KINGS BEACH, Calif. – The Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan will be heard by the County Board of Supervisors later this year after the Placer County Planning Commission gave conditional approval to the redevelopment project with modifications to the Mountain Adventure Camp facility. 

The recommendation guts the water park and themed attractions. 

Alterra Mountain Company, owner and developer of Palisades Tahoe, proposed revisions to the Mountain Adventure Camp facility, which the Planning Commission recommended the board approve. 

---

---

The Planning Commission’s recommendation is “to remove … the uses of simulated skydiving, skate park, BMX park and course, action river, lazy river, rafting, stand-up paddle board, wakeboarding, water games, water skiing, water slides, waterfalls, wave pool, and wave rider,” according to Supervising Deputy Counsel at Placer County Clayton Cook. “And then to make similar edits to the definitions section, specifically removing those uses that were identified from the definitions section.” 

The Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan encompasses 93.3 acres of land in Olympic Valley, including the main village area of 84.5 acres and an 8.8-acre east parcel. The plan proposes the development of 850 lodging units with 1,493 bedrooms, workforce housing, and 297,000 square feet of commercial development. 

---

---

On Thursday, Sept. 5, the commissioners also voted on eight related items. Commissioner and secretary Amber Beckler, District 4, abstained on whether to recommend certification of the EIR. The other items received a 6-1 vote with Beckler opposed. 

Before voting, the commissioners shared their views on the project. 

“This applicant could have played the political game and got four votes on this dais here and three votes on the Board of Supervisors and stuck to their guns and stuck to the original plan, and they have reduced it considerably, the scope of the plan, and yet provided a list of community benefits that are substantial,” said Commissioner Jeff Ronten, District 5. “So, with that said … I’m prepared to make a motion.” 

Chair Anthony DeMattei, District 3, was also ready to vote. 

“As far as property owners, they bought this property. It was already zoned for what the project is today,” said DeMattei. “They’re not doing anything out of context of what the land use is already there for, and they’re using land that’s just kind of sitting there and doesn’t really look appealing to our community. So, thank you for that. Other than that, I’m good, too. I’m going to make a decision. So, I will ask for a motion.” 

Beckler shared that she hiked and walked through site to see where things were. 

“And so on one hand, just from a project perspective, I totally understand the need to redevelop it … I’m like, there’s really nothing around here,” Beckler said. 

“At the same time, it’s just really difficult for me from my conscience perspective and my experience to completely sort of ignore the legitimate, valid concerns that people are bringing up on something scaled back,” Beckler said. “And again, I don’t know if that’s something that can ever be achieved. I’m not sure.” 

“And on the EIR itself … even though I know that it’s been stated that there’s not impacts to Lake Tahoe, it doesn’t affect the Clean Water Act, where we’ve got all this salt,” Beckler said. “I still have doubt in my mind, honestly, that these things are actually completely solved and fully analyzed.” 

Commissioner George Alves, District 2, brought his perspective as a former volunteer firefighter. 

“I think the CAL FIRE team and the Sheriff’s Office gave a great representation of what their plan, their strategies, their philosophies are, and how they would address those types of things. And I think it’s met my high,” Alves said. “… So, I understand what those impacts are and how that affects” the community. 

Vice Chair Robyn Dahlgren, District 1, said she has experience in emergency evacuation, preparedness and planning. 

“A lot of my questions got answered before I got in today and much more, many more got answered today in the meeting,” Dahlgren said. “So, again, I’m never going to be 100%. I don’t know that anybody’s ever going to be 100% sure or comfortable, but I’m more comfortable that the planning and the staffing and the mutual aid and the incident command and the uniform command are robust enough that I can be more comfortable.” 

“… this is your community if you live here,” Dahlgren said. “It’s also their business, their land, and their right to develop within the guidelines and zoning.” 

“And I’m comfortable after today, after all of this information, that I can make an informed decision,” Dahlgren said. 

Richard Johnson, At-Large West of Sierra Crest, said “fire is a volatile thing. There’s always a risk involved with it. But we do have very skilled people that are dealing with it. So, I’m pretty comfortable with the fact that Squaw Valley, Olympic Valley is really well protected.” 

“As far as the rest of the issues go … I’ve seen a lot of changes since the very beginning that was presented. And I think that the applicants have really done a very good job of coming forward with the project, as well as it’s been very carefully reviewed by our staff. And so I’m supportive of what’s going on here.” 

Mark Watts, At-Large East of Sierra Crest, rallied support. 

“I feel like the project that we are looking at today were it not to go forward, I fear a downward spiral that would pursue that,” Watts said. “It would be to the detriment of the resort triangle and detriment to all the folks who live around here. And so I’m very comfortable after going through step-by-step in the materials we’ve had available, today’s presentations, both sides of the equation, helped me get a better feel for the strengths of the proposal.” 

“So, I’m feeling very comfortable now that we have a solid proposal in front of us …” said Watts. “I think there’s a lot of triggers, a lot of guarantees that will help protect local citizens, as well as make opportunities for visitors to better themselves of this fantastic facility. So, thank you.” 

DeMattei said, “A few things I was probably going to deliberate, but I think the applicant already put these in force. With workforce housing, and I think some of the traffic issues were addressed as far as I’m concerned. It would be great to have Highway 89 improved a little bit even for local residents. But that’s going to come at a cost. And maybe that’s something that gets more developed and we get more tax revenue generated here, that that will happen for the community. Without development, we’re not going to get that.” 

The redevelopment project aims to transform the existing Palisades Tahoe Resort base area into a comprehensive year-round destination resort. 

“We’re looking for guests to spend more not ski more,” explained Alterra’s Chief Development Officer and Real Estate Division President Bryan Elliott. “We want the guests staying here, paying for lodging. We want the guests staying here and buying dinner. We want the guests here waking up and buying breakfast. That’s the difference between a destination guest value vs. kind of a day-skier value.” 

The applicant explained the day skier will come ski here and buy a bottle of water, maybe buy some food and leave. 

“Our main objective is to get a viable village where the restaurants and the retail are surviving year-round,” Elliott said. 

The project was originally submitted in 2011 and has undergone revisions. It faced opposition from residents concerned about its impacts on traffic, water resources, and wildfire evacuation plans. 

The plan was initially approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2016, but then the approvals were rescinded. 

The courts identified deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) related to public transit, construction noise, hydrology, water quality, air quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and wildfire evacuation plans. 

In November 2022, the county and environmental consultants revised the draft EIR. The revised document addressed issues identified by the court and included additional analysis on water supply, transportation, and emergency preparedness. 

At the Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting, experts addressed those issues.

Chad Taylor from Todd Groundwater in Alameda, part of the team that authored the water supply assessment, addressed concerns about water availability. 

Taylor explained that Olympic Valley’s groundwater basin fills up efficiently every year, even during below-average precipitation years. The water supply assessment demonstrated that there would be sufficient water to meet the demands of both the project and non-project growth over 25 years. It accounts for the potential impacts of climate change. 

Richard Moorehead, Deputy Director of Public Works, outlined strategies to address transportation and traffic management issues. These include developing a traffic management plan with a predictive model for peak days, implementing a parking reservation system, and introducing truck reduction measures. 

The project also includes a transit center within the village, shuttles, and contributions to regional transportation funding. 

Sheriff’s Lt. Ty Conners and CAL FIRE Assistant Chief Ryan Woessner addressed emergency preparedness and evacuation planning from the Office of Emergency Services. They emphasized the systematic approach to evacuations, the importance of community preparedness, and the collaboration between agencies during emergencies. 

The officials also addressed concerns raised by a recent report suggesting long evacuation times, explaining that their approach involves a more nuanced, zone-based evacuation process rather than a simultaneous evacuation of the entire area. 

The development agreement includes public benefits including workforce housing for 386 new and replacement employees that will be built with the first project phase. In addition, there is a $500,000 contribution for regional housing initiatives, and an $800,000 regional initiative fund for environmental enhancements, open space acquisition, and public trails. 

It also includes new measures to reduce impacts of vehicle trips in the area including a lodging fee that would generate about $20 million over the life of the project to fund vehicle-miles-traveled reduction efforts, payment of a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency mobility fee generating an addition $2 million of mobility improvements, obligations to improve the State Route 89/Olympic Valley Road intersection, required traffic management and parking plans on higher visitation days, and annual traffic analysis and reporting. 

The project will build a new fire station, comprehensive stream restoration of Washeshu Creek, and the development of parks and recreational areas. 

The Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) voted unanimously to recommend that the Planning Commission advise the Board of Supervisors to deny the proposed Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan. The MAC instead suggested that the county and the applicant work with the community to develop a new, reduced-density alternative and conduct further environmental review for that community-preferred option.