California County News

Farm Bureau Sues Fresno County over Solar Development

Trouble is brewing between property owners, counties, and the state’s Farm Bureau as land is turned over to house solar panels. At the heart of the matter are property rights and the violation of the Williamson Act, which is intended to preserve farm land. If a landowner wants to put up solar panels on land protected by the Williamson Act, then permission must be sought from the county, and when Fresno supervisors offered their blessing, the Farm Bureau ended up suing the county.

KQED notes that the Bureau’s legal decision is notable because “The fight places the Farm Bureau, usually a fierce defender of property rights, in the odd position of squaring off against willing property owners over what they should be able to do with their land.”

Farm Bureau officials are worried about the amount of solar projects proposed for a top agricultural county like Fresno and the effect it could have on production and the conservation of prime farmland.

Questions have been raised about whether farming the sun can be considered farming (and therefore not violate the Act), and many farmers have experienced a desire to make decisions for themselves about their land, and have even suggested experimenting with planting crops next to solar panels. 

Supervisors believe that solar will allow Fresno to diversify the economic base of the county so it will be less reliant on agriculture.

Federal Report Covers Increase in Vacant Properties and the Costs to Local Government

The number of vacant properties in the United States has increased dramatically in the past 10 years, which has left local governments with considerable costs. In fact, many states have experienced a 70 percent increase in the number of vacant properties to deal with; additionally, there were over 10 million such properties by April of 2010. American City & County points out that “In 2010, government-sponsored enterprises reimbursed servicers or vendors more than $953 million for property maintenance costs, but local governments are bearing a considerable amount of the expense, as well.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a new report on the impact of vacancies and while federal dollars have helped local officials cover some of the costs, many have still spent millions of dollars maintaining or demolishing properties. The report states the following about feedback from locals in determining accurate figures:

“Local government officials and community group representatives told us that distinguishing among different types of vacant properties is important to be able to identify the number of properties that are likely to impose costs on the community. As we noted above, the Census vacancy status categories can be useful in identifying some vacant properties, such as those in the “other vacant” category, that may be more likely to be unattended and so might burden local governments as opposed to those that are likely to be maintained, such as those that are for seasonal use.”

You can read the full GAO report here and the graph below provides a picture of how vacancies have risen in the past 10 years:

Kings County Looks to Block High-Speed Rail Project with Lawsuit

Kings County is where construction on the high-speed train project is slated to begin, but officials in the rural county are steaming over the $99 billion transportation undertaking; consequently, the county is filing a lawsuit against the High Speed Rail Authority to halt the rail line from being built all together. According to the county’s argument, voter-approved state bond funds should not be spent on a project that has changed since 2008, and since voters have not had a say on those changes, the county believes funds should he withheld because the costs and scope of the project have grown greatly. The Fresno Bee reports:

“According to the suit, the authority's construction of the Valley portion of the rail line illegally uses Prop 1A bond funds for a non-electric, or conventional, rail line. The suit states that because the proposition called for an electric rail system, the use of proposition funds for a non-electric rail line -- even in the "preliminary" stage -- violates state law. Redwood City attorney Michael Brady, who is representing Kings County and co-plaintiffs John Tos and Aaron Fukuda, said the authority failed to seek approval from the Public Utilities Commission and federal agencies following the passage of Prop 1A.”

We relayed back in October that the Kings County Board of Supervisors called for a resolution that outright opposed the project’s route within the region and residents in the county had been concerned about the rail’s impact on farmland. The officials have been concerned about the designated pathways of the train but rail officials reportedly would not sit down with officials in public meetings because they disagreed with the county’s legal interpretation of a law that would require them to participate. Cities in the Peninsula region of the state have also raised objections about the project, which has delayed planning.

To read the lawsuit, see here.

President of Yolo Farm Bureau Stresses Importance of Agriculture to Local Economies; Yolo Co

Chuck Dudley, the President of the Yolo County Farm Bureau, has written an op-ed for the Daily Democrat about the efforts behind the agricultural work that greatly benefits the county. The Farm Bureau protects and promotes agricultural interests throughout the state of California and works to find solutions to the problems of the farm, the farm home and the rural community. Dudley’s article serves to remind consumers and Californians about the importance of farm production to rural counties, especially to the local economy. An excerpt reads:

“The gross farm-gate value of Yolo County farm production is in the neighborhood of $500 million a year. This is a lot of money (except to the federal government). These proceeds are used by the farmer to pay his employees, purchase machinery and equipment, lease farm land, purchase operating supplies including fuel, fertilizer, seed, transplants, water, and for many other things including payment of local, state and federal taxes. In large part this farm earned money stays in the county and supports the local economy. […]

The significance of Yolo County agriculture goes beyond the thousands of people employed and the billions of dollars put into the local economy from the development of the seed through the raising and harvesting of the crop, to the transportation and processing, to the grocery store shelf and finally to the consumer table, and, importantly, Yolo County agriculture provides a working landscape of open space. This farmed landscape produces 1 percent of the greenhouse gas emanating from urbanized land. This open space certainly adds to the quality of life in Yolo County.”

Read the full op-ed here.

Supervisor Takes up City’s Fight Against Edison and the PUC over 200-Foot Towers

San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt, as well as other local officials, is lending his voice and influence to a battle between Chino Hills and Southern California Edison. In October of 2010, the power company began constructing 200-foot towers that are a part of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. From the beginning, the city objected to having the towers traverse through its territory since the towers are so large. While Chino Hills filed a lawsuit, it was ultimately rejected in 2010 by a Superior Court judge. The towers are being built as part of a state mandate for more sustainable energy, as they will provide wind-generated electricity from Kern County to Los Angeles. But local government officials in the city and region are worried about property values, health risks, and noise. In an update, Supervisor Ovitt is calling on the Public Utilities Commission to take back a permit that allows Edison to construct the towers. The Supervisor commented, “The state of California and Southern California Edison have not reached a point-of-no-return. This decision can and should be reversed immediately." The Daily Bulletin reports:

“Ovitt also plans to send a letter to each commissioner as well as to Gov. Jerry Brown urging them to reverse their prior decision. Chino Hills officials have argued Edison's easement is too narrow for expanding the size of the electrical towers currently being built in the city. […] On Wednesday, representatives from the offices of Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, and state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Walnut, also toured the area with Public Utilities' Commissioner Timothy Simon. ‘I think our residents through their emails, phone calls and letters are getting other legislators outside of our area to notice what is happen to us,’ Mayor Ed Graham said.”

Before filing a lawsuit, Chino Hills did propose an alternative route but the PUC called Edison’s route the better option. The city also lost its appeal in the case last month when a panel of judges ruled in favor of the PUC’s ultimate authority on the matter. Now the city is looking to have the state Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal's decision and a ruling could be available by mid-January. Ovitt’s district director says the supervisor was against Edison’s application to the commission from the outset due to concerns about the quality of life of local residents.

Kings County Officials Want to Wash Their Hands of All High-Speed Rail Routes

Frustration with the High-Speed Rail Authority has led the Kings County Board of Supervisors to call for a resolution that would outright oppose the project’s route within the region. In the past county officials advocated that the train should follow existing transportation corridors, but attempts to engage in a dialogue with the Authority have proven frustrating, according to supervisors. The officials have been concerned about the designated pathways of the train but rail officials reportedly would not sit down with officials in public meetings because they disagreed with the county’s legal interpretation of a law that would require them to participate. The board was supposed to prepare a response to an environmental impact report within 60 days, but supervisors wanted that period extended to 180 days, a proposal that was rejected by rail officials.

The Hanford Sentinel reports: “’I think we should come out and oppose high-speed rail in Kings County, no matter what alignment they have,’ said Supervisor Tony Barba during a discussion of the county’s official response to the EIR, which is due Thursday. He was applauded by a large crowd that nearly filled the Board of Supervisors’ chambers at the Kings County Government Center.”

Many residents in the region have been concerned about the rail’s impact on farmland. A vote on the resolution is expected on Tuesday. ABC filed the following coverage:

Governor Cites Local Control as Reason for Veto of Bill that Restricts Pot Shops

Citing fears about infringing upon local government control, Governor Brown has vetoed SB 847, which would have barred medical marijuana dispensaries from setting up shop within 600 feet of homes. The legislation was introduced by Senator Lou Correa (Santa Ana), but the governor ended up rejecting it because he noted that cities and counties should have power to determine regulations that impact pot shots. The veto message states, “This bill goes in the opposite direction by preempting local control and prescribing the precise locations where dispensaries may not be located. Decisions of this kind are best made in cities and counties, not the state Capitol.” Medical marijuana advocates are undoubtedly pleased by the governor’s decision and local government officials may be pleased that Brown affirmed local control (at least on this matter).

The governor also pointed to the recently-signed AB 1300 as another reason SB 847 was unnecessary because the assembly bill gives cities and counties clear authority to restrict the location and operation of such dispensaries as well as file civil or criminal claims against violators.

Correa expressed frustration with the outcome, and the senator commented “I’m disappointed for the community. All we were talking about is taking a buffer zone already in the law to keep second-hand pot smoke away from children at schools and extending it to keeping it away from residences." Correa also argues that he worked with marijuana advocates to reach a compromise on the language of the zoning requirements in the bill.

Luring Wine Tourists: Supervisor Says Plans for an Excursion Train in Sonoma Aren’t Feasible

Several months ago a consultant for a development corporation proposed to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) and North Coast Railroad Authority an excursion train route that would travel in Sonoma and Marin counties to attract wine country tourists. There is already a popular train that runs between Napa and St. Helena, which reportedly transports around 135,000 people per season. But is the idea for Sonoma and Marin feasible? Richard Deringer is the consultant for Odyssey Development, LLC, and Ryder Homes of California that proposed the idea to officials. Odyssey owns commercial developments along the tracks. The North Bay Business Journal reports that Valerie Brown, a Sonoma County supervisor, commented the following about the train’s likelihood: “Rick is a very big thinker, and if it were operated for him it would be great, but it doesn’t. His idea isn’t probably very doable.”

Notably, another railroad freight operator reportedly already has the first rights to any excursion train. In addition there are already major construction projects that are planned, so officials contend such plans must be given priority. For more, see here.

San Luis Obispo and Rancher Duel over County Codes for Housing Homeless People

A rancher who has 72 acres in San Luis Obispo could lose control of his land because he houses homeless people on the property. The county and ranch owner Dan De Vaul have butted heads over the issue because De Vaul has been cited for not complying with county codes and officials from the local government claim his organization and housing arrangements violate health and safety laws. For instance, the county argues dwellers are kept in illegal buildings and drinking water is unsafe. The rancher operates a nonprofit sober living program on the ranch called Sunny Acres. The county and De Vaul have been battling in court as to whether or not the ranch has made efforts to comply with the terms of a court order. De Vaul has continued to affirm that his efforts ultimately help the county because he is getting people off the streets and providing treatment for addiction. The Tribune reports:

“On Oct. 20, the county is expected to argue for the court to appoint a receiver who would oversee the progress of De Vaul’s compliance while forcing him to foot the bill of cleaning up his property. But De Vaul counters that he has met legal terms as he works toward permitting for a new 14-room housing unit for his sober living program. De Vaul fears that a receivership could force a lien on his Los Osos Valley Road property and, in a worst case scenario, lead to the sale of his ranch.”

A county lawyer has noted that the county will try to get the attorney’s fees spent on the case covered by De Vaul.

Tribe Receives Federal Approval for Yuba Casino; Next Step: Gaming Compact with the State

The federal government has provided its approval for a new casino in Yuba County, partially thanks to the Estom Yumeka Maidu tribe’s memorandum of understanding with the County and Marysville when it comes to mitigating any potential impacts from its construction. The tribe first proposed the project nine years ago and now that the federal government is on board, it will come down to Gov. Jerry Brown for the plan to continue to move forward, as land must be taken into trust. While the tribe is technically based in Oroville, a casino was proposed for Yuba County because the tribe felt land available in Butte County was unsuitable. Glenda Nelson, tribal chair for the Maidu, commented that “I think the decision was an important step in the process, but several steps remain. It's taken a long time, but we feel it's been important to go through every step.” It is estimated that the casino will cost $150 million. The Bee reports:

“In 2002, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors signed an agreement to receive $83 million over 20 years if the casino is built. The city of Marysville stands to receive $4.8 million over 15 years from the project. Critics have blasted the casino plan as ‘reservation shopping,’ with the tribe seeking to develop the gambling resort 36 miles from its land in Oroville. In 2005, Yuba County voters rejected the casino plan in an advisory measure by 52 percent to 48 percent. But Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego said searing unemployment in the region has generated renewed support for a casino and potentially thousands of jobs. ‘This is the news of the century as far as I'm concerned,’ Griego said. ‘This project is going to make a significant difference.’”

While the casino would be outside the tribe's existing reservation, the feds noted in their approval that the tribe met the right qualifications and the casino would be in a "sports and entertainment" zone in the county. The next and more critical step is forming a gaming compact with the state. Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Lake Wildwood, believes the casino goes against the desires of local residents, but jobs and economic development may trump all other concerns in cash-strapped California.