The following email exchange with Placer County is in chronological order starting December 3rd, and ending December 19th 2007
From: Kathryn Gray
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:53 PM
To: Crystal Jacobsen; Michael Johnson
Subject: Public Records Request for County Generated Documents re: Royal
Gorge development
Dear Ms. Jacobsen,
It was noted today that there was an exchange of documents between
Placer County and Royal Gorge LLC. This is a request under GOVT.
CODE Sections 6250-6276.48 for access to all documents generated by
Placer County employees relevant to Royal Gorge LLC's submissions to
the county regarding Donner Summit and Rainbow Lodge in the month of
November.
We expect to be in the county offices in the next few days. Please
inform us if we will be denied access to these records, and any
reasons to support denial.
I must say, it is of concern that Royal Gorge and Placer County are
not making every effort to make the development process transparent,
as had initially been promised. I was under the impression that all
documents were to be posted to the county's web-page, as had been done
with the June documents.
Thank you,
Kathryn Gray 650 323-7456
On Dec 3, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Michael Johnson wrote:
Dear Ms. Gray:
The County is in receipt of your e-mails regarding a Public Records
Request for information associated with the proposed Royal Gorge
development project.
You are mistaken as to the nature of the documents you seek to view.
Preliminary drafts of documents "that are not retained by a public
agency in the ordinary course of business" (Govt. Code section 6254(a))
are exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act.
It is the policy and procedure of the Planning Department, as well as
that of Placer County, to not retain administrative drafts of either
planning documents or environmental documents in the department's
ordinary course of business. As a result, this office is not in
violation of the Public Records Act in rejecting your request to these
particular documents.
If I can be of further service, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Johnson
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, AICP
Director of Planning
Placer County
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: December 3, 2007 3:25:20 PM PST
To: Michael Johnson
Subject: Re: Public Records Request for County Generated Documents re: Royal Gorge development
Dear Mr. Johnson,
The documents I have requested do not fall within the parameter of the section you cite. First, as your staff is studying these documents at least until January second, and making decisions based upon them relevant to Royal Gorge LLC's development application, I believe they are indeed "retained.. within the ordinary course of business". It is my impression that studying development proposals is part of the "ordinary course of business" of Placer County planning and other Placer County departments when presented with development plans. There is no "grace period" for developers to present things in secret. Further, I can see no way in which "the public interest in withholding clearly outweighs the public interest in dis-closure"
It would appear to me that there is a substantial likelihood that Placer County's "policy" of not retaining documents such as these is not in compliance with the California Public Records Act. The purpose of this act is give the public access to information in in possession of public agencies. Your policy flies in the face of that goal.
Please tell me if you are refusing to allow me access to the Water Study generated by Royal Gorge, the other documents generated by Royal Gorge and submitted in November, and the county's communications to Royal Gorge. Please note I made 3 separate requests, so there would not be confusion between the requests. Also, please provide an explanation why each item is being denied, and how the public interest is served in your denial of access.
Thank you,
Kathryn Gray
On Dec 3, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Michael Johnson wrote:
Dear Ms. Gray:
If you would, please provide to me a mailing address so that I can prepare and send you a formal response to your inquiry.
Thanks –
Michael J. Johnson
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, AICP
Director of Planning
Placer County
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: December 5, 2007 8:03:46 AM PST
To: Michael Johnson
Subject: Public Records/Royal Gorge LLC submissions/ Water Document/Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Johnson,
This is in response to your email of December 3 denying my request for access to the records submitted by Royal Gorge LLC in November, 2007, including, but not limited to "Water Supply Alternatives". This is also in response to your phone conversation with my husband Joseph Gray on December 4.
In your email of December 3 you stated:
"you are mistaken as to the nature of the documents you seek to view. Preliminary drafts of documents "that are not retained by a public agency in the ordinary course of business" (Govt. Code section 6254(a)) are exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act. It is the policy and procedure of the Planning Department, as well as that of Placer County, to not retain administrative drafts of either planning documents or environmental documents in the department's ordinary course of business"
There are serious problems with your statement. First, these documents submitted by a developer as part of the permitting process they are engaged in are in no way preliminary drafts under the definition of the statute. When the developer submits them to the county, they become part of the public record. Second, if Placer County Planning has a wholesale policy of rubber stamping "administrative draft-private" on all documents received by developers, they are in flagrant violation of the public records law. I draw your attention to the fact that even preliminary drafts, notes and memos that do fit into the exempt category may only be withheld if "the public interest in withholding clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure." This must be assessed on a case by case, document by document, and even page by page basis--not with a rubber stamp.
Further, I believe you mischaracterize past practices of the County. The County has a web page up with the June submissions of Royal Gorge LLC. It defies logic to post those documents, to make public access easier, and then proceed to deny public access, in contravention of state law, to ensuing documents. At no stage of the process can you legally deny public access to documents relevant to an ongoing development application. There is no "black-out" period for access to public records.
You mentioned to my husband yesterday that you felt that the best thing for you to do would be to make the developer take back all the documents submitted, as a way of solving your impasse. On the contrary, giving those documents back to Royal Gorge LLC after they have been requested will not change their status as public records. Giving them back to the developer will, however, raise the question as to what sort of game Placer County is playing with developers in order to deny the public their right to access to records. Further, disposing of County public records, after they have been requested, in this way may go far beyond contravention of the California Public Records Act.
In short, I am repeating my request of December third. I wish to have access to all documents submitted by Royal Gorge LLC on or around November 21st related to development at Donner Summit/Serene Lakes/Royal Gorge/Rainbow Lodge. Specifically, I am requesting the "Water Supply Alternatives", and the "Specific Plan". As these are all public records, not subject to exemption, I have a right to review them.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Gray
650 323-7456
From: "Michael Johnson"
Date: December 5, 2007 9:01:12 AM PST
To: "Kathryn Gray" , "Crystal Jacobsen"
Subject: RE: Public Records/Royal Gorge LLC submissions/ Water Document/Specific Plan
Ms. Gray:
I am in receipt of your e-mail, and I have forwarded the inquiry to the County Counsel’s Office. I will keep you informed of the process.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Johnson
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, AICP
Director of Planning
Placer County
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: December 13, 2007 9:06:15 AM PST
To: Michael Johnson
Subject: Re: Public Records Request for County Generated Documents re: Royal Gorge development
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I have not as yet received a response from you or counsel regarding my Public Records Request for the documents submitted to Placer County by Royal Gorge in November of 2007. It has been 10 days since you denied my request, and I am expecting your reply, which is required within 10 days of my request.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Gray
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: December 17, 2007 8:48:17 PM PST
To: countycounsel@placer.ca.gov
Subject: Fwd: Public Records Request for County Generated Documents re: Royal Gorge development
This is to inform you that I have as yet not had a response to my request to view documents submitted in late November, 2007, by Royal Gorge LLC in furtherance of their proposed development. As you are aware, a reply, accompanied by reasons for denial of my request are required by California Statute.
I trust Placer County will comply with state law.
sincerely,
Kathryn Gray
From: "Michael Johnson"
Date: December 19, 2007 8:58:14 AM PST
To: "Kathryn Gray"
Cc: "Crystal Jacobsen"
Subject: Response to Request for Documents
Kathryn –
As we discussed, attached please find the County’s response to your e-mail inquiry regarding documents associated with the yet-to-be-submitted Royal Gorge Specific Plan project. Should you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Johnson
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, AICP
Director of Planning
Placer County
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: December 19, 2007 9:29:41 AM PST
To: Michael Johnson
Subject: Re: Response to Request for Documents
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I have grave concerns about the actions you are proposing to take, or have taken, in returning what are clearly public documents, to which I have a right of access, to the developer who submitted them to Placer County in furtherance of their proposed development. Those documents submitted to you by Royal Gorge do not by any stretch of the imagination fall into the exceptions you cite. Whether or not Royal Gorge considers the documents draft, preliminary, or final has no bearing on whether or not they are public records. It is irrelevant whether Royal Gorge LLC "intended" the documents to become public. Further, once the documents are requested, as they were by me two weeks ago, it is a violation of California Public Records Act for you to dispose of them in any manner, including returning them to the developer who submitted them.
Additionally, I am extremely troubled that you agreed to Royal Gorge's request to keep these documents secret in the first place. I fail to understand how a developer's desire to maintain secrecy outweighs the clear rights of the public to have access to all documents submitted by a developer in the course of their application process in Placer County. If it is the county's policy to do this with all developers, then that policy needs revised in order to be in compliance with state law.
I note this morning that the Nevada Union has also filed a request for the public records submitted by Royal Gorge. I hope you have not sent them back as of yet, and stand willing and able to comply with California law.
sincerely,
Kathryn Gray