Subject: Kings Beach Center: Request to Revoke Fourth Amendment & Reassess Project Direction
To: Placer County Board of Supervisors
From: Strong North Tahoe
Date: June 20, 2025
Dear Chair Gore and Members of the Board,
We respectfully urge the County to pause action on the Kings Beach Center project due to a clear contractual breach: Kingsbarn’s failure to submit quarterly written updates required under the Fourth Amendment to the Kings Beach Center Purchase and Sale Agreement.
This milestone was designed to restore public trust, document progress, and provide a measurable accountability framework in exchange for the extended timeline granted in December 2023—particularly after years of delay and three prior amendments, each with varying accountability provisions. By the fourth extension, clear written reporting requirements were introduced as a last-resort safeguard.
This letter is grounded in specific provisions of the Fourth Amendment, public meeting transcripts, and records obtained through the California Public Records Act. The facts are clear—and the breach is documented.
Since 2018, four different development entities have been associated with this project—each with its own timeline and promise of delivery. The quarterly update milestone was embedded explicitly to justify a two-year extension, and it was never fulfilled.
This failure isn’t just a paperwork oversight—it prevents the County and public from assessing performance, value, and risk on a publicly owned site. If milestones in public-private agreements can be ignored without consequence, it undermines the credibility of future County contracts and damages public trust. Upholding these terms is essential to maintaining fiscal integrity and protecting the public interest.
In Taylor v. Johnston (1975), the California Supreme Court held that even partial breaches—such as delays or failure to perform obligations like communication—can be considered material if they undermine the contract’s core purpose. In development law and public procurement, failure to meet time-bound reporting obligations can render an agreement voidable—especially when those terms were central to the decision to extend. By that standard, Kingsbarn’s failure to provide required quarterly updates constitutes a material breach. This alone provides sufficient grounds to revoke the extension and pause any further property or incentive decisions.
Additionally, this failure intersects with broader concerns regarding the project’s overall NTEDIP eligibility. Under NTEDIP, incentive eligibility hinges on four core readiness benchmarks. None are currently met:
- CEQA environmental review is not complete
- There has been no real, iterative community engagement process
- No binding development agreement has been executed
- Project readiness remains in doubt, as this breach itself confirms
Approving any public subsidy or land transfer under these conditions would set a damaging precedent—rewarding non-performance, ignoring stated requirements, and undermining public trust.
This project involves public land and represents a substantial public investment. It’s a test of how Placer County stewards land held in public trust—whether those assets are used to deliver meaningful public value or simply handed off to speculative development without accountability. As such, it demands not only performance but also a commitment to open and transparent public process.
Background and Timeline of Non-Compliance
At the December 5, 2023 Board of Supervisors meeting, County staff presented the Fourth Amendment to the Kings Beach Center Purchase and Sale Agreement. This amendment extended the Project Approvals Contingency Period for two years, with two optional one-year extensions, and introduced a new accountability framework for the developer.
As documented in the Fourth Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Kingsbarn was required to provide:
“Quarterly submittals to County of written updates on project status, anticipated schedule for submittal of documents, and status of project milestones.”
(Fourth Amendment to PSA, approved Dec 5, 2023)
During the Board meeting, County staff elaborated that progress would be tracked in four key areas:
- Submission of a project site plan and architectural design
- Engagement with TRPA to confirm code compliance
- Progress toward CEQA environmental review (suggested to begin in Q1 2024)
- Preparation and submittal of entitlement documents to the County
These milestones were not simply general goals—they were referenced as structured progress expectations to justify the extension.
When Supervisor Landon asked if this was the first time milestones were embedded, staff confirmed:
“This is the first time that we’ve embedded milestones to keep that project moving forward.”
There was no suggestion that verbal updates or informal meetings could substitute for the required written reports.
Further, during the same meeting, Stephanie Holloway, Assistant Director of Community Development, told the Board that “the next stage is environmental review.” This suggested CEQA review was imminent. In reality, no Notice of Preparation has been released, and no measurable progress has been documented.
This is not the first time CEQA delay has been raised. During the February 23, 2021 Board meeting approving the Third Amendment, County staff explained the extension was primarily to allow more time to resolve environmental review challenges, particularly related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) modeling. Despite that extension, and another in 2023 with more specific progress milestones, no Notice of Preparation has been released. Four years after citing CEQA as the reason for delay, progress remains undocumented—further undermining the credibility of any future timeline. (Placer County Board of Supervisors Transcript, Feb 23, 2021)
From the outset, the original 2018 Purchase and Sale Agreement included performance milestones as a condition of the County’s engagement. At that time, County staff publicly stated:
“The purchase and sale agreement provides for County termination rights if any milestone is not met and no extension is granted by the County.” (Placer County Staff, Feb 6, 2018 Transcript @ 2:58:40)
Supervisor Holmes further warned:
“If we don’t set some kind of deadline to get this going, it will just keep dragging on… We need to see real progress or rethink the agreement.” (Supervisor Jim Holmes, Feb 6, 2018 Transcript @ 2:56:30)
The Fourth Amendment in 2023 was not the first accountability mechanism—it was an escalation due to prior stagnation. The fact that even this reinforced milestone has now been ignored makes enforcement more—not less—urgent.
Efforts to Obtain Transparency
Beginning in 2024, public concerns were raised about the lack of transparency and compliance with the milestones laid out in the Fourth Amendment to the Purchase Agreement. Between January and June 2025, Strong North Tahoe and community members took multiple steps to obtain the quarterly submittals. Some of the most recent key actions were:
Jan 16: Raised issue at North Tahoe Regional Advisory Council meeting for additional support
Mar 5–Apr 24: Emailed back and forth with County staff with questions where no substantive response was received
May 23: Filed a Public Records Act (PRA) request
May 28: CDRA closed my PRA, stating they were not the record custodian
May 28: At a County-hosted stakeholder meeting with Strong North Tahoe, we again asked whether the quarterly updates had been submitted. County staff responded Kingsbarn was “working on those,” reinforcing concerns of non-compliance.
June 5: At the community informational meeting, Strong North Tahoe again raised concerns about missed milestones from the Fourth Amendment—including the absence of project updates and required documentation.
June 9: County emailed a single two-page narrative and stated the summary document “met the intent” of the update milestone and said future quarterly updates would follow. We replied, asking if this was one recent submittal or a summary of all updates since 2023.
June 13: The County replied: “The County did not receive quarterly updates prior to the June 04, 2025 update.”
Inadequate Reporting
The June 9 document raises serious red flags:
- The report lacked the quarterly structure, milestone tracking, and future schedules explicitly required by the Fourth Amendment and described by County staff at the December 2023 meeting.
- It attempted to substitute informal internal meetings for the formal written reports required by contract.
- It was not proactively disclosed, and only shared in response to a Public Records Act request—undermining transparency for a project on public land.
This reporting fails to meet even the basic standards of contract compliance. Public incentives deserve public accountability—not informal updates or retroactive justifications. The failure to provide properly structured, timely public reports violates both the letter and spirit of the agreement and prevents the County from demonstrating responsible fiscal and oversight practices.
Interdependency with Eastern Gateway Property
Also on December 5, 2023, the Board—acting as the Successor Agency—approved a Second Amendment to the Eastern Gateway Purchase and Sale Agreement, extending its Project Approvals Contingency Period to March 31, 2026. The amendment ties the Eastern Gateway’s viability to the progress of the Kings Beach Center project.
If the Kings Beach Center milestone has not been met, the Eastern Gateway’s basis is undermined.
Request for Action
Given this material breach and its cascading impacts, Strong North Tahoe respectfully urges the Board to:
- Revoke the Kings Beach Center extension due to material non-compliance with agreed milestones
- Pause further action on the Eastern Gateway while its stated dependency on Kings Beach Center remains unmet
- Decline future extensions or substitute agreements unless accompanied by meaningful public benefit and demonstrated performance
- Initiate a new, competitive process that invites proposals aligned with today’s community priorities and planning standards
- Require enforceable, trackable milestones in all future development agreements, with public visibility and defined consequences for non-performance
Before any further actions—such as property transfers, subsidies, or incentive approvals—Placer County must pause, reassess, and reset. The community deserves transparency, accountability, and a project that delivers on the original promise of public land for public good.
Limited Public Engagement
To date, Kingsbarn has held only two informational sessions (May 15, 2024, and June 5, 2025), both focused mainly on architectural aesthetics. No concrete answers were given on timelines, financial feasibility, public benefit, or implementation. Notably, only recently has the project confirmed alignment with TBAP and TRPA standards—long after the Fourth Amendment was approved—and no community visioned planning efforts have ever occurred. This limited and reactive engagement does not meet the expectations of NTEDIP or the Purchase Agreement.
Residents have not been invited to co-create a shared vision. We’ve been asked to react to shifting designs, not to help shape a community-serving outcome.
Alignment with Community Goals
Many residents support revitalization that reflects Kings Beach’s values and long-term vision. But after two decades of effort—including RFIs in 2016, a 2017 feasibility study, and four separate developers—there was never an RFP, and there is still no shovel-ready, community-supported plan.
The Kings Beach Center site was assembled by the County to serve long-term community needs. The 2018 Purchase and Sale Agreement envisioned 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and 2,000 square feet of civic space—a mixed-use anchor for year-round vitality. Today, the plan proposes just 2,300 square feet of commercial space (aside from the café and restaurant serving hotel guests) and no civic use. Housing, once part of the original vision, is no longer tied to this agreement.
“This is not just a transaction. It’s a commitment to create a town center that delivers year-round vitality. Civic use, retail access, and public gathering space are integral to what this community needs.”
— Placer County Staff, Board of Supervisors Meeting, Feb 6, 2018
What’s now proposed no longer reflects the vision that originally justified public land investment. The Kings Beach Center was once imagined as a revitalizing anchor for the town—integrating local-serving businesses, community gathering spaces, attainable housing, and walkable streetscapes.
“The project vision is to create a vibrant, walkable town center that provides local-serving retail, civic amenities, and diverse housing types that contribute to year-round community vitality.”
— JLL Strategic Feasibility Study, 2017
What’s currently presented centers on a for-sale condo-hotel model, with no defined public benefits, no affordability strategy, and no shared community plan. The shift in scope—combined with the absence of meaningful public engagement—calls for a full reassessment of whether this path still meets Kings Beach’s needs.
At the June 5, 2025 informational meeting, in response to a direct question about community benefit, Kingsbarn offered only vague assurances:
“We’re trying to be part of the solution.”
“Once we build this, other developers will follow.”
These statements reveal the absence of a clear strategy for delivering measurable public value—an essential expectation for any project built on public land.
Until CEQA is complete, a development agreement signed, real community collaboration occurs, and project readiness is documented, this proposal should not advance.
Conclusion
Our goal is to prevent precedent-setting decisions that jeopardize the responsible use of public land, funds, and trust—while ensuring development delivers real, long-term community benefit. Kingsbarn’s failure to comply with the Fourth Amendment milestone is not an isolated lapse—it’s a test of whether Placer County will enforce its own agreements and uphold expectations tied to major public incentives.
Ignoring this breach sends the wrong message: that contractual milestones are optional and public trust is expendable. That precedent undermines every future deal the County enters, weakening its negotiating power, NTEDIP’s credibility, and community confidence in the process.
This failure would not have come to light without persistent civic effort—public comment, emails, and a formal PRA request. In fact, it is entirely possible that the June 4, 2025 project summary submitted by Kingsbarn would never have been produced at all, had the issue not been raised repeatedly and formally. That should not be the standard for accountability.
This is not a rejection of redevelopment. It is a call to enforce county standards, protect public incentives, and ensure a transparent process that centers community benefit and the responsible stewardship of public land.
For your reference, a summary of key quotes from past Board discussions and staff reports—highlighting the original purpose and expectations of this agreement—is included in the Appendix quote sheet following this letter.
We urge the County to uphold its agreements, reset the process, and restore public trust—so that public land delivers measurable, lasting benefit to the Kings Beach community.
Sincerely,
Patricia Orr on behalf of Strong North Tahoe
📌 Appendix: Supporting Quotes from Official Records (2018–2025)
Key excerpts from transcripts and County documents that establish milestone requirements, CEQA delays, and stated expectations for developer performance.
- Contractual Requirement: Quarterly Updates
“Quarterly submittals to County of written updates on project status, anticipated schedule for submittal of documents, and status of project milestones.”
— Fourth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement, Dec 5, 2023
- Purpose of Milestones
“This is the first time that we’ve embedded milestones to keep that project moving forward.”
— Placer County Staff, Board of Supervisors Meeting, Dec 5, 2023
- Repeated Justification for Extensions
“The reason for this extension is primarily due to CEQA environmental review delays.”
— Placer County Staff, Board of Supervisors Meeting, Feb 23, 2021
- Staff Assurances of CEQA Progress
“The next stage is environmental review.”
— Stephanie Holloway, Assistant Director of Community Development, Dec 5, 2023
- Original Termination Clause (2018 PSA)
“The purchase and sale agreement provides for County termination rights if any milestone is not met and no extension is granted by the County.”
— Placer County Staff, Board of Supervisors Meeting, Feb 6, 2018 @ 2:58:40
- Supervisor Concern About Delays
“If we don’t set some kind of deadline to get this going, it will just keep dragging on… We need to see real progress or rethink the agreement.”
— Supervisor Jim Holmes, Board of Supervisors Meeting, Feb 6, 2018 @ 2:56:30
- Developer’s Response to Public Benefit Inquiry
“We’re trying to be part of the solution.”
“Once we build this, other developers will follow.”
— Kingsbarn Representative, Community Meeting, June 5, 2025
- Admission of Non-Compliance
“The County did not receive quarterly updates prior to the June 04, 2025 update.”
— Email response from County Staff to Strong North Tahoe, June 13, 2025
Leave a Reply