BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2011-2012 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: SB 860                    HEARING DATE: April 26, 2011  

          AUTHOR: Natural Resources and Water  URGENCY: No  
          VERSION: As Introduced             CONSULTANT: Newsha Ajami  
          DUAL REFERRAL: No                  FISCAL: No  
          SUBJECT: Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San 
          Francisco: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Candlestick Point: 
          mineral rights.  
          
          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          Tide and submerged lands are held in trust by the state for the 
          benefit of the people of California. The State Lands Commission 
          (SLC) is the steward and manager of the state's public trust 
          lands. SLC can grant trust lands to a local agency for 
          management under the public trust (granted lands). SLC can also 
          negotiate an exchange of public trust lands.

          In 2009, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed, such 
          a land grant and exchange in SB 792 (Leno) with the San 
          Francisco Redevelopment Agency, in order to reconfigure 
          Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard.

          PROPOSED LAW
          This bill proposes to amend Section 11 of SB 792 (2009) to 
          clarify the status of minerals and mineral rights under various 
          public trust land management strategies.

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
          According to Suter-Wallauch-Corbett and Associates on behalf of 
          the City and County of San Francisco, "ÝT]the City and the State 
          Lands Commission are concerned that the words "any other 
          conveyance" could be construed as including the conveyance of 
          lands in which the trust is to be terminated.  This would be 
          contrary to the approach generally taken in trust exchanges, in 
          which the State does not reserve mineral rights in lands 
          exchanged out of the trust. SB 860 clarifies that the mineral 
          rights reservation applies only to lands impressed with the 
                                                                      1







          trust."
          
          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None received.

          COMMENTS 

           The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the statue 
           SB 792 was unclear on how mineral rights were affected by this 
          grant and land exchange. The intention of the state in this 
          exchange is as follows:
             1.   Granted lands- mineral rights stay with the state.
             2.   Exchanged lands- mineral rights go to whichever party 
               owns the title to the land. This is consistent with SLC's 
               general practice of land exchange to keep management of the 
               exchanged lands clean and straight forward. 


          The proposed bill clarifies that the state holds the mineral 
          rights for all the lands impressed with the public trust and the 
          amendment is declaratory of existing law. 


           Are there any minerals in these lands?
           It is worth mentioning that both Candlestick and Hunters Point 
          Naval Shipyard are landfills and are unlikely to include any 
          minerals.

               
          SUPPORT
          City and County of San Francisco

          OPPOSITION
          None Received













                                                                      2