The following message was posted to the Sierra Club’s forum. It should be noted that the Sierra Club does not ‘officiallly’ endorse this Sierra Club Activist Project called ‘ Stop Squaw Valley Over development’.

Stop Squaw Valley Over Development

Posted by The Sierra Club 

Squaw Valley is proposing a new village development beyond existing village. They are proposing quadrupling the amount of beds to ‘sustain’ a profitable, year round resort. It will irreversibly harm current aquifer water tables by over consumption. It will cause environmental degradation to a fragile, alpine ecosystem. It will create a huge carbon footprint due to construction. It will create major traffic congestion problems on an inadequate road system. It will coincide with an already oversized similar development project at Homewood Mountain Resort along Lake Tahoe’s west shore, adding to an already congested traffic corridor. Let’s prevent this overdevelopment from harming this historical, beautiful, high sierra environment more than has been already. Squaw Valley Ski are in California, was sold to KSL Resorts, a division of KSL Capital partners sometime in 2010. KSL’s main purpose is to build out the current parking area owned by KSL with luxury condominiums, town homes and hotel rooms. Some of these structures proposed to be built are 10 stories high. Double the height of the current buildings in the Village at Squaw. These structures will be very harmful to the environment in many environmental ways. Their overall carbon footprint to construct and their enormous requirements of potable water that will be taken from an already compromised aquifer and scarce water resources. The traffic issues concerning congestion and gridlock are not being properly addressed by the developers, planners and permitting agency of Placer County. There is no current contingency plan for traffic mitigation, nor emergency service plan during peak times and inclement weather. The plans call for subterranean excavation for underground parking and infrastructure. This will not fall within proper setback limits for the aquifer which provides potable water for 2 service districts. KSL plans to raise the grade of the proposed site plan by using transported fill. This will add to the already huge carbon footprint and traffic congestion. KSL has admitted it will sell the entire resort property that it now owns in Squaw Valley after completion of this development project. This project is not necessary for accommodating visitors to the Tahoe Truckee area as there is already a surplus of luxury condominiums and hotel beds in the ski resort at Squaw which currently cannot be filled. This currently proposed KSL project is a classic example of corporate greed and leveraged buyouts which has proven to not be good for the environment. Please take some time to learn about KSL Resorts and KSL Capital Partners and their plans to over develop Squaw Valley. We need to stop this project from happening. The grim consequences will be a more polluted environment, extreme pressure on scarce water supplies, greater traffic congestion and air pollution and visual pollution of high rise hotel condominium structures set against the scenery of the Sierra Crest. Proposed plan map

Sign up for news and our top posts


  1. coyo says:

    damn yo, i hope sierra club can get some footing with stopping the squad build up

  2. Alpine says:

    Classic case of pump and dump development. No one that cared about Squaw Valley would ever do this. Not sure how Andy Worthless can look in the mirror every morning – ah that’s right he isn’t. He’s looking at his wallet. Must be proud of himself.

    • You is a damn fool says:

      This is not Andy’s decision. He is just the head of the local branch, he is overseeing what is happening. He has done many good things for the environment. So you wanna be locals can quit beating around the bus and say what is really bothering you. > You don’t want more development because it will bring more people and perhaps destroy that feeling that squaw once gave you.

      There are issues that go along with this development; run off, water clarity, more cars, more yards, more pets.

      Everyone deep down wants better lifts, lower prices on housing and ski related costs, but this is a business and if you haven’t noticed business is not good.

      • Professor says:

        Shut your worthless hole.

      • I'm a type 3+ says:

        This might not be Andy’s decision, but he has said many times that he thinks drastic real estate expansion is what squaw needs. I’m sure he has leverage in what is purposed, he is KSL’s man with ski resort experience. Also, no one forced him to take this job, he knew full well what KSL would do when they bought the place; your job is part of who you are as a person.

  3. SkierMan says:

    fuck you Andy Wirthless and KSL. Great job Sierra Club, let me now how I can help out

  4. Heckler says:

    Alex must be pissing all over us right now.

  5. Linda says:

    Andy Wirthless~~~Alex is pissing on you from heaven~~~a longtime local~~~bring back the old days at Alpine~~~before, Powdr etc…..

    • steve says:

      You can’t live in the past. Perhaps it’s time to move forward or die.

      • Roots says:

        Lets move forward with Alex’s vision as a pioneer and not with KSL and Andy Wirth as greedy money loving bankers. Then we will die with integrity and not as total Sell-Out’s.

      • Andy H says:

        Being against this plan isn’t synonomous with living in the past, it is just smart. There are no do-overs here. Anyone who is on this mountain every day realizes that KSL does not know what they are doing. They are skilled at producing great press releases, sharp (and often misleading) video edits, sound bites. Boy the work that they’ve done sounds so great. But the results are just not there. This is where theory and reality pull away from eachother. The “improvements” that they’ve created have amounted to a hill of nothing. What we need is new unloading zone signs to replace the new ones we had created last year. How about a new logo, or a slogan or a new chair to nowhere. Old squaw had many flaws but oddly none have really been adressed. All development isn’t bad, but this is the wrong team to build our future with.

  6. Ullr says:

    Ullr hates KSL!!

  7. Ski Both says:

    KSL is a development company with lots of money. Lots of money buys you approvals when you can’t get them on your own. Pretty much expected this when they went corporate. Build the condos etc, sell them and make your profit and leave the rest of us with the crap you brought in. Brilliant or so you think you are. Time to sell my house and move after finding my peace here in Tahoe for the last 20 years. I hope between the Sierra Club and Friends of Squaw Valley this is stopped. If you live in Squaw do you want the gray water they want to let you use for irrigation? Then it will flow down Squaw Creek and into the Truckee River that was just named one of the most beautiful rivers. KSL could give a sh*t.

  8. Stand-Up! says:

    This is good news that the Sierra club is involved!

    Please let all readers, pass holders, general public, outdoor enthusiasts, and people opposed to KSL know how to get involved, support the Sierra club, and stop KSL from destroying what we already have in Squaw Valley.

    People that love Squaw Valley will stand up and do what they can to stop KSL (The Dark Side) and save the Valley!

    Any info in the near future will be much appreciated!!!

  9. Abdomnidble Snowman says:

    I am happy about the possibilities of White Wolf and the continued expansion of lifts, terrain, and more ski/snowboard fun, but the unnecessary addition of hundreds of rooms is pretty fuckin stupid if you ask me.
    They have a hard enough time filling all those rooms as is, a water park and roller coaster are not going to help those numbers. Sierra Club is doing a good thing here, and I feel this is just the beginning of a long fight between local people who care about their home, enviroment, and people against worthless people like Andy Wirth and Bill Rock who just care about profits, money, and brown nosing the shit outta their much richer friends.

  10. steve says:

    The entire state of California should be a National Park. What really pisses me off is seeing all that prestine bc snow ruined by ski and snowboard tracks.

    What next?

  11. how can we fight this? says:

    Unofficial/Anyone else, any ideas on how we can contribute to fighting this dev plan? I wouldn’t want to say I sat idle by and watching this happen to the place I love but I’m not sure how to get involved.

  12. EKHID says:

    Hello Everybody,

    UO thanks for picking this up. We started this last spring when the village plans were announced.

    Thanks to Sierra Club for providing the forum for us to begin the process of protection of our open space and environment we call home in and around Squaw.

    There are many complex issues here, from KSL proposing to amend the SV General plans from 1984 and 1994 to increase building heights is the first.
    It can be seen here.

    This is called the Notice of Preparation. They are trying to subvert the original plans to keep any development in Squaw within reason.

    Beware, Andy Wirth, nor Chevis Hosea have our best interests or concerns in mind at all.

    Just look at Wirth’s past track record, 21resorts in 24 years, that my friends is not building Community!! Cut and run more like.

    I urge anyone to become involved any way you can, from joining this Sierra Club project, joining Friends of Squaw Valley on Facebook, btw who are our legs on the ground and doing an excellent job, and to attend meetings about this development project.

    Upcoming meeting this Friday at the Resort @ Squaw Creek with Placer Supervisor Jennifer Montgomery speaking about the project and the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Chevis Hosea Exe VP of Real Estate Development for Squaw will also be there to answer questions.
    Doors/Cocktails 5:00-6:00, Meeting 6:15-7:00
    Hosted by SV Property Owners Association SVPOA
    Free for SV property owners members, $10 donation for non members.

    A project of this size will have negative impacts on all of us for years to come, just imaging the traffic from construction vehicles and workers for one.

    Please attend or become involved anyway you can.

  13. shitbag says:

    you would think there would be specific rules governing construction and water availabilty etc etc, not just cheesy scumbag bidnessmen buying off local politicians

    • Some people,,,,, says:

      yo stupid ass, it’s called the internet, google and the brains to seek out california’s environmental regulations against this kind of stupidity.

      now go back to the bong

      • Wtf says:

        You can do all the Googling you want, but if you think cheesy scumbag businessmen are not buying off local politicians your ignorance is astounding. And the bong comment only cements your idiocy.

    • Alpine says:

      There are rules governing a project like this in order to protect the environment.

      CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.

      No doubt the Sierra Club will advocate following the statutes.
      Doesn’t mean that the politicians can’t make favorable decisions to KSL though.

  14. I'm a type 3+ says:

    We need to run these assholes out of town. Squaw ain’t no family ski resort.

    • wowzers says:

      hate to break it to you bro, but times are a change’n. N* is simply kicking their ass in the making money dept. KSL did not buy Squaw to keep it broke and local. as far as i’m concerned the steeps will still be the steeps, no water park will change that. now, if these dimwits would only replace the Granite lift!!!

      • squallywood says:

        pretty sure they were supposed to have done that over summer…

      • Roots says:

        Think you hit the nail on the head. Squaw is not Northstar and never will be. KSL in not Vail and never will be. KSL is out of there league on this one and no amount of spending will change that. KSL picked the wrong mountains to try to screw up, Everyone knows Northstar is the place for such shenanigans. KSL saw how much Squaw and Alpine skiers loved their mountains and tried to bottle and sell the stoke. What a bunch of corporate morons, defending KSL only makes you suspect too. I hope Vail buys out KSL then there can be resorts for tourist type skiers and mountains for serious skiers. Then everyone can decide where they belong instead of corporations deciding what we need.

        • inside from outside says:

          KSL have ties w/ vail corp.
          give it 10 years and Squaw/ Alpine California with be a new resort owned by vail

  15. Skier says:

    Ski resorts are only built to try to maximise real estate sales

    No surprises here

  16. duder says:

    Placer County Board of Supervisors Chair Jennifer Montgomery

    Senator Ted Gaines, 1st District

    Please contact these representatives and voice your opinion against the size and negative impacts of the proposed Squaw Valley village plan.

  17. tpinwv says:

    The village area needs some improvements to handle the existing traffic and seasonal loads, but this effort needs to be stopped as it is not connected to any reality of tourism and recreation within the valley. KSL is evil!

  18. Jaded local says:

    Lets all be huge ass holes all the time (except amongst ourselves) and try to lower the real estate value and tourist appeal. Oh wait… Naw, I do miss the old “we Scare” motto.

    • MasterBation says:

      you do understand that our our paychecks rely on those tourists.
      no tourists = no pay check for locals
      this also means no ski resorts. those lifts don’t run on raddness.
      get your head out of your asses and embrace the change. get involved in the process if you want to help guide where this project goes.
      ranting on un will not fulfill an act of involvement.

      • Bosco says:

        No tourists does not equal no paychecks. Economies adapt. It’s a vicious cycle. The more businesses grow here, the more tourists are needed to come and support those businesses. If there were fewer businesses, they would be successful and more tourists would not be needed. We need to ask ourselves, when is enough is enough. Greed is the problem, not attracting more gapers.

        • Andy H says:

          People have been getting pay checks for decades without this development. Stop trying to pretend that the ski industry disappears unless there is uber development. Squaw has been a sustainable business for over six decades without development like this. Plenty of tourists will still come even if there is no water park. Why? Because tourists and locals alike could give a rat’s ass about a water park. No one comes to tahoe in the winter for water slides, and in the summer there is well….an enormous natural lake, and a river for rafting. Tourists are smarter than KSL gives them credit for.

  19. Brian says:

    The local economy in the Squaw area has tanked… just like in every other resort town across the nation. Not developing when a developer wants to invest is very bad on many levels. If the developer is defeated, it will economically kill the town… if the developer wins, it’ll create nothing but hostility and resentment which isn’t good either.

    The smart thing to do would be to engage the developers instead of protesting them. Yes, part of developing is to increase the housing prices; but for the fact the Squaw area has had an average drop of an average of 40%+ in property values over the past 5 years, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. Anyone who says different is an idiot. (When home prices in a community go down, the community follows.)

    Maybe the plans written aren’t the best… maybe they can use changing. A 10 story building proposal, imo, is ridiculous. Not addressing traffic or the general concerns of everyone in the community is unacceptable. Instead of fighting about who is right ans who is wrong, a discussion and dialog about how to compromise would be best.

    In order for the mountain resorts to stay open, they, as any business, must maintain a profit. No matter how important you think your business is to the mountain, your business means nothing to the mountain. Locals buying passes are simply icing on the cake; the only reason snow resorts stay in business is because of tourist. If you argue that fact, again, your an idiot.

    Maybe the developers are being too hard charging with their plans; but the idea is to keep Squaw on the map instead of it being one of the resorts that closes up.

    Instead of the tourist from San Fran going to Snowbird, Park City, Aspen, Breckenridge or the like… maybe if Squaw had a facelift they would go to Squaw and spend their money locally instead.

    If developers are blown out of the water, it will hurt the town… because no future investor will want to invest there if they know they can go somewhere else and be wanted instead of being the wanting.

    Opening a dialog and compromising for the greater good of the town would, imo, be the best way to go. Getting heated and pissed of at each other will result in fighting; which would be just a ton of bad negative energy for everyone.

    • Andy H says:

      Or perhaps you could argue that ski community economies have tanked because of the development. Once you’ve replaced full time residents with fractional ownerships, houses that are only utilized for one or two weeks of the year, you are only left with a shell of a community. Oddly, KSL will then turn around a spend tens of milllions on trying to re create their vision of a mountain community.

      Yes resorts need to make money but there are two things to remember, there is making money, and then there is chasing huge profits. You can open a fly fishing shop, because you love to fish, and you can make enough money to support your family, but you won’t make private jet money. Same goes for skiing, you can make money owning a ski resort but it is going to bring the huge returns that private equity requires, if they wanted that kind of money they shouldn’t have bought a ski resort in the first place.

      Second, it’s like a dog chasing it’s tail. The more overhead you create, the harder you need to work to turn a profit. Sometimes the most proffitable businesses are the most simple. Spining lifts costs money, but you can make that money. If you need to sustain the debt of building a huge project like this you need to make even more money. Pay even more employees, etc. The more complicated the business model is the more variable there are, inevetably a bad winter, such as last season, becomes all the more painful. Greed comes with a high cost, unfortuanately for those of us who live here, it will be us who are stuck with the ballance.

    • Economist says:

      Adding housing units doesn’t increase property values. Adding supply does not increase value. Supply and demand idiot.

  20. wowzers says:

    in general i agree with you on all points (especially the 10 story bldg.). my gripe is 50+ million spent and the plans don’t do much to address the points you outlined to draw people in. it completely boggles my mind that Squaw seems to have turned its back on its olympic heritage. seriously WTF? what a amazing theme to wrap your arms around, there is sooo much you can do with the olympic theme, instead, the plans are convoluted, incoherent and don’t really enable Squaw to point to anything as special. what a waste of a amazing opportunity.

    I’m a designer, if presented those plans to a client, i would expect to be fired, if someone on my team, presented me those plans, i would fire them. To me, these plans stink of design by committee, design by people who have no passion or understand of the sport and experience that comes along with it and a intense lack of vision. KSL is to blame, not any one individual.

    the best runs at Squaw will still be great, despite there best efforts they can’t fuck that up. unfortunately i just don’t believe they will succeed with these plans. I have two small kids i am introducing to the sport, nothing here makes me want to do that at Squaw. just to be clear, I am pro-growth, just anti bad design & experiences.

    my 2 cents.

  21. EKHID says:

    The Meeting stated above is for Saturday, DEC 1 not Friday. Sorry for the mix up.

    Thanks for all the positive input.

    Agreed with Brian, no development isn’t good, the existing commercial core of Squaw is not successful, but further development needs to be within reasonable consideration of maintaining the natural beauty and character of the Tahoe area.

    The CEQA guidelines pertaining to historical designation will help with that. Squaw’s current NOP is seriously flawed in many deficiencies pertaining to the proposed EIR and CEQA.

    Educate yourselves and let’s work together with Squaw to make this next phase of development environmentally suited, community involved and commercially successful.

    • oldskool says:


      I think that these meetings, or direction/opportunities to become involved warrant their own Unofficial Posts rather than being buried in the midst of these “diverse” comments. It would be great if someone (who knows more than me) could try to get the unofficial network involved on this.

  22. Jerry says:

    Everyone single person who wants to stop this project is nothing more then a business stifling special interest douchebag.

    I’m going for the money. You corporate haters can hate on. You’re not riding on my Yaht or in my corporate jet. loosers.

    • Medical says:


      it’s spelled losers, not ‘loosers’ that would be if your bowels functioned properly and you weren’t so angry because of chronic constipation.

  23. Medical says:

    As long as they allow me and my buds to open a much needed medical dispensary then I’m all for green building.

    I think some of you could use a little medicine.


  24. sled trash says:

    Along with all the Sierra Club you guys should also contact the ” Center for Biological Diversity” they would love to be involved. they have stopped some pretty big projects from developing.

  25. MasterBation says:

    my big concern-
    a lot of the money generated after all this building will not be staying in the local community. this area does not need more low paying jobs. Lets see a plan that involves the community and higher paying jobs for people that actually live in Tahoe.

    • Correct says:

      Money that was going to the local economy in the form of jobs for locals is being stripped due to elimination of the duplicitous jobs that can now be performed via technology by corporate in Colorado. Both N* and KSL are ‘streamlining’ some of their office employee functions this way.

      As far as Jerry goes, let him rant, he sounds bitter as hell and probably a piss poor businessman with regrets over many decisions he has made in his life.

  26. Master of Puppets says:

    KSL=Whores, charlatans, carpetbaggers and thieves. Fat men in suits.

  27. MD says:

    Isn’t it a little late?…

  28. EJK says:

    Typical, knee jerk, left wing opposition to any development or means of making a profit (God forbid!). I guess we need to preserve the beautiful parking lot as it is for future generations to enjoy. After all, all change is bad, because…well it’s change.

    • Andy H says:

      Get back to me when someone tries to build a theme park next door to your house.

      Oh, wait, that wouldn’t be a knee jerk reaction, that would be well thought out and perfectly valid.

      • EJK says:

        I’m sorry Andy. Did you not notice when you bought your house that it was next to ski resort? Maybe you should be a little more observant next time. Or maybe you did notice but thought you should be able to control whether anything was ever built on that nearby ski resort, notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that–well–it’s really not your property.

        • oldskool says:

          Well, when some one-piece wearing d-bag 1%ers from Vail show up to the valley that your parents skied before there were chair lifts and that you’ve had a family home at for 47 years, maybe it’s just fine for one to attempt to stop the development which will (through parking) prevent you from skiing that area. Don’t ya think?

          Especially since after eliminating parking for anyone who isn’t staying at a resort, violates numerous enviornmental laws, and stealing the long-term residents’ water, ls all of the water that supplies the valley it will fail. Squaw is a good hard-core mountain, but it will never be a Vail and able to attract the Chicago lawyer with a family of 5 and a vacation budget of $10k. Well, not more than once when it dumps heavy wet snow that his family can’t ski and they get sick of skiing Shirley.

          After the resort fails, the area will be ruined for everyone.

  29. Andy H says:

    The big thing here is the building height. If we can fight them on that it will make this developement all the more difficult to achieve. These guys are in it for nothing more than real estate dollars. The money is in the views. If they can’t build structures that get over the height of the existing village the million dollar views aren’t going to be there for them. Those few units are going to be what makes this economically feesible for them to build. If we can hold them up on that, they lose the incentive to build the whole thing.

  30. BoGnar says:

    I’ve got a fairly large dick and some healthy balls to back it up

  31. Anonymous says:

    Sierra club sucks – now tell your friends

  32. Dirtbiker says:

    Sierra club sucks- they act all nice but here they try and close all our forest access and take away our public land.

    • queers says:

      the public land should be closed to dirt bikes/ 4wheelers, snow beals and off road vehicles. these devices suck, create noise and pollution and are generally operated by caress jerks.
      the sierra club is great

  33. jahn knob says:

    isn’t the sierra club that online pedophile group?

  34. EJK says:

    The Sierra Club is an evil organization that was recently instrumental in putting out of business Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Marin County. Now 30 people are out of work, a local and sustainable food source has been lost, and there is zero benefit to the environment. Drakes Bay Oyster Company couldn’t even be seen unless you sought it out by driving down a long dirt road. Oysters actually filter the water, but this 100 year old company had to be sacrificed at the altar of extreme environmentalism. Fuck the Sierra Club.

    • geriatic Skier Gurl says:

      That was the current WH administration, the current “concerned” Senator(s) from the same party, and the current Secretary of the Interior appointee who actually terminated that lease, even having the nerve to do a sort of victory tour the day before announcing the decision, which was made prior to the election, but held off so it wouldn’t piss off the electorate who doesn’t want to be told to either eat Corexit and oil tainted shellfish from the Gulf of Mexico, or go without. The same week, Sec. Salazar leased out more territory in the Gulf of Mexico for more oil development. Dems who noticed this, and had the nerve to complain about it, were, as usual, told to shut up and think about the arc of history and all that, by the ones still allowed to spread the fake message that this admin “cares” about the environment, said environment which apparently does not include humans unless they are locked away from what was once public lands, eating genetically engineered food produced with the aid of oil coming from another ruined eco- system.

      I would expect the Sierra Club to automatically oppose almost all development, that is what they do, and sometimes it works to the advantage of local communities. BUT – no one ELECTS the Sierra Club to public office, and don’t confuse the advocates from the decision makers, and don’t forget to hold your public officials accountable for their (lousy) decisions at the ballot box.

    • Yo Get your Facts Right says:

      Their lease with the National Parks Service expired and Secretary of the Interior Salazar did not choose to renew it.

      From Sen Boxer “This has been a very challenging issue, but I have great respect for the decision made by Secretary Salazar to allow this permit to expire at the end of its term. He studied the issue carefully, he listened closely to all sides and, in the end, he made his decision based on the science and the law.”

      The farm, afterall, is in a National Park.

      As far as SC being evil, that is quite a stretch. Somethings they have been involved with were not always popular, but evil, dude, reallllllyyyy,,,,get a grip.

      • geriatic Skier Gurl says:

        Unfortunately Senator Boxer has, in the current internet fashion of her political party, adopted the language of lobbyists who now severely ABUSE the word “science” to mean “give in to corporate greed.” These are the same people who didn’t like what deer species was doing well at Pt. Reyes, and let the NPS hire a Republican crony kickback contractor to herd them with helicopters at night and then shoot them to eliminate them. They also lied to what property owner tried to protect a remnant of them, and put tracking collars on them there to lead them to the rest. Protests against the deer slaughter were ignored by all those supposed liberal politicians, even tho this was a Schwarzenegger donor and the story should have gone national and the activity been stopped for the depravity it was. Now there will probably eventually be canned Elk hunts for profit, as they do in other national jurisdictions. I listened to greedy DNC hack morons who didn’t even live in the state of CA, nor had ever been to that area, tell me that if these terrible “unnatural” deer weren’t removed it wasn’t “scientific” management and the ecosystem would crash and the other deer would all die, I had never heard such ridiculous spin in my life from hypocritical fake “expert” people who 6 months earlier had been eviscerating Gov. Palin for allowing canned wolf hunts by helicopter in Alaska. The fallow deer had been there at Pt Reyes for longer than they had been alive,were a bona fide tourist attraction, and this was just something for the Ted Nugent types to get happy over, it’s no different. The only thing I can’t figure out is just what was the supposed financial benefit to the various liberal Congresswomen and Senators.

        So please do NOT use the word “scientific” unless you want to be considered a hopeless sell- out. For some reason the Federal Government is now intent on throwing out human access to the National Park bay estuary area, they will do it slowly, and then the spineless liberals who like to use the word “scientific” when they actually mean “lobbyist wants it” can wonder why it’s being used by the military or something worse, like leased for private dirty energy production. And if you think this is hyperbole, remember that during the Gulf oil spill ecological disaster, access to see what was actually going on in some coastal areas was so restricted that the government of the United States actually let a foreign company, BP, hire private, foreign security contractors to prevent Americans from trespassing on our own national soil.

    • oldskool says:

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is irrelevant if they have opposed things one is in favor of. If you wish to prevent this development, partner with an organization that is good at leveraging resources to prevent stupid ass developments

  35. EKIHD says:

    Hello everyone, Thought this should be posted to clear things up a bit.

    Squaw Valley has submitted their Notice of Preparation to Placer County for review prior to their EIR on this project.

    This NOP has serious deficiencies pertaining to regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA in regards to Squaw designation as a California Historical Landmark.

    Here is what some of the CEQA states in regards to this valuable California resource:
    California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3
    15064.5. Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and
    Historical Resources
    (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
    agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
    engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
    cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided
    the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
    whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
    “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
    Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section
    4852) including the following:
    (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
    patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
    (1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means
    physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
    surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
    State Codes and Regulations Related to CEQA and Historical Resources 2
    (2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
    (A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
    characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that
    justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical
    Resources; or
    (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
    characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources
    pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an
    historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public
    Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
    establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or
    culturally significant; or
    (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
    characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that
    justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as
    determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
    15126.4 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to
    Minimize Significant Effects
    (a) Mitigation Measures in General.
    (1) An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse
    impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.
    (A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures
    which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other
    measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which
    are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to
    reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project. This
    discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect
    identified in the EIR.
    (B) Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be
    discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified.
    Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.
    However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the
    significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one
    specified way.
    (C) Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures,
    shall be discussed when relevant. Examples of energy conservation measures are
    provided in Appendix F.
    (D) If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to
    those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation
    measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project
    as proposed.
    CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
    154 • APPENDICES
    Appendix F
    I. Introduction
    The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient
    use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include:
    (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
    (2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and
    (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
    In order to assure that energy implications are considered in
    project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act
    requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy
    impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on
    avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary
    consumption of energy.
    Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness
    be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy
    requirements. For many projects, lifetime costs may be determined
    more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs.
    II. EIR Contents
    Potentially significant energy implications of a project should
    be considered in an EIR. The following list of energy impact
    possibilities and potential conservation measures is designed
    to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances,
    specific items may not apply or additional items may be
    A. Project Description may include the following items:
    1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will
    be used during construction, operation, and/or removal
    of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should
    consider the energy intensiveness of materials and
    equipment required for the project.
    2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type
    and end use.
    3. Energy conservation equipment and design features.
    4. Initial and life-cycle energy costs or supplies.
    5. Total estimated daily trips to be generated by the project
    and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode.
    B. Environmental Setting may include existing energy supplies
    and energy use patterns in the region and locality.
    C. Environmental Impacts may include:
    1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use
    efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of
    the project’s life cycle including construction, operation,
    maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the
    energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
    2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy
    supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
    3. The effects of the project on peak and base period
    demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
    4. The degree to which the project complies with existing
    energy standards.
    5. The effects of the project on energy resources.
    6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements
    and its overall use of efficient transportation
    D. Mitigation Measures may include:
    1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and
    unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,
    operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion
    should explain why certain measures were
    incorporated in the project and why other measures
    were dismissed.
    2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize
    energy consumption, including transportation
    3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
    4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy
    5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling
    E. Alternatives should be compared in terms of overall energy
    consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient
    and unnecessary consumption of energy.
    F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient
    and unnecessary consumption of energy during the
    project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal
    that cannot be feasibly mitigated.
    G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a
    discussion of how the project preempts future energy
    development or future energy conservation.
    H. Short-Term Gains versus Long-Term Impacts can be compared
    by calculating the energy costs over the lifetime of
    the project.
    I. Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy
    consumption of growth induced by the project.

    Squaw’s NOP can be viewed here:

    As you can see, the NOP says very little about the historical designation of Squaw under CEQA guidelines.

    This has been made public record to Placer County during the extended public comment timeframe on the NOP.

  36. SVPOA Mixer says:

    The SV Property Owners Association Mixer scheduled for tonight at the Resort @ Squaw Creek has been cancelled due to weather concerns for members of the Placer County Board who have to travel over Donner Summit.

    Plans are to reschedule in January, in which the public comments will be extended to that meeting.

    Pray for Pow.

  37. fight the power says:

    We are no longer allowed to hike at Alpine Meadows early season. I think we should hike there anyway. Excercise civil disobediance.

    Alpine feels like Private Property to me now. It always used to feel like National Forest. You could hike wherever you wanted and could not tell the differance between the ski area and the Granite Chief Wilderness.

    The bottom line is KSL wants to control everything.

    Remember when we all bitched about Ski Corp. We actually had it pretty good back then. At least they were not trying to control the world. Everything that is wrong with the world can be directly related to the way KSL does buisness.

    I look at KSL the same way I look at an oil company or the greedy people who ruined our economy or George W. Bush who tried to weaken our EPA standards, crash our economy and who took this country to war on a lie. Remember Shock and Awe. I don’t think anyone should be able to kill that many people at a time.

    They all have their tenacles in us. They want to control you.

    Skiing was much more fun when all ski areas were independantly owned.

  38. TeleDog says:

    I saw some of the earlier concepts presented to KSL. There was a lot more thought given to where to build, and to do it in an intelligent fashion. Rather than scarf-and-barf development, there was thought to different densities through the area, each with its own neighborhood feel, along with a better traffic plan. The reality is that achieving all that would take time and vision, and private equity does not make its money that way. They are usually in for a 5-year period, and then take the money out, often leaving the company saddled in debt and headed for Chapter 11.

    In this case, KSL said “no thanks” to the longer-term plan, became completely infatuated with water parks (“It works in the Wisconsin Dells – it’ll be perfect for Squaw”), and began pushing this debacle forward, even before they had done all the math (which is why this plan falls well short in terms of the required parking spots.”)

    The existing Squaw development has been a near failure, as evidenced by chronically empty real estate. KSL believes that by cramming more units in there will be more density, which will contribute to a sense of community. The plan, however, doesn’t really think about why people would want to stay in the Valley (aside for the water park), when they could stay elsewhere. No plans for a decent grocery store, not enough real amenities, etc. Just KSL-approved vendors. This will not Zermatt or Whistler, or even Breck.

    Development will ultimately benefit Squaw, but only if it is done with vision and a long-term view. Denver set the standard when it redeveloped the old airport site. Lots of mixed use, varying densities, and open spaces. That has taken 20 years, and required city involvement. It would have failed if it had been led by KSL with its 5 year horizon.

    • Community says:

      TeleDog thanks for that post, some excellent points.

      As far as KSL is concerned, if they are really serious about making this project a success, then why doesn’t Wirth and Hosea and the rest ask for local input and work with us on a properly designed plan instead of trying to ramrod something totally egregious down our throats?

      I would think that taking this path would’ve have generated less resentment and resistance from the local community.

      As far as the environmental regulations they seem to be trying to skirt around, is it just audacity for them to think we do not understand the regulations or are they just completely blinded by greed?

      We already know these developments are not financially sensible from a long term perspective. Hal Clifford made it very clear in his book ‘Downhill Slide’, and some of his points are obvious in the resulting vacancies of ownership and foreclosures in these already existing types of properties. The result can also be seen in the businesses that are struggling to stay open or already closed up shop.

      Come on Andy W or Chevis, giving you a GNAR callout here, speak up here on this matter and let’s see if we can work together on a viable solution to satisfy all parties involved and make this something we all can be proud of in the long term.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Did any one notice the snow storage/parking lot that they want to put in, pretty much right next the shirley trail head? That’s essentially in shirley canyon. And from the looks of the plan, it would seem that want to pave the shirley trail at least the first part of it.

  40. Agent P says:

    Planned developments always have that artificial gated community feel. Beautiful cities evolve out of public pride and personal ownership. Just go over to Northstar and see what kind of vibe you get, you feel like you are at Disneyland and everything is coifed just so. Now I like Disneyland because there is no pretense that it is anything other than an amusement park. But that same type of development at big ski resorts kills the souls and spirit of the place.Im not against development but this type of development ignores who really skis at this place and caters to a class of skier that would rather go to vail or somewhere else with solid intermediate terrain which is not what squaw is known for. Are these people just clueless.

  41. Tommak says:

    This doesn’t seem like the right kind of development at the base of Squaw, but it seems better to having housing at the base so less people are driving back and forth from Truckee and Tahoe city every day. It seems like the ideal solution would be to allow Squaw to build (maybe not 10 stories though) and make them pay for a better regular bus service around the lake (sorry TART, you need some help) and a train service to SF/Reno with some regularity so those of us who try not to use our cars wouldn’t have to.

  42. Hella says:

    I got some smooth buffed pow turns all day!!!

    That’s what’s good!!!!

  43. Sqwhiners says:

    y’all quit your whining, and when there are public comment periods available for this development, which there will be, make your impact then. In the meantime, put your skis where your mouths are and shred this cement.

  44. How to help says:

    Take the money you would spend on a pass which in turn helps KSLs cause. Donate a share of that to said anti development groups make your voice heard and get shitbag Andy and KSL the fuck out of Squaw and Tahoe in general.

    “Don’t Tread on Me”

  45. Inaccurate Story Doesn't Help says:

    I went to Sierra Club Connect website (which is apparently where the OP came from) to find out more. There wasn’t anything. Just this post:

    “Terry Davis
    December 05
    I would like to point out that no position has been taken by the Sierra Club on the Squaw Valley expansion. This would occur at the group or chapter level. No one should be speaking on behalf the Sierra Club on this project until the needed consultation occurs. Please contact me if you have any questions. – Terry Davis, Director-Mother Lode Cbapter, [email protected]

    [End of Excerpt from Sierra Club Connect]

    I agree in general there are significant issues raised by the KSL proposal. However, it doesn’t help anyone (and it hurts “Unofficial” as a media provider) to inaccurately claim that opposition to KSL is endorsed by the “Sierra Club”. It ruins credibility–and trust is hard to gain and easy to lose.

    Many posts on this site rant and rave, belittle non-locals, and similar. Which is fine, of course, if the people writing those posts just want to get into themselves that way and nothing more. However, if people participating in this blog want it to mean something or accomplish something then another approach will get much further.

    • EKIHD says:

      Seems Unofficial Networks used the ‘official’ Sierra Club logo affiliated with the Sierra Club Activist Network which is a forum set up by the Sierra Club to ‘officially’ endorse Sierra Club’s involvement with the project set up on the Sierra Club Activist Network.

      Terry Davis of the Mother Lode Sierra Club chapter has been kind enough to point this out and not get overly confrontational or threatening at this point.

      But he did contact the Sierra Club national office and now the project is not viewable by anyone other than members, so when you go to the link or google it, it won’t appear.

      Terry would like to ask that Unofficial Networks correct this blog to reflect that the Sierra Club does not ‘officiallly’ endorse this Sierra Club Activist Project called ‘ Stop Squaw Valley Overdevelopment’.

      If UO networks does not take proper action to remedy the error a couple of things could possibly happen. Sierra Club issues a cease and desist order for UO to comply.

      If UO does not, Sierra Club could sue under electronic libel as information published on the internet and in electronic form that relates to a known entity must be accurate.

      I do not have a say at all in how or what UO reports.

      Just trying to clear things up a bit and trying not ruffle too many more feathers.


  46. NONONOKSL says:

    Have you heard??????? The local kids at North Tahoe High tried to go skiing today. Super stoked to have a minimum day with SNOW!!!! They were told they had to pay the regular price!!!!!!!! THIS IS HOW KSL TREATS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, WORK HERE, RAISE THEIR CHILDREN HERE.. SHAME ON THEM!!!!


  47. EKIHD says:

    Dear Unofficial Networks and fans of UON,

    Seems Sierra Club member Terry Davis has gotten his panties in such a bunch over this project posted on the Activist Network Site, I am no longer able to log in as project director and feel the whole thing has been taken down.

    In response to the post Mr. Davis made on the project page, it was suggested that his ongoing opposition to Stop Squaw Valley Over Development project might just be due to the fact that he just may have some kind of involvement w/KSL and the development in some way.

    Does anyone else here smell a conspiracy?

    Thank you UON for the forum for us all to tell it like it really is, the good, the bad, the ugly, smelly, stupid, ridiculous and of course, funny.

    We won’t back down from this important and worthy cause.


  48. EKIHD says:

    This was an email sent to me from Terry Davis about how the project has been blocked from public domian via the Sierra Club.


    John Barry at the national Sierra Club gave me your email, but unfortunately he didn’t have your first name. I wanted to better explain our concerns about the Activist Network Team that you established, and the blog that links back to it. Currently when I google Sierra Club Squaw Valley, both the AN site and the blog come up. They in effect announce the Sierra Club’s opposition to the Villages at Squaw Valley Specific Plan. However, the Sierra Club’s postion on local land use projects is made by the local Sierra Club group or chapter.

    We at the Sierra Club use the phrase “We are One Club. ” That means we must speak with a single voice — we must have only one position or policy, not multiple ones. Positions taken by the Sierra Club cannot be established by an Activist Network Team; instead the intent behind AN Teams is to help involve the grassroots in support of policies and positions already established within the Club through the appropriate volunteer committee at the group, chapter or national level.

    What I suggest is that you approach the Tahoe Area Sierra Club (TASC) to convince them to take the position on the Squaw Valley expansion that you are advocating for. The contacts would be Bob Anderson (Executive Committee Chair) [email protected] and Laurel Ames (Conservation Committee Chair) [email protected]

    Until we can sort this out your AN Team site has been made visible only to team members, not to other members or the general public. We can’t do anything about the site, but we would appreciate it if you would remove the Sierra Club name and logo from your blog, at least for now.

    Thank you,


    Terry Davis | Director
    Mother Lode Chapter Sierra Club
    801 K Street, Suite 2700
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 557-1100 ext. 108
    [email protected]

  49. EKIHD says:

    So I must ask, why did the Director of the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club get his panties in such a bunch about concerned citizens who really give a damn about an area that doesn’t even concern him?

    Here are the comments on the project site that unfortunately no one in the public domain now gets to view thanks to the valiant efforts of Terry Davis,,,,,,

    “It is interesting that the Sierra Club provides an online utility, this Activist Network, for concerned citizens to develop an activist project against environmental damage caused by big development, but when this gets publicized in a very public domain such as internet blog sites, the Sierra Club decides that it needs to consult with project participants to determine if the activist project is appropriate for the Activist Network and the Sierra Club. So I ask the Sierra Club Activist Network a couple of questions. What then is it that the Sierra Club and the Activist Network would like to see on this site in terms of projects? And, this project was started back in April of ’12, why has this become not a matter of public domain anymore and under more scrutiny than when it was started? Who is in charge here and what do you people expect from a public internet forum that the Sierra Club provides. An answer on this site in regard to this comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.”

    So Terry, I ask, WHAT’S YOUR DEAL!!!????? you must understand the power of social media these days right….????

  50. EKIHD says:

    Another comment not visible to the public on the SC AN site Stop Squaw Valley Over Development

    “Terry thank you for getting in touch about this issue with official endorsement with Unofficial Networks picking this project up and making it public with unauthorized use of Sierra Club endorsement. Unfortunately, Unofficial Networks has not responded to calls to clarify the issue of official endorsement by the Sierra Club. On the other hand, you, by going to the national chapter offices and blocking public access to a site and project that was made available by the Sierra Club itself illustrates a couple of things; a. you feel slighted that no one informed you of such activist network of the Sierra Club, b. you may be involved with the developers of the project in some way, and c. you feel it is okay to interfere with a very important activist project that many in the local area feel will detrimentally change the face of Squaw Valley and the surrounding area forever. So if we can only have public access to the information that was originally created on a Sierra Club site on another public blog, so be it.”

    Peace out y’all,,, see ya on the hill.

  51. When one is sick, all the things is hard. From eating to sleeping, the illness actually impacts the overall perform of the person. However since these two, particularly sleeping is a must, one ought to consider methods to get higher sleep even when she or he is sick. macwin

  52. utarbetandet says:

    It’s a relief that I managed to come across it has the resources I was actually hunting for. It’s extremely beneficial and you’re obviously quite knowledgeable in this field. You have opened up my mind to numerous thoughts concerning this sort of topic employing intriguing and effective material.

  53. partnership? says:

    No one designs a plan without addressing these obvious issues. So who has land nearby for a water recycling plant, bus and shuttle hub, a possible snowtrain extension along the old railway line, and perhaps a hotel/condo project themselves???

  54. Magnificent website. A lot of helpful information here.

    I am sending it to a few pals ans additionally sharing in delicious.
    And certainly, thanks for your effort!


Leave a Comment