Watch Live as Sierra Watch Argues Against Squaw Valley, CA Redevelopment

SnowBrains | | Industry NewsIndustry News

Sierra Watch will be arguing in court on July 21st to stop Alterra’s Squaw Valley development – and you can watch along.

The court is conducting oral arguments by video conference, and they’ve shared instructions on how to log on to their BlueJeans Events conferencing application.


Oral arguments before the Third District Court of Appeals in Sierra Watch’s two challenges of Alterra Mountain Company’s proposed development in Tahoe’s Squaw Valley


Wednesday, July 21, 2021

2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time


The public is invited to join the proceedings online through a web browser on the BlueJeans Events app –

Or by phone – +1 (415) 466-7000 (US) / PIN: 4619394 #


This is an important milestone in the ongoing effort — ten years and counting — to keep Tahoe Truckee True.

The project, originally submitted to Placer County in May 2012, involves developing up to 850 hotels, condominiums and residential units and a 90,000 square-foot indoor adventure center.

After the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved Alterra’s proposed development in 2016, Sierra Watch initiated two public interest court challenges: one based on state planning law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the other based on violations of California’s Brown Act.

Sierra Watch’s CEQA challenge is based on decision-makers’ failure to assess the proposed development’s impact on key Tahoe issues like the lake’s clarity, fire safety, and traffic.

Sierra Watch’s second case is based on the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, challenging Placer County’s lack of public notice for a last-minute deal to avoid a lawsuit by the California Attorney General, negotiated in secret and announced the same day the project was approved.

The Brown Act challenge is first on the docket, to be followed by the CEQA challenge. The court will release its decisions within 90 days of the close of the hearings.

The arguments will be brief and, likely, shaped by questions from the bench.

For more detailed arguments, including the Sierra Watch legal briefs, visit:

And for more context on the Sierra Watch effort to keep Tahoe Truckee True, check out the Ten Year Timeline and The Movie to Keep Tahoe True.

Sierra watch, Squaw Valley redevelopment
Sierra Watch flier.

Related Articles

10 thoughts on “Watch Live as Sierra Watch Argues Against Squaw Valley, CA Redevelopment

  1. Locals should be lobbying the forest service to open new “publicly owned” mountains. There is plenty of terrain to go around. They should be operated like a public park, not for profit.

    Imagine how rad it would be to have new terrain free from the corporate money sharks!

    If only the enviro’s would let us. Mnnnn… that’s one to noodle on.

    Don’t forget, every ski resort you ride was once virgin untouched native land. Why is it so taboo and difficult to open new ski resorts? It can be done enviro responsibly and not-for-profit (obviously have to cover expenses and break even). Why can’t we all get behind that?

      1. Sky Tavern just below Mt. Rose is owned by the City of Reno and operated not-for-profit.
        It wouldn’t be much different than how a public water utility, electrical utility or sewer utility work.
        The government provides public play areas like ice-rinks all across the country. The users pay for the expense of owning and operating the facility.

        Sorry I made you think too hard. Go sit down for awhile.

  2. What a laugh. Now that I’m here I don’t want anybody else to come, and you can’t play in my yard. Keep Tahoe True… what a damn NIMBY. Sure it’s a noble cause to protect our environment, but do your part and move away. There are plenty of places to ski on this planet. Put your skins on and start a campaign to tear down the lifts, that would keep Squaw true.

    1. Lots of NIMBY’s in Tahoe. Also the lack of new development causes the price of existing properties to go up. Simple supply and demand economics 101.

      For some reason Tahoe people can’t get their head wrapped around preventing new construction and keeping prices “affordable” is an oxy-MORON.

      Oh ya and they are ignorant and selfish enough to say, “We were here first so you need to go.”

      If Tahoe people wanted to save it they should have prevented the sale of all the resorts and purchased them as a publicly owned community parks. That was the only way to have saved some of Tahoe. The original founders cashed out to big corporations and now they are doing what they do, which is make money.

      If Tahoe or areas outside of the Basin allowed for environmentally responsible new development to occur at a reasonable rate, you would have reasonably priced lots, which would translate to reasonably priced homes. Because new development is so constrained, fought against and environmentally protected, new lots are extremely expense. Therefore new housing is extremely expensive.

      1. My family has been here since the 60’s. Does that mean we get to kick out all the “locals” that have moved here since then?

  3. Omg cannot believe s-NO-wbrains is using that soon to be changed racial slur name.
    A racial slur name is far far worse in any shape or form compared to any potential violations to the Brown act, and CEQA for gross overdevelopment and carbon impact on this area.
    Got my indoor waterpark open yet, I just can’t stand going to that annoying outdoor waterpark called Lake Tahoe, its just too cold and not very nice at all.

  4. Nice work. Real-estate prices will go up a couple % due to the cost of defending this lawsuit and the costs associated with delays in the project.

    Affordable Housing in Tahoe just became that much harder to achieve.

Got an opinion? Let us know...