Olympic Valley, California — While it’s December for most of us, it’s Groundhog Day in Olympic Valley. Following the approval of the Palisades Tahoe village expansion on November 19th by Placer County, the situation appears to be heading back to the courtroom.
Last week, the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Watch filed a lawsuit against Palisades Tahoe and Placer County to stop a planned development that would create new villages at the ski resort. The lawsuit from the two environmental groups states that it would cause ‘severe, irreversible impacts’ on the ski resort, Lake Tahoe, and the community in general.
Dr. Darcie Goodman Collins, who’s the Chief Executive Officer of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, gave the following reasoning as to why they filed this lawsuit:
“As a solutions-based organization, litigation is an option of last resort. To protect Lake Tahoe, we were left with no choice in this case. We have met repeatedly 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.”
A key concern is the possibility of increased traffic up to the ski resort. An environmental analysis study by Placer County found that 1,353 more vehicles would be on the roads during a typical day. Collins described their concern regarding this potential traffic increase to SFGATE:
“Our roads can’t handle 1,000 more car trips per day. Those added car trips will damage roads, [and] increase runoff from our roadways, which is already the leading cause of lake degradation — and, of course, there’s air pollution that comes with increased car traffic. More tailpipe emissions are bad for air and water quality.”
Palisades Tahoe has a village, albeit a small one. The California ski resort, which is owned by the Alterra Mountain Company, is envisioning a vast village expansion that would provide more beds and services at the ski resort. This expansion would add two separate villages that total 85.5 acres. This would include 297,733 square feet of commercial space, a 90,000-square-foot building for recreation, and up to 850 residential/lodging units, which would potentially feature 1,493 resort bedrooms. A third parcel would add 386 employee housing units, a fitness center for workers, a community market, and a shipping and receiver port.
In 2016, a similar plan was approved by Placer County. However, it faced legal action from the (guess who) Sierra Watch. Palisades Tahoe has updated its plans since it was rejected by California’s Third District Court of Appeal in 2021 to correct the pointed-out deficiencies, but the size remains the same. Since then, Palisades Tahoe explained the impacts of the five concern points raced by the Court: water supply, traffic mitigation, water and air impact, construction noise pollution, and an emergency evacuation plan.
Proponents say that these developments would create more jobs, reduce traffic congestion due to more individuals staying on-site, and create significant tax revenue that can be reinvested in other projects. Opponents argue that it would make Olympic Valley a construction zone for many years, the wildfire evacuation plan is insufficient and dangerous, and it would make traffic worse, not better, due to new tourists coming up to explore the village.
The situation could play out in court, or the two sides could reach a compromise. Based on the rhetoric, the former seems more likely.
Click here to check out Palisades Tahoe’s perspective regarding the benefits for the village, and you can read Keep Tahoe Blue & Sierra Watch’s lawsuit filing in full here.
Image Credits: Palisades Tahoe