BILL ANALYSIS
AB 240
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 240 (Monning) - As Introduced: February 10, 2009
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 10-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the terms of a previously authorized
disposition of state-owned and state-leased real property in the
City of Santa Cruz.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible fiscal impact. The bill only changes the mechanism of
a previously authorized disposition.
COMMENTS
1)Background . The state received 122 acres of the DeLaveaga
property in 1899 as a donation from the City for use by the
state National Guard. In 1967, the City leased an 83-acre
portion of this state-owned parcel for use as a part of a golf
course. (The remainder of the DeLaveaga property is city-owned
and used for the golf course and other recreation purposes.)
In return, the state leased from the City a separate, 98-acre
portion of the DeLaveaga property. (In reality, the state has
never used this open space parcel for any purpose.)
SB 770 (McPherson)/Chapter 188 of 1999, obligated the state to
immediately transfer the 83-acre golf course site to the City.
When it is no longer needed by the Military Department, the
remainder of the state-owned land (about 39 acres) would also
return to the City at no cost, but only for public recreation
purposes. As compensation for the 83 acres, the City would
transfer to the state the 98-acre parcel currently leased to
the state. Due to a number of circumstances, that bill was not
implemented. Both the City and DGS have reinstituted
AB 240
Page 2
discussions on effectuating a transfer.
2)Purpose . AB 240 would restructure the provisions of SB 770 as
follows:
a) Instead of the city giving the 98 acres of essentially
vacant land to the state, the city quitclaims its rights to
the other (39-acre) state-owned parcel.
b) The city would obtain first right on the 39-acre
state-owned property (when no longer needed by the state),
through sale or lease, and for public recreation purposes.
The bill also clarifies that the city could continue using
the armory building as a homeless shelter.
c) If the city did not exercise this right, then the state
could sell or lease to another party, but the land would
still have to be used for public recreation purposes.
3)Prior Legislation . This bill is almost identical to AB 1438
(Laird) of 2006 and AB 2472 (Laird) of 2008, which were both
vetoed because the governor objected that neither bill
included a provision exempting the property disposition from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The governor has used a similar argument to veto several
surplus state property bills in recent years. However, ABX2 8
(Nestande)/Chapter 6 of 2009, a trailer bill to the recently
enacted 2009-10 Budget Act, established a permanent CEQA
exemption for state surplus property sales in a manner that
presumably addresses the governor's concerns.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081