| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company's land is subject to water contracts of which $10,194,000 is expected to be paid in 2021. These estimated water contract payments consist of SWP, contracts with Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Dudley-Ridge Water Storage District and the Nickel water contract. The SWP contracts run through 2035 and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. As discussed in Note 6 (Long-Term Water Assets), the Company purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel and obligates the Company to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually through the term of the contract. The Company's contractual obligation for future water payments was $276,146,000 as of December 31, 2020 . The Company is obligated to make payments of approximately $800,000 during 2021 to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy as prescribed in the Conservation Agreement that was entered into with five major environmental organizations in 2008. These advances to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy are dependent on the occurrence of certain events and their timing, and are therefore subject to change in amount and period. These amounts paid will be capitalized in real estate development for the Centennial, Grapevine and Mountain Village, or MV, projects. The Company exited a consulting contract during the second quarter of 2014 related to the Grapevine Development and is obligated to pay an earned incentive fee at the time of successful receipt of litigated project entitlements and at a value measurement date five years after litigated entitlements have been achieved for Grapevine. The final amount of the incentive fees will not be finalized until the future payment dates. The Company believes that net savings from exiting the contract over this future time period will more than offset the incentive payment costs. The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. For the development of TRCC, TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs: the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $28,620,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $75,965,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $44,035,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future. In connection with the sale of bonds, there is a standby letter of credit for $4,468,000 related to the issuance of East CFD bonds. The standby letter of credit is in place to provide additional credit enhancement and cover approximately two years' worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest landowner in the CFD, fails to make its property tax payments. The Company believes that the letter of credit will never be drawn upon. The letter of credit is for two years and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $68,000. The Company is obligated, as a landowner in each CFD, to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure costs related to the TRCC-West development. At December 31, 2020 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from both of the West CFD bonds and East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during future years. During 2020, the Company paid approximately $2,550,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time because it is based on the current tax rate and the assessed value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company is not required to recognize an obligation at December 31, 2020. Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Approval In July 2014, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Sue, dated July 17, 2014 indicating that the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, the Wishtoyo Foundation and Dee Dominguez (collectively the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs) intended to initiate a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or USFWS, challenging USFWS's approval of the Company's Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, or TUMSHCP, and USFWS's issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, or ITP, for the take of federally listed species. The TUMSHCP approval and ITP issuance by the USFWS occurred in 2013. These approvals authorize, among other things, the removal of California condor habitat associated with the Company's potential future development of MV. On April 25, 2019, the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs filed suit against the USFWS in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles (Case No. 2:19-CV-3322) (the TUMSHCP Suit). The Company was not initially named as a party in the TUMSHCP Suit and brought a motion to intervene, which the court granted. The TUMSHCP Suit sought to invalidate the TUMSHCP as it pertains to the protection of the California condor (an endangered species), as well as the ITP. The primary allegations in the TUMSHCP Suit are that California condors or their habitat are “Traditional Cultural Properties” within the meaning of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), that the USFWS failed to take into account the impact of the TUMSHCP and ITP on these “Traditional Cultural Properties” and failed to adequately consult with affected Native American tribes or their representatives with respect to these “Traditional Cultural Properties.” Management considers the allegations in the TUMSHCP Suit to be beyond the scope of the law and regulations referenced in the TUMSHCP Suit, and believes that the issues raised by the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs were adequately addressed by USFWS during the consultation process with Native American tribes. The Company has supported USFWS's efforts to vigorously defend this matter during the course of this litigation. In a December 18, 2019 ruling, the court ordered that the parties proceed to bring motions for summary judgment on the question of whether the USFWS correctly determined that the California condor is not a “Traditional Cultural Property” under the NHPA. In response to this order, both the TUMSCHP Plaintiffs and the USFWS and the Company filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 4, 2020 the court issued an order denying, in its entirety, the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted, in their entirety, USFWS and the Company’s motions for summary judgment. On December 18, 2020, the Company brought a motion to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, as the prevailing party, against the TUMSCHP Plaintiffs. On February 2, 2021, the court denied the fee motion. Following the court’s ruling on the fee motion, on February 2, 2021, Plaintiff’s notified the court of its intent to appeal the court’s ruling on its claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has issued a preliminary briefing schedule that requires opening and responsory briefs to be filed in April and May 2021. The appeal will be heard by the court following briefing, and the court will rule following the hearing. National Cement The Company leases land to National Cement Company of California Inc., or National, for the purpose of manufacturing Portland cement from limestone deposits on the leased acreage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or RWQCB, for the Lahontan Region issued orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National. The Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, and current tenant National, continue to remediate these environmental conditions consistent with the RWQCB orders. The Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with directives of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising out of their use of the leased premises. The remediation of environmental conditions is included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If the Company were required to remediate the environmental conditions at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material and there is no reasonable likelihood of continuing risk from this matter. Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases On November 29, 2004, a conglomerate of public water suppliers filed a cross-complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against landowners and others with interest in the groundwater basin within the Antelope Valley (including the Company) seeking a judicial determination of the rights to groundwater within the Antelope Valley basin, including the groundwater underlying the Company’s land near the Centennial project. Four phases of a multi-phase trial have been completed. Upon completion of the third phase, the court ruled that the groundwater basin was in overdraft and established a current total sustainable yield. The fourth phase of trial occurred in the first half of 2013 and resulted in confirmation of each party’s groundwater pumping for 2011 and 2012. The fifth phase of the trial commenced in February 2014 and concerned 1) whether the United States has a federal reserved water right to basin groundwater, and 2) the rights to return flows from imported water. The court heard evidence on the federal reserved right but continued the trial on the return flow issues while most of the parties to the adjudication discussed a settlement, including rights to return flows. In February 2015, more than 140 parties representing more than 99% of the current water use within the adjudication boundary agreed to a settlement. On March 4, 2015, the settling parties, including Tejon, submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution to the court for approval. On December 23, 2015, the court entered judgment approving the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution, or the Judgment. The Company’s water supply plan for the Centennial project anticipated reliance on, among other sources, a certain quantity of groundwater underlying the Company’s lands in the Antelope Valley. The Company’s allocation in the Judgment is consistent with that amount. Prior to the Judgment becoming final, on February 19 and 22, 2016, several parties, including the Willis Class, Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District (Phelan), and Charles Tapia (Tapia) filed notices of appeal from the Judgment (collectively, the Phelan Appeal). The Appeal has been transferred from the Fourth Appellate District of California to the Fifth Appellate District. Appellate briefing is complete. On November 9, 2020, the court heard oral argument on the Phelan appeal. On December 9, 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Judgment as to the Phelan Appeal. The decision became final in January. The Willis Class appeal is scheduled for oral argument in February 2021, and decision will be made within 90 days thereafter. Oral argument on the Tapia appeal is scheduled for March 10, 2021. Following oral argument, the court will likely take the matters under submission and issue one or more opinions within 90 days thereafter. Notwithstanding the appeals, the parties, with assistance from the court, have established the Watermaster Board, hired the Watermaster Engineer and Watermaster Legal Counsel, and begun administering the physical solution consistent with the Judgment. Summary and Status of Kern Water Bank Lawsuits On June 3, 2010, the Central Delta and South Delta Water Agencies and several environmental groups, including CBD, collectively, the Central Delta Petitioners, filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court, or the Central Delta Action, against the California Department of Water Resources, or DWR, Kern County Water Agency, or KCWA, and a number of “real parties in interest,” including the Company and TCWD. The lawsuit challenges certain amendments to the SWP contracts that were originally approved in 1995, known as the Monterey Amendments. The Central Delta Petitioners sought to invalidate the DWR's approval of the Monterey Amendments and also the 2010 environmental impact report, or 2010 EIR, regarding the Monterey Amendments prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, pertaining to the Kern Water Bank, or KWB. Pursuant to the Monterey Amendments, DWR transferred approximately 20,000 acres in Kern County owned by DWR, or KWB property, to the KCWA. A separate but parallel lawsuit, or Central Delta II, was also filed by the Central Delta Petitioners in Kern County Superior Court on July 2, 2010, against KCWA, also naming the Company and TCWD as real parties in interest. Central Delta II challenged the validity of the transfer of the KWB property from the KCWA to the Kern Water Bank Authority, or KWBA. The petitioners in this case alleged that (i) the transfer of the KWB property by KCWA to the KWBA was an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and (ii) the consideration for the transfer of the KWB property to the KWBA was unconscionable and illusory. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Central Delta Action. In addition, another lawsuit was filed in Kern County Superior Court on June 3, 2010, by two districts adjacent to the KWB, namely Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista Water Storage Districts (collectively, the Rosedale Petitioners), asserting that the 2010 EIR did not adequately evaluate potential impacts arising from operations of the KWB, or Rosedale Action, but this lawsuit did not name the Company: it only named TCWD. TCWD has a contract right for water stored in the KWB and rights to recharge and withdraw water. This lawsuit was later moved to the Sacramento County Superior Court. In the Central Delta Action and Rosedale Action, the trial courts concluded that the 2010 EIR for the Monterey Amendments was insufficient with regard to the EIR's evaluation of the potential impacts of the operation of the KWB, particularly on groundwater and water quality, and ruled that DWR was required to prepare a remedial EIR (which is further described below). In the Central Delta Action, the trial court also concluded that the challenges to DWR’s 1995 approval of the Monterey Amendments were barred by statutes of limitations and laches. The Central Delta Petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court Judgment, and certain real parties filed a cross-appeal. No party appealed the Kern County Superior Court Judgment in the Rosedale Action. On November 24, 2014, the Sacramento County Superior Court in the Central Delta Action issued a writ of mandate, or 2014 Writ, that required DWR to prepare a revised EIR (described herein as the 2016 EIR because it was certified in 2016) regarding the Monterey Amendments evaluating the potential operational impacts of the KWB. The 2014 Writ, as revised by the court, required DWR to certify the 2016 EIR and file the response to the 2014 Writ by September 28, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the Director of DWR (a) certified the 2016 EIR prepared by DWR as in compliance with CEQA, (b) adopted findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program as required by CEQA, (c) made a new finding pertaining to carrying out the Monterey Amendments through continued use and operation of the KWB by the KWBA, and (d) caused a notice of determination to be filed with the Office of Planning and Resources of the State of California on September 22, 2016. On September 28, 2016, DWR filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court its return to the 2014 Writ in the Central Delta Action. On October 21, 2016, the Central Delta Petitioners and a new party, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) (collectively, the CFS Petitioners), filed a new lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, (the CFS Action), against DWR and naming a number of real parties in interest, including KWBA and TCWD (but not including the Company). The CFS Action challenges DWR’s (i) certification of the 2016 EIR, (ii) compliance with the 2014 Writ and CEQA, and (iii) finding concerning the continued use and operation of the KWB by KWBA. On October 2, 2017, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued a ruling that the court shall deny the CFS petition and shall discharge the 2014 Writ. The CFS Petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment denying the CFS petition. The Third Appellate District of the Court of Appeal granted DWR’s motion to consolidate the CFS Action appeal for hearing with the pending appeals in the Central Delta Action. Briefing on all of the appeals and cross-appeals is now complete. At this time, the Company anticipates having a ruling from the Court of Appeal on these consolidated appeals of the CFS Action and the Central Delta Action sometime in 2021, but there is a possibility that the court’s hearing and disposition of the pending appeals could be delayed by the closure of the courts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To the extent there may be an adverse outcome of the claims still pending as described above, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time Grapevine On December 6, 2016, the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously granted entitlement approval for the Grapevine project. On January 5, 2017, the CBD and CFS, filed an action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors, or collectively, the County, concerning the County’s granting of the 2016 approvals for the Grapevine project, including certification of the final EIR (the 2017 Action). The Company was named as a real party in interest in the 2017 Action. The 2017 Action alleged that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, traffic, water supply and hydrology, growth inducing impacts, failure to adequately consider project alternatives and to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR and failure to adequately describe the environmental setting and project description. Petitioners sought to invalidate the County’s approval of the project and the environmental approvals and require the Company and the County to revise the environmental documentation. On July 27, 2018, the court held a hearing on the petitioners’ claims in the 2017 Action. At that hearing, the court rejected all of petitioners’ claims raised in the litigation, except petitioners’ claims that (i) the project description was inadequate and (ii) such inadequacy resulted in aspects of certain environmental impacts being improperly analyzed. As to the claims described in “(i)” and “(ii)” in the foregoing sentence, the court determined that the EIR was inadequate. In that regard, the court determined the Grapevine project description contained in the EIR allowed development to occur in the time and manner determined by the real parties in interest and, as a consequence, such development flexibility could result in the project’s internal capture rate, or ICR, of the percent of vehicle trips remaining within the project actually being lower than the projected ICR levels used in the EIR and that lower ICR levels warranted supplemental traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public health and growth inducing impact analyses. On December 11, 2018, the court in the 2017 Action ruled that portions of the EIR required corrections and supplemental environmental analysis and ordered that the County rescind the Grapevine project approvals until such supplemental environmental analysis was completed. The court issued a final judgment consistent with its ruling on February 15, 2019 and, on March 12, 2019, the County rescinded the Grapevine project approvals. Following the County’s rescission of the Grapevine project approvals, the Company filed new applications to re-entitle the Grapevine project (the re-entitlement). The re-entitlement application involved processing project approvals that were substantively similar to the Grapevine project that was unanimously approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors in December 2016. As part of the re-entitlement, supplemental environmental analysis was prepared to address the court’s ruling in the 2017 Action. Following a public comment and review period, the Kern County Planning Commission held a hearing on November 14, 2019 and unanimously recommended to the Kern County Board of Supervisors that it approve the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project. On December 10, 2019, the Kern County Board of Supervisors held a hearing and after considering the supplemental environmental analysis and material presented at the hearing unanimously voted to approve the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project. On January 9, 2020, the County filed a Supplemental and Final Return to Preemptory Writ of Mandate to inform the court of the re-entitlement in a manner that the County and the Company believes is compliant with the court’s February 15, 2019 final judgment in the 2017 Action. Concurrently, the County and the Company filed a Motion for Order Discharging Writ of Mandate, which requests that the court determine that the re-entitlement complies with the court’s February 15, 2019 final judgment in the 2017 Action (the Motion for Order to Discharge 2017 Writ of Mandate). A hearing was held on February 14, 2020 for this motion and is further summarized below. On January 10, 2020, CBD filed a new and separate action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA against the County, concerning the County’s approval of the December 2019 re-entitlement, including certification of the final EIR (the 2020 Action). The Company is named as real party in interest in the 2020 Action. The 2020 Action alleges that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA with respect to the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, public health, and traffic, and failed to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR. CBD seeks to invalidate the County’s approval of the re-entitlement, the environmental approvals for the re-entitlement and require the Company and the County to revise the environmental documentation. The Company intends to vigorously defend the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project against claims made in the 2020 Action. On January 22, 2020, the Company and County filed a demurrer and motion to strike the claims in the 2020 Action on the basis that the claims brought by CBD must be resolved by the court in the 2017 action, pursuant to the final judgment issued in the 2017 Action. The Company and County’s motion described in the previous sentence also included an alternative request that the court consolidate CBD’s claims in the 2020 Action with its disposition of any remaining matters relating to the 2017 Action. A hearing on these motions filed in the 2020 Action and on the Motion for Order Discharging Writ of Mandate (described above and relating to the 2017 Action) was held on February 14, 2020. At the hearing, the court granted the Company and County’s request to consolidate the 2020 Action with its adjudication of the Company and County’s compliance with the writ of mandate issued by the Court in the 2017 Action. The court denied, without prejudice, the Company’s and County’s motion to discharge the writ in the 2017 Action and their demurrer and motion to strike the claims in the 2020 Action, but the court further ruled that the Company and County could re-assert these arguments at a later date once additional evidence was before the court. On January 22, 2021 the court conducted a hearing on the 2020 Action and the Motion for Order to Discharge 2017 Writ of Mandate. At the January 22nd hearing, the court ruled in favor of the Company and the County on all issues: (1) granting the County’s Motion for Order to Discharge the 2017 Writ of Mandate and (2) rejecting each and every claim made by CDB in the 2020 Action. The court has directed the County and Company to prepare a final judgment reflecting its ruling in favor of the Company. Following the entry of a final judgment, any party may appeal the court’s decision. Centennial On April 30, 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted final entitlement approval for the Centennial project. On May 15, 2019, Climate Resolve filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court (the Climate Resolve Action) pursuant to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, LA County) concerning LA County’s granting of approvals for the Centennial project, including certification of the final environmental impact report and related findings (Centennial EIR); approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning; adoption of the Centennial Specific Plan; approval of a subdivision map for financing purposes; and adoption of a development agreement, among other approvals (collectively, the Centennial Approvals). Separately, on May 28, 2019, CBD and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the CBD/CNPS Action) against LA County; like the Climate Resolve Action, the CBD/CNPS Action also challenges the Centennial Approvals. The Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Tejon Ranchcorp, and Centennial Founders, LLC are named as real parties-in-interest in both the Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action collectively allege that LA County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action have been deemed “related” and have been consolidated for adjudication before the judge presiding over the Climate Resolve Action. The Climate Resolve Action and CBD/CNPS Action seek to invalidate the Centennial Approvals and require LA County to revise the environmental documentation related to the Centennial project. The court held three consolidated hearings for the CBD/CNPS Action and Climate Resolve Action on September 30, 2020, November 13, 2020 and January 8, 2021, but has not yet issued a ruling or judgment. Conservancy Litigation On December 2, 2020, conservation groups filed an action against the Company in Kern County Superior Court, alleging that, beginning October 1, 2020, the Company breached its obligation under the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (“RWA”) by failing to make advance payments for Q4 2020 to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (“Conservancy”) – a non-profit organization created under the RWA to oversee conservation of the protected lands at Tejon Ranch. As permitted by the RWA, the Company deposited the advance payments to the Conservancy into a third-party escrow pending a determination of the Company’s rights under the RWA. At December 31, 2020 the Company believes it has performed all its obligations under the RWA and has withheld the escrowed payments based on the self-dealing, conflicts of interest and violations of the terms of the RWA performed by the non-Company members of the board of directors of the Conservancy and representatives of signatories to the RWA. The Company will vigorously defend the action and does not believe that the resolution of this proceeding will result in a liability to the Company beyond the costs of suit and the Company’s escrow deposits which are included in the Company’s annual budgets. Proceedings Incidental to Business From time to time, the Company is involved in other proceedings incidental to its business, including actions relating to employee claims, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. |
