It appears that the battle lines are being drawn and the supporters and those opposed to these two closely linked important proposals are taking their positions and making them publicly known. How are these two proposals linked? Many say that the Incorporate Olympic Valley committee was formed to stop the Village at Squaw Valley expansion, others say it was formed to control the development. Whatever the reason, the committee was formed after Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, LLC (Squaw Valley) introduced their development proposal.
As those of you who have been following this story know, the Village Expansion proposal has generated lots of discussion and controversy which resulted in Squaw Valley introducing a new scaled back plan in mid December 2013. Even though the new plan;
- was a 1/3rd reduction in the number of accommodation units
- preserved the Members Locker Room, the Olympic House and most of the existing parking lot
- lowered the height of some of the proposed buildings
Many Olympic Valley, North Lake Tahoe and Truckee locals as well as many Squaw Valley frequent guests, feel that the reduction in size is good but not good enough.
On February 21, 2014 Placer County issued a Revised Notice of Prepration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (NOP). The public comment period for this NOP ended on March 24, 2014. The County received many comments from concerned individuals and various community and environmental groups. Download the Revised NOP. Download all comments received.
Occurring simultaneously is the movement to Incorporate Olympic Valley. This proposal is currently being reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) who has the legal authority to decide on the viability of this proposal and whether it can be put to a vote of the Olympic Valley residents.
Here is a timeline list of some of the responses we have seen on both of these issues, some for and some against;
March 24, 2104. In a letter to the Placer County Planning Services Division (PCPSD) Tom Mooers the Executive Direct of Sierra Watch claimed that the NOP was misleading regarding the size of the project, did not meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements to adequately inform the public of potential environmental impacts of the project and lacks specifics or alternatives. He suggests an entirely new project application and a new NOP. Download Tom Mooers’ letter.
March 24, 2014. In a letter to the PCPSD Laurie Oberholtzer a Consulting City and Environmental Planner for the Friends of Squaw Valley criticizes the NOP for not being very detailed on different aspects of the project and the Specific Plan for being very vague. It is her feeling that this will make it very difficult to get an adequate EIR. She also states that the NOP continually compares the new plan with the old plan and that this is confusing to the public and the EIR should not make this comparison because there is only one plan. Download Laurie Oberholtzer’s letter.
April 3, 2014. Julia Mancuso, Travis Ganong, JT Holmes, Jonny Moseley, and seven other Squaw Valley notables in an op-ed in the Sierra Sun entitled “Our Turn: Squaw’s true character, leadership – a positive impact on community,” made a very positive evaluation of Squaw Valley’s accomplishments citing;
- improving the skiing experience with capital investment in the mountain and by combining Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows
- leading efforts for regional transportation system improvements and environmental sustainability activities
They went on to state their support for the Village Expansion proposal and gave Squaw Valley credit for listening to the community and re-creating a new smaller development plan. Read the Sierra Sun Op-Ed
April 7, 2014. In a letter to the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Andy Wirth, President and Chief Executive Officer of Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, LLC (Squaw Valley) made some very strong arguments as to why LAFCO should not approve the Incorporate Olympic Valley proposal (The IOV Proposal). He started by suggesting that LAFCO consider The IOV Proposal without including Squaw Valley within the city boundary. He then went on to suggest the following reasons why Incorporation is not a good idea;
-
Incorporation of Olympic Valley could possible have such a negative affect on Squaw Valley that it could inhibit their ability to continue to invest in the ski area.
-
IOV has not provided adequate evidence that they can provide equal road maintenance and snow removal to the same level that Place County currently provides.
-
Tax revenue currently benefiting all of Placer County would got to a very small area and a small number of people.
-
Only about 1/13th of the property owners in Olympic Valley can vote on this proposal because the 2nd home owners (who are not residents) are not registered in Olympic Valley.
-
Squaw Valley, which is 40% of the area in the proposed city has no vote in the proposal.
-
IOV was formed to delay and or control Squaw Valley’s development plans.
-
Squaw Valley believes that the new proposed city would impose fees for services and higher taxes on Squaw Valley, which could result in higher costs for locker room membership, season passes, ticket prices, etc.
-
Olympic Valley businesses and property owners would likely face higher taxes and fees.
-
The loss of TOT money will hurt Placer County.
Download Andy Wirth’s letter.
April 10, 2014. Dr. Robb Gaffney, a local long time Squaw Valley skier, author of the book “Squallywood: A Guide to Squaw Valley’s Most Exposed Lines” and former Squaw Valley Ambassador and ski instructor posted on Facebook that he had resigned his position with Squaw Valley due to the tension in the valley as a result of the current Village Expansion proposal.
April 15, 2014. On SnowBrains.com Dr. Rob Gaffney responds to some strong statements Andy Worth made in a NPR interview about the Incorporate Olympic Valley grass roots movement.
April 17, 2014. Unofficalalpine.com in an article announced the formation of a new organization Save Olympic Valley (SOV) which is opposed to the incorporation of the valley. According to this article the backers of SOV are Squaw Valley Ski Holdings (SVSH).
April 24, 2014. In a Guest Column article in the Sierra Sun entitled “Incorporate Olympic Valley and Squaw Valley can work together” Dr. Fred Ilfeld, Chairman of Incorporate Olympic Valley (IOV) stated four principals IOV believes in.
-
SELF-DETERMINATION
-
COMMUNITY VALUES
-
QUALITY SERVICES
-
FISCAL VIABILITY
He spoke of “working together.” He then went on to credit Squaw Valley for their outreach to the community and he called for the work of the Design Review Committee (DRC), Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Friends of Squaw Valley to result in the design of a General Plan for the new city. He offered mild rebuttals to Andy Wirth’s arguments to LAFCO. Read Dr. Ilfeld’s Guest Column article.
May 6,2004. IOV Community Meeting at the Squaw Valley Public Service District office had approximately 60 people in attendance seeking real answers to questions regarding the process, the pitfalls and the benefits of incorporating. Those in attendance were both supporters and skeptics. Guest speakers Kathleen Egan, the first mayor of Truckee, and Ted Owens, also a former mayor of Truckee, gave very informative talks and then answered many questions. It was a very enlightening discussion. Click here for full details of the meeting.
May 12,2014. The Sierra Sun posted and article online entitled “IOV chairman: Excluding Squaw Valley resort an ‘illogical’ move.” In a May 7, 2014 letter to LAFCO Dr. Fred Ilfeld, IOV Chairman, made some very strong counter arguments to Andy Worth’s suggestion to not include Squaw Valley in the boundaries of the proposed town.
There are obviously strong feelings and good arguments on both sides of both of these interrelated issues. What is also interesting is the results of a recent Sierra Sun poll asking the question; “Do you think it’s a good idea to incorporate Olympic Valley into a town?” As of 11:00 pm on May 4, 2014 out of 1529 responses these were the results;
-
Yes 52.39% (801)
- No 40.75% (623)
- Undecided 6.87% (105)
As of 12:11 am on May 14,2014 out of 2056 responses the results had changed to this;
-
Yes 48.54% (998)
- No 44.02% (905)
- Undecided 7.44% (153)
Here are some other interesting commentaries;
-
Download Friends of the Westshore comments on NOP
- MtnAdvisor.com: Mountain Town: Behind the Incorporate Olympic Valley Movement
- Sierra Sun: Former Squaw ambassador: Development plan ‘just doesn’t sit right’
- Moonshine Ink: The Struggle Over Squaw Valley’s Future
- Powder.com: Crossroads
To stay current on these evolving important Squaw Valley/Olympic Valley issues sign up for a RSS Feed or regularly check my Blog at; https://www.gosquaw.com/real-estate/squaw-valley-news/village-at-squaw-valley
Leave a Reply