Verified Petition and Complaint Brown Act 01.13.17

1
2
3
4
5
AMY J. BRICKER (State Bar No. 227073)

LAURA D. BEATON (State Bar No. 294466)
SHUTE, M1HALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 1 laves Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 552-7272
Facsimile:
(415) 552-5816
B ricker@snrwlavv.com
Beaton@smwlaw.com
JPER
& <. L.
C0UNTv 'if oi.ArpR
JAN 13 2017
AKt OriAl I t.Flb
FIVE OFFICER & C
0 Lester.
6 Attorneys for Sierra Watch

7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
SIERRA WATCH,
12
13
Petitioner,
v.
14 PLACER COUNTY; PLACER COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; and DOES
15 1-20,
16
Case No.
5 C V 0 Q 3 8 91 7 .
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate

and Complaint for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief
[Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code 54950
et seq.: CCP 1085 (alternatively 1094.5)]
Respondents.
17
18
19
20
Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC; Squaw

Valley Resort. LLC; Poulsen Commercial
Properties, LP; Does 21-40,
Real Parties in Interest.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
__;___________________________________1________________
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
CASE NO.
BY FAX
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
22
1.
1.
This action
action alleges
alleges violations
violations of
ofthe
the Ralph
Ralph M.
M. Brown
Brown Act,
Act, Government
Government Code
Code
This
section 54950
54950 et
et seq.
seq. ("Brown
(Brown Act"
Act or
or "Act"),
Act), by
by Placer
Placer County
County and
and the
the Placer
Placer County
County Board
Board of
of
J3 section
Supervisors ("County")
(County) regarding
regarding the
the Board
Board of
ofSupervisors'
Supervisors November
November 15,2016
15, 2016 meeting.
meeting. At
At
44 Supervisors
55
that meeting,
meeting, the
the Board
Board adopted
adopted the
the Village
Village at
at Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Specific
Specific Plan
Plan ("Specif,tc
(Specific Plan")
Plan) and
and
that
associated resolutions
resolutions and
and ordinances,
ordinances, including
including an
an ordinance
ordinance to
to approve
approve aa Development
Development
66 associated
77
Agreement (collectively,
(collectively, 'othe
the Project")
Project) and
and certified
certified the
the environmental
environmental impact
impact report
report ("EIR")
(EIR)
Agreement
I8
for the
the Project.
Project. Petitioner
Petitioner Sierra'Watch
Sierra Watch separately
separately challenged
challenged the
the Project
Project approval
approval and
and
for
99
certification of
ofthe
the EIR
EIR on
on the
the grounds
grounds that
that the
the County
County violated
violated the
the California
California Environmental
Environmental
certification
10
10
Quality Act
Act ("CEQA"),
(CEQA), which
which matter
matter is
is currently
currently pending
pending before
before the
the Placer
Placer County
County Superior
Superior
Quality
11
11
Court (Case
(Case No.
No. SCVO
SCV0038777).
Due to
to the
the differing
differing timing
timing requirements
requirements set
set forth
forth in
in CEQA
CEQA
035777). Due
Court
12 and
and the
the Brown
Brown Act,
Act, the
the causes
causes of
of actions
actions under
under the
the two
two statutes
statutes could
could not
not be
be f,rled
filed concurrently.
concurrently.
t2
13
13
2.
2.
The Brown
Brown Act,
Act, also
also known
known as
as the
the California
California open
open meeting
meeting law,
law, has
has aa clear
clear and
and
The
14 forcefully
forcefully stated
stated purpose:
purpose: "In
In enacting
enacting this
this chapter,
chapter, the
the Legislature
Legislature finds
finds and
and declares
declares that
that the
the
t4
15 public
public commissions,
commissions, boards
boards and
and councils
councils and
and the
the other
other public
public agencies
agencies in
in this
this State
State exist
exist to
to aid
aid
t5
16 in
in the
the conduct
conduct of
of the
the people's
peoples business.
business. It
It is
is the
the intent
intent of
of the
the law
law that
that their
their actions
actions be
be taken
taken
t6
17 openly and
and that
that their
their deliberations
deliberations be
be conducted
conducted openly.
openly. ffl]
[]j] The
The people
people of
of this
this State
State do
do not
not
t7
18
18
yield their
their sovereignty
sovereignty to
to the
the agencies
agencies which serve
serve them.
them. The
The people,
people, in delegating
delegating authority, do
yield
19 not give
give their
their public
public servants
servants the
the right
right to
to decide
decide what is good
good for
for the people
people to know
know and
and what
what is
is
l9
20 not
not good
good for
for them
them to
to know.
know. The
The people
people insist
insist on
on remaining informed
informed so that
that they
they may retain
retain
20
21 control
control over
over the instruments
instruments they
they have created."
created. Gov. Code $ 54950.
54950.
2t
22
22
3.
3.
To accomplish
accomplish these vital goals,
goals, the Brown
Brown Act, inter alia, (1) requires that
that an
"To
23
23
agenda be
be posted at
at least T2hours
72 hours before
before aa regular
regular meeting and (2) forbids action
action on any item
agenda
24
24
on that agenda.
agenda. In this way, " '[t]he
[t]he [Brown]
[Brown] Act
Act...
serves to facilitate
facilitate public
public participation
participation
... serves
not on
25
25
of local government
government decisionmaking and
and to curb misuse of
of the democratic
democratic process
in all phases of
26
26
secret legislation
legislation of
of public bodies. "
Son
San Joaqun
Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v.
v. County of
ofMerced
by secret
27
27
1167, 1176 (citations omitted).

omitted).
(2013) 216
216 Cal.App.4th 1167,1176
28
28
______________________________________ 2______________________________________
Verified Petition
Petition for Writ
of Mandate
and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
Complaint for Injunctive and
and Declaratory
Writ of
Mandate and
Verified
CASE NO.
CASE
NO.
I1
4.
4.
As set
setforth
forth below
below and
and in
inPetitioner's
Petitionerspending
pending CEQA
CEQA action,
action, the
the Project
Project at
at issue
issue
As
proposes aa massive
massive development,
development, including
including 850
850 units
units in
in aa series
series of
oftall
tall high-rises
high-rises as
as well
well as
as
22 proposes
intensive commercial
commercial development
development (such
(such as
as aa 90,000
90,000 square
square foot
foot indoor
indoorwater
waterpark),
park), in
in aa narrow
narrow
J3 intensive
alpine valley
valley near
near the
the Lake
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Basin.
Basin. The
The Project
Project would
would completely
completely transform
transformthe
the region,
region,
44 alpine
55
and result
result in
in serious
serious environmental
environmental consequences
consequences for
for decades
decades to
to come.
come. As
As aa result,
result, the
the Project
Project
and
garnered widespread
widespread public
public opposition
opposition throughout
throughout the
the administrative
administrative process.
process.
66 garnered
Although the
the
Although
77
transparency of
ofgovernment
government officials'
officials action
action isis important
important in
in every
every case,
case, itit isis particularly
particularly
transparency
88
significant in
in the
the present
present case
case given
given the
the incredibly
incredibly high
high stakes
stakes of
ofthe
the approvals
approvals at
at issue.
issue. Indeed,
Indeed,
significant
99
Sierra Watch
Watch and
and other
other members
members of
ofthe
the public
public on
on several
several occasions
occasions notified
notified the
the County
County that
that full
full
Sierra
10 public
public information
information and
and participation
participation regarding
regarding this
this Project
Project was
was vital.
vital.
l0
11
1l
5.
5.
Yet, at
at its
its November
November 15,
15, 2016
2016 public
public hearing
hearing on
on the
the Project,
Project, the
the Board
Board took
took action
action
Yet,
12 on
on aa matter
matter that
that was
was not
not properly
properly noticed
noticed on
on the
the agenda,
agenda, as
as required
required by
by the
the Brown
Brown Act,
Act, thereby
thereby
t2
13 catching
catching Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch and
and the
the public
public entirely
entirely off
off guard.
guard. Specif,rcally,
Specifically, the
the Board
Board considered
considered and
and
t3
14 adopted
adopted an
an ordinance
ordinance approving
approving aa substantively
substantively different
different Development
Development Agreement
Agreement than
than the
the one
one
t4
15
15
described in
in and
and attached
attached to
to the
the posted
posted agenda.
agenda. Unbeknownst
Unbeknownst to
to Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch and
and other
other
described
16 members
members of
ofthe
the public,
public, the
the County
County had
had amended
amended the
the Development
Agreement to
to reflect
reflect an
an
t6
17 eleventh
eleventh hour
hour deal
deal between
between the
the County,
County, the
the Project
Project Applicant,
Applicant, and
and the
the California
California Attorney
Attorney
t7
18
18
Generals Office
Office that
that purported
purported to address
address issues
issues f
of great
great importance
importance to
to Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch and
and the
the
General's
19 general
general public, including impacts
impacts to
to the
the Lake
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Basin.
Basin. Equally
Equally troubling,
troubling, the
the day
day before
before
t9
20 the
the hearing,
hearing, on
on November
November 14,
14, the Board
Board was
was provided
provided with
with a 107-page
107-page memorandum,
memorandum, with
20
21 attachments, discussing
discussing the revisions
revisions to the Development
Agreement and other
other significant
significant
2t
22
22
concerns raised
raised by the Attorney General-key
Generalkey information
information for
for the Board's
Boards actions at
at the
concerns
23
23
November l5
15 meeting-but
meetingbut this document
document was
was not
not made
made available
available to the
the public at
that time, as
as
atthat
November
24
24
required by the
the Brown
Brown Act.
required
25
25
6.
6.
Without notice
notice that
that the Board
Board would
would be taking
taking action
action on a substantial change to
Without
26
26
the Development
Development Agreement for
for the Project
Project that concerned
concerned matters of
of great importance
importance to Sierra
Sierra
27
27
Watch and the public, and without access

access to the memorandum
memorandum provided to the Board the day
28
and the
the public
public were not only ambushed
regarding an approval
ambushed regarding
28 before the meeting, Sierra Watch and
___ _______________________________ 3______________________________________

Verified Petition
Petition for
of Mandate
Mandate and
and Declaratory
Declaratory Relief
and Complaint
Verif,red
for Writ
Writ of
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
by the
the Board
Board that
that was
was elected
elected to
to serve
serve them,
them, but
but also
also denied
denied the
the opportunity
opportunity to
to prepare
prepare and
and
I1 by
provide meaningful
meaningful comment
comment on
on this
this significant
significant matter,
matter, in
in violation
violation of
ofthe
the Brown
Brown Act.
Act.
22 provide
a
J3
44
55
PARTIES
PARTIES
7.
7.
Petitioner Sierra'Watch
Sierra Watch isis aa community-based
community-based organization
organization of
ofindividuals
individuals
Petitioner
dedicated to
to protecting
protecting the
the unique
unique scenic,
scenic, biological,
biological, and
and natural
natural resources
resources of
ofthe
the Sierra
Sierra Nevada
Nevada
dedicated
region, including
including Squaw
Squaw Valley,
Valley, and
and is
is organized
organized as
as aa California
California nonprofit
nonprofit public
public benefit
benefit
66 region,
77
corporation. Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch was
was formed
formed to
to assist
assist Sierra-based
Sierra-based groups
groups and
and individuals
individuals with
with
corporation.
88
education and
and information
information so
so that
that they
they can
can participate
participate effectively
effectively in
in local
local planning
planning processes.
processes.
education
99
Supporters of
of Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch use
use and
and enjoy
enjoy the
the natural
natural and
and scenic
scenic resources
resources of
of Squaw
Squaw Valley,
Valley,
Supporters
10 where
where the
the Project
Project would
would be
be developed,
developed, and
and use
use and
and enjoy
enjoy the
the recreation
recreation opportunities
opportunities offered
offered in
in
10
11
11
Squaw Valley.
Valley. Supporters
Supporters of
of Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch include
include citizens
citizens of
of California
California and
and residents
residents and
and
Squaw
12 taxpayers
taxpayers of
ofPlacer
Placer County
County who
who would
would be
be negatively
negatively affected
affected by
by the
the Project's
Projects adverse
adverse
t2
13
13
environmental impacts
impacts and
and improper
improper approvals
approvals and
and who
who have
have an
an interest
interest in
in the
the County's
Countys
environmental
14 compliance
compliance with
with the
the Brown
Brown Act.
Act. Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch has
has been
been extensively
extensively involved
involved in
in the
the public
public
t4
15
15
process for
for approval
approval of
ofthe
the Project,
Project, commenting
commenting in
in detail
detail on
on all
all aspects
aspects of
ofthe
the Project,
Project, its
its
process
16 environmental
environmental review,
review, and
and associated
associated approvals
approvals at
at every
every opportunity.
opportunity. Accordingly,
Accordingly, Sierra
Sierra
t6
17 Watch and
and its supporters
supporters have aa direct
direct and
and beneficial
beneficial interest
interest in
in the
the County's
Countys compliance
compliance with
t7
18
18
the Brown
Brown Act.
Act. These
These interests
interests are directly and
and adversely
adversely affected
affected by
by the County's
Countys violation
violation of
of
the
19 the Brown
Brown Act,
Act, as
as set forth
forth in
in this Petition.
Petition. The
The maintenance
maintenance and
and prosecution
prosecution of
of this
this action
action will
will
t9
20 confer
confer aa substantial
substantial benefit
benefit on
on the
the public by
by remedying
remedying the County's
Countys Brown
Brown Action
Action violations
violations
20
21 and
and ensuring
ensuring the Act's
Acts purpose of
of ensuring
ensuring public
participation in government
government is achieved.
achieved.
2t
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
8.
8.
Respondent Placer County is aa political

political subdivision of
of the State of
of California
California and
Respondent
is subject to the requirements

requirements of
of the Brown
Brown Act.
9.
9.
Respondent Board of
of Supervisors is the duly
duly elected legislative body for
for Placer
County and is the legislative

legislative body
body that took
took the actions that are the subject of
of this lawsuit.
lawsuit.
10.
10.
Petitioner does not know

know the true names and capacities, whether
whether individual,
individual,
Petitioner
associate, or otherwise,
otherwise, of
of Respondents
Respondents Doe I1 through
through Doe 20, inclusive, and
corporate, associate,
28
therefore sue
sue said
names. Petitioner alleges, upon information
and
information and
Respondents under fictional names.
said Respondents
28 therefore
____________
____________44
Verified
of Mandate and
and Complaint
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory
Declaratory Relief
Petition for Writ
Writ of
Verified Petition
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
__________
belief, that
that each
each fictionally
fictionally named
named Respondent
Respondent is
is responsible
responsible in
in some
some manner
manner for
for committing
committing the
the
I1 belief,
22
acts upon
upon which
which this
this action
action is
is based.
based. Petitioner
Petitioner will
will amend
amend this
this Petition
Petition to
to show
show their
their true
true
acts
names and capacities

capacities ifif and
and when
when the
the same
same have
have been
been ascertained.
ascertained.
names
J3
44
11.
l.
Real Party
Party in
in Interest
Interest Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Real
Real Estate,LLC
Estate, LLC is
is aa party
party to
to the
the
Real
55
Agreement approved
approved by
by the
the Board
Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors at
at its
its November
November 15,
15, 2016
Development
66
meeting. Real
Real Party
Party in
in Interest
Interest Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Real
Real Estate,LLC
Estate, LLC is
is also
also listed
listed as
as aa "Project
Project
meeting.
77
Applicant/Owner on
on the
the Notice
Notice of
of Determination
Determination for
for the
the Final
Final Environmental
Environmental Impact
Impact Report
Report
Applicant/Owner"
88
for the
the Project
Project filed
filed and
and posted
posted by
by the
the County
County Clerk
Clerk of
of Placer
Placer County
County on
on November
November 21,2016.
21, 2016.
for
99
Petitioner is
is informed,
informed, and
and on
on that
that basis
basis alleges,
alleges, that
that Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Real
Real Estate,
Estate, LLC
LLC is
is aa
Petitioner
10
10
11
l1
company incorporated
incorporated in
in the
the State
State of
of Delaware
Delaware and
and doing
doing business
business in
in the
the State
State of
of California.
California.
company
12.
12.
Real Party in
in Interest
Interest Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Resort,
Resort, LLC
LLC is aparty
a party to
to the Development
Development
Real
12 Agreement
Agreement approved
approved by
by the Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors at its
its November
November 15,
15, 2016 meeting.
meeting. Petitioner
t2
13
13
informed, and
and on
on that
that basis
basis alleges,
alleges, that Squaw Valley
Valley Resort, LLC is a company
company incorporated
incorporated
is informed,
14 in
in the State of
of Delaware and
and doing
doing business
business in
in the State of
of California.
California.
I4
15
15
13.
13.
Real
party to
Party in
in Interest
Interest Poulsen
Poulsen Commercial
Properties, LP
LP is
is aa party
Real Party
Commercial Properties,
to the
the
16 Development
Development Agreement approved by
by the Board of
of Supervisors at its November 15, 2016
t6
17 meeting.
meeting. Petitioner
Petitioner is informed,
informed, and on that
that basis
basis alleges,
alleges, that
that Poulsen
Poulsen Commercial
Commercial Properties,
t7
18
18
19
I9
20
limited partnership
partnership registered
registered and doing business
business in
in the State of
of California.
California.
LP is limited
14.
14.
Petitioner does
does not
not know
know the
the true
true names
names and capacities, whether
whether individual,
individual,
Petitioner
otherwise, of
of Real Parties in Interest
Interest Doe
Doe 21 through
through Doe
Doe 40, inclusive,
corporate, associate, or otherwise,
21 and therefore
therefore sues said Real Parties in Interest
Interest under
under f,rctional
fictional names.
names. Petitioner
Petitioner alleges,
alleges, upon
2t
22
22
information and belief, that

that each fictionally
fictionally named Real Party in Interest
Interest is responsible in some
information
23
23
committing the acts upon which

which this action
action is based
based or has material
material interests
interests affected
manner for committing
24
Countys actions with

with respect
respect to the Project.
Project. Petitioner
Petitioner will amend this
by the Project or by the County's
25
their true names and capacities if

if and when the same
same have been ascertained.
Petition to show their
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
JURISDICTION
26
27
15.
15.
Pursuant to California Code of

of Civil
Civil Procedure sections 526,
527, 1085
Pursuant
526,527,1085
28 (alternatively
Government Code sections 54960,
54960.1, and
(alternatively section 1094.5), and 1087; and Government
54960,54960.1,
______________________________________ 5______________________________________
5
Verified
for Writ of
of Mandate and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
Petition for
Verified Petition
CASE NO.
54960.2, thisCourt
Courthas
hasjurisdiction
jurisdictionto
toissue
issueaawrit
writof
ofmandate
mandateand
andgrant
grantinjunctive
injunctiverelief
relieftoto
I 1 54960.2,this
22
invalidatethe
theBoard's
BoardsNovember
November 15,
15, 2016
2016actions
actionswith
withrespect
respecttotothe
theProject,
Project,including
including
invalidate
adoptionof
ofthe
theordinance
ordinanceapproving
approvingthe
therevised
revisedDevelopment
DevelopmentAgreement,
Agreement,and
andtotodeclare
declarethat
that
J3 adoption
I
theCounty
Countyviolated
violatedthe
theBrown
BrownAct
Actby
byfailing
failingtotomake
makeavailable
availabletotothe
thepublic
publicaamemorandum
memorandum
44 the
55
providedto
tothe
theBoard
Boardaa day
daybefore
beforethe
themeeting,
meeting, and
andissue
issueaawrit
writof
ofmandate
mandatedirecting
directingthe
the
provided
Countyto
to comply
complywith
withthe
theBrown
BrownAct.
Act.
66 County
16.
16.
77
I8
Venue isisproper
properininthis
this Court
Courtbecause
becausethe
the causes
causes of
ofaction
action alleged
allegedininthis
thisPetition
Petition
Venue
aroseininPlacer
PlacerCounty.
County.
arose
17.
17.
99
Petitionerhas
has complied
compliedwith
withthe
therequirements
requirements of
ofGovernment
GovernmentCode
Code section
section
Petitioner
10
10
54960.1 and
and 54960.2
54960.2 by
by delivering
delivering to
to the
the County
County aa letter
letter on
on December
December 5,
5, 2016
2016 demanding
demandingthat
that
54960.1
ll11
the County
County cure
cure or
or correct
correct and
and cease
cease and
and desist
desist its
its Brown
Brown Act
Act violations.
violations. A
A copy
copy of
ofthe
the letter,
letter,
the
12 without
without its
its original
original attachments,
attachments, isis attached
attached hereto
hereto as
as Exhibit
Exhibit A.
A.
t2
18.
18.
13
13
The County
County responded
responded to
to Petitioner's
Petitioners letter
letter on
on December
December 30,
30, 20l6,claiming
2016, claiming that
that itit
The
14 had
had not
not violated
violated the
the Brown
Brown Act
Act and
and declining
declining to
to cure
cure or
or correct
correct the
the violation
violation identified
identified by
by
t4
15 Petitioner.
Petitioner. The
The County's
Countys letter
letter also
also failed
failed to
to provide
provide an
an unconditional
unconditional commitment
commitment to
to comply
comply
t5
16 with
with the
the Brown
Brown Act
Act going
going forward.
forward. A
A copy
copy of
ofthis
this letter
letter is
is attached
attached hereto
hereto as
as Exhibit
Exhibit B.
B.
I6
19.
19.
17
t7
Petitioner will
will comply
comply with
with the
the requirements
requirements of
ofCode
Code of
ofCivil
Civil Procedure
Procedure section
section
Petitioner
18 388
388 by
by sending
sending aa copy
copy of
ofthis
this Petition
Petition to
to the
the California
California Attorney
Attorney General
General within
within the
the required
required
l8
19
T9
time period.
period.
time
20
20
20.
20.
21
2t
22
22
23
23
Petitioner has
has performed
performed any
any and
and all
all conditions
conditions precedent
precedent to
to filing
filing this
this instant
instant
Petitioner
action and
and has
has exhausted
exhausted any and
and all
all available
available administrative
administrative remedies
remedies to
to the
the extent
extent required
required by
by
action
law.
law.
21.
2I.
Petitioner has
has no plain, speedy,
speedy, or adequate remedy
remedy in
in the course
course of
of ordinary
ordinary law
law
Petitioner
24 unless
unless this
this Court
Court grants
grants the
the requested
requested writ of
of mandate
mandate to
to require
require Respondents
Respondents to set aside the
24
25
25
Boards actions
actions taken
taken in
in violation
violation of
of the Brown
Brown Act.
Act. In
In the absence
absence of
of such remedy, the Board's
Boards
Board's
26
26
approval will
will remain
remain in
in effect
effect in
in violation
violation of
of state
state law.
approval
27
27
28
28
______________________________________ 6_________________
6
Verified
Petition for
and Complaint
for Injunctive
Declaratory Relief
Injunctive and
and Declaratory
Complaint for
Mandate and
for Writ
Writ of
of Mandate
Verified Petition
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
I1
22
a
J3
STATEMENT OF
OF FACTS
FACTS
STATEMENT
22.
22.
In 2012, Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Real
Real Estate,LLC
Estate, EEC (a
(a Real
Real Party
Party in
in Interest
Interest in
in this
this case
case and
and
In2012,
the "Applicant")
'Applicant) began
began the
the process
process of
ofseeking
seeking entitlements
entitlements that
that would
would dramatically
dramatically intensiff
intensify
the
resort development
development in
in the
the North
North Tahoe
Tahoe region.
region. The
The Project,
Project, as
as approved,
approved, would
would allow
allow for
for an
an
44 resort
55
unprecedented and
and transformational
transformational level
level of
of development
development in
in Tahoe's
Tahoes Squaw
Squaw Valley.
Valley. Squaw
Squaw
unprecedented
66
Valley is
is an
an internationally
internationally famous
famous resort
resort known
known for
for hosting
hosting the
the 1960
1960 Winter
Winter Olympics
Olympics and
and for
for
Valley
the challenging
challenging ski
ski terrain
terrain that
that has
has inspired
inspired generations
generations of
ofinnovation
innovation in
in the
the world
world of
ofskiing.
skiing.
77 the
I8
The Project
Project proposes
proposes approximately
approximately 5l
51 acres
acres of
of development
development on
on aa 93.3
93.3 acre
acre site,
site, including
including
The
99
retail, residential,
residential, and
and resort
resort industrial
industrial uses,
uses, with
with buildings
buildings ranging
ranging in
in height
height from
from 35
35 to
to 96
96 feet,
feet,
retail,
10
10
roughly nine
nine acres
acres of
of 2O-foot
20-foot tall
tall parking
parking structures,
structures, and
and an
an equipment
equipment yard
yard and
and timeshare
timeshare units
units
roughly
11 near
near Squaw
Squaw Creek
Creek and
and the
the mouth
mouth of
of Shirley
Shirley Canyon,
Canyon, aa popular
popular hiking
hiking spot.
spot. Existing
Existing roadways
roadways
1l
12 would
would cover
cover another
another eight
eight acres
acres of
ofthe
the Project
Project area.
area. The
The Project
Project calls
calls for
for 1,493
1,493 new
new bedrooms
bedrooms
t2
13 concentrated
concentrated in
in the
the proposed
proposed condo
condo hotel
hotel high-rises
high-rises and
and approximately
approximately 274,000
274,000 square
square feet
feet of
l3
14 new
new commercial
commercial space,
space, including
including aa 96-foot
96-foot tall,
tall, 90,000
90,000 square
square foot
foot indoor
indoor waterpark
waterpark dubbed
dubbed aa
t4
15 "Mountain
Mountain Adventure
Adventure Camp."
Camp. Planned
Planned uses
uses for
for the
the water-park
water-park include: indoor
indoor water
water slides,
slides,
l5
16
T6
action rivers, arcades,

arcades, wake
wake boarding, 30 bowling
bowling lanes, simulated
simulated sky
sky diving,
diving, miniature
miniature golf,
action
17 water
water skiing,
skiing, trampoline,
trampoline, an indoor
indoor wave
wave rider,
rider, and
and more.
more. The Project
Project also
also includes
includes a 30,000
t7
18 gallon
gallon propane
propane tank "farm,"
farm, which will
will serve
serve as
as the resort's
resorts gas supply.
supply. Approximately 92,000
l8
19
L9
of commercial
commercial space, largely
largely contained
contained within
within the
the historic
historic Olympic
Olympic buildings,
buildings, would
square feet of
20
20
demolished. The Project

Project would also
also include up to 300 bedrooms of
of dormitory
dormitory style
be demolished.
21 employee
employee housing, another
another parking
parking structure, and 20,000 square feet
feet of
of commercial
commercial space
2I
22
22
23
23
market and
and aa shipping and receiving
receiving center.
containing aa market
23.
23.
Project was subject

subject to environmental
environmental review
review under CEQA.
CEQA. Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch and
The Project
24
24
of the public
public were extensively
extensively involved
involved in this public
public process.
other organizations and members of
25
25
10, 2012, the County issued

issued aa Notice
Notice of
of Preparation ("NOP")
(NOP) of
of aa Draft
On or about October 10,2012,
26
26
Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR")

(DEIR) for
for the proposed Village at Squaw
Squaw Valley Specific
Specific Plan
Environmental
27
27
Project. Sierra Watch and other agencies, individuals,

individuals, and organizations submitted
and Phase I Project.
28
28
NOP. Subsequently, on or about February

February 21,
2014, the County
21,2014,
comments to the County on this NOP.
____ _____ ____________________________ 77____________________________
Verified Petition
Petition for Writ of
of Mandate and
and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
Verified
CASE NO.
CASENO.
issuedaarevised
revisedNOP
NOP for
forthe
theProject.
Project. Again,
Again, several
severalagencies,
agencies, individuals,
individuals, and
andorganizations,
organizations,
I1 issued
including Sierra
SierraWatch,
Watch, submitted
submittedcomments
comments on
onthe
therevised
revisedFebruary
February 2014
2014NOP.
NOP.
22 including
J3
a
24.
24.
Onor
orabout
aboutMay
May 18,2015,
18, 2015,the
the County
County circulated
circulatedthe
theDEIR
DEIRfor
forthe
theProject.
Project. At
At
On
least350
350 interested
interested agencies,
agencies, organizations,
organizations, and
and individuals
individuals submitted
submitted comments
comments on
onthe
theDEIR,
DEIR,
44 least
55
including Sierra
Sierra Watch,
Watch,which
which submitted
submitted extensive
extensive comments
comments on
onthe
the DEIR,
DEIR, detailing
detailing numerous
numerous
including
flaws in
inthe
the document,
document, including
including its
its failure
failure to
to evaluate
evaluatethe
the full
full scope
scope of
ofthe
theProject's
Projects impacts
impacts on
on
66 flaws
the environment.
environment. Several
Several other
other conservation
conservationgroups,
groups, including
includingbut
but not
not limited
limitedto
to the
the Center
Center for
for
77 the
I8
Biological Diversity,
Diversity, League
League to
to Save
Save Lake
Lake Tahoe,
Tahoe, Friends
Friends of
ofSquaw
Squaw Valley,
Valley, Friends
Friends of
ofthe
the West
West
Biological
Shore, Mountain
Mountain Area
Area Preservation,
Preservation, Mother
Mother Lode
Lode Chapter
Chapter of
ofthe
the Sierra
Sierra Club,
Club, and
and North
North Tahoe
Tahoe
99 Shore,
10 Preservation
Preservation Alliance,
Alliance, submitted
submitted comments
comments on
on the
the DEIR
DEIR regarding
regarding these
these and
and other
other issues.
issues. Over
Over
l0
11
11
300 individuals
individuals and
and more
more than
than aa dozen
dozen interested
interested government
government agencies
agencies also
also commented
commented on
on the
the
300
12 DEIR
DEIR and
and objected
objected to
to the
the Project
Project and
and the
the inadequate
inadequate environmental
environmental review.
review. Of
Ofthese
these comments,
comments,
t2
13
13
most raised
raised concerns
concerns about
about the
the Project's
Projects impacts
impacts on
on the
the Tahoe
Tahoe Basin,
Basin, traffrc,
traffic, or
or both.
both. Notably,
Notably,
most
14 these
these comments
comments included
included aa letter
letter from
from the
the Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Regional Planning
Planning Agency
Agency detailing
detailing the
the failure
failure
l4
15 of
ofthe
the DEIR
DEIR to
to adequately
adequately analyze
analyze and
and mitigate
mitigate the
the impacts
impacts of
ofthe
the Project
Project on
on the
the Tahoe
Tahoe Basin.
Basin.
l5
16
T6
25.
25.
On or
or around
around April
April 77,,2016,
2016, the
the County
County released
released its
its responses
responses to
to comments
comments on
on the
the
On
17 DEIR
DEIR and
and issued
issued the
the final
final environmental
environmental impact
impact report
report ("FEIR")
(FEIR) for
for the
the Project.
Project. Dozens
Dozens of
of
t7
18
18
individuals, organizations,
organizations, and
and agencies
agencies commented
commented on
on the
the FEIR.
FEIR. Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch again
again submitted
submitted
individuals,
19 extensive
extensive comments,
comments, detailing
detailing how
how the
the FEIR
FEIR did
did not
not adequately
adequately respond
respond to
to or
or correct
correct the
the
t9
20 inadequacies
inadequacies of
of the
the DEIR
DEIR identified
identified by
by Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch or
or other
other commenters
commenters during
during the
the review
review
20
21 process.
process. The
The California
California Attorney
Attorney General's
Generals Office
Office also
also submitted
submitted a letter
letter on
on the FEIR,
FEIR,
2t
22 expressing
expressing her
her concerns that
that the environmental review
review did
did not
not adequately analyze
or mitigate
mitigate
analyze or
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
the Project's
Projects impacts
impacts on the Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Basin,
Basin, aa nationally
nationally treasured
treasured California
California resource.
resource.
the
26.
26.
The Project
Project was first
first considered by the Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Municipal
Municipal Advisory
Council. Municipal
Municipal Advisory
Advisory Councils (or "MACs"),
MACs), which
which were created
created by
by the Placer County
County
Council.
26 Board
Board of
of Supervisors, are
are comprised
comprised of
of local residents
residents who advise
advise the Board
Board of
of Supervisors on
26
27
27
issues or
or concerns
concerns regarding
regarding proposed projects and other matters
matters that may affect
affect their
issues
28
communities. On May 14,
14, 2016, the Squaw Valley MAC held aa meeting to consider
consider the Project.
28 communities.
_______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________
Verified
for V/rit
Writ of
Mandate and
and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
and Declaratory
of Mandate
Petition for
Verified Petition
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
Approximately 200
200 people
people attended
attended the
the meeting
meeting and
and more
more than
than 150
150 stood
stood when
when aa Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch
I1 Approximately
22
representative asked
asked anyone
anyone in
in the
the audience
audience that
that was
was opposed
opposed to
to the
the Project
Project to
to stand.
stand. TwentyTwentyrepresentative
J3
four people
people spoke
spoke at
at the
the meeting,
meeting, twenty
twenty of
ofwhom
whom were
were opposed
opposed to
to the
the Project.
Project. Speakers
Speakers
four
44
included individuals
individuals and
and representatives
representatives from
from organizations
organizations including
including Sierra
Sierra Watch,
Watch, Friends
Friends of
of
included
55
Squaw Valley,
Valley, Friends
Friends of
of Squaw
Squaw Creek,
Creek, and
and the
the Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Homeowners
Homeowners Association
Association
Squaw
66
Forum. According
According to
to the
the off,rcial
official minutes
minutes from
from the
the MAC
MAC meeting:
meeting: "The
The gist
gist of
ofthe
the rest
rest of
ofthe
the
Forum.
77
comments were
were that
that the
the project
project is
is too
too large,
large, the
the proposed
proposed benef,rts
benefits are
are outweighed
outweighed by
by the
the
comments
88
impacts, and
and the
the general
general loss
loss of
of aa osense
sense of
of place."'
place.
environmental impacts,
99
27.
27.
After the
the close
close of
of public
public comment,
comment, the
the MAC
MAC passed
passed two
two motions,
motions, both
both by
by aa vote
vote
After
10 of
of three
three to
to one.
one. The
The first
first motion
motion was
was to
to "recommend
recommend denial
denial of
of the
the project
project as
as proposed."
proposed. The
The
l0
11
11
MACS second
second approved
approved motion
motion was
was to "recommend
recommend serious
serious consideration
consideration be
be given
given to
to the
the
MAC's
12 project
project at aa level
level approximately
approximately 50o/o
50% of
of what
what is currently
currently proposed
proposed subject
subject to further
further research
research to
t2
13 support
support the conclusions
conclusions previously
previously reached
reached in
in the Draft
Draft EIR."
EIR.
l3
14
t4
15
15
28.
28.
After the MAC's

MACS review,
review, the Project
Project was considered
considered by
by the Placer
Placer County
After
Planning Commission, which

which held aa public
public hearing
hearing on
on the Project
Project on or about
about August T1,2016.
11, 2016.
Planning
16 The Planning Commission

Commission considered
considered and made
made recommendations
recommendations on all aspects of
of the
the Project,
t6
17 its environmental review, and its related approvals,
approvals, including
including the initial
initial version
version of
of the
l7
18
18
Development Agreement for

for the Project.
Project. Dozens of
of people, including
including concerned
concerned residents and
Development
19 representatives from Sierra

Sierra Watch and other
other conservation
conservation groups,
groups, provided
provided public
public testimony in
t9
20
20
opposition to the Project due to its scale and its serious

serious environmental
environmental threats
threats to North Tahoe
Tahoe
opposition
21 and
and the Lake Tahoe Basin, as well as the EIR's
EIRs failure
failure to adequately evaluate
evaluate or mitigate those
2t
22
22
impacts. When
When asked by a Sierra Watch
Watch representative
representative to stand if
if they
they opposed
opposed the project,
impacts.
23
200 attendees rose to register

register their
their disapproval. The Planning
Planning Commission,
Commission, by a vote
more than
than200
24
of four
four to two, voted
voted to recommend
recommend approval
approval of
of the Project
Project and certification
certification of
of the EIR
EIR to the
of
25
Board of
Board
of Supervisors.
26
29.
29.
The Board of
public hearing for the Project on November
of Supervisors scheduled a public
27
15, 2016.
of documentation
documentation
2016. The County made available
available to the public about 1,000 pages of
28
regarding the Project by posting on its website on November 9, 2016, including

including the agenda for
______________________________________ 9______________________________________
9
Verified Petition
Declaratory Relief
CASE NO.
theNovember
November 15
15 Board
Boardof
ofSupervisors
Supervisorsmeeting.
meeting. The
Theagenda
agendafor
forthe
themeeting
meetingdescribed
describedthe
the
I1 the
relevantitem
itemto
tothis
this lawsuit
lawsuitas:
as: "Conduct
ConductaaPublic
PublicHearing
Hearingto
toconsider
consideraarecommendation
recommendationfrom
from
22 relevant
J3
a
thePlacer
PlacerCounty
CountyPlanning
PlanningCommission
Commission for
forAPPROVAL
APPROVAL of
ofthe
the following:
following: . ... . . Adoption
Adoptionof
ofan
an
the
ordinanceto
to approve
approvethe
theDevelopment
DevelopmentAgreement
Agreementrelative
relativeto
tothe
theVillage
Villageatat Squaw
SquawValley
Valley
44 ordinance
55
Specific Plan."
Plan. The
The agenda
agendapacket
packet for
forthe
the meeting
meeting included
includedaadraft
draftordinance
ordinance adopting
adoptingthe
the
Specific
66
version of
ofthe
the Development
DevelopmentAgreement
Agreementthat
thatwas
was reviewed
reviewed and
andrecommended
recommendedby
by the
the Planning
Planning
version
77
Commission and
and aa copy
copy of
ofthat
thatDevelopment
Development Agreement.
Agreement.
Commission
30.
30.
88
Neither the
the agenda
agenda nor
nor the
the materials
materials in
in the
the agenda
agendapacket
packet anywhere
anywhere mentioned
mentioned
Neither
that County
County officials
officials had
had met
met or
or would
would meet
meetwith
with the
the Attorney
Attorney General's
Generals Ofhce
Office regarding
regarding the
the
99 that
10 Project
Project or
or that,
that, as
as aa result
result of
ofthat
that meeting,
meeting, the
the Board
Board would
would be
be considering
considering significant
significant changes
changes to
to
10
11 the
the Development
Agreement that
that was
was considered
considered and
and recommended
recommended for
for approval
approval by
by the
the
1l
12 Planning
Planning Commission.
Commission. Yet,
Yet, at
at the
the November
November 15,2016
15, 2016 meeting
meeting the
the Board
Board approved
approved an
an amended
amended
l2
13
13
version of
ofthe
the Development
Development Agreement,
Agreement, which
which included
included changes
changes that
that were
were the
the result
result of
ofaa lastlastversion
14 minute
minute negotiation
negotiation between
between the
the County,
County, the
the Applicant,
Applicant, and
and the
the Attorney
Attorney General's
Generals Office
Office and
and
t4
15
15
that attempted
attempted to
to address
address the
the Attorney
Attorney General's
Generals grave
grave concerns
concerns about
about the
the Project's
Projects impacts
impacts to
to
that
16 the
the Tahoe
Tahoe Basin.
Basin. According
According to
to oral
oral testimony
testimony by
by Supervising
Supervising Deputy
Deputy County
County Counsel
Counsel Karin
Karin
l6
17 Schwab,
Schwab, the
the Development
Agreement was
was amended
amended to
to reflect
reflect aa commitment
commitment by
by the
the Applicant
Applicant to
to
t7
18
18
make payments
payments of
of aa Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Regional Planning
Planning Agency
Agency Air
Air Quality
Quality fee.
fee. Because
Because this
this new
new item
item
make
19 for
for Board
Board action
action was
was not
not included
included in
in the
the agenda
agenda posted
posted 72,hours
72 hours before
before the
the meeting,
meeting. Sierra
Sierra
t9
20 V/atch
Watch and
and the
the public
public were
were denied
denied notice of
of the
the Board's
Boards action
action and
and their
their right
right to
to meaningfully
meaningfully
20
21 participate
participate in
in this
this government action.
action.
2t
1.
22
22
23
23
331.
Prior to and
and at
at the
the November
November 15
15 hearing,
hearing, Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch submitted
submitted extensive
extensive written
Prior
and oral
oral testimony
testimony on
on virtually
virtually all aspects
aspects of
of the Project,
Project, providing extensive
extensive evidence and
and
and
24 reasons
reasons why
why the
the Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors should deny
deny the
the Project.
Project. However, due to the lack of
24
25
25
notice on
on the agenda
agenda of
of the Board's
Boards action
action on the new
new version
version of
of the Development
Agreement,
26
26
Sierra Watch
Watch and
and other
other members of
of the
the public were unable
unable to
to prepare and
and present
present any
Sierra
27
27
substantive comments on the County's

Countys and the Applicant's
Applicants last minute deal with the Attorney
Attorney
substantive
28
28
_______________________ l0
10______________________________________
Verified
Petition for
Writ of
of Mandate
Mandate and
and Complaint
Complaint for
and Declaratory
Declaratory Relief
for Injunctive and
for V/rit
Verified Petition
CASE NO.
NO.
CASE
Agreement, which
which were made
made to avoid
avoid potential
potential
General and changes to the Development Agreement,
litigation with
with the State.
State.
litigation
J3
32.
32.
Compounding the problem, unbeknownst

unbeknownst to Sierra Watch
Watch and the
the public,
public, on
Compounding
2016the day before

before the Board of
of Supervisor's
Supervisors meeting-supervising
meetingSupervising Deputy
Deputy
14,2016-the
November 14,
5
5
Schwab provided
provided the Board
Board with a 107-page memorandum,
memorandum, which
which included
included as
as
County Counsel Schwab
supplemental responses to comments on the FEIR

FEIR regarding
regarding the Project's
Projects impacts to
attachments supplemental
Tahoe Basin; a signif,rcant

significant amendment
amendment to the Development
Agreement that was the
the Lake Tahoe
8
8
result of
of a last-minute attempt
attempt to settle
settle the Attorney General's
Generals concerns about
about the Project; aa
result
revised
revised Ordinance
Ordinance approving the amended
amended Development
Development Agreement; and a revised copy of
of the
10
10
11
11
Development Agreement.
Agreement.
Development
33.
memorandum and its attachments,
attachments, which dealt
dealt with an issue extremely
extremely
33. This memorandum
12
T2
important to the public,

public, were not, to Petitioner's
Petitioners knowledge, made available
available to the public
public at the
13
13
received by a majority of
of the Board
Board (or at any time before
before or during
during the
time they were received
14 meeting).
t4
meeting). Indeed, this document
document was not posted
posted to the County's
Countys website,
website, as it is the County's
Countys
15 custom to do with documents supporting agenda items for Board meetings and as the County
l5
County did
16 with all other documents related to the November l5
15 meeting's
meetings action items.
t6
17
I7
34.
notify the public of
of the addition
34. By failing to notify
addition to the agenda and failing to give the
18
18
public access to the memorandum

memorandum and its attachments,
attachments, the County denied Sierra
Sierra Watch and the
19
19
public
public their
their right to provide meaningful
meaningful comments on issues of
of great importance
importance to the public.
20
Projectespecially those
Indeed, as evidenced by the large number
number of
of comments made on the Project-especially
21
2l
attachments purported
about impacts to Lake Tahoe, which
which the memorandum
memorandum and its attachments
purported to
22 address-had
addresshad the public known of
Countys and the
of this new agenda item, resulting from the County's
23
Project
with the Attorney Generals
Project Applicants
Applicant's negotiations
negotiations with
General's Office, and the contents
contents of
of the
24
memorandum, one or more representatives from Sierra

Sierra Watch
substantive
memorandum,
Watch would
would have provided substantive
25
comments to the Board thereon, as likely

likely would
would have numerous other conservation
26
public. Indeed, Sierra

organizations and members of
Sierra Watch has provided extensive, detailed
of the public.
27
comments on virtually every other aspect of

of the Project and its environmental review and related
28
approvals, but here, it was denied

denied that opportunity, in violation of
of the Brown Act.
_________________________________________ ii_________________________________________
11
Verified Petition
Petition for V/rit
Writ of
Declaratory Relief
Verified
Complaint for Injunctive
lnjunctive and Declaratory
CASE NO.
I1
35.
35.
Highlighting the
the significance
significance of
ofthe
the changes
changes to
to the
the Development
Agreement,
Highlighting
County Code
Code section
section 17.58.240(8)
17.58.240(B) instructs
instructs that
that when
when aa development
development agreement
agreement is
is amended
amended
22 County
a
J3
after the
the Planning
Planning Commission
Commission has
has already
already considered
considered it,
it, the
the Board
Board should
should refer
refer the
the matter
matter back
back
after
to the
the Planning
Planning Commission
Commission for
for consideration
consideration and
and recommendation.
recommendation. Despite
Despite this,
this, the
the Board
Board
44 to
55
neither referred
referred the
the matter
matter back
back to
to the
the Planning
Commission, nor
nor included
included the
the amendment
amendment on
on its
its
neither
agenda for
for the
the November
November 15
15 hearing.
hearing.
66 agenda
77
I8
36.
36.
Though the
the action
action was
was not
not noticed
noticed in
in its
its agenda,
agenda, on
on November
November 15,2016,
15, 2016, by
by aa vote
vote
Though
of four
four to
to one,
one, the
the Board
Board adopted
adopted Ordinance
Ordinance 5846-B
5846-B to
to approve
approve the
the new
new Development
Development
of
Agreement for
for the
the Project,
Project, as
as revised
revised subsequent
subsequent to
to the
the County's
Countys and
and Applicant's
Applicants negotiations
negotiations
99 Agreement
10 with
with the
the Attorney
Attorney General's
Generals Office.
Office.
l0
11
1l
37.
37.
In aa letter
letter dated
dated December
December 5,2016,
5, 2016, Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch notified
notified the
the Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors
In
12 and
and Clerk
Clerk of
of the
the Board
Board that
that the
the failure
failure to
to notice
notice on
on the
the agenda
agenda for
for the
the November
November 15,2016
15, 2016
t2
13 meeting
meeting that
that the Board
Board would
would take
take action
action on the substantial
substantial changes
changes to
to the
the Project's
Projects
l3
14 Development
Agreement violated
violated the
the Brown
Brown Act,
Act, and
and demanded
demanded that
that the
the Board
Board cure
cure and
and correct
correct
l4
15
15
the violation
violation within
within 30 days
days of
of the Board's
Boards receipt of
of the letter.
letter. The letter
letter also
also warned
warned the
the
16 County
County to cease and
and desist
desist the
the practice
practice of
of failing
failing to
to make County documents
documents provided
provided to
to the
t6
17 Board less than
than 72 hours
hours prior
prior to
to the meeting
meeting available
available to
to the
the public at
at the same
same time the
t7
18 materials
materials are
are provided
provided to the Board, and requesting
requesting that
that the County
County provide
provide its unconditional
l8
19 commitment
commitment to cease, desist
desist from, and
and not
not repeat
repeat that
that violation.
t9
20
38.
38.
December 30, 2016,

2016, the County responded
responded that itit had
had committed
committed no Brown
On December
21 Act
Act violation
violation at its November
November 15, 2016 meeting,
meeting, and thus, itit would
would not cure or correct
correct the
2I
22
22
violations. The County also claimed

claimed that the material related to Development
Development
alleged violations.
23
23
Agreement "was
was available at the Clerk
Clerk of
of the Board
Board of
of Supervisor's
Supervisors Off,rce
Office at the same time it
Agreement
24
provided to the majority of

of the Board."
Board. Thus, the County claimed
claimed there
there was "no
no reason to
was provided
25
desist. Nor
Nor would it provide an unconditional
unconditional commitment to avoid such
such violations
violations
cease and desist."
26
future. However, the County's

Countys response fails to provide any details to substantiate
substantiate this
in the future.
27
27
claim or demonstrate compliance

Countys response does
Brown Act.
Act. For example, the County's
compliance with the Brown
28
not indicate
indicate whether
public had enough
enough time to review the
the 107-page document during hours
whether the public
__________________________________________________12
t2_________________________________________________
Verified Petition for Writ of
Declaratory Relief
Verified
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
1 when
when the
the Clerk's
Clerks office
office was
was open
open to
to the
the public.
public. This
This isis critical
critical given
given that
that the
the Memorandum
Memorandum isis
dated November
November 14,2016,
14, 2016, and
and the
the hearing
hearing took
took place
place at
at 9:00
9:00 a.m.
a.m. on
on November
November 1,5,2016.
15, 2016. Oral
Oral
22 dated
33
testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing indicates
indicates that
that the
the Memorandum
Memorandum was
was prepared
prepared last
last minute
minute and
and therefore
therefore
testimony
was likely
likely not
not available
available to
to the
the public
public during
during normal
normal business
business hours.
hours. Indeed,
Indeed, in
in aa press
press release
release
44 was
55
posted on
on its
its own
own website
website after
after the
the hearing,
hearing, Placer
Placer County
County admitted
admitted that
that the
the new
new version
version of
ofthe
the
posted
Agreement was
was "a
a late-breaking
late-breaking development."
development.
66 Development
Nor did
did the
the County
County make
make any
any
Nor
77
announcement regarding
regarding the
the public
public availability
availability of
ofthe
the memorandum
memorandum on
on the
the County's
Countys website,
website,
announcement
88
per its
its standard
standard practice
practice regarding
regarding agenda
agenda items,
items, by
by e-mail
e-mail to
to the
the notice
notice list,
list, or
or at
at any
any time
time
per
99
during the
the November
November 15,
15, 20l6hearing.
2016 hearing. Furtherrnore,
Furthermore, even
even ififthe
the memorandum
memorandum had
had been
been made
made
during
10
10
available at
at the
the Clerk's
Clerks off,rce,
office, that
that office
office is
is aa roughly
roughly two-hour
two-hour drive
drive from
from the
the hearing
hearing location,
location,
available
11 and
and the
the public
public would
would have
have had
had no
no idea
idea that
that itit had
had become
become available.
available.
1l
12
l2
39.
Petitioner contacted
contacted counsel
counsel for
for the
the County
County and
and Real
Real Party
Party in
in Interest
Interest in
in the
the
39. Petitioner
13 pending
pending CEQA
CEQA action
action regarding
regarding the
the possibility
possibility of
of filing
filing an
an amended
amended and
and supplemental
supplemental petition
petition
l3
14 and
and complaint
complaint in
in that
that matter
matter to
to raise
raise the
the related
related Brown
Brown Act
Act allegations
allegations stated
stated herein,
herein, but
but given
given
t4
15 the
the Brown
Brown Act's
Acts short
short time
time limitations
limitations there
there was
was insufficient
insufficient time
time to
to do so
so by
by stipulation
stipulation or
or
l5
16 motion.
motion. Petitioner
Petitioner therefore files
files the
the instant
instant action
action and
and will
will file
file a notice
notice of
of related
related case
case currently
currently
t6
17
17
herewith.
herewith.
18
18
FIRST CAUSE
CAUSE OF
OF ACTION
ACTION
FIRST
(Violation
of
Brown
Act,
Gov.
Code $
54954.2)
(Violation of Brown
19
I9
20
20
40.
Petitioner hereby
hereby realleges and incorporates
incorporates by reference
reference the
the preceding
preceding paragraphs
paragraphs
40. Petitioner
21 in their
their entirety.
entirety.
2t
22
22
23
23
24
24
41.
participation in
government
in government
purpose of
Act isis to
to encourage
encourage public
The purpose
of the
the Brown
Brown Act
41. The
decision making.
making.
decision
42.
42.
In furtherance
furtherance of
of its goal of
of public
public participation,
participation, the Brown
Brown Act
Act requires that at
25
25
least 72 hours before

before aa regular
regular meeting, a legislative
legislative body
body must post an agenda containing a
leastT2
26
26
brief description of
of each item of
of business to be acted upon at the meeting.
meeting. The legislative body
brief
27
agenda, except in certain
action on an item not appearing on the posted agenda,
27 may not take any action
28
28
situations not applicable

applicable here.
_________________________________________ 13_________________________________________
1 -^')
Verified Petition
and Complaint
lnjunctive and
and Declaratory Relief
of Mandate
Mandate and
Complaint for Injunctive
Verified
CASE
NO.
CASE
43.
43.
Respondents violated
violated the
the Brown
Brown Act
Act by
by failing
failing to
to properly
properly list
list in
in the
the agenda
agenda for
for
Respondents
the November
November 15,
15, 2016
2016 Board
Board of
ofSupervisors
Supervisors meeting
meeting the
the actions
actions to
to be
be taken
taken atthat
at that meeting.
meeting.
22 the
J3
Specifically, the
the posted
posted agenda
agenda listed
listed no
no item
item of
ofbusiness
business describing
describing that
that the
the Board
Board would
would
Specifically,
consider aa substantive
substantive revision
revision to
to the
the Planning
Planning Commission-approved
Commission-approved Development
Agreement,
44 consider
55
which revision
revision was
was the
the result
result of
ofnegotiations
negotiations between
between the
the County,
County, the
the Project
Project Applicant,
Applicant, and
and the
the
which
66
Attorney General's
Generaf s Office
Office for
for the
the purpose
purpose of
ofpurportedly
purportedly addressing
addressing serious
serious concerns
concerns about
about the
the
Attorney
77
Projects impacts
impacts on
on the
the Lake
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Basin.
Basin.
Project's
44.
44.
I8
99
10
10
Petitioner Sierra
Sierra Watch
Watch was
was prejudiced
prejudiced by
by this
this violation
violation because
because itit was
was denied
denied the
the
Petitioner
opportunity to
to prepare
prepare and
and provide
provide meaningful
meaningful comments
comments to
to the
the Board
Board on
on the
the substantially
substantially
opportunity
amended Development
Agreement for
for the
the Project
Project and
and whether
whether that
that agreement
agreement truly
truly resolved
resolved
amended
11 certain
certain of
ofthe
the Project's
Projects impacts
impacts that are
are of
of utmost
utmost importance
importance to
to Sierra
Sierra Watch.
Watch.
1l
On December
December 5,
5, 2016,
2016, pursuant
pursuant to
to Government
Government Code
Code section
section 54960.1(b),
Sierra
45.
54960.1(b), Siena
45. On
12
t2
13
13
'Watch
Watch timely
timely submitted
submitted aa demand
demand to
to the
the County
County and
and Board
Board to
to cure
cure or
or correct
correct the
the action
action taken
taken on
on
14 November
November 15,2016
15, 2016 in
in violation
violation of
of the
the Brown
Brown Act.
Act. The
The County
County responded
responded on
on December
December 30,
30,
t4
15
15
16
L6
that itit would not.

not.
2016 that
46.
For these reasons,
reasons, the Board's
Boards actions
actions at its
its November
November 15,2016
15, 2016 hearing
hearing regarding
regarding
46. For
17 the Project,
Project, including
including approval of
of an amendment
amendment to
to the
the Development
Agreement that
that did not
t7
18
18
appear
on the agenda, must
must be declared null and
and void,
void, pursuant
pursuant to Government
Government Code
Code section
appear on
19
L9
54960.1(a).
I (a).
54960.
CAUSE OF
OF ACTION
ACTION
SECOND CAUSE
(Violation of
of Brown
Brown Act, Gov. Code $
54957.5)
(Violation
20
21
2l
22
22
23
23
24
47.
47.
hereby realleges and incorporates

incorporates by reference
reference the preceding
preceding paragraphs
paragraphs
Petitioner hereby
their entirety.
entirety.
in their
48.
48.
furtherance of
of its purpose of
of ensuring
ensuring public
participation in government, the
In furtherance
25
Brown Act
Act requires that County documents distributed to all or aa majority of
of the members
members of
of a
Brown
26
26
connection with aamatter

matter subject to consideration
consideration at an open meeting must be
legislative body in connection
27
27
If the document
document is distributed less than
72 hours
hours prior to the
public. If
than72
made available
available to the public.
28
__________________________________________________ 14_________________________________________________
Verified Petition
of Mandate and
and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
Verified
CASE
NO.
CASE NO.
meeting, itit must

must be
be made
made available
availableto
tothe
thepublic
public atatthe
the same
same time
timethat
that itit isis provided
providedto
to all
all or
or aa
I1 meeting,
majority of
ofthe
the members
members of
ofthe
the legislative
legislative body.
body.
22 majority
J3
I
49.
49.
The County
County violated
violated the
the Brown
Brown Act
Actby
by providing
providing the
theNovember
November 14
14 memorandum
memorandum
The
to the
the all
all or
or aa majority
majority of
ofthe
the members
members of
ofthe
the Board
Board less
less than
than 72
72 hours
hours prior
priorto
to the
the meeting
meeting
44 to
55
66
without making
making itit available
available to
to the
the public
public at
at the
the same
same time.
time.
without
50.
50.
The County
County denies
denies that
that itit has
has violated
violated the
the Brown
Brown Act
Act by
by distributing
distributing this
this
The
77
memorandum to
to the
the Board
Board without
without making
making itit publicly
publicly available
available and
and refuses
refuses to
to make
make an
an
memorandum
88
unconditional commitment
commitment to
to cease,
cease, desist
desist from,
from, and
and not
not repeat
repeat such
such violations
violations of
ofthe
the Brown
Brown
unconditional
99
Act. Accordingly,
Accordingly, aa controversy
controversy exists
exists regarding
regarding Respondents'
Respondents past
past compliance
compliance with
with the
the Act,
Act,
Act.
10
10
and the
the County
County is
is likely
likely to
to continue
continue such
such violations
violations of
ofthe
the Act.
Act.
and
11
1l
PRAYER FOR
FOR RELIEF
RELIEF
PRAYER
12 WHEREFORE,
WHEREFORE, Petitioner
Petitioner prays
prays for
forjudgment
judgment as
as follows:
follows:
t2
13
l3
14
T4
1.
1.
For alternative
alternative and
and peremptory
peremptory writs
writs of
ofmandate
mandate directing
directing the
the County
County to
to vacate
vacate
For
and set
set aside
aside its
its November
November 15,
15, 2016
2016 actions
actions taken
taken in
in violation
violation of
ofthe
the Brown
Brown Act,
Act, including
including but
but
and
15 not
not limited
limited to
to approval
approval of
ofthe
the amended
amended Development
Agreement and
and the
the related
related ordinance;
ordinance;
l5
16
t6
2.
2.
For alternative
alternative and
and peremptory
peremptory writs
writs of
of mandate
mandate directing
directing the
the County
County to
to comply
comply
For
17 with
with the
the Brown
Brown Act's
Acts requirement
requirement that
that County
County documents
documents provided
provided to
to aa legislative
legislative body
body less
less
t7
18
18
19
t9
20
20
than 72 hours
hours before
before an
an open
open meeting
meeting be
be made
made simultaneously
simultaneously available
available to
to the
the public;
public;
than72
3.
3.
For aa declaration
declaration that
that the Board's
Boards actions of
of November
November 15, 2016,
2016, including
including the
the
For
adoption of
of an
an ordinance
ordinance to approve
approve an amended
amended Development
Agreement are null
null and
and void
void due
due
adoption
21 to
to the
the Board's
Boards violations
violations of
of the Brown
Brown Act;
Act;
2l
22
22
4.
4.
For aa declaration
declaration that
that the County
County violated
violated the Brown
Brown Act
Act by
by providing
providing to
to the
For
23
23
Board County documents less than72

than 72 hours before
before an open
open meeting
meeting without
without making
making them
Board
24
24
available at
at the same
same time
time to the public;
available
25
25
5.
5.
For aa stay, and preliminary and

and permanent injunctions, restraining
restraining the County and
26
26
Real Party in Interests and their

their agents, employees, officers, and
and representatives
representatives from
Real
27
27
implement the Project in any way pending

pending the County's
Countys full
undertaking any activity to implement
28
28
compliance with
with the
the requirements
requirements of
of the
the Brown
Brown Act;
compliance
_________________________________________ l5
15_________________________________________
Verified Petition
Petition for
of Mandate
and Complaint
Declaratory Relief
and Declaratory
for Writ
Mandate and
V/rit of
Verified
CASE
NO.
CASENO.
6
6.
7.
7.
22
a
J3
For costs
costs of
ofthe
the suit;
suit;
For
For attorneys'
attorneys fees
fees as
as authorizedby
authorized by Government
Government Code
Code section
section 54960.5
54960.5 and
and Code
Code
For
ofCivil
Civil Procedure
Procedure section
section 1021.5;
1021.5; and
and
of
8.
8.
44
For such
such other
other and
and future
future relief
reliefas
as the
the Court
Court deems
deemsjust
just and
and proper.
proper.
For
55
66
DATED: January
January 13,2017
13, 2017
DATED:
SHUTE,
LLP
MIHALY &
& WEINBERGER
WEINBERGER LLP
SHUTE, MIHALY
77
88
By:
99
AMY
10
l0
LAURA D
11
11
Attorneys for Sierra Watch
12
t2
13
13
856531.5
8s653
1 .5
14
t4
15
15
16
t6
17
t7
18
l8
19
t9
20
20
21
2l
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
_____________________________ 16_______
I6
Verified
Mandate And Complaint
Complaint For Injunctive Relief
Petition For
For Writ
Writ Of
Of Mandate
Verified Petition
CASE
NO.
CASENO.
22
VERIFICATION
VERIFICATION
TomMooers,
Mooers,am
amExecutive
ExecutiveDirector
DirectorofofSierra
SierraWatch,
Watch,the
thePetitioner
Petitionerininthis
this
I,I, Tom
action. II am
am authorized
authorizedto
to execute
execute this
this verification
verification on
on behalf
behalfof
ofPetitioner.
Petitioner.
J3 action.
haveread
readthe
the
II have
foregoingPetition
Petition for
for Writ
Writ of
ofMandate
Mandate and
and Complaint
Complaint for
forInjunctive
Injunctive and
and Declaratory
DeclaratoryRelief
Relief
44 foregoing
55
(Petition). II am
am familiar
familiar with
with its
its contents.
contents. All
All facts
facts alleged
alleged ininthe
the above
above Petition
Petition not
not otherwise
otherwise
("Petition").
supported by
by exhibits
exhibits or
or other
other documents
documents are
are true
true of
ofmy
my own
own knowledge.
knowledge. II declare
declare under
underpenalty
penalty
66 supported
77
ofperjury
perjury under
underthe
the laws
laws of
ofthe
the State
State of
ofCalifornia
California that
that the
the foregoing
foregoing isis true
true and
and correct.
correct.
of
88
99
Executed at
at Nevada
Nevada City,
City, CA
CA on
on January
January 12,2017.
12, 2017.
Executed
10
10
11
11
12
T2
Tom Mooers
Mooers
Tom
13
13
14
T4
15
15
16
t6
17
t7
18
18
19
t9
20
20
21
2l
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
17
t1
EXHIBIT A
SHUTh;,
SHUTE, MIHALY
C7'
WE IN BERGER
tl''' -\X/EINBhRCERrr.p
up
396
FRANCISCO, CA 94102
396 HAYES
HAYES STREET, SAN
SAN FRANCISCO,
T: (415)
5) 552-5816
(a15) 552-7272
F: (41
(a15)
ss2-7272 F:
ss2-s816
AMYJ.
AMYJ, BRICKER
Attorney
www.smwlaw.com
www.smwlaw.com
bricker@smwlaw.com
b ic ke r@s mwlaw.co m
December 5, 2016
Registered Mail.
Mail, Return Receint
Receipt Reouested
Requested & E-mail
Via Reestered
Board of Supervisors
Supervisors
& Megan Wood, Clerk of
of the Board
Placer
Placer County
175 Fulweiler
Fulweiler Ave.
Auburn, CA 95603
bos@placer.ca.gov
Re:
Re: Brown Act Cure and Correct/Cease
Correct/Cease and Desist Letter. Board of
Supervisors Meeting"
Meeting. Novenber
November 15. 2016,
Auenda ltem
Item No.
No. I1
2016. Afenda
Dear Supervisors and Clerk of
of the Board:
We
letter of
V[e submit
submit this letter
of behalf
behalf of Sierra Watch to notify the Board of
2016
15,2016
Supervisors and its Clerk of
of violations of
of the Brown Act at its November 15,
thc Brown Act by taking actions related to
meeting.
meeting. Specifically, the Board violated the
approval of
Specific Plan (Agenda Item No.
1) because
No. l)
of the Village at Squaw Valley Specifrc
because (1)
the Board took action on an item not on its agenda for the meeting, and (2) the Board
considered documents
documents provided to it less than 72 hours prior to the meeting that were not
made available to the public at the same time.
I.
Cure and Correct: The Agenda for the November 15, 2016 Board of
Supervisors
Violated the Brown Act.
Supervisors Meeting Violated
15,2016
The Board of
2016
of Supervisors violated the Brown Act on November 15,
by voting to approve an amended
Agreement for the Village at Squaw
amended Development
Valley without
without adequate notice to the public on the posted agenda for the meeting.
meeting. The
Brown Act requires posting of
of each item of
of an agenda including a description
description of
of business
to be considered at a legislative bodys
prior to the meeting.
body's meeting at least 72 hours prior
Gov. Code $ 54954.2(a)(1).
legislative body makes
54954.2(aXl). This requirement applies unless the legislative
certain
werc made by the Board in this case.
case. See id.
ceftain determinations,
determinations, none of
of which were
$ 54954.2(b).
54954.2(b). Here, the Board voted to approve a new amendment to the Development
Development
Agreement,
substantive
Agreement, without
without announcing
announcing on the agenda that it was to consider a substantive
Board of
ofSupervisors
Supervisors
Board
Clerk
of
the
Board of
ofSupervisors
Supervisors
Clerk of the Board
December 5,2016
5, 2016
Decernber
Page 22
Page
amendment to
to the
the proposed
proposed Development
Agreement, without
without the
the Planning
Planning
amendment
Commissions consideration.
consideration.
Commission's
The amendment
amendment to
to the
the Development
Agreement would
would require
require the
the
The
developer to
to make
make payments
payments of
ofaa Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Regional Planning
Planning Agency
Agency ("TRPA")
(TRPA) Air
Air
developer
Quality
Fee.
See
November
14,
2016
Memorandum
to
Board
of
Supervisors,
Att.
BB
Att.
Board
of
Supervisors,
Memorandum
to
Quality Fee. ,See Novembel 14,2016
(attached hereto
hereto as
as Exhibit
Exhibit l).
l). This
This provision
provision was
was added
added to
to the
the proposed
Development
(attached
Agreement
only
on
November
14,
2016the
day
before
the
Board
of
Supervisors
Board
Supervisots'
of
Agreement only on November 14, 2016-the day before the
meetingand was
was not
not considered
considered by
by the
the Planning
Planning Commission.
Commission.
meeting-and
Under the
the County
County Code,
Code, adding
adding provisions
provisions to
to aa Development
Agreement
Under
that were
were not
not considered
considered by
by the
the Planning
Planning Commission
Commission typically
typically requires
requires that
that the
the Board
Board
that
refer
the
matter
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
consideration.
Placer
County
Code
refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Placer County Code
17.58.240(B). This
This section
section makes
makes plain
plain the
the significance
significance of
of changes
changes to
to aa Development
Development
g 17.58.240(B).
Agreement
by
requiring
the
Planning
Commissions
initial
consideration
of
any terms
terms of
of
Agreement by requiring the Planning Commission's initial consideration of any
Agreement prior
prior to
to the
the Board's
Boards approval.
approval. Nonetheless,
Nonetheless, without
without notifying
notifying
aa Development
the public
public in
in the
the Board's
Boards agenda
agenda of
of either
either the
the Board's
Boards consideration
consideration of
of this
this substantive
substantive
the
addition
to
the
Development
Agreement,
or
the
Boards
determination
that
the
that
the
addition to the Development Agreement, or the Board's determination
Agreement should
should not
not be
be refened
referred back
back to
to the
the Planning
Commission, the
the
Development
Board
took
action
on
this
matter.
this
Board took action
The addition
addition of
of this
this amendment
amendment to
to the
the proposed
Agreement
The
was
only
made
public
at
the
Boards
November
15,
2016
meeting.
As
explained
above,
explained above,
15, 2016 rneeting.
was only made public at the Board's
consideration of
of this amendment and
and the decision
decision not
not to
to refer
refer the matter
matter back
back to
to the
the
consideration
Planning Cornrnission
Commission goes
goes beyond
beyond what was included
included in the agenda and its attachments.
attachments.
Planning
Had
the
agenda
indicated
that
these
issues
would
the
meeting.
Sierra
meeting,
Sierra
at
the
considered
issues
would
be
Had the agenda indicated that these
Watch and
and other
other members
members of
of the
the public
public would
would have
have had aa chance
chance to comment
comment on and
Watch
voice
their
objections
to
them.
Indeed,
the
amendment
includes
significant
terms
new terms
significant
includes
amendment
them.
voice their objections
that were
were never
never considered
considered by
by the
the Planning
Planning Commission
Commission and must be remanded
remanded to the
that
Planning
Commission
before
it
can
be
approved.
approved.
Planning Commission before
Furthermore, the
the DevelopmentAgreement
Development Agreement is a negotiated
negotiated agreement
agreement that it
Fufihermore,
is
integrally
related
to
and
inseparable
from
the
remaining
approvals
granted
granted
with respect
from
and
is integrally
to the
the Village
Village at
at Squaw
Squaw Valley
Valley Specific Plan
Plan on November 15, 2016 (Agenda
(Agenda ltem
Item l).
1).
Accordingly, pursuant to
to Government
Government Code section
section 54960.1,
54960,1, Sierra Watch
Watch demands that
Accordingly,
the
Board
of
Supervisors
cure
and
correct
the
illegally
((1)
I ) setting aside
illegally
action
by
taken
correct
the Board of Supervisors
the approvals
approvals issued
issued on
on November 15,
15, 2016 with respect
respect to the Village
Village at Squaw
Squaw Valley
the
Specific Plan,
Plan, including
including but not lirnited
limited to the Ordinance
Ordinance approving
approving the Development
Development
Agreement and
and (2) not holding another hearing of
of the Board of
of Supervisors regarding
regarding the
Agreement
Supervisors
Clerk of
of the Board of Supervisors
December 5,
2016
5,2016
Page 3
limited to
including but not limited
Village at Squaw Valley Specific
related approvals, including
Specific Plan and related
properly
the amended Development
for
Agreement, unless and until the agenda for which
hearing. In the alternative, Siena
informs the public of
of the subjects for discussion at that hearing.
\/atch
Watch requests that, at a minimum, the Board of
of Supervisors rescind the amended
procedures have been
Development
Agreement and only reconsider it after proper procedures
followed.
if the Planning Commission fails to
additionally notes that, if
followed. Sierra
Siena Watch additionally
Board's
Agreement prior to the Boards
review the proposed amendment to the Development
reconsideration
of Placer County
County Code
County will remain in violation of
reconsideration of
of it, the County
section
17.58.240(B).
section 17.58.240(8).
If
Sienaa Watch will
If the violation is not cured or corrected within 30 days, Sien
Board's action.
5e Gov. Code $ 54960(a),
be forced to take legal action to invalidate
invalidats the Boards
action. See
(cX3).
(c)(3).
II.
Public
Board Failed
Failed to
Make Available
Available to
to the
the Public
Cease
Desist: The
The Board
to Make
and Desist:
Cease and
Documents
Documents It Considered
Considered Before the Meeting.
docurnents
The Board further violated the Brown Act by considering
considering documents
provided to it less than
available to the
prior to the meeting that were not made available
than 72 hours prior
public at the same time.
54957.5(b)(1). Specifically, on November 14,
time. See Gov. Code $ 54957.5(bxl).
2016,
the Board was provided with aa 107-page memorandum
memorandum from Karin Schwab,
Schwab, which
20l6,the
included supplemental responses to comments on the Squaw Valley FEIR, an additional
additional
l.
provision for the Development
ordinance. See
Agreement, and a revised draft ordinance.
^lee Exhibit 1.
majority of
"distribrted to all, or a majority
Under
Brown Act, writings
writings that are distributed
Under the Brown
all, of
of a local agency
agency by any person in connection
members of
of a legislative body of
of the members
with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of
...
of the body ...
If
is
public.
54957.5(a).
a
writing
shall be made available
available" to the public. Gov. Code $ 54957.5(a). If
posted-the writing
distributed less than 72 hours prior to a meetingafter
meeting-after the agenda is postedthe
distribrtecl to
shall
"shall be made available
. . . at the time the writing is distributed
available for public inspection ...
body." Gov. Code
all, or a majority
members of
of the [legislative]
majority of
of all, of
of the members
flegislative] body.
$ 54957.5(b)(1).
s4es7.s(bxl)
However,
2016 memorandum to the Board was not made
14,201
However, the November 14,
public at the time it was distributed to the Board, or at any time before or during the
meeting.
Sierra Watch and other members of
of the public had no idea the Board
meeting. Indeed, Siena
had this infonnation
rneeting. Sierra Watch and the public were thus
information until during the meeting.
prevented from reviewing
infonnation on which the Board relied.
reviewing and commenting on the infonnation
inserting into the record, at beyond the eleventh
This violation resulted in the County inserting
Clerk of
of the Board of Supervisors
December 5,
2016
5,2016
Page 4
hour, a completely one sided characterization
characterization of
of a conversation with members of
of the
("AG's")
AG's
Attorney
Generals
(AGs)
office
about
the
AGs
concerns
regarding
the
Projects
regarding
Project's
Attorney General's
concerns
without providing the public (or the AGs
AG's office) an opportunity
environmental review, without
to omment
comment upon that characterization.
characterization.
And this memorandum
or unimportant
merely technical ol
memorandum did not concern merely
unimporlant
proposed
issues.
The
memorandum
and
its
attachments
concerned
aspects
of
the
proposed
project
issues.
memorandum
attachments concemed
of
that would impact the Tahoe basin and Lake Tahoe, including
including increased
increased trafficissues
traffic-issues
that are of
of utmost importance
impoftance to the public, as evidenced by the volume of
of public
comment
focused on impacts to Lake Tahoe and its surroundings.
comment focused
Accordingly, pursuant to Government
Government Code section 54960.2(a), Sierra
Watch hereby notifies the Board of
Supervisors
of Supervisors and the Clerk of
of the Board of
of Supervisors
that the Board must immediately cease and desist from distributing
distributing writings to the Board
less than 72 hours before a meeting that it does not make available to the public at the
same time.
Pursuant to Government
time. Pursuant
Government Code section 54960.2(b), the Board must respond to
providing to Sierra Watch its unconditional
this letter within
within 30 days, providing
unconditional commitment to
here. If
If it does not.
not, Sierra
cease, desist from, and not repeat the violation
violation described here.
Watch may take legal action for such violations of
of the Brown Act.
Act. See
.\'ee Gov. Code
$ 54960(b).
s4e60(b).
In light of
agenda-related Brown Act violation at the November 15,
of the agenda-related
Board's action and a new hearing on the
2016 meeting, which requires setting aside the Boards
matter,
rratter, we believe the best way for the Board to establish its unconditional commitment
Village at Squaw
to complying with the Brown Act is for it to set aside all actions on the Village
Valley development
2016 meeting, and to hold a new public
15,2tl6
development taken at its November 15,
(or
hearing on the whole matter
at a minimum
minimum on the revised Development
Developrnent Agreement
Agreement to
which the omitted memorandum relates), after the public has an opportunity
oppoftunity to properly
review all materials relied upon by the Board.
nI.
III.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Pursuant
54960.1(c)(2) and 54960.2(b), you
Pursuant to Government
Government Code sections
sections 54960.1(c)(2)
letter. If
have thirty days to address the violations of
identified in this letter.
If you
of the Brown Act identified
judicial
do not take the necessary actions described above, Sierra Watch will seek
seek
invalidation
invalidation of
Board's actions;
actions; judicial determination
determination of
of the applicability
applicability of
of the
of the Boards
injunctive relief
relief to
Brown
Brown Act
Act to the Boards
Board's past violation of
of the Act; declaratory
declaratory or injunctive
prevent future such violations of
prevent
attorneys
of the Act; as well as its costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees.
54960.5.
fees. See
,See Gov. Code
5a90(a), 54960.1(a), 54960.5.
$$ 54960(a),
Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors
Board
Clerk of
of the
the Board
Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors
Clerk
December 5,2016
5, 2016
December
Page 55
Please do
do not
not hesitate
hesitate to
to contact
contact me should
should you
you wish to
to discuss
discuss this matter
matter
further.
further
Very truly
truly yours,
Very
MIHALY &
& WEINBERGER
WEINBERGER LLP
SHUTE, MIHALY
^
Amy J. Brickcr
cc.
cc.
Tom Mooers,
Mooers, Siera
Sierra V/atch
Watch
Tom
Alexis Ollar, Mountain
Mountain Area
Area Preservation
Darcie Goodwin
Goodwin Collins
Collins & Shannon
Shannon Eckmeyer, League
League to Save Lake
Lake Tahoe
Darcie
Marchetta, Tahoe Regional
Regional Planning
Planning Agency
Joanne Marchetta,
Tony Lashbrook,
Lashbrook, Town
Town of
of Truckee
Truckee
Tony
of the California
California Attorney
Attorney General
General
Nicole Rinke, Office of
84641.13
84&113.3
'c/-\
EXHIBIT B
PLACER COUNTY
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNSEL
PLACER
GERALD O.
O. CARDEN,
CARDEN, COUNTY
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNSEL
GERALD
175 Fulweiler
FulweilerAvenue
Avenue
175
Auburn, California
California 95603
95603
Auburn,
Telephone: 530'889'4044
530-889-4044
Telephone:
Facsimile. 530'889406S
530-889-4069
Facsimile:
www.placer.ca.gov
www.placer.ca.gov
December 30,
30, 2016
2016
December
VIA ELECTRONIC
ELECTRONIC &
& U,S.
U.S. MAIL
MAIL
VIA
Amy J.
J. Bricker
Bricker
Amy
Shute, Mihaly
Mihaly && Weinberger
Weinberger LLP
LLP
Shute,
396
Hayes
Street
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco,
Francisco, Galifornia
California 94142
94102
San
Email:
brickerldismwlaw,
com
Email: brcker@smwlaw.com
Re: Letter
Letter Dated
Dated December
December 5,2016
5, 2016 to
to the
the Placer
Placer County
County Soard
Board of
of
Re:
Supervisors, concernng
concerning the
the Placer
Placer County
County Board
Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors Meeting
Meeting
Supervisors,
on November
November 15,
15, 2016
2016 and
and Agenda
Agenda ltem
Item No.
No. 11
on
Dear Ms.
Ms. Sricker:
Bricker:
Dear
This letter
letter responds
responds your
your letter
letter of
of December
December 5,
5, 2016
2016 to
to the
the Placer
Placer Coun$
County Board
Board
This
of
Supervisors
on
behalf
of
your
client,
Sierra
Watch,1
alleging
violations
of
the
Brown
of Supervisors on behaF of your client, Sierra Watch,l alleging violations of the Brown
Act by
by the
the Placer
Placer County
County Board
Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors at
at its
its November
November 15,
15, 2016
2016 rneeting.
meeting. As
As
Act
explained
herein,
your
letter
mischaracterizes
the
provisions
of
the
Brown
the
the
provisions
your
Brown
Act,
of
the
letter mischaracterizes the
explained herein,
Placer County
County Code, and
and the
the facts
facts regarding the
the November
November 15 meeting.
meeting. Each
Each item of
Placer
business discussed
discussed and/or
and/or acted
acted upon
upon at
at the Board's
Boards November
November 15,
15, 2016 meeting
meeting was
was
business
general
of
included
in
the
agenda
for
meeting,
contained
brief
general
descriptions
descriptions
brief
which
contained
the
meeting,
included in the agenda for
each item of
of business
business as required
required by
by the Brown
Brown Act.
Act. Also, all documents
documents distributed
distributed to
each
members of
of the Placer
Placer County
County Board of
of Supervisors
Supervisors were
were available
available for public
public
the members
inspection at
at the same
same time
time they
they were presented
presented to
to the Board as required under
under the
inspection
Brown Act.
Act.
l.I.
The December
December 5, 2016 letter
letter mischaracterizEs
mischaracterizes the provisions
provisions of
of the Brown
Brown Act,
ThE
the
Placer
County
Code,
and
the
facts
regarding
the
November
meeting
meeting
15
November
regarding
the Placer County
a. Section
Section 54854,2
54854.2 of
of the Brown
Brown Act
a.
December 5, 2016 letter

letter chaltenges
challenges the validity
validity of
of the Board's approval of
The December
Agreement for
for the Village
Village at Squaw
Squaw Valley, alleging that
that the agenda
the Development
did not provide
provide adequate
adequate notice to the public
public on
on that item.
item. Gov. Code S
54954.2
1 We
We also
also address
address the
the December
December 13,
2016 letter
letter from
from lhe
the League
Lake Tahoe,
Tahoe, which
which echoed
echoed
to Save
Save Lake
League to
13, 2016
Sierra Watch's
Watchs allegations
allegations in
December 5, 2016 letter,
raise any new issues.
leter, but did not raise
in the
Siena
the Decernber
1
Amy J. Bricker
Page 2
December 30, 2016
requires a local agency
agency to post an agenda, at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting,
"a brief
general description
which contains a
brief general
description of each item of business to be transacted or
discussed at the meeting."
meeting. The statute goes on to state that "[a]
[a] brief general description
generally need not exceed 20 words.
of an item generally
words." (Gov. Code,
$ 54954.2.) The statute
"any item not appearing on
also prohibits a local agency
discussing any
agency from acting on or discussing
the posted agenda
agend'with
(lbd;,
with some exceptions.
exceptions. (Ibid.)
The agenda for the November 15,
2016 meeting was posted in compliance with
15,2016
the statute and contained
contained the following brief general description
description of the item of business
"7. Adoption of
involving the Development
Agreement for
Valley: 7.
for the Village at Squaw Valley:
ordinance to approve
an ordinance
approve the Development
Agreement relative to the Village at Squaw
Valley Specific
p. 2.)
Valley
Specific Plan ...
..." (November 15, 2016 Board of Supervisors Agenda, p.
2.) The
agenda adequately
adequately describes
describes the item of business that
that the Board of Supervisors
discussed and transacted in regards to the Development Agreement
discussed
Agreement for the Village at
SquawValley.
Squaw
Valley.
The December
December 5 letter attempts
Development
attempts to fabricate an "amended Development
Agreement" separate from the DevelopmentAgreement
Agreement"
Development Agreement listed in the agenda, but no
such separate
separate "amended Development
Agreement" exists.
exists, The fact the applicant
requested the Board approve a change the Development
Agreement that was properly
on the agenda to voluntarily
quality mitigation fees to the Tahoe Regional
voluntarily pay air quality
Agency to resolve a dispute with the Attorney General of California did not
Planning Agency
require the Board to re-notice its meeting considering the Project and Development
Development
Agreement as you suggest.
suggest. Based on your reading of
of the Brown Act, the Board cannot
make any changes to improve a project after
after the notice is circulated.
circulated. Such an
purposes of the
precedent and is not consistent
interpretation would set terrible precedent
consistent with purposes
Brown Act.
ln
In sum, there was one discussion
discussion and transaction relating
Development
relaling to the Development
Agreement
Agreement on November 15,
15, 2016,
2A16, which was one item of business before the Board,
and required only one brief
Therefore,
brief general description of that item on the agenda.
agenda. Therefore,
the agenda for
2016 meeting complied with section 54954.2 of the
for the November 15,
15,2016
Brown
Srown Act.
b.
Relevant case law on Brown Act
b. Relevant
December 5, 2016 letters
The December
letter's interpretation of the Brown Act is not consistent
"an
with relevant California precedent.
precedent. The California Court
Court of
of Appeal has held that an
agency fulfills its agenda obligations under the Brown Act so long as it substantially
substantially
complies with statutory
complies
statutory requirements.
requirements." (San Diegans
Diegans for Open Government
v. City
Cty of
Govemment v.
Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th
Castaic
Lake
Water
Agency
v.
Cal.App.Sth 637,
637, 642-643
0/;2-843 [citing
Castaic
Lake
Water
[citing
Newhall
Newhall County
County Water Dist.
Dist. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205].)
12051.) The San
San Diegans
"brief general
court went on to state that a local
agency substantially
complies with the brief
localagency
substantially cornplies
.fair notice of the essential
description" obligation when the agenda provides fair
description
essential nature of
what an agency will consider.
p. 310.)
what
consider;' (Id.
310") The court also rejected the idea that
{ld. at p.
simply because an agenda could have been more informative, the agenda violated the
"the Legislature has not required such detail
Brown Act; stating that the
or precision in local
detailor
(lbid.l
agency
agency agendas.
agendas." (Ibid.)
Amy J.
J. Bricker
Page 3
December 30, 2016
December
Here, the agenda for the November
2016 meeting provided the public with
Novernber 15,
15,2t16
"fair notice of the essential nature
Village at
fair
nature" of the Development Agreement
Agreement for the Village
Squaw Valley, which
is
what
the
Board
of
Supervisors
considered.
The
agenda
was not
which
considered.
Development
required to include detailed descriptions
descriptions of each proposed provision of the Development
Agreement, as that would be neither brief nor general, and contrary to the language
language of
Agreement,
Gov. Code,
the November 15, 2016 meeting did not violate
54954.2. The agenda for
forthe
S 54954.2.
provision of the Brown Act and there is no need to cure and correct.
this or any other
other provision
c.
c. Section 17.58.240 of
of the Placer County
County Code
The December
December 5 letter also mischaracterizes
mischaracterizes the applicable provisions of the
"development agreement
Placer County
County Code. Section
17.58.24A requires "development
agreement draft
Section 17.58.240
document(s)
document{s)" to be considered
considered by the planning commission
commission at a public hearing, after
which the commission
proposed development
commission shall report its recommendations
recommendatons on the "proposed
agreement
agreement" in writing to the Board of Supervisors. The Board then must hold its own
public hearing, after
it may accept, modiff,
modify, or disapprove the recommendation of
afrer which "it
the planning commission.
commission. Itlt may, but shall not be required to,
to, refer matters not
previously considered
previously
considered by the planning commission during its hearing back to the
(Placer County Code,
commission
commission for report and recommendation.'
recommendation." (Placer
S 17.58.240.)
The Board, in its discussion
discussion of the Development Agreement
Agreement item of business,
chose to modify the recommendation
of
the
planning
commission
based on a request
recommendation of
from the Applicant.
County Code allows the Board of
Applicant. As stated above, the Placer
Placer County
Supervisors
Supervisors to do so, and expressly
expressly states
states that the Board is not required to refer the
modified Development
Development Agreement back to the planning commission
commission for consideration.
"any
consider any
Section
Section 17.58.240 contains no requirement
requirement that the planning commission
commission consider
terms
as the December
terms of a Development
Development Agreement1'
alleges. That section
Agreemenf'as
December 5, letter alleges.
only requires the planning commission
to
consider
development
agreement drafr
draft
commission
consider'development agreement
document(s)
document(s)" and to make recommendations
for the Board on the
recommendations and findings
findings for
"proposed development
proposed
(/bid,) Hence, the Board did not violate the Placer
development agreement.
agreement." (Ibid.)
County Code in exercising its discretion
Development
discretion to approve
approve the modified Development
Agreement
Agreement without referring it back to the Planning Commission.
d.
of the Brown
d. Section 54957.5 of
Brown Act
The December
December 5 letter alleges that
that the Placer County Board of Supervisors
violated the Brown Act by considering
72 hours prior to
than72
considering documents, distributed less than
were
not
made
available
to
the
public
at
the
same time.
the meeting, which allegedly
allegedly
This is a misstatement
misstatement of the facts regarding the November
November 15, 2016 meeting and a
misstatement
misstatement of the requirements
requirements of the Brown Act.
Act. Gov. Code,
S 54957.5 subdivision
"any other
majority
of all, of the
(a), states that any
writings,
when
distributed
to
all,
or
a
other
members
members of a legislative body of a local agency by any person in connection
connection with a
body, are
matter
consideration at
matter subject
subject to discussion
discussion or consideration
al an open meeting of the body,
"writing" that
disclosable public records under the [CPRA]."
[CPRA]. Subdivision (b) requires any writing
qualifies under subdivision
oper session
"that relates
subdivision (a) and that
relates to an agenda item for an open
of a regular
"made available for public inspection
writing is
regular meeting" to be made
inspection" when the writing
"distributed
distributed to all, or a majority
body. Subdivision (b) goes
majority of all, of the members
rnembers of the body."
"available for public inspection
"at a public office or location
on to explain that available
means at
inspeclion" means
J. Bricker
Amy J.
Page 4
December
December 30, 2016
that the agency shall designate
purpose. The address of which must be in the
designate for this purpose."
(lbid.)
agenda.
agenda. (Ibid.)
The December
December 5 letter
leer incorrectly alleges that the Board of Supervisors violated
subdivision (b) of section 54957.5 because Sierra
"Sierra Watch and other members of the
subdivision
public had no idea the Board had this information until during the meeting."
meeting." But, as
inspection
stated above, subdivision (b) requires writings be made available for public inspection
"at a public office or location that the agency
at
agency shall designate
designate for this purpose" and that
location must be listed in the agenda.
agenda. The third page of the agenda for the November
"[m]aterials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to
15, 2016 meeting states that [m]aterials
the Board after distribution
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Auburn." Here, the
Office, 175 Fulweiler
Supervisor's Office,
Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn."
materials distributed
Development Agreement, including the
distributed to the Board regarding the Devefopment
applicant
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
applicant proposed change, was available at
Supervisor's
atthe
Office at the same time it was provided to the majority of the Board.
Board. In
ln addition, the
public's review at the Tahoe hearing venue before,
materials were available
available for
for the publics
during and after the Nov 15, 2016 hearing.
hearing. The statement in the agenda, and the
Board's consideration
consideration of the memoranda,
requirements of Gov.
memoranda, fully complied
complied with the requirements
Code,
54957.5.
Thus,
there
was
no
violation
of
the
Brown
Act,
no reason to
and
S
cease and desist.
II. Conclusion
Conclusion
ll.
provisions of the
The Placer County Board of Supervisors did not violate the provisions
Brown
Brown Act or the Placer County
County Code in its actions at the November
November 15, 2016 meeting.
The agenda for
for that meeting contained the required brief
description of each
brief general description
item of business
business discussed
discussed and transacted by the Board, which provided the public with
notice of the essential nature of each item.
item. Additionally,
Additionally, the Board acted within its
discretion in approving
approving the modified Development Agreement
Agreement without
without referring it back to
the planning commission
commission for consideration.
consideration. Lastly, the documents submitted
submitted to the
Board after
afier the distribution of the agenda packets were made available for public
inspection as required under the Brown Act.
violations of the
Act. Because there were no violations
Brown Act, the Board is not required to either cure and correct or cease and desist as
demanded
demanded in the December
December 5, 2016 letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you have any questions or wish to
discuss this matter
matter further.
Very truly yours,
PLACER COUNTY COUNSELS

OFFICE
COUNSEL'S OFFICE
Karin
Supe
cc: Clerk of the Board
ng Deputy County
nsel

Verified Petition and Complaint Brown Act 01.13.17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verified Petition and Complaint Brown Act 01.13.17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

AMY J. BRICKER (State Bar No. 227073)

6 Attorneys for Sierra Watch

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

14 PLACER COUNTY; PLACER COUNTY

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate

Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC; Squaw

1167, 1176 (citations omitted).

Watch and the public, and without access

___ _______________________________ 3______________________________________

Respondent Placer County is aa political

is subject to the requirements

County and is the legislative

Petitioner does not know

names and capacities

information and belief, that

committing the acts upon which

Countys actions with

their true names and capacities if

Pursuant to California Code of

action rivers, arcades,

demolished. The Project

Project was subject

10, 2012, the County issued

Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR")

Project. Sierra Watch and other agencies, individuals,

NOP. Subsequently, on or about February

After the MAC's

Planning Commission, which

16 The Planning Commission

Development Agreement for

19 representatives from Sierra

opposition to the Project due to its scale and its serious

200 attendees rose to register

regarding the Project by posting on its website on November 9, 2016, including

substantive comments on the County's

Compounding the problem, unbeknownst

2016the day before

supplemental responses to comments on the FEIR

Tahoe Basin; a signif,rcant

important to the public,

public access to the memorandum

memorandum, one or more representatives from Sierra

comments to the Board thereon, as likely

public. Indeed, Sierra

comments on virtually every other aspect of

approvals, but here, it was denied

December 30, 2016,

violations. The County also claimed

provided to the majority of

future. However, the County's

claim or demonstrate compliance

least 72 hours before

situations not applicable

that itit would not.

hereby realleges and incorporates

connection with aamatter

meeting, itit must

Board County documents less than72

For aa stay, and preliminary and

Real Party in Interests and their

implement the Project in any way pending

Attorneys for Sierra Watch

December 5, 2016 letter

_ _ 3__________