We hope you’ll join us this Tuesday, June 24 at 1:40 PM at the Kings Beach North Tahoe Event Center Board of Supervisors meeting—or submit a written comment if you can’t attend in person.

Placer County is scheduled to vote on a major incentive package for the 39° North project in Kings Beach—including 106 Tourist Accommodation Units (TAUs), a $1.55 million forgivable loan, and up to $30.9 million in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rebates. This vote is moving forward before CEQA review has begun and without a development agreement or enforceable public benefit in place.

Strong North Tahoe has formally asked the Board to delay action until these core requirements are met. Read our full letter to Placer County here →

This decision could set a long-term precedent for how public land, tax dollars, and policy tools are used in North Lake Tahoe. These resources should support ready, transparent projects—not speculative proposals that bypass review and community input.

📣 Join us in person or submit your comment before the item is heard.

---

🧰 Public Comment Builder: 39° North Incentive Request

🗓️ For the June 24, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting at 1:40 PM at the Kings Beach North Tahoe Event Center 
🎯 Goal: Pause public subsidies until CEQA, fiscal transparency, and enforceable public benefit are guaranteed. Keep comments respectful, clear, and fact-based.

We invite you to speak from your experience. How does this issue affect your community, housing, trust in local government, or your vision for Kings Beach? Then, use the statements below to help structure your comment.

---

1. ⬛ Position (Select 1–2)

• I’m asking the Board to pause all decisions on 39° North until CEQA, fiscal transparency, and community benefit are secured.
• This project does not meet NTEDIP criteria and should not move forward under the current conditions.
• Public land and scarce TAUs should be used with clear accountability—not speculative promises.
• Revitalization is important, but public trust requires due process.
• Let’s ensure NTEDIP remains a performance-based program, not an early-stage subsidy tool.

---

2. 🟨 Supporting Points (Select 2–3)

🔹 NTEDIP Compliance & Readiness

• NTEDIP was designed for ready, community-serving projects—not speculative proposals. 39° North has not met those standards.
• CEQA has not been initiated. No Notice of Preparation, timeline, or review documents are available.
• The developer has not secured site control, disclosed financing, or signed a development agreement.

🔹 Legal & Environmental Compliance

• Advancing the project now may conflict with CEQA precedent (Save Tara v. West Hollywood), which restricts commitments before environmental review.
• There is no analysis of fire evacuation or infrastructure capacity—key concerns in high-risk areas like Tahoe.
• CEQA is the tool designed to assess these risks, and it has yet to begin.

🔹 Public Land Use & Financial Risk

• The 2018 vision included civic space and integrated uses. The current plan lacks those elements and offers limited public benefit.
• A $1.55M forgivable loan and up to $30.9M in TOT rebates are proposed, but no pro forma, fiscal analysis, or loan monitoring structure has been shared.
• Public land should yield clear, measurable community returns before public funds are committed.

🔹 Transparency & Community Voice

• Only two public informational meetings have been held since 2018. There is no ongoing outreach or community engagement plan.
• This is a public land project with major incentives—yet few opportunities have been offered for local input.
• Transparency and meaningful community participation should precede major approvals.

🔹 Program Integrity & Precedent Risk

• NTEDIP was designed as a performance-based program. Approving incentives now would weaken that foundation.
• Future applicants may cite this case to bypass readiness criteria, challenging the County’s ability to enforce standards.
• A consistent approach protects the program’s purpose and long-term credibility.

🔹 Equity & Community Benefit

• Workforce housing is not integrated into the hotel or town center footprint.
• The proposal lacks a strategy to support small businesses or ensure long-term benefit to local residents.
• Public funds and land should serve community needs—not just tourism demand.

🔹 Opportunity Cost & Strategic Planning

• Every TAU and dollar committed now limits resources for more prepared, shovel-ready projects.
• Public land in the town center is rare and strategic. The County should not lock into a project without verified outcomes.
• Stronger alternatives could emerge with more time, clarity, and transparency.

🔹 Public Trust & Oversight

• There has been no disclosure of CEQA documents, financial details, or development agreements.
• Advancing incentives now undermines public confidence in the County’s review process.
• Tahoe’s values—stewardship, integrity, and transparency—require a higher standard.

---

3. 🔵 Clear Ask (Select 1–2)

• Delay all action until CEQA review is complete, and a development agreement is signed.
• Uphold NTEDIP’s performance-based standards—do not allow exceptions.
• Require financial transparency and enforceable public return before any TAUs, TOT, or land incentives are approved.
• Restore trust in the process by ensuring environmental, financial, and community standards are met.
• Protect the County’s legal discretion by avoiding premature commitments before CEQA is complete.
• Defer allocation of taxpayer-backed incentives until the County can verify the project’s long-term return on investment.

Optional Additions

• Share your personal story.
• Reference: NTEDIP policy, BOS agendas, Purchase Agreement history
• Add a few questions and leverage the Question Guide below.

---

🧭 Question Guide: Key Issues for Board Consideration

Agenda Item 13.A – 39° North NTEDIP Request

⚖️ CEQA and Environmental Process

1. Why hasn’t a Notice of Preparation been issued for CEQA review, if this project includes infrastructure, land use changes, and a 170-unit hotel-condo buildout?
   
2. What is the legal basis for claiming the Option Agreement is “not a project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378?
   
3. If this action is exempt from CEQA now, what triggers formal CEQA review, and when will the public have a chance to participate?
   
4. Will the County be providing technical studies on wildfire evacuation, sewer/water capacity, or traffic before any further commitments are made?
   

---

🧮 Financial Transparency and Public Return

5. What is the projected TOT revenue baseline and how much of that is being diverted from public services under the 80% rebate?
   
6. Why hasn’t the applicant submitted a full pro forma, cost breakdown, or cash flow projection to show how public subsidies will be used and monitored?
   
7. How does the County define “public benefit” in this deal, and what performance measures will be used to track return on investment?
   

---

🏗️ Readiness and NTEDIP Compliance

8. Why is the County proceeding without a signed development agreement that guarantees timelines, housing delivery, and enforceable public benefits?
   
9. How can this project be eligible for NTEDIP incentives when it has not completed CEQA, not secured financing, and has no operations covenant—all elements included in prior NTEDIP-supported projects like Evo Hotel?
   

---

🏘️ Workforce Housing Commitments

10. If the housing is on a separate parcel under a separate purchase agreement, why hasn’t the County required a housing delivery covenant tied to the public incentives?
    
11. What mechanisms exist to guarantee the workforce housing will be built, and when?
    
12. Is it accurate that the developer has stated they are only obligated to build 12 units? If so, why is that the threshold for such a large public subsidy?
    

---

🔁 Precedent and Program Integrity

13. If this Option Agreement is approved with multiple key elements missing, what precedent does this set for future NTEDIP applicants?
    
14. What message does it send if public land and $30+ million in incentives can be reserved before basic program requirements are met?
    

✅ Can’t attend, Submit Your Comment

📤 Email: [email protected]
📥 Online: Submit via County form »
📌 Subject: Public Comment – 39 North Project / June 24 Hearing
⏰ Best by: Before the June 24, 2025 vote at 1:40 PM

💬 Sample Message:

“My name is [Your Name], and I’m a [resident / business owner / community advocate] in North Lake Tahoe. I’m asking the Board to pause all action on the 39° North proposal until it meets NTEDIP’s core requirements: CEQA review, financial transparency, and enforceable community benefit.

Public land and more than $30 million in potential incentives are at stake. This project has not demonstrated readiness. Please delay action until the public has a chance to review environmental findings, benefit terms, and financing details.”

▶️ Read our Public Comment Guide »