KSL has shifted gears in planning for its village expansion development and is no longer seeking specific approval of Phase I along with general approval of the entire plan. Instead, KSL will now focus solely on securing entitlements for the whole project. While the development proposal itself has not changed, KSL’s shift in tactics delays the environmental analysis and reopens the project to public comment. Without a clear explanation from KSL as to why it cancelled its Phase I project analysis, many members of the MAC and public were left frustrated and confused.
Chevis Hosea, vice president of Squaw Valley Real Estate LLC, made the announcement at the Squaw Valley Municipal Advisory Council meeting in August.
“We made a few tweaks and process changes to groom the project for the draft EIR [environmental impact report],” Hosea told the council and a packed boardroom at the Squaw Valley Public Service District. “There is no Phase I project now.”
Phase I covered 26 of the 101-acre plan area, and involved the construction of five buildings, including three condo hotel buildings and the 132,000-square foot Grand Camp (the renamed Mountain Adventure and Aquatic Center).
Dropping the Phase I analysis does not change the number of proposed buildings or total acreage in either Phase I or the overall development.
“The project is not being downsized,” Hosea said. “Everyone is asking us to cut the project in half, and we are not going to accommodate that.”
What it does mean is that environmental analysis of the project, which began last summer, is on hold while Placer County waits for KSL to submit a revised specific plan (or general plan) in approximately two months. At that time the county will revise the entire notice of preparation — a document that states that an EIR will be prepared for a particular project — to be released no earlier than December, according to Placer County Senior Planner Alex Fisch, the project manager for the village plan. The public will then have 30 days to comment on the revised NOP, a new development that some community members see as a positive.
“This is another opportunity to do public comment,” said Jamie Schectman, co-founder of Mountain Rider’s Alliance. “I would like to see the community speak up.”
Specific plans, despite the name, generally contain less detail than a project plan, which must outline a building’s design and materials. Specific plans give examples of allowable uses, of what could end up in the final project. However, Fisch said that the Squaw Valley Village specific plan will go into more detail than normal because of the work that has already been done on the Phase I project and the development’s relatively small geographic boundaries.
“The program analysis for this project will be much more detailed than a typical program analysis by virtue of the specificity of the plan, its proposed development polices, known resource and infrastructure constraints, and the level of technical detail in the technical studies prepared in support of the plan,” Fisch wrote in an email to Moonshine Ink.
At the SVMAC meeting, board members were perplexed by KSL’s change in strategy.
“The target seems to be moving,” said Brian Sheehan. “We can’t keep up with all the changes.”
MAC member Ed Heneveld, who is also part of the Friends of Squaw Valley, said, “Our groups spent $15,000 to react to this plan. Are we starting over?”
Why KSL decided to drop its Phase I project analysis is not clear. Repeated phone calls and emails by Moonshine Ink to Sacramento-based California Strategies and to Peter Ragone of San Francisco-based PWR, the public affairs consultants hired by KSL to handle all media requests regarding the village project, were not returned.
KSL’s silence on the issue has left some to speculate that the private equity firm is feeling squeezed by investors to show progress with the development.
“I think, personally, they are under pressure financially from investors; it’s not cheap to be doing what they are doing,” said Peter Schweitzer, a Squaw Valley resident and president of Incorporate Olympic Valley. “Four years haven’t shown one actual result — no entitlements, no development agreements.”
KSL first submitted the project to Placer County in December 2011.
Others wonder if KSL underestimated the ease with which it could push the project through Placer County and the scope of public opposition.
“Their attitude looked like ‘get out of our way, this is inevitable, we’re great,’” said Tom Mooers, Sierra Watch executive director. “Now they understand there is going to be meaningful public involvement.”
At the same time, Mooers recognizes that KSL’s development proposal remains the same.
“On the other hand, what’s changed is nothing,” he said. “It’s the same blueprint with what they want to do in Squaw Valley.”
The Placer County Planning Services Division is publishing a monthly project update newsletter on the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan website. The newsletters will be published by the second Friday of each month and will include a brief description of the project status, the status of preparation of the draft EIR, upcoming public meetings, and other information: placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/villageatsquawvalleyspecificplan
~ Comment on this story below.
