After a 9-hour meeting that included more than 100 public comments, the Placer County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 19 voted unanimously to approve the Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan. Despite widespread concerns brought forth by the community about wildfire evacuations and traffic, the board expressed that the project would not only help North Tahoe’s economy, but also bring significant community benefits including contributions to workforce housing, environmental restoration, and transportation improvements.
“As in every large-scale project, there is no perfect outcome. We are never going to get to perfection with a project like this,” said District 2 Supervisor Shanti London. “I believe the applicant has gone above and beyond. When I look at how Palisades looks today … I had heard the community wholeheartedly opposes the project, but there really was a balance of perspectives. I don’t think it’s just the corporation benefiting from this. I really, truly believe the whole community will benefit from this.”
The development includes on-site workforce housing for 300 employees, restoration of Washeshu Creek to correct impacts from channelization in 1960, a new fire station at the west end of the valley, and contribution of $97,500 in annual funding for the Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART).
According to Stephanie Holloway, Placer County Deputy CEO for Tahoe, the project will generate an additional $7.5 million in total annual investment that will go toward transportation, housing, and tourism mitigation, “a 178% increase of what we are doing today,” she said.
Palisades Tahoe is also voluntarily giving $2 million to a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) mobility fee that will go to reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled) and mobility improvements in the Basin. The 85-acre project is slated to include construction of 850 hotel, condo, and residential units, all of which will add 1,493 new bedrooms, and 297,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as a 90,000-square-foot Mountain Adventure Camp. The development is expected to generate an additional 3,300 (23,842 VMT) daily car trips to the Basin on a busy summer day, according to the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
“A community can host more visitors and see a reduction in traffic,” said Dee Byrnes, former Palisades Tahoe CEO who stayed on to help shepherd the project through the approval process. “With 300 employees living at the entrance to the valley, shipping and receiving located at the entrance of the valley, and additional parking at the entrance to the valley, and more visitors staying in lodging in the valley, there will be associated reductions on Highway 89 and Olympic Valley Road.”
The supervisors also stressed that the project will be monitored by the county during the entire 25-year buildout (no more than 20% of the project is allowed to be built in a single phase), and that there will be controls in place to ensure Palisades is meeting its commitments. This includes the new Transportation Technical Review Advisory Committee consisting of the TRPA, Town of Truckee, two TBIDs (North Lake Tahoe and Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District), Placer County, and the League.
“If what we assume today doesn’t continue, we can withhold certificates of occupancy for future phases if transit blows up,” said District 5 Supervisor Cindy Gustafson, noting that there will be a yearly monitoring plan and a thorough analysis every 5 years. “There are opportunities to put on the brakes … if we are not seeing the results we want.”
There was a sense among community members that the board of supervisors’ approval of the project was a foregone conclusion. Hence, some residents focused on encouraging the board to get commitments from Palisades Tahoe that more community benefits, like restoration of the creek, would be done in the first phase. The ski resort has committed to building all employee housing in the first phase but not creek restoration.
“I have no doubt the board of supervisors will vote to approve this project today,” said Olympic Valley resident Katie Hover-Smoot. “If you are going to approve a project of this scale, you need to promise the public two things: these development horizons cannot be unlimited, and you need to promise us that you will hold developers accountable.”
Before casting her yes vote, Gustafson explained her decision.
“We have serious issues in the community,” she said. “No doubt we have a crisis in housing and a challenge in transportation. I finally have a partner in Alterra … Businesses are a key factor in how government gets things done. We need partnerships to come together to solve problems … We have to solve transportation up here and it takes real dollars and it takes a healthy economy. Our economy is not healthy right now.”
The county also announced that the resort will give Eastern Placer County residents a discount to the Mountain Adventure Camp, a recreation center that will have a multitude of offerings not yet decided on, although all water-park features have officially been taken out.
Sierra Watch, an environmental organization that sued Placer County over the project’s original environmental impact report, vowed to keep fighting. The board of supervisors originally approved the project in 2016 in a 4-1 vote.
“Once again, Placer County decision makers have sided with the narrow interests of Alterra Mountain Company and against the values of the people who live, work, and play in Tahoe,” said Tom Mooers of Sierra Watch in a press release. “And, once again, we will continue our commitment to secure a better future for the region and keep Tahoe Truckee True.”
In response to the article here about the palisades approval, having attended the full 10 hour meeting lets clarify:
Starting with housing: This project is said to add or require 750 low pay service type jobs, 574 of which would be full time, the remainder seasonal. The “workforce housing” Alterra will provide is to be 386 BEDS ; they clarified in the meeting that the reference of housing is to say “beds” not actual independent “housing”, thus employees would be in shared space living. In addition, the current 99 bed dorm style employee “housing” will be removed, so that actually adds to the needed “housing” . As for the fire station, Alterra has stated they will be do the construction but would not say what this would “cost” nor how they can staff it exactly. They state that despite the significant increase to VMT from this project, traffic is mitigated by the “reservation system” now in place, even though that is only in effect during winter months and on peak times ( weekends / holidays) not during summer. Funding for the improvements to traffic and “transit improvements” will come from general taxes ( from you and me) as well as from TOT and TBID, however it is up to the county to staff the transit “system” (TART etc.) and as we already know there is currently a DEFICIT in staffing to accommodate the transit system needs as they are today. Thus, despite the generation of funding from this development, it is still up to local agencies to figure out staffing, as well as housing to fulfill the needs of such a large project. Naturally, none of the impacts on the infrastructure as a whole was discussed, such as TTSD support, added utilities / energy requirements, and something I questioned as an RN, the strain to our already overburdened healthcare system in the region.
Addendum to prior comment (palisades approval). Having attended this and many of the prior meetings related to this development, it’s worth noting a good number of public comments in opposition to the development are not in saying hard stop “no” so to speak. Many of us who live in this and surrounding communities are certainly in accord with reasonable growth, upgrades to existing structures, re-development where needed to add vitalization in our towns. Rather, the opposition voiced, is in relation to the size and scope of this particular development. That, and it ill fitting to the environment and spirit of the region, such as the giant “adventure” structure, which will feature arcades and the like. More creative ideas certainly could have come from those who are not as urban minded. Additionally, many of us are well aware that this development is one of several large scale developments proposed just in the north lake area alone. Thus cumulatively these developments over the next decade and beyond are sure to choke our fragile Tahoe ecosystem.
In all the meetings I have attended over time on this topic, one question I have never heard asked, or addressed in Alterras presentations, is: what about the construction workers and contractors in general? Once bids have gone out on this development, slated to take 25 years “build out”, where are all the construction workers and contractors coming from? Will they be expected to make their daily trips to the site from Reno, Auburn, Sacramento? Are those trips figured into the VMT accounts? Will they be housed on site ( trailers or?) I guess we will soon see.