Release: Olympic Valley Council Votes to Reject Palisades Tahoe Development
Contact: Tom Mooers (530) 265-2849 x200
August 19, 2024
OLYMPIC VALLEY COUNCIL VOTES TO REJECT PALISADES TAHOE DEVELOPMENT
“The Community is overwhelmingly against the current plan.”
Olympic Valley, Calif. – At a packed public meeting Saturday, the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council voted to recommend that Placer County deny approval of Alterra Mountain Company’s proposed Palisades Tahoe development.
The Council unanimously approved a clear message to Placer County decision makers and Alterra Mountain Company, “We vote NO” to deny the Palisades Tahoe Village Plan.
The motion included three key points:
- The Community is overwhelmingly against the current plan.
- That the County and Applicant evaluate a reduced size plan different from the Reduced Density Plan in the EIR.
- That the Community should be involved with collaborative input.
The Council’s role is advisory; the Placer County Board of Supervisors has final authority over the proposed development. But the vote Saturday was a clear indication of how the local North Tahoe community feels about Alterra’s proposed development: they don’t want it.
Pictured: Keeping Tahoe Truckee True in Olympic Valley Saturday
“Hundreds of people turned out for Tahoe today, making it clear that we will stand up to defend our mountains from Alterra’s reckless development,” said Allison Silverstein, Field Organizer of Sierra Watch, the organization spearheading the campaign to keep Tahoe Truckee True.
For a lot of locals, today’s hearing and the Council’s vote felt like deja vu all over again. That’s because, eight years ago, the Council reached the same conclusion about the same project, voting in 2016 to recommend that Placer County “deny the project as submitted.”
Later that year, the County Board of Supervisors overruled that recommendation and voted to approve the project. Conservation non-profit Sierra Watch took those approvals to court – and won. In 2022 the County was compelled to rescind all of Alterra’s entitlements, sending them back to the drawing board. Instead of considering compromise or a collaborative approach to planning, Alterra asked for a new round of entitlements – for the exact same plan.
Alterra is proposing development of a size, scale, and scope North Tahoe has never seen, including 850 condo and hotel units with 1,493 new bedrooms. The main attraction would be a 90,000-square-foot indoor waterpark – including artificial rivers, waterslides, indoor water-skiing, and video arcades – that Alterra hopes would draw 300,000 visitors every year.
New development would make Olympic Valley a construction zone for 25 years.
According to the environmental review documents, it would add 3,300 new daily car trips to Tahoe traffic, demand 78,263,299 gallons of water annually from the local watershed, and threaten the region’s most recognizable asset: the clarity – and famously blue waters – of Lake Tahoe.
At today’s hearing, a parade of purple-clad locals took to the podium to voice their opposition to Alterra’s plan. One by one, they pointed outhow the project would impact every component of life in North Tahoe.
Public safety was a major concern; the project would create an 11-hour evacuation time for the valley. Alterra suggests that people who could not escape in time could “shelter in place” on a golf course or in parking lots.
“Shelter in place is a death sentence,” said Joe Smith of Truckee.
Many speakers decried the notion of an indoor waterpark in Tahoe.
“This valley is a jewel,” said Andrew Hays of Olympic Valley. “The waterpark is just plain tacky.”
Ellie Hyatt of Truckee worried about the combination of an indoor waterpark – drawing 300,000 visitors a year and the danger of wildfire. “It would be total chaos to evacuate a waterpark filled with children.
Pictured: Ellie Hyatt of Truckee at the podium in Olympic Valley Saturday
Some speakers pointed to the impacts beyond Olympic Valley and throughout the Tahoe region, pointing out that, for example, the project would make the region’s workforce housing crisis worse. And that it would add to the pollution that is causing Lake Tahoe to lose its famous clarity.
“Alterra’s plan is to dump their problems on the lake,” said Gavin Feiger of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. He urged the Council to, “Stand up to support the lake, and Keep Tahoe Blue.”
Most expressed desire for some development in the Palisades Tahoe village and encouraged Alterra to work with the community in a collaborative effort.
But at no time during the six-hour hearing did a representative from Alterra stand up and defend their project or assuage local concerns. That left Placer County planning staff playing a role that looked a lot like they were the developers. Supervising Planner Alex Fisch even had to explain, “This is not a County proposal.”
The next step in the public planning process is a Planning Commission hearing in Kings Beach on September 5.
“Every year Alterra’s outdated proposal gets more and more stale, while the movement to keep Tahoe Truckee True grows stronger and stronger,” said Silverstein of Sierra Watch. “And for everyone who wants to join us in turning out for Tahoe, we’ll see you in September!”
More information about the proposed development can be found at Placer County’s project website: https://www.placer.ca.gov/8213/Village-at-Palisades-Tahoe-Specific-Plan.
To get involved in the movement to keep Tahoe Truckee True, visit https://www.sierrawatch.org/.
About Sierra Watch
Sierra Watch secures conservation outcomes to protect the natural resources, mountain communities, and timeless values of the Tahoe Sierra. Founded in 2001, the Nevada City based non-profit has built a remarkable track record in land preservation in the Tahoe Sierra, on Donner Summit, and for other treasured Sierra landscapes. For more information, visit www.sierrawatch.org.
###
