Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That are scheduled for that hearing. Two of them are extensions of time. And then we also have the residences at granite Bay project. As I mentioned last time, that's a project that's directly across the street from the estates at granite Bay project, which the commission previously considered back on March 19th. There's also a development agreement, annual report for 2025 that you will consider. I did want to note that at your last meeting, I mentioned that we. You were also scheduled to hear an appeal of the. Of staff's determination on the True North detox project in Newcastle. That appeal has been withdrawn by the applicant. So that will no longer be be on this agenda next week. In terms of other upcoming meetings on May 14th, you do have a scheduled meeting. We have two items, including the workshop on our Placer 2050 General Plan update, as well as a as well as a hearing on the entitlements for the CRF Family Subdivision. Also in in Olympic Valley, that's again, a suite of entitlements for an eight lot subdivision in in Olympic Valley, May 28th. You have two items that are tentatively scheduled. And I did want to note that at this point in time, it is looking like your June 11th meeting will be will be canceled. So I wanted to note that for you. A couple of other just quick updates. We continue to progress the effort around the residential care home zoning text amendment you have on your report. A couple of upcoming meetings. We're going to the central Mak on May 20th and the Airport Land Use

Commission on May 27th before bringing that to the board. I'm sorry to the Planning Commission for consideration. And then lastly, wanted to mention that at your meeting next week, you will have a copy of your project report that details all of the current projects in processing that are going to be heard by the Planning Commission at some point. That concludes my planning director's report. Happy to answer questions from the commission. Quick question. I asked it last week. I'll ask it every week until I get it. Task for in the statement of work for the Zoning text amendment for residential care homes. The resource comparison. Has it been completed? And when it gets completed, is it going to come out as a separate draft or is it going to be fed into the draft Nexus study that's currently online? I'm sorry. You mentioned you said residential care. I'm sorry, but you mentioned the in the affordable housing in lieu. Yes. Yeah, I did have a conversation with the housing manager for the housing division. And they did mention that that is incorporated into the into the work that's been done. And so when that report is brought forward to the plan or to the board and the Planning Commission, that will be a component of it. So they will include it in the draft that's online when it's completed, when it's complete. Okay. Do we have any idea when it's going to be completed? Because I know they're working on it that I don't. I can follow up on that. I believe it's sometime. I believe it's sometime this fall. Oh, okay. So it won't be a separate document. It'll be incorporated into the draft Nexus study that's posted online. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you very much. So the next item is reports from planning commissioners. If

there are any. Do any of the do any of the. My fellow commissioners have a report or any information to share. Seeing none, we'll move on. Now we're at the point in the public comment period. We would like to open public comment for any matters that are not on the Planning Commission agenda today. As a reminder, if you do have a comment, it would be limited to a three minute time frame. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make an in-person public comment? Seeing none, I'd like to ask the clerk if there are any commenters on Zoom. We have one hand raised, please. I can't see the name Diane. Go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Thanks. Greetings, commissioners. This is Diane Louise Alessi from district five and Placer County Christian Valley Park. I wouldn't want you all to have withdrawals if you didn't hear from me. Anyways, I'm going to make this really succinct. I submitted to both your commission and staff along with the Board of Supervisors. A request for the information in regards to the in lieu. And I see that you're doing it next to study when other Nexus studies have been done. And at great cost to the county. And it really doesn't take rocket science here to develop an in lieu fee based on other jurisdictions that have actually produced low and extreme, low and even acute housing. So I'm still sitting waiting to see that result in terms of how you're going to justify keeping your in lieu fees when other jurisdictions obviously are producing the, the units that are required. I

just want to put that out in the public that the public needs to put pressure on the county as well, so that it's not just a buyout program and a sham where, you know, ten years down the line, these units never get built because they get traded out. Low income housing tax credits are the mechanism for that. And it can be actually transformed by sale or transfer to another entity later on, ten, 15 years down the line, and the public loses sight of all of the shenanigans of coming back to Recontract. So I'm putting it on the public record, and I expect the county to get back to me regarding my request for the information on how they're going to make these in lieu fees actually produce in the low income to extreme low income categories be eliminated altogether, which would be my preference and make the most sense. So with that, I yield and hope your day goes well. Thank you very much. Are there any other presenters? I see no other hands raised. I see no other hands raised. Thank you. All right. Now I'll move to the hearing items on today's agenda. So item number one is the same property vesting tentative subdivision map minor use permit and design site review P l in 20 4-00361. The Planning Commission is the decision body for this item, and the staff presentation will be provided by senior planner Heather Beckman. Thank you. Good morning. As you said, my name is Heather Beckman. I'm a senior planner working out of the Tahoe City office. And today I'm presenting the Shane Property Project. So the

project is located within the Tahoe Basin along Westlake Boulevard. It's just south of the Homewood Ski Resorts North base. The property's uniquely located at the intersection of three different zoning districts. The Tahoe Basin Area Plan is the governing land use and zoning document for this area. So the property itself is located within the West Shore. Mixed use Homewood Village Center subdistrict, and this allows for a variety of uses from single family to multi-family dwellings, as well as commercial and tourist uses. Then, as we move to the northwest, it's zoned recreation, and that's where we have the Homewood ski Resort. And then I'll navigate in a clockwise direction around the same property. So moving to the northeast, we get back into the Homewood Village Center zoning subdistrict, the same zoning as the Shane property. And there we have some commercial uses like the high and dry Marina. As we move directly to the east and to the south, we have single family residences surrounding the Shane property. And then to the west we get into a residential zone district where we have single family, and then directly adjacent to the Shane property, we have the home with lot three, which is a seven unit condominium project. So what we see as a whole as moving from the south of the lower, lower intensity single family residences, we move north to the Shane property and Homewood lot three, which are multifamily, and then further north to the higher intensity uses of the recreation and commercial. So the Shane project is a ten lot subdivision. It's 1.18 acres in size. It contains eight duplexes and one single family residence, as well as one common area lot that's just about 37,000ft². So about 71% of the parcel. This. The units are proposed to be individually salable at the at market rates. I do want to point out that the

developer has been really thoughtful in their design to be compliant with all the Tahoe Basin Area plan development and design standards. So that ranges from their old Tahoe esthetic and architecture through their fencing, their trash enclosure, their snow storage. This slide gives a quick snapshot of some of the development standards and the consistency determination. So in terms of density, they're allowed up to nine units, which they're proposing building setbacks. They're compliant. And in almost all instances exceeding the minimum setback requirements. They're under the maximum height. And as it relates to parking, they have a ten space parking requirement and they're proposing 14 to provide for overflow and guest parking. The project entitlements, as you mentioned, at the top of this item, we have a vested vesting, tentative subdivision map that creates the individually salable lots. We have a minor use permit for community compatibility considerations and then a design site review. So the project site is visible from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's defined scenic corridor. So that Westlake Boulevard corridor. And because of that, we have a design site review to make sure. For the. The esthetic considerations, I did take the project to the Tahoe Basin Design Review Committee on October 28th of 2025. This committee is comprised of local residents from local. Within the basin. They range from architects to engineers, business owners and contractors, and they're tasked with reviewing projects primarily primarily to look at them from the esthetic considerations and to ensure that they're compliant with the Tahoe Basin Area plan. When I took the item before the committee, we did have several absences. So we only had three members We did not have a quorum, but those three members did review

the project. They were all in support of it. They had a couple of minor tweaks regarding some of the stone that was being used. And so the applicant incorporated all of those recommendations. And that's the project that you see before you today. I also took the project to the North Tahoe Regional Advisory Council, or Nerak. That was on March 12th of 2026. The members did have raised questions regarding affordable housing and workforce housing requirements for the project. So I'd like to point out that the Shane Property project is subject to Placer County affordable housing and employee accommodation ordinance. Because of the small size of the Shane project, so only nine units, they are eligible to pay an in lieu fee for the affordable housing obligation. And so that's what they've chosen to do. They don't have any employees generated as a part of the project. So the employee accommodation aspect of the ordinance is not applicable. So the the RAC members acknowledge that the Shane project is fully meeting their obligations as it relates to affordable housing, but they did express they'd like to see the county explore some either higher in lieu fees or construction requirements to better achieve some of our local workforce housing needs, but as a whole, unanimously, unanimously, the members agreed that this is what they called a model project and that the project complies with all of the area plan development standards and considerations. There was one written public comment for Nerak and they raised four concerns. The first was that there was a concern that this is a gated community. So I do want to stress that a three foot tall metal picket. So therefore see through fence is proposed. It's a perimeter fence, but there is no gate. There was also a concern that because this is a for sale market rate for sale product, that it wouldn't be supplying housing for the local residents

and workforce. So again, the applicant is meeting their affordable housing obligation needs requirements through the in lieu fee. And they it's within their purview to develop a market rate product. There was also, I believe, a misunderstanding. There was a concern that that the project was going to be redesignating state, state route 89 as a major thoroughfare. I think there might have been some confusion in that. The project is within Phoenix Scenic corridor, so there is no change to State Route 89 designation. And then finally, there was a concern that we were using an incorrect parking demand, and they provided a parking demand table in their comment letter to support their findings. Unfortunately, that was an outdated parking demand table. So the project is required to provide ten spaces and they're providing 14. Moving on to the environmental documentation, we did conduct the review under section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. This is also known as a conformity review, and I believe your commission is familiar with this CEQA process. As in the West County, I believe the Sunset Area Plan has used the conformity review several times. So the conformity review is a very robust environmental review process. We have environmental studies and analysis for all of the resource areas listed on this slide, and the purpose is to determine whether or not the project is consistent with the findings and analysis of the 2017 Tahoe Basin Area Plan. EIR eyes that was certified by the Board of Supervisors. So through our conformity review, staff did determine that the project is consistent and no additional environmental review is needed. I do have that conformity review as an attachment in your staff report. So before I move on to the

recommendation, I do want to note that I have not received any public comment on this project prior to the hearing today, and I do also want to make mention that I have to make two minor corrections to two conditions of approval, and this is primarily related to the approval date and the expiration date. So the first is for condition number 82. And I'll be changing. I'll read the whole the first sentence to you with the corrections. I'll be changing the date to April 16th and updating that any appeal would be made to the Board of Supervisors. So I'll go ahead and read that first sentence and it's corrected format. The effective date of approval shall be April 16th, 2026, unless the approval is appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The second correction would be for condition number 84. Again, that would be updating the date. And again I will read that condition. This vesting tentative map, minor use permit and design site review PLN 20 4-00361 shall expire on April 16th, 2029 unless previously exercised by issuance of a Building permit and completion of a foundation inspection. Heather, if I could, I just wanted to note for the commission, those are on pages 64 and 65 of your packet. Thank you. And conditions of approval 82 and 84. So with that, I'll go ahead and move on to the recommendation. So staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions. First is to determine that the potential impacts of the Shane Property project are within the scope of the analysis of the 2017 Certified Tahoe Basin Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2011 082070 and subsequent addenda approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and no additional

environmental review is required. Next would be to approve a vesting tentative subdivision map, creating ten lots, including eight townhome lots, one single family residential lot and one common area lot for the construction of nine individually salable market rate. Single family residential units subject to the recommended conditions of approval as modified. Then. Next would be to approve a minor use permit to allow the proposed multifamily residential development within the West Shore. Mixed use subdistrict Homewood Village Center of the Tahoe Basin area plan, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as modified, and then finally to approve a design site review agreement for the construction of nine individually salable market rate, single family residential units and a designated designated roadway scenic corridor subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Again as modified. And with that, I'm done with my presentation and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Now I'll take this back to the commission. To the members of the commission have any questions for the presenter? None at this point. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant please join us? Come forward. Thank you. Do you have any comments you'd like to make? I do not have you read. And are you agreeable to the project's conditions of approval? Yes, I am including the modifications. Yes, thank you very much. And just for the record, could you state your name, please? My name is Matthew. Shane. Thank you, thank you. Now's the period for the public comment. Are there any public comments? I'm

opening that up at this point in time. None in person. Are there any online? I see none online. All right. I will close the public comment. Are there any. Well, there's no need for staff comments. There were no comments, Commissioner. Deliberations. Any discussion about the the proposal and the conditions. Nothing really to add. It seems to be all in line and pointed out as an ideal project. So nothing to add. Great. Thank you very much. May I have a motion at this point in time? And commissioners, each of these will need to be taken separately. Items one, A, B, C, and D. You can refer to them as that. You don't need to read them in. They were read into the record and with the notation that Heather provided that items B, C, and D also include that modification to the condition of approval that she cited. So we would need a motion first on item one a. Thank you. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to recommend we take action on item A as read into the record by Heather. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Would the clerk provide a roll call vote for us? Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Watts. Yes. I further recommend that we approve item B as read into the record by staff. Second, there's a motion and a second with the clerk. Please call the roll. Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Jewel. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Watts. Yes.

I further recommend that we approve item C as read into the record by staff. Second, may I just ask a quick question? Does that does include the modifications, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Since we have a motion and a second with the clerk, please call the roll. Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Watts. Yes. I further move that we approve item D as read into the record by staff. Second. With a motion and a second. Would the clerk please call the roll? Dahlgren. Yes, yes. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Watts. Yes. So it appears. Sorry, miss. Just going to make sure that you read into the record the the statement about appeal to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment, or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within ten days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. And I think with that, we're ready to move on to the next item. So thank you very much, Mr. Applicant, and thank you for your attention. Yes, sir. So yeah, the next item on the agenda is the consideration of the entitlement package for the village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan for this item. The Board of Supervisors is the decision body, and the Planning Commission will be providing a recommendation to the board. Today's staff presentation will be given by senior planner Patrick Dobbs. But we will hear

first from our planning director, Chris Cooley. Thank you very much. Thank you again, Chair Watts. Again, commissioners. Chris Placer County, planning director. So I'm pleased to be here today to introduce this item and offer some opening remarks on the village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan. I'll also walk through how today's hearing will be structured before turning it over to Patrick Dobbs for the staff presentation. So as the commissioner, as the Commission will recall, when the previous version of the specific plan came before you in 2024, staff found that plan to be consistent with the Olympic Valley General Plan, supportive of of reinvestment in the in the area and capable of delivering meaningful benefits to both the community and to the county. The Commission recommended approval of that plan, and the board approved it later that year. In late 2024, a lawsuit followed, and through that process, the parties, including the applicant Altera and the petitioners League to save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Watch, reached a settlement agreement. And that agreement is. Which brings us to today and the revised project for your consideration. That project, again before you today, are amendments to the 2024 plan and the associated entitlement package. And it's not simply just a scaled down version of the prior proposal that was approved back in 2024. It is a more focused and revised plan that responds to concerns that we have heard and the applicant has heard through the public process and through that litigation. So you're going to hear more detail shortly from

both the staff presentation and applicant presentation. But I briefly wanted to highlight a few a few key changes. First, there are reductions in the overall scale of development, along with important shifts of where that of where development will occur. It does pull development in closer to the existing village core and away from more sensitive areas in the in the larger plan area. Second, the plan builds upon what you've previously seen back in 2024. It enhances open space, improves walkability, and refines the overall layout while maintaining a similar mix of uses. From what? From what the plan included back in 2024 and importantly, the. The plan continues and the agreement continues to deliver community benefits, including workforce, workforce, housing, infrastructure and public service investments, transit and mobility considerations, restoration of Washoe Creek and long term fiscal benefits. So from my perspective as the county's planning director, the amendments to the specific plan and its development and design standards, they better align with the structure of the county's other specific plans. And I know that the commission is very familiar with our other specific plans and the implementation of those plans. These changes do bring it more in line with those planning documents. The prior version back in 2024 was a little bit more rigid in its in its scope. This is a little bit more what staff and you are accustomed to. It does provide a clear framework for development, but importantly, it maintains some flexibility. And that flexibility is important given

that it's going to build out this project area. We'll build out over roughly two decades or so. So it allows the plan to develop with some consideration to evolving market conditions, design preferences and community priorities. And in my view, that these amendments do strike a balance between providing a clear vision for the overall development, but also provides that ability to evolve, which benefits not only the applicant and the community, but also staff and future decision bodies, the Planning Commission board and also our lower hearing bodies as well. So turning to today's hearing, we'll begin with a staff presentation from the county's lead planner, Patrick Dobbs. That'll be followed by the applicant's presentation. After each presentation, the commission will have an opportunity to ask questions, both first of staff, then of the applicant team. Once those presentations and questions are complete, we will move into public comment and that'll be followed by staff responses to those those public comments received. So, as Chair Watts noted earlier, we do anticipate a a lunch break at an appropriate point in the proceedings. He mentioned the 1:00 hour, but we'll see how things proceed today. And then following that staff response to public comments, the commission will move into deliberations. So as with prior hearings on this topic, we do have a full team here to support the commission. With today's discussion, I'll briefly note a few key members. We do have. To my left here we have Krystal Jacobson, our assistant community development resource agency director. We

have Lee Chavez, the county's environmental coordinator. We also have Sean Bechtel, who you may recall from the last series of hearings with Ascent Environmental. We have Katie Jackson from the county's Department of Public Works, and then in the in the back, back to my right, we also have Battalion Chief Chris Mertens with Cal Fire, and we have Lieutenant Jason Welsh from the Placer County Sheriff's Office and the Office of Emergency Services. Should there be the need for them to answer questions, I should also note that we do have several staff and consultants joining via Zoom that you may also hear from if we need to call upon them. So with that, I'd like to conclude by saying I look forward to today's discussion, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Dobbs here for the staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Patrick Dobbs from the Planning Services Division, here to introduce the village of Palisades Tahoe specific plan and the proposed amendments to the previously approved specific plan and appendix B, the development standards and design guidelines, large lot, tentative subdivision map and development agreement. The project is located in eastern Placer County and the community of Olympic Valley. It is within the 4700 acre Olympic Valley General Plan, formerly the Squaw Valley General Plan, which is a community plan. The specific plan was most recently approved in 2024 and includes a hospitality and recreation based, year round mountain resort community located on 93.3 acres of land in Olympic

Valley, the project consists of two sites in Olympic Valley. There is no changes to the specific plan project area. With these proposed amendments. The main village is outlined on the exhibit there in the yellow dash line on the main part of the exhibit is primarily surface parking lots. Today you see the green strip going through the main village area. That's Wasichu Creek that bisects the main village. And then you'll note in the inset in the lower right is the east parcel, and this was previously a rock quarry. There's been some construction staging, so there's some disturbance on that site. So focusing in on the main village for a moment. The main village is 84.5 acres at the existing Palisades Tahoe Resort base area at the west end of the valley. It is adjacent to other resort facilities like the Intrawest Village, Red Wolf Lodge and Plumpjack to the west. Surrounding development includes generally single family residential. To the north, there's a golf course and meadow to the east, and ski resort and related facilities to the south. This. This is approved for medium and high density resort. Residential uses, commercial and parking uses. There are pedestrian, open space and recreation uses again to transform Palisades Tahoe into a top quality year round destination resort. One more click here. Zooming in on the east parcel for a moment. The east parcel is 8.8 acres. It's just a third of a mile west of the intersection of Olympic Valley Road and State Route 89. At the east end of the valley, there is an existing encroachment into the property. It is across the street from the Public Service district's office and tavern, and generally primarily surrounded by single family residential. This site is approved for employee housing,

shipping and receiving facility, a market and parking. There are no land use changes to the east parcel, but as I'll describe, there are fewer employees, so there will be fewer employee housing on that site. The specific plan was originally approved in 2012, again located near the base of the resort area. It initially proposed to develop 3187 hospitality, you know, hotel condo, bedrooms again includes commercial and recreation uses, and you can see the exhibit in the lower left, kind of the the illustrative of what that plan would have looked like. And despite it seeming a little overwhelming, that first draft, you know, was or is consistent with the plan. But but following that draft, the project did go undergo several revisions. In 2014, the applicant submitted a reduced density proposal for 4493 hospitality rooms and approximately two 298,000ft² of new and replacement commercial land uses. Again, workforce housing, onsite and offsite recreation amenities. An EIR was prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts, and in November of 2016, the county's Board of Supervisors certified the EIR and approved what was then called the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan. A lawsuit was filed challenging the county's IR certification, and they asserted that the specific plans. IR analysis was inadequate for. For numerous reasons. In August of 2018, the Placer County Superior Court upheld the county's EIR analysis and denied the lawsuit in its entirety. That trial court ruling was appealed, and three years later, so in August of 2021, the Third District Court of the Third District Court of Appeals issued its ruling and upheld the majority

of the county's IR analysis. However, the appeals court did partially reverse the Superior Court's decision and identified some deficiencies in the 2016 EIR in those four areas listed on the screen public transit, construction, noise, hydrology, water quality and air quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and wildfire evacuation. The Superior Court entered a new judgment in in 2022 and 2022, and that required the Board of Supervisors to take action and rescind and vacate the previous 2016 approval. As a result of the lawsuit. The applicant desires to move forward. And so, following following that lawsuit, we did work on preparation of a partially revised EIR to specifically address the potential impacts and issues that were identified in the court ruling and those resource areas where the discussion and the analysis was previously inadequate. In 2016, IR we did receive thousands of public comments, many calling for Olympic Valley not to become a place of overdevelopment, requesting a reduced density project with environmental analysis for that community preferred option. In November of 2024, the partially revised EIR was certified and the specific plan was Re-approved. It was the same plan as 2016, except the name changed to Palisades Tahoe and following the board approval in 2024, another lawsuit was filed. And so investments to evolve the resort to benefit the community have been stalled for over a decade. Today is a new day. The applicant's leadership under Arden Herring with Alterra Mountain Company and Amy Moran, the president of Palisades Tahoe, are taking a different approach. One of progress and collaboration over opposition, a desire to find common ground and get it right

and end this long standing legal battle. So today, Palisades proposes amendments that reflect their settlement agreement. It is a significantly smaller project, with 896 hospitality rooms, reduced commercial floor area. So that's where we're at today. The 2024 specific plan is on pause as these amendments make their way through are being considered. The proposed changes are a focused package of amendments. The project entitlements that will be decided by the Board of Supervisors next month include an addendum to the 2016 EIR and the 2024 partially revised EIR. There are amendments to the specific plan itself, amendments to the appendix B Development Standards and Design guidelines. There's updates to the project's development agreement and approval of A the specific plans vesting large lot. Tentative map. There are two documents that are attachments to the specific plan that that required some updates, and that's the master phasing plan. And we did some minor updates on the emergency preparedness plan. But just to note that not all of the entitlements are components that were approved in 2024 require re-approval, because there are no changes in some of those components. So regarding the previous general Plan amendment and what was amounted to text changes in the community plan, no changes there. The project area has been rezoned to this specific plan. Zoning designation s p l t s p. No zoning changes to that overarching zoning district and as well as the project's water supply is still valid. So although with the amended amendments, the project has been reduced, the specific

plan retains its commitment to community benefits and mitigating impacts. The the applicant has taken the opportunity to to not only reduce the plan but improve the plan. So this is, you know, some of the land use changes, some of the key differences, and it would substantially reduce the development, again, more reflective of the community voice to bring that base area back to life and create a more consolidated, walkable plan. So just, you know, a way to visualize some of the changes starting at the top. You can see the comparison in the 2024 approved plan has 91,493 hospitality rooms as proposed today. It is a 40% reduction down to nine 896 rooms. Similarly, on the commercial areas within the main village, previously approved at two 278,000ft² and now a 20% reduction down to 222,000ft². There is a lot going on in the slides, so I'll use my pointer here to try and walk you through a few of these changes. First note over here that that exhibit that represents the 2024 approved land use plan so that, you know, you'll see some colors change on the map as we shift over to the proposed land use plan, starting with lot 16 and 18. This is kind of the gateway area to Shirley Canyon. This is currently approved as village Village Commercial neighborhood zoning designated for 20 units. It is now proposed the land use designation is proposed to change to Village Forest Recreation. Looking at lot 11 there, the blue lot and the parking area. A lot of 11 will stay parking. It was a previously approved 20 foot

maximum height. Given some of the parking consolidation efforts that are happening here. Again, the land use would stay the same, but the height would increase up to 35ft for that parking structure. Lot 12 right next to it was previously village parking. And now that's being proposed to be redesignated to Village Commercial Core. And this, you know, ties into that shift of development that's coming off lot 16 and 18. And an effort to again concentrate more of that and the main village area and really activate that that main village area. So, you know, the change on lot 12, it was previously going to be a parking structure at 20ft tall by redesignating redesignating it to village commercial core. It would allow up to a 96 foot maximum height. And I will just note down there at the bottom on lot eight, you'll remember conversations about the mountain adventure camp. This is kind of the primary activity area in the village, previously approved at 90,000ft² with a 96 foot maximum height now proposed at 72,000ft² and a 78 foot maximum height. Again, no changes to the land uses on the east parcel. So the next you know, several of these next few slides are really trying to highlight the key differences in the proposed amendments. And so another change is what's required for the subsequent land use permits. And so the table on the left shows you the the an excerpt from the 2024 approved specific plan. There's no change to the range of uses. The use has stayed the same. But as you'll note here previously, many of these uses that are, you know, not anticipated, expected have been planned for for 14 years. You know, those, those would have

previously required conditional use permits. So in an effort to streamline, streamline implementation, you'll see the corresponding table on the right that reflects the 2026 proposed amendments. And you'll see that it's now a combination of zoning clearance, conformity review, design review for the Olympic with the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee. So, as Chris mentioned, consistent with the other specific plans that are approved in the county. The building footprints and envelopes in the 2024 approved plan were very prescriptive. One of the proposed changes with the amendments is to allow more flexibility in the scale and the exact location of these future buildings, so there are a lot of factors to consider when siting the placement of these buildings. There are setbacks from property lines and the creek. There are setbacks from different buildings, some of which don't exist yet. And there are depending on the type of pedestrian corridor you front, the parcel fronts, whether it's a primary, a secondary or a buffered pedestrian corridor. There are different setbacks, setback requirements. And then, you know, as buildings go vertical, there are different setback requirements that need to occur. So this is just an illustrative of some of the examples of what 12 could look like on the left hand side of the screen. And then again, some examples of the configuration layout that could occur on the east parcel. So again the specific plan establishes the framework. The details of the individual phases will be seen in the future. This is an example of of where the proposed amendments not only, you know, reduce the density and intensity of the plan, but really made it a better plan. So with the proposed change to

lot 12, from parking to village commercial core, that really provided the opportunity to expand the public realm and the pedestrian network. Again, really trying to activate this base area in the village core. So, so the pedestrian corridors and the open space network has been expanded to now include areas around lot 12. There's more better improved circulation, there's more connections and access to areas like Wasichu Creek. Build out the proposed 2026 amendments here are expected to generate 391 full time equivalent employees. The project is required to provide housing for a minimum of 50% of those full time equivalents that it generates, and so this project must ensure that housing for up to 196 employees at Plan Area build out. In addition, the project includes removal of some existing structures that are in the main village area that currently provides seasonal housing for 99 staff. That's the court side and hostel. So you know, as a result here, the total employee housing obligation at build out is 295 employees. Under the specific plan. Seven a little over seven acres of the East parcel is zoned for entrance commercial, so housing would be constructed on the east parcel for a minimum of 200 employees. Again, concurrent with the first phase of development of the hospitality project. By comparison, the 2024 project required workforce housing for 386 employees, so that reflected the higher employee generation projected under the 2024 Specific Plan. Above and below grade parking contained, you know, within the podium

level, as well as surface parking, maybe maybe constructed here within the resort primarily to to serve the guests and owners, the existing surface parking lot on, on lot 11, again, would be converted to an above grade structured parking facility. Similar structured parking may be constructed on on other lots within the specific plan area. And as well, you know, there are lots that also may be used for surface parking. So additional parking may also be located on the east parcel in both surface or structured parking lots. So each phase would be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking is provided to meet all the parking demand generated by that project phase. And then this includes and they'd have to approve up that they include no fewer than 3100 parking spaces within these dedicated parking structures and or surface lots. So again, these are minimums. Amy Lauren has a world class ski resort to run. And, and, you know, doesn't want a frustrated customers in the parking lot. So as it relates to fire and emergency services here, Olympic Valley Fire Department currently provides fire protection and Olympic valley. And would provide these services for the project area. Cal fire has responsibility of the surrounding state responsibility areas. As everyone knows here, Olympic Valley is a very high fire hazard severity zone. There was a previous study in 2014 from from City Gate that was done for was prepared for the public service district, you know, for the adopted specific plan. That study indicated an important component to provide fire protection within the main village would be to establish a West Valley fire substation. And that hasn't changed. The

project will still provide its fair share contribution to dedicate land, construct the station staff and equipment, the existing surface parking lots within the main village area are currently identified by the Olympic Valley Fire Department as potential gathering points during emergency events. In the specific plan, there will be shelter in place and temporary temporary refuge areas will continue to be available for that purpose. The specific plan would allow construction of a dedicated emergency helipad within the main village to enhance that area ambulance service, but there has been a lot of coordination with the Olympic Valley Public Service District and Fire Department. There's general agreement, but the project is a requirement that they formalize that agreement between the PSD and Palisades. Also, the you know, you may recall previously in 2024, we updated the project's emergency preparedness plan in consultation with fire experts, Deer Creek Resources. We just made some minor updates to that package with the amendments, just to reflect this iteration of the project. But again, that emergency preparedness plan includes discussions of how public safety information is disseminated. The the notification systems, the procedures during events. There's annual staff training on these emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures. So ultimately that emergency preparedness plan, you know, works in conjunction with the Olympic Valley Fire Department wildland fire evacuation plan and ultimately the Placer operational East Side emergency evacuation plan. One of the entitlements that you recommended approval on in 2024 and is back here today, is the large lot vesting tentative

subdivision map. This would create a total of 51 lots on the 93.3 acres. This defines the general layout and location of land. Uses, backbone, backbone, roadways, and utility easements. There's no development rights associated with the large lot map. This is to some degree for financing purposes. So to obtain the development rights, all subsequent development phases will be subject to conformity environmental review. It does require approval of the small lot tentative subdivision maps. Approvals of any land use permits and and must be in line with the implementation policies in the specific plan. So prior to submitting the small lot subdivision maps, the applicant must finalize some master plans that they've prepared for water, sewer, drainage, parking. And there's an implementation policies and procedural manual. So subsequent development phases will be reviewed at public meetings. And you know, those will involve the Olympic Valley Mac, the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee, and your commission. The state minimum fire Safe regulations are set by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The regulations require that dead end roads where development is located shall not exceed 5280ft one mile. These state minimum fire safe regulations are associated with large lot vesting. Tentative subdivision map to ensure that emergency access and egress within within the state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. So dead end roads are those with a single point of vehicle access. It includes roads that loop back on themselves. Olympic Valley Road does exceed one mile and this is nothing new. There's only ever been one road in and one road out. A secondary

ingress and egress in Olympic Valley has been sought for decades and has proven not to be feasible due to physical, legal and financial constraints. But these fire safe regulations aren't unique to the specific plan. When it's not possible for a project to comply with one or more of these minimum fire safe regulations, an exception can be granted by Cal Fire. If a project incorporates wildland fire protection and life safety measures that provide the same practical effect as the fire safe regulations themselves and staff. You know, we understand and support the intent of these regulations, how they relate to new development in remote areas with high wildfire risk and limited access. But that's not the case here. This is a redevelopment project with adequate infrastructure and access. This isn't remote. There are more eyes on Olympic Valley than just about every other valley in the state. The project includes the same wildfire and safety components as 2024 that do provide the same practical effect as required by the state minimum Fire Safe regulations. There will be new 24 over seven staff fire station at the west end of the Valley. Olympic Valley Road is wide enough to allow three lanes of travel in an emergency, which contraflow? Two lanes coming out, one lane for emergency responders coming in. They staff preparedness, evacuation planning and communication protocols are are in the emergency preparedness plan. Olympic Valley currently includes, you know, shelter in place and temporary refuge areas. There would be adequate water infrastructure to combat wildfire and protect structures, and a continued commitment to vegetation management, defensible space work undertaken by the applicant. So in February of 2025, Cal Fire did approve the exception to the state minimum fire safe regulations for this dead end road limit. That exception is still valid. There are no changes to the wildland

protection, wildland fire protection, and public safety components proposed. You know, components with these proposed amendments. You know, again, we've talked, you know, how's all this get implemented? Buildout is still anticipated to occur off and on over 25 years. But as you know, the commission is becoming accustomed to implementation of specific plans, particularly in the west portion of the county. So as I touched on earlier, there will be subsequent entitlements needed to move forward with the project. This includes these small lot tentative subdivision maps. Again, whether any land use permits are discretionary or ministerial. There's the design review with the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee. The project needs to be consistent with the Infrastructure phasing plan. The updated master plans. There will be improvement plans and building permits. So you know this is not the last time this will be looked at. You know, as the phases come forward, all of the development projects must demonstrate that they're consistent with the certified EIR, that all mitigation measures have been incorporated in any project conditions and any development agreement requirements are being met with that phase. The amendments did require some additional environmental analysis. On November of 2024, the board did certify the Village of Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan EIR, and that consisted of the 2016 draft and finally IR, as well as the 2024 draft and partially revised final Eirs. So this addendum to the specific plan is really an analysis of the changes that within the plan, you know, that have occurred since 2024. So not not too much time has lapsed. All of the environmental resource areas were reevaluated. The focus of

the addendum is on those eight, you know, resource areas listed on the screen, biological resources, visual resources, transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, noise hydrology and water quality, public services and utilities and hazardous materials and and hazards. But the 2026 amendments would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Generally speaking, the impacts have been reduced proportionately along with the reduced project, although sometimes the reductions aren't quite as linear as the numbers themselves. The the project impacts associated with the proposed modifications basically would remain the same or be lessened than those that were identified in the 2024 EIR. There have there are three mitigation measures that have been revised in the addendum to address the proposed modifications. Recognizing that the amount of development would be reduced. So none of the edits the mitigation measures alter their performance or effectiveness in addressing these significant impacts. But starting with mitigation measure 9-4 on the screen, this deals with traffic signal timing that was a decrease or adjusted by five seconds at that state route 89 Olympic Valley Road intersection. Again, the measure addresses the reduced trips generated by the proposed project modifications, and this change would not adversely affect the operational safety of that intersection. Mitigation measure 14 seven B. Involves fire protection facilities and staffing, and this was modified after consultation with the Olympic Valley Public Service District and Fire Department.

The revised measure will provide the equivalent or improved emergency medical and fire safety response times and service, and then mitigation. Measure 1822 is tied. You know, similar to to the one I just discussed, measure 9.4. But this involves the the lengthening of the left turn, left turn lane there at the 89 Olympic Valley Road intersection. So the length of that turn lane pocket storage would now be reduced by 125ft, again reflecting the reduced project trips, and would not adversely affect the operational safety of those of that intersection. As I'm, you know, kind of winding down here in my presentation, I just did want to touch on the development and some of the key terms of that. Again, workforce housing will be constructed with this project for 295 employees. There's an additional $500,000 of regional employee housing contribution. And any dollar, I figure any dollar figures that I give you right now are bailed out. They grow over time, $800,000 for environmental enhancements and restoration, open space acquisition and public safety improvements and trails. Again, the West Valley Fire Station is going to dedicate the land, you know, construct the station, equip it, staff it. And then there's channel widening and sediment control basins and revegetation habitat creation. A number of improvements to reduce flood potential and and sediment loading and improve the Washu Creek. As far as the parks and recreation improvements. Again, a number of on site and off site improvements, the park and trail fee remains at $4,050 a unit, albeit they're smaller, fewer units. But the project

will develop and dedicate active parkland, passive recreation and recreation trails. A number of improvements in the transportation and transit area. This traffic management and parking plan has been successful. It does allow some adaptive management. So there are check ins with the county, what's working and what doesn't and how can we make some adjustments. But there will be new transit center constructed. The project will contribute to the county countywide traffic fee program. There are contributions regarding operational and capital expenses to Tart. There will be free fares for their employees on Tart and Palisades will continue to participate in support the Micro Transit and Business Improvement districts for the life of the project. This is not within the jurisdiction, but the applicant is voluntarily paying a fee to again accelerate VMT reduction in the Placer County portion of the or the Placer County portion of Tahoe. So the the $2 million fee to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency stays the same again, spread out over fewer units. But. But that will accelerate environmental improvements here in the Placer County portion of the basin, there's. The lodging fee remains the same 2.5% on short term stays less than 30 days. This will generate an annual annual estimated amount of approximately $1 million, or near $20 million, over the life of the project to again accelerate and fund VMT reduction projects. I know there's some locals that are interested in some of the activities that will be available at the Mountain Adventure Camp, and so there is a locals discount and non-peak access privilege for full time Eastern County Placer residents.

So still a very fiscally positive project for the county and the community. The. The project has been. The amendments have been very well received as we've gone out to the community and received feedback. You can see the meetings we had starting back in December 1st with a virtual community meeting that I believe we had about 100 attendees on. We, you know, we received questions. We were able to post those responses to those frequently asked questions up on the website. We met with the Olympic Valley Mac on December 8th, and then we had two meetings with the Olympic Valley Design Review Committee, one on January 8th and the other on January 30th. And if you see in some of the exhibits on the slide, you see some track changes and some of those screenshots that I've put on the slide. And that's an example of some of the changes that came out of that second design review committee meeting. So the first meeting, there were some recommendations. You know, a lot of it dealing with solar exposure and separation between buildings and really creating that exemplary pedestrian experience. And so the applicant did come back with some modifications on, on the July or January 30th meeting to create some more spacing between buildings to, you know. Just reflective of the comments and recommendations that came from this design review committee. And the Design Review committee did recommend that you recommend that the modifications to appendix B and the design, Development Standards and design guidelines be approved. We've also had extensive discussions with with stakeholders and agencies, particularly the public service District. But you'll see in our packet we have a supportive letter from the town of Truckee.

Again, coordination with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. But, you know, that's not to say there aren't still some issues. And so we've heard some various things at these meetings. You know, traffic and parking come up, you know, some of those shifts to the land uses and what that might mean for some of the owners and the current existing West Village. We've been asked about the environmental analysis, the changes to the workforce, housing. Certainly fire and evacuation is one of the big issues in the community. You know how these changes would affect the building height and the development on lot 12, specifically, questions about the terms of the development agreement and Mountain Adventure Camp. And and one of the groups that that showed up in force at the Mac meeting was the Creek Creekside Charter School, expressing concerns about the future of their school site and where it might fit within the specific plan in the future. And, and that wasn't something that was necessarily anticipated, but it is. So this is a change that's coming to you in the form of an errata. This is in response to the feedback that we received at the community meetings regarding the school on lot 16. So again, you know, today that lot 16 is village commercial neighborhood schools is a permissible use. We've evaluated that this change to forest recreation would still retain that school use allowance on lot 16, but they're not proposing a school. It just retains that allowance and establishes some modest development standards. Maximum of a 20,000 square foot building. It is not ministerial staff level. It does require approval of a discretionary permit, minor use permit with the zoning administrator. So we would be able to condition that sort of project accordingly if it ever comes in. But again,

you know, a school is not proposed at this time. It will remain as a permissible use. And and, you know, the operator is working closely with folks at the Creekside Charter School so that that is a change that that came out of the public process in the previous in the prior months. And the figures and that are reflected on the screen there, identify which figures and exhibits within the specific plan or which exhibits within appendix B are being affected by this school allowance. The hearing information for today was properly noticed adjacent to adjacent properties and interested parties. The hearing notice was was posted at the site. We've received a surprisingly few number of comment letters compared to the past. A couple letters of support from the town of Truckee and one of the Mac members, but also a few letters of concern. And you know it. You know, I don't want to oversimplify it, but fire and traffic, those those are some of the big ones. So staff recommends the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and take the following five actions. Adopt a resolution adopting the addendum to the previously certified village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. That's State Clearinghouse number 2012 102023. And that consists of the 2016 draft and final environmental impact reports and the 2024 draft and final, partially revised environmental impact reports prepared pursuant to the California Environmental and Environmental Quality Act. Adopt the addendum to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt the revised Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project. Based on the findings contained in the

resolution. The second action is to adopt a resolution approving the amendments to the village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan and this errata regarding the school use. Based on the findings contained in the resolution, the third action is to adopt an ordinance approving amendments to the village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plans appendix B Development Standards and design guidelines and errata. Based on the findings contained in the ordinance, the fourth action is approval of the village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan. Large lot vesting. Tentative subdivision map that would be subject to the recommended conditions of approval and based on the findings that are contained in the staff report, and the fifth and final action is to adopt an ordinance to approve the development agreement related to village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan based on the findings contained in the ordinance. Thank you, Mister Chair. I can answer your questions. The applicant team has a presentation to follow. Well, thank you very much. I was an excellent presentation and very thorough and compliments to you and your staff for getting to this point. Questions? Yeah, I'm just going to get there. So at this point, I'd like to pull this back to the commission and offer the commissioners the ability to ask questions to you. Anybody up here? Okay. Yeah. Please. Mister Johnson, I have a couple questions. Really, this is just clarification, but basically. When you look at the chart, I think it's on about page two or so. And this particular proposal, any subsequent development. I mean, as the development progresses, everything is pretty much a condition of the zoning. But

you made reference to public involvement in the future. And so you might go into a little bit more detail on how the public involvement would include, because basically with the large lot and small lot with the condition of zoning, then this would both cover both large and small lot. Yeah. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. You know, the public's opportunity for involvement will be in in settings such as this. So as these as these maps come back to you and, and, you know, the applicant proposes, you know, how many rooms, what is the parking, how much commercial and that sort of thing. So again, we don't know the details of the individual projects yet. This this, you know, establishes the framework, but there will be public opportunities for input on, you know, regarding someone could come say, well, I think this is inconsistent with the standard. So it is not just approved from here on out, there are a number of steps and checks and balances along the way that do allow for public participation. And, and those, you know, those comments to be received and considered by you all. Well, if it's a conditional zoning, then there really won't be planning commission hearings on the individual projects. Maybe someone could help me on this. Yeah. Commissioner Johnson, just to respond to your question, you know, again, similar to other specific plans and the implementation of those those actions, those discretionary actions would come back to the appropriate hearing body for review. As Mr. Dobbs mentioned during his presentation, this entitlement package that's before you does not include a small lot,

tentative subdivision map. And so each individual development will require a a small lot tentative map. And as this commission is very well aware, having seen that in other specific plans that comes back through the Planning Commission for a a final determination and. And that would then require at least under our current code, a review by the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council. And so there would be an opportunity through that process as well as through the Olympic Valley Design Review Committee, for there to be a review of the of the project, the implementation project that comes through prior to it being heard at a planning commission or other hearing body for a final decision. I guess I'm a little bit confused because if you go back to. I guess there's a chart subsequent land use permits, correct? If you could draw that up again, I think so. This that's. Implementation subsequent. There you go. So yeah, I mean, specifically in this case, you know, what I'm referring to is land use permits. It's a question of, you know, looking at condominiums. Again, it previously required a conditional use permit. So after a small lot map and all that came to the commission, they'd have to come back to the commission to see if that use is compatible. And so by this zoning clearance and conformity review and design review, that's one less, you know,

again, for, for, for over a decade, we've contemplated and analyzed these uses and their compatibility and impacts on adjacent properties. So I don't think there's as much of a question of, are these appropriate? And I know I'm not really questioning the appropriateness. I'm just looking at at the chart on the right. Yeah. And that says a condition of zoning with zoning clearance. Yeah. Yeah. Traditionally if it says conditional use permit c u p right. Then that has been the trigger that it comes to the planning Commission. Yeah. Thank you. I'm catching up now just to to move through a couple slides. So the small lot maps, they're all going to come to you whether the subsequent condominium project, you know, and if the amendments are proposed, that piece of it won't, that project wouldn't require approval from the planning Commission. That would be done with this conformity review. And again, if they meet the setbacks, if they meet the height, if they are consistent with the code, then then that doesn't you know, that that can be approved without the planning Commission. Okay, well, yeah, maybe you could explain the chart on the right then where it says condition of zoning. Yeah, I'm kind of feeling a little sloppy, if I might just add a couple of a couple of things. One, it does relate to sort of how the subsequent project would come before the Planning Commission and what might be the bundle of entitlements that you might receive. So previously, there may have been a conditional use permit requirement in the in the previous land use table. If that's no longer required, it's just allowed by right. Then you might just see a tentative map without the need for a a use permit and the ability to

condition that particular use as a component of that project. However, as as has been noted by myself and Mr. Dobbs, those tentative maps per our code, do come to the Planning Commission for, for, for a a decision. You are the decision body for a tentative map. And so you will see it. It just might not be bundled with other use permits because those uses under the. Under this proposed specific plan, amendments would not require a conditional use permit. I should also state that if there are any. Subsequent projects that come through that only require a design site review entitlement, that those decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission. And so if there are decisions made by a lower hearing body, such as a design review or other entitlements, like a minor use permit, which was discussed earlier, those are appealable to the Planning Commission for a for a decision. Okay. Well, thank you. So I just wanted to clarifications that the public will have an opportunity to to come before the Planning Commission in the future. Thank you. Okay. Another question I have I'm going to kind of change gears a little bit here on you. The there's a fire station that's required in the west side of the valley, and they refer to staffing. And so in the future, when you think of staffing, you know, it's going to be paid for by somebody. Is the applicant going to cover the staffing or how is that going to happen? I certainly don't want to say the wrong answer. I think they're going to cover their fair share of the portion. I'm not. So it

would be come out of the general tax base or that's kind of the question. Normally a lot of that is, you know, kind of one of the requirements is this agreement that needs to be formalized with the PSD, you know, in the fire department regarding, you know, at at which hotel room does it trigger the staff member one at which hotel room does staff member two come on. So there the equipment, the staffing schedule is, is, you know, at least framed up and generally agreed upon. But I think they need to formalize that as they're, you know, afterward. Okay, well, maybe we'll need maybe the applicant can give us more clarification on that because normally the residents, you know, through the their taxes pay for the staffing of fire stations. And this would be a long term process. Palisades is definitely going to be responsible for, I think, the majority, if not all of it, but they can kind of clarify. Okay. Thank you. Any other commissioners with questions? I have a question regarding parking and traffic. That seemed to be kind of some of the top issues. And looking at it, it looks like you stated that there's a minimum of three 3100 parking spaces. What currently is the capacity right now of parking for that area? And I know that 12 A and 12 B were going to be parking structures. And now they're building and there is going to be a parking structure. But are you adding numbers or are you taking away numbers for parking? Ultimately I it will be, I think, a slight reduction from what's out there today. Again, these are minimums, but it's, you know, especially on busy days, it can get there can be some pretty creative parking going on out there. So, you know, as these areas get

restriped and the, you know, the areas are defined a little better than the case, you know, so again, at each, at each project, they need to prove up that, that they, you know, not only can park for the hotel or the restaurants or whatever they're trying to construct, but that overall day skier parking that's called for in the, in the community plan is met. So that 3100 day or spots, I think that's based on maybe the fourth highest day of visitorship at the resort when that analysis was occurring. So again, I think that's something the applicant can speak to a little more, but they will, you know, throughout all phases of development, they will maintain the minimum necessary day parking and they will provide additional parking for the new improvements. And as far as roadway improvements, I think there was some turn lane adjustments and all that. But are there any set improvements for Olympic Valley roadway all the way up to where the building is going to take place? I introduce my coworker Katie Jackson and engineering manager in the Department of Public Works, and she can talk to them. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Patrick. Katie Jackson, engineering manager with the Department of Public Works. There are a number of infrastructure components that would be constructed with the development. One of them is, well, actually I'm going to go. There's two parts of it. Part of it is there's going to be seasonal transportation management and parking plan. So that is an adaptive plan that they would implement each

winter during during peak days where they can. Is that better? There we go. Thank you. The Transportation Management and Parking plan requires them to actively manage traffic on peak days. So that's things like the three laning program, the parking reservation program, staffing at key intersections so that side street traffic can get onto and off of Olympic Valley Road. You mentioned the turn lanes on 89. That is a physical improvement that the project would be required to construct. That is the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of 89 and Olympic Valley Road. And then there's also a variety of bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Bike lanes on street. There's a couple of shared use paths that would be off street, and then there's a couple of crosswalks, enhanced crosswalks that are proposed for Olympic Valley Road. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. So this will be the point in time that the applicant has an opportunity to come up and give us an overview from their perspective. Thank you Patrick. Is that on? Okay. Good morning chair. Commissioners want to take a moment to thank you for your time, your diligence and your continued engagement on this plan. And thank you to county staff as well. I'm Amy Oran, president and CEO of Palisades Tahoe, and I'm joined

today by. Thank you. I'm joined today by Arden Herring, who is head of development for Alterra Mountain Company, and Ryan Leavitt with Leavitt Planning and Design. You'll have a chance to hear from following my opening and just start with, as Patrick has mentioned, just no doubt that it's been a really long journey shaped by years of input, a lot of dialog, and no doubt some real tension that has existed. And over the past year in particular, we really took a new direction and saw an opportunity to take a very meaningful step forward by leaning into that dialog with a very different mindset. And that mindset was focused on finding common ground. As leaders, I think we're all asked at times to hold multiple truths at once that can feel in opposition to each other. And those truths in this case are progress and preservation. And both matter deeply here. And both must be true for our community and our valley to thrive. Continually. Finding that space was it was not easy, but we do believe that this plan reflects that balance. Preserving what makes this place special to all of us and allowing for thoughtful development that supports the future. So thank you. I think we can go back to the timelines. As you've seen with this timeline, and as staff mentioned, this project has evolved over 15 years and we've responded to community feedback and incorporated a lot of the priorities into the project along the way. We're also here today with a very different sense of alignment that has not existed in the past, and we feel good about that. This summer, we shared that we had

reached agreement with Sierra Watch and the league to save Lake Tahoe, and we're also really pleased to be here with you today with support from Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council and the Design Review Committee. And we're seeing some really renewed energy around this plan and what it can become, not just as a development project, but as a shared path forward for our community. And we know that that project and that progress comes with a lot of responsibility. And the amendment before you today, it reflects that alignment and it reflects our continued evolution of the plan and what we've heard. Go to the next slide. You've you've seen this plan. So a little duplication here, but I think a couple things are worth saying. Saying twice a central theme to the feedback. As you've heard, it's been about scale and it's been about focus. And we've reduced the total bedrooms by 40%. We've scaled back commercial development and as desired, we've concentrated activity within the village core. And you can see here the land use changes that Patrick Dobbs also presented. It reflects that. And at the same time, a very meaningful change to us is that we are committing lots that were previously dedicated for development into a conservation easement. And these are the lots at the base of Shirley Canyon. And that is something we're really proud to share with the community and is really meaningful to us at Palisades Tahoe next. Patrick also talked about community commitments. And, you know, while we've reduced the overall scale in the plan, we've maintained our full commitments

to community benefits and listening closely to the community feedback along the way. We made significant commitments to mitigate the project's development impact and the adopted 2024 specific plan included a number of really important measures and community benefits that we remained committed to, the first being employee housing. And as was shared, we we remain committed to build the 50% of full time employees generated by the project, as well as an upfront $500,000 regional employee housing contribution that remains intact. And the employee housing not only helps address the current housing needs that we have, but it also internalizes vehicle trips within Olympic Valley, reducing trips on highway 89. And we understand and also have listened to concerns about traffic. And they're a driver of some of the changes in this revised plan, the reduction in the project size will reduce traffic impacts, and we hold a continued commitment to mitigating traffic impacts through operational measures, as well as upfront and ongoing financial contributions to regional solutions. We're not dismissing impacts. We're going to continue to design for them and to plan for them, and we have been solving to them. We're going to continue to expand our operational measures that have taken thousands of cars off the road. And the plan includes comprehensive traffic mitigations and transportation improvements, including a transit center in the village. And as Patrick mentioned, the highway 89 turn turn lane and signal improvements. The plan also contributes significant funding for regional transportation solutions, including an upfront

contribution to Trpa of 2 million and an ongoing lodging fee that will produce upwards of a million a year for for continued improvements that reduce vehicle miles traveled in the Placer County and Tahoe Basin. And as also mentioned, we remain committed to the T zone one and zone two for the life of the project, acknowledging, you know, just want to clearly acknowledge that wildfire risk is one of the most urgent concerns for all of us within the community. And that's why our approach to wildfire mitigation is not isolated to our boundaries. We're actively engaged in broader, coordinated efforts across Olympic Valley, alpine meadows and the surrounding forest lands. Our work is part of a regional strategy and really informed by local expertise to strengthen preparedness, and the village plan will contribute towards new facilities and staffing for fire prevention and emergency response, which the board approved last year. The Emergency Preparedness Plan, which lays out a comprehensive safety and emergency response strategies that enhance our existing overall preparedness. We also at the resort, we operate a dedicated team annually to really focus on reduction of fuels in the surrounding area with really comprehensive. Impacts. And we're also really happy to share that over this last year, really in the spirit of taking a new direction, we've had really productive engagement with Olympic Valley Public Service District and the fire department and the updated, more specific mitigation

measure in our EIR reflects some of that positive collaboration. And lastly, we continue and we're happy to continue to commit to the restoration of Wasichu Creek and the Olympic Channel, as well as ensuring, as you'll see from from Ryan, that subsequent projects will honor mountain architecture of the surrounding village, which now spans both traditional and some more contemporary mountain styles, reflecting the range of styles that exist within Olympic Valley. And then also just want to really sincerely reinforce our commitment to support Creekside School in navigating this next chapter, and in finding a suitable location to help facilitate a transition. For more than a decade, we've been proud to support Creekside with, among other things, providing a temporary home at no cost. And that support has always come from a very genuine place of commitment to the people that live and work within the valley, and the belief that a strong community has strong educational partners. And as mentioned, we're encouraged that the plan conforms confirm schools as an allowable use in village commercial and in village neighborhood zones. And we're happy that we've been able to come to a special provision for schools to continue to be allowed on lot 16. And we're very thankful to our partners at Sierra Watch and lead to save Lake Tahoe and helping to make that happen. This revised plan, as you've seen it, reflects years of input and a willingness to evolve and a commitment to balance. And I

thank you for your consideration as we take this next step forward. And for more on that, I'm going to turn it over to Ryan Lovett of Lovett Planning and Design. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Amy, Patrick and Chris for the tee up here. We've heard from everyone today regarding this project that talk a lot about numbers, about the consensus that this is a better plan. Well, I really wanted to take the moment here today to walk you through what that actually might feel like. What that all adds up to. This ultimately is a better plan and a better plan that is really reflective of the uniqueness of the valley and the people that love it so much. And as you see in this first slide here, the image that we chose to be the cover was intentional, that what you see is a compact village at the base of an extraordinary mountain and within an extraordinary valley, it's surrounded by nature. And that is something that we think in this revised plan is really celebrated and really at the forefront of why we think it's better. And you've seen this a number of times. I will not belabor it, but what we want to do in the next subsequent slides, briefly, is show you what all of this adds up to and how it feels, what those changes in color and what those reductions of 40% in the number of bedrooms, the 20% reduction of commercial space, reduction of height and so on and so forth, add up to. And what you see here is something that really has always been part of the vision of the village, which is something that is a park first and maximizing this extraordinary pedestrian only environment. And we think that this revised plan really builds on that and expands it

significantly. And what you see is, as we've been discussing, a significant increase in the amount of conserved area and overall open space, about 20% increase. And that's not factoring in for the increased pedestrian only areas on lot 12. So in addition to that, there's about a five acres on lot 12 that were previously a structured parking lot are now world class public realm that are connecting the creek to the existing village and opening up a this whole area in all of those natural elements and pulling them into the village and up to the base of the mountain. And it's a little squished here on the screen. But this is an illustration of what the previously adopted plan may have looked like at full build out. And you'll notice here I maybe I won't belabor the James Bond spotlight too much here. I'm trying to get control of that. But what you'll see there is just the amount of density in two main areas the large buildings in the Shirley Canyon Creek area. The large structured parking lots abutting the north side of the existing village, and then another area over on the Far East area. And then this is sort of where everyone can take a sigh of relief. What this revised plan yields. And to zoom in a little bit, this is looking at the Shirley Canyon area in the previously adopted plan. And then again in the proposed amendment. And you can see just how much less density, how much less disturbed area there is up in that sensitive area. And I think, you know, we've been alluding to it, but it really this consensus that we've arrived at was an opportunity. And I credit everyone in this room who's been involved in this, in supporting this opportunity to make a better plan. And it really is about making

something more compact, making this village more vibrant. It does need a lot of help. And we think that this revised plan will really catalyze it in a positive way. And we heard a lot of feedback from stakeholders that that's a priority. In addition, you know, this is a place, as you guys all well know, that has just such an incredible legacy and a legacy over many, many decades. And we think that there we seize that as an opportunity to really build something that honors that and expands the true sense of Olympic Valley, to not just mean interest village, but to mean something that is reflective of the 1960 Winter Olympics and subsequent things that have happened since then. And that is really what we think has been a driver. And the other is that Patrick and others have alluded to. This is a plan that will take a number of years to execute, and we know that things will change. We know that technology will get better. We know buildings get higher performing. We know that the market shifts. We have designed a little bit of flexibility in there so that it's more consistent with how other specific plans and Placer County work. And so just to not belabor this too much, but in those big green blobs there, you see on the left, the pedestrian only area in the adopted plan was relegated to the southeastern portion of the plan area. In the proposed amendment, you see that that is now expanded. And so now when you're coming into the existing village, you're sort of surrounded by an expanded pedestrian network, not only to the east pulling people sort of way over that way, you're also pulling it to the north. So really the gateway to this place, when you arrive by car, you park in one of those garages, you're immediately in this amazing environment and you're not having to overcome fighting. And it's really sort of extraordinarily large parking garage. And I'll have some images to further give color to what that means. And this was a slide that was already shown, but just to put

my spin on it, those blue and green lines and those blue dots are basically an expanded public realm. And those must be built no matter what happens. Every subsequent project is going to have open space. It's going to have pedestrian only environment. It's going to have world class public realm at the base of it. It's going to have active ground floors. Really a better version of what you find in world class ski resorts and within the existing village today, and what that might look like is a little hard to see. It's a little washed out, but if you bear with me, you can see that in these, you know, we don't know exactly what every single building is going to be placed in. As it's been discussed before, every project will go through some subsequent entitlement process, but how they all add up to more than the sum of their parts is. What this plan does is that it ensures that these buildings are situated in a way that's coherent, that it is surrounded by spaces that people occupy, that have great daylight, that have daylight in the times of year, and the times of day that really matter, that create great experiences, that create places that people want to be. And we've done a lot of daylight analysis. We've done a lot of optimization that we can show you if you'd like. That really give us credibility to how these are situated. And yet, you know, whether they're angled a little bit this way or that way, that is secondary to the fact that they need to be anchored into this place, and they need to be connected with pedestrian only corridors. And so just to put a finer point on lot 12, which is probably one of the bigger moves in the land use shift that is going from what was previously shown here. Lot 12 is this guy. As a village parking structure. So I would argue probably one of the larger parking structures I've ever seen in my career, and that would be flanked by yet another one on lot 12 here. And

so basically, you know, the whole experience of arrival is this massive parking structure, and the entire north side of the existing village is kind of up against that. And we think that in this revised plan, all of a sudden, instead of being faced with this extraordinary expanse of automobiles that are visible from all places, I mean, it's sort of like as if you just densified what's there today. Instead, you're greeted with world class architecture, mountain architecture of this place, active ground floors, and a lot more public realm. And we've done that by, as it was alluded, increasing the height modestly on lot 11. So that would still be a day skier garage, which you can see a bit here. It's a little hard to see in this image, but over there that would be remain as a parking garage. But the idea is that we're concentrating it further. And it was sort of talked about a little bit in terms of the parking strategy overall. Every single one of these buildings is going to have embedded parking within it. So everyone who's going to their destination, that's not a day skier only will have a place to go. And all of that's been thoughtfully distributed. The other thing, you know, 96ft sounds scary and it sounds big. I, I think this is important just to touch on this for a moment. 96ft is a, a height maximum that's determined by a particular elevation, basically the average base plane. So there's a natural topography to this site. And the existing village sits higher than where lot 12 sits today. So effectively if you measure the relative height, the tallest point within the existing village is actually 91ft. And so what we're talking about in terms of the relationship of the old and the new, they're actually not it is absolutely bigger. It's a floor or two bigger it is. But when you

consider the totality of it as an experience, when you're on mountain, these are relatively within the same scale. So we feel that that's something that should should be understood. The other thing that we've, as it was alluded to in a very detailed expanded dialog with the DRC, what the space of these buildings, the space between these buildings feel like. And we've been very thoughtful about really creating a distinct experience from the existing village, which in some cases gets down to 25ft face to face from building to building the minimum in the new areas on lot 12 and to the east are 50ft. And in addition to that, there are setback requirements that are not found in the existing village that are required in subsequent developments of an additional 15ft. So in essence, you're getting more than double. In some cases, triple the spacing between buildings in the new in the new parts of the plan from the existing village. And we always wanted to refer back to the existing village because it's something that is the historic sort of core and center of this place and really expand the public realm around from it so that you feel like it's all one thing, but it's not trying to copy the existing village. And Patrick had a nice slide on this, but the other thing we've been very diligent about is to make conformance, make these projects stand up through objective standards wherever possible, that there are very clear rules that every development must conform to, and that is number of number of stories. The maximum height, the maximum building coverage on a site, the minimum amount of open space provided. These are all carryovers from the 2024 plan, but they've been further strengthened and further enhanced. And in addition to that, we've taken a very hard look at the design

guidelines to make sure that those are also reflective of this revised plan and have simply provided more examples of world class mountain architecture in certain cases. And you can see that here. Just to to pause on this for a second, the the previously approved plan had just shown this image here, which was a traditional North American mountain architecture example. We feel that that's appropriate and that should belong in the village. But also, if you look at it, I mean, there are plenty of examples of mid-century modern architecture in, in the Valley. There's examples of, you know, I think even this existing this picture is of the existing village. All of that's appropriate in addition to, on the spectrum, a more modern or contemporary expression of architecture. But what links them all? Strong roof forms the way that the massing is broken up, the way that the podium meets the public realm. All of those are very much carried over from the previous plan. And we we think that produce great architecture and great place. And this was what it might feel like. So this is a space, you see the existing village there, the north side of it, there on the right. And then this sketch view hypothetically of what it might feel like between lot 12 A and 12 B, so that space that's connecting down to Washu Creek and you would see this space pretty much getting daylight all the time, which is pretty extraordinary. And that it would feel like there's more nature in this space. As I mentioned, there's greater distance between the buildings, an opportunity to create a distinct a distinction between the existing village, but also something that really brings the valley into the village. And that is something that I think we're excited about. And then just a couple last few images here and I'll wrap up. This is a view of the

previously adopted plan. Standing looking west on Olympic Valley Road. You can sort of make it out here. There's a that parking structure kind of popping up here. And then in the revised plan, you see how that might play out. The increase of one level on the lot 11 and then lot 12 there in the middle ground. And then at the middle bridge. Just the gateway here. What that would feel like possibly instead of a parking garage, you're seeing world class architecture. And then this is probably one of the more dramatic views. But I want to sort of caveat by saying, you know, we were careful to not show too many new trees and things like that, really just sort of showing what this might feel like at the 96ft and applying the design guidelines and development standards to it. And what you'll see here, also in the foreground is the restored creek, and something that feels of the place. And what's more important really, I think, is most people are going to be arriving on Olympic Valley by bike or by car, that they're greeted by something that is not parking structure, but is rather something really commensurate with a 21st century world class resort experience, something that's really respectful of the place that's concentrated. And then once you're in this place, it becomes this oasis for everyone and for families, and you can really relax. And so we think that this space that's provided here really kind of pulls it all together. And so just I'll conclude with these slides. Just to reiterate, this is the adopted plan as it stands. And then the proposed amendment, which is really pulling that density into the area immediately adjacent to the existing village. Thank you

guys. Thank you. Does the applicant have any other presenters? Thank you very much. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant? Yeah, I guess I kind of a follow up from my previous question, I guess. What's the status of your coordination with the local fire department? Good morning, Adrian Graham. I'm a consulting planner and environmental consultant for Palisades Tahoe. So the project has been discussed with the PSD. There have been extensive discussions actually, I think with respect to the fire station, fire staffing, etc. you'll see the outcome of those discussions in revised Mitigation measure 14 dash seven, which reflects the change in the way that the project has been conceived with respect to logging and that sort of thing. Ultimately, there's still a commitment to provide for the fire station at the West End to provide additional staffing and to provide additional equipment. Again, that's all reflected in that mitigation measure. There is not yet a formal agreement with the PSD, but there will need to be before the project can move forward. And any that will further memorialize the commitment that the project has to provide is the commitments of the project to fire and

related infrastructure and staffing. So I think what I'm hearing is really you haven't gotten to the point of, you know, when you build a station, you know, that's that's something that's you do. But as far as staffing goes, it, it's something that's variable over the years. And I was just wondering how I mean, normally, you know, like the people who live within the district are going to vote on. You know, how many, you know, the dollars that are available for the fire station. So I was just wondering how palisade would be involved in that process of funding. If you're going to have two, you know, two permanent firefighters in the station, that would be a commitment that. Correct. So funding will be part of that agreement and could include a variety of sources, but the project will be responsible for its own contribution that so that it offsets the increased demand. But currently the mitigation measure does call for two additional fire positions, fire staff positions, and to ensure that there is adequate fire staffing of the fire station during peak weekends. So those issues are addressed within the mitigation measure itself, and they'll be further refined in the discussions and ultimately an agreement with the PSD. So you would be discussing or coming up with. Some funding that would be beyond just the local fire district funding to support the staffing. Then there would be part of the agreement that you have to make. Oh, absolutely. Okay. And that hasn't been made yet, apparently. No. Okay. And then this may not be a question. This would be a question for the fire people, but it's a question that maybe that your organization may want to ask

when you're dealing with the fire department and other parts of the county we've dealt with. When you get into multi-story buildings, a ladder truck. And so a question that would come up eventually would be, is there one that could be available in the North Tahoe area? And in fact, the mitigation measure specifies that the Palisades Tahoe specific plan will provide funding for additional equipment, including that is a ladder truck, correct? Yes. Including a ladder truck. And so, yes, we will be funding additional equipment. One clarification, Howard Wilkins, counsel for Palisades Tahoe, the mitigation measure itself specifically outlines our requirements for additional funding for staffing. And we discussed that with their counsel as well as general manager as part of an agreement. And we that mitigation measure will ultimately be part of our agreement with the district. So we have discussed this. It is already a requirement as part of your conditions or in the mitigation measure itself. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you mind if I add one thing? Please identify yourself. My name is Arden. Hearing with Altera. Yeah. Thank you for the time today. I just wanted to say we're talking about this mitigation measure. Like we we made it up and pulled it out, but we actually developed it over over many months with Chief Chisholm and the PSD. Overall, we commissioned several different studies, a needs assessment. So we have agreed to support the needs expressed by by PSD for fire, including ladder truck staffing, a satellite facility in the future. So all of that reflects many, many months of study and analysis. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Any others? All right. Well, now it's time to open the public comment. If there are any folks in the room here who want to make a comment, please come forward. If there is a lot cheaper. We're at 12:00 right now. I know you had mentioned before the possibility of taking a break. I, I don't know if now's a good time to do that. Before the start of public comment. Just look around and maybe at the commission if if that's if now would be an appropriate time to take that a half hour break, trying to get a feel for what the numbers might look like. Okay. To raise our hands. Yeah, that's a good idea. So if you wouldn't mind just raising your hand so we could figure out what. All right, well, that settles that. Thank you, Clayton, for that. So I think at this point we will take a break. And ten minutes. Ten minutes. Yeah. No lunch, but a 15 minute break or what would you recommend? Given the amount of public commenters, it may be better to just take the public commenters and go through if the commission is up for it. From the look, it looked like there was maybe a half dozen commenters. Well, I will call for like a ten minute break so people can use the facilities. Okay. Thank you. We will return.

No, they're all rich. Thank you very much. So, as prior to our break, as we were moving ahead, we were planning to move into public comment. And so we'd like to return to the public comment. When we finish and close the public comment, we will take a lunch break at that point in time, and then we'll come up with a time and give it to you so you know when to return. So those who are wishing to make comments during this period, please come on forward. And if there's a lot, we'll have to figure out a little bit of a different way to do it. But please come on forward. And remember to. If you can identify yourself in your organization, you may be representing. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Moores. I'm here with Sierra Watch and the movement to keep Tahoe-truckee true. We're grateful to be here today to mark 15 years of commitment and a truly collaborative resolution. The slides we've seen today prove that we can indeed work together to protect the places that we love. Staff showed the timeline beginning in 2012 with a proposed project that would have really transformed Tahoe not just Olympic Valley, but transformed Tahoe with development of a size, scale and scope this region has never seen. And now the revised project before you today represents a reduction. As you heard of more than 70% down to 895 bedrooms with no indoor water park and no additional entitlements for another 25

years. And the difference in those two notches in the timeline from 3187 and 2012 to 895 today. Everything that happened in between? Yes, there was a lot of contention and struggle, but really it's a beautiful thing because at its heart, it's the shared passion of thousands of individuals who love Olympic Valley, who share our multi-generational commitment to Lake Tahoe and who honor mountain culture. And it's everyone who got involved to keep Tahoe-truckee true. And we did it. Our job now at Sierra Watch is to make sure that any new proposals fit into the parameters of our collaborative agreement, and if they don't, we'll we'll let them know. Right, Arden? But I'm happy to report. So far, so good. So thank you to the Planning Commission for taking up this revised project. Thank you to Altara and to Palisades Tahoe for coming to the table and working collaboratively. And most of all, thanks to everyone who joined us in keeping Tahoe-truckee. True. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I failed to remind folks, three minute is the amount of time we're allotted. And the first speaker was well within his time. So thank you very much. Excellent. Excuse me. Good afternoon. My name is Gavin Feiger. I'm the policy director at Keep Tahoe Blue, also known as League to Save Lake Tahoe. As with Tom and Amy and Arden. Really happy to be here today looking at this project, the revised project that reflects the good faith negotiations that we all undertook over the last year. For a lot of years, this project really did divide Olympic Valley, Tahoe, Truckee, the whole the whole community. But last year we made the

decision to move forward, all of us collaboratively to to leave the courtroom behind, get into meeting rooms and really problem solve together. And, and what we're here and what we have now is a better project. We're in a better place. And for the long term collaboration led to meaningful reductions in project size, which we heard about. And as we also heard, maintained all of the yeah, all the really good project aspects. So Olympic Valley will be modernized, it'll be upgraded, it will become an even more world class destination. And the environment and our community will still be protected. You know, keep Tahoe blue. We we really believe that we have to be willing to stand firm when it's necessary, but work together when progress is possible. And Altara and Palisades, Tahoe in particular are really made progress possible. So again, just really happy to be here today and appreciate the county staff taking what was a very complex plan to start with and all the associated documents, fairly complex settlement agreement and making that all come together as one and the great presentations by everybody today. So thank you for your time and your thoughtful deliberation. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Adam Wilson, the CEO of North Tahoe Community Alliance and the North Tahoe Chamber. I just wanted to as you consider the specific plan commissioners, I mean, the amendments for the village of Palisades. I wanted to commend Altair and Palisades on what Amy mentioned earlier in her point, and that is the revised approach to this whole program and this whole project. The the continued commitment to the community economy and environmental stewardship. These investments in North Lake Tahoe are designed not only to enhance the visitor experience, but to also ensure our community remains competitive amid the rapidly changing traveler expectation and

tourism landscape, even though they have substantially reduced the bedroom count and commercial floor space, both of which are critically important to making any project pencil, especially in Tahoe. They are still committed to the community priorities, delivering workforce housing, transportation solutions and infrastructure, community enhancements, and further protecting Shirley Canyon access, to name just a few. These, as well as all the other points made in the presentation, align with our organization's strategic pillars of economic health, resiliency, community vitality, and environmental stewardship. And we would ask that you just keep all of this in the forefront of your minds as you consider the amendments before you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello. I'm a 48 year resident of the Valley, and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this latest iteration. The size reduction and the amendments are very welcome, and they go a long way toward healing. This 15 year argument that existed in our valley. My sincere thanks to the developer, Arden, Amy and all, as well as Sierra Watch and the league disabled to help heal this divisiveness. Despite the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approving every prior plan that's come forth to you, we finally got a proposal that reflects community values and as well continues to seek a more vibrant village. But I do have a few suggestions. One, I'm disappointed that the creek restoration has been pushed back from 150 to 255 unit built. Further delay. This needed improvement in the ecology of our valley regarding refuge areas, and we've touched on it a little bit. The shelter in place idea. I've read the new Da and it does seem to address

this, but I'd like confirmation that the new village will provide temporary refuge areas not just for their residents and the village guests of Palisades, but also the entire community as needed. No one's mentioned the propane bomb over the last arguments that came before the Mac, and we still have probably five 30,000 gallon tanks placed at the mouth of Shirley Canyon. Hopefully a better solution can be found than this concentration. Regarding the Cal Fire exemption for fire safe access and egress, a simple solution would be just to take the bike path that exists there and harden it so that an emergency ambulance or fire truck or us trying to get the heck out of the valley would make it viable as a second egress. When the main road is impassable. Regarding the park, once again, I have to ding the county. Our field there has now been declared dangerous, and this is mainly the fault of planning park staff not activating an asset replacement plan. Going back to 2004 when we first built the darn park, and now it's become dangerous. Is there some possibility that this current development could help with their offset fees, could help find a solution here? Right now it just stands as a eyesore and a danger to the public regarding their trail systems. I love the idea of these new trails. I'd like to see one documented as well and implemented along extending the public trail along the lot for Creekside Trail, and perhaps even an Olympic Valley Rim Trail. Easy to accomplish, I think. And then lastly, it's come up recently and I think Katie mentioned it. Safe crossing of the main road. What I've seen so far is just about

done. Revised hot mix asphalt is going to be placed over the entire road. What I don't see is mitigation to the dangerous public road crossings at Victor Wayne and Christie roads that are needed, so please add this to your suggestions. Katie said that it's been addressed. I've seen none of it. Lastly, 15 years ago I called for this Goldilocks solution for the village development. Not too big, not too small. And I think we're finally near that hopeful resolution. Thanks. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak. I think what we're seeing today is a much improved version. I think my name is Allen Riley. I'm a longtime community member, resident. And, you know, I think we've fought hard to keep that Shirley Canyon area in its pristine setting and not have big development there. And, you know, I think it's great that lot 16 is being changed to Forest Service recreation. And then in the community priorities it talks about Creekside school is allowable under Village Commercial. That's great. And if that lot 16 is changed to Forest Service recreation, it should stay forest Service recreation and what's allowed to be built in forest recreation. And, you know, under the proposed 26 amendment, appendix B 3.4 Village Forest Recreation. I mean, it's pretty clear what can be built on there. And I don't feel a school fits that description. And that's the only comment I have. Thank you

for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Watson. Respected county commission. My name is Doyle Radford Jr. I am the business manager of Construction and General Laborers Local 185 and our elected leader. We've been proudly building the Placer County community since 1929. That's a long time and built a lot of key projects, including the Forest Hill Bridge and the original Squaw Valley. And it's tough for me. I still call it that. That's one of our big gems. Our membership put in all the necessary infrastructure and roads to host the 1960 Winter Olympics, including the Blyth Arena. We're up here to speak in favor of this project. Amy Arden and their team in Altara have committed to building this project with local labor and our local membership. We're happy about that. I'm a 48 point of privilege. I'm 48 years I've been in this county, and this is a gem, like I said, and we're excited to polish this gem back up and make it something that we can share with the rest of the world. So with that said, we support staff's plan as given, and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Tom Johnson. I am a business representative with the Laborers Local 185. I'm fortunate enough to be able to call this area part of my jurisdiction that I oversee. I represent the men and women that build projects such as this. Hats off to the the presenting crew here for showing the flexibility and the the courage it takes to kind of amend all the public comments and insight there is here. I am

a resident of Placer County District five have been for going on 34 years now. So this project does hit close to home. I'm excited and prepared to, as Doyle said, put locals to work. I see this as a great opportunity to advance the careers of young talent up here on the Hill. Apprenticeship included, and I have a personal goal of recruiting and finding that that talent up here locally. Projects like this bring economy to the area, and I believe that this is a great opportunity for the locals to expand and start careers in this area. As a representative on behalf of the laborers, I do fully support this project. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Julie Anderson. I'm representing myself. I think the amendments in appendix B are favorable. I kind of late to the party, but man they look great. I totally support the forest recreation of lot 16 and 18. That just helps take the burden off that side of the valley and opens. And Shirley Canyon, which has always been this pristine place. What was new to me today with that, Mr. Dobbs and Tara folks brought up, was that the school placement? I didn't see that in lot 16 in the appendix. And I think Mr. Riley talked about how that's forest recreation, whereas in their Palisades thing it says it's on village. So I don't know how that is panning, panning itself out. The pedestrian area that Mr. Levitt showed us was terrific. I totally support that. And the new mountain architecture, because the village that's there now is just so the same. So welcoming some kind of different architecture would be nice. Does. But looking at

those images, I wonder what the my question is what the village is in height versus what the new stuff is. It looks like it was taller. That's whatever. And then taking out that parking garage. Is there parking? I know Mr. Jewell talked about this. Where's the parking? Like, are we are they replacing that parking garage with parking somewhere else? Because parking, of course, is crazy. And then our options for public transportation being considered and improving the public transportation. I know this is an ongoing thing in the community. And where's the transit center for this located? I didn't see that either. Mr. Doctor brought up a couple great items, meaning the road crossing, which can be detrimental when you're trying to cross Squaw Valley, Olympic Valley Road and upkeep of the park. Those were pretty interesting things that he brought up that I wonder if they could be incorporated. Thank you. Nice to see you. Thank you. It appears there are no other commenters from the location here. Commission clerk would you let me know if there's anybody online? We have two. Thank you. Keith, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Thank you. My name is Keith Fountain. Are you able to hear me? Commissioners? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. I'm an owner and 20 year resident of Olympic Valley. I'm on the board of the Palisades Tahoe Lodge. I'm a founding board director of the Mountaineer Transit Company, and I'm a member of the Olympic

Valley Municipal Advisory Council. Like many others in the room, I've endured and pursued this dream of a village to match our mountains for over 15 years. And I want to applaud Amy Arden, their entire team progress and preservation has finally been attained with much perseverance, and I encourage the commissioners to support this project with the Board of Board of Supervisors, and we can begin to see the vision of what our village can be at the base of this fantastic mountain. Thank you very much. Thank you. Eric, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Thank you very much. I just wanted to, one, speak to Creekside School and the amendment that allows for school to be placed in lot 16. Speaking as both a parent of three children in the school and as a current board member, I can't speak highly enough about the county and Palisades Tahoe in particular. Arden and Amy, for their incredible partnership with making sure that the school has a future in the Valley, and really just look forward to the open mindedness of the community in in seeing that through. Also that with that, the specific specificity of, of lot 16 and seeing what the future vision is of that it really seems like an ideal space to have a school

or part of a school. And again, can't think the county for being a great listening partner and Amy and Arden for supporting our amazing school. Thank you very much. Well, it appears we're at the point to close the public comment, but before I do, I just want to check with our planning director, Mr. Poujouly. If we do break for lunch, would it be for 30 minutes or 60 minutes? Oh, I would suggest a 30 minute lunch and that we come back at 1 p.m. Great. And I would just add, because I failed to do this at the beginning of the public comment that staff will be considering some of the issues that were raised or questions that were raised, and may have the ability to provide some answers when we return from our break. So thank you very much, and we'll see you at 1:00.