BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| 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, "�T]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