Industry News
The League to Save Lake Tahoe, Califoria, the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization behind the movement to Keep Tahoe Blue, has filed a lawsuit formally challenging Placer County’s approval of the Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan a development they claim would worsen traffic congestion, increase air pollution, erode roadways, and degrade water quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
“As a solutions-based organization, litigation is an option of last resort. To protect Lake Tahoe, we had no choice in this case. We have repeatedly met with development representatives and county officials to urge them to consider alternatives that would mitigate the environmental impacts of this project. But they were not interested. We are not opposed to the modernization and expansion of Palisades Tahoe, but we must take a stand to Keep Tahoe Blue.”
– Dr. Darcie Goodman Collins, Chief Executive Officer of the League to Save Lake Tahoe
Backed by the Denver-based private equity firm Alterra Mountain Company, the proposed development at Palisades Tahoe calls for nearly 300,000 square feet of commercial space, almost 1,500 bedrooms in up to 850 units, and over 2,000 additional parking spaces. The Village at Palisades Tahoe’s own environmental reports indicate that the project would create 3,300 new daily car trips on the busiest days, with 1,353 of those trips flowing into the Tahoe Basin, contributing significant pollution to Tahoe’s air and water.
- Related: The Battle Over The Future of Palisades Tahoe
- Related: Former President of Palisades Tahoe, CA, Dee Byrne Speaks on Why She Believes Tahoe Needs The New Village at Palisades
The League joins conservation group Sierra Watch in the lawsuit. Sierra Watch launched the grassroots effort more than ten years ago to stop Alterra’s project and secure a better future for Olympic Valley.
“The bad news is that Alterra’s proposed development would take every problem facing Tahoe—whether it’s the clarity of the Lake, the availability of workforce housing, our public safety in the event of wildfire—and make it worse. The good news is that the League is standing shoulder to shoulder with Sierra Watch in our shared and successful effort to defend Tahoe.”
— Tom Mooers, Executive Director, Sierra Watch
The project’s increased traffic contradicts federally mandated goals to reduce car dependency in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The new car trips from the Village at Palisades Tahoe will further damage roads while increasing runoff from roadways, which is already the leading cause of Lake degradation.
State water quality agencies from California and Nevada draw a clear line connecting wear and tear on Tahoe’s roads and impacts to the Lake. As a 2022 report states, “Lake Tahoe’s water clarity decline is due to an increase in fine sediment particles (FSP) and free-floating algae… Runoff from roads and other urban land uses is the single largest source of fine sediment particle (FSP) pollution in Lake Tahoe, accounting for more than 70% of the lake’s total FSP load.”
To address its issues of concern, the League proposed a smaller project with lesser impact or a phased construction plan with checkpoints along the way so adjustments could be made to ensure minimal impacts to Tahoe. Alterra rejected those requests.
In addition to environmental issues, there are broad and consistent concerns about this project from community organizations, local businesses, residents, and elected officials. Nearly 3,000 unique comments have been filed in opposition to the proposed development.
Palisades Tahoe shared in a comment to SnowBrains that the resort will continue to work diligently with Placer County as they defend the project and the environmental studies under CEQA. The resort stressed that the environmental studies related to the project were performed by third party professionals hired by the County and conducted to ensure the project would adhere to CEQA statutes and guidelines. “This project has been one of, if not the most studied project in the County’s history and was reduced by over 50% based on community input, with the majority of it to be built on existing parking lots and other disturbed land.”
Palisades Tahoe believes that the opposition is continuing to deprive the local community of much-needed workforce housing, infrastructure improvements, and significant funding that will contribute to regional workforce housing initiatives, transportation, and tourism mitigation.
Placer County Supervisor Shanti Landon said in a BOS meeting on November 19: “A few months ago I met with a representative from Sierra Watch and I was presented with a map that I would say was not representative of what this project is, and I was very disappointed in leaving that meeting, feeling as though I was being manipulated or attempted to be manipulated and it really made me lose trust in the organization.”
County Supervisor Landon later adds, “The misinformation that I was giving made me very concerned about what misinformation was giving to the community. And in some of the comment letters that we received, I could see that same of those same messages portrayed in the emails we received, and that was incredibly disappointing.”
It looks like the debate around the village at Palisades Tahoe is far from resolved. Follow SnowBrains for the latest updates.
