Tahoe in the News

Environmental groups sue over Palisades Tahoe expansion plans

By Taylor Burke | KOLO 8
December 30, 2024

RENO, Nev. (KOLO) – Since the approval of the Palisades Tahoe Project, environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against Placer County stating the board violated state law.

Alterra Mountain company, the developer behind the proposed project, argues the expansion will bring workforce housing for 400 employees, jobs, creek restoration, and an estimated $5 million annually in community revenue. But opponents like Tom Mooers with Sierra Watch and the League to Save Lake Tahoe, argues the project threatens Lake Tahoe’s environment and quality of life. They say the project comes at too great a cost, citing concerns about traffic, the housing crisis, and the lakes’ clarity. Now, they’re taking their fight to court.

“It would basically take every problem in Tahoe and make it worse,” said Mooers. “Alterra’s project is driven by the highest ends of the market with what they call ‘wallet capture.’ They want to bring people in to spend more money. They aren’t starting from a place of what’s best for Tahoe and the people who work, live, and play here.”

In the filing the two groups are alleging that Placer County’s approval of this project violates California’s Environmental Quality Act.

“Decades of science identify car pollution as a major contributor to loss of lake clarity and current policy seeks to address the problem. In its Environmental Impact Report, Placer County seeks to dissolve that long-established link, downplay the project’s impacts, and make the whole issue someone else’s problem, brazenly concluding that ‘while it was previously thought that there was a strong correlation between VMT (traffic) and sediment loading, this is no longer the case’,” Mooers said.

The Environmental Impact Report for the project estimates about 3,300 additional car trips, which could contribute to pollution and congestion. Moores claims Placer County relied on outdated research, using data from a 2016 report that was rescinded in 2022. He adds the recycled data failed to account for drought and other changes in the region over the last 8 years. Mooers says he’s tried to be a part of the conversation, but that Alterra is unwilling.

“Unfortunately, Alterra has remained stubborn, stuck on the proposal they submitted 10 years ago. What we have to do now is stop that proposal from going forward and hopefully talk Alterra into coming to the table to talk about something that makes more sense to Tahoe,” said Mooers.

However, those working with Alterra and county officials say they are addressing environmental concerns. In a November 19 meeting of the Placer County Board, Supervisor Suzanne Jones asked if the Palisades expansion would align with the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act.

“The $2 million mobility fee goes to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for implementation of that. So, yes. That would be my response,” said Crystal Jacobsen, the Assistant Director for the Community Development Resource Agency.

The plan also includes restoration of Washeshu Creek to improve water quality and reduce sediment. Environmentalists question why the restoration isn’t being prioritized upfront. In the same meeting Jacobsen said they are trying to push for the housing to come first and that the housing had a lot of “upfront costs.” Recognizing a lack in community trust, Supervisor Cindy Gustafson requested that a dedicated website, specific to this plan, be created so anyone would be able to track progress and maintain transparency.

So far, there has been no set date as to when a groundbreaking for this project could occur.

More related articles