|
March 12, 2010: Lot Sales within Sight--Again
By early summer we expect to begin selling lots. We are considering offering lot #6 for
$250,000—some $80,000 less than we were planning on selling a lot for last
fall. The reason? The price reflects the dip in
housing/lot prices that came later to Inyo County than the country at
large. Also, although the economy
is beginning to bounce back, we’d like some income sooner than later—it’s been
only outgo for 7 years.
We haven’t made a final decision, and we will announce our
decision in a couple of months. But if we do let the first lot go for $250,000, it would be a one-time
opportunity. We don’t see any
reason for a “fire-sale” at any time.
We are encouraged about the future for several reasons:
1) Many of you continue to be
keenly interested in our Portal Preserve lots, despite the long delay,
2) DWP’s plan to cover the Owens
Dry Lake bed with solar panels (generating 10% of the state’s electric power)
will create many good jobs and be good for Lone Pine real estate, and
3) The economy is “coiled and ready
to spring,” says David Darst, chief investment strategist for Morgan
Stanley. Just a few days ago Darst
cited several factors for his optimism: strong global growth, low inflation,
earnings up dramatically—and low interest rates. That later reason may be why now is the time to lock in a good interest rate.
Some readers will understandably wonder why we didn’t sell
lots in the winter, as we’d earlier projected. Several issues came up: Getting approval of the underground
conduit took months longer than we expected. Getting the electric company to pull the cable took time,
with completion just last week. And we are still working on getting County and
State approval of three lots that constitute our first phase—lots 4, 5, and 6.
We hope to have State permission to sell lots by May of this year. And by then we will have determined a
definite price for the first lot, and we will detail how interested parties can
buy lot 6.
June 24, 2009: Lawsuit Against Portal Preserve A Bygone
The Portal Preserve, after six years of anticipating or being in a lawsuit, is free to move forward. Last Thursday, the 30-day period for Save Round Valley Alliance (SRVA) to again sue ended. On May 19, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously for our project, just as it had done nearly 4 years earlier in the spring of 2005.
Due to the recession, we think it unwise to now attempt to bring Phase 1 (the first 9 of an eventual 27 lots) to completion. First, we may not be able to secure a construction loan for the grading and paving of streets, as well as utility installation. And second, our potential buyers may not be able to easily arrange financing.
Accordingly, we are talking to Inyo County about the possibility of bringing 4 of the 9 lots to market as soon as this fall. Lots 1, 4, 5, and 6 all have access directly from Whitney Portal Road, and would not require installation of portions of the development’s interior roads. The primary requirement, it appears, would be installation of underground utilities along approximately 1,500’ of Whitney Portal Road. The cost of this infrastructure would not be prohibitive, even if construction loans were unavailable.
Regarding the availability of loans to potential buyers, there may be a solution: we are considering making these lots available through requiring a substantial down payment and holding a note for the balance ourselves. This approach would be a last resort.
If immediate development of the four lots is not feasible, we will wait until likely next spring to develop phase one. By then the housing market should have begun to recover, and loans should be much more readily available.
If we can get approval to initially develop the four lots, we will send out information on how we’ll make these lots available.
Until last Thursday, we thought that the chances of another round of lawsuits was 50/50. Although we sensed that SRVA was retrenching –no officers attended either the Planning Commission or the Supervisors meeting and their website has lapsed—we thought that their attorney firm may have other sources of funding and would sue again. The project lawsuit is now dead, however SRVA’s San Francisco law firm is still suing us on another front—seeking over $500,000 in attorney fees, having prevailed in the appellate court on a technical error in the EIR (regarding a BLM land exchange). But regardless, the good news is that the project can now proceed.
We will keep you informed of developments. However, if you may be interested in lot 1,4, 5, or 6, you should consider pre-qualification with your bank, as preference will be given to those who have ready financing.
April 20, 2009: Inyo County Board of Supervisors Unanimously Accepts the Portal Preserve’s EIR and REIR
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 in approval of the Portal Preserve on Tuesday, May 19. This vote responded to an appeal by SRVA, after the Planning Commission voted unanimously for the project in late March. No SRVA members attended the hearing, prompting Supervisor Marty Fortney to observe that if a group will sue and cause Walters to spend significant money in defense, at least they should have the “common decency to show up. It’s just not right.”
The supervisors were uniformly supportive, often responding to criticisms from SRVA’s attorneys in the relatively short hour-long session. Veteran supervisor Linda Arcularius indicated that the county’s General Plan is not “illogical and disorderly.” With less than 2% of county land being private and subject to the General Plan, the County oversees private land where it exists—and the Portal Preserve land has been zoned for residences for “50 years,” she said. Another Bishop-based supervisor responded to the charge that the project would spoil a view shed: “Because of the beautiful area we live in, you can’t avoid impacting the view shed from some point of view.”
Doug Thompson, the mountaineer who runs the Whitney Portal Store, testified in favor of the project, and was asked by a supervisor about his estimate of how the project would affect those who travel Whitney Portal Road to hike the mountain. He said it would have no effect, and cited several misperceptions about the project (e.g., being right next to the Trail—not 9 miles distant) that he’d corrected in discussion on his website which has received over two million hits on many issues.
Beverly Brown, chair of the Board, noticed that the address of SRVA’s office is on Rome Drive, Bishop—“right on Bishop Creek.” Noting this choice location, she wondered aloud about the circumstances “if they had been sued.”
The Board of Supervisors’ decision is final, unless there is another suit. Parties have 30 days to sue. SRVA board member Lynne Almeida faxed the Board a two-page letter the day of the board’s meeting, stating her opposition and referring to SRVA attorney’s legal concerns sent earlier when the appeal was made. The County clerk stated that SRVA’s attorney had phoned and stated that Ms. Almeida was planning to attend; she didn’t. As Walters told an Inyo Register reporter after the board meeting, he wasn’t surprised at the Board vote, but would be surprised if SRVA didn’t sue again—given their history—but that he’s ready come what may.
March 31, 2009: Planning Commission unanimously accepts the Portal Preserve’s EIR and REIR
On March 25 the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to accept the Portal Preserve’s Environmental Impact Report—the original EIR and a subsequently Recirculated EIR. The REIR was necessary because of an Appeals Court order that an inadequate description of BLM land exchange must be addressed. Where there were less than 2 paragraphs, now there are almost 200 pages.
Four of the five commissioners expressed strong support, citing the extensive environmental mitigation incorporated into the project, and the minimal visual impact of the planned 27-residence subdivision. Developer Walters thanked the Planning Department staff for their effective work over the 4 years since the Commission first voted for the project. Five community persons spoke for the project, and no one spoke in opposition. No officers of the suing SRVA were in attendance, although their website indicated a plan to attend. One Lone Pine member of SRVA attended but did not speak. Anyone has 15 days following the Commission vote to appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors. We anticipate an appeal.
December 31, 2008
We are not making rapid progress, but it’s steady and methodical nonetheless. As we reported, SRVA responded to the Recirculated EIR, and we and the County decided to have two additional studies done, just to be on the safe side. One was a global warming study of our subdivision site (there is no problem), and the other was a development feasibility study of a parcel of BLM land near Bishop that SRVA said we should swap for (it’s infeasible, as the original REIR had asserted).
But due to this new information, the County decided that the supplemented REIR document should be circulated again. The new 45-day period began early this month, and it ends on January 21. This most recent REIR should go before the Planning Commission at its February 25 meeting. We anticipate another vote of approval, perhaps mirroring the unanimous vote of this Commission four years ago. Of course, we will keep you informed. Of chief importance will be whether SRVA chooses to fight this project before the Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors.
October 6, 2008
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.
December 31, 2007
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 argument 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. |
