Was the 2018 Kings Beach Deal Done Right?
Jul 9, 2025 — by Patricia Orr in Community
A community-led look at 39° North — what we’ve uncovered, what’s still unclear, and why a pause may be the path forward.
In 2018, Placer County approved a contract to transfer public land worth millions — quietly, without competitive bidding, and based on a discounted price tied to vague “public benefits” that were never formally guaranteed. That wasn’t just a procedural shortcut. It appears to have bypassed legally required steps under California’s Surplus Land Act — raising serious concerns about whether the deal was lawfully executed.
This article builds on The Truth We Deserve: What I Uncovered About 39° North, where community members began raising concerns about the 39° North deal. Just last week, more gaps in the public process came to light — further complicating the project’s trajectory and reinforcing the call for greater transparency.
Executive Summary: A Deal Under Scrutiny
As I watched the video of that 2018 Board meeting, it hit me — the call to pause didn’t start in hindsight. It started then. Right there in that room, someone stood up and questioned the process: Why this developer? Why no follow-up on other proposals? Why the rush?
That speaker wasn’t dramatic. He was calm, thoughtful — even polite. But he was clearly uncomfortable. “We responded to your RFI,” he said. “We put in the time, and now you’re moving ahead with a private offer no one’s seen?” He asked the Board to delay the vote. To take a step back. To bring the public in.
The County moved forward anyway.
Like many stories, this began with neighbors trading insights — trying to separate fact from rumor. At first, I just wanted to understand how the 39° North deal came to be. But as the documents and stories piled up, so did the contradictions. Every clause, timeline, and missing step felt like a puzzle piece — and the full picture stirred concerns far deeper than I’d anticipated.
A few longtime locals brought up something that had quietly lingered for years — never fully resolved:
Was the 2018 Purchase and Sale Contract even lawful?
So I went back — through records, memos, and legal steps — tracing the deal’s path one piece at a time. What I found suggests this wasn’t just a case of poor communication. It may have bypassed state law altogether.
It also revealed a major missing step: the County never issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) — the process most expected after the RFI phase. That omission left no clear path for competitive review or measurable public benefit.
This investigation explores the legality and transparency of Placer County’s 2018 contract to sell public land at the Kings Beach Center. It raises serious questions about the absence of competitive bidding, the lack of affordable housing notices, and multiple potential violations of California’s Surplus Land Act.
In retrospect, this was the moment the questions began — not with outrage, but with confusion. And over six years later, they haven’t gone away.
A skipped public housing process now casts doubt on legal compliance and equity. California’s Surplus Land Act requires public land be offered first to affordable housing developers — but that never happened here.
Rewinding the Process: How Did We Get Here?
To understand what went wrong, we had to go back. Not just to the documents and decisions, but to the assumptions that shaped them. The paper trail doesn’t lie — but it doesn’t speak loudly. It takes persistence and patience to piece it all together. And what we found, step by step, was that the cracks started early — long before the community knew a deal was on the table.
In 2016, Placer County issued a Request for Information (RFI) to explore redevelopment options for the Kings Beach Center. Between two and five teams responded (records vary); some were interviewed, but none were selected. The panel chose not to proceed. A brief negotiation with one team followed, but it ultimately fizzled. So far, all within procedural norms.
In 2017, the County commissioned a feasibility study from Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) to assess the Kings Beach Center’s development potential. The report identified a mixed-use concept — 15,000 square feet of retail, a 100-room hotel, and 20 condos — as the site’s highest and best use, with projected returns of 14–19%. JLL emphasized that the proposed uses were mutually reinforcing and urged the County to pursue a transparent selection process tied to clear, enforceable public benefits. This expert guidance was ultimately set aside.
Most expected the County to follow with a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) — the standard step to ensure competition, transparency, and public value. But it never came.
Instead, the Purchase and Sale Agreement appeared quietly on the Board’s 2018 agenda as a consent item — with little notice, no dedicated hearing, and virtually no discussion. That effectively sidelined community voices before the deal was even introduced.
The 2018 Vote: Where Questions Took Root
When the RFI process ended without a selected developer, County staff informally engaged with Craig Clark, the prospective developer behind what would become Kingsbarn. The resulting Purchase and Sale Agreement was quietly added to the Board of Supervisors’ February 6, 2018 agenda — as a consent item. There was no dedicated hearing on the matter.
That February 6 meeting was the public’s first — and only — official window into the deal that would shape Kings Beach’s future. And even in that brief appearance, it raised more questions than answers.
While RFI respondents had been required to submit detailed terms, financials, and site concepts, the staff presentation offered none of these — just a high-level summary, with no meaningful review of the agreement itself. While it was described as a “truly mixed-use project” aligned with the community’s vision, staff admitted, “We’ll see what it turns out to be.” Notably, there was no mention of the Surplus Land Act or affordable housing requirements — two legal obligations that should have shaped the public land deal.
One speaker — a member of a team that had responded to the earlier RFI — described the process as misleading. His team never received a follow-up, and their concept was misrepresented in comparison to the new proposal. He asked: why issue an RFI if the process would default to a private offer? And why was no RFP issued to invite open competition?
His final ask: delay the vote and bring in more public input.
One Supervisor assured the public there would be “more than seven meetings” to help shape the project — a level of engagement that, beyond standard comment periods, has yet to take form.
The County declined. The Board approved the agreement unanimously. No dedicated hearing was scheduled. No additional outreach followed.
What came next wasn’t clarity — it was drift.
Around the same time, a petition titled “Community Input Should Be Mandatory in Selection of Kings Beach Town Center Developer” began circulating online. It called on the County to pause and reconsider, stating:
“Public input is not optional when public land is at stake. We respectfully urge the Board of Supervisors to open this process to community voices before any further decisions are made.”
More than 800 people signed.
This was the moment the community first asked for a pause. It was also when deeper questions took root — about process, legality, and public trust. Those questions weren’t rooted in opposition to revitalization. They came from a belief that public land deserves public process, and that decisions of this scale demand shared clarity before they move forward.
Over the next several years, the development entity changed at least four times. Proposals shifted, with no clearly aligned plan emerging until June 2025. Ownership was reassigned. And yet, the public was never given a clear account of how — or why — Kingsbarn ultimately took control of the project.
While the County eventually acknowledged a 2022 assignment of the agreement to KB Kings Beach, LLC — the Kingsbarn entity — it never held a public hearing or offered a clear public-facing explanation of that transition or its rationale. What began as a vision-centered process ended with a private developer in control of 3.5 acres of public land — without competition, without transparency, and without public consent.
Six years later, the call for clarity remains — louder now, and harder to ignore.
Legal Oversights: What Went Wrong With the Land Deal
The 2018 land deal didn’t just raise eyebrows — it raised red flags:
- No competitive bid
- No Notice of Availability (NOA)
- No declaration of surplus land under the Surplus Land Act (SLA)
- No notice to affordable housing developers
- No updated appraisals when more parcels were added
Over time, the deal expanded to include additional publicly owned sites — including the Eastern Gateway and the Salmon Avenue parking lot — without updated appraisals, surplus declarations, or public bidding.
In December 2023, the Salmon lot was committed to the project with no listed sale price. By June 2025, the County granted Kingsbarn site control over the full project area for just $1 through an Option Agreement. These changes were made through amendments to the original agreement, with no updated fiscal analysis made available to the public.
Officials cited broad community benefits to justify the discounted terms. Yet, no binding agreement ever defined what those benefits would be, how they’d be delivered, or what accountability would exist if they fell short.
This differed significantly from the guidance provided in JLL’s report, which emphasized safeguards through formal process.
This wasn’t just a shortcut — it sidestepped the safeguards that public land decisions are supposed to follow.
Fact Check: Could the 2018 Land Sale Have Violated State Law?
As early as 2015, public records show efforts to market Kings Beach Center for private development. Yet there’s no clear evidence the Surplus Land Act (SLA) was followed. This deepens concerns not just about the legality of the 2018 sale, but about a consistent pattern of failing to follow state law.
In June 2025, we contacted the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which enforces the SLA. We also checked HCD’s Surplus Land Portal.
Here’s what we found:
- SLA applies to this deal
- Placer County never issued a required NOA to affordable housing developers
- No exemption or alternate compliance path was filed
This failure didn’t just risk noncompliance — it also meant that affordable housing developers never had a chance to propose solutions in one of Tahoe’s most housing-constrained communities.
Simply put: we found no evidence the required legal steps were taken. This raises extremely serious questions about whether the deal complied with state law — and whether it could be subject to challenge or reversal. If the County has documentation showing that these steps were met or that an exemption applies, we welcome that clarification and will gladly update our understanding.
What’s at Stake: The Cost of Getting It Wrong
Placer County’s failure to follow the Surplus Land Act (SLA) isn’t just a legal concern — it puts millions in state funding at risk. If the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) confirms a violation and the County doesn’t fix it, Placer could lose access to key housing and infrastructure grants for up to five years.
This includes:
- Homekey: $14.9 million already awarded, with up to $20 million more pending
- Prohousing Incentives: access to competitive funding statewide
- Other HCD programs: first-time homebuyer support, infrastructure grants, local housing trust funds
In total, Placer could forfeit $50–$100 million in critical funding — money that supports housing, infrastructure, and local services.
These penalties aren’t hypothetical. HCD has enforced them in other communities, and unresolved violations can also lead to referral to the Attorney General.
In short: if this land deal was unlawful and remains uncorrected, it could jeopardize far more than one project. It could undercut the very resources Kings Beach and Placer County need to address housing and revitalize responsibly.
Why This Matters — And Why We Hope to Work Together
This isn’t about rehashing the past. It’s about reducing risk and rebuilding trust — by confronting key questions now, before the consequences become harder to fix.
Clarifying the public record can help prevent:
- Legal delays that could stall revitalization efforts
- Premature public subsidies advancing without full legal review or enforceable outcomes
- Financing or title issues arising from unresolved land use procedures
- Missed opportunities for housing and public benefit, left undefined or unguaranteed
- A continued erosion of public trust, making future collaboration harder and slowing progress
Today’s Board wasn’t in office back in 2018 — making this a chance to clarify facts, not assign blame. Ultimately, this is less about past decisions and more about the process ahead — and ensuring it is built on clarity, fairness, and public confidence.
Imagine If the Rules Had Been Followed: A Transparent Path Forward
If the process had followed standard rules, it likely would have included:
- A public surplus declaration
- A Notice of Availability sent to affordable housing developers
- A competitive RFP
- Updated appraisals when more land was added
- Binding agreements for housing, affordability, and community benefit
Imagine where Kings Beach might be today if that path had been taken — a walkable, mixed-use town center with real housing commitments, reliable public return, and community confidence in every step taken. That vision isn’t lost — it’s still within reach.
But the longer these questions go unanswered, the greater the risk. Future delays, financial setbacks, and legal exposure could cost Kings Beach the revitalization it deserves.
That’s why this moment matters. There’s still time — and there’s still a chance — to build the future the public was promised.
Cause for Pause, A Call to Reset
Because legality, transparency, and trust aren’t optional.
Even without assigning blame, the lingering gaps and unanswered questions surrounding the 2018 land deal are reason enough to pause — and to reset the path forward.
This isn’t just about revisiting the past. It’s about protecting the future. Right now, Placer County faces a pivotal choice:
- Continue ahead without addressing core legal gaps and lingering questions,
or - Hit pause, clarify the record, and move forward — together, and within the law..
There’s still time to get this right. But delays in addressing these concerns risk more than just legal exposure or financial setbacks — they risk eroding public trust and compromising the future Kings Beach deserves.
Key Questions That Still Need Answers:
- Why was the land transferred without a formal surplus declaration under California law?
- Why were affordable housing developers not notified as required?
- Why wasn’t a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) issued — especially given the feasibility study pointed to that next step?
- What binding public benefits were guaranteed in exchange for discounted terms?
- How were new parcels added without updated appraisals or public input?
These aren’t just legal questions — they’re puzzle pieces still missing from the public record. We ask them not out of opposition, but out of a shared interest in clarity, fairness, and progress.
Take Action
- 📨 Reach Out to the Board of Supervisors and/or Strong North Tahoe to share why you might also see a “Cause for Pause, A Call to Reset” — and what kind of future you imagine for Kings Beach.
- 📬 Send this blog to friends and neighbors.
- 📣 Join the Strong North Tahoe email list.
- 🕵️ Stay tuned and stay engaged.
Additional Reads
- June 20: Letter to the Board – Request to Revoke Fourth Amendment & Reassess Project Direction
- June 22: Letter to the Board – Requesting “Not Yet” on Millions of Incentives
- Juny 24: Dozens of residents submited correspondence requesting “Not Yet” too
- Summer 2025: Briefing Why the Kings Beach Center Land Deal Merits a Fresh Look (coming soon)
This blog is based on public records, agency correspondence, and community-sourced documents. While we’ve worked to assemble the clearest picture possible, we know some pieces of the puzzle may still be missing. If you have documents, insights, or corrections to help complete the picture, we welcome them.
Leave a Reply