Friends of Squaw Valley

**tahoe420** · 12-02-2015, 04:19 PM

I'm sure the 10 cross walks in TC have nothing to do with back ups.
And why do we need more people up here anyways? This year
between Christmas and New Years will bring epic traffic jams like
we haven't seen in years. This will be a great selling point for K$L.
Ultimately the big fire will have us rethinking everything once again.

**old goat** · 12-03-2015, 09:00 PM

The question is whether Sierra Watch or any other environmental organization has the cash to take on KSL. The 575K IOV spent on incorporation could have bought a lot of litigation. http://moonshineink.com/news/iov-calls-it-quits
I don't see Truckee suing--the Town is highly adverse to confrontation and litigation and has done a poor job protecting the quality of life and the environment. They're big on going after small folks over minor or nonissues and sucking up to developers with cash.

**TahoeJ** · 12-03-2015, 11:13 PM

I'm pretty damn sure Sierra Watch has plenty of dough for that fight and if not they will raise it. There's no way they don't challenge that village if / when approved, especially after that ghetto draft EIR - we will see what the final version looks like, but still...

**mmmm...pow!** · 12-04-2015, 12:18 AM

The new bypass in TC won't improve traffic. I think the only thing that might improve traffic in the summer is fencing off the sidewalks and putting a pedestrian overpass at Grove St., but that ain't gonna happen. One possible bright spot is that maybe the construction shit show won't be too bad if they put in the bypass before touching Fanny bridge, but the way they do construction around here the project will probably be redone a few times before it's finished. In any case, the volume of cars coming up the West shore and from Truckee/Squaw isn't going to change, and no project is going to fix it. (Except a monorail! Or some cool new trinket shops and a spectacular indoor waterpark to divert traffic the other way) There is the argument for better emergency vehicle access in case of a large disaster, but if it's a major fire people will probably just be burnt alive in their cars. Hopefully it doesn't backfire as bad as the KB project. I initially thought that was a good idea, but this past summer traffic backups were ridiculous on a scale that hasn't been seen before. Sure looks nice, though!
As far as IOV, I kinda wanted to see it succeed, and definitely think it was feasable, but I don't know how much effect it would have countering Squaw's shennanigans, though I'm not sure how Placer County could ever approve a project that the community is so strongly against (oh, wait, yes I can $).

**LightRanger** · 12-04-2015, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I'm pretty damn sure Sierra Watch has plenty of dough for that fight and if not they will raise it. There's no way they don't challenge that village if / when approved, especially after that ghetto draft EIR - we will see what the final version looks like, but still...

Yep. Not like Martis didn't have deep pockets behind it.

Judge Newsom used to be on the Board, IIRC. Just checked again and noticed Dr. Robb as a new addition. I think Shute Mihaly probably gave them a good rate on the Martis litigation.

**mcski** · 12-05-2015, 10:55 AM

I'm a little surprised there is not more push back on the Village from lake based business interests. It's bound to pull even more money away from the towns and business around the lake and they have been getting hit hard for a long time.

**FriendsofSV** · 12-09-2015, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by mcski

I'm a little surprised there is not more push back on the Village from lake based business interests. It's bound to pull even more money away from the towns and business around the lake and they have been getting hit hard for a long time.

A letter from over 40 local businesses and non-profit organizations was just presented to the Placer County Board of Directors asking "to reject KSL’s proposed development and, instead, encourage landowners and the community to work together to create a blueprint that makes sense for Squaw, Tahoe, and beyond.”

Here is the full letter

http://keepsquawtrue.org/wp-content/...r-BOS-Dec8.pdf

**tahoe420** · 12-27-2015, 10:30 AM

It was nice to see the K$L protesters in front of the OV post offive this morning.
Before 7am and only 4 degrees. The Soul of Skiing does live here, and it has
nothing to do with a greedy development company and cheesy CEO.

**mmmm...pow!** · 12-27-2015, 01:21 PM

^^^Wish I would have seen that, Is this gonna be an all day thing? Not many people are gonna see t at 7am

**old goat** · 12-27-2015, 08:56 PM

Today 89 backed up for miles in both directions due to people entering Squaw with stop and go traffic on Squaw road. It'll be interesting when most of the easy to access surface parking is gone and people are trying to manuever into underground parking, paying to park etc. KSL should not be allowed to develop one unit until they come up with a traffic management/mass transit plan, pay for it and implement it. All of it should be in place before a shovel turns dirt. Squaw should not be allowed to disrupt traffic in the whole North Tahoe area. Not everyone on 89 is heading for Squaw or Alpine.

**54-46** · 12-27-2015, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by old goat

Today 89 backed up for miles in both directions due to people entering Squaw with stop and go traffic on Squaw road. It'll be interesting when most of the easy to access surface parking is gone and people are trying to manuever into underground parking, paying to park etc. KSL should not be allowed to develop one unit until they come up with a traffic management/mass transit plan, pay for it and implement it. All of it should be in place before a shovel turns dirt. Squaw should not be allowed to disrupt traffic in the whole North Tahoe area. Not everyone on 89 is heading for Squaw or Alpine.

Agree.

Did they have two lanes set up to go into Squaw and still create the backup?

**old goat** · 12-28-2015, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by 54-46

Agree.

Did they have two lanes set up to go into Squaw and still create the backup?

The had two lanes set up for 50yards so cars coming from the north could turn in while cars coming from the south had a green left turn arrow, but after 50 yards the lines merged. I'm not sure if they had enough room to run two lanes, given the recent snow. I didn't notice if they've cut back the berms witha rotary plow on SV rd.

**tahoe420** · 12-28-2015, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by old goat

Today 89 backed up for miles in both directions due to people entering Squaw with stop and go traffic on Squaw road. It'll be interesting when most of the easy to access surface parking is gone and people are trying to manuever into underground parking, paying to park etc. KSL should not be allowed to develop one unit until they come up with a traffic management/mass transit plan, pay for it and implement it. All of it should be in place before a shovel turns dirt. Squaw should not be allowed to disrupt traffic in the whole North Tahoe area. Not everyone on 89 is heading for Squaw or Alpine.

I agree 100%. I can't wait to hear K$L complain that they have to pay for a traffic study. Then Placer county will pay it for them and fudge the true numbers. It is absolutely crazy how greedy the county is. They will go to the ends of the earth to lick Andy's taint. This fight needs to be taken up a level or two.

**TahoeJ** · 12-28-2015, 10:52 AM

The traffic study was already conducted in the EIR. They conducted the study on like February of 2012 during one of the worst seasons ever during a week when the mountains were pure boilerplate. It was laughable.

But even that showed some issues, so you can imagine what a real study would reveal. That's why I suspect the city of Truckee would likely file suit if they just rubber stamp this thing. It would routinely back-up 89 all the way to 80 and cause friction all over Truckee, including backups along west river.

**old goat** · 02-19-2016, 05:10 PM

Just returned from Alta--an incorporated town of some 380 or so residents--which offers considerably more in public services than Olympic Valley would have offered, including law enforcement (most Olympic Valley services would have continued to be offered by the PSD) and which appears to be quite financially viable, despite having an even more single--business-oriented economy than OV. One can only conclude that Placer County is hopelessly biased in favor of KSL and we have to wonder if contributions or other financial considerations, whether legal or under the table, are behind the bias, or just complete lack of concern for the feelings and quality of life of the residents of eastern Placer (and Nevada) Counties.

**LightRanger** · 02-19-2016, 06:06 PM

For a second I was like "WTF is he talking about?"

And then I realized you meant Alta, UT. Carry on.

**meter-man** · 02-26-2016, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

The traffic study was already conducted in the EIR. They conducted the study on like February of 2012 during one of the worst seasons ever during a week when the mountains were pure boilerplate. It was laughable.

If that's right, that does not accurately describe the baseline conditions (the EIR must describe the "baseline"; i.e., the conditions as they exist at the time of the project), and the CEQA approval would get thrown out in court on that basis alone.

Anyway, I came here to ask a question, and the above quote is part of the answer. Question is: why is traffic so f'd on 89 this year? Even on days when there's no fresh snow, and when you wouldn't think the traffic would be bad, the traffic from Truckee has been just horrific. Was it like this on the down days of the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons? I don't remember it that way. Is the new Alpine traffic light screwing things up? Something else?

**TahoeJ** · 02-26-2016, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by meter-man

If that's right, that does not accurately describe the baseline conditions (the EIR must describe the "baseline"; i.e., the conditions as they exist at the time of the project), and the CEQA approval would get thrown out in court on that basis alone.

Anyway, I came here to ask a question, and the above quote is part of the answer. Question is: why is traffic so f'd on 89 this year? Even on days when there's no fresh snow, and when you wouldn't think the traffic would be bad, the traffic from Truckee has been just horrific. Was it like this on the down days of the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons? I don't remember it that way. Is the new Alpine traffic light screwing things up? Something else?

It's just the draft EIR and I'm sure it will be amended. I posted a comment specifically pointing out the traffic section flaws (and others) and I think Sierra Watch covered it as well in their massive comment document.

I think the traffic on 89 this year is worse because of pent up demand from a bunch of bay area skiers who didn't go at all for the last 3-4 years. Plus El Nino hype. They don't care about powder so much as a good base, which is dumb since most of them barely leave the groomers anyway, but none-the-less.

Whatever the case, and as much as it sucks to deal with, it's been a nice demonstration of how there simply isn't the infrastructure to support a giant village. 89 needs to be widened even as things currently stand.

**bodywhomper** · 02-26-2016, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

The traffic study was already conducted in the EIR. They conducted the study on like February of 2012 during one of the worst seasons ever during a week when the mountains were pure boilerplate.

Originally Posted by meter-man

If that's right, that does not accurately describe the baseline conditions (the EIR must describe the "baseline"; i.e., the conditions as they exist at the time of the project), and the CEQA approval would get thrown out in court on that basis alone.

The revised NOP was published in 2014. I believe the baseline traffic should have been during 2014. Also, likely that the traffic baseline was not appropriately counted for given the seasonal and weekend-based traffic variations in the area.

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

It's just the draft EIR and I'm sure it will be amended. I posted a comment specifically pointing out the traffic section flaws (and others) and I think Sierra Watch covered it as well in their massive comment document.

I think you misunderstand "draft" in the context of a "Draft EIR". If their baseline was screwed up, they'll likely need to revise and recirculate the "Draft EIR". At least that's the argument/position that opposition should take.

**TahoeJ** · 02-26-2016, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

I think you misunderstand "draft" in the context of a "Draft EIR". If their baseline was screwed up, they'll likely need to revise and recirculate the "Draft EIR". At least that's the argument/position that opposition should take.

Yes, that's what I mean. There are several other issues that are similar, it's such a flawed document.

**old goat** · 02-26-2016, 11:48 PM

Part of the traffic problem this year has been that on weekends Squaw hasn't been running two lanes in in the morning as they have in years past. I'm sure KSL will make the argument that the village will make traffic better by having people staying in the village instead of at Tahoe and in Truckee--they're probably keeping the second lane closed to enourage traffic jams and making the point.

**meter-man** · 10-25-2017, 09:52 AM

What's the deal these days? Anyone got details? Saw this in a related article:

Editor’s Note: Squaw Valley is currently embroiled in two court proceedings: Sierra Watch is suing Placer County and Squaw Valley for violation of the Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings regarding local legislation. The second is a suit by Sierra Watch stating that Placer County’s approval of the project wasn’t in line with the California Environmental Quality Act. Both cases are scheduled to be heard in March.

http://www.theinertia.com/mountain/d...t-controversy/

**old goat** · 10-25-2017, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by meter-man

What's the deal these days? Anyone got details? Saw this in a related article:

Editor’s Note: Squaw Valley is currently embroiled in two court proceedings: Sierra Watch is suing Placer County and Squaw Valley for violation of the Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings regarding local legislation. The second is a suit by Sierra Watch stating that Placer County’s approval of the project wasn’t in line with the California Environmental Quality Act. Both cases are scheduled to be heard in March.

http://www.theinertia.com/mountain/d...t-controversy/

what surprises you? this is all very old news. suggest you search for info on the Moonshine Ink website--there's far more detail than can be explained in a forum post. But to put it in a nutshell--the CA AG found that the the SV development proposal CEQA analysis was way out of compliance, but SV and the AV office cut a private deal to approve the report in return from a 400K donation by SV to the clean air fund. That private deal violated the Brown Act, which requires that deals like that require public notice, comment, and participation. Hence the lawsuits--over the deal and over Placer County approving a project with severe environmental impacts--mainly traffic.