BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Bill No: SB
1428
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
Staff Analysis
SB 1428 Author: Evans
As Introduced: February 21, 2014
Hearing Date: April 8, 2014
Consultant: Paul Donahue
SUBJECT
Sonoma Developmental Center: Land use
DESCRIPTION
Requires State Department of Developmental Services (DDS)
and the Department of General Services (DGS) to confer and
cooperate with public and private entities prior to
completing a sale or major change of use for the Sonoma
Developmental Center (SDC). Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires DDS and DGS to confer and cooperate with public
and private entities, and develop an improvement and
redevelopment plan for the SDC, before devising or
carrying out plans for any sale, lease, transfer or major
change of use of any portion of the SDC.
2)Specifies that DDS and DGS shall at least meet with the
following entities:
a) Department of Fish and Wildlife
b) Department of Parks and Recreation
c) San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program of the State
Coastal Conservancy
d) Representatives of the County of Sonoma and other
local governmental entities
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageB
e) An organization or organizations representing
residents of the SDC
f) Other interested local entities and nonprofit
organizations.
3)Provides that the improvement and redevelopment plan may
include all of the following elements:
a) Development of new or improved public or private
core resident care facilities on the site.
b) Permanent protection, maintenance, operation, or
expansion of the wildlife habitat corridor through the
property connecting Sonoma Mountain and the Mayacamas
Range.
c) Creation of public recreational facilities.
d) Potential expansion of water supply facilities
consistent with natural resource protection.
EXISTING LAW
1)Gives DDS jurisdiction over state hospitals, referred to
as developmental centers (including the SDC), for
providing residential care to persons with developmental
disabilities.
2)Requires DDS to submit to the Legislature a detailed plan
containing specified information if DDS proposes the
closure of a state developmental center.<1>
3)Requires proceeds from the sale of surplus state
property, with specified exceptions, be used to pay the
principal and interest on the Economic Recovery Bond Act
of 2004.<2>
BACKGROUND
-------------------------
<1> Welfare & Inst. Code § 4474.1
<2> Proposition 60A, November 2004, SCA 18 (Johnson),
Resolution Chapter 103/04.
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageC
1)Author's statement : Current law provides a framework for
the DDS to follow in the event that a Developmental
Center is closed. However, according to a report of a
Taskforce on the Future of Developmental Centers, Sonoma
Developmental Center is facing significant changes to the
structure and model of how services will be provided and
will face a downsizing of population of residents.
Since this transition is not being termed "closure," the
center is not protected by the parameters in current law.
Therefore, in order to protect the community interest in
the land of SDC, SB 1428 provides a framework for the
Department to follow to ensure that the community is
consulted and heard from in the development of land use
plan relative to SDC.
2)Background : Beginning with the enactment of the
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act<3> in the late 1960s,
the role of state hospitals/developmental centers has
been changing. According to DDS, the resident population
has dropped from a high in 1968 of 13,400, with thousands
on a waiting list for admission, to a total of 1,335
residents as of January 1, 2014. The population at each
of the four facilities, originally designed to serve
between 2,500 and 3,500 individuals, is now below 500 in
total population.<4> In addition, a Trailer Bill to the
2012-13 Budget imposed a moratorium on admissions to
Developmental Centers, except for individuals involved in
the criminal justice system and individuals in acute
crisis who need short-term stabilization. On average, 175
to 200 residents move out of a Developmental Center into
-------------------------
<3> Welfare & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq. Among other
things, the LPS Act preamble states that it intends to end
the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment
of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental
disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism,
and to eliminate legal disabilities; to provide prompt
evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental
disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism; and to provide
individualized treatment, supervision, and placement
services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled
persons. (Welfare & Inst. Code § 5001)
<4> Fairview Developmental Center has 318 residents and
Lanterman Developmental Center has 101 residents.
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageD
community-based services each year.
In light of the above realities, the DDS believes that
the Developmental Centers will need to transition away
from the large, 24-hour nursing and intermediate care
facility service model to a new role, in which the State
operates a limited number of smaller, safety-net crisis
and residential services, coupled with specialized health
care resource centers and public/private partnerships.
3)Taskforce on the Future of Developmental Centers : In a
recent report<5> to the Legislature, the Task Force
convened by the Health and Human Services Agency made six
consensus recommendations. Among the recommendations were
that the state should consider developing a health
resource center on state Developmental Center properties
to address the complex health needs of Developmental
Center residents who transition to community homes. The
Task Force also recommended that the State enter into
public / private partnerships to provide integrated
community services on existing State lands, where
appropriate.
4)Sonoma Developmental Center : According to a separate DDS
Task Force study on the land and infrastructure of the
remaining state developmental centers, the SDC has
previously disposed of 740.83 of its original 1669.93
acres by transferring land for state and county parks and
conservation easements. The remaining acreage, which
consists of 863.21 acres, is considered fully utilized.
The Task Force report identifies the important state
water rights that run with the land and are part and
parcel of the SDC property. Of particular import are the
significant riparian and pre-1914 appropriated water
rights, as well as licensed appropriated water diversion
and storage rights that were appropriated by the state in
------------------------
<5>
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/DCTFDocs/PlanfortheFutureofDevelopmen
talCenters.pdf
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageE
the 1930's.<6> The Task Force report notes that SDC needs
to replace a Sonoma Creek water diversion infrastructure
(the majority of SDC's appropriated water rights) to
avoid forfeiture.
In light of the significant water rights and attendant
obligations outlined above, it would seem especially
important that all parties to any real property
transactions preserve and properly manage these important
water rights, and for the state to obtain the fair market
value in the event of any conveyances by the state of any
rights, title, or interests in the land to any local
agency and/or private entity.
5)Support : Writing in support, the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors notes that the SDC provides an extensive
array of services that promote ongoing health, learning,
self-advocacy, and increased independence - but in
addition, SDC serves as a significant scenic and
environmental resource being adjacent to park land, water
resources, etc. The Board states that SB 1428 will ensure
that the local community is able to participate in the
planning for ongoing use of the SDC facilities and land,
and provides an avenue for the individuals and families
directly affected to be heard on the future disposition
of SDC.
6)Suggested amendment : SB 1428 requires DDS and DGS to
confer and cooperate with public and private entities,
and develop an improvement and redevelopment plan for the
SDC, before devising or carrying out plans for any sale,
lease, transfer or major change of use of any portion of
the SDC.
However, this bill should be amended to make it clear
that this multiagency responsibility to develop
improvement and redevelopment plans is not triggered when
DDS exercises its existing statutory responsibilities
pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 4474.1 to
submit a detailed plan to the Legislature whenever it
proposes the closure of a state developmental center.
-------------------------
<6> Back-up water supplies are provided by a connection
with the Sonoma County Water Agency and an emergency
inter-tie connection with the Valley of the Moon Water
District.
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageF
PRIOR/RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 1344 (Evans), 2013-2014 Session. Requires DDS to
establish the SDC as the center of last resort for Northern
California, and to confer and cooperate with the County of
Sonoma to develop a detailed action plan, as specified,
prior to establishing the Sonoma Developmental Center as a
center of last resort and would require the County of
Sonoma to ensure the inclusion and participation of certain
community entities, including consumers living in SDC.
(Pending in Senate Human Services Committee)
AB 2349 (Yamada), 2013-2014 Session. Establishes the Office
of Community Care Coordination within DDS, and would
require the office to develop a plan that addresses, among
other things, the operation of at least 2 acute crisis
clinics, as specified. The bill would also require the
office to identify which modifications are necessary to
enable the SDC to operate as a placement of last resort and
as an acute crisis clinic. (Pending in Assembly Human
Services Committee)
SB 1392 (Pavley), 2011-2012 Session. Would have authorized
the lease of surplus property at state hospitals /
developmental centers, and would have created the
Californians with Developmental Disabilities Fund for
deposit of the generated revenue. (Held in Assembly
Appropriations Committee)
AB 2279 (Evans), Chapter 595, Statutes of 2010. Authorizes
DGS to sell or exchange, at fair market value based upon an
appraisal approved by DGS, all or part of a specified
parcel of state property only to the County of Napa upon
terms, conditions, reservations, and exceptions that DGS
determines are in the best interest of the state, by
January 1, 2015. Requires any agreement for the sale or
exchange of the property to include a provision that
requires the County of Napa to retain title to the property
for use as a park or wilderness preserve, or in the event
of a future sale of that property by the county.
SB 1226 (Chesbro), 2005-2006 Session. Among other things,
would have required an agreement to sell 850 acres of
property (Napa State Hospital) to include a requirement
that the property continue to be used as a park and
wilderness preserve. (Died, Assembly Third Reading)
SB 1428 (Evans) continued
PageG
AB 955 (Wiggins), 2003-2004 Session. Would have required
surplus property of SDC to be transferred to the Department
of Parks and Recreation and annexed to Jack London State
Park. (Vetoed)
SUPPORT:
County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors
Sonoma Development Center
Sonoma Land Trust
OPPOSE:
None on file
FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations Committee
**********