Court delays Squaw’s ambitious expansion
A controversial proposal to build a new ski village, hotel and water park at Squaw Valley ski resort in North Lake Tahoe hit a snag this week.
On Tuesday, a state appeals court in Sacramento issued a pair of rulings sure to delay the project, which has been in the works for a decade.
The company that owns Squaw Valley and its neighboring resort, Alpine Meadows, wants to build an 85-acre village on Squaw’s mountain property that would include 850 lodging units, housing for up to 300 employees, 300,000 square feet of commercial space, a parking lot and a water park.
Such an addition, combined with a base-to-base gondola currently under construction that will link Squaw and Alpine, would be a major step in transforming the dual ski areas into a year-round megaresort on par with the world’s top ski destinations.
Placer County approved the project in 2016. But it has come under intense scrutiny from Tahoe nonprofit Sierra Watch, which contends that such a development would blight the region’s natural beauty, exacerbate traffic issues on the area’s narrow roadways and constitute a mortal threat to staffers and visitors in the event of a wildfire.
Hoping to block the project, Sierra Watch filed suit, claiming that the county neglected to conduct a proper environmental impact assessment. A lower court ruled in favor of the county in 2018; Sierra Watch later appealed.
One of the new rulings by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento acknowledges key claims of Sierra Watch’s complaint, stating that Placer County’s environmental impact report “never discussed the importance of Lake Tahoe or its current condition” as a region beset with traffic woes and wildfire danger.
The county’s EIR noted that nearby roadways would see an additional 23,842 drive miles on busy days, but didn’t give the public a reasonable opportunity to evaluate such an impact during the planning process, according to one of the court’s Tuesday rulings. The court also said the EIR underestimated the time that would be needed for evacuation of the valley in the event of a fire as well as the impact of construction noise.
The appeals court’s second ruling tags the county for not making pertinent information related to the EIR publicly available during the process, in accordance with the Brown Act, which is designed to promote transparency among local agencies.
Sierra Watch touted the pair of rulings as a victory in the fight to preserve Tahoe’s character.
“The development proposal is not only irresponsible but the approvals of the project were illegal,” said Sierra Watch Executive Director Tom Mooers.
In a statement to The Chronicle, Squaw Valley’s leader acknowledged the setback but indicated that the resort would continue pursuing the development.
“We are disappointed in the decision and do not agree, but we will respect the process,” Dee Byrne, Squaw ValleyAlpine Meadows president and COO, wrote to The Chronicle.
She pointed out that the ruling doesn’t scuttle the proposal outright but instead targets the environmental analysis approved by Placer County.
“We are committed to carrying out a responsible development in the valley … (and) are moving forward and are focused on supplying the additional information that the court requested, much of which is information that already exists,” Byrne wrote.
Placer County said in an email that it was in the process of reviewing the rulings “as well as evaluating next steps.”
The ski resort could appeal to the California Supreme Court. If it opts to push forward with the project as is, it would have to go through the county planning process again, which would include a new EIR.
In the event the project survives legal challenges from Sierra Watch, it is expected to take 25 years to be built.