BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 240|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 240
Author: Monning (D)
Amended: 7/23/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 11-0, 7/8/09
AYES: Wright, Harman, Benoit, Calderon, Denham, Florez,
Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Price, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza, Wiggins
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 04/13/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Conveyances: DeLaveaga Park
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill revises the terms of a previously
authorized exchange of DeLaveaga Park parcels, currently
owned by the State of California and the City of Santa
Cruz, respectively, in accordance with the current needs of
the State and City.
ANALYSIS : Existing law generally requires the Department
of General Services (DGS) to perform various functions with
respect to state property and provides for the sale, lease,
or transfer of surplus state property. Existing law
requires the state to exchange with the City of Santa Cruz,
state-owned property that is currently leased to the City
CONTINUED
AB 240
Page
2
of Santa Cruz, and which is being used as a portion of the
DeLaveaga Golf Course, for City of Santa Cruz owned
property leased to the National Guard for training
purposes. Further, existing law requires the state to
convey to the City of Santa Cruz the armory site if it is
deemed to be surplus to the needs of the state and will be
used in perpetuity for recreational purposes.
Existing law requires the Director of DGS to request
authorization by the Legislature prior to the disposition
by sale or otherwise of state land reported to it by a
state agency as being in excess of its foreseeable needs.
Each state agency is required to annually review
proprietary state lands under its jurisdiction to determine
what lands are in excess of the agency's foreseeable needs
and to report to DGS.
This annual review of proprietary state lands does not
apply to tax-deeded land, land held for highway purposes,
lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission,
land that has escheated to the state or that has been
distributed to the state by a court decree in estates of
deceased persons, and lands under the jurisdiction of the
State Coastal Conservancy. Jurisdiction of all land
reported as excess is transferred to DGS, when requested by
the Director of DGS, for sale or disposition under Section
11011 of the Government Code or as may otherwise be
authorized by law.
Section 11011 of the Government Code provides criteria for
state agencies to use in determining and reporting to DGS
lands in excess of the agency's foreseeable needs. A state
agency is to include land not currently being utilized, or
currently being underutilized, for any existing or ongoing
program; land for which the agency has not identified any
specific utilization relative to future needs; and land not
identified by the agency within its master plan for
facility development.
Where applicable within its jurisdiction under Section
11011, DGS is responsible for determining if surplus land
is needed by any other state agency. Section 11011.1
requires the state to first offer surplus state real
property to local agencies, and next, to offer the property
AB 240
Page
3
to nonprofit affordable housing sponsors, as defined, prior
to offering the property to private entities. This section
of law also prescribes the procedure for local agencies and
nonprofit affordable housing sponsors to use to obtain the
surplus state real property.
Proposition 60A of November 2004 (SCA 18 [Johnson],
Resolution chapter 103, Statutes of 2004), which was
adopted by the electorate (73 percent margin) requires,
among other things, that the 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.
This bill:
1.Describes the portion of real property within the
DeLaveaga park Property leased to the City of Santa Cruz
as comprising approximately 40 acres, referred to as the
"armory site."
2.Authorizes DGS to convey its interest in the DeLaveaga
Golf Course property to the City of Santa Cruz in return
for eliminating the requirement to transfer surplus state
property owned by the National Guard (armory site) to the
City of Santa Cruz.
3.Authorizes DGS to give the City of Santa Cruz the first
right to acquire in fee or by leasehold, all or part of
the armory site, subject to the condition that it will be
used for public recreational purposes, affordable
housing, or other local governmental uses in perpetuity.
4.Makes it explicit that the state's conveyance to the City
of Santa Cruz shall be subject to terms and conditions
that the Director of DGS deems is in the best interests
of the state, shall include the requirement that the real
property shall be used as a municipally owned public golf
course for as long as the city determines and thereafter
used, in perpetuity, as a municipally owned public
recreational area.
Background
AB 240
Page
4
According to the author's office, "The property comprising
DeLaveaga park was originally owned by Jose DeLaveaga.
Upon his death in the last 1800s, the property was willed
to the City of Santa Cruz and to the County of Santa Cruz.
On May 27, 1898, the San Francisco Superior Court settled
the resulting litigation, determining that the city and
county jointly owned the DeLaveaga property.
"In 1899, the Legislature authorized a National Guard 'camp
of instruction' and authorized the state to accept
donations of land. On March 4, 1899, the city and county
donated a portion of the DeLaveaga property to the state
for the military's 'cam of instruction.'
"On August 2, 1966, the county transferred its rights in
the property to the city subject to the condition that the
property shall always be used for park and recreational
purposes.
"In 1967, when the city wanted to construct a municipally
owned golf course on the DeLaveaga property, the State and
City signed a lease exchange agreement. Under the terms of
that agreement, on June 29, 1967, the city leased 83 acres
to the state-owned DeLaveaga property for use as a part of
the golf course and the state leased 98 acres of city-owned
DeLaveaga property for military use. The lease exchange
agreement, which is a contract that remains in effect,
obligates the parties to effectuate an 'in fee' exchange.
"In 1999, the City approached then-Senator McPherson with a
legislative proposal to effectuate the 'in fee' swap. That
bill, SB 770, passed the Legislature and was signed by the
Governor (Chapter 188, Statutes of 1999). Under SB 770,
the state was obligated to transfer to the City of Santa
Cruz the 83 acres golf course site immediately. When it is
no longer needed as a camp of instruction by the Military
Department, the armory site would also return to the City.
The transfer was contingent on the land being used by the
City in perpetuity for either municipal golf or 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; however, the
City and DGS have since reinstituted discussions to
AB 240
Page
5
effectuate a transfer.
Comments
According to the author's office, this bill restructures
the 1999 statute
(SB 770 - McPherson) that provided for the original
exchange of the property by providing that instead of the
city giving the 98 acres of essentially vacant land to the
state, the city would quitclaim its rights to the armory
buildings and lands and authorize the transfer, exchange or
lease at a later date if it is no longer needed as a camp
of instruction by the Military Department. Any subsequent
use would be for "public recreation" as provided incurrent
law. Additionally, the city would obtain first right for
any lease or sale of the armory property (when no longer
needed by the state.
Prior/Related Legislation
This bill is nearly identical to AB 2472 of 2008 and AB
1438 of 2007, both of which were authored by Assemblyman
Laird and vetoed by the Governor on the basis that neither
measure contained a statutory exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Governor's veto
message stated "there is no reason to apply CEQA to
properties that are being sold. CEQA is properly applied
when the use and zoning of real property is exchanged not
when it is simply sold."
AB 8XX (Nestande), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2009, Second
Extraordinary Session, established a permanent CEQA
exemption for state surplus property sales that addressed
the Governor's concerns.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/09)
City of Santa Cruz
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AB 240
Page
6
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning,
Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Davis, Harkey
TSM:cm 8/21/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****