Whitney Portal Preserve Community in the Owen's Valley--Activities in the eastern Sierras

We have a partner who is joining us in this project, and bringing an infusion of capital. Portal Preserve's final documents are being prepared as escrow has opened. This will mean that even if Save Round Valley Alliance (SRVA) chooses to file another lawsuit, we will persevere—and prevail.We have also followed the order of the appeals court: we have prepared a 175-page Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been circulated, and the County is now preparing its responses to the comment letters. SRVA's attorneys sent in one of the comment letters, and the County is addressing their objections in concrete ways. For example, the County is doing two new studies to strengthen its REIR. The County's Planning Commission may be able to review on the REIR as soon as December.If we don't have another lawsuit, some of our lots should be ready for purchase by next summer. Of course, a lawsuit would mean further delay.

The Portal Preserve land development presents many benefits to the community, while respecting the natural beauty of the environment. The development will add 27 lots to the already-established Lone Pine Creek Community, located across Whitney Portal Road. This land has been zoned as residential land for decades and is part of the 2% of the total developable land in the Inyo County (the remaining 98% is owned by DWP, USFS, and BLM). From the very beginning, we have designed this project to preserve the natural landscape, and have minimized the aesthetic impact of this development immensely. Because of this, our plans have had unanimous approval from the County's Planning Commission, as well as the Board of Supervisors. This land provides a high quality development to help meet the community's housing needs and also provides additional tax funds for the dwindling social services of the County. Many concerned citizens in Lone Pine have found peace of mind because this precious land is developed by a small environmentally concerned family rather than a large money-making conglomerate.

The Portal Preserve development strives to be environmentally sensitive by requiring homes on lots 1-9 to be single story and to be set back an average of 235 feet from Whitney Portal Road (this is 200 feet beyond the county requirements). To further limit the visual impact, trees will be planted along Whitney Portal Road. In addition, homes will be painted in natural colors and 1/2- 2/3 of each lot is required to be kept in the native landscaping. Further, lighting will be shielded and reflective surfaces will be prohibited.

Although the project has been designed to be environmentally friendly, a lawsuit was filed against the development. In reviewing the court case in May, 2006, Justice Harry Brauer recognized the overriding considerations of Inyo County 's need for housing and a tax base. This consideration certainly overrides the slight impact our development would have on the environment. Indeed, we have gone above the necessary precautions in our Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as well as in our CC&Rs, to ensure that we preserve the rustic beauty of the region.

In late August 2007, the California Appeals Court in Riverside gave its Tentative Opinion on our case, deciding that one part of our Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was insufficient in its analysis of a land exchange with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Oral agurment was held in November 2007, and on December 17 the Court issued its final opinion on the Whitney Portal Subdivision, deciding that one part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was insufficient in its analysis of a supposedly possible land exchange with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

In Save Round Valley Alliance vs. County of Inyo, the justices agreed with Inyo County and us on 3 of the 4 issues before the court in ruling that the EIR's discussion of threatened species, visual impacts, and the possible environmental impacts of granny units was adequate. "The favorable ruling for the County on the granny units is very important in that it gives substantial state-wide guidance to local governments in preparing EIR's," said Jim Reed, an attorney for the County and the developer. "The land exchange discussion in the project's EIR, which the court felt was not adequate, should be relatively easy to fix."

Although the property purchased by us for the project has been zoned for many years for single-family housing, Save Round Valley's San Francisco attorneys argued that the developer should have traded for BLM-owned property near Lone Pine. During the Board of Supervisors' hearings on the project, Jim Walters testified that a BLM official had told him that it would take many years and an Act of Congress for the BLM land in question to even be available for trade.

That is in fact the case. The federal land was withdrawn from trade or sale by Congress in 1931 in order to protect DWP's watershed. Therefore it would take yet another Act of Congress to make the land available. That would be followed by a complex land trade process governed by federal regulations, and then the County would have to change its general plan and zoning regulations.

We and the County argued that this would be infeasible, could not occur within a reasonable time, and was therefore not required by California law. That the process would take years is certain; that it would ever happen is very problematic. In the meantime we would be forced to sit on our property, and the County's approval of a housing project on land it had long-ago zoned for that purpose would be frustrated.

The court of appeals did not directly disagree with this argument, maintaining that it was neutral on the merits of an exchange. Its opinion simply says that the problem is that the BLM land exchange alternative was not spelled out sufficiently in the EIR and written record of the project for the public, the Board of Supervisors or a reviewing court to have a full understanding. Therefore, the EIR was sent back for supplementation by the County in line with the court's decision.

The County has already begun work to remedy the problem with the EIR on this one point. The court's ruling against Save Round Valley on the other issues is final and the organization cannot raise them again.

We believe we can clearly document the infeasibility of a land exchange in a supplemental EIR. Once the supplemental EIR has gone through the public circulation process, we expect the planning commission to approve the project, as they unanimously did in 2006. We are prepared for SRVA to appeal to the board of supervisors and even go back to court, as much as we hope this won't happen. Another lawsuit would delay but would not stop the project. We are confident on our position and are prepared to continue moving forward regardless of these roadblocks.