Critics try to quash approval for Squaw Valley resort expansion

[ad_1]

Environmental attorneys are asking a California appeals court to overturn two district court rulings that awarded major wins to Squaw Valley ski resort as it moves forward with plans to expansion which critics say will significantly increase traffic to the area and adversely affect the air and water quality of Lake Tahoes. . Third District Court of Appeals Judge Vance W. Raye appeared sympathetic to their arguments this week that Placer County may have violated a public records law by approving part of an environmental scan and a mitigation plan for the 1960 Olympic Winter Games home. The three-member panel gave no clue as to its take on the broader Sierra Watch challenge, accusing the developer of intentionally failing to properly assess the effects on the nearby lake and downplaying the potential for delays. dangerous during a forest fire evacuation. A Placer County judge supported the counties that handled the two cases in the 2018 decisions regarding approved plans for Denver-based Alterra Mountain Co., owner of Squaw Valley. It plans to build 850 units in a series of high-rise condominium hotels in what is now the ski resort parking lot 10 kilometers north of Lake Tahoe. Sierra Watch has been battling the expansion since its first proposal in 2012 and approved by Placer County supervisors in 2016. The group said the developer needed to analyze the effects on the Lake Tahoe Basin – including the Alpine Lake which contains enough water to cover California d ‘a foot deep – even if the station is outside the basin itself. The project still affects the basin. He is not bound by the imprint of the project itself, Sierra Watch lawyer Daniel Selmi told the appeal board on Wednesday. Opponents say development will double the population of Olympic Valley. They say 40% of the new traffic generated will travel to the basin, increasing the amount of sediment transported to the lake and increasing nitrate emissions – two major threats to Tahoe’s world-famous clarity. The water quality has only one reference to Lake Tahoe – mentioning that the Truckee River runs past the downstream Tahoe complex, Selmi said. That’s it – no other reference to Lake Tahoe, he said. They practically ignored him. The county review concluded that the expansion would add an average of 1,353 daily car trips. He acknowledged that it could take more than 10 hours to evacuate via the single access road during a wildfire. Whit Manley, a Squaw Valley Real Estate attorney who has argued the developers’ case, said they had conducted four years of environmental review on an initial construction plan. 1,295 units, but they were reduced based on public comment to 850. He said 85% of the expansion is planned on land already developed. Most is a parking lot surrounded by ski slopes and bare rocks. This is where the development is going to happen. Not in the forest, he told the panel. Manley acknowledged that the area is designated as a severe fire risk area. But that designation in itself does not mean that an impact on evacuations should be deemed significant or inevitable, he said. In the other case, Sierra Watch maintains that the county violated California. Acting in violation of the mandate that public documents should be made available to the public for inspection. It focuses on the sudden notice that county supervisors would vote on a proposal by developers to pay the state attorney general $ 440,000 for the mitigation of other projects in the Tahoe area to offset the effects of l increase in resort traffic. Robert Perlmutter, another lawyer for the group, said the only action the county took was to place a copy in a closed and locked office at 5:42 p.m. the night before board supervisors voted on the issue. was not made available in any real sense, he said. Deputy County Attorney Clayton Cook said the Brown Act, a federal law that governs the release of information to the public, makes it clear that if a new document is added less than 72 hours before a meeting, it should be made available to the public by placing the document in a folder in a public office. Facts show compliance, he said. Ray asked if the county has really made it available even though you have no way of gaining access to it? Yes, that’s our position, Cook replied . To require the riding to do something else, it would take another reading of the law. Raye replied: Is it a legal constraint to interpret what means what means available? Writing must be accessible. If it’s in an office but not accessible to the public, it’s not available.

Environmental attorneys are asking a California appeals court to overturn two district court rulings that awarded major wins to Squaw Valley ski resort as it moves forward with plans to expansion which critics say will significantly increase traffic to the area and adversely affect the air and water quality of Lake Tahoes. .

Third District Court of Appeals Judge Vance W. Raye appeared sympathetic to their arguments this week that Placer County may have violated a public records law by approving part of an environmental scan and a mitigation plan for the 1960 Olympic Winter Games home.

The three-member panel gave no clue as to its take on the broader Sierra Watch challenge, accusing the developer of intentionally failing to properly assess the effects on the nearby lake and downplaying the potential for delays. dangerous during forest fire evacuation.

A Placer County judge supported the county’s handling of the two cases in the 2018 rulings on approved plans for Denver-based Alterra Mountain Co., owner of Squaw Valley. He plans to build 850 units in a series of high-rise condominium hotels in what is now the ski resort parking lot 10 kilometers north of Lake Tahoe.

Sierra Watch has been battling expansion since its first proposal in 2012 and its approval by Placer County supervisors in 2016.

The group said the developer needs to analyze the effects on the Lake Tahoe basin – including the alpine lake which contains enough water to cover California a foot deep – even though the resort is outside the basin. himself.

The project still affects the basin. He is not bound by the imprint of the project itself, Sierra Watch lawyer Daniel Selmi told the appeal board on Wednesday.

Opponents say development will double the population of Olympic Valley. They say 40% of the new traffic generated will travel to the basin, increasing the amount of sediment transported to the lake and increasing nitrate emissions – two major threats to Tahoes’ world-famous clarity.

Still, the 83-page environmental reviews section on hydrology / water quality only makes reference to Lake Tahoe – mentioning that the Truckee River passes the resort downstream from Tahoe, Selmi said.

That’s it – no other reference to Lake Tahoe, he said. They practically ignored him.

The county review concluded that the expansion would add an average of 1,353 daily car trips. He acknowledged that it could take more than 10 hours to evacuate via the single access road during a forest fire.

Whit Manley, a Squaw Valley Real Estate attorney who has argued the developers’ case, said they had conducted four years of environmental review on an initial plan to build 1,295 units, but reduced it to 850 in based on public comments.

He said 85% of the expansion is planned on land already developed.

Most of it is a parking lot surrounded by ski slopes and bare rocks. This is where the development is going to happen. Not in the forest, he told the panel.

Manley acknowledged that the area is designated as a severe fire risk area.

But that designation in itself does not mean that an impact on evacuations should be deemed significant or inevitable, he said.

In the other case, Sierra Watch maintains that the county violated California’s Brown Law by failing to comply with the mandate that public documents must be made available to the public.

It focuses on the sudden notice that county supervisors would vote on a developers’ proposal to pay the state attorney general $ 440,000 for mitigation of other projects in the Tahoe area to offset the effects of increased resort traffic.

Robert Perlmutter, another lawyer for the group, said the only action the county took was to place a copy in a closed and locked office at 5:42 p.m. the day before the supervisory board vote on the matter.

The note was not made available in any real sense, he said.

Deputy County Attorney Clayton Cook said Brown’s Act, a federal law that governs the disclosure of information to the public, clearly states that if a new document is added less than 72 hours before a meeting, it must be put available to the public for inspection by placing the document in a file in a public office.

The facts show compliance, he said.

Raye asked if the county really made it available even though you have no way to access it?

Yes, that’s our position, Cook replied. To force the county to do something else, it would take another reading of the law.

Raye replied: Is it a legal constraint to interpret what means available means what means available? Writing must be accessible. If it’s in an office but not accessible to the public, it’s not available.

[ad_2]