BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 1124 HEARING DATE: April 13, 2010 AUTHOR: Negrete McLeod URGENCY: No VERSION: April 6, 2010 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Land conservation: California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW In 1988, the voters passed Proposition 70, titled the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act. Proposition 70 provided $776 million for various land conservation purposes. Paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 5907 of Proposition 70 approved $185.4M of bond monies to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) for specified grants to local agencies, including a $20M grant to the County of San Bernardino for the acquisition of land primarily through the use of conservation easements within the Chino Agricultural Preserve. Section 5919 required that any applicant for grants under Prop 70 agree to maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored with the bond dollars in perpetuity. AB 2063 (Negrete McLeod, 2004) authorized the County of San Bernardino to sell property acquired with Proposition 70 dollars if the following conditions are met: All proceeds from the sale are used to acquire replacement land within the Chino Agricultural Preserve. The county prepares a detailed land plan indicating the properties to be sold and acquired and is approved by the Board of Supervisors. There is no net loss in acreage or habitat value as a result of the exchange. The county holds a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors to review the land plan. The county receives independent appraisal of the lands to be sold and acquired and makes these appraisals available to the public. 1 Agricultural conservation easements must be recorded on all newly acquired land at the time of purchase and recorded on previously acquired property within 60 days of the approval of the land plan. Easements do not need to be placed on lands identified for sale in the land plan. To date, San Bernardino has not taken any action to exercise this land exchange authority. Section 815.5 of the Civil Code requires that conservation easements be recorded with the county recorder of the county where the land is situated. PROPOSED LAW This bill would require that all grantees of funds from Section 5907(b)(3) of Proposition 70 to record an easement by July 1, 2011 on all property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored, if the grantee committed to place that easement. The conservation easement must be approved by DPR and must provide that the property will be maintained and operated in perpetuity. The only grant likely affected by this bill is the $20M grant to San Bernardino for land acquisitions within the Chino Agricultural Preserve. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT The author states that Proposition 70 required that all property purchased with the bond monies be protected and maintained in perpetuity. "Unfortunately, not all of the land purchased with Prop 70 has been protected as intended. San Bernardino County is a case in point. The County purchased 37.26 acres for the Chino Agricultural Preserve in 1991 but still has not taken the necessary actions to place the easement on the land." The author refers to a County resolution and correspondence from DPR to the county indicating the county's obligation to place easements on the purchased properties, however easements have not yet been placed. The author contends that SB 1124 will remedy this problem. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The County of San Bernardino opposes this bill because they believe this bill will hamper their plans to conduct a land exchange, as authorized by AB 2063, in order to create a consolidated section of preserved land within the Chino and Ontario agricultural preserves where they plan to construct a Cultural Heritage Center. The county contends that, "The current Proposition 70 properties are loosely situated and have created isolated parcels, some of which lack public access. The sporadic 2 location of these properties have no public value." COMMENTS To place an easement or not to place an easement, that is the question: In recognition of the requirement to protect land purchased with Prop 70 monies in perpetuity, the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 91-334 on October 7, 1991 resolving that the easements will be placed on property acquired with the grant. Even though it has been 16 years since the contracted project period ended, easements have yet to be recorded. According to committee staff discussions with the county, the county is unwilling to place these easements, despite previously agreeing to do so, because these easements will reduce the properties' value. And the loss in proceeds will hamper the county's ability to conduct a consolidated land swap as authorized by AB 2063 in order to construct an agricultural themed recreation park with museums, discover center, library, retail and restaurants. The county has cited several reasons to the committee on why they have not yet taken meaningful actions to use their authorized land swap authority, including their perception that the AB 2063 requirements are unreasonable. The county's desire to create the Center for Agricultural Heritage may not be relevant however, because DPR has found the county's plan to be an inappropriate use of Prop 70 funds. In a letter dated April 5, 2010 from DPR to the county, DPR states, "The plan submitted does not adhere to the intent of the specified grant program that funded the [Chino Agricultural Preserve] land acquisition. Prop 70, AB 2063, and the grant contract provisions indicate that this land must be acquired under a conservation easement for agricultural purposes." Because of the DPR's concerns on the proposed land exchange and conversion and the fact that the county has not either placed easements on the purchased properties or submitted timeline for doing so, DPR has initiated an audit review of the county's grant. Bigger Issues? The author's original intent of this bill is to spur the county to either place easements on the properties purchased with their grant monies or to take concrete steps to begin actions on a consolidation plan. In doing so, the author has raised multiple issues including whether the county's consolidation plan is legitimate. However, this bill has also revealed larger issues with the county's actions, including: 3 The county's opposition letter states that the current properties have no public value, begging the question of why the county purchased these lands in the first place? DPR's contract with the county requires that land acquired under Proposition 70 be available to "reasonable public access" except where access interferes with habitat protection. According to the county's opposition letter, some of these properties have no public access, further questioning the county's compliance with the grant contract provisions. Proposition 70 directed the county to acquire property mainly through the use of conservation easements, yet the county only used the funds for fee title purchases. Is this bill needed? This bill would put yet another requirement on the county to place easements on the properties that it purchased with Prop 70 monies with a July 1, 2011 deadline. The committee may find that this requirement is redundant and no more likely to compel the county into action than the existing agreements, especially given that DPR is initiating an audit. The committee also might want to consider whether forcing easements to be placed on land characterized by the county as having "no public value" is ultimately the most desirable outcome, or whether it would be more desirable for DPR to require that the grant funds be returned to the state. However, given the long history of this issue, the committee may consider allowing this bill to move forward as a way of adding additional pressure on the county to settle this issue and to serve as a vehicle for any legislative changes recommended by the audit, should it be finished quickly. The committee may wish to receive the author's commitment to keep the committee informed of progress on this matter and to bring this bill back to this committee for further review should the bill be ultimately needed. SUPPORT California Council of Land Trusts Planning and Conservation League OPPOSITION County of San Bernardino 4