This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

California Courts of Appeal,
Land Use

Aug. 26, 2021

Lake Tahoe development blocked by 3rd District panel

The court ruled against Placer County and developer Alterra Mountain Co. The company wanted to develop 1,500 new hotel and condominium units, along with a 90,000 square-foot water park and recreation center.

In an unusual, partially split, unpublished opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeals blocked a huge resort development near Lake Tahoe.

On Tuesday, the court ruled against Placer County and developer Alterra Mountain Co. The company wanted to develop several hundred new hotel and condominium units, along with a 90,000 square-foot water park and recreation center. The county board of supervisors approved the 94-acre development 4-1 in 2016.

But the three-judge panel reversed a 2018 Placer County Superior Court decision, finding the county failed to comply with open meeting requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act. In doing so, it failed to allow proper consideration of the traffic and pollution effects of the resort as required under the California Environmental Quality Act, the panel found. Sierra Watch v. Placer County, C087892 (Cal. App. 3Rd, filed Aug. 21, 2018).

The dense, 28-page opinion delved into the specifics around the announcement, timing and agenda of the board of supervisors vote. They justices found the county cut corners when supervisors voted on a recently revised agreement.

"The question we consider is whether the board's consideration of this revised agreement, rather than the one referenced on the county's agenda, rendered its agenda misleading," wrote Justice Coleman A. Blease. "We find it did."

Blease ordered the lower court to enter a new judgment granting Sierra Watch's writ petition, essentially forcing the developers and county to restart the approval process. Justice Elena J. Duarte joined Blease.

Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye wrote his own concurring opinion arguing the county did not engage in an active "bait and switch" of the kind at issue in a key case Blease cited, Santa Barbara School District v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 315.

"If the public was misled, it was not because of the agenda but because the materials made available to them in advance of the meeting were incomplete and did not accurately describe the plan," Raye wrote.

#363979

Malcolm Maclachlan

Daily Journal Staff Writer
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com