Friends of Squaw Valley

[Jim S]

Given the impending Drought of Doom, perhaps they could consider changing the indoor activity center from a water center to a sandbox...

lmfao Splat

[FriendsofSV]

Here are the proposed zoning changes for the Village at Squaw Valley

http://friendsofsv.org/wp-content/up...uaw-Valley.pdf

[splat]

I'm not very good at reading these sorts of legends and overlays, but I see nothing about a sandbox.
Or day skier parking. Or mass transit.
Would someone interpret exactly what all this might entail?

[old goat]

In order to do their developmen KSL plans to request rezoning of multiple parcels within the valley--this is what the map shows. The map does show parking--the two adjacent purple cross hatched areas in the middle--KSL is requesting the zoning be changed from village commercial to village commercial-parking. Having not read the whole document, I don't know if the changes are from the current zoning or from KSL's previously requested zoning changes. In any case the supes have to approve the requested zoning changes for the development as proposed to go forward. Mass transit would not show up on a zoning map unless a corridor for a train or monorail or spaceport was being requested. As far as the sandbox, the entire state of California is currently zoned sandbox.

[LightRanger]

Pretty sure the cross-hatching is new zoning from the old KSL plan. I seem to recall that from reading the text of the changes to the plan when it came out in December.

But I was getting a headache reading it earlier too. I'd really like to look at a big printed copy to help visualize it. It's hard to see on a screen.

[old goat]

I'm guessing--and I do mean guessing--that the zoning is a formality--although it's necessary paperwork as far as KSL and the county are concerned. I'm assuming that if the plan is approved the zoning required will be approved as a matter of course.

[LightRanger]

Yeah. As long as it's consistent with the plan, it's a formality.

[epicski]

My 2c:

The doct says 10 storeys high in places but I thought KSL said it was 7 at most. Is the doc wrong? I'm happy with the 3 storeys they promised us.

And the doc says there's 541 carspaces at the employee housing complex, but I thought KSL ssaid there's 1000 car spaces. I wonder if the doct has fudged figures or if KSL backflipped.

The number of parking spaces feels right - I didn't pul out my calculator. And I don't give a toss if they put boomgates down and charge day trippers because I get free access as part of our discussions.

I can't see any reference to why geary said there's not enough water whilst KSL and water board people - with live reads at wells - said there's plenty. I'd still like answers, and an audit. I want to know what the klive readings said and if anyone played with data to distort it.

Is there enough water or is someone playing games?

There's the 8 mile pipe idea + drainage systems + roof melt systems hooked in to existing piping (which I thought leaked 25%).

There is mass transit as a hub if you look. There's a big arrow.

The $7.5m of bus metal has gone alog with the insane $290 bus seats. The subsidies died, eople jumped off committees, and counties stopped writing checks: and this and other ffactors helped free up car spaces and bring in podium parking structures. But will it free?

Buildings are spaced further apart like I suggested.

There's set backs and roads as KSL agreed and there's more agreed issues on a macro and micro scale.

I'd like to see the soul/community programs built into the bricks. At least the employee hoiusing looks like the design pics I gave them.

I'm still troubled by 'hints' about the contractual set up that underpins their sales/management modelling.

I'm still troubled by Geary's cop-out of fire hydrants on the hwy only and I'm not impressed with scant regard given to a few things.

I can see why FoSV's chair was surprised with the reductions and layout.

I took pics when I was there of houses near the bridges looking towards the slopes: I think they'll lose views. But they haven't had levels shaved off like others achieved. Maybe they're hoping they can roll the dice with enviro groups and get a better outcome.

Overall it addresses a lot of things the designers 'overlooked' in the first sets of real estate idiocy but KSL then listened a lot to win/win compromises and so I can see why Chevis said 90% of the problems are resolved.

[epicski]

I'm guessing--and I do mean guessing--that the zoning is a formality--although it's necessary paperwork as far as KSL and the county are concerned. I'm assuming that if the plan is approved the zoning required will be approved as a matter of course.

The SVRd is a Scenic Road so re-zoning may be necesary to block views with buildings like 8 houses at the Stables (that FOSV's Chair thinks could be Wetlands except its not) and blocked with KSL's original condos. Hence, I suspect that's partly why the open air carpark is b/w the road and the latest buildings, ie improving the view from the road, is needed to change the zoning to conservation-carparking. Other zoning changes are needed for commeercial operations like condo hotels in residential areas and for a transportation hub near the Cable Car.

It looks like the condos will be designed as lock-offs so owners, via KSL no doubt as manager for a fee, can rent one or both halfs their apartment to the public. That will frighten landlords in the valley and beyond who make a dollar from tired old places.

The Wet Amenity, and ice rink, is of course an attraction that they hope will grow visitation in green season and low tide seasons. I like the idea if its designed well (ie not like the dinosaur ride in plasric forests in disneyland) but its an idea that hasn't worked in 50 years anywhere I know long term - but it works short term for the realtor-developer who's selling Wow factor. Then one day the complex is bulldozed and turned into carparks or a bar.

[LightRanger]

I can't see any reference to why geary said there's not enough water whilst KSL and water board people - with live reads at wells - said there's plenty. I'd still like answers, and an audit. I want to know what the klive readings said and if anyone played with data to distort it.

Is there enough water or is someone playing games?

Director Poulsen thanked Aleta Drake for her service and said she will be greatly missed. He commented on the Moonshine Ink article about the District’s redundant water supply project and possible conveyance of water from Martis Valley. It seemed that the article brought forth negative rather than positive impacts. He said in the article, Mr. Geary states there is water for only 100 more residences and he has been questioned about this figure. Director Wilcox said that figure was based on an older study based on the District’s existing well field capacity not the aquifer’s capacity. President Cox said this may mislead readers and suggested Mr. Geary contact Moonshine Ink to clarify this.

http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/12-17-...ialMinutes.pdf

That actually makes sense. The aquifer may have a higher safe yield (e.g. the amount you can sustainably pump out of it every year) than the District's wells have capacity to pump. But Geary sure screwed the pooch with that comment because that was probably the biggest single takeaway from the MoonshineInk article. The WSA, which supposedly is back on track and we should see sometime in the next few months, will clarify this.

Note: My dad worked for the geotechnical firm that did the foundations for most/all of the current village in 2000-2001. He said there was so much water in that aquifer than they were having a lot of trouble sinking the foundations. They were literally floating out because of the water pressure. Of course, that doesn't mean it's of good quality, and the "redundancy" issue isn't just something they're making up. It's pretty standard for water districts to try to find another source so they're not screwed if something happens to the primary.

[epicski]

Thanks for the Minutes - pro town people and my hoa boards and their lawyers were saying 'nah that can't be right' so I gave the story to Moonshine to look into.

[epicski]

http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/12-17-...ialMinutes.pdf
Note: . Of course, that doesn't mean it's of good quality, .

There's been pockets of floating contamination like diesel since the 1970s. The problems were cured with water shipped in by trucks. The Rt Plan adds some extra water storage but how it taps into homes - if at all - isn't explained so how can people comment properly on the nop draft eir.

[LightRanger]

There's been pockets of floating contamination like diesel since the 1970s. The problems were cured with water shipped in by trucks. The Rt Plan adds some extra water storage but how it taps into homes - if at all - isn't explained so how can people comment properly on the nop draft eir.

WSA will explain things like that. It comes out before the Draft EIR. It's incorporated into the EIR and its findings are used as a basis for the EIR, so people can comment on it through the CEQA process. You don't comment on the Notice of Preparation. (See #5, 8, and 9.)

So, for example, if the WSA isn't adequately supported on some issue or another, when they put out the Draft EIR, the public can submit additional evidence that refutes their numbers to which they'll have to respond in the Final EIR.

This explains it in detail: http://www.kmtg.com/node/1292

Re: quality, I'm familiar with it. I know Cushing fought the Regional Board on things for years. I think because of the prior history, the PSD is (understandably, in my opinion) worried about what would happen if there was major future contamination. Trucking water doesn't seem sustainable, but what do I know.

[epicski]

WYou don't comment on the Notice of Preparation. (See #5, 8, and 9.)

I read FOSV on facebook as saying we should comment FoSV wrote: Attention all Squaw Valley Stakeholders, the public comment period starts on 2/21/14 and ends on 3/24/14. Your comments can be emailed to cdraecs@placer.ca.gov. We encourage everyone to get involved and voice your feedback." Are they and the County wrong?

[epicski]

Trucking water doesn't seem sustainable, but what do I know.

. And they piped it from the river but neither trucks, pipes or batjing in Evian is ideal The 8 mile pipe makes sense imo though I'd imagine the people near Truckee will be thinking 'We were conned into amalgamating little water boards under Nstar's PSD and now the the Nstar. Jamaicans and Squaw people are stealing our water'.

[LightRanger]

I read FOSV on facebook as saying we should comment FoSV wrote: Attention all Squaw Valley Stakeholders, the public comment period starts on 2/21/14 and ends on 3/24/14. Your comments can be emailed to cdraecs@placer.ca.gov. We encourage everyone to get involved and voice your feedback." Are they and the County wrong?

Yes and no. You can submit comments, but comments from the general public on the NOP don't have a legal effect in that they aren't required by law to specifically respond to them. The NOP triggers a 30-day period for other public agencies who may be affected by a project to provide comments on issues that they want the Lead Agency (Placer County, in this case) to focus on. More info here: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/l...e_of_Prep.html So, for example, CalDFG may ask the County to consider any water quality impacts on downstream endangered Lahontan Cutthroat or the impact of wetlands development on the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog. (In this case, I'd guess neither of those species will be substantially impacted, but that's just an example.) TDPUD may well put in a comment that says that they're concerned about exporting from Martis. The Truckee River Watermaster may say something about impacts on Truckee River flows via Squaw Creek for flood control. The Town of Truckee may ask them to look at projected regional economic impacts (e.g. taking tourist dollars from Truckee). CalTrans (almost certainly) will ask them to look at traffic impacts on 89. Etc etc etc. That's what's required by law.

So, as a member of the public, you can comment--as in, there's nothing stopping you--but there's no requirement that the Lead Agency respond to your comments. Whereas they are legally required to respond to your comments, specifically, on the Draft EIR. Maybe bodywhomper will chime in here and correct me, but, as far as I know, they're not required to consider comments from the public on the NOP at all. They can if they want to, but they're not required to. As a practical matter too, as you noted on the water hookup issue, there isn't enough information at this point on a lot of things to provide meaningful specific comments simply because of the timing. General comments, sure.

Edit: So here's what this specific NOP says-

All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and
addressed in the Draft EIR. Comments provided in response to the original NOP distributed October 10,
2012 will also be considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. Comments provided previously need not be
repeated.

It's unclear whether they're actually going to specifically respond to comments as they are required to in the Final EIR, or just take them into consideration. I'd assume the latter. Any comments, though, again, don't have any legal effect, although they may have the practical effect of pushing KSL or the County in one direction or the other--as the prior public comments on the NOP may have. Sierra Watch is going to create their administrative record in case they need it down the road, so I'm sure they'll put them in.

. And they piped it from the river but neither trucks, pipes or batjing in Evian is ideal The 8 mile pipe makes sense imo though I'd imagine the people near Truckee will be thinking 'We were conned into amalgamating little water boards under Nstar's PSD and now the the Nstar. Jamaicans and Squaw people are stealing our water'.

Yeah. I'm agnostic on the idea, to be honest. I've read through the MV Groundwater Management Plan and there appears to be more than enough water. I'm 100% sure the other parties with Martis water rights (TDPUD, Northstar CSD, PCWA) are going to be hyper-vigilant about it. The cost is probably the biggest issue, but I don't own property in OV, so that's not an issue to me, personally. As long as there aren't any significant environmental impacts... meh. If they choose to go that direction, it's going to be funny as hell to watch them try to explain to people why it isn't a "water grab"... because to most Northern Californians any kind of water export project, whether it makes sense or not, reminds them of Hetch Hetchy or Chinatown and it's pretty much reflexively bad.

[splat]

Yeah. I'm agnostic on the idea, to be honest. I've read through the MV Groundwater Management Plan and there appears to be more than enough water. I'm 100% sure the other parties with Martis water rights (TDPUD, Northstar CSD, PCWA) are going to be hyper-vigilant about it. The cost is probably the biggest issue, but I don't own property in OV, so that's not an issue to me, personally. As long as there aren't any significant environmental impacts... meh. If they choose to go that direction, it's going to be funny as hell to watch them try to explain to people why it isn't a "water grab"... because to most Northern Californians any kind of water export project, whether it makes sense or not, reminds them of Hetch Hetchy or Chinatown and it's pretty much reflexively bad.

The intrinsic value of water and the focal point of that many more acre feet getting alotted from the water table can't be understated. Down in the desert it sometimes seems that when a project needs water, a miraculous other source appears that adds x amount of acre feet in sellable water rights. Couple more years like this, with no run off, Tahoe dropping way below the rim, ditches and the river turning to trickles, sources could start drying up. What is the projected potential effect of something like that in the water tables up there?

[LightRanger]

The intrinsic value of water and the focal point of that many more acre feet getting alotted from the water table can't be understated. Down in the desert it sometimes seems that when a project needs water, a miraculous other source appears that adds x amount of acre feet in sellable water rights. Couple more years like this, with no run off, Tahoe dropping way below the rim, ditches and the river turning to trickles, sources could start drying up. What is the projected potential effect of something like that in the water tables up there?

I hear you. It's a bigass aquifer though. Check pages 2-27 and 2-28 of the GMP: http://www.martisvalleygmp.org/index...eyGMPFinal.pdf

The PRMS is modeled for the years 1983 to 2011 with annual recharge estimates ranging from 12,143 ac-ft/yr (dry year) to 56,792 ac-ft/yr (wet year), with an average annual recharge estimate of 32,745 ac-ft/yr. Because annual precipitation drives recharge, the PRMS simulated recharge varies from year to year. DRI included in its Technical Note annual recharge efficiency, or the ratio of annual recharge to annual precipitation. For the MVGB, the calculated annual recharge efficiency is 18-26%. Figure 2-18 shows the average annual groundwater recharge as simulated by the PRMS model, for a period of record from 1983 to 2011. Figure 2-19 shows the annual recharge for the year 1988, a dry year. Figure 2-20 shows the annual recharge for the year 1995, a wet year.

So they model the safe yield in the GMP based on dry and wet scenarios on that end. The WSA for the Squaw project has to go through a range of scenarios on that end as well--including severe droughts like the one we're in.

Math from the GMP-
32,745 acre-feet (average annual recharge of the aquifer)
-approx. 21,000 acre-feet (estimated demand at "buildout," with 9,341 acre-feet of current usage)
=
11,745 acre-feet of excess.

That's a LOT of "excess" water, considering the population numbers and potential development we're talking about. The commonly-accepted number is that one acre-foot is enough to supply two average families of four for a year. The Squaw project wouldn't draw even close to that amount.

The other thing is that "buildout" is a fuzzy-as-fuck concept. I mean, can you imagine more than doubling the current development that draws from that aquifer? I can't. Assuming buildout is even reached, that maximum draw on the aquifer wouldn't be for another... 50 years? And even then, as noted above, there's almost 12,000 AFA, on average, to spare.

The final thing is--groundwater in CA isn't regulated. It's fucked, but it's true. So, absent an adjudication of groundwater rights by the court (a process which can take, literally, decades) people can pump as much as they want until their neighbor(s) sues them for lowering their well. So, from a legal standpoint, there's not much anybody can do about it if somebody overlying Martis decides to sell water to Squaw--assuming they get through the CEQA process on it. That's kind of a sidenote to your point though.

Again, I totally hear you on the effects of lowering an aquifer. They'd have to study all of those impacts before they started pumping. At this point, I don't know what they are, if there are any effects. For that matter, they may even need to do another EIR for a potential export project, if that's what they go with. Maybe they could tier off the development EIR, but I'd think they'd have to do a whole new one. So we'd get to see before they went through with it. But I don't see this as being like the Vegas pipeline or the Cadiz Project. There's a comparatively a lot more water in Martis compared to the potential development drawing from it.

But, like I said, just on the numbers, there's plenty of water.

[epicski]

Thanks for that. At one stage Geary said "the jury's still out" on the water but where are they holding the grand jury? I'd love to question some people who were really irrate over a few drinks when the 8 mile pipe story broke coz it seems people in Truckee didn't know or suspect things. Are you sure the TDPUD et al are vigilant? I see people asleep at the wheel or wilfully blind or wilfully mute.

[epicski]

MoonshineInk just posted on facebook:

"Have something to say about the proposed Squaw Valley village project? Now's your (second) chance. The revised Squaw Valley Notice of Preparation is available for public comment until March 24. http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/SpecificPlans/VillageAtSquawValley/Squaw%20Revised%20NOP%202-20-14_smaller%20file.pdf"

Im not au fait with the process but I can't see lots of ' I think its too big' letters will amount to anything. I can't even see FOSV drafting up a letter from experts that the population co-sign in support.

[old goat]

Much as I hate to say it, from a practical (though not legal) standpoint--water is not an issue. By the time the Northern Sierra runs out of water from its lakes and acquifers, the skiing will have dried and melted away, all the trees will have burned down, and all the Californians who recreate at Tahoe and support the locals will have decamped to refugee camps in Labrador or wherever else it's cool and wet enough to live, along with the locals.

On a less gloomy note--KSL talks a big game about mass transit but the north shore shuttle shut down early, I guess due to lack of ridership.

[LightRanger]

I'd love to question some people who were really irrate over a few drinks when the 8 mile pipe story broke coz it seems people in Truckee didn't know or suspect things. Are you sure the TDPUD et al are vigilant? I see people asleep at the wheel or wilfully blind or wilfully mute.

Pretty darn sure. They almost certainly got the NOP and I'm sure their staff read that Moonshine Ink article. I'd guess they probably knew about it a long time ago too. Engineers know what neighboring water districts are doing. Not to mention the fact that SVPSD would have to either buy capacity in TDPUD's distribution system directly to move the water, or put down a bigass pipeline through their service area--which is not exactly discrete. Water people are a little bit more attuned to that kind of stuff than your average citizens. If you're really curious, call up their PR department and ask. Or try to have Moonshine run a follow-up. You wouldn't necessarily hear anything from them because... why would they say anything to the media about it? If they have any concerns, they'll voice them through the administrative process. They'd only care if it impacted their operations. But as we've been discussing, it doesn't look like it will. Like I said, the only real issue I see with it is the cost. And that's only an issue to ratepayers in OV.

Much as I hate to say it, from a practical (though not legal) standpoint--water is not an issue. By the time the Northern Sierra runs out of water from its lakes and acquifers, the skiing will have dried and melted away, all the trees will have burned down, and all the Californians who recreate at Tahoe and support the locals will have decamped to refugee camps in Labrador or wherever else it's cool and wet enough to live, along with the locals.

On a less gloomy note--KSL talks a big game about mass transit but the north shore shuttle shut down early, I guess due to lack of ridership.

Yep. Lots of water.

How long was that shuttle running for? Did its service life coincide with our shitty snow years? That's something I know nothing about because I've never had any personal use for it.

[epicski]

On a less gloomy note--KSL talks a big game about mass transit but the north shore shuttle shut down early, I guess due to lack of ridership.

Washoe refused to pay $350k a year in subsidies, some at Placer weren't happy, Nstar shareholders wondered about helping SV build massive parking for condo-owners only, Hyatt at Incline refused to pay subsidies, and Homewood chipped in only $2500. It got out the bus was costing up to $290.14 to run for lousy 3500 people out of 90,000 planes a year. Amador Buses weren't happy with being cut free. Hertz et al weren't enthused. People on payrolls resigned from committees just before proverbial stuff hit the fan. The bus crashed off a fiscal cliff. Then sites for parking and employee housing and buses came up as a life line as other legal issues helped some people decide that open air parking would work commercially as well as legally/planning-wise. I think there was talk about the Political Fairness Commission looking at CA-NV cross border dealings using servers on US Soil or something as the PFC charged unlicensed lobbyists. Anyway the carparking for Bay Area Escalades only wasn't going to be, and lo and behold even Ed Heneveld was pleasantly surprised by the scaled back plans. And some people won all sorts of reasonable concessions over the latter half of 2013 as the pro-town folk weren't invited to meetings. And KSL decided that its cheaper and better to offer their guests - ie those who fly in - a resort car for occassional travel to see the Total Tahoe Experience that foreigners and interstaters want to see without paying 'foreigner car insurance' that costs as much as the rental. That's my theory why the bus crashed off the fiscal ravine and why KSL listened, but what would I know.

[epicski]

Pretty darn sure. They almost certainly got the NOP and I'm sure their staff read that Moonshine Ink article. I'd guess they probably knew about it a long time ago too. Engineers know what neighboring water districts are doing. Not to mention the fact that SVPSD would have to either buy capacity in TDPUD's distribution system directly to move the water, or put down a bigass pipeline through their service area--which is not exactly discrete. Water people are a little bit more attuned to that kind of stuff than your average citizens. If you're really curious, call up their PR department and ask. Or try to have Moonshine run a follow-up. You wouldn't necessarily hear anything from them because... why would they say anything to the media about it? If they have any concerns, they'll voice them through the administrative process. They'd only care if it impacted their operations. But as we've been discussing, it doesn't look like it will. Like I said, the only real issue I see with it is the cost. And that's only an issue to ratepayers in OV.



Yep. Lots of water.

How long was that shuttle running for? Did its service life coincide with our shitty snow years? That's something I know nothing about because I've never had any personal use for it.

You'd be surprised that some water directors and wannebe politicians and managers living in the valley reputedly thought the pipe etc was fictional nonsense despite all the talks with gs, power and other entities. (We got concessions when we asked about stuff). You should've heard what an ex truckee politican said in a heated exchange when the story broke: its as if politicians and water people outside an inner circle weren't aware or didn't notice. And I haven't heard Sierra Watch say 'yeah we tried to get a no 8 mile pipe clause in our settlement in court'. All I know is that when it was raised with my places' manager, board and lawyers, it was true and they negotiated what they think is a fair win/win deal with KSL. Others who should know more didn't seem to know much. (Even a local historian wondered 'what's an IOV' while museum people wondered why their plans for sites went askew despite paying $220,000 to an expert to select a site ...possibly over a big pipe.

The joint share system of TART, Nightrider and other services (less Amador who were cut out) lasted maybe 6 months. Patronage was poor ie kids going to school, some employees living as far away as Dolalr Point and Kings Beach: ie not snow related. Besides vistation stats show there weren't a huge drop in flight seats or stays. Low patronage was attributed to poor marketing: that's like blaming the intern. I've done a bit with buses-meet-planes and design of mass transit hubs and peak-to-peak gondolas so I wasn't surprised they dumped ideas to buy $7.5m of metal and run it at $25, $55, $165 and $290.14 per occupied seat depending on the route. I wasn't surprise when Auditors started to ask for KPIs. It's a shame it crashed - but look out for the 'chicanes' and wide bike lanes that the greenie lycraclad riders will foist on tahoe - but it was unviable and, frankly, it looked like it was calculated so KSL could say "Hey we can build on every sq foot coz the plebs and fly-in tourists will catch buses like they do in Co. (There was talk about light rail but that seems to have died).

Viz a viz the cost of the pipe and who pays, a) I bet there's grants: there were talks when I was at the Reno Primary discussion group ages ago 2/. there'll probably be infrastructure levies built into power rates, 3/. and would IOV Town have any say about things run up a road classed as a Scenic Rd and into streets under the side roads? I know KSL were great to deal with on some road and pipe things that suited our board management, but others seem blissfully unaware of what's going on. Maybe they hope enviro groups can shave - as happened in Homewood - a 13 residences out of a $400m development. That's not a win imo. I'd rather sit down with KSL and work out a few things like they've done eg shaving levels and adding set backs so our view isn't impeded as much as it would've been.

[epicski]

That's a LOT of "excess" water, considering the population numbers and potential development we're talking about. The commonly-accepted number is that one acre-foot is enough to supply two average families of four for a year. The Squaw project wouldn't draw even close to that amount.


Again, I totally hear you on the effects of lowering an aquifer.

Why not top up the aquifer like in arid countries and cities like Sydney, or like Bear Mtn in Pen is doing? Put greywater through a purifer and pump in INTO the aquifer when its low.