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