Letter #1 to UC Merced Chancellor #3, Dorothy Leland, the "Existentialist"
Even though none of the flak about the new UC Merced chancellor, Dorothy Leland, indicated that she knew anything about Merced other than that the finance, insurance and real estate special interest "stakeholders" want a UC Merced medical school, the Badlands Journal editorial board would like to welcome Leland, a scholar of existentialism a great big San Joaquin Valley En soi/Pour soi, wish her -- when fear and trembling strike -- happy rowing on Lake Yosemite with her ether oars, and hope she finds oodles of Socratic Irony out there on the wildlife habitat and former wetlands to ease the sickness unto etc.
Since we didn't see much difference between Leland and other officials that have come and gone at UC Merced -- people unable to distinguish between propaganda and education -- we are sending her a 7-year-old letter to a planner, two letters we wrote to former Chancellor Steve Kang, and the 6-year-old report by Christopher Butcher of UC Davis on how Merced County completely corrupted the Williamson Act.
We realize land-use policy is an esoteric topic for a Kierkegaard scholar, but we have some advice on the medical school direction, too. Since the destiny of the campus is to be a combination Indian casino/senior living facility, why not start now by training geriatric nurses also certified in slot machine repair? -- blj
12-21-04
Badlands Journal Archives
Reply to a local planning official
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
From:
Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, Merced CA
Steve Burke
Protect Our Water, Modesto CA
To:
Merced County Board of Supervisors
Merced CA
December 21, 2004
(via fax and email)
Re: December 21, 2004 Board agenda item: 10:30 a.m. Planning - 2004 Cycle III General Plan Amendment; University Community Plan.
The following is submitted for the record regarding the Board’s consideration of the University Community Plan.
An article titled “Reply to the Chancellor on UCP” was recently posted on the Badlands website (http://badlandsjournal.com). A local planner responded with the question: What do you think will happen if we don’t plan for the growth that will result from UC Merced?
It is a serious question, we appreciate it, and will try to articulate what we thinkabout Merced County/UC Merced planning.
The first word that caught our attention in the planners question was the word, we. Who, we wondered was the planner intending to include in the word, “we”?
Participants in the sordid political deal in which Merced got the UC in return for Condit delivering the Valley for Davis in 1998, ripping the campus from the talons of Fresno where they had committed to locate at least a medical school as early as 1965, and had land already donated in Kearney Park?
Participants in the whole cover up, inconsistency, tendentious obfuscation, regulatory- agency avoidance in the process to streamline UCM permitting run out of the governor’s and congressman’s office?
Participants in the process of gagging the press, buying the press, and intimidating reporters so that no critical questions would appear in the media about the UC project?
Participants in the UCM propaganda machine, which featured huge, UC-produced, publicly paid-for PR supplements in the local paper? Local-paper regurgitation of UCM press releases as objective journalism?
Tiny tots in UCM T-shirts lining state Capitol corridors?
Greenlining Institute, proclaiming all Hispanic students would, should, and could go to UC if only they could stay in their family homes here in the Valley?
Promoters of a campaign to name a mascot that gave the prize to a species that does not appear in Nature.
Great Valley Center’s smart-growth propaganda, emanating from that tower of planning rectitude, Modesto?
Dot-driven public focus groups confronting lists of projects that contained all pre- cooked possibilities but no project?
The Nature Conservancy?
Producers of meaningless planning documents like the CAA, CPAC, CAPS, various MCAG plans, Merced Water Supply Plan, NCCP/HCP, storm drain master plan?
Grant hustlers using the East Merced Resource Conservation District to legitimize bogus plans and be a conduit for mis-spending public funds?
Authors of numerous General Plan amendments that have rendered a weak document utterly unintelligible as a planning tool?
The red and green teams?
The black-and-blue team?
Scientists scouring the pastures for endangered species who also found a dead baby Black Bear?
Participants in the political process of suppressing ground-truthed science about the biological inventories on UCM land?
The political geniuses behind adopting a blanket Agricultural Preserve over most of the county to mitigate for UC, the most significant restriction of private-property rights in the history of the county?
Right-wing propagandists who whipped up a mob of land owners against the much less intrusive Critical Habitat Designation?
Every scofflaw in the county Planning Department?
Members of a county bureaucracy that systematically obstructs public access to public documents?
Aggregate-company and developer lawyers who write planning documents and General Plan amendments?
Private and publicly funded indemnifiers against lawsuits opposing local land-use decisions?
Politically directed judges?
Contemptuous EIR-writing, finger-flipping, harassing consultants?
Packard Foundation money launderers? Venal, punitive local political staffers, hit squads for congressmen, state legislators and the special interests who pay them?
Land-boom speculators in elective and appointed public offices?
Elected officials that constantly, publicly harass members of the public who object to what only the county calls a planning process?
Returning to the question: “What do you think will happen if we don’t plan for the growth that will result from UC Merced?”, the next word that perhaps requires more definition is the word “plan” itself. Now, what could the planner have meant by this pregnant term?
A hopelessly out-of-date General Plan created in 1992 as the result of a lawsuit brought by the public against a county that could not provide the court with evidence that there was a Merced County General Plan; a General Plan the state Attorney General directed the county to update at least every decade; a General Plan that was never followed anyway, but has now been rendered absurd by the superimposition of huge development amendments over a plan that valued the county’s agricultural and natural resources?
The donation of a large tract of land to UC by a land trust too hapless to run a golf course during the height of popularity of that sport, manipulated by a local water lawyer, (his partner under indictment for defrauding Waterford), and a county planning department unwilling to enforce environmental law on its wetlands takes?
The wholesale use of programmatic UC EIRs to secure mandates for “plans to make plans” that avoid any concrete analysis of inevitable negative impacts to natural resources, public health and safety that set a new, low, irresponsible planning standard for Merced County?
Lawyer-guided, side-stepping of inconvenient permits, and building without them?
The policy of UC to continually whine that UCM is the first campus it has attempted to build since serious environmental protection laws were passed, therefore it can’t really be held accountable to laws of the land?
The splitting of land-use authority in two pieces: the county and UC?
The splitting of local planning offices in two: the county Planning Department and the UC Development Planning Office?
Wholesale confusion and lack of coordination between the two offices and between one or the other or both of them with the City of Merced?
The complete lack of an adequate, comprehensive water plan for eastern Merced County?
The disturbing eagerness and insanity of UC and its speculating boosters, landowners, and surrounding developers to double and triple the size of the Merced population in what has become the worst air-pollution basin in the nation?
The willingness of the City of Merced to break its own ordinance to supply water and sewer services to UCM, once UC promised to indemnify it from legal challenges to its decision?
A resource-easement program designed to fail?
The wholesale, unrelenting stream of planning propaganda in place of accurate information, leaving the public in as much dark as could be decently managed at every step in the process? (For just one example, the completely bogus presentation of the Williamson Act as mitigation for UC and its induced development.)
Leading the public into unpleasant speculations about future suburbs that could be named Smithville, Kelseyville, Crookhamton, Cardoza/Coelho Azorean Estates, Cuidad Cortez- Keene, Lynch-Adam-dAdamoville, Tatum Corners, Wellman Retirement Community, Lyons Industrial Park?
Every project in the county driven by the heretofore not really, fully, completely permitted location of UCM?
Rumblings of bribery and corruption in the county Planning Department?
In conclusion, what do we think will happen if we don’t plan for the growth that will result from UC Merced?
Well, Mr. Planner, the only answer we can give is: what’s happening at the moment.
Merced’s agricultural and natural resources are being auctioned off to the highest bidders because of what you and your fellow planners did, while subjecting the public to an endless barrage of bureaucratic procedures and documents claiming you would not do exactly what you have done, are doing and will continue to do until your actions become so transparently corrupted that even the local judiciary will be unable to blind itself to them.
Sincerely,
Lydia Miller Steve Burke
Cc: Interested parties
Attachment: Badlands article “Reply to the Chancellor on UCP”, published December 17, 2004.
1-23-07
Badlands Journal
"This Magic Moment": Open Letter #1 to UC Merced Chancellor Steve Kang
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2007-01-23/00224
Dear Dr. Kang,
Welcome to Merced, once a Valley town and gateway to Yosemite, now a "crossroads" in the middle of the greatest real estate speculation crash in its history, thanks to the arrival of UC Merced.
What a "magic moment," as Great Valley Center (GVC) President, Carol Whitesides tells it.
But you would already know that because UC Merced has absorbed the Center in yet another of the public/private, win-win partnerships for which our Valley is famous.
One always got the impression from the First Chancellor that she fervently believed that Valley history began when she got here, but you have arrived in Merced as a "clean slate." UC has already gutted what brief institutional memory might have adhered to UC Merced, reinforcing its institutional strategy of pleading ignorance to history.
Yet, for a campus so young, Dr. Kang, you have inherited quite a colorful history. Allow us to list a few of its grosser features:
· UC was donated land with the richest fields of vernal pools and their associated endangered species in California;
· UC was told there was adequate water beneath this land; there wasn’t;
· UC, Gov. Gray Davis, Rep. Gary Condit, state Sen. Dick Monteith, Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, regents from the Valley and prominent Valley interests conspired with state and federal resource agencies to corrupt environmental laws and regulations in order to build the campus on this land;
· In 2000, the state non-partisan legislative analyst office told the Legislature UC Merced was an unnecessary campus;
· UC Merced propagandists, including the first chancellor, have repeatedly anddeceitfully described the campus as the only UC campus in the Central Valley, forgetting the existence of UC Davis;
· UC Merced, barred from agricultural research by the powerful, established UC Davis, must ignore and destroy the agriculture around it, denying that the only purpose for a UC campus in the Central Valley is agriculture; if UC Merced cannot be an agriculture school, Merced agriculture must disappear;
· In view of UC Davis medical school, UC Merced’s claims to establish one are the mere, empty flak of a boondoggle land deal pretending to be a university;
· However, if UC Merced, anchor tenant for eastern San Joaquin Valley growth from Folsom to Porterville, were to establish a medical research facility, as growth-induced Valley air pollution attains the distinction of being the worst in the nation UC would study the ravages of respiratory illness on children and the elderly while continuing to deny any complicity with the environmental conditions creating growing respiratory illness;
· UC sold Kearney Park in Fresno, donated to establish another agricultural campus;
· UC Santa Cruz is the university’s legitimate annex to Silicon Valley;
· UC Merced’s future is tied to its memorandum of understanding with UC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
· UC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have been testing depleted uranium bombs for years and is now seeking to establish a level-4 biowarfare laboratory at Site 300 near Tracy; in other words, UC has already contaminated some Valley groundwater with depleted uranium and now wishes to expand its bomb testing and experiment with the most toxic substances known to man, here in the most productive agricultural valley in the world;
· UC Merced has been sued on its long-range development plan, on sewer and water, on its annexation plan, and on its new town;
· Every other environmental lawsuit brought in Merced County is attributable to the chaotic growth induced by UC Merced;
· UC Merced stimulated a speculative bubble in Merced that drove its real estate values to be among the least affordable in the nation, followed by the present slump in which it has the highest foreclosure rate in the state;
· UC Merced wiped out the ability of Merced County to do any further local planning;
· The corruption of local land-use authority is complete;
· UC Merced stated it would mitigate for its growth by purchasing easements on 68,000 acres of neighboring ranchland; it bought easements for 25,000 acres;
· Those easements are inadequate because they are not comparable land and/or fail to provide monitoring standards required by the public agencies who paid for them; i.e. UC Merced defrauded the taxpayers of California for more than $16 million;
· UC, on behalf of UC Merced, is currently trying to intervene in a lawsuit over critical habitat in order to get exempted from the designation for its project;
· UC has continually conspired in the state Legislature and Congress to weaken state and federal laws protecting the environment, notably the California Environmental Quality Act and the federal Endangered Species Act, simply to build the land-deal boondoggle known as UC Merced;
· UC wrote an amicus curiae brief to the state Supreme Court supporting CSU Monterey Bay’s case that state agencies do not have to pay for mitigation of off-site impacts; UC attorney Lawrence Holtz wrote that if the court did not rule in favor of CSU-MB, UC Merced would have to pay $200 million in off-site mitigation costs, which it had promised Merced and tried in that suit to evade;
· Environmentalists and an honest Republican, former Rep. Pete McCloskey, defeated Pombo in November;
· The House Resources Committee Pombo chaired has now had its original title restored, House Committee on Natural Resources; and Cardoza is no longer a member of that committee;
· Whitesides’ “magic moment” for building more roads for more growth, degrading more natural resources and agriculture, worsening air quality, water quality and supply, is part of a “regional planning” scheme originating with UC Merced;
· UC Merced is the best proof there is in the Valley that regional planning, driven bystate government entirely controlled by finance, insurance and real estate interests, is nothing but a developer confidence game that started with the UC regents;
· There was no legitimate reason for UC Merced, it has created nothing but havoc in the San Joaquin Valley and has elevated possibly the worst collection of “leaders” the Valley has ever had;
· This Valley has sunk from politicians like Assembly Speaker Ralph Brown 60 years ago and Assemblyman John Williamson 40 years ago to the present gang of pretentious thugs in federal, state and municipal government that has, with “one voice,” repeatedly corrupted the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act and the Williamson Act, all for the benefit of UC Merced and its induced slurb.
This is the truth about the “magic moment” you’ve inherited, Dr. Kang. You are floating in a sea of propaganda concocted by liars and parroted by ignoramuses for the benefit of a handful of special interests in a position to profit from proximity to a UC campus. You are chancellor of a fraud on the Public Trust. The UC Merced project is totally unworthy of the once greatest public university in America.
Open Letter #2 to UC Merced Chancellor Steve Kang
Submitted: Oct 22, 2007
Badlands Journal editorial board replies to Chancellor Kang's October 5Message to Faculty and Staff
The production and dissemination of ignorance should not be the function of a chancellor of the state’s public highest education institution, even if only to the faculty on his own campus. The root of the problem with this communication by UC Merced Chancellor Steve Kang lies in the UC claim that it unilaterally, with the highest environmental purposes in mind, has reconfigured the footprint of the campus, choosing prime farmland rather than sensitive ecological habitat for its new development plans. The local public anticipated this move as inevitable in early 2003. A paper trail of public documents a dozen years old clearly shows that UC did nothing – from the original choice of the site to the golf-course site and forward—that it was not forced to do by an environmentally engaged public and regulatory agencies.
UC Merced “planning” is occurring on a foundation of political corruption. This is a real estate boondoggle project, a publicly funded anchor tenant that induced a gigantic local speculative real estate bubble, which has popped. In addition to extreme political pressure on local, state and federal resource and land-use agencies, UC, in league with finance, insurance and real estate special interests, has been involved in attempts to gut the federal Endangered Species Act and the state Williamson Act for its own benefit.
Lawyers representing UC Merced recently concluded a series of negotiations and the chancellor applauds them for their “creativity.” The Merced participants found UC Merced to be negotiating in such dubious faith that they had to withdraw.
The chancellor’s communication to UCM faculty is a preemptive bit of flak to cover over more news of the unraveling consequences of a corrupt land-use process and to divert attention from an appellate court CEQA hearing on the UC Community Plan later this month.
Evidence continues to mount that it is a misfortune and an insult to the San Joaquin Valley that its UC campus was founded as nothing but a boondoggle anchor tenant for a huge speculative real estate boom. Merced now leads the nation in foreclosure activity at the rate of 1 per 68 households. The national average is 1 per 544. -- blj
SUBJECT LINE: A Message from Chancellor Kang
October 5, 2007
Dear Faculty and Staff Members:
I am pleased to share with you updated information about the environmental permitting process that you may read or hear about in the press in the coming weeks. The information involves revisions we are making in Phase II development plans for our campus and university community to reduce impacts on wetlands, improve land-use efficiency and move more efficiently through the required federal permit application process.
Under Gov. Gray Davis, UC established the “red and green teams” in state and federal resources agencies. These teams were composed of department heads, agency staff, legislators, local government officials, and staff from ethically challenged environmental, conservation and agricultural groups. Their mandate was to “streamline” i.e. circumvent the environmental laws and regulations applicable to the campus site.
Meanwhile, in Washington, UC lobbied to eliminate the critical habitat designation section in the Endangered Species Act.
These are very positive changes that will expedite the permitting process and allow us to move ahead with full-scale development with renewed momentum and confidence. A press release will be issued later this morning and posted on the campus homepage at www.ucmerced.edu .
At this point, the “positive changes” consist of a proposal to reduce the footprint and to do a joint EIR/EIS, as should have been done in the beginning in Long Range Development Plan and the University Community Plan. It is a concept proposal, nothing more. -- blj
BACKGROUND
In order to be able to plan for future development of the campus beyond the 105-acre current campus footprint, the university must obtain a Section 404 permit that is required by the U.S. Clean Water Act. The land set aside for these future developments, which the university has already acquired, includes some federally protected wetlands that cannot be developed without the permit. (The current campus development includes no protected lands.) The permitting agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The University of California has a history at many of its campuses of building out onto lands that have been protected, conserved and preserved. UC Merced submitted a complete permit application to the Corps in February 2002. The Corps is required to review the application against applicable environmental law and to seek public comment on its possible impacts. The Corps rejected UC Merced’s application because it was incomplete. It was submitted early in the year the campus was supposed to open. As the Corps said at the time, Phase I of UC Merced was built at UC’s “own risk.” The community and the state expect UC to conduct itself openly and honorably. Californians expect its world famous “research” university to have done its research and fulfilled its permits before building, not afterward.
In the five years since our application was filed, we’ve engaged in numerous productive meetings with the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the agencies that share jurisdiction over federally protected wetlands, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. We’ve learned a great deal about the unique qualities of the regions environment while demonstrating long-term benefits a major research university is already bringing to this underserved region.
These changes are the result of a mutual desire to move forward with the project while limiting its impact to the best of our ability. UC had years to learn about the unique qualities of the region’s environment. It did its own studies and consulted voluminous previous studies on the region’s flora and fauna. There was no lack of knowledge about the ecology of this region. For the chancellor to state otherwise is to disseminate ignorance. Because UC knew so much about the regional ecology, with the help of regional business interests and their political representatives, UC has made continual attempts to circumvent regulatory compliance.
UC Merced has constantly employed its academic authority to erase and rewrite the history of Merced depending on the legal and regulatory obstacles before it. Members of the public find this arrogant, ignorant and deceitful flak unacceptable. -- blj
The previous proposal for a 910-acre main campus, finalized and certified in the campus
Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) by the UC Board of Regents in January 2002, was our best initial estimate of what would be needed to fulfill the long-term mission of the 10th University of California campus. It was not based on a detailed architectural plan but rather a set of assumptions related to building design, topography, aesthetics, traffic management and other factors.
This " set of assumptions" was challenged in superior and appellate courts, where politically motivated decisions were rendered on behalf of UC. These faulty assumptions will now be used to tier off a new EIR/EIS. -- blj
Now that we have several years of research, teaching and operational experience on site, we are confident we can meet our long-term objectives on a slightly smaller footprint. Therefore, a new strategy for obtaining the 404 permit will allow the process to move along with renewed vision and momentum.
This “new strategy” was made necessary by a number of factors – political rather than ecological: the replacement of a senior congressman, Gary Condit, by a freshman, Dennis Cardoza; the loss of the several attacks in Congress on provisions in the ESA that were tailor-made to assist UC Merced; revelations of corruption in federal resource agencies that strengthened their resolve to enforce the law; various public relations disasters that occurred on the campus since it opened; and the manifest truth that UC Merced induced a wild speculatively driven real estate boom in Merced, the collapse of which has given the region notoriety as the top city for foreclosure activity in the nation. The collapse of this UC-induced speculative real estate bubble, projected to worsen in the time ahead, leaves more than adequate empty housing stock for UC Merced faculty and staff, erasing any argument for a UC Community new town adjacent to the campus. For faculty and staff not interested in buying houses with falling values, rentals in the north San Joaquin Valley are plentiful at moderate rates. Merced is reported by RealFacts to have the lowest rental rates in California. -- blj
What changes are implicit in the revised plan?
The size and configuration of the campus will change somewhat without affecting the overall scope or mission of the university. Specifically, the northern, eastern and southern perimeters will be redrawn. In effect, the campus will shift slightly south, with about 230 acres added to the southern perimeter and 335 acres taken away from the northern and eastern perimeters. The existing 105-acre campus, which lies within both the former and the redesigned footprints, will not be affected. These changes will reduce the size of the main campus at build-out from 910 acres to about 810 acres, or approximately 10.98%. The adjacent university community will also change slightly in dimensions and configuration, increasing from 2,133 acres to 2,160 acres. Total land needs for both projects will decline from 3,043 acres to 2,970 acres, or about 2%. (Click here to view a map that outlines previous and revised proposed campus and community footprints.)
All UC planners are doing is trading important rangeland/endangered species habitat for prime agricultural land vital to the economic survival of Merced County. -- blj
Why are these changes being made?
The change in the campus and adjacent university community footprint will reduce the amount of environmentally sensitive wetlands affected by overall campus development from about 121 acres to 81 acres, or approximately 33 percent. When added to changes made in late 2000, when the campus was repositioned further south from its originally intended location, the impact on wetlands has been reduced by about 95%. These changes support the university’s dual objectives of building a world-class research university to serve the people of the Central Valley and state while respecting the environmental resources on or near the campus site and balancing and minimizing impacts on both farmland and natural resources.
UC Merced created a more acceptable footprint and moved its plans for later phases onto prime farmland rather than rangeland/wildlife habitat because it was forced to by environmental groups and resource agencies. The chancellor misspeaks, saying this was done in support of UC “objectives.” Members of the local public are tired of UC constantly changing its story to conceal the fragmented, mismanaged waste of public funds beneath the surface. A most glaring example is that there is no coordination of mitigation for UC Merced impacts, therefore UC cannot assure its conservation strategies.
All one has to do is look at the UC Parkway, the impacts of which are being mitigated outside the range of the impacted species. The public has no confidence and no legal assurance that UC will not develop its preserved, reserved and conserved real estate or that this land will remain protected. More than 10,000 acres of deep-ripped seasonal pastureland in eastern Merced County compromises UC’s ability to mitigate for its impacts in the eco-region it is impacting. While UC Merced tries to isolate its project and the project impacts, in fact UC Merced has opened up the entire east side of the county to induced growth. Today’s agricultural conversion from pastureland to orchard is tomorrow’s subdivision. -- blj
Beyond the environmental benefits of a revised campus footprint, what other benefits does the change bring?
Planning the physical campus expansion beyond Phase I is essential for continuing the development of stellar academic and research programs. By knowing the likely shape and size of the campus, academic administrators and the faculty will be better informed as they engage in planning for the future. In addition, campus officials recently began discussions for revising the campus LRDP since the timing is opportune to do so. In consultation with academic administrators, campus planners may consider options including greater density, repositioning of structures and facilities, and other measures that will improve land-use efficiency.
Will this change affect the current first phase of development in any way?
No. The design of Phase I is finished and is not expected to change. Construction on Phase I, which can accommodate up to 5,000 students, will continue as scheduled. Next year we look forward to the beginning of construction on the new Social Sciences and Management Building at full-plan size. Also, the next Science and Engineering building is scheduled to open in fall 2012, with construction projected to begin in 2010. Nearer term construction includes a new parking lot opening this month, the expansion of the Yablokoff-Wallace Dining Commons this year and other parking areas by the end of the year.
As evidenced by several major planning initiatives embarked upon this year, the change in the environmental permitting plan is just one of numerous factors at play. To ensure the long-term success of UC Merced, I will rely on many campus community members to participate in the numerous interrelated planning aspects including the campuswide Strategic Academic Planning process, the planning of two proposed professional schools (management and medical) and the overall Long Range Development Plan of the campus. This is why most of us joined UC Merced in its formative years --- to plan and build a world- class research university from the ground up. It’s an opportunity of a lifetime.
UC did not plan to pay for its infrastructure needs. UC sited the campus on one of the nation’s most valuable ecological areas. UC Merced did not do an EIR/EIS in the beginning of its planning process. UC did not plan for its water supply and induced leapfrog development by hooking into the Merced City water system. Everything UC Merced has done has been reaction rather than planning, illustrating the original point: it was a real estate boondoggle. One of the best examples of UC reaction has been its indemnification of local land-use authorities for legal costs arising from lawsuits filed by members of the Merced public against ill-planned phases of the campus development. This indemnification is the payment of state public funds to local public agencies promoting a speculative residential and commercial real estate boom anchored by UC Merced. -- blj
I would like to acknowledge Janet Young, Brad Samuelson, Tom Lollini, John Garamendi, Larry Salinas, Patti Istas, UC Counsel Anthony Garvin, and outside counsel Clark Morrison and Alicia Guerra for their creativity and diligence in devising a new plan for Phase II development that will fully meet our objectives while reaffirming our sensitivity to environmental protection and good citizenship. I also want to thank former Acting Chancellor Rod Park for his significant efforts toward this objective.
Steve Kang
Chancellor
The Badlands Journal editorial board suggests that UC Merced faculty and staff research for themselves the extensive public documents on this project, beginning with the 1995 EIR, which stated among other fictions that there was water in them there hills and the land was free. Your administration should be happy to make these documents available to you. If not, recall that UC is a public agency and it has to have the documents and make them available to you.
9-13-09
Badlands Journal
The price of dirt, Part 4 -- the Williamson Act budget hearing
Submitted: Sep 13, 2009
By: Badlands Journal editorial board
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2009-09-13/007406
To give readers a larger view of relations between Merced County and the state’s Agriculture Preserve and Williamson Act laws, we offer a case study from a 2005 paper by UC Davis researcher, Christoper Butcher, since 2007 an associate in the prestigious Sacramento law first of Remy Thomas Moose & Manley. It serves as a preface for Part 4 of “The Price of dirt.” We will say in advance, that we think it is highly unlikely that anyone taking part in the budget hearing on the Williamson Act in Merced County this year has ever read this paper, and its concluding case study on how Merced County essentially corrupted the entire purpose of the Act and the underlying law concerning the Agricultural Preserve. -- bjl
UC Davis, 2005
The Forgotten Intent of the Williamson Act:The Regulation of Non-Contracted Lands within Agricultural Preserves
Christopher J. Butcher, A Case Study: Merced County
Merced is one of the counties that have recently adopted the Williamson Act.[1] Withi the first three years of adopting the Act, landowners in Merced County placed more acres under contract than in any other county during the same period.[2] In total, Merced County has entered into contracts on 417,318 acres of land.[3] Of this, 240,515 acres are prime agricultural land and 176,803 acres are nonprime agricultural land.[4] In 2003, the Merced County Williamson Act program received the eighth largest amount of subvention payments[5] from the state,[6] totaling $1,376,478.[7] Overall, Merced County is ranked fifteenth in total acreage covered by Williamson Act contracts.[8]
Merced County provides an interesting case study because it is young, in terms of its participation in the Williamson Act,[9] yet its program has expanded rapidly.[10] This is not a comprehensive analysis. It will focus on how the county established its preserve[11] and flaws in its administration.[12] The criticisms made here of Merced County’s implementation of the Act do not apply to all counties, but hopefully this analysis can provide insight into various ways a county may misinterpret and abuse the Act.
A. Establishment of Merced County’s Agricultural Preserve
On July 25, 2000, Merced County passed a resolution implementing the Williamson Act.[13] Landowners within an agricultural preserve could enter contracts with the county beginning January 1, 2001.[14] Merced County chose to implement a blanket agricultural preserve[15] across all land that complied with the county’s rural land use designation and was zoned general agricultural (A-1) or exclusive agricultural (A-2).[16] As a result, this preserve included a vast amount of land.[17] Despite its wide reach, even today few farmers are aware that their land is part of this agricultural preserve.[18] Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, who at the time was the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Agriculture, pushed for Merced to adopt the Williamson Act as “mitigation for UC Merced.”[19] Shortly after the agricultural preserve’s creation, the county amended its resolution, establishing the agricultural preserve, to include land designated as part of its specific urban development plan within the preserve.[20] This amendment made thecounty’s intent seem less like long-term conservation of agricultural land and more like a tax break before development.[21]
Traditionally, landowners established agricultural preserves by petitioning county board of supervisors or city council.[22] Merced County, however, established a blanket preserve based on county zoning. [23] Merced County is not the first county to establish a blanket preserve.[24] Stanislaus County utilized this method when it created its agricultural preserve on October 20, 1970.[25] In 1970, the Joint Committee on Open Space Lands determined that “establishing agricultural preserves in areas coextensive with land subject to [a specific] zoning ordinance [is] consistent with the law.”[26]
Although applying a blanket agricultural preserve to specific zoning ordinances clearly has some advantages,[27] counties and cities need to understand the commitment they are making when they choose to do so.
Merced County clearly did not understand the commitment it was making when it created its agricultural preserve. A few landowners attended the public hearing regarding the establishment of the preserve.[28] One landowner requested that the county exempt his property from the agricultural preserve.[29] His request was denied.[30]
The county had the right to deny the landowner’s request.[31] The board of supervisor’s explanation for the denial is telling, however. Supervisor Deidre F. Kelsey, the current Chairman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors, stated that “once an individual’s property [was] in the Preserve, the landowner [would] have the opportunity to choose whether or not to exercise inclusion in the Williamson Act.”[32] This statement indicates that Supervisor Kelsey clearly did not understand that once the agricultural preserve was established all landowners within the preserve would be subject to Williamson Act restrictions.[33] Although it is true that the landowners would have the option to decide if they wanted to enter a contract and place their land under heightened restrictions, after the agricultural preserve was established all landowners within its boundaries were brought under applicable regulations established by the Act.[34]
Further, Chairman Jerry O’Banion made the clarification that landowners in the agricultural preserve had “the ability or right to desire development rights or preserve that land in agriculture.”[35] O’Banion was correct in stating that landowners within an agricultural preserve have the “right to desire development rights,”[36] but until landowners follow the procedure established by the Williamson Act to remove land from the agricultural preserve, their entitlements for use are limited by the Act.[37]
These statements of the supervisors were a gross misinterpretation of the Act. As discussed above, an agricultural preserve is an area designated and regulated by the Williamson Act to protect and encourage agricultural and open-space uses.[38] By incorporating land into an agricultural preserve, new procedural hurdles are attached to development of the land[39] and additional restrictions are placed on the government and landowner’s entitlement for use.[40]
The Act provides a county or city with significant discretion in establishing its own procedure and regulations under the Act.[41] A county or city cannot, however, escape the procedures and regulations established by the State Legislature.[42] A landowner can choose whether or not to enter a contract with the county or city, but once land is incorporated into an agricultural preserve, and until it is removed through the proper procedure, it is subject to applicable regulations under the Williamson Act.[43]
B. Removing Non-Contracted Land from Merced County’s Agricultural Preserve
As discussed earlier, a county or city must follow certain procedures in order to remove land from an agricultural preserve.[44] The Merced County rules of procedure adopted to administer the Williamson Act state:
A landowner may request removal from the agricultural preserve if they are not under a Land Conservation Contract or upon termination of it. As the Williamson Act is a voluntary program, and an owner may not wish to participate, requests for removal will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval.[45]
Based on the procedure established by Merced County, landowners may request the county to remove their land from the agricultural preserve at any time.[46] This does not mean, however, that the county can skip the state mandated procedure for removing the land.[47]
Ideally, the procedure established by the California Legislature will ensure that the county or city considers the impacts of the removal. But in the end, after the procedure is followed, the county or city has full discretion to make its decision.[48]
Unfortunately, Merced County has not taken this position and, generally, has not followed the state mandated procedure to remove land from its agricultural preserve.[49]
In 2004, Deidre F. Kelsey reaffirmed “that people who did not want to participate [in the Williamson Act] could opt out.”[50] Since the Act was implemented in Merced County, the county has removed property from the agricultural preserve through rezoning on at least ten occasions.[51] The board of supervisors recognized that changing zoning removed land from the agricultural preserve in only two of these hearings.[52] During the other eight hearings the board of supervisors did not even acknowledge that the land in question was part of Merced County’s agricultural preserve.[53]
One of the latter projects involved rezoning 372 acres of A-1 land to industrial planned development (PD-1) in order to build an industrial business park.[54] In another project the county converted A-1 zoned land to general commercial (C-2) to allow for the construction of a service station, a mini-mart, and two fast food restaurants.[55] More recently, a project involved rezoning 655 acres of A-2 zoned property to allow for a development project called “Yosemite Lake Estates.”[56] During this hearing, a nearby property owner expressed his concern that the project was a “leapfrog development [that] promote[d] urban sprawl.”[57] The board of supervisors unanimously approved each of these three projects and no one on the board mentioned the Williamson Act or the County’s preserve during any of the hearings.[58]
Merced County procedure, or lack thereof, for removing land from the agricultural preserve clearly violates the Act.[59] In eight of the ten removal proceedings, the county did not conform to the Act’s notice requirement.[60] One explanation for the county’s failure to provide notice is that in eight of the ten proceedings there was no hearing on the subject for which to provide notice.[61] In other words, the hearings made no mention of the Act or the preserve.[62] The board of supervisors not only violated the Williamson Act’s notice requirement,[63] but its failure to discuss the removals from the agricultural preserve also violates the hearing requirement as well.[64]
C. The Two-Year Window & Compatible Zoning for Non-Contracted Land within Merced County’s Agriculture Preserve
In 1999, the Legislature recognized how critical it was for land within agricultural preserves to comply with the Act’s minimum parcel size requirements.[65] As discussed earlier,[66] to ensure compliance, the Legislature amended the Act to require counties, within the two-year window, to change the zoning of land within a preserve if necessary.[67] To justify this amendment, the Legislature declared:
Existing provisions of the Williamson Act do not require that local zoning of designated agriculture preserves be consistent with the minimum parcel size under the act, and without that requirement the purpose of the act can be seriously undermined by subminimumparcel sizes and incompatible uses within those preserves.[68]
A comparison of Merced County maps of zoning and prime agricultural land demonstrate that parcels of nonprime agricultural land exist within the county’s A-zoned regions.[69] In Merced County, the minimum parcel size allowed in A-1 zoning is twenty acres.[70] Within an agricultural preserve, however, the Williamson Act requires that parcels of nonprime agricultural land are at least forty acres.[71] Therefore, the county’s A-1 zoning, which allows a minimum of twenty acres, is below the minimum acreage required for nonprime agricultural land in agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act.[72] Merced County’s two-year window, for ensuring parcel sizes within itsagricultural preserve are consistent with the Act’s requirements, expired in early 2003.[73] Merced County could easily work towards remedying this violation by converting A-1 zoned nonprime agricultural land within the agricultural preserve to a compatible zone established in its general plan, such as the A-1-40 zoning.[74]
In addition, the county board of supervisors has approved numerous subdivisions that are well below the ten-acre prime agricultural and forty-acre nonprime agricultural minimum parcel sizes allowed in the agricultural preserve.[75] Since the agricultural preserve was created, the county has subdivided land within the preserve on at least seven occasions and created at least eleven new parcels under five acres.[76]
In 2003, Ed Pattison, the Executive Director of Merced County’s Farm Bureau urged the board of supervisors not to divide a particular parcel of A-1 zoned land because “breaking up [the] land [would] have a negative impact on the neighboring lands and [would] set precedence [sic].”[77] Three months after the board of supervisors approved the subdivision, it approved another subdivision in which the applicant’s lawyer explained that the county should approve the variance because “there are smaller parcels in the surrounding area.”[78] None of the subdivision hearings addressed how the subdivisions conflicted with the Williamson Act.[79]
D. Non-Contracted Land in Merced County’s Agricultural Preserve & CEQA
Despite the fact that Bill Nicholson, Merced County’s Director of Planning and Community Development, has acknowledged that removing land from an agricultural preserve is subject to CEQA,[80] the county has rarely complied with CEQA when removing land from the preserve.[81] In fact, when removing land from an agricultural preserve, it appears the county has only complied with CEQA on only two occasions.[82] Both of these removals were associated with development projects that would remove the land from agricultural production.[83] But, Merced County is not alone.[84] Dennis O’Bryant, the Assistant Director of Land Resource Protection at the Department of Conservation, stated that he has probably only seen one removal that complied with CEQA and it was part of a large project.[85]
Conclusion
From this analysis, it is clear that Merced County has failed to administer the preserve in a manner that complies with the Williamson Act.[86] As a result, the Act is less likely to achieve its goal of “long-term conservation of agricultural and open-space land” [87] in Merced County. The Act requirements discussed in this note have received little attention over the years. Merced County’s violations are likely not anomalies; rather, it is probable that cities and counties throughout the state have also routinely violated these Act and CEQA requirements.
The regulation of non-contracted lands within agricultural preserves is essential to maintaining large clusters of viable agricultural and open-space land, as the Act intended.[88] A California Appellate court has stated that “the Williamson Act[’s] . . . language must be interpreted liberally to effectuate [its] remedial purpose.”[89]
Nonetheless, it seems that much of the Act’s language relating to agricultural preserves and the regulation of non-contracted lands is not “interpreted liberally to effectuate [its] remedial purpose.”[90] Even worse, at least in the case of Merced County, it appears the county has not tried to interpret this language at all.
As mentioned earlier, the Department of Conservation should receive maps of agricultural preserves from every county or city that is participating in the Williamson Act.[91]
This requirement has been ignored for many years, and the Department of Conservation is only now beginning to demand counties produce the maps.[92] It is critical that the Department of Conservation takes all necessary action to ensure participating cities and counties create these maps. As maps of agricultural preserves do not currently exist, the degree to which clusters of agricultural land making up agricultural preserves have become discontiguous is unclear.
In addition, the Department of Conservation should commission a full review of each county’s agricultural preserves. Loosely followed requirements relating to non-contracted land have likely lead to preserves pock marked with gaps caused by land that was improperly removed. These disjointed preserves are less likely to effectuate the goals of the Act. Without such a review, there is no way to know the full scope and impact of poor management of non-contracted lands within each county and city’s preserves.
The State of California has provided over six hundred million dollars in subvention payments since 1967.[93] In recent years, subvention payments have grown larger than ever.[94] If the Act could achieve its goals, the burden on California taxpayers would pale in comparison to the program’s value. Unfortunately, if counties do not comply with all aspects of the Act, it is unlikely its goals will be achieved.
------------------------------------
[1] Williamson Act Technical Advisory, supra note 63, at 2.
[2]2004 Status Report, supra note 6, at 4. Overall, Merced had the greatest number of new enrollments in 2001 and 2002. Id. at 5. In 2003, Merced County ranked ninth in new enrollments. Id. The drop in Merced County’s number of new enrollments is attributed to a stabilization process as the county’s agricultural preserve matured. Id. at 4.
[3]Id. at 26.
[4]Id.
[5]A subvention payment is financial assistance often provided to a local government by the state or federal government. Dorcich v. Johnson, 110 Cal. App. 3d 487, 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). The Williamson Act’s subvention program is, in part, designed to "provide replacement revenues to local government by reason of the reduction of the property tax on open space lands assessed under . . . the Revenue and Taxation Code." Cal. Gov. Code § 16141 (2004).
[6]See Cal. Gov. Code § 16140-16154 (2004), for more details on Open-Space Subventions in California.
[7]2004 Status Report, supra note 6, at 18. In 2003, the state provided a total of $39,242,234 to all counties participating in the Williamson Act. Id. at 6.
[8]Id. at 26.
[9]Williamson Act Technical Advisory, supra note 63, at 2.
[10]Id.; 2004 Status Report, supra note 6, at 4.
[11]See discussion infra Part V.A.
[12]See discussion infra Parts V.B-C.
[13]County of Merced, Rules of Procedure to Implement the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, Board of Supervisors Res. No. 2000-137 (2000), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/williamsonact/pdfs/rulesprocedures.pdf#search='CALIFORNIA% 20LAND%20CONSERVATION%20ACT%20merced' (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[14]Id. at 6, C.4.c.
[15] The term “blanket agricultural perserve” refers to the fact that, rather than creating individual preserves based on petitions from landowners, the county decided to implement one agricultural preserve that covered all agricultural zoned properties within ts zone of influence. Id. at 2, B.1.a.
[16]Id.
[17]Bill Hatch, supra note 57.
[18]Bill Hatch, Property Tax Breaks Under False Pretenses, Badlands Journal (Apr. 5, 2004), at http://badlandsjournal.com/getarch2.php?title=Property+tax+breaks+under+... (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[19]Bill Hatch, supra note 57.
[20] Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Williamson Act Working Group, Public Hearing on the Establishment of an Agricultural Preserve as per the Provisions of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, at 12 (Aug. 8, 2000), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2000sam/08082000F.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[21]Bill Hatch, supra note 276.
[22]Bill Hatch, supra note 57; Tulare County Resource Management Agency, The Agricultural Preserve Program as Implemented in Tulare County, Board of Supervisors Res., at 4 (1999) (“The Board of Supervisors creates an Agricultural Preserve at the request of the landowner.”), available at http://www.co.tulare.ca.us/cpb/documents/THE%20AGRICULTURAL% 20PRESERVE%20PROGRAM.pdf#search='The%20Agricultural%20Preserve%20Program%20as% 20Implemented%20in%20Tulare%20County' (last visited Apr. 5, 2005). Tulare County established its first Agricultural Preserves in 1967. Id.
[23] County of Merced, supra note 271, at 2, B.1.a. See supra note 273, for a definition of “blanket agricultural preserve.”
[24] Stanislaus County Department of Planning and Community Development, Williamson A tInformation, at 1 (1990) (on file with author).
[25]Id. at 6.
[26]Joint Committee on Open Space Lands, Final Report on the Extension of the Land Conservation Act to Recreational Land, 1970 Leg., 1969-1970 Reg. Sess. (1970), reprinted in App. J. of the Senate, vol. 1, at 15, 31 (1970).
[27]Id.
[28]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, supra note 278, at 11.
[29]Id.
[30]Id.
[31]Kelsey v. Colwell, 30 Cal. App. 3d 590, 595 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (holding that a county or city’s implementation of the act is discretionary).
[32]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, supra note 278, at 11.
[33] See discussion supra Part II-III.
[34] Id.
[35]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, supra note 278, at 11.
[36] Id.
[37] See discussion supra Part II.
[38]Id.
[39]Id.
[40]Id.
[41]Cal. Gov. Code § 51231 (2004).
[42]Gonzales v. City of San Jose, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134-35 (2004) (establishing that a State law of statewide concern preempts local laws).
[43]See discussion supra Part II.
[44]See discussion supra Part III.
[45]County of Merced, supra note 271, at 3, B.3.a.
[46]Id.
[47]See Gonzales v. City of San Jose, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134-35 (2004) (establishing that a State law of statewide concern preempts local laws).
[48]See Kelsey v. Colwell, 30 Cal. App. 3d 590, 595 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (holding that the Legislature used discretionary language when it created the Williamson Act and that is not mandatory for a county or city to participate in the act).
[49]See discussion supra Part III; see also infra notes 308-337 and accompanying text.
[50]Videotape: Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Continued Public Hearing to Amend the Merced County Agricultural Preserve (Feb. 10, 2004), available at rtsp://66.124.46.131/boardaudio/02-10-2004_bdsup.rm (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[51]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public hearing on Planning, at 14-15 (Apr. 27, 2004), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2004sam/04272004.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 9-12 (Aug. 31, 2004), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2004sam/08312004.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 8-9 (Sept. 28, 2004), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2004sam/09282004.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 02006, Zone Change No. 02009, Property Line Adjustment No. 02033, at 11 (Apr. 29, 2003), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2003sam/04292003.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 99012, Parallel Zone Change No. 99013, and Conditional Use Permit No. 00006, at 11-13 (Jul. 24, 2001), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2001sam/07242001F.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 02003, Zone Change Application No. 02003, and Administrative Permit Application No. 02021, at 12-15 (Jul. 23, 2002), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/07232002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 01001 and Zone Change No. 01002, at 9 (Oct. 2, 2001), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2001sam/10022001F.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 99001, Zone Change Application No. 99001 and Master Plan, Pacific ComTech Park, at 16-17 (Dec. 17, 2002), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/12172002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding Amendment of the Agricultural Preserve Under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) in Merced County, at 10 (Mar. 25, 2003), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2003sam/03252003.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Continued Public Hearing on Planning, at 7-8 (Feb. 10, 2004), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2004sam/02102004.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[52]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 25, 2003), supra note 309, at 10; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Feb. 10, 2004), supra note 309, at 7-8.
[53]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note 309, at 14-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 31, 2004), supra note 309, at 9-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sept. 28, 2004), supra note 309, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 29, 2003), supra note 309, at 11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 23, 2002), supra note 309, at 12-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 2, 2001), supra note 309, at 9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17.
[54]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17.
[55]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13.
[56]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note 309, at 14-15.
[57]Id.
[58]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note 309, at 14-15. During the hearing on December 17, 2002, one supervisor abstained from voting. Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 17.
[59]See discussion supra Part III.
[60]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note309, at 14-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 31, 2004), supra note 309, at 9-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sept. 28, 2004), supra note 309, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 29, 2003), supra note 309, at 11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 23, 2002), supra note 309, at 12-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 2, 2001), supra note 309, at 9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17; See discussion supra Part I.B.2.c.
[61]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note 309, at 14-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 31, 2004), supra note 309, at 9-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sept. 28, 2004), supra note 309, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 29, 2003), supra note 309, at 11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 23, 2002), supra note 309, at 12-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 2, 2001), supra note 309, at 9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17.
[62]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 27, 2004), supra note 309, at 14-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 31, 2004), supra note 309, at 9-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sept. 28, 2004), supra note 309, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Apr. 29, 2003), supra note 309, at 11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 24, 2001), supra note 309, at 11-13; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jul. 23, 2002), supra note 309, at 12-15; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 2, 2001), supra note 309, at 9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 17, 2002), supra note 309, at 16-17.
[63] See discussion supra Part I.B.2.c.
[64] Id.
[65]See S.B. 985, § 1(f)-(k), 1999 Leg., 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 1999) (enacted), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0951- 1000/sb_985_bill_19991010_chaptered.html (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[66]See discussion supra Part III.
[67]Cal. Gov. Code § 51230 (2004); See discussion supra Part III.
[68]S.B. 985, § 1(g), 1999 Leg., 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 1999) (enacted), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0951- 1000/sb_985_bill_19991010_chaptered.html (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[69]Maps on file with author.
[70]Merced County, Cal., Zoning Ordinances ch. 18, art. 2, § 1(b)(1) (2004).
[71]Cal. Gov. Code §§ 51222, 51230 (2004); See discussion supra Part II.B.3.
[72]See supra notes 328-329 and accompanying text.
[73]In Merced, landowners could begin contracting on January 1, 2001. County of Merced, supra note 271, at 6, C.4.c. Thus, the two-year window expired in early 2003.
[74]See Merced County, Cal., Zoning Ordinances ch. 18, art. 2, § 1(b)(1) (2004). In Merced County, A-1-40 zoning requires a minimum parcel size of forty acres. Id. This forty-acre minimum is compatible with the forty-acre minimum parcel size requirement for nonprime agricultural land within an agricultural preserve. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 51222, 51230 (2004); See discussion supra Part II.B.3.
[75]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 8-9 (Mar. 18, 2003) (subdividing a thirty-three acre parcel below the minimum acreage allowed in Merced County’s agricultural preserve), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2003sam/03182003.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regardingan Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of Zone Variance Application No. 03001 and Minor Subdivision Application No. 03003, at 12 (Jun. 24, 2003) (subdividing a parcel into 11.2 and 1.7 acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2003sam/06242003.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning Regarding an Appeal of Denial of Zone Variance Application No. 01023 and Minor Subdivision Application No. 01057, at 8-10 (Mar. 12, 2002) (subdividing a parcel into 2.75 and five acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/03122002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 10-11 (Aug. 20, 2002) (subdividing a parcel into 4.2, 18.7, and 19.1 acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/08202002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 6-7 (Sep. 24, 2002) (subdividing a parcel into 2.4 and one acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/09242002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development Continued from October 8, 2002, at 11-12 (Oct. 22, 2002) (subdividing a parcel into 1.59 and one acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/10222002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, Public Hearing on Planning and Community Development, at 12-13 (Dec. 3, 2002) (subdividing a parcel into 13.4 and 4.4 acre parcels), available at http://web.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/2002sam/12032002.pdf (last visited Apr. 5, 2005).
[76]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 18, 2003), supra note 333, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jun. 24, 2003), supra note 333, at 12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 12, 2002), supra note 333, at 8-10; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 20, 2002), supra note 333, at 10-11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sep. 24, 2002), supra note 333, at 6-7; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 22, 2002), supra note 333, at 11-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 3, 2002), supra note 333, at 12-13.
[77]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 18, 2003), supra note 333, at 8-9.
[78]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jun. 24, 2003), supra note 333, at 12.
[79]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 18, 2003), supra note 333, at 8-9; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Jun. 24, 2003), supra note 333, at 12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 12, 2002), supra note 333, at 8-10; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Aug. 20, 2002), supra note 333, at 10-11; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Sep. 24, 2002), supra note 333, at 6-7; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Oct. 22, 2002), supra note 333, at 11-12; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Dec. 3, 2002), supra note 333, at 12-13.
[80]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Feb. 10, 2004), supra note 309, at 7-8 (“[W]orking with county council we determined that in order to take land out [of the Agricultural Preserve] we needed to go through the env. Review process under CEQA.”).
[81]See discussion supra Part III.B-C.
[82]See Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 25, 2003), supra note 309, at 10; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Feb. 10, 2004), supra note 309, at 7-8.
[83]Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Mar. 25, 2003), supra note 309, at 10; Merced County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (Feb. 10, 2004), supra note 309, at 7-8.
[84]O’Bryant Email, supra note 22.
[85]Id.
[86]See discussion supra Part V.
[87]See S.B. 985, § 1(a), (m), 1999 Leg., 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 1999) (establishing that the Williamson Act was intended to promote the long-term conservation of agricultural land), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0951- 1000/sb_985_bill_19991010_chaptered.html (last visited Apr. 5, 2005); see also discussion supra Parts I.C, III.A.
[88]See discussion supra Part I.C.
[89]People ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. Triplett, 48 Cal. App. 4th 233, 253 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1996) (citing Kim v. Servosnax, Inc., 10 Cal. App. 4th 1346, 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)).
[90] Id.
[91]Id.; Cal. Gov’t Code § 51237.5 (2004).
[92]Id.
[93]2004 Status Report, supra note 6, at 18.
[94]Id.