as to 2004 when Cequel III Communications purchased the USA
- 5 -
Media cable system in the county, and then Cequel III was later purchased by Suddenlink. To provide digital TV and Internet services, the outdated plant was updated but with technology that still utilized the legacy coaxial cable plant. This strategy has resulted in numerous service delivery issues over the years including service outages, difficult to resolve intermediate service quality issues, and outages that can last up to multiple days/weeks due to long times for repairs. Frustration for consumers was compounded with the closure of in-county local customer service offices where consumers previously could swap out defective equipment or talk to a local customer service representative. Over the many years, the County routinely fields consumer complaints and tries to facilitate resolutions for the consumers. Three years ago Suddenlink was invited to the Lake of the Pines, a local home owners association, monthly “general manager’s” community meeting. Over 130 community residents attended and were very vocal in their numerous complaints with Suddenlink services.
Such a large gathering for only a portion of their service area in our county was remarkable. Many people moved to Nevada County during the pandemic to take advantage of the ability to work from home in a more affordable location, further increasing the importance of having quality communications services available. In Inyo County, the completion of the Digital 395 Middle-Mile project ($120m ARRA/CASF funded) in 2013 dramatically improved the potential for broadband opportunities along the Eastern Sierra, however, a number of challenges remain.
Suddenlink has implemented the same changes to its service delivery and management as in other rural areas it serves, resulting in hundreds of customer complaints, mostly fielded by Inyo County elected officials and staff. Inyo County communities (primarily those
- 6 -
served by Suddenlink) have inundated the County with complaints about the lack of reliable broadband services. This problem truly prevents the majority of the county, including the more densely populated Bishop area, from achieving reliable service, affecting not only day-to-day activities, but critical functions such as schooling during the COVID pandemic, government operations and emergency response. In Placer County, broadband services remain uneven particularly in the unincorporated rural and mountains portions. The County continues to seek funding to support improvement of broadband service and has developed a grant program to identify specific rural and mountain communities with the highest need for the upcoming infrastructure.
Many residents and visitors have few Internet service options and in some cases no option at all. A number of available service options are typically unreliable, slow and often expensive for what customers receive in comparison to the more urbanized parts of Placer County. A 2020 Placer County Internet survey found that 62% of respondents had less than 25 Mbps service and 22% of respondents had less than 5 Mbps download speeds. These service levels are below, and in many cases far below, federal standards.
One of the County’s largest providers of rural and mountain area broadband service, Suddenlink/Altice, has seen a significant drop in the quality of its service over the last several years. Multiple ongoing issues, including poor network performance, repeated outages, lack of local or regional customer service, and service call issues all have led to hundreds of customer complaints to the County. Placer County elected officials and staff have fielded these complaints with little substantive improvement to date from Suddenlink/Altice. There is an impact on Public Safety as well as Public Safety providers utilize the public communications infrastructure for their communications, including
- 7 -
during Public Safety Power Shutoff events. In the cases of service outages or deficiencies, Public Safety updates that would come over VoIP phone or cell phone may not occur.
The Town of Truckee shares the experience and concerns of Mammoth Lakes, and Inyo, Mono, Nevada, and Placer Counties over the state of broadband and communications services within its territory. The largest provider of broadband service in Truckee is Suddenlink, and its remote and decentralized approach to management has dramatically and negatively affected the overall quality of its service in the last several years. Town staff receive numerous customer complaints about poor network performance, regular outages, lack of local or regional customer service, long lead times for service calls, and uncertainty over Suddenlink personnel appearing for scheduled service calls. Residents, businesses, and visitors have demanded that the Town of Truckee do something to improve the broadband situation. The status quo of unreliable service, overburdened networks during peak visitation periods, and inadequate customer service affects not only day-to-day activities, but such critical functions as schooling during the COVID pandemic, government operations and emergency response, as well as the tourist economy upon which the community is dependent
These communities have a direct and immediate need for Commission action to support reliable communications services and establish effective customer service standards.
- 8 -
II. THE RULEMAKING SHOULD INCLUDE SEPARATE HEARINGS FOR EACH TYPE
OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIRECT PUBLIC INPUT
The Rural Communities Coalition generally agrees with the PAO’s proposal for phasing the rulemaking, with the following two suggestions:
First, given the varying network and technological considerations, service quality metrics, and customer service standards to consider in regards to the different types of communications services, the Rural Communities Coalition suggests that the Commission hold separate hearings for each service type.
These different “tracks” within Phase One would not be dissimilar to how the Commission separately considered resiliency requirements for wireless and wireline providers in Rulemaking 18-03-011. Just as wireline and wireless infrastructure presented different considerations as to resiliency requirements, so too do broadband, VoIP, and wireless as to service quality metrics and customer service standards.
Separate tracks will also allow for more service-specific consideration of criticisms of the Petition raised by some responses that the proposed metrics are not appropriate for their service offerings5 and that there should be exceptions for small providers.6 Finally, separate tracks will help facilitate public participation in the rulemaking, as discussed below.
Second, the Rural Communities Coalition strongly believes that it is critical for the Commission to hear directly from consumers –whom service quality and customer service standards would be intended to benefit and protect – about their real world experiences with service quality and customer service in order to understand the dire need for minimum standards and meaningful enforcement mechanisms and formulate appropriate standards. Thus, the Rural Communities Coalition urges the Commission to hold public participation hearings in communities throughout the State, and in particular in the rural areas represented by the Rural Communities Coalition. Alternatively, if in-person meetings 5 Response of the Small LECs at 8; Response of Race Telecommunications, LLC at 4; Response of Consolidated at 3. 6 Response of the Small LECs at 9; Response of Race Telecommunications, LLC at 5.
- 9 -
are not permitted due to COVID-related restrictions, the Commission should provide options for remote participation by the public in these areas through virtual public events. These voices will not be adequately heard or represented through hearings held only at Commission headquarters in San Francisco. There is a wealth of precedent for holding such hearings as part of important communications sector proceedings, including, for example, the Public Participation Hearings and workshops held around the State related to the sale of Verizon’s wireline assets to Frontier Communications back in 2015,7 and the Remote Public Forum announced earlier this month on AT&T’s request to discontinue residential services in Frontier territory.8
III. THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO INITIATE A RULEMAKING IN
RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
In addition to questioning the need for rules, the industry responses questioned the scope of authority of the Commission to set rules for certain services.9 The Rural Communities Coalition believes that the Commission has jurisdiction to institute a rulemaking to address the matters raised in the Petition and is not precluded by law from doing so for the reasons laid out in the Petition itself and the Response of The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the Communications Workers of America (CWA), District 9, and the Center for Accessible Technology. Among other sources of authority, the Commission’s “state police powers and jurisdiction over the network provide the foundation to update the service quality metrics to include current technologies such as wireless, interconnected VoIP, and broadband.”10 To the extent that parties may wish to argue that the scope and sources of authority differ for different types of services or service standards, the suggestion made in Section II above to hold separate hearings on separate tracks 7 A.15-03-005.
8 A.21-05-007.
9 Response of Frontier at 2-6; Response of CTIA at 16-18; Response of California Cable and Telecommunications Association at 18-21.
10 Response of TURN at 1.
- 10 -
for each service type would facilitate the process of fully considering arguments related to these differing legal foundations for Commission action.
WHEREAS, the Rural Communities Coalition respectfully requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking in response to PAO’s Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Gail A. Karish
Gail A. Karish
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
300 SOUTH Grand Ave., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 617-8100
[email protected]
Counsel for the Rural Communities
Coalition
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: The Parcel Year End Update.
Council Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Prepared by: Sandra Moberly, Community and Economic Development Director Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Town Council receive the update from staff and provide questions as needed.
Summary: Staff has prepared a brief year-end update for consideration by the Town Council.
Please see the attached staff report for more information.
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: The Parcel Development Update
Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
Prepared by: Sandra Moberly, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council receive the update from staff and provide questions as needed.
PARCEL YEAR END SUMMARY:
Project Milestones
January 6, 2021 Town Council Actions:
Approved the Parcel Master Plan to establish zoning standards for the site and allow a 100% density bonus on the site for a maximum of 580 units.
February 3, 2021 Town Council Actions:
In accordance with the Surplus Land Act, the Town Council approved the awarded the contract for the sale of the Parcel to Pacific West Communities Inc. Approved the use permit and design review for Phase 1 of the Parcel to allow 81 units (80 affordable, 1 manager) of housing to be built at the Parcel.
April 28, 2021 Town Council Actions:
Approved the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Town and The Pacific Companies (TPC) to memorialize the terms and conditions for conveyance of land within the Parcel site to TPC for development of The Parcel project. The Council action included a reduction in the maximum potential unit count to 450.
May 5, 2021 Town Council Actions:
Approved quitclaim deeds to Center Street and Main Street property owners to resolve a small overlap between the north property line of The Parcel and the south property lines of the adjoining lots to the north.
September/October, 2021
Contractor began tree removal for areas of Phase 1 infrastructure and building footprints.
Contractor began rough grading of the Phase 1 site.
October 20, 2021 Town Council Actions:
The Town Council allocated $1.2M in local funding for public infrastructure associated with The Parcel. Town staff will work with TPC to determine funding
2 gaps and will seek out grant funding for Parcel infrastructure prior to allocating the $1.2M for this purpose.
November 3, 2021
The Town Council conducted a Groundbreaking Ceremony at the project site, with many members of the public in attendance.
Awards
The project received two awards this year:
American Planning Association (APA) California Chapter – Award of Merit – Opportunity and Empowerment Award.
American Planning Association, California Chapter Central Section – Excellence and Achievement in Planning - Opportunity and Empowerment Category The APA California website notes that “Awards of Excellence and Awards of Merit were selected by a jury of our peers representing different fields of planning and different locations throughout the state. Submittals for state awards were first evaluated by the local Sections for their respective awards, making them quite exceptional!” Parcel News Coverage
This project is a large affordable housing project for such a small jurisdiction which has generated a lot of interest and lot of interest in our project and some news coverage. Some examples of the coverage we received include:
The Institute for Local Government (ILG) hosted a webinar regarding public engagement in a hybrid environment where I spoke about the project and our public engagement. The webinar had over 300 registrants from across the country and Canada, so we got a lot of coverage through that event. The webinar is available to view at: https://www.ca-ilg.org/webinar/achieving-meaningful-and-equitablecommunity-engagement-outcomes-hybrid-environment (if you would like to watch the Parcel piece fast forward to 14:30).
The Parcel was discussed in the Sierra Wave https://sierrawave.net/mammothtown-council-approves-historic-parcel-project-first-81-units/ The Institute for Local Government (ILG) wrote a piece on our project:
https://www.ca-ilg.org/case-story/town-mammoth-lake-engages-their-communityplan-parcel Phase 1 Update
The project has been put on winter suspension as of December 17, 2021. Tree removal has been completed and the contractor has graded the majority of the foundation pads for both Phase 1 buildings. Construction will resume next spring with snow removal and construction of the building foundations and parking podiums. Vertical construction is anticipated to begin in September 2022.
3 Funding
Phase 1 cost (excluding infrastructure) is approximately $47M and funding for Phase 1 will come from a variety of sources including California Housing Accelerator funding, Infill Infrastructure Grant funding, No Place Like Home funding, MHSA funding from the Mono County, and Town DIF deferrals and below market rate land loan. The Infill Infrastructure Grant contract was executed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 19, 2021. The California Housing Accelerator funding is pending approval by HCD and staff anticipates that the award will be announced by midJanuary.
Phase 1 Parking Management Program
The Design Review approval for Phase 1 included the following condition of approval:
85. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a housing unit, the developer shall provide a parking management plan for final approval by the Town Council that demonstrates how alternative modes of transportation will reduce the parking needs for the project with consideration for the entire master planned area. Identified solutions shall be primarily derived from the Town's mobility planning efforts, including both accepted and adopted documents and should be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The parking management plan, that will be developed in coordination with the Town, should include clear metrics and triggers that allow additional parking to be provided for the project, with consideration for the master planned area, if the management plan does not achieve its goal.
TPC has engaged Fehr & Peers, a traffic/transportation consultant and is working to develop a parking management plan in accordance with this condition of approval. Staff has received a draft parking management plan and will review the document and bring it to the Town Council for consideration when it is finalized.
Schedule
Description Start Dates
Construction
Infrastructure May-November 2022
Building foundations June-Aug 2022
Vertical construction September 2022
Occupancy*
Begin accepting names for interest list Late 2022/ Early 2023 Begin lease/rental application process Summer 2023
First Move In Fall 2023
*May be revised due to financing, weather, etc.
Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 5, 2022, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor Lynda Salcido, Mayor Pro Tem John Wentworth, Councilmember Bill Sauser, Councilmember Kirk Stapp
Members Absent: Councilmember Sarah Rea
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Sandra Moberly led the flag salute.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Stacy Corless, Mono County Board of Supervisors, announced that her District 5 seat would be on the ballot in June and that she would not be seeking reelection.
Ingrid Braun, Mono County Sheriff, announced that she would be seeking reelection this year.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.
Town Council Minutes
January 5, 2022
5. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED) Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Moberly gave an update regarding current building and planning activities. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.
Parks and Recreation Director Stuart Brown, Public Works Director Haislip Hayes, Administrative Services/Finance Director Rob Patterson, and Police Chief Al Davis gave a presentation regarding the winter storms operations update.
There was discussion among members of Council and staff.
6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
6.1 Presentation regarding the Final Maps for the new Mono County supervisor districts.
Mono County CAO Bob Lawton gave a presentation outlining the Mono County Redistricting process and outcomes from that process. There was discussion among members of Council and Mr. Lawton.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Councilmember Bill Sauser
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem John Wentworth
Approve the Consent Agenda.
7.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 2021.
7.2 Approve the resolution re-authorizing the Town Council to meet virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic declared emergency.
7.3 Approve the resolution establishing the 2022 compensation schedules and benefits for limited term employees.
7.4 Accept Payment Approval Report No. 22-24 in the amount of $462,957.82. Accept Payment Approval Report No. 22-25 in the amount of $57,028.68. Accept Payment Approval Report No. 22-26 in the amount of $235,485.93.
8. POLICY MATTERS
8.1 Update on COVID-19 data/statistics and management, and response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Town Council Minutes
January 5, 2022
Town Manager Daniel C. Holler gave a presentation regarding the pandemic update. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.
9. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Sauser attended the Mammoth Lakes Tourism Board meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Wentworth attended the grand opening of the Bishop Airport.
Councilmember Stapp reported on the Mammoth Lakes Housing wait list
10. CLOSED SESSION
10.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54856.8, the Town Council will hold a conference with its representatives in regard to lease negotiations pertaining to:
At 5:38 p.m. the Mayor announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.
11. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 6:13 p.m. and the Town Manager announced that there was no reportable action taken.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m.
Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Consider adoption of an urgency ordinance making amendments to the Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill 9 related to urban lot splits and two-unit projects.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
Prepared by: Nolan Bobroff, Senior Planner / Housing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION:
Read by title only and adopt the urgency ordinance making amendments to the Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill 9 related to urban lot splits and two-unit projects.
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which requires all local agencies to consider certain proposed two-unit projects and lot splits ministerially and allows residential property owners to split a single-family lot into two lots (referred to below as an Urban Lot Split) and place up to two units on each (referred to below as a Two-Unit Project).
1 An SB 9 lot split followed by an SB 9 two-unit project on each of the two new lots would result in four total dwellings on what was formerly one single-family residential lot—all with only ministerial approval. The law imposes only a handful of restrictions and allows local governments to impose a few more. The purpose of these proposed amendments is to allow the Town to implement the necessary objective subdivision and design standards. 2 SB 9 went into effect on January 1, 2022.
Because SB 9 was not signed into law until September 2021, staff is recommending adoption of the new subdivision ordinance as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 36937(b). Ordinances adopted pursuant to section 36937(b) are effective immediately and this will enable the Town to have an adopted ordinance in place immediately to prevent any negative impacts from not having adopted regulations in place; however the approval requires adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote. The traditional ordinance adoption process requires more time than was provided by the State’s September timeframe and January 1 start date. However, staff believes it is important to have the subdivision framework in effect as soon as possible after the January 1st start date in order to implement the necessary objective subdivision and design standards and to approve a required lot split and/or development should an SB 9 application be submitted.
The attahced ordinance proposes the minimum objective size and design standards set forth by SB 9, in addition to a few Mammoth-specific requirements. Due to the shortened timeframe associated with SB 9, staff has recommended a framework that addresses the
1 The full text of SB 9 is available here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 2 Objective design standards are quantifiable standards that do not rely on interpretation or professional experience.
2 fundamental requirements of approving a residential subdivision or a small, two-unit development project. Following adoption of the urgency ordinance, staff anticipates returning to Council at a later date with a fully developed ordinance that has greater input from local special districts/utility providers, community partners and stakeholders, and incorporates any clean-up legislation put forth by the State. This subsequent adoption process will occur through the Town’s standard timeframe and will allow for additional public input, Planning and Economic Development Commission review, and a 30-day referendum period following the second reading of the ordinance.
SB 9 FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW (PROPOASED AMENDMENTS)
The following is an overview of the main elements of SB 9. The proposed urgency ordinance incorporates all of these required elements; however, it also includes greater detail on what is required in Mammoth Lakes to complete an urban lot split and/or twounit project.
Maximum Number of Units Allowed Under SB 9
In single-family
residential zones:
Detached: Primary units are
detached from each other
Attached: Primary units are
attached to each other.
Split. On each of the
two lots that are formed
by an urban lot split.
4: Two “units” of any kind on
each lot (“units” can be an
original main house, new primary
unit or units under SB 9, ADU,
JADU)
4: Two “units” of any kind on
each lot (“units” can be an
original main house, new primary
unit or units under SB 9, ADU,
JADU)
Not Split. On a lot that
was not formed by an
SB 9 lot split.
4: [Two primary dwellings
(original or SB 9)] + [one
detached ADU] + [one JADU]*
Applying SFR ADU rules
* For just one of the primary
dwellings, but not both.
5: [Two primary dwellings
(original or SB 9)] + [one
converted ADU] + [two detached
ADUs]
Applying MFR ADU rules
Urban Lot Splits + Two-Unit Projects (By-Right)
Under SB 9, local agencies are required to:
ministerially approve certain subdivisions of one lot into two without discretionary review or a public hearing; and/or
ministerially approve a proposed two-unit development project on a lot in a singlefamily residential zone without discretionary review or a public hearing. This applies to building two new units or adding a second unit to a property with an existing unit.
The following is a summary of the SB 9 requirements, and it is noted whether the requirements apply to urban lot splits, two-unit projects, or both.
Qualifying Criteria – The following criteria is required by the State. Each new lot is at least 1,200 square feet [Urban Lot Split] The split results in two new lots of approximately equal size (60/40 split at most) [Urban Lot Split]
3 The project does not involve the demolition or alteration of existing affordable housing, rent-controlled housing, housing that was withdrawn from rent within the last 15 years, or housing occupied by a tenant (market-rate or affordable) in the past three years. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
The project does not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. [Two-Unit Project]
The lot is zoned single-family residential. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project] The lot is not a historic landmark or within a designated historic district. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
The lot is within an urbanized area or urban cluster, or within a city that has an urbanized area or urban cluster, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
The original lot was not established through a prior SB 9 lot split. [Urban Lot Split] Neither the owner nor anyone acting in concert with the owner previously subdivided an adjacent parcel through an SB 9 lot split. [Urban Lot Split + TwoUnit Project] Design Standards – The following standards are required by the State. Short-Term Rentals Not Allowed. Local agencies must prohibit short-term rentals in a dwelling created under SB 9. (NOTE: Short-term rentals are already prohibited in all zones that are exclusively zoned single-family residential) [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
Residential Only. Local agencies must prohibit non-residential use on the lot(s). [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
Objective Only. Under SB 9, local agencies may only impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards on a eligible project―and even then, only to the extent that the objective standards do not physically preclude the construction of two units on the lot(s) or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. [Urban Lot Split + TwoUnit Project] Limited Parking. Local agencies may require only one off-street parking space per unit―none if the site is close to qualifying transit or a car share vehicle location. (NOTE: Mammoth Lakes does not have a qualifying transit or car share facility, so can require one off-street parking space per new unit) [Urban Lot Split + TwoUnit Project] Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. Side and rear setbacks must be reduced from the standard side and rear setbacks for the underlying zone to the extent necessary to allow the construction of two units on the lot(s) and/or to allow both units to be 800 square feet in floor area. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project] Other Structures Permitted. Proposed adjacent or connected structures must be allowed. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
4 No Dedications of Offsite Improvements. No right-of-way dedications or construction of offsite improvements may be required. [Urban Lot Split] No Corrections to Nonconformities. Local agencies may not require the correction of existing legal nonconforming zoning conditions (i.e., legally permitted structures that do not comply with current development standards, parking, etc.). [Urban Lot Split]
Three-Year Owner Occupancy. The applicant-owner must sign an affidavit stating that the owner intends to occupy one of the housing units as the owner’s principal place of residence for at least three years following the lot split. [Urban Lot Split] Report to State. Local agencies must include the number of SB 9 lot split applications in annual Housing Element reports. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
Limited Grounds to Deny. A local agency may only deny a qualifying SB 9 lot split if the Building Official finds that the resulting project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment and there is no feasible, satisfactory mitigation. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project] Accessory Dwelling Units. SB 9 creates a narrow exception from the general requirement that local agencies allow ADUs and JADUs ministerially on all singlefamily residential lots, and specifically exempts urban lot split lots from having more than two “units” of any type on the resulting lots. However, this exemption does not apply to lots that aren’t split and are developed with a two-unit project.
The table above notes the distinctions between split and unsplit lots.
Local Design Standards – The following are standards that have been crafted specific to Mammoth Lakes but can only be imposed to the extent they do not preclude the development of two units on the lot(s) or either of the two units from being 800 square feet in floor area.
Single Driveway. Access to the resulting lot(s) and/or units shall be from a single driveway entrance/exit and the driveway is limited to a width at the road right-ofway edge of 12 to 24 feet. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project] Lot Coverage. The lot coverage for the underlying zone remains the same. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
Height. New units are restricted to height of two stories, not to exceed 24 feet, and second stories are required to step back a minimum of five feet from the ground floor. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
Snow Shed. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, the pitch of any portion of the roof within the reduced setback area shall not be directed towards the side or rear property line(s), or the structure shall have a non-shedding roof material and/or an engineered snowslide restraint device for the life of the structure. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project] Architectural Projections. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, no portion of the structure (e.g., eaves, balconies,
5 covered entries, etc.) shall be located closer than four feet to the side and rear property lines. [Urban Lot Split + Two-Unit Project]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
CEQA does not apply to SB 9 project since approval of a project under SB 9 is ministerial.
Additionally, the bill creates a new statutory exemption for an ordinance adopted to implement SB 9.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The urgency ordinance was discussed and reviewed by legal counsel and its contents are consistent with State law.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No 2022-__
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
MAMMOTH LAKES, COUNTY OF MONO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 21-001 TO ADD SECTION 17.52.270,
AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 17.20.020, 17.20.030, 17.60.030, and 17.144.020
OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Town of Mammoth Lakes California (“Town”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which among other things, adds Government Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and WHEREAS, SB 9 allows local agencies to adopt objective design, development, and subdivision standards for urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and WHEREAS, SB 9 became effective January 1, 2022, and preempted any conflicting local ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Town desires to amend its local regulatory scheme to comply with Government Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7 and to appropriately regulate projects under SB 9; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare based on the passage of the SB 9 law because if the Town does not adopt appropriate objective standards for urban lot splits and two-unit projects under SB 9, the Town is limited to applying the few objective standards that already are in the Zoning Code, which did not anticipate and were not enacted with urban lot splits and ministerial two-unit projects in mind; and
WHEREAS, the approval of urban lot splits and two-unit projects based solely on the Town’s default standards, without appropriate regulations governing lot configuration, unit size, height, and setbacks, among other things, would threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety. These threats to public safety, health, and welfare justify adoption of this ordinance as an urgency ordinance to be effective immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the Town Council may adopt this ordinance as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code §36937(b).
NOW THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct and are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the Town Council.
Ordinance No. 22-__
Section 2. Urgency Findings. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares, on the basis of the findings set forth above, that an urgency exists, and that this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to preserve the public heath, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The Town Council makes the following findings and takes the following actions pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
A. Under California Government Code §§ 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Government Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7 and regulating urban lot splits and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9.
B. In addition to being statutorily exempt from CEQA, this Ordinance is categorially exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the following CEQA Guidelines sections:
1. CEQA Guidelines §15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines §15315 applies to projects that consist of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels, which the State has determined to be a class of projects that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Here, the ordinance is consistent with the exemption class description specified above because the ordinance regulates a single urban lot split of one parcel into two separate lots between 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot are in a residential zone.
2. CEQA Guidelines §15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines §15303 applies to projects that consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another, including the construction of a second dwelling unit in a residential zone and a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. Here, the ordinance is consistent with the exemption class described above because the ordinance regulates the construction of two primary dwelling units or, if there is already a primary dwelling unit on the lot, the development of a second primary dwelling unit, in a residential zone.
Furthermore, the Town Council finds that none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, which would preclude a project from using a categorical exemption, are applicable since the ordinance will:
1. Not result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Because the Town is an urbanized area and the targeted parcels already allow residential uses, the Council finds that the additional residential units which will result from Urban Lot Splits/Two-Unit Projects will not result in significant cumulative impacts.
2. Not result in a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The targeted parcels already allow residential uses and the potential increase in residential units from the Urban Lot Splits/Two-Unit Projects would not result in unusual circumstances as the appropriateness of residential uses on these parcels and their associated impacts has already been evaluated through prior environmental review.
3. Not result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated
Ordinance No. 22-__
as a state scenic highway. The Town does not have any state scenic highways, so this finding is not applicable.
4. Not be located on a hazardous waste site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. There are no residentially-zoned properties located on hazardous waste site in the Town, so this finding is not applicable.
5. Not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Pursuant to Government Code §65852.21(a)(6), Urban Lot Splits/Two-Unit Projects are not allowed in designated historic districts or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, so this finding is not applicable.
C. Therefore, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(1) since the ordinance meets the criteria for use of the statutory exemption described in Government Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7 related to the implementation and regulation of urban lot splits and two-unit projects and CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(2) since the ordinance meets the criteria for use of the Minor Land Divisions (Class 15) and New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3) categorial exemptions and the application of those categorical exemptions are not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in §15300.2. Each of the foregoing exemptions is asserted in the alternative and each is independently sufficient to fully exempt the whole of the project.
D. CEQA Action – The Town Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Approval. The Town Council hereby approves Zoning Code Amendment 21-001 and adds Municipal Code Section 17.52.270 (Single-Family Residential Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects) to read as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and amends Municipal Code Sections 17.20.020, 17.20.030, 17.60.030, and 17.144.020 as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining sections or portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The Town Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
Section 5. Effective Date. This urgency ordinance was adopted by the necessary four-fifths (4/5) vote of the members of the Town Council pursuant to Government Code §§ 36934 and 36937 and shall take effect immediately. The Mayor shall sign and the Town Clerk shall certify passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published and posted in accordance with the law.
Section 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance has been based are located at Town of Mammoth Lakes, Town Hall, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546. The custodian for these records is the Town Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6.
Ordinance No. 22-__
ADOPTED, SIGNED and APPROVED this 19th day of January 2022. ________________________________
LYNDA SALCIDO, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 22-__
EXHIBIT “A”
Ordinance No. 2022-__
Case No. ZCA 21-001
Amendments to the Zoning Code
Municipal Code Section 17.52.270 (Single-Family Residential Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects) is hereby added to read as follows:
17.52.270 Single-Family Residential Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects A. Purpose and Applicability. This Section establishes requirements for:
1. This section implements Government Code §§ 66411.7 (“urban lot splits”) and 68582.21 (“two-unit projects”), herein referred to as Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). The purpose of this section is to apply objective local development standards for projects covered by SB 9. This section is applicable only so long as SB 9 is operative.
2. Where this section or SB 9 conflict with any other provision of this code, this section and SB 9 shall control. Any development standard or requirement not specifically addressed by this section or SB 9 shall conform to all other provisions of this code and all other objective policies and requirements governing subdivisions and/or construction of singlefamily or two-family dwellings. Nothing in this section precludes an applicant from applying for a development permit under another section of this code.
B. Urban Lot Splits. This section authorizes a ministerial review process for parcel maps that create no more than two new lots in a single-family residential zone (“urban lot split”) in compliance with Government Code §66411.7.
1. Application.
a. Urban lot split is defined as a subdivision involving the division of an existing, legally subdivided parcel in a single-family residential zone into no more than two parcels in accordance with the requirements of this section. b. A parcel map application for an urban lot split shall be made to the Department on a form provided for that purpose pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Applications, Processing, and Fees). All required information identified on the form shall be provided by the applicant, and any additional information required by the Director in order to determine the projects consistency with the objective standards applicable to urban lot splits. No application shall be accepted unless it is completed as prescribed and is accompanied by payment of all applicable fees. c. Only individual property owners may apply for an urban lot split. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by CA Revenue and Taxation Code [RTC] §402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by RTC §214.15). Any person with a
Ordinance No. 22-__
mortgage interest in the lot to be split under this section must sign the application and the parcel map indicating the person’s consent to the project. d. Projects that include a two-unit project in addition to an urban lot split, shall require an administrative permit for a two-unit project and adherence to the requirements specified in Section 17.52.270(C), in addition to adherence to all applicable urban lot split requirements.
2. Review Procedures & Action.
a. Completeness Review. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete pursuant to the requirements of Government Code §65943. The Director shall provide an applicant for an urban lot split with written documentation identifying items that were not complete or inconsistencies with the objective standards applicable to urban lot splits within 30 days after the application is submitted.
b. Ministerial Action. Consistent with state law, the Director shall render a ministerial decision without a public hearing on an urban lot split application upon such application being deemed complete. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this code, the Director’s action to grant or deny an application for an urban lot split is final and not subject to appeal.
i. A Tentative Parcel Map for an urban lot split shall be approved ministerially if it complies with all requirements of this section.
Recordation of a Tentative Parcel Map is not required. A Final Parcel Map shall be approved ministerially as well, but not until the owner demonstrates that all required documents have been recorded (e.g., deed restriction, easements). The expiration date of the Tentative Map is determined by the Subdivision Map Act §§ 66452.6 and 66463.5 and the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance. An approved Tentative Map is valid for 24 months after its effective date.
ii. The approval shall require the owner and applicant to hold the Town harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.
iii. The approval shall require the owner and applicant to reimburse the Town for all costs of enforcement, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.
iv. The lot created pursuant to the urban lot split cannot be sold/transferred until the Final Parcel Map has been recorded.
3. Requirements. An urban lot split shall satisfy each of the following requirements. a. Map Act Compliance. The urban lot split shall conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66410 et. seq., “SMA”), including implementing requirements in this code, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section. The buyer or grantee and/or the Town has the following remedies if an urban lot split violates any part of the SMA, the Town’s subdivision ordinance, including this section, or any other legal requirement:
Ordinance No. 22-__
i. The buyer or grantee of a lot that is created by the urban lot split has all the remedies available under the SMA, including, but not limited to, an action for damages or to void the deed, sale or contract. ii. The Town has all the remedies available to it under the SMA, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) An action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property.
(2) An action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(3) Criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
(4) Record a notice of violation.
(5) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
iii. Notwithstanding SMA §66411.1, no dedication of rights-of-way or construction of offsite improvements is required for an urban lot split. b. Zone. The lot to be split is located in a zone where a single-family dwelling is the only permitted primary residential use pursuant to Table 17.20.020 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts), which only includes lots in the Residential Single-Family (RSF) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning districts.
c. Lot Location. The purpose of the following list is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K) (see Gov. Code §66411.7(a)(3)(C)), which identifies unique site characteristics for when a lot cannot be split through the urban lot split process. The applicant shall provide evidence that the requirements of Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(k) are satisfied.
The lot to be split shall not be located on a site that is any of the following:
i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters. ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District (MLFPD).
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards. vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
Ordinance No. 22-__
(1) been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local
jurisdiction; or
(2) meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
d. Not Historic. The lot to be split shall not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a town or county landmark or as a historic property or district.
e. No Prior Urban Lot Split. The lot to be split shall:
i. not have been established through a prior urban lot split; and ii. not be adjacent to any lot that was established through a prior urban lot split by the owner of the lot to be split or by any person acting in concert with the owner. “Any person acting in concert with the owner” here includes any third-party that coordinates or assists the owners of two adjacent lots with their respective urban lot splits.
f. No Impact on Protected Housing.
i. The urban lot split shall not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(1) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
(2) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
(3) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§ 7060-7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application.
(4) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. ii. As part of the urban lot split application, the applicant and the owner of a property shall provide a sworn statement by affidavit representing and warranting that this subsection f is satisfied. The sworn statement shall state that:
Ordinance No. 22-__
(1) No housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income will be demolished or altered.
(2) No housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control will be demolished or altered.
(3) No housing that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act at any time in the last 15 years will be demolished or altered.
(4) No housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years will be demolished or altered.
iii. The town may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the Town may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.
g. Lot Size. The lot to be split shall be at least 2,400 square feet. i. The resulting lots shall be at least 1,200 square feet. ii. Each of the resulting lots shall be between 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot area.
iii. The minimum lot depth and width dimensions and/or the minimum width/depth for a building site specified in Table 17.20.030 (Residential Zoning Districts Development Standards) for the underlying zones shall yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on each resulting lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. h. Easements. The owner shall enter into an easement agreement with each public service provider to establish easements that are sufficient for the provision of public services and facilities to each of the resulting lots. i. Each easement shall be shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. ii. Copies of the unrecorded easement agreements shall be submitted with the application. The easement agreements shall be recorded against the property before the Final Map may be approved, in accordance with subpart (a)(i) above.
iii. If an easement is recorded and the project is not completed, making the easement moot, the property owner may request, and the Town will provide, a notice of termination of the easement, which the owner may record.
i. Lot Access. Each resulting lot shall have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right of way. Access shall be designed, constructed, and properly maintained in compliance with the “Residential Driveway Standards” specified in the Public Works Town Standards, unless otherwise modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Ordinance No. 22-__
i. Access to the resulting lots and all resulting units on the subject lots shall be accessed by a single driveway entrance/exit and the driveway shall have a minimum-maximum width at the road right-of-way edge of 12 to 24 feet.
The single driveway standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not preclude the construction of up to two units on each resulting lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. ii. Access to flag or rear lots (i.e., lots that do not have frontage on the public right-of-way) created by an urban lot split shall be provided through an access corridor. To the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on each resulting lot, the access corridor for the rear lot shall be integrated with the driveway for the front lot.
(1) The access corridor can be either a private right-of-way strip owned in fee by the rear property owner or an easement that provides unrestricted access to the rear property. Easements shall be recorded against the property before the Final Map may be approved, in accordance with subpart (a)(i) above
(2) The access corridor (i.e., private strip or easement) shall have a minimum-maximum width of 12 to 24 feet and the length shall be at minimum the required setback of the underlying zone. (3) Access corridors shall remain free and clear of obstructions (e.g., structures, propane tanks, trees, large boulders, trash enclosures, utility pedestals, etc.) at all times.
j. Number of Units Allowed. No more than two (2) dwelling units of any kind may be built, or exist, on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this paragraph, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under section 17.52.270(C) (Two-Unit Projects) of this code, an ADU, or a JADU.
k. Unit Size. The total floor area of each primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot shall be less than or equal to 800 square feet. i. An existing unit (e.g., primary dwelling unit, ADU) that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the existing floor area at the time of the urban lot split.
The unit may not be expanded.
ii. An existing unit (e.g., primary dwelling unit, ADU) that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded up to a maximum size of 800 square feet after the urban lot split.
l. Setbacks. All setbacks shall conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone, with the following exceptions:
i. Existing Structures. An existing legally established structure or a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same
Ordinance No. 22-__
dimensions as an existing legally established structure shall not require any additional setback than what currently exists.
ii. Setback Encroachments. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone shall yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on each resulting lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but shall maintain a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines. iii. Front Setback. Notwithstanding any other part of this code, dwellings that are constructed after an urban lot split shall maintain the front setback specified in Table 17.20.030 for the underlying zone. There are no exceptions to this standard, unless this standard would preclude the construction of up to two units on each resulting lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. m. Height Restrictions. No new primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories, with a maximum allowable height of 24 feet in height, measured from finished grade in accordance with the height calculation methods specified in Section 17.36.060.
Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
n. Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage shall conform to the objective lot coverage limitations imposed through the underlying zone. This standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not preclude the construction of up to two units on each resulting lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.
o. Design standards.
i. Roof design and materials. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, where allowed by this Section, the pitch of any portion of the roof within the reduced setback area shall not be directed towards the side or rear property line(s), or the structure shall have a non-shedding roof material and/or an engineered snowslide restraint device for the life of the structure.
ii. Architectural projections. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, where allowed by this Section, no portion of the structure, including the architectural features specified in Table 17.36.100 (Allowed Projections into Setbacks), shall be located closer than four feet to the side and rear property lines. p. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split shall have at least one off-street parking space per unit. The off-street parking space shall comply with Zoning and/or Public Works Standards for minimum size, location, and slope.
In instances when any of the following apply, no off-street parking is required for a new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split. i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either:
Ordinance No. 22-__
(1) a high-quality transit corridor, which is defined in Public Resources Code §21155(b) as “a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours”; or
(2) a major transit stop, which is defined in Public Resources Code §21064.3 as “a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. q. Nonconforming Conditions. An urban lot split may be approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condition to be corrected. r. Utilities. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lot shall have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
s. Building & Safety. All new structures built on the lot shall comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split shall be considered a change of use. t. Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures. A lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone shall comply with all MLFPD fire hazard mitigation measures for residential construction.
u. Separate Conveyance.
i. Within a resulting lot:
(1) Primary dwelling units on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other. (2) Condominium airspace divisions and common interest
developments are not permitted on a lot that is created by an urban lot split.
(3) All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners. ii. Between resulting lots. Separate conveyance of the resulting lots is permitted. If dwellings or other structures (e.g., garages) on different lots are adjacent or attached to each other, the urban lot split boundary may separate them for conveyance purposes if the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. If any attached structures span or will span the new lot line, the owner must record appropriate CC&Rs, easements, or other documentation that is necessary to allocate rights and responsibility between the owners of the two lots.
v. Regulation of Uses.
Ordinance No. 22-__
i. Residential Uses Only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by an urban lot split.
ii. Short-Term Rentals are Prohibited. No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may be rented for a period of 30 consecutive days or less.
iii. Owner Occupancy. The applicant for an urban lot split shall sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the applicant’s principal place of residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved. w. Deed Restriction. The owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the Town that does each of the following:
i. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
ii. Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lots created by the urban lot split.
iii. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
iv. States that the property is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the Town’s urban lot split regulations, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development.
x. Specific Adverse Impacts. Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the Town may deny an application for an urban lot split if the Building Official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on either public health or safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
i. “Specific Adverse Impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2), as it may be amended from time to time. As of January 1, 2022, this subsection provides as follows: “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).
ii. The Building Official may consult with and be assisted by Planning Division staff and other as necessary in making a finding of “specific adverse impact.”
C. Two-Unit Projects. This section authorizes a ministerial review process for housing developments containing no more than two dwelling units on a lot in a single-family residential zone (“two-unit project”) in compliance with Government Code §65852.21.
Ordinance No. 22-__
1. Application.
a. Two-unit project is defined as a housing development consisting of no more than two primary dwelling units on a lot, including a development which entails adding one new primary unit to an existing primary unit, in a single-family residential zone.
b. An Administrative Permit application for two-unit project shall be made to the Department on a form provided for that purpose pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Applications, Processing, and Fees). All required information identified on the form shall be provided by the applicant, and any additional information required by the Director in order to determine the projects consistency with the objective standards applicable to two-unit projects. No application shall be accepted unless it is completed as prescribed and is accompanied by payment of all applicable fees. c. Only individual property owners may apply for two-unit project. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by CA Revenue and Taxation Code [RTC] §402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by RTC §214.15). d. For any lot created in violation of the SMA, the applicant shall obtain a certificate of compliance with the SMA for the lot and provide the certificate with the application.
e. Projects that include an urban lot split in addition to a two-unit project, shall require a parcel map application for an urban lot split and adherence to the requirements specified in Section 17.52.270(B), in addition to adherence to all applicable twounit project requirements.
2. Review Procedures & Action.
a. Completeness Review. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete pursuant to the requirements of Government Code §65943. The Director shall provide an applicant for a two-unit project with written documentation identifying items that were not complete or inconsistencies with the objective standards applicable to two-unit projects within 30 days after the application is submitted.
b. Ministerial Action. Consistent with state law, the Director shall render a ministerial decision without a public hearing on a two-unit project application upon such application being deemed complete. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this code, the Director’s action to grant or deny an application for a twounit project is final and not subject to appeal. i. A two-unit project shall be approved ministerially if it complies with all requirements of this section. The ministerial approval of a two-unit project
Ordinance No. 22-__
shall not take effect until the owner demonstrates that all required documents have been recorded (e.g., deed restriction, easements). ii. The approval shall require the owner and applicant to hold the Town harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.
iii. The approval shall require the owner and applicant to reimburse the Town for all costs of enforcement, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.
3. Requirements. An urban lot split shall satisfy each of the following requirements. a. Map Act Compliance. The lot shall have been legally subdivided. b. Zone. The lot is located in a zone where a single-family dwelling is the only permitted primary residential use pursuant to Table 17.20.020 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts), which only includes lots in the Residential Single-Family (RSF) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning districts. c. Lot Location. The purpose of the following list is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K) (see Gov. Code §65852.21(a)(2)), which identifies unique site characteristics for when a two-unit project is not permitted. The applicant shall provide evidence that the requirements of Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(k) are satisfied.
The lot shall not be located on a site that is any of the following:
i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters. ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District (MLFPD).
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards. vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(1) been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local
jurisdiction; or
(2) meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
Ordinance No. 22-__
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
d. Not Historic. The lot shall not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a town or county landmark or as a historic property or district.
e. No Impact on Protected Housing.
i. The two-unit project shall not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(1) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
(2) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
(3) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§ 7060-7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the two-unit project application.
(4) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. ii. As part of the two-unit project application, the applicant and the owner of a property shall provide a sworn statement by affidavit representing and warranting that his subsection e is satisfied. The sworn statement shall state that:
(1) No housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income will be demolished or altered.
(2) No housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control will be demolished or altered.
(3) No housing that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act at any time in the last 15 years will be demolished or altered.
(4) No housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years will be demolished or altered.
iii. The town may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the Town may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.
Ordinance No. 22-__
f. Access. Access to the site shall be designed, constructed, and properly maintained in compliance with the “Residential Driveway Standards” specified in the Public Works Town Standards, unless otherwise modified and approved by the Public Works Director. Access to the two-unit project shall be accessed by a single driveway entrance/exit and the driveway shall have a minimum-maximum width at the road right-of-way edge of 12 to 24 feet. The single driveway standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not preclude the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. g. Number of Units Allowed.
i. Lots that have not been created by an urban lot split pursuant to section
17.52.270(B) may have a two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the Town’s ADU ordinance.
ii. Lots that have been created by an urban lot split pursuant to section
17.52.270(B), or lots that are subsequently split through the urban lot split process after the development of a two-unit project plus any allowable ADU or JADU, shall be subject to the limitations specified in section
17.52.270(B)(3)(j) related to the allowable number of units. h. Unit Size. The total floor area of each primary dwelling unit shall be less than or equal to 800 square feet.
i. An existing unit (e.g., primary dwelling unit, ADU) that was legally established on the lot prior to the two-unit project and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the existing floor area at the time of the twounit project. The unit may not be expanded. ii. An existing unit (e.g., primary dwelling unit, ADU) that was legally established prior to the two-unit project and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded up to a maximum size of 800 square feet after or as part of the two-unit project.
i. Setbacks. All setbacks shall conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone, with the following exceptions:
i. Existing Structures. An existing legally established structure or a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure shall not require any additional setback than what currently exists.
ii. Setback Encroachments. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone shall yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two (2) units on the lot or either of the two (2) units from being a maximum of 800 square feet in floor area; but shall maintain a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines. iii. Front Setback. Notwithstanding any other part of this code, dwellings that are constructed as part of a two-unit project shall maintain the front setback specified in Table 17.20.030 for the underlying zone. There are no
Ordinance No. 22-__
exceptions to this standard unless this standard would preclude the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.
j. Height Restrictions. No new primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories, with a maximum allowable height of 24 feet in height, measured from finished grade in accordance with the height calculation methods specified in Section 17.36.060.
Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
k. Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage shall conform to the objective lot coverage limitations imposed through the underlying zone. This standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not preclude the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. l. Demolition Cap. The two-unit project may not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
m. Design standards.
i. Roof design and materials. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, where allowed by this Section, the pitch of any portion of the roof within the reduced setback area shall not be directed towards the side or rear property line(s), or the structure shall have a non-shedding roof material and/or an engineered snowslide restraint device for the life of the structure.
ii. Architectural projections. When a primary dwelling unit is constructed with reduced side or rear yard setbacks, where allowed by this Section, no portion of the structure, including the architectural features specified in Table 17.36.100 (Allowed Projections into Setbacks), shall be located closer than four feet to the side and rear property lines. n. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot as part of a two-unit project shall have at least one off-street parking space per unit. The off-street parking space shall comply with Zoning and/or Public Works Standards for minimum size, location, and slope.
In instances when any of the following apply, no off-street parking is required for a new primary dwelling unit that is built as part of a two-unit project. i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either:
(1) a high-quality transit corridor, which is defined in Public Resources Code §21155(b) as “a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours”; or
(2) a major transit stop, which is defined in Public Resources Code §21064.3 as “a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit
Ordinance No. 22-__
service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. o. Nonconforming Conditions. A two-unit project may only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.
p. Utilities. Each primary dwelling unit shall have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
q. Building & Safety. All new structures built on the lot shall comply with all current local building standards.
r. Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures. A lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone shall comply with all MLFPD fire hazard mitigation measures for residential construction.
s. Separate Conveyance.
i. Primary dwelling units on the lot may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other.
ii. Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted within the lot.
iii. All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners.
iv. No timeshare, as defined by state law, is permitted. This includes any coownership arrangement that gives an owner the right to exclusive use of the property for a defined period or periods of time.
t. Regulation of Uses.
i. Residential Uses Only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot. ii. Short-Term Rentals are Prohibited. No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of 30 consecutive days or less.
iii. Owner Occupancy. Unless the lot was formed by an urban lot split, there are no owner-occupancy restrictions for long-term rentals of either primary dwelling unit. If one of the primary dwelling units has a legally established JADU, the owner-occupancy requirements specified in Section 17.52.055(C)(5)(d) (JADU Occupancy Requirements) shall apply. u. Deed Restriction. The owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the Town that does each of the following:
i. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
ii. Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot.
Ordinance No. 22-__
iii. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
iv. If the lot does undergo an urban lot split, expressly requires the individual property owners to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owner’s primary residence and legal domicile.
v. Limits development of the lot to residential units that comply with the requirements of this section, except as required by state law. v. Specific Adverse Impacts. Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the Town may deny an application for a two-unit project if the Building Official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on either public health or safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
i. “Specific Adverse Impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2), as it may be amended from time to time. As of January 1, 2022, this subsection provides as follows: “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).
ii. The Building Official may consult with and be assisted by Planning Division staff and other as necessary in making a finding of “specific adverse impact.”
w. Remedies. If a two-unit project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirements:
i. The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.
ii. The Town may:
(1) Bring an action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property.
(2) Bring an action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(3) Pursue criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
(4) Record a notice of violation.
(5) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
Ordinance No. 22-__
(6) Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the municipal code.
Ordinance No. 22-__
EXHIBIT “B”
Ordinance No. 2022-__
Case No. ZCA 21-001
Additional Zoning Code Amendments
(Additions are shown in Blue Underlined and deletions are shown in Red Strikeout) a. Section 17.20.020 is hereby amended by adding the “Two-Unit Project” Residential Use Classification heading in Table 17.20.020, as depicted below.
TABLE 17.20.020: ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS
P: Permitted Use; U: Use Permit Required; A: Administrative Permit Required; - : Use Not Allowed; (#) Limitation Applies, See Footnote
Land Use RR RSF
RMF1 RMF2 See Specific Use Regulations:
Residential Use Classifications
Single Family Dwelling See subclassifications below
Detached P P P P
Attached - - P P
Two-Unit Project P P - -
See 17.52.270 (Single-Family
Residential Urban Lot Split and
Two-Unit Project)
Multi-Family Residential - - P P
See 17.52.210 (Multi-Family
Residential Projects)
Assisted Living Facility - - U U
See 17.52.260 (Residential Care
and Assisted Living Facilities)
Family Day Care Home See subclassifications below
Large P P P P See 17.52.100 (Child Day Care
Small P P P P Facilities)
Group Living Quarters - - U U
Residential Care Facility See subclassifications below
General - - U U
See 17.52.210 (Residential Care
and Assisted Living Facilities)
Limited P P P P
See 17.52.210 (Residential Care
and Assisted Living Facilities)
Ordinance No. 22-__
TABLE 17.20.020: ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS
P: Permitted Use; U: Use Permit Required; A: Administrative Permit Required; - : Use Not Allowed; (#) Limitation Applies, See Footnote
Land Use RR RSF
RMF1 RMF2 See Specific Use Regulations:
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P
See 17.52.055 (Accessory Dwelling
Units)
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P
See 17.52.055 (Accessory Dwelling
Units)
Supportive Housing See 17.52.290 (Transitional and Supportive Housing) Transitional Housing See 17.52.290 (Transitional and Supportive Housing) b. Section 17.20.030 is hereby amended by adding thereto and deleting therefrom the following text:
17.20.030 Residential Zoning Districts Development Standards Subdivisions, new land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the requirements in Table 17.20.030, in addition to the applicable standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article III (Site Planning and General Development Standards). However, where accessory dwelling units (see
17.52.055) or urban lot splits / two-unit projects (see 17.52.270) are a permitted use, the development standards specified in Section 17.52.055 (Accessory Dwelling Units) applicable only to accessory dwelling unitsChapter 17.52 for the specific land use shall take precedence over the development standards specified below. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column. Section numbers refer to other sections of the Code while individual letters refer to subsections that directly follow the table.
c. Section 17.60.030 is hereby amended by adding the “Urban Lot Split Parcel Map” permit type in Table
17.60.030, as depicted below.
TABLE ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.: REVIEW AUTHORITY Type of Permit or Decision Refer to Chapter
Role of Review Authority 1
Director2
Planning and
Economic
Development
Commission
Town Council
Adjustment Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal Appeal
Administrative Permit Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal Appeal
Administrative Permit – Two‐Unit
Project
Section 17.52.270 Decision
Design Review ‐ Minor Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal Appeal
Design Review ‐ Major Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal
Film Permit N/A Decision Appeal Appeal
Ordinance No. 22-__
TABLE ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.: REVIEW AUTHORITY Type of Permit or Decision Refer to Chapter
Role of Review Authority 1
Director2
Planning and
Economic
Development
Commission
Town Council
General Plan Amendment Error! Reference
source not found.
Recommend Decision
Lot Line Adjustment Subdivision
Ordinance
Decision Appeal Appeal
Master Plan Error! Reference
source not found.
Recommend Decision
Master Sign Program Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal
Sign Permit Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal Appeal
Specific Plan Error! Reference
source not found.
Recommend Decision
Tentative Parcel Map Subdivision
Ordinance
Decision Appeal
Tentative Tract Map Subdivision
Ordinance
Decision Appeal
Parcel Map ‐ Urban Lot Split Section 17.52.270 Decision Time Extension Error! Reference
source not found.
Original Review Authority
Tree Removal Permit Section Error!
Reference source
not found.Error!
Reference source
not found.
Decision Appeal Appeal
Use Permit Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal
Variance Error! Reference
source not found.
Decision Appeal
Zoning Code Amendment Error! Reference
source not found.
Recommend Decision
1. "“Recommend"” means that the review authority makes a recommendation to a higher decision‐making body; "“Decision"” means that the review authority makes the final decision on the matter; "“Appeal"” means that the review authority may consider and decide upon appeals of an earlier decision, in compliance with Error! Reference source not found. (Appeals).
2. The Director may refer any matter subject to his/her decision to the Commission, so that the Commission may instead make the decision.
d. Section 17.144.020 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following text:
17.144.020 Residential Use Classifications
Two-Unit Project. A housing development consisting of no more than two primary dwelling units on a lot, including a development which entails adding one new primary unit to an existing primary unit, in a single-family residential zone.
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Receive Update on the Draft Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) for Years 2022-2031 and Adopt ACIP by Resolution.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
Prepared by: Sierra Shultz, Deputy Airport Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Town Council receive an update on the draft Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) for Years 2022-2031 and adopt the ACIP by resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The Town is required to submit an Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) annually. The ACIP lays out a long-term capital improvement program budget for the Airport. Projects on the ACIP are eligible for Airport Improvement Grant Funding. While the FAA is under no obligation to fund the projects listed on the ACIP, the FAA cannot fund them unless they do appear on the ACIP. Town staff met with the FAA on August 24, 2021, to discuss the ACIP. The FAA and Town have determined that the projects listed on the ACIP are important because they address conditions at the Airport that are either non-standard or constraining to current operations.
On December 8, 2021, the Planning and Economic Development Commission (PEDC) received a presentation from staff regarding the draft ACIP and staff recommended that PEDC find the ACIP consistent with the General Plan. PEDC adopted the resolution confirming the consistency between the ACIP and General Plan on January 12, 2022.
Mammoth Yosemite Airport is classified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a Primary Non-hub Airport. The FAA funds 90.66% (federal match) of the total project costs through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Entitlement Grant program. The Town is responsible for paying 9.34% (local sponsor match) of the total project cost. Previously, the local match of 9.34% was eligible for reimbursement under the FAA’s Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program, however the Town is no longer collecting PFCs due to the loss of commercial service. Using these programs, the Town is eligible to recoup 100% of its costs for the proposed AIP funded projects. The Airport previously collected approximately $100,000 in PFC’s annually. For AIP funded projects during years 2020 and 2021, the FAA paid the sponsor portion for all projects through a Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) program. The FAA will likely not be paying the sponsor portion for projects moving forward in 2022, and therefore the Sponsor will need to cover the Sponsor Match.
2 ANALYSIS:
During 2021, the Reconstruction of East General Aviation Apron was completed, and the Security Gates and Terminal Area Fencing was substantially completed. The Security Gates and Terminal Area Fencing project has punchlist items remaining, but project completion is anticipated within the next couple of months.
Below are the projects that were previously identified as priority projects for 2022. Staff is currently working on AIP grant applications for these projects for the Federal Fiscal Year 2022.
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF)/Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) Facility:
The Airport currently leases, at a rate of $6,169.66 per month, a hangar from the FBO to house some of its equipment, but the hangar does not have the capacity to hold all the Airport equipment. The proposed ARFF/SRE Facility will be an 8-bay building (8,100 sq. ft.) that will house the existing snow removal equipment, ARFF vehicle, and have ARFF support rooms. The project will include utilities, an access road, and site work. Staff plans to request funds for design of the site work and the building during the 2022 grant cycle and then request construction funds during the 2023 grant cycle. The Airport has sufficient entitlement funds to cover the design but will be requesting discretionary funds to cover the majority of construction costs. Once approved, construction is anticipated to being in 2023. Relocate and Upgrade Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS):
The proposed ARFF/SRE Facility location will result in creation of a sheltering object for the existing AWOS location. Therefore, it will need to be relocated from its current location to a new location near the existing segmented circle and wind cone, which will eliminate the presence of any sheltering objects. The existing AWOS was installed in 1988 and many sensors and parts are outdated and have reached the end of their useful life. In addition to relocation, this project proposes to upgrade the existing AWOS system. The project includes design and construction in 2022.
The following projects are additional projects that have been identified as top priorities in future years:
Wildlife Security Fence:
This project remains a top priority for both the Airport and FAA for safety reasons but has been on hold due to USFS environmental clearance questions. The FAA has previously done a NEPA clearance document. The Town intends to continue working with the USFS to resolve any issues. This is a safety project, which will
3 prevent wildlife from entering airport movement areas, by constructing an 8-foottall chain link fence around the Airport. Magnet Variation Correction Command (MAGVAR) Change Runway Numbers:
Magnet North is constantly changing and therefore the alignment of the Airport’s runway in comparison to magnetic north is also changing. The current magnetic bearing of Runway 9-27 is 95.506/276.520, therefore 9-27 does not match the magnetic bearing and needs to be updated to 10-28. This project includes updating paint markings and signage onsite.
Replace Doe Ridge Obstruction Lights:
The obstruction lights on doe ridge have recently been having issues and have required temporary maintenance solutions to keep them working. They are close to reaching the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced in a couple of years. Rehabilitate Tee-Hangar Taxilanes:
The existing pavements have significant deterioration due to weathering and thermal stresses and it is necessary to rehabilitate the pavements. Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Grading:
The RSA and Runway OFA grading needs to be done to bring the runway soil shoulder grades into conformance with current standards and FAA compliance.
Grading of the soil shoulders would extend farther than they currently do and therefore needs to happen after the Wildlife Security Fence project happens and the fence is relocated farther south.
Helicopter Parking Apron Phase I:
The Airport receives many helicopter operations each year (518 in 2020), which causes additional wear and tear on the asphalt compared to a plane or jet, produces a large amount of foreign object debris (FOD), and limits the apron space available for general aviation. A helicopter parking apron would allow for helicopters to move out of the general aviation area and be focused in one area. The helicopter parking apron project includes construction of the helicopter parking apron (156,500 sq. ft.), an access taxiway (1,100’ x 25’), an access road and a parking lot (26,000 sq. ft.) on Town-owned property to the east of the property line. Phase II planned for 2031 would include additional helicopter parking apron, another access road, and additional parking lot.
4 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Town proposes to pay for the proposed projects with Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Entitlement money, AIP Discretionary Grant Funds, and local Airport Capital Improvement money. The projects listed on the ACIP can be re-prioritized to allow for changes in Town policy or financial considerations at any time. Many of the projects on the ACIP improve Airport safety with the exception of the commercial terminal building and apron, which along with safety improves operational capacity and capabilities.
Because these projects are related to safety, they will have to be completed at some time in the future to bring the Airport into compliance with FAA standards. The ACIP provides the Town Council a clear path to evaluate and implement Airport improvement projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
FAA funding of ACIP projects is conditional upon completion of CEQA & NEPA review.
Environmental review has been completed for the projects proposed for 2022.
ATTACHEMENTS:
MMH ACIP 2022-31 Project List
MMH ACIP 2022-31 Sketch
Resolution 22-__
Project Construction Engineering/ Total F.A.A. Sponsor
No. Description Cost Administration Project Cost Participation Participation 1 Yes D 2022 EA In Progress Design/Construct 8 bay ARFF/Snow Removal Facility (8,100 Sq. Ft.), Utilities, Access Road (25' x 675'), Apron (33,250 Sq.Ft.) $ 4,800,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 5,439,600 6,000,000 $ 560,400 $ 2 No* D 2022 EA In Progress Design/Construct Relocate AWOS 101,500 29,000 118,311 130,500 12,189 TOTAL FY 2022 $ 1,229,000 4,901,500 $ 6,130,500 $ 5,557,911 $ 572,589 $ 3 Yes D 2023 7/14/2016 (Update in 22) Construction Wildlife Security Fence (23,000 Ft.) $ 1,174,500 224,000 $ 1,398,500 $ 1,267,880 $ 130,620 $ 4 Yes D 2023 2022 Design/Construct MAGVAR Change Runway Numbers to 10-28 including update signage 52,350 77,350 25,000 70,126 7,224 5a Yes E 2023 EA Environmental Land Acquisition - U.S. Forest Service Land (155.61 Acres) - 250,000 250,000 23,350 226,650 5b Yes E 2023 EA Environmental Land Acquisition - LADWP Land (74.24 Acres) - 200,000 200,000 18,680 181,320 5c Yes E 2023 EA Environmental Replace Doe Ridge Obstruction Lights 140,000 140,000 13,076 126,924 TOTAL FY 2023 $ 839,000 1,226,850 $ 2,065,850 $ 1,872,900 $ 192,950 $ 6 Yes D 2024 2023 Design/Construct Rehabilitate Tee-Hangar Taxilanes (25' x 1,280') $ 640,000 $ 180,000 $ 743,412 820,000 $ 76,588 $ TOTAL FY 2024 $ 640,000 $ 180,000 $ 820,000 $ 743,412 $ 76,588 7 Yes D 2025 2024 Design/Construct Runway RSA and OFA Grading (323,000 Sq.Yd.), Relocate Windcone $ 3,000,000 840,000 $ 3,840,000 $ 3,481,344 $ 358,656 $ 8 Yes D 2025 2024
Design/Construct
Helicopter Parking Apron (156,500 Sq. Ft.) and Access Taxiway (1,100' x 25') and Access Road and Parking Lot (26,000 Sq. Ft.) Phase 1 2,500,000 700,000 3,200,000 2,901,120 298,880 9 Yes D 2025 2024 Land Land Acquisition - LADWP Land (74.24 Acres) 47,150 15,000 62,150 56,345 5,805 10 Yes D 2025 2024 Land Land Acquisition - U.S. Forest Service Land - (155.61 Acres) 85,250 26,000 111,250 100,859 10,39111 Yes D 2025 2024 Design/Construct Replace Doe Ridge Obstruction Lights 130,000 50,000 180,000 163,188 16,812 TOTAL FY 2025 $ 5,762,400 $ 1,631,000 $ 7,393,400 $ 6,702,856 $ 690,544 12 Yes D 2026 EA In Progress Architectural/Engineering Airline Terminal Building $ - $ 1,750,000 $ 1,586,550 1,750,000 $ 163,450 $ 13 Yes D 2026 EA In Progress Design Airline Terminal Access Road, Automobile Parking Lot, Terminal Area Utilities - 776,000 703,522 776,000 72,478
14 Yes D 2026 EA In Progress Design Airline Terminal Apron, Deicing Pad, Terminal Apron Taxiways and Relocation of T/W A4 Connector - 670,000 607,422 670,000 62,578 15 Yes D 2026 2025 Design/Construct Reconstruct General Aviation and Temporary Terminal Auto Parking Lot (83,000 Sq.Ft.) 1,300,000 325,000 1,625,000 1,473,225 151,775
16 N/A D 2026 N/A Equipment Acquisition Equipment Acquisition - Replace ARRF Vehicle 900,000 135,000 938,331 1,035,000 96,669 TOTAL TOTAL FY 2026 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,656,000 $ 5,856,000 $ 5,309,050 $ 546,950 17 Yes D 2027 2026 Design/Construct Construct 15 Foot Taxiway A Shoulders - (15'x14,700'), Updgrade Taxiway Fillets, Relocate Taxiway A3 Connector, Install Taxiway Lights $ 1,117,000 $ 279,250 1,396,250 $ 1,265,840 $ 130,410 $ TOTAL FY 2027 $ 279,250 1,117,000 $ 1,396,250 $ 1,265,840 $ 130,410 $ 18 Yes D 2028 EA In Progress Construction Airline Terminal Building $ 17,525,000 $ 3,329,750 20,854,750 $ 18,906,916 $ 1,947,834 $ 19 Yes D 2028 EA In Progress Construction Airline Terminal Access Road, Automobile Parking Lot, Terminal Area Utilities 4,925,000 935,750 5,860,750 5,313,356 547,394 20 Yes D 2028 EA In Progress Construction
Airline Terminal Apron, Deicing Pad, Terminal Apron Taxiways and Relocation of T/W A4 connector 10,650,000 2,023,500 12,673,50 11,489,795 0 1,183,705 TOTAL FY 2028 $ 6,289,000 33,100,000 $ 39,389,000 $ 35,710,067 $ 3,678,933 $ TOTAL FY 2029 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
21 Yes D 2030 2029 Design/Construct General Aviation Apron North Expansion (142,000 Sq.Ft.) $ 2,325,000 $ 581,250 $ 2,634,806 2,906,250 $ 271,444 $ TOTAL FY 2030 $ 581,250 2,325,000 $ 2,906,250 $ 2,634,806 $ 271,444 $ 22 No* D 2031 2030 Design/Construct
Helicopter Parking Apron (156,500 Sq. Ft.) and Access Road and Parking Lot (26,000 Sq. Ft.) Phase 2 $ 2,320,000 $ 580,000 2,900,000 $ 2,629,140 $ 270,860 $ TOTAL FY 2031 $ 2,320,000 $ 580,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 2,629,140 $ 270,860 TOTALS $ 53,592,750 $ 15,264,500 $ 68,857,250 $ 62,425,983 $ 6,431,267 * Shown on 2021 ALP pending FAA approval
No Development in 2029
Shown
On ALP
Project
Type
Development
Year Environmental Status Development Type
(Based on 2021 Unit Prices)
MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT
MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2022 thru 2031
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Q:\75 MAMMOTH\75.02 ACIP\2022\MMH 2022-26 ACIP Projects - Final Page 97 of 155 10/21/2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX PROPANE XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX HWY 395 HWY 395 X ROFA ROFA 2 1 11 12 1 6 12 7 X XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X PROPANE TAXIWAY A US 395 CONVICT LAKE ROAD BENTON CR LANDS U.S.F.S.
RIDGE DOE U.S.F.S. LANDS TW A3
EXISTING AIRPORT ROAD (PAVED)
U.S.F.S. LANDS TW A1 TW A2 TW A4 TW A5 10 28-10 28 28-10 28-10 X X X XXXX XXX XXX PROPANE XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX HWY 395 HWY 395 2 112 11 1 67 12 X XXX XXX XXX X XXX XXX PROPANE HWY 395 HWY 395 0 300 600 MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT MAMMOTH LAKES, CALIFORNIA 3 3 3 3 1 15 3 17 KDCDB MMH 2022 ACIP DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. PLATE No. 1 FILE 75.02 N 3 PROJ/PRIORITY No. KEY YEAR DESCRIPTION 2022 8 BAY ARFF/SNOW REMOVAL FACILITY, ACCESS ROADS, UTILITIES, AND APRON 2022 RELOCATE AWOS 2023 WILDLIFE SECURITY FENCE 2023 CHANGE RW NUMBERS TO 10-28, INCLUDING SIGNAGE 2024 REHABILITATE TEE HANGAR TAXILANES 2025 RUNWAY RSA AND OFA GRADING, RELOCATE WINDCONE 2025 HELICOPTER PARKING APRON, ACCESS TAXIWAY, ACCESS ROAD & PARKING LOT - PHASE 1 2025 LAND ACQUISITION - LADWP (SEE INSET) 2025 LAND ACQUISITION - USFS (SEE INSET) 2025 REPLACE DOE RIDGE OBSTRUCTION LIGHTS 2026 RECONSTRUCT GA APRON & TEMPORARY TERMINAL AUTO PARKING LOT 2027 CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY A 15' SHOULDERS, UPGRADE TW FILLETS, RELOCATE TW A3, & INSTALL TAXIWAY LIGHTING 2028 AIRLINE TERMINAL BUILDING 2028 TERMINAL ACCESS ROAD, AUTO PARKING LOT, TERMINAL AREA UTILITIES 2028 AIRLINE TERMINAL APRON, DEICING PAD, TERMINAL APRON TAXIWAYS, NEW RAMP CONNECTOR & RELOCATION OF A4 CONNECTOR. 2030 GENERAL AVIATION APRON NORTH EXPANSION 2031 HELICOPTER PARKING APRON, ACCESS ROAD, & PARKING LOT - PHASE 2 LEGEND 63 PROPERTY ACQUISITION MAP 1 3 1 6 6 7 6125 KING ROAD, SUITE 201 · LOOMIS, CALIFORNIA 95650 · (916) 652-4725 24 2 4 4 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 21 910 7 7 15 8 8 8 8 10/21/2021 SCALE: 1"=600' 20181921221711 11 11 11 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2022-2031 4 4 4 4 4 Page 98 of 155 RESOLUTION NO. 22 -
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE 2022 – 2031 AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Town Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive update to the Airport Layout Plan and that plan was Conditionally Approved by the FAA on August 14, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Capital Improvement Plan has been prepared and includes projects that are shown on the Airport Layout Plan; and WHEREAS, the costs of the projects included in the Airport Capital Improvement Plan are reasonable and represent the most current data available; and WHEREAS, the Town of Mammoth Lakes (applicant), if selected will enter into an agreement with the Federal Government or State of California for the development of projects and will require an authorized representative; and WHEREAS, the Airport Capital Improvement Plan represents the projects from the Airport Layout Plan that the Town Council intends to pursue over the next nine years; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan for the Town of Mammoth Lakes was adopted by the Town Council in 2007 and includes policies for long range capital planning; and, WHEREAS, a draft Airport Capital Improvement Plan for the years 2022-2031 has been prepared for review by the Planning and Economic Development Commission as to its consistency with the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development Commission, on December 8, 2021, reviewed the Airport Capital Improvement Program and WHEREAS, the Town Council considered, without limitation:
1. The Staff Report with exhibits;
2. The General Plan policies and land use map;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; and
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council does hereby adopt the 2022-2031 Airport Capital Improvement Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2022. ________________________
LYNDA SALCIDO, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk
AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (ACIP)
FOR YEARS 2022-31
January 19, 2022
1
Key Items
Staff will provide ACIP update to
Town Council
Staff recommends that Town
Council adopt the ACIP by
Resolution
2
Background
• The Airport Capital Improvement Plan is a planning and fiscal management tool used to coordinate the location, timing, and financing of capital improvements at Mammoth Yosemite Airport • Projects included in the ACIP are non-recurring projects, that have a long service life, and are beyond the scope of normal annual operating or maintenance expenses
• The projects extend the useful life and reduce maintenance costs of existing capital investments, provide additional services and amenities, and maintain a safe working conditions at the Airport 3
Background
• The Town is required to submit an ACIP to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) annually
• While the FAA is under no obligation to fund the
projects listed on the ACIP, the FAA cannot fund them
unless they do appear on the ACIP
4
Previous Meetings
2 June 2021
Town Council received an airport
presentation with a brief overview of
upcoming projects and priorities
8 Dec. 2021
PEDC received presentation on the draft
ACIP and its consistency with the General
Plan
12 Jan. 2022
PEDC adopted the resolution finding the
draft ACIP consent with the General Plan
(Government Code Section 65401)
5
2021 Projects
• August 2021 – Ongoing
• New 8-foot-tall chain link fence, 2 vehicular gates, 1 pedestrian gate, and new security camera system
Security Gates and Terminal Area Fencing
• July 2021- September 2021
• Grading, drainage, paving, paint marking, and new tie downs across 211,000 square feet of asphalt surface
Reconstruct East GA Apron
6
Upcoming 2022 Projects
• Design & Construct in 2022
• Relocate AWOS from existing location and upgrade the system Relocate and Upgrade Existing Automated Weather
Observation System (AWOS)
• Design in 2022 & Construct in 2023
• 8-bay (8,100 SF) facility including utilities, access road, apron, and site work • Facility will house snow removal equipment and ARFF vehicle and have ARFF support rooms
Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Vehicle (ARFF)/Snow
Removal Equipment (SRE) Facility
7
ACIP 2022-31
8
9
Current Available Funding
• $1,000,000 in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant funds • $1,011,184 allocated through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (grant not yet executed)
• “Intended to build safer and more sustainable airports that connect individuals to jobs and communities to the world” • $1,336,386 in local airport capital improvement funds • Staff will request discretionary funds for future projects as well • In 2020 & 2021, the FAA covered the Sponsor match of 9.34%. This will no longer be the case
10 Page 109 of 155
Environmental Impacts
• An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Terminal Area Development Project
(TADP) was completed in 2021
• The EA/EIR included the AWOS
Relocation as well as the ARFF/SRE
Facility
• The EA/EIR also included the
terminal building, access road,
parking lot, aircraft apron, de-icing
apron, and taxilanes
• Future projects will receive
environmental analysis as needed
11 Page 110 of 155
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Town Council adopt the Airport
Capital Improvement Plan
12 Page 111 of 155
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Town Council Planning Goals and Funding for Mammoth Lakes Tourism Fiscal Year 22-23.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
Prepared by: Rob Patterson, Admin Services / Finance Director RECOMMENDATION:
Review staff recommendations for marketing focus and funding for Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) for FY22-23. Council direction and action is requested in preparation for a joint meeting with MLT scheduled on January 26, 2022.
BACKGROUND:
The contract with Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) adopted on July 1, 2019, included a number of sections to ensure a proper level of engagement was achieved between MLT and Town Council. The sections included a general service agreement containing the general provisions and legal language required for the contract and the following exhibits:
Exhibit A - Scope of Services - This section is intended to define overarching areas of focus (Access & Transportation, Brand & Community, Experience and Attractions, In Market Communication – Business to Community, In Market Engagement – Business to Business, and Administration of TBID and Events.
Exhibit B – MLT Deliverables – This section was to be updated annually based on strategic planning between the MLT Board and Town Council. Each of the goals planned for the fiscal year will tie directly to the Scope of Services outlined in Exhibit “A”. All goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely to serve as a true measure of success.
Exhibit C – Compensation – This section will be updated annually based on the Town budget, approved Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue and any adjustments to allocation or reserve rates approved by Town Council. The Town of Mammoth Lakes will provide an updated Exhibit C by May 1 of each year.
Exhibit D – Annual Planning Calendar – This section established the cadence and timing for MLT presentations to Town Council either to provide updates on progress or initiate discussion on deliverables noted in Exhibit B as part of annual planning While this structure was designed to provide the appropriate level of discussion in advance of planning, some adjustments in timing are necessary to provide Town Council with the opportunity to give focus points to MLT in the development of the strategic work plan and
2 deliverables to Town Council. The plans developed for FY21-22 suffered from this timing challenge and members of Town Council did not feel they had adequate input into the work plans developed by MLT.
The funding for MLT historically has been different than other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) that contract with the Town. Most agencies, Mammoth Lakes Housing, Mammoth Lakes Recreation, and the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority, receive specific funding based on the contract deliverables or number of hours of operation. MLT receives the full allocation of Measure A, based on the Town’s budget for Transient Occupancy Tax. This makes the funding variable and inconsistent with typical contract practices of paying for assigned tasks and deliverables. Staff is seeking to correct this practice for FY22-23 by establishing a contract price for the requests being made of MLT.
This approach will not have an impact on the overall allocation to Tourism, Housing or Transit, but simply the amounts paid to MLT per their contract.
ANALYSIS:
This discussion on focus items is intended to allow Town Council to discuss general needs they believe need to be addressed through our marketing efforts. It is designed to provide high level areas of focus that will be discussed with MLT at our next joint meeting. MLT will utilize these focus points as a guide in the development of its marketing plan and contract deliverables. While the methods, tactics and strategies are the expertise of MLT, they should address concerns stated by Town Council during this focus process.
The items listed below are options for Town Council to consider, review and provide adjustment or alternate recommendations. They are written at the appropriate level, both in scope and achievability. The points under each section are intended to provide clarity of the intent, not specific work items.
1. Education (Visitor and Resident)
a. To Mitigate Community and Environmental Impacts from Visitation b. Continue to Promote Responsible Travel and Stewardship c. Awareness of Diversity of Experiences, Walk Bike Ride, Host Program
2. Re-energize Destination Visitation
a. Target shoulder seasons of spring and fall to sustain business and workforce b. Extended Stays – 3+ nights or more, mid-week to enhance carrying capacity, level out peaks and valleys.
c. Maintain appropriate level of brand marketing in Southern California d. Expand marketing outside our region where strong air service connections exist through commercial flights.
3. Local Community Market Focus
a. Reflecting community values in our intended visitor experience. b. Buy local campaigns, including MLT purchases when appropriate, promotion of local businesses for visitor services.
3 c. Strengthen and promote local business relationships, coordination to enhance visitor experience.
d. Assist in defining (where and what) local infrastructure enhancements are needed to have the largest positive impact on visitor experience.
4. Develop success measurements (outside of traditional marketing measures) a. Guest Surveys – Visitor satisfaction surveys
b. Business Surveys – Increase in operating revenues
c. Resident Surveys – mitigating visitation impacts, improve quality of life indicators
The list above is not exhaustive of all possibilities of focus. This list builds on the evolution of prior campaigns with an emphasis on improving the visitor and community experience.
In some cases, the request may seem to be outside the purview of MLT but bridge a gap that exists between the community and the Town’s marketing arm, MLT.
Funding recommendation
As previously stated, staff is seeking to standardize the Town’s approach to funding our contracts with its NGOs. This would include recommending a set dollar amount for the focus items listed above in FY22-23. Staff would like to make the financial commitment longer term but the contract with MLT expires on June 30, 2023, making this a one-year plan. This approach would set the stage for the next contract where the funding strategy is not connected to the Town’s budget process but more the expected effort by MLT.
The last two fiscal years had significant challenges with COVID-19 impacting our visitation. In those years, the existing funding strategy provided MLT with a low of $1,750,000 and a high of $2,335,000 to marketing, based on the calculation against TOT budget. Staff is recommending $2,000,000 be allocated to MLT’s contract for FY 22-23.
This amount is less than the prior year which will require MLT to adjust its approach and fine tune marketing spend in order to increase efficiency, functioning within those limits as their plans are developed. Arguments against this approach are plentiful but in staff’s opinion, remaining status quo with prior year funding will fail to meet the expectations of some Council and community members, serving to freeze spending and effort at prior year commitments. The Town still expects accountability to achieve goals outlined in the contract which may be changing each year, based on desired Town Council focus, economic indicators, and visitation, all of which will have an impact on the amount of funding the Town is willing to spend on marketing.
The allocation discussed above certainly will not be the only funds available to MLT for marketing purposes. MLT still retains all Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) funding, budgeted at $4.8M for FY21-22.
This adjustment in funding strategy would also have no impact on TOT allocation to Tourism, Housing and Transit. Those rates will remain at 2.35 points (18.08%), .85 points (6.54%), and .85 points (6.54%) respectfully. All TOT collected, budgeted and excess,
4 would contribute to those reserves at the rates listed above, accumulating for allocation at Town Council direction. In the past Town Council has allocated funds from each of these reserves, most recently, for housing projects. In FY20-21 both MLT and Town Council recommended use of the Tourism reserve funds for housing projects, ultimately funding $1.9M from tourism reserves in FY21-22. This process and collaboration have been instrumental in furthering these important projects for our community. These reserve funds would also remain available to MLT for marketing if significant circumstances arose requiring immediate adjustment to the marketing plan or additional marketing efforts. This process would include a presentation to Town Council, defining circumstances requiring this additional marketing effort and cost of the campaign.
CONCLUSION:
The approach of this staff report and agenda item are intended to solve problems that exist in our current meeting schedule that did not allow for adequate input into MLT strategic planning for the coming fiscal year. This discussion is intended to allow Town Council to focus on the objectives it wants to accomplish in FY22-23 from a marketing perspective as well as discuss the critical adjustments to funding strategy proposed by staff. Staff is looking for a robust discussion from Town Council where the final focus funding strategy is agreed upon by the majority of Town Council. Once this information is identified, staff will refine the staff report with recommended items for the joint meeting with MLT and Town Council on January 26, 2022. During the joint meeting, Town Council will need to articulate these focus items and the specifics around funding for MLT in FY22-23.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review staff recommendations for marketing focus and funding for Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) for fiscal year 22-23. Council direction and action is requested in preparation for a joint meeting with MLT scheduled on January 26, 2022.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Joint agreement regarding Mammoth Community Water District Fee Deferral for Mammoth Lakes Housing Access Apartments Project.
Council Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Approve fee deferral agreement between the Town, Mammoth Lakes Housing, and the Mammoth Community Water District for the Access Apartments project, subject final legal review.
Summary: Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) requested connection and miscellaneous fee deferral from the Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) in the amount of approximately $35,000.
The fee deferral is part of MLH’s ongoing work to secure the overall financing plan for the 11- unit Access Apartment Project located at 238 Sierra Manor Road. The Fee Deferral shall not incur any interest, in exchange for which MLH shall pay the principal amount of the Fee Deferral no later than one year after the Town issues a certificate of occupancy or a maximum term of five years, whichever occurs first. MCWD is requesting that the Town of Mammoth Lakes be a party to the agreement to ensure payment of the fees should MLH be unable to make the payment under the terms of the agreement. Staff is recommending that the Town be a party to the agreement.
Should MLH not make the required payment the Town is then obligated to do so. Funding is recommended to be deducted from any future payment to MLH or from annual transient rental tax revenues set aside for housing purposes. The addition of the 11-unit project will provide additional lower income housing for the community. The draft agreement is attached for your review. The agreement is under final legal review and will need to be approved by the other parties as well as the Town.
Draft
{00262373.1} 1
FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
MAMMOTH COMMUNITY WATER DISTRICT
AND
MAMMOTH LAKES HOUSING, INC.
THIS FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of _____________, 2022 (“Effective Date”), by and among the MAMMOTH COMMUNITY WATER DISTRICT, a California local public agency (“District”), MAMMOTH LAKES HOUSING, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“MLH”), and the TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, a municipal corporation (“TOWN”). District, MLH, and Town are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. MLH was formed and is operating to help meet the great demand for affordable rental housing in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, California.
B. MLH has proposed to convert an existing commercial building located at 238 Sierra Manor Road, Mammoth Lakes, California, which is within District’s legallydesignated boundaries, into the Access Apartments affordable housing project (the “Project”).
C. MLH has requested that District defer certain water and wastewater connection and miscellaneous fees required to be paid for construction of the Project.
D. District desires to assist MLH with developing the Project by providing the Fee Deferral and has determined that the deferral of its connection and miscellaneous fees for the Project provided for in this Agreement is necessary to make the Project economically feasible and affordable to low-income persons needing housing in the Town.
E. Town also has an interest in assuring that it has sufficient affordable housing available for lower-income residents to ensure that the community has a diverse housing stock and vibrant economy, and on that basis is willing to assist MLH with completing the Project by guaranteeing MLH’s payment of the principal amount of the Fee Deferral.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Fee Deferral. District agrees to defer the water and wastewater connection and associated fees owed by MLH to develop the Project in an amount not to exceed $35,000 for a maximum of one year after the Project receives a certificate of occupancy from the Town (the “Fee Deferral”). The Fee Deferral shall not incur any interest, in exchange for which MLH shall pay the principal amount of the Fee Deferral no later than one year after the Town issues a certificate of occupancy or a maximum term of five years, whichever occurs first.
2. Guaranty by Town. As additional consideration for District’s providing the Fee Deferral for the Project, MLH shall, as its sole obligation and cost, obtain the Town’s
Draft
{00262373.1} 2
guarantee to pay the total principal amount of the Fee Deferral if MLH is unable to timely make that payment as provided in Section 1 of this Agreement. The Town’s guaranty of MLH’s timely payment of the Fee Deferral in full shall be unconditional and shall apply immediately upon MLH’s failure to make the payment within the time specified in Section 1.
If MLH defaults on its payment obligation, the Town shall promptly pay the principal amount of the Fee Deferral in full upon written demand submitted by District. This guaranty is District’s sole recourse for a default by MLH in its payment obligation.
3. Prepayment. MLH shall have the right to prepay a portion or all of the principal amount of the Fee Deferral at any time without penalty or premium.
4. MLH Representations and Warranties. MLH represents and warrants the following:
4.1. MLH is duly organized under applicable laws of the State of California, is qualified to do business in and in good standing with the State of California, and is in compliance in all material respects with all laws and regulations necessary to acquire and develop the Project.
4.2. MLH has the authority, and has completed all proceedings and obtained all approvals necessary to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.
4.3 The execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement and all documents and transactions related to development of the Project will not contravene, or constitute a default under or result in a lien upon assets of MLH pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, any corporate or charter document of MLH, or any instrument binding upon or affecting MLH, or any contract, agreement, judgment, order, decree, or other instrument binding upon or affecting MLH, any of which would impair or prevent MLH’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
4.4. When duly executed by MLH, this Agreement shall constitute a valid and binding obligation of MLH enforceable in accordance with its terms.
4.5. There is no action, suit or proceeding pending or threatened against it which might adversely affect MLH’s obligations under this Agreement in any material respect.
5. MLH’s Covenants. MLH promises that:
5.1. MLH shall use the Fee Deferral principal amount solely to finance a portion of the pre-development, development, and construction costs of the Project.
5.2. MLH shall punctually pay the principal balance of the Fee Deferral in the manner specified in this Agreement.
5.3. MLH shall pay and discharge when due any and all indebtedness, obligations, assessments, taxes, including federal and state income taxes, property taxes, and special taxes or assessments due to the County of Mono which are the obligations of MLH in relation to the Project and non-payment of which would impair MLH’s obligations under this Agreement, except those obligations which MLH may in good faith contest or as to which a
Draft
{00262373.1} 3
bona fide dispute may arise, provided provision is made to the satisfaction of District for eventual payment thereof in the event that it is found that the same is an obligation of MLH.
5.4. MLH shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances and rules applicable to the Project, including all applicable regulations and rules of District.
5.5. During the construction of the Project and until its completion, MLH shall maintain all appropriate insurance coverages, including builder’s risk/course of construction coverage, as shall ensure that the Project is completed and that protects District’s interests in the completed Project. Such insurance shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall name District as loss payee as its interests may appear. After completion, MLH shall keep the Project insured for such limits and time as will protect District against the impairment of MLH’s repayment obligation under this Agreement against partial or full loss or damage by fire and other hazards, casualties and contingencies and in the amount of the replacement cost of the Project. Upon request, MLH shall deliver a copy of proof of all such policies to District. All insurance proceeds for any losses sustained to the Project must be utilized for the repair or restoration of the Project.
6. Indemnification. MLH shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to District), and hold harmless District and its officials, officers, agents, and employees (collectively the “Indemnitees”), from and against, and shall pay on demand, any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, claims, demands, penalties, fines, orders, judgments, injunctive or other relief, expenses and charges (including attorneys’ fees and expenses of attorneys) arising directly or indirectly in any manner in connection with or as a result of:
(a) any breach of MLH’s covenants under this Agreement, (b) any failure of MLH’s representations and warranties to be true and correct in all material respects when made, (c) any injury or death to persons or damage to property or other loss occurring on the Project, whether caused by the negligence or any other act or omission of MLH or any other person or by negligent, faulty, inadequate or defective design, building, construction or maintenance or any other condition or otherwise, or (d) any claim, demand or cause of action, or any action or other proceeding, whether meritorious or not, brought or asserted against any Indemnitee which relates to or arises out of the Fee Deferral, or any transaction contemplated thereby, or any failure of MLH to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and regulations, provided that no Indemnitee shall be entitled to indemnification under this Section for matters caused by such Indemnitee’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The obligations of MLH under this Section shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.
7. Notice to District. Within three business days after any of the following occur, MLH shall provide written notice thereof to District: (1) any change in name, legal status, business location, or address of MLH; (2) any uninsured or partially uninsured loss affecting the Project through fire, theft, liability, or property damage in excess of an aggregate of $30,000.00; and (3) MLH’s receipt of a notice of default under any mortgage or other financing document affecting the Project.
8. Miscellaneous Provisions.
8.1. Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee, joint venturers, or principal
Draft
{00262373.1} 4
and agent among District, MLH and Town, and MLH shall at all times be deemed a borrower and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform under this Agreement.
8.2. Notices. Any notice, request or consent required pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed delivered upon receipt when delivered personally, three business days after being deposited in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or one day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight carrier addressed as follows:
District: Mammoth Community Water District
P.O. Box 597
1315 Meridian Blvd.
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Attn: Mark Busby, General Manager
MLH: Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc.
P.O. Box 260
587 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 4
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Attn: Patricia Ann Robertson, Executive Director
TOWN: Town of Mammoth Lakes
P.O. Box 1609
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Attn: Dan Holler, Town Manager
or to such other addresses or addressee as the Parties may designate by notice as set forth above.
8.3. Successors and Assigns. All of the terms of this Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties, and all persons claiming under or through them.
8.4. Severability. If one or more provisions of this Agreement are found invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected, prejudiced, disturbed or impaired thereby, and all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
8.5. Amendments/Entire Agreement. The Parties reserve the right to amend this Agreement by mutual consent. It is mutually understood and agreed that no amendment, modification, alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed and acknowledged and approved by the Parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and no oral understandings or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on them.
8.6. Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. The county and federal district court where District’s office is located shall
Draft
{00262373.1} 5
be venue for any state and federal court litigation concerning the enforcement or construction of this Agreement.
8.7. Assignment or Assumption. This Agreement may not be assigned to, or assumed by, a third party. Any attempt to assign or assume this Agreement shall be void.
8.8. No Waiver of Rights. Any waiver at any time by any Party of its rights as to a breach or default of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver as to any other breach or default.
8.9. Signatures and Authority. Each Party warrants that the person signing this Agreement is authorized to act on behalf of the Party for whom that person signs. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument. Counterparts may be delivered by facsimile, electronic mail (including PDF or any electronic signature complying with California’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civ. Code, §1633.1, et seq.) or any other applicable law) or other transmission method. The Parties agree that any electronic signatures appearing on the Agreement are the same as handwritten signatures for the purposes of validity, enforceability, and admissibility.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, District, MLH, and Town have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
DISTRICT:
By: __________________________________
Thomas R. Smith
President, Board of Directors
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Secretary, Board of Directors
MAMMOTH LAKES HOUSING:
By: __________________________________
[Name]
[Title]
Draft
{00262373.1} 6
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES:
By: __________________________________
Lynda Salcido
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jamie Gray
Clerk
Draft
{00262373.1} 7
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Update on COVID-19 Response, Statistics/Data and Management Actions.
Council Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler
Recommended Motion: Staff will provide an update on the COVID-19 pandemic data, management, and response for Council discussion and direction.
Summary: Staff will provide an update on data, response, and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccination clinics are continuing to be offered throughout Mono County which includes booster shots for eligible persons and initial vaccinations for adults and children from 5- 11 years of age, including flu vaccinations. Vaccinations are also available from local pharmacies.
Testing for COVID-19 is available from OptumServe on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday at the Sierra Star Golf Course club house from 11am to 7pm, with a closure from 3-4pm.
Scheduling an appointment for testing is highly recommended and pending testing demand, are required. Actions taken by Public Health related to closing of in-person instruction for MUSD and added assistance for testing will be discussed. An update on the most recent COVID-19 data and statistics will be provided.
TOWN COUNCIL
COVID-19
PRESENTATION
JANUARY 19, 2022
MONO COUNTY METRICS
TESTED – 2,553
NEGATIVE – 2,347
PENDING - 125
POSITIVE – 84
DEATHS - 1
POSITIVITY RATE – 3.29%
As of January 18, 2022
TOTAL POSITIVE CASES: 2,472 (INCREASE IN CASES: 692 OR
39%
MONO COUNTY METRICS
TESTED – 2,553
NEGATIVE – 2,347
PENDING - 125
POSITIVE – 84
DEATHS - 1
As of January 18, 2022
MONO COUNTY CASE STATS: POSITIVITY RATE
MONO COUNTY METRICS
TESTED – 2,553
NEGATIVE – 2,347
PENDING - 125
POSITIVE – 84
DEATHS - 1
POSITIVITY RATE – 3.29%
MONO COUNTY CASE STATS: POP. ADJUSTED CASE RATE
As of January 8, 2022
• Dec. 19 – 25: 76*
• Dec. 26 – Jan. 1: 185*
• Jan. 1 - 8: 436*
• Jan. 9 – 15: 270*
*Actual case rates over a 7-day period.
Note: The most recent week (1/9-1/15) is not all in yet. We are missing two days of results from two locations so we anticipated an increase in the Case Rate.
MONO COUNTY METRICS
TESTED – 2,553
NEGATIVE – 2,347
PENDING - 125
POSITIVE – 84
DEATHS - 1
POSITIVITY RATE – 3.29%
MONO COUNTY CASE STATS: ACTUAL 7-DAY CASE RATES
As of January 15, 2022
CASES BY AGE
RANGE
*SINCE 12/12/2021
Age Positives Percentage
0 - 11 yrs. 80 14.06%
12 - 17 yrs. 77 13.53%
18 - 29 yrs. 128 22.50%
30 - 49 yrs. 181 31.81%
50 - 64 yrs. 80 14.06%
65 - 74 yrs. 19 3.34%
75+ yrs. 4 0.70%
LOCAL VS
VISITOR
CASES
*DATA TAKEN FROM
OPTUMSERVE FOR
PAST 3 WEEKS
Residence Total
Positives Percent
Mono County
Residents
542 58.53%
Non-residents 384 41.47%
Total 926
CALIFORNIA COVID-19 DASHBOARD
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID Page 132 of 155 -19/CovidDataAndTools.aspx
CDPH ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE GENERAL PUBLIC (NOT APPLICABLE TO HEALTHCARE
PERSONNEL)
CDPH ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE GENERAL PUBLIC (NOT APPLICABLE TO HEALTHCARE
PERSONNEL)
CDPH ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE GENERAL PUBLIC (NOT APPLICABLE TO HEALTHCARE
PERSONNEL)
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Guidance-on-Isolation-and-Quarantine-for-COVID-19-Contact-Tracing.aspx
MONO COUNTY COVID-19 VACCINE DASHBOARD
• 68.5%* Fully Vaccinated
• 7.4%* Partially
Vaccinated
*Includes 5-11 year olds
• 3,700+ COVID-19 third doses have
been administered to Mono County
Residents.
VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS
• Vaccines prevent serious illness, save lives, and reduce further spread of COVID-19. • As more people are vaccinated, the virus is less likely to spread, mutate, and potentially become even more dangerous. Vaccines will help put an end to the pandemic. • Unvaccinated people are 6.0 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
• Unvaccinated people were 17.8 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
VACCINE
ELIGIBILITY
✔️ Masks are required to be worn in all indoor public settings irrespective of vaccine status through February 15, 2022, at which point California will make further recommendations as needed in response to the pandemic.
✔️ Prior to attending an event, attendees will now require either proof of vaccination, a negative antigen COVID-19 test within one day of the event, or a negative PCR test within two days of the event.
✔️ New travel advisory: all travelers arriving in California test for COVID-19 within three to five days after arrival, regardless of their vaccination status.
Details: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR21-352.aspx
UNIVERSAL MASKING REQUIRED FOR
ALL PUBLIC INDOOR SETTINGS
UPGRADE YOUR MASK!
• Thanks for masking up, Mammoth Lakes!
• It’s time to level up your protection against
#COVID19. Choose a mask with good fit and
filtration (N95 and KN95 masks are best).
Double masking is also good (a surgical mask
plus a cloth mask on top).
• Regardless of the mask type, it is only effective
if it is worn over your mouth and nose.
• The least effective mask is a fabric mask with
three or more cloth layers, while surgical
masks or higher-level respirators (e.g., N95s,
KN95s, KF94s) provide the best protection
against COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/types-ofmasks.html
COVID-19 TESTING IN MONO COUNTY
• OptumServe now offers testing Tuesday through Saturday from 11am – 7pm in Mammoth Lakes
at the Sierra Star Golf Course (2001 Sierra Star Pkwy.). • Testing staff typically take lunch between 3-4pm.
• Pre-registration is required: https://lhi.care/covidtesting
OPTUMSERVE TESTING
PUBLIC HEALTH POP-UP TESTING CLINICS FOR JANUARY
• Jan. 31, 2022 – Bridgeport Public Health Department, 11am – 1pm
JANUARY IS NATIONAL
BLOOD DONOR MONTH
While the need for blood is constant, California,
along with the rest of the nation, is experiencing
the most severe blood shortage in the last ten
years.
“Donating blood is not only essential to ensuring
the health of our communities, it is truly a
lifesaving resource for those who need it most,
including accident and burn victims, heart surgery
and organ transplant patients, and those battling
cancer.”
Please help us encourage Californians to make an
appointment to donate blood if they are eligible.
https://www.aabb.org/for-donors-patients/give-blood
#givewithme
MONO COUNTY COVID-19
LOCAL INFORMATION &
RESOURCES
• Website: MonoHealth.com/Coronavirus
• Spanish: https://monohealth.com/coronavirus-es
• Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/monohealthdepartment
• Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item ________
File No. ____________
AGENDA BILL
Subject: Councilmember Reports
Initiated by: Jamie Gray
______________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND:
Each member of the Town Council is appointed to serve as a Town representative to a number of committees, commissions, and organizations.
These groups meet infrequently and from time to time the representatives will report to the rest of the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.
In addition, Councilmembers on occasion participate in meetings, conferences and seminars, and their reports on these educational opportunities are of benefit to the rest of the Council.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
California Government Code requirements pertaining to the open meeting act stipulate that all items for discussion must be listed on the agenda before the matter can be discussed and/or acted upon. To meet this requirement, and the intent of the Brown Act, Councilmember Reports are listed on each agenda to allow representatives to report to the rest of the Council at these meetings.
The following is a list of the commission/committees on which members of the Council serve:
Land Use:
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – Rea, Stapp, and Salcido as alternate
Airport Land Use Commission – Stapp and Rea
Mono County Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) – Salcido and Rea as alternate Intergovernmental Relations:
Town and County Liaison Committee – Stapp, Salcido, and Town Manager and Rea as alternate
Desert Mountain Division of the League of California Cities – Sauser and Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG) – Salcido, Wentworth, and Sauser as alternate
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District – Wentworth and Stapp as alternate
League of California Cities City Voting Delegate – Sauser and the Town Manager as the alternate
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Board – Rea and Assistant to the Town Manager as alternate
Transportation:
Local Transportation Commission (LTC) – Wentworth, Sauser, and Jennifer Burrows; Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) Board – Stapp and Sauser Local Issues:
Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Board – Sauser
Mammoth Lakes Recreation (MLR) Board – Rea
Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) Board – Stapp
Treasury Oversight Committee – Stapp; Town Manager and Finance Director as alternates
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
According to the California Open Meeting Act, commonly referred to as the Brown Act, the agenda must reflect every matter to be discussed by a governing body.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
This agenda bill is submitted for information only.
NOTICE OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF MAMMOTH LAKES MUNICIPAL SERVICE CORPORATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Trustees of the Mammoth Lakes Municipal Service Corporation will hold a meeting at 4:00 p.m. (to commence after the Town Council meeting of the same date) on Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at the Council Chamber/Suite Z, Minaret Village Shopping Center, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Mammoth Lakes, California. The Board of Trustees will consider action upon the following matters:
CALL TO ORDER
Trustees Sarah Rea and John Wentworth, Treasurer Kirk Stapp, Secretary Lynda Salcido, and President Bill Sauser.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
POLICY MATTERS
1. Election of officers – President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
2. Accept the Annual Report.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Approve the minutes of the meeting of January 6, 2021.
ADJOURNMENT
Dated: January 13, 2022 __________________________________ Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
Mammoth Lakes Municipal Service Corporation
Subject: Receive and File Annual Report for Fiscal Year 20-21 Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
Written by: Rob Patterson – Administrative Services / Finance Director RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Directors receive and file the annual report for fiscal year 20-21 BACKGROUND:
The Mammoth Lakes Municipal Service Corporation (Corporation) was established by the Mammoth Lakes Town Council. While a separate legal entity the Corporation is governed by the Town Councilmembers sitting as the Board of the Corporation. Town Staff provides the required staff support in the capacities required by the Corporation. The Corporation was created to provide the Town a legal structure for the issuance of certain types of debt. The Corporation was used most recently in the issuance of Installment Sales Agreement (2017) for Multi-Use Facility construction, Taxable Judgement Obligation Bonds (2017) for MLLA Settlement refinance and Lease-Revenue Bonds (2015) as part of the financing for the police facility. Prior to these activities, the Corporation has not engaged in activity since 2000. This report provides information on the assets, liabilities, and financial activity of the Corporation for FY20-21.
Asset and Revenues:
The Corporation has no assets or cash. The only revenue are lease payments, made by the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Measure R – Sales Tax, which are essentially a pass through for payment to service long-term debt.
Liabilities:
The Corporation has long-term debt issued for three separate purposes two supported by lease payments from the Town of Mammoth Lakes and one from Measure R – Sales Tax Revenue. The first debt issued on August 2015 for $3,550,000 with a 15-year term and interest rate of 3.51%. This debt was secured to refund outstanding Certificates of Participation issued in 2000 for the purchase of the Bell Shaped Property as well as funding a portion of the construction of new police facilities. This debt was secured by the Town’s corporation yard while the new police facility was under construction. The outstanding balance of this debt as of 6/30/2021 is $2,411,000. The second debt issued October 2017 for $23,995,000 with an 18-year term and interest rate of 1.75 – 4.375%. This debt was secured to refinance of MLLA Settlement Debt. The outstanding balance of this debt as of 6/30/2021 is $20,905,000. The third debt issued October 2017 for $5,500,000 with a 10-year term and interest rate of 2.23%. This debt was secured
2 to support construction of the Multi-Use Facility and is funded by Measure R Sales Tax. The outstanding balance of this debt as of 6/30/2021 is $3,975,000.
Changes in assets or liabilities within the year:
The Corporation had an outstanding loan obligation at the beginning of fiscal year 20-21 of $27,291,000 for all three long term obligations. The debt was reduced by scheduled payments (principal) of $1,794,000. These transactions are described in more detail below.
Annual Statement of Certain Transactions:
Long Term Debt – Lease Revenue Bond (2015)
The Corporation has received two lease payments from the Town of Mammoth Lakes and has subsequently made two scheduled payments totaling $314,540.45 in debt service for Lease Revenue Bond (2015) last fiscal year. These payments reduced the outstanding principal amount to $2,411,000 with 9 years remaining on the term.
Principal $224,000.00
Interest $ 90,540.45
Total debt service payments $314,540.45
3 Long Term Debt – Taxable Judgement Obligation Bonds (2017) The Corporation has received two lease payments from the Town of Mammoth Lakes and has subsequently made two scheduled payments totaling $1,867,287 in debt service for Taxable Judgement Obligation Bonds (2017) last fiscal year. These payments reduced the outstanding principal amount to $20,905,000 with 14.5 years remaining on the term.
Principal $1,050,000.00
Interest $ 817,287.00
Total debt service payments $1,867,287.00
Long Term Debt – Installment Sales Agreement (2017)
The Corporation has received two lease payments from Measure R – Sales Tax and has subsequently made two scheduled payments totaling $614,440 in debt service for Installment Sales Agreement (2017) last fiscal year. These payments reduced the outstanding principal amount to $3,975,000 with 6.5 years remaining on the term.
Principal $520,000.00
Interest $ 94,440.50
Total debt service payments $614,440.50
4 All payments are current on the outstanding debt and are being paid in accordance with the following schedule of payments.
5
6
7
MAMMOTH LAKES MUNICIPAL SERVICE CORPORATION
MINUTES OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
JANUARY 6, 2021
Town Clerk’s Notice of Meeting dated December 30, 2020.
CALL TO ORDER
President Sauser called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Mammoth Lakes, California. The Board was present in its entirety with Trustees Sarah Rea and John Wentworth, Treasurer Kirk Stapp, Secretary Lynda Salcido, and President Bill Sauser in attendance via videoconference.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments given at this time.
POLICY MATTERS
1. Election of officers – President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
ACTION:
It was moved by President Bill Sauser, seconded by Secretary Lynda Salcido, and carried by a 5- 0 roll call vote to re-appoint Mayor Sauser as the President, Mayor Pro Tem Salcido as the Secretary, and Councilmember Stapp as the Treasurer.
2. Accept the Annual Report.
Administrative Services/Finance Director Rob Patterson outlined the information in the report.
ACTION:
It was moved by President Bill Sauser, seconded by Treasurer Kirk Stapp, and carried by a 5-0 roll call vote to accept the Annual Report.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Approve the minutes of the meeting of January 15, 2020.
ACTION:
It was moved by Treasurer Kirk Stapp, seconded by Secretary Lynda Salcido, and carried by a 5- 0 roll call vote to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 15, 2020.
Mammoth Lakes Municipal Service Corporation Minutes
January 6, 2021
ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie Gray
Town Clerk