Lee Vining Mobil Mart proposed expansion

Brad makes a valid point.  I wouldn’t call this LA creeping north (nor the Bay Area creeping east) but there’s a desire to build because the number of summer visitors clearly supports it.  Having said that, the size of the development seems out of character with the area.  In some ways, they are not expanding the town, they’re building a new, densely populated community.  That will change the character of the area.  Lee Vining is lucky in that, to date, it’s benefitted from being so close to the Park without being too adversely impacted by new infrastructure.  I think this proposed development is proof that others have noticed and see an opportunity.  Honestly, I think the Mobil station has become such an overrated scene that I stopped going there years ago.  I have to imagine this development will be that overrated scene on steroids.  

Another poor town against economic expansion. Go figure.

Tradiban wrote: Another poor town against economic expansion. Go figure.

Stick to topics you know about.

Look, they just need to design the thing so it doesn't glare out over the whole Mono Basin. Seems like a reasonable accomodation. 

Tradiban wrote: Another poor town against economic expansion. Go figure.

Maybe the town is just happy with the way things are now and don't want to be the next Mammoth.  

Fat Dad wrote:

Maybe the town is just happy with the way things are now and don't want to be the next Mammoth.  

Or even Lone Pine.

I don't think we know how "the town" feels about it. This is one person's post and opinion. I'll bet some townspeople are for it, and some are against (unless the town has voted on this).

It seems that the best place for this is in the actual town, not a mile away.   That would help minimize traffic impacts.

At a minimum it needs to be designed to be DARK.  No more light pollution.
Also maybe a restriction could be made that it can not be used as commuter housing owned by Mammoth or any similar.  It is too far from Mammoth to be a reasonable or environmentally sound solution for their housing problem.

And for each 15 units, they have to create one new farmed ice route.

FrankPS wrote: I don't think we know how "the town" feels about it. This is one person's post and opinion. I'll bet some townspeople are for it, and some are against (unless the town has voted on this).

This isn’t one person’s opinion. The Mono Lake Committee is an organization concerned with the preservation of the lake, which has been siphoned down by the LA water department, and the surrounding land. It has called for letters to be emailed to Michael Draper at:

mdraper@mono.ca.gov 

and copy:

action@monolake.org

by August 21. 

FrankPS wrote: Alison,

I appreciate your passion, but disagree with you on every one of your points. Your concerns are more relevant to you, since you live there, but you are trying to gather support from outside the area (from MP, as a whole, which is nationwide).

 I won't debate your specific concerns, but wanted you to know there is another point of view.

Weak ass support for corporate overlords,  no more, no less, and for no good reason.

Eric wrote: I bet OP comes from a wealthy family.

I bet you vote Republican despite them not doing one thing for you.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: 

Weak ass support for corporate overlords,  no more, no less, and for no good reason.

"Corporate overlords"? Talk about weak. You've made this about class warfare? Yeah, those rich corporations are going to walk all over the little people, right? And for "no good reason."

• More tax dollars for the local municipalities (town, county)
• More business for local business owners

Thanks for the heads up. I just submitted my comment. Part of my 9-5 deals with comment analysis for federal actions. It's nice to see this community participating.

Would also like to add that comments are considered "substantive" when they are specific to an issue (such as visual resources) and are not just opinions (eg. this project is good/bad). Comments that are not "substantive" aren't considered by the agency. The public comments that are generally most helpful ask questions about specific resources (such as visual resources, recreation, or socioeconomics). Also, public comments are not votes. Just FYI.

Thanks for the heads up, Alison.  One of the many attractions of the eastern Sierra is dark skies. The Mono Basin has a tragic history of habitat mismanagement and I am glad that processes are in place to avoid more disaster.

I recommend that everyone interested read the "Subsequent Environmental Impact Report And Specific Plan For The Tioga Inn Project", dated June 14, 2019:
https://www.monocounty.ca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_division/page/29999/specific_plan_amendment_3.pdf  

Page 324 lists the "Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes" from the project

Initially 10 workforce units were approved for the Tioga Inn.  Now "Plan Amendment #3" is for "100 workforce housing units with up to 150 bedrooms to accommodate employees of the previously approved hotel and full-service restaurant."  It seems unrealistic that so many "workforce housing units" are needed for employees of a 120 room hotel and restaurant. This appears to be typical developer greed - get the initial plan passed and then try to expand the scope (and profit) as much as possible.

I will certainly be sending a letter before the deadline.  The project needs to be revisited, and to address the significant impacts it would have on the land and local community.

Eric wrote:

I bet the OP is from a wealthy fam because I have friends that grew up wealthy, and friends that grew up poor.  The wealthy one tend to abhor development and see it as an evil ("THERE WILL BE A STOPLIGHT!" is a good tell regarding the purity aspect) and the poor ones tend to see development as positive.

You, on the other hand, have had your brain rotted out by partisan politics, and can only yell "Drumpfffff!" into the wind.

In my experience those are poor people who are uneducated and refuse to try and improve themselves or have worked themselves into a position in life where they are unable to make any changes. 

FrankPS wrote:

"Corporate overlords"? Talk about weak. You've made this about class warfare? Yeah, those rich corporations are going to walk all over the little people, right? And for "no good reason."

Here are some reasons:

• More tax dollars for the local municipalities (town, county)
• More business for local business owners

I'm OK with whatever the planning/development agency decides, but I won't vilify the other side. Like you.

Maybe try and offer an alternative development plan rather than blind support?

Eric wrote:

I bet the OP is from a wealthy fam because I have friends that grew up wealthy, and friends that grew up poor.  The wealthy one tend to abhor development and see it as an evil ("THERE WILL BE A STOPLIGHT!" is a good tell regarding the purity aspect) and the poor ones tend to see development as positive.

You, on the other hand, have had your brain rotted out by partisan politics, and can only yell "Drumpfffff!" into the wind.

Poor dirtbags see development as positive? 

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Maybe try and offer alternatives rather than blind support?

I'm OK with the plan, and am OK with it not being approved. So I don't feel like an alternative is needed.

And I'm OK with my "blind support." (is it "blind" because you, and others, don't agree with it?) Just because I view it differently than some, doesn't mean it's ignorant and uninformed.

Terry E wrote: Thanks for the heads up, Alison.  One of the many attractions of the eastern Sierra is dark skies. The Mono Basin has a tragic history of habitat mismanagement and I am glad that processes are in place to avoid more disaster.

I recommend that everyone interested read the "Subsequent Environmental Impact Report And Specific Plan For The Tioga Inn Project", dated June 14, 2019:
https://www.monocounty.ca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_division/page/29999/specific_plan_amendment_3.pdf  

Page 324 lists the "Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes" from the project

Initially 10 workforce units were approved for the Tioga Inn.  Now "Plan Amendment #3" is for "100 workforce housing units with up to 150 bedrooms to accommodate employees of the previously approved hotel and full-service restaurant."  It seems unrealistic that so many "workforce housing units" are needed for employees of a 120 room hotel and restaurant. This appears to be typical developer greed - get the initial plan passed and then try to expand the scope (and profit) as much as possible.

I will certainly be sending a letter before the deadline.  The project needs to be revisited, and to address the significant impacts it would have on the land and local community.

Wow, this thread is coming off the rails.  Thanks Terry for some specific guidance on how best to respond.  

Boycott The Mobil?