In a 6-1 vote, the Placer County Planning Commission on Sept. 5 voted to approve the Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan. The planning commission’s vote serves as a recommendation to the board of supervisors, who will have the final say on the project. If approved, the 93.3-acre development will add 850 hotel and residential units with up to 1,493 bedrooms as well as 297,733 square feet of commercial space, most of which will be built on the existing parking lot.
The biggest surprise of the meeting, however, was not the commission’s vote — the body voted to approve the project the first time in 2016, although the members are not the same as 8 years ago — but that Palisades Tahoe announced it was removing all water park elements from the 90,000-square-foot recreation project known as the Mountain Adventure Camp.
“What we don’t need is a water park,” said Dee Byrne, the outgoing Palisades Tahoe president. “We were careless in identifying every possible use for the facility … It’s crystal clear that the local community doesn’t want a water park; resort management doesn’t want it either. As one of my last official acts, I would like to leave a no water park plan to this community.”
The water park had been a contentious issue with the public and Sierra Watch, which had made it the focal point of its opposition. On Aug. 16, the day before the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council voted to deny the project, Sierra Watch sent out an email with the subtitle, “Also, It’s A Waterpark.”
“In the meantime, in case anyone forgot — it’s a waterpark,” Sierra Watch Executive Director Tom Mooers wrote in the mass email. “Maybe you’ve seen some of the slick communications from Alterra Mountain Company boldly insisting that they are not proposing to build an indoor waterpark in Olympic Valley. But, incredibly, they are.”
Palisades Tahoe had proposed a list of around 35 options for the Mountain Adventure Camp that included a lazy river, water slides, wave pool, and waterfalls. All the water activities, except a pool, have officially been taken out of the specific plan. According to Placer County counsel Clayton Cook, if the plan is approved, the ski resort would not be able to add back in the water features without requesting a specific plan amendment, which is a lengthy process. However, the size of the adventure center building remains the same.
Commissioner Mark Watts, who represents east of the Sierra Crest, was pleased with Palisades’ decision to eliminate the water park.
“It’s gratifying to see over the years how this organization [Palisades Tahoe] has listened to the community — reduced, reduced, reduced — and now, at the last moment with a very controversial element, taking that out, I applaud them for it,” he said.
While Palisades’ announcement was met with applause from the public, not everyone felt it went far enough to alleviate vocal concerns about the size of the development.
“Throwing us a bone by taking away the water park is great, but it doesn’t address all the other issues,” said Laura Norman, an Alpine Meadows resident since 1997. “My real concern is the evacuation is centered exclusively in Olympic Valley … This project creates additional risk for my community and my family for Alterra greed. It has Basin-wide implications and it’s insane to think this many more cars will not have an impact on Lake Tahoe.”
Palisades stated it needs the Village development in order to become a year-round destination resort, not just a winter attraction.
“When you think about size, what’s critical is the balance between the capacity on the mountain and what your base area can provide,” said Brian Elliot, president of Alterra’s real estate division. “That is where Palisades Tahoe is woefully short in both amenities, infrastructure, and everything else.”
Elliot compared Palisades to Northstar, which has about 0.5 units of amenities per skiable acres, versus Palisades, which is at 0.14 units per skiable acre. The 1984 Squaw Valley Area General Plan, which has not been updated, had a goal of 11,000 to 12,000 overnight stays to achieve year-round destination status. According to Elliot, the resort is currently under 4,000 overnight stays. Estimates predict the project would get Palisades to 7,500 overnight stays.
“A destination guest is a lot more valuable than a day skier guest because they stay and spend more,” Elliot said. “This is a base area plan. Our main objective is to get a viable village where restaurants and retails are surviving year-round.”
Out of the roughly 45 people who spoke at the meeting, about 80% were opposed to the project.
“This project promotes irresponsible growth,” said Hollund Rudolph, who lives in Truckee. “When this EIR was written, California had not yet been in a 3-year drought, no Ikon passes were sold, Covid hadn’t changed how people work remote. This plan is almost unchanged from when it had been rejected …. It is irresponsible to accept this plan.”
The only commissioner to vote no on the project was Amber Beckler, representing District 4.
“If you put this project down in western Placer County, I would be applauding this,” she said. “At the same time, it’s difficult for me and my conscious to ignore the legitimate, valid concerns of the community.”
The Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan was approved by the board of supervisors in 2016. However, a lawsuit by Sierra Watch resulted in a ruling that the environmental impact report did not adequately address four areas — water quality impacts to Lake Tahoe, traffic impacts to the Basin, evacuation times for wildfire, and noise impacts during construction — and in 2022, the board rescinded all project approvals as ordered by the court. County staff, which is recommending approval of the project, believes the issues identified by the court have been addressed in the revised EIR.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors will vote on the development for a second time in late fall.
Written by Melissa Siig for Moonshine Ink
Leave a Reply