"VIRTUAL OPEN SPACE" ON DONNER SUMMIT

In Royal Gorge LLC's (RG) latest submissions to Placer County, they claim that they will be preserving an amazing 85 percent of land in open space. Now, when the average person thinks of open space, they think of large, contiguous areas of land, on which people may hike, play frisbee, fly a kite, maybe have a picnic.  Open space also brings to mind untouched natural areas that, even if not accessible to people, preserve forests, native plants, watersheds and views, and also provide feeding and nesting grounds, and migratory passage for wildlife. 

RG, however, defines open space in a much wider manner.  Broadly stated, if it isn't  a paved surface, or a building, it's calculated as open space in their proposed developments.

Let's start with Lake Camp. In Lake Camp, RG has created a new concept- "virtual open space." In order to pad their open space numbers, they're counting as open all private land that isn't covered by a driveway or a building- they'll impose a condition that neither fences nor unnatural landscapes are allowed, and ta-da- they claim space between buildings will "read" as open space. By this measure, all of our land between cabins in Serene Lakes is open space too!  Just don't try to take a stroll around the "virtual open space" at Lake Camp, as it's all really private property- and probably not great wildlife habitat either, unless you're a jay or a squirrel.

RG is also counting East and West Lakes, their water impoundments as open space.  Well, they might  look open, but in the process of their construction forested areas will be clearcut, dynamited, and drowned, causing habitat loss to many native animals, possibly including Pacific Fishers.  I'd call this "not quite clear on the concept" open space- destroying natural beauty to build utilitarian water impoundments- but hey, they need somewhere to put all that water that used to keep Serena Creek flowing.

Here's the real Lake Camp Math. RG claims they're "preserving" 73% of Lake Camp as open space. Subtract the area used for their reservoirs, subtract the space between houses (private property) and the real open space area is only 54%- that's if they, or future buyers don't build something on it later! Trust them.

For Summit Camp, RG touts an amazing 88% open space. To get this number, they throw in a 120 acre parcel over near Sugar Bowl that has as little to do with their Summit Camp development as does their Negro Canyon parcels. They also use the "virtual open space" ploy again, counting areas of private lots not covered by driveway or building, and they neglect to include the 5 acres required for the roads serving the area. The real open space number? 72%

Ski Camp is a marvel of ersatz open space calculations.  First, RG counts ski runs as open space, which considering the clearcutting, and general unsightliness of runs and lifts off season, is Alpine chutzpah. Then, they compound their chutzpah by actually including the Serene Lakes' lake bottom as open space too- does this explain why RG has been so resistant to selling the lake bottom to SLCWD? So, when you subtract all the spurious bits of open space (including the space between buildings), RG's claim of 85% open space in Ski Camp plummets to 61%.

Specious percentages aside,  what's important about genuine open space is that it is meant to either provide access to people, or to protect fragile areas, and provide a sense of, you guessed it, openess. Small pieces of private land between buildings, clearcut ski runs, and lake bottoms (it's not even in Ski Camp) do not fit any real-life definitions of open space. It's "virtual open space", all part of a "Conservation Community" that conserves nothing. Oh, and that real open space?  Funny thing- it's not buildable.