!
"#$%&' (#)*+$,- .)/01 2$0&1 3,4&#- "#$%&5 (#)*+$,6 .)/07 2$0&7 3,4&#- "#$%&1' (#)*+$,- .)/08 2$0&5 3,4&#- "#$%&5 (#)*+$,- .)/0- 2$0&- 3,4&#-
!"
#
$%&'()*
+%,-.&/0 1,234 5&3(* 6/7(%*
82&'(&-9,::;/7<=22>/&:( 0?
$%&'(4 +%,-.&/* 1,23* 5&3(0 6/7(%0
$%&'() +%,-.&/* 1,23* 5&3(0 82&'(&-9,::;/70 6/7(%*
!
"#$
"$
!
""$
!
%&'()'*()+,-)()
.*()+,-)()
/012345
607891:; <7=>4 ?1>3; @:A305 %&'()'*()+,-)()
B*()+,-)()
%&'()'*()+,-)()
CDEFDGHIJEKLMNOPQC
CRGSTUVWXMYZMC
[
\]^_`
abc
d
e. *()+,-)()
k^kl^abcfghij
mjnocihphn
qhbrs
ttukk
abcwjnh k]^vu
mjciqhbrs xhcj
yzqhb{|g}~
|bjc
p
hnb
mb
|o
jcb{rs
qgi qb{n}j
!
"#
$%
&'##
()*+,
-.,/
012342534678434
9:;<=>;?@A@B=?B@>C=DEF=@G><;@@@=G@;?@HBC=@=G@;?GF@>C=DEF=@G<=I 9J;<=<;EB=@9
K
#
LMN
OPQRS
T
UV 534678434
SRYZP[ROPQRSSOWXS
S\]OO^RS
_XX
\W]YS
XR_dOPQRS `YRa]RbOc]SRS
YR^P_c^RSRYZP[R `YRa]RbOSOWXS
`YRa]RbOSRYZP[R
S[\Re]^ROPQRS ^WbfOPQR g]ShOPQRS
cROORYc]SRS SOWXS_beQWYRS\]OO^RS
XP[d]XOPQRS
S\]OO^RSPbSRYZP[R
iR_^OPQR jWSOOPQRS
klmnopqn.rlp)sl*p)m/ klmnopqn.rlprt*uv))w klmnopqn.rpx)v.yp)*zx)my{)/ -.pz.n|)nl)np+ }.yp)*m.nop*)v|)~m)*plnt + v)u)vp.mvl|), px)v Page 212 of 244
!
"
#$
"
%
&'() *+,-.(/
0 123453467489:;799<4:
= 123434<>?@<4:43A>B4
= C4?<D9>E493?A4<F93>GG<?88>8HI
J K4L>B?94LG?::48H43<2?L>8HI
J 1234:;799<432794:F4MG?8L4I
N O8;?8B4L@7::92G:P:;4<943:QI
R S9;43TG<4?:4:G4B>5UV
W
X
YZ[\][^\]_`a]\]
b
cbdef
ghiiji
k^\]_`a]\]
ghiijilhimnoji
mnojinopghi
ghiiqrons
jnituvijjuwjxvhuj
hgjxnopstyuznqo{uxjjuiuxjjuoju|vx} ~jpjiuxqnoxjns xjnsqigsjn}
juyxqjopst
iqrons~xqvxqut
xhooqoor
hjiuqvo
zjxqpqno vhounqo znvuw snxrjiugvuusjoj}
z ~jv~sj
4:=R
2==
! "
#
$"
%&
'
(
""
)
'
*
+
*
,-./ 01234.5
6 789:8;<=>?;@;A<B:C9D:@E
F G<;HI<>?;@;A<B:IJ?8K
L M?J<E9:I<NI<8C?8K>?;@;A<EOPIQ
R SC9<INBA<:E<EB<;?O@T
U
*
VWXYZX[YZ\]^ZYZ
_[YZ\]^ZYZ
`P8A@a?E?Cb:ccPC9=HI?8KQ d
ePC;PcOPIC:>A<I?=?8K:>?;@Q f
ePC<8PHK9=<=?;:C<=O:;?A?C?<Eg h:;JPOE<;HI<>?;@;A<B:IJ?8K6 SC9<Ii j<Ed ePRF
!
!
"
#$%&'()*$$&+%,-)(.$/ 0'12+*+&3&1451-46'$4&(7'(%&4/ 81&$)6)19,+%,+4%:&'$(93;1'.< = #('-11)+%,/ >'(%4+&.1%%$.&+1%&11&5$'9$< ?
@&5$'/
A()B? C57&&)$? #('-11)= D+B$= @&5$'/
E+9%F&B%1G+&$2+4&$9?/
E+9%F&B%1G+&G(4;'$$H E+9%F&B%1GI.17)9-('B(%9&< J K1&.1%L$%+$%&J 0'$;$'&1-('B(&*39$4&+%(&+1%/?
@&5$'M
!"
#"$
!
%&
"
''
()*)+,-)./,-01+),.23
4566167879):7-;+,9,86).69< =
4566167>7?5)@07.+*+,-16722
A1B)>-)87*C1-79,18).6DE
F)G7*C1-7>-7.+19*+1+),.H*50< 2I
J-):1+7+,5-*+16).6E K+C7-2L
From: Birgit Roesler
To: Sandra Moberly
Subject: Mobility Hub Study
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 9:40:40 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
As a community member and local home owner, I wish to speak out against the Mobility Hub Study related to the area on Forest Trail. This area is currently occupied by two VITAL t town services not mentioned in all aspects.
Firstly, and importantly, it involves a park. A park with play structures, table, restrooms, and tennis courts. The only park this side of town that could be cleaned up and modernized for less than it would cost for a new one and that could serve visitors and locals in the Knolls, along Forest Trail , in the Canyon area and at the Village. Just a few years ago our town was determined to be lacking park areas and now one should be torn out? Secondly, we are severely short in family and child support services, especially with IMACA going bankrupt…the MCOE Early Start program and FamilyvResource Center is on that lot….another resource badly needed that should not be lost.
Surely another location can be considered or used. How about buying the land on Meridian, or a portion thereof rather than crowding it into a tight space impacting homes, traffic, and current needed resources… Thank you for your consideration,
Birgit Roesler
36 St Moritz Rd
Sent from my iPad
1 Sandra Moberly
From: JOHN ARMSTRONG <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:59 PM
To: Sandra Moberly
Subject: Comment on Mobility Hub Study
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Sandra Moberly
Town of Mammoth Lakes
Dear Sandra,
I am writing to comment on the Mobility Hub Study and ask that my comments be forwarded to both Town Council, Staff, and the Planning and Economic Development Commission.
I was very disappointed to read the report and found it to be lacking in credibility, insight, and depth of understanding of who we are , our problems, and what our needs are today.
The survey size of 51 people provided the research company with a very distorted picture of our town, its people and needs.
As a result the entire report read like a superficial account by a casual visitor who had little idea of the complexity and depth of our problem.
For example:
1. The report used parking citations (3.2.2) to provide information to determine areas where parking availability is limited and determine locations where parking or travel connections are desired, but not currently provided. The results of using the parking tickets as data for an important survey such as this is laughable. Using this information shows me the survey company did not spend time in our community at key times, seasons and situations in order to understand what happens here and what we need to make it better.
2. Paragraph 3.2.2 : The survey company used “Teralytics Travel Demand Data” to tell us that most people came to Mammoth for the purpose of “Other”, compared to coming here for “Work" or “Home”. Wow! Did these folks actually visit Mammoth and figure out why people came here? “Other” = Recreation and Tourism.
3. I am pretty sure 37% of our summer visitors do not walk or ride a bike in town. It would be cool if they did, but I think the percentage of people that walk or bike in town itself is significantly lower than this. If 53% of people in town rode a bike (as Fehr and Peer state) we would have a bike density equal to that of Amsterdam!
4. The conclusions of the survey are distorted in relationship to employees: The survey company says:
"As a result, the project team believes our survey results below reflect mobility needs and desires of a majority year-round population.” How can this be true when they spoke to about 25 employees? Also:
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
2 "Anecdotally, we understand that most employees who work in the Town of Mammoth Lakes do not live within the town, but rather in other areas within Mono and Inyo Counties. “ (Page 5 of 10). I know the cost and availability of housing in Mammoth is severe but I would guess that 75% of employees live in town. Does anyone really know this number? All in all a simplistic and poorly researched and presented report. The conclusions show only a very basic understanding of our needs and any second year local could do better than Fehr and Peers in describing our current situation and what could be done to improve it.
Please discard this report and move on to find something better.
So far as I can tell Mammoth has been trying to implement a “Park Once” and use local transit since at least 2000 when The Village was begun. We hoped that the most car crazy people in America, Southern Californians, would park once and use the bus. We are still hoping they catch on to the idea. Some have, most have not. Our level of service and convenience and fun riding the bus is lacking.
I have lived for more than 40 years in Mammoth; about 20 years before The Village and 20 years since. I use public transportation often and based on my observations here are a few ideas for your consideration:
1. Produce signage for our bus stations that can easily be read from across the road and have the color coding be very obvious. Use the words “Free Bus” on every bus stop. Standing in the Village looking across at the Blue Line bus stop it is not clear that this is even a bus stop let alone where it goes to.
2. Maintain the signage all year round so it is in good repair and is current.
3. Rather than getting everyone to download yet another app, provide electronic message boards in each bus stop that tells the riders when the next bus will arrive. Old technology that is widespread and it works.
4. Clean the bus stops of snow and garbage every day.
We can and must do much better than commission reports like this.
Come on Mammoth, lets get something done!
Sincerely,
John Armstrong
PO Box 7736
Mammoth Lakes
From: Maggie Wahl
To: Sandra Moberly
Subject: Mobility hub
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 9:03:55 AM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear Sandra, We are so disappointed that the town is considering placing a mobility hub in an area used by the locals and tourists alike. These are the only free tennis courts in Mammoth and they are quite busy (though in horrible need of repair). The community center also is all the town has for classes etc. and again well used by locals. The proposed site would also increase congestion in this area, which is already so dense with traffic ,winter and summer. Please reconsider this mobility hub placement somewhere else.
Sincerely
Margaret Wahl
Sent from my iPhone
1 Sandra Moberly
From: Marty Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:34 PM
To: Sandra Moberly
Subject: Primary Mobility Hub Station
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Dear Director Moberly,
>
> My husband and I have owned 14 Val D’Isere Place in Mammoth Knolls for 21 years. > Our home is located directly behind the community park tennis courts. >
> We have been notified that the Town is in the process of considering a Primary Mobility Hub Station in the community park area.
> This is an obvious concern that our quality of life would dramatically change due to this plan. >
> Several years ago when the entrance to the Village parking lot was moved to Forest Trail, we now have headlights shining through our home every time a vehicle exits the lot until well after midnight. > Also, many people use the tennis court parking lot to avoid paying for parking in the lot. We must endure the bright headlights and the honk of their horns when they don’t use horn defeat to lock or unlock their vehicles. > If many more vehicles will be using a Primary Mobility Hub Station these issues will only become more of a nuisance for those of us in close proximity to the park.
>
> We are also concerned that our property values will decline. > When we purchased our home, we investigated the fact that the acreage was donated to Mono County by the developer of the Knolls to provide a community recreation area for residents and visitors to enjoy not a commercial endeavor.
> Taking this away from our Town would be a travesty considering it is the only recreational area in this part of Town and used by many.
> Mammoth Lakes needs more recreational areas not less. >
> We truly hope you will thoroughly investigate our concerns and will come to the realization that another location should be used as a Primary Station.
>
> Yours truly,
> Marty & Jim Kane
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1 Sandra Moberly
From: Ralph Lehotsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 7:05 AM
To: Sandra Moberly
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Mobility Hub at Community Center Park
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Why is it that the Community Center Park is often proposed to be used as a means to provide facilities for which it is not intended. When will the town see it for a recreational site that needs to be maintained and serviced, as they do to the other parks. Why will they not look for changes that will enhance its ability to provide recreation and enjoyment to the community? Rebuild the tennis courts so that they are usable. Enhance the picnic tables for use by more than 2 or 3 families. Expand the young childrens' area with additional devices.
A charging station does not enhance recreational activities - it adds no value to the area. And it will limit access to the facilities that are currently there.
Just my 2¢ -
Ralph Lehotsky
132 St Anton Circle
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
31 March, 2022
Sandra Moberly, Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Development and Planning
P.O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Please accept and incorporate our comments into the final draft of the Mobility Hub Study and Program. I am writing on behalf of the Mammoth Knolls Homeowners Association, and therefore our comments pertain largely to Community Center Park, which is shown in this document as a candidate for a future mobility hub.
A primary concern is the lack of a comprehensive Traffic Study. How can any of the recommended mobility hubs in the consultant’s report be seriously considered without a study that would determine if the proposed sites are feasible, conducive to the community and cost effective? Also, the property values of adjacent single family homes in vicinity will depreciate if a parking structure or significantly increased surface parking was built in lieu of the current neighborhood park. Were these factors considered by the consultants, and if so, why weren’t they addressed in the Study? I would also like to point out some items that Town Council should consider before accepting this document. These items either need to be included or corrected in the Mobility Hub document:
• In 1971, the developer of the Mammoth Knolls subdivision donated these five acres to Mono County for park purposes, tennis courts, community center, and library, and therefore our members feel a strong attachment to the Community Center Park (CC Park).
• Community Center Park should be acknowledged as a park in this document, with a developed playground, public tennis courts, picnic tables, restrooms, childcare center, community center and public parking. Were consultants told that it was more than a community center building and parking? Did they visit the site and note the proximity to numerous residential homes?
• The loss of the CC Park due to its use as a mobility hub contradicts the General Plan and Update, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as the Town needs more developed parkland (not less). According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted by Town Council in 2012, an additional 13.88 acres of parkland are needed by 2025 to fulfill Levels of Service (LOS). Once parkland is used for another purpose, the land typically is not replaced due to cost. • Mono County Office of Education (MCOE) is the owner of the old library building, now used as a “California Early Start” preschool center. This is a regional collaboration with the Kern Regional Center and the MCOE childcare center. Our community is currently experiencing a shortage of childcare, and P.O. Box 1509, MAMMOTH LAKES, CA 93546
would suffer an additional loss if the park were to be converted into a mobility hub.
• The Community Center Park is the only park in this part of our town, as the majority of parks are on the east side of town.
• Eliminating Community Center Park would require residents and visitors to travel to participate in park activities and enjoy leisure time. A developed park offers different amenities than the forested areas that surround our town. • The adopted North Village Specific Plan identifies improving the existing CC Park amenities, and promoting it to adjacent hotels to enhance the guest/visitor experience. This would be particularly important once the temporary parking lot south and adjacent to the park is developed.
• Professional recreation planners (2014 “Plan Your Parks”) reviewed other Townowned/leased sites, stating that existing site is best for the tennis courts, in spite of its higher elevation and snowmelt. However, to maximize use of the existing courts, they require improvements and ongoing maintenance. The current tennis courts have been neglected for several years.
• Less than 4 years ago, the Community Center building was upgraded at a cost of ~$80,000 (not including donated volunteer hours)
• A mobility hub/parking structure is not appropriate next to residences. The constant movement of vehicles, including the light and noise intrusions from massive transformers needed for the charging stations is not healthy for anyone living nearby.
Our Board is aware that the Town owns land nearer the heart of the Village designated for parking, but it appears that the consultant did not evaluate or even acknowledge the Hillside parking location on Canyon Blvd. with its !temporary” 38 space surface lot.
This, in spite of the fact that I personally informed them of the approved plans for this waiting-to-be-financed 300-space parking structure during the public meeting on 2/5/2021. At that time, the consultant appeared to not know what I was talking about. We therefore ask that you include a description of and cost estimate for this project in the final document, as some of the financing options described elsewhere relate to this structure.
The Knolls community strongly objects to changing the character, intent and function of Community Center Park to become a parking facility that will negatively impact several adjacent neighborhoods in town, including the Knolls.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sandy G. Hogan
Sandy G. Hogan, President
Mammoth Knolls Homeowners Association
Cc: Mayor and Town Council members
PEDC Commission
Recreation Commission
P.O. Box 1509, MAMMOTH LAKES, CA 93546
P.O. Box 1509, MAMMOTH LAKES, CA 93546
Pat Agnitch
P. O. Box 394
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
April 1, 2022
Mayor Lynda Salcido and Town Council
C/o Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
Town of Mammoth Lakes
P. O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Dear Mayor Salcido and Town Council:
Thank you for allowing public comments to be submitted for your consideration regarding the Mobility Hub Study and Program on the April 6, 2022 Town Council agenda. I think you will see that many community members have concerns with the content of the document and question how the consultants reached the recommendations included in the Study.
There are many flaws in the Study, however, the most significant flaw is the lack of a comprehensive Traffic Study to accurately justify the recommendations. Hypothesizing that mobility hubs are needed in town, and citing locations, without a Traffic Study is irresponsible and inefficient. To think that visitors to town will transport their recreational gear (skis, snowboards, fishing tackle, kayaks, etc.) to a hotel, condo, or residence and then park their vehicle in a mobility hub for the duration of their trip to take public transit to recreational destinations, is illogical. Also, the same is true for employees and residents as mentioned in the Study.
In my 30+ year professional career working for a municipality, I learned the value of community input to help shape a concept that will have buy-in from all stakeholders. The approach to this Study seemed to involve primarily a select committee of business owners and Mountain staff with vested interests, as opposed to the community at large. An extremely small sampling of Bluesapalooza participants should not constitute the basis for the conclusions drawn by the consultants.
Park space in town is precious, especially in the western portion of our community. The Parks and Recreation Department professes “all recreation, all the time” and supports the California Park & Recreation Society’s “parks make life better” slogan, so taking away limited park space to build a mobility hub is contrary to these goals and values.
Community Center Park is a valuable asset to the community and town, despite the fact that the only public tennis courts are in a state of disrepair. The lack of serious attention to this park site, except for the recent and much appreciated facility renovation, makes me wonder if this lack of maintenance has been intentional to make it easier to justify taking away park space. Per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted by Town Council in 2012, Mammoth Lakes will have a deficit of almost 14 acres of park land by 2025 based upon Levels of Service. Every inch of park space is needed in our community, and once taken away, is almost impossible to regain. A few years ago I was assured by a Town Councilmember that Community Center Park wasn’t being considered for a mobility hub, yet the park site keeps being included in consultant studies which is concerning.
If Town Council deems that a Primary Mobility Hub is needed in the vicinity of The Village, then why hasn’t the Town-owned parcel on Hillside Drive been seriously considered? The Hillside
parcel is already approved for a 300-vehicle parking structure which is more centrally located to the “primary gateway” of Main Street and Minaret Road identified in the North Village Specific Plan. Why didn’t the consultants address this parcel? What other more suitable locations weren’t considered/recommended, and why?
People often wonder if Town Council listens or cares what the community thinks because many times constructive suggestions aren’t seriously considered. I would like to believe that elected and appointed Town officials and staff are genuinely concerned about the community and want to make it a better place to live. Most of us have chosen to live in Mammoth Lakes because we value our quality of life. I hope that you will seriously consider the significant flaws of this study and place it on the shelf where it belongs.
Thank you for your anticipated consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Pat Agnitch
Mammoth Lakes Resident
cc: Dan Holler, Town Manager
Planning and Economic Development Commission
Recreation Commission
Sandra Moberly, Director, Planning & Economic Development
3 April, 2022
To: Mayor Lynda Salcido, Council members
Re: draft Mobility Hub Study and Program
I am enclosing my comments on the final draft of the Mobility Hub study, retitled “Mobility Hub Study and Program”. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The majority of my comments will focus on the Village and recommendations made by the consultants.
It appears that the consultants were not very familiar with our successful, free transit system, relying instead on the opinions of those attending “Bluesapalooza”. Locals and many of our winter guests use ESTA’s transit to access MMSA’s three portals, as well as MMSA Main Lodge shuttles; all of which are very efficient for skier transport. Many locals rely on free transit, but never need to check the schedules, as the ESTA bus signs show pickup to end routes and times; there is also a “transit” app with arrival times. The consultant’s recommendation that ESTA do better marketing is not logical, as those who do not know about ESTA will not go to the ESTA website. Instead, put Mammoth Lakes Tourism, as the Town’s chief marketing agent, in charge of all TOML transit information and education for visitors. The Chamber of Commerce can assist in making businesses knowledgeable, and they, in turn, could educate their workers.
It appears that the consultants were not made aware of all the Town-owned/leased property, particularly land near or in the Village. This includes the Town-leased “Crossroads” lot at the SE junction of Minaret and Main Street, currently used to store Public Works materials. It would be suitable for a public/private partnership as a Primary Hub, serving summer (“Bluesapalooza”, other events) and winter needs (ski area transit).
The “North Village Specific Plan” stipulates that the Primary/Major Gateway is at this intersection of Minaret and Main Street, and during the public planning sessions for the “Crossroads” development in that specific plan, the developer proposed a 100 space parking garage for that corner.
Another Town-owned property located within the Village was not even mentioned in this document. This five-acre property has approved plans for a three-story parking structure.
An analysis of this Town-owned Hillside parking lot with its waiting-to-be-financed 300- space parking structure on Canyon Blvd would have revealed that, particularly with a pedestrian bridge, it is ideal for the Village Mobility Hub due to a number of factors. It offers winter (and summer) access to the Village center and Canyon Gondola, as well as summer access to Lakes Basin trolleys with bike racks. There was a successful major planning effort by the Forest Service to introduce transit to the Lakes Basin (1998-2000), followed by the Town’s introduction of (now) three trolleys/hour. It also offers summer access to Bike Park shuttles to MMSA Main Lodge Bike Park, and winter access to the Lakes Basin Tamarack X-Country Ski Area every hour. Importantly, there would be no need to change transit routes with this site. It appears that consultants were not told that the Town owns this land, with approved plans on file for its construction.
This Town-owned site could be a good candidate for public-private partnership with the Village businesses and hotels, as Mammoth Mountain (MMSA) once had pledged $5mm towards its construction. As the Village is now an important entry portal for MMSA, it is appropriate that MMSA provide partial funding. Also, this Hillside “temporary” 38- space parking lot, along with the traffic ticket studies show need on upper Forest Trail, Canyon Blvd., and Minaret, all close to the center of Village, not at its edges.
Other than minor references to the “Trails Master Plan”, it appears that the consultants did not consult adopted plans such as the “General Plan/Update”, “Parks and Recreation Master Plan”, and “North Village Specific Plan” that have been analyzed through CEQA.
The study instead relies on concept plans/studies such the “Main Street Plan” and “Walk, Bike, Ride Action Plan” rather than adopted plans. A Mobility Hub Study and Program with no compliance with adopted plans (analyzed through CEQA) is of little value.
Comprehensive traffic studies would have revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the three Village sites, and determined the feasibility of each, but they were not done. Also, a cost analysis could have been provided for each recommendation. Unfortunately, it appears that the consultants had little knowledge of the “North Village Specific Plan” and others relating to the Village.
I believe that a comprehensive update of the “North Village Specific Plan”, as was shown in the Town’s 2016-17 Program of Work, is long overdue before we spend more of our tax dollars on another “accepted” incomplete and expensive study that goes “on the shelf”. A comprehensive update through CEQA would include not only public comments, but professional traffic studies, business owners’ input, and the already approved plans for a 300-space Hillside parking structure. I doubt that the Community Center Park would be shown as a potential mobility hub, as it is in this flawed document.
Thank you for offering a brief period for public comment, as the working group appears to have been completely staff-driven, with only one public member invited. It would have been helpful to have an appendix listing working group members, noting how many times they met, and the minutes of the meetings. I still wonder why there weren’t more public members invited to be a part of the working group? At the time, I indicated my willingness to serve, as I was the Town Council’s public member of the Local Transportation Commission, and the past chair of the Town’s Mobility Commission.
However, I was informed by a staff member (not Sandra) that I was not welcome.
Respectfully,
/s/ SandyGHogan
Sandy G. Hogan
Cc: Sandra Moberly, Director, Planning and Economic Development PEDC Commission
Recreation Commission
1 Jamie Gray
From: Sharon Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Jamie Gray
Subject: Mobility Hub
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Jamie,
I hope the following email will reach MLTC before they vote of the Mobility Hub.
Thanks much,
Sharon
Hello, MLTC,
Why are you paying a consultant to 'study' a Mobility Hub? Has the community asked for a Mobility Hub? Only 19 Mammothites responded to a questionnaire about a Mobility Hub. That, alone, should indicate that we do not want one nor do we need one.
Please consider spending our available tax dollars on a true need. Mammoth Lakes Housing is reduced to begging the community for donated money to finish their project that is shovel ready.
It would have been built long ago if MLTC had followed the intent of Measure A. How pathetic is our town government.
We do not need nor want a mobility hub. Thank you,
Sharon Raven Clark
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Award design-build contract for the 60 Joaquin housing project.
Meeting Date: April 6, 2022
Prepared by: Haislip Hayes, PE, Public Works Director
Amy Callanan, PE, Engineering Manager
Nolan Bobroff, Senior Planner/Housing Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Town Council:
Award the design-build contract to MMI Consulting LLC for a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $2,420,000.
Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contract and accept the project upon completion.
BACKGROUND:
The Town’s Housing Now! Initiative incorporates several programs directed at providing community, workforce housing. Once program included the purchase of land to construct for sale rental units. On July 29, 2021, the Town of Mammoth Lakes took possession of the 60 Joaquin Parcel. The Town purchased the property with the intent of developing additional affordable housing units. The 9,148 SF parcel is zoned RMF-1 and with density bonuses can accommodate four (4) units. The development plan focused on creating for sale units targeting moderate income families or what is often referred to as “missing middle” income households. At this time staff is looking at income limits up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) but will be reviewing options to increase the limit to 150% AMI. This program supplements the “Bridge” program where the Town is purchasing existing housing units and selling them at a reduced price with a focus on households with incomes up to the 120% AMI level.
Staff endeavored to create a livable for purchase deed restricted project of for sale units.
Staff envision a planned unit development project in which the owner would own the land and unit as opposed to just the air space in a condominium project. Staff determined that a design-build process would accelerate the delivery of the units. Staff presented the fundamentals of the design-build process to Town Council on November 17, 2021. Staff followed this process, working with legal counsel to develop the requisite documents that included a request for qualifications (RFQ), request for proposals (RFP), and contract documents. Staff consulted with an on-call engineering firm to develop bridging documents.
2 ANALYSIS:
On November 22, 2021, the Town issued a RFQ for development of the 60 Joaquin affordable housing project. The RFQ closed on December 17, 2021. The Town received qualifications from two qualified design build entities. The Town issued a RFP to both of the qualified firms on February 17, 2022. The firms were required to respond by March 18, 2022. At closing the Town received one proposal from MMI Consulting LLC. The proposal was complete and proposed fulfilling the project requirements for a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $2.42M. The schedule proposes a breaking ground this summer with completion August 1, 2023.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Town budgeted $3.2M for the development of the project. The GMP provided by the contractor was within this budget. When considering the cost of bridging documents ($40,000), land acquisition ($200,000), and Topo Survey ($2,980) construction the total cost of the project is $2,662,980. The remaining allocation of funds will be retained for use under the Town’s Housing Now! initiative.
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.