Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines terms for these purposes, including, among others, surplus land to mean land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agencys governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agencys use. Existing law defines exempt surplus land to mean, among other things, surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agencys use and surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another local, state, or federal agency for the agencys use. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for disposal of surplus land for exempt surplus land, except as provided.

This bill would provide, until December 31, 2033, January 1, 2024, that land that is subject to a sectional planning area, as described, that is acquired prior to January 1, 2019, and that met one of several specified conditions on January 1, 2019, is not subject to the above-described requirements for the disposal of surplus land. land if specified conditions are met. The bill would, commencing April 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, require a local agency that disposes of land pursuant to these provisions submit a specified report to the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would make a local agency that disposes of land in violation of these provisions liable for a civil penalty, as specified.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Chula Vista.

Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines terms for these purposes, including, among others, surplus land to mean land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agencys governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agencys use. Existing law defines exempt surplus land to mean, among other things, surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agencys use and surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another local, state, or federal agency for the agencys use. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for disposal of surplus land for exempt surplus land, except as provided.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Chula Vista.

Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines terms for these purposes, including, among others, surplus land to mean land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agencys governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agencys use. Existing law defines exempt surplus land to mean, among other things, surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agencys use and surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another local, state, or federal agency for the agencys use. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for disposal of surplus land for exempt surplus land, except as provided.

This bill would add to the definition of exempt surplus land land acquired by a local agency for the development of a university and innovation district in accordance with a sectional plan area (SPA) plan adopted by the local agency prior to January 1, 2019, provided that the land is developed in a manner substantially consistent with the SPA plan.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Chula Vista.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Surplus land: exempt surplus land: sectional planning area

Exempts the disposition of land subject to an existing section planning area document that meets specified conditions related to affordable housing from the Surplus Land Act.

Background

Surplus Land Act. Public agencies are major landlords in some communities, owning significant pieces of real estate. When properties become surplus to their needs, public officials want to sell the land to recoup their investments. The Surplus Land Act (SLA) spells out the steps local agencies must follow when they want to dispose of land. It requires local governments to give a “first right of refusal” to other governments and nonprofit housing developers, and to negotiate in good faith with them to try to come to agreement.

Before local officials can dispose of property, they must declare that the land is no longer needed for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” Agency use includes land that is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan the local agency’s governing board adopts, or is disposed of to support agency work or operations. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Utility sites;
• Watershed property;
• Land being used for conservation purposes;
• Land for demonstration, exhibition, or education purposes related to greenhouse gas emissions; and
• Buffer sites near sensitive governmental uses, including, waste water treatment plants.

Agency use cannot include commercial or industrial uses or activities. However, if the local agency is a district, agency use can include certain commercial or industrial uses if the agency’s governing body takes action in a public meeting that the use of the site will directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations, or be expressly authorized by a statute provided the district complies with specified affordable housing requirements.

The SLA designates certain types of land as “exempt surplus land,” which does not have to meet the requirements of the SLA. All other surplus land must follow the procedures laid out in the SLA before a local agency can sell it. Exempt surplus land includes:

• Land a city or county transfers for less than fair market value to provide affordable housing subject to various requirements.
• Land less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area or the minimum legal residential building lot size for the jurisdiction, whichever is less, that is not contiguous to land a state or local agency uses for open-space or affordable housing, and sold to an owner of contiguous land.
• Land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agency’s use, or transferring to another public entity or a federally recognized California Indian tribe.
• Land that is a former street, right-of-way, or easement, and the local agency conveys to an owner of an adjacent property.
• Land that is put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency, provided that it invites other governments and nonprofit housing developers to participate in the competitive bid process, for specified affordable housing projects.
• Land subject to valid legal restrictions that would make housing a prohibited use, unless the restrictions can be mitigated or avoided. This does not include nonresidential land use designations.
• Land the state granted in trust to a local agency, or that a local agency acquired for trust purposes, where statutory provisions apply.
• Land school entities own that is subject to specified statutory exemptions;
• Certain former military bases the federal government conveyed to a local agency.
• Real property a district uses for an agency’s use.
• Specified land the state transferred to a local agency before January 30, 2019, with at least 100 units per acre that meets certain affordability requirements.

Before agencies can enter into negotiations to sell surplus land, they must send a written notice of availability to various public agencies and nonprofit groups, referred to as “housing sponsors,” notifying them that land is available for the following purposes:

• Low- and moderate-income housing;
• Park and recreation, and open space;
• School facilities; or
• Infill opportunity zones or transit village plans.

Housing sponsors can notify the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) they are interested in acquiring surplus land to develop affordable housing. HCD maintains a list of notices of availability on its website.

If another agency or housing sponsor wants to buy or lease the surplus land for one of these purposes, it must tell the disposing agency within 60 days, and if multiple entities want to purchase the land, the housing sponsor that proposes to provide the greatest level of affordable housing gets priority. The agency and the housing sponsor then have an additional 90 days to negotiate a mutually satisfactory price and terms in good faith. If they cannot agree, the agency that owns the surplus land can sell the land on the private market. The SLA says nothing in its provisions prevents a local agency from disposing of the land at or below fair market value, where not in conflict with other law.

AB 1486 (Ting, 2019). In 2019, the Legislature substantially revised the SLA to increase the emphasis on affordable housing and address concerns that some local agencies were bypassing the SLA’s requirements (AB 1486, Ting). Among other changes, AB 1486 broadened the definition of surplus land and required land to be designated as surplus prior to the local agency selling the land, which ensures that local agencies must comply with the SLA. AB 1486 prohibited local agencies from counting the sale of land for economic development purposes as being “for the agency’s use.” This means that local agencies must open their properties up to affordable housing developers first, even if they have different purposes in mind for the property. Additionally, AB 1486 instituted a requirement that if a property sold as surplus is not sold to a housing sponsor, but housing is developed on it later, 15% of the units must be sold or rented at an affordable cost to lower income households.

Finally, AB 1486 imposed penalties on local agencies that dispose of surplus land in violation of the SLA totaling 30% of the sales price of land disposed of in violation of the SLA for a first violation, and 50% of the price of the land for subsequent violations. These penalty revenues must be deposited in a local housing trust fund. AB 1486 established an enforcement process, as follows:

• Prior to agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local agency must provide HCD a description of the notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted with any responding entities, in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land and a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, in a form prescribed by HCD.
• HCD must submit written findings to the local agency within 30 days of receipt of the description of the disposal if the proposed disposal of the land will violate SLA.
• A local agency has at least 60 days to respond to the findings before HCD may take further action. The local agency must consider findings made by HCD and then either correct any issues found by HCD or respond in writing why the disposal complied with the SLA.
• If the local agency does not respond or does not address the issues, HCD must notify the local government and may notify the Attorney General that the disposal violates the SLA.
• A local agency cannot be held liable for the penalties under the SLA if HCD does not notify the agency it is in violation within 30 days of receiving the description.

AB 1486 also provided certain projects could use the previous version of the SLA before AB 1486 amended it, if the local agency, as of September 30, 2019, entered into an exclusive negotiating, or legally binding, agreement to dispose of property, provided the local agency completed the disposition by December 31, 2022. AB 1486 included a similar provision for land held in a Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund, or designated in a long-range property management plan, for sale or retained for future development, so long as the local agency entered into the exclusive negotiating, or legally binding, agreement by December 31, 2020, and completes the disposition by December 31, 2022.

Subsequent measures have added additional projects that could use the previous version of the SLA before AB 1486 amended it, including:

• SB 51 (Durazo, 2021) provides that if a local agency issued a competitive request for proposals as of September 30, 2019, that included at least 100 residential units and at least 25% of the total units are restricted to lower income housing , then the property is not subject to changes made to the SLA by AB 1486 (Ting).
• AB 175 (Committee on Budget, 2021) allowed a similar exemption for land entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement to dispose of property related to the Metro North Hollywood Joint Development Project, provided it completes disposition no later than December 31, 2024.
• SB 1373 (Kamlager, 2021) extends by two years (until December 31, 2024) the deadlines in the SLA to complete disposition of a property subject to an exclusive negotiating agreement for a charter city with a population of over two million people.

City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista is a charter city, and San Diego County’s second largest city, with just over 275,000 residents. The City has long hoped to attract a university. On October 28, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to implement this vision. Chula Vista and San Diego County jointly adopt and amend the GDP/SRP, which functions as a general plan level document for both the county and the city. Land use planning within the area must be consistent with the GDP/SRP. To help ensure consistency with the GDP/SRP, the City requires the preparation and adoption of “Sectional Planning Area” plans, and the County of San Diego requires “Specific Plans.”

In 2018, the City of Chula Vista created a University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area (UI-SPA), by adopting a sectional planning area document to guide a portion of the implementation of the GDP/SRP. Chula Vista’s UI-SPA functions as a discretionary land use plan and therefore must be consistent with the GDP/SRP as adopted by the two local agencies.

From 1990 to 2014, Chula Vista acquired parcels to implement the UI-SPA. Many of these parcels included legal restrictions on the type of developments allowed on the parcel. Some required the land be used for “future university purposes.” Others gave the previous owner repurchase rights if the City decided to use it for “non-university development,” including non-university related housing.

The SLA considers land subject to valid legal restrictions that prohibit housing, unless there is a feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the prohibition on the site, to be exempt from the Act. Chula Vista asked HCD to concur it would consider the parcels with these legal constrictions to be exempt from the SLA. Late 2022, HCD issued letters to Chula Vista stating that none of the parcels qualified for an SLA exemption.

HCD reviewed the agreements and found that many of the restrictions limited the types of developments on these parcels, but did not explicitly prohibit housing. Additionally, since the City was party to the agreements, HCD considered the restrictions to be imposed by the city, and therefore not subject to the exemption for valid legal restrictions. As such, HCD informed the City of Chula Vista it must follow the standard SLA protocols when disposing of the parcels in its sectional planning area.

To help it maintain these legal restrictions and implement its sectional planning area, the City of Chula Vista wants to exempt these parcels from the SLA.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 837 exempts land subject to a sectional planning area document from the SLA if it meets all the following conditions:

• The sectional planning area document was adopted before January 1, 2019, and is consistent with city and county general plans.
• The land identified in the adopted sectional planning area document was acquired prior to January 1, 2019.
• On January 1, 2019, the parcels met at least one of the following conditions:
  • Was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specific purpose;
  • Was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land if it will not be developed consistent with the agreement;
  • Was subject to a grant deed specifying the property must be used for educational uses and limiting other uses allowed on the property.
• At least 25% of the units are dedicated to lower income households, and subject to a recorder deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units, and 45 years for owner-occupied units.
• The land is developed at an average density of 10 units per acre, calculated with respect to the entire sectional planning area.
• No more than 25% of the nonresidential square footage receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 25% of the residential square footage has.
• No more than 50% of the nonresidential square footage receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 50% of the residential square footage has.
• No more than 75% of the nonresidential square footage receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 75% of the residential square footage has.

Starting April 1, 2025, the local agency must submit an annual report to HCD that includes the following information for land disposed of according AB 837’s provisions:

• Location of disposed land;
• Number of units approved;
• Number of units produced;
• Square footage of residential uses produced; and
• Square footage of nonresidential uses produced.

HCD may request additional information, but is not authorized to require this data to be submitted as a disposition precondition.

If the local agency’s disposal of this land violates these requirements, the local agency is liable for the following civil penalties:

• For the first violation, 30% of the greater of the final sale price or fair market value of the land at time of disposition; and
• For any additional violations, 50% of the greater of the final sale price or fair market value of the land at time of disposition.

An independent appraisal of the land must determine the fair market value. Any of the following can bring an action to enforce these penalties:

• Entities entitled to receive notices of availability under the SLA;
• A person who would have been eligible to apply for residence in affordable housing had the agency not violated AB 837;
• A housing organization;
• A beneficially interested person or entity; and
• HCD.

These penalties musts be deposited into a local housing trust fund, or the local agency can elect to deposit them into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. Local agencies cannot pay these penalties out of funds dedicated to affordable housing. The local agency must commit to spending the penalties deposited into a local housing trust fund within five years of deposit for the sole purpose of financing new affordable housing units. After five years, the funds revert to the state to deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund for the sole purpose of building new affordable housing units in the same jurisdiction, subject to appropriation by the Legislature.

AB 837 sunsets its provisions on January 1, 2034.

The measure defines its terms.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “In 1993, the City of Chula Vista set out to bring a university to the underserved South Bay region of San Diego. Over 30 years, the city has taken various steps to make this a reality, including acquiring over 300 acres designated as a University and Innovation District. However, due to the Surplus Lands Act requirements, this land must be offered to "Housing Sponsors" for housing development before it be offered to developers who would build the university. I support affordable housing, but Chula Vista has been a leader in RHNA compliance, while the project includes significant affordable housing with HCD oversight. This is not a housing issue but rather a lack of access to education. This project is key to addressing that need and would be severely jeopardized without this exemption.”

2. Bigger changes needed? Prior to the enactment of AB 1486, state law did not require local agencies to always designate land as surplus prior to disposing of it, which meant they could enter into negotiations to dispose of land to further local priorities such as economic development without going through the Surplus Land Act process. AB 1486 excluded economic development from being considered “agency’s use;” made changes that complicate the ability of local governments to dispose of large parcels that need infrastructure investments to support other uses; and otherwise clamped down on the ability of local governments to dispose of their property for the purposes they consider to best serve their constituents. As a result, the Legislature has seen a parade of bills attempting to address issues with the SLA that have come to light since the enactment of AB 1486. Several of these bills have enacted, or would create, exemptions to the SLA to enable the development of worthy causes, including the development of affordable housing on an important transit corridor in the San Diego area (SB 51, Durazo, 2021), the Metro North Hollywood Joint Development project (AB 175, Committee on Budget, 2021), the Tustin military base (SB 719, Min, 2021), several economic development projects in the City of Los Angeles (SB 1373, Kamlager, 2021), and the former military base at Alameda Point (AB 1319, Bonta, 2022). AB 837 is the latest member of the parade, seeking to exempt parcels identified in sectional planning area documents. The Committee may wish to consider whether the previous changes to the SLA should be revisited more broadly so that such exemptions become less necessary.

3. Let’s be reasonable. HCD reviewed the City’s disposals and determined that many of the City’s agreements did not meet the SLA’s definition of valid legal restrictions for two reasons: (1) the City entered into the agreement, meaning it imposed the restriction, and (2) the restrictions do not prohibit housing on the entire parcel. As such, City has to offer the land first for affordable housing and negotiate in good faith with any interested parties before disposing of the land in a manner consistent with the agreements it made when it acquired the parcels. Despite HCD’s determination, the City still has to comply with these agreements, which it entered into before AB 1486 took effect. Some restrictions that condition the development of housing, while they do not technically prohibit housing development, may render compliance with the SLA impossible for the local agency that owns property subject to legal restrictions. For example, one parcel is subject to a land offer agreement that subjects the property to a repurchase right by the original owner if the original owner finds that local agency developed the property in a way that is inconsistent with the land offer agreement. If the City offers the parcel for affordable housing development to follow the SLA, the original owner could exercise their repurchase right and compel the City to sell the property back. However, selling the property to the original owner without completing the full SLA disposition process would constitute a violation of the SLA, potentially subjecting the City to penalties. Should the City comply with the SLA notice and disposition procedures and risk litigation from the original property owner if the city does not honor the repurchase right, or should the city comply with the original repurchase right and risk litigation and penalties from HCD? The Committee may wish to consider whether the scope of “valid legal restrictions” is too narrow.

4. Proceed with caution. Under the SLA, prior to agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local agency must provide HCD with a description of the notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted with any responding entities and a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, in a form HCD prescribes. HCD must then submit written findings to the local agency within 30 days of receipt of the description of the disposal if the proposed disposal of the land will violate SLA. This gives the local agency a chance to cure the potential violation before it finalizes the disposal. AB 837 creates a separate penalty provision that does not require the local agency and HCD to work together to identify potential violations before a disposal occurs. If the local agency does not proactively reach out to HCD to identify any potential issues, they could be subject to fines through AB 837’s civil penalty provisions. Local agencies using AB 837’s provisions will have to determine whether to proceed with disposals that entities like HCD may challenge in court.

5. Parade isn’t over. The Legislature is considering numerous other proposals that provide specific provisions or exemptions regarding surplus land:

• SB 34 (Umberg, 2023) creates a process for HCD to determine whether land disposals in Orange County violate the ­SLA. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
• SB 229 (Umberg, 2023) requires a local agency to hold an open and public meeting if HCD notifies the local agency that its disposal of a parcel violates the SLA. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
• SB 693 (Seyarto, 2023) exempts certain parcels in the City of Murrieta from the SLA. The bill is currently pending in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
• SB 747 (Caballero, 2023) makes numerous changes to the Surplus Land Act, including expanding the definition of agency use, and exempt surplus land. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
• AB 457 (Joe Patterson, 2023) creates an exemption from the Surplus Land Act (SLA) for parcels abutting a state highway right-of-way that a local agency identified in its circulation element or capital improvement plan for future roadway development.
• AB 480 (Ting, 2023) changes the penalty provisions of the SLA and makes procedural changes to noticing provisions that apply to “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land” disposed of by local agencies subject to the SLA. The bill is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 28^th meeting.
• AB 983 (Cervantes, 2023) expands the definition of exempt surplus land to include land designated in an adopted downtown revitalization plan not to exceed 1.1 square miles and includes residential, commercial, office, civic, and hospitality uses. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
• AB 1469 (Kalra, 2023) Allows Santa Clara Valley Water District to take actions to assist unsheltered people living along streams, riparian corridors, or otherwise within the district’s jurisdiction, to provide solutions or improve outcomes for the unsheltered individuals, in consultation with a city or the County of Santa Clara. AB 1469 includes a provision that use of land for these purposes meets the definition of “agency use,” which is exempt from the SLA. The bill is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 28^th meeting.
• AB 1734 (Jones-Sawyer, 2023) Exempts certain housing and homelessness projects from the SLA in local agencies that have declared a local homelessness emergency and meet other requirements. The bill is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 28^th meeting.

SB 747 seeks to address broader concerns over the SLA compared to many of these bills that provide more tailored flexibility to particular agencies, or types of projects. If enacted, SB 747 could reduce the need to pursue one-off legislation. To help address broader SLA concerns without the need for piecemeal legislation, the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to make its enactment contingent on SB 747’s enactment.

6. Let’s get technical. Committee staff recommend the following technical amendments:

• On page 2, line 10, add “(a).”
• On page 6, remove Section 2 of the bill.

7. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 837: first to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee to hear issues related to disposal of land owned by local governments, and second to the Senate Housing Committee.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 7-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-0
Assembly Floor: 80-0

Support and Opposition

(6/23/23)

Support: None received.

Opposition: None received.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 837

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:May 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Specifies that the Surplus Land Act (SLA) does not apply to the disposition of land subject to an existing section planning area document that meets specified conditions related to the development of affordable housing.

Major Provisions

Creates a new section in the Surplus Lands Act that exempts parcels that will make at least 25% of any housing development affordable, provided that the parcels are also subject to a locally adopted plan and legal restrictions that predate significant amendments to the Surplus Land Act that took effect in 2020.

COMMENTS

The SLA exempts a series of potential land dispositions from its requirements. Exempt dispositions are not required to go through the solicitation and negotiation process outlined in the SLA. This reflects the reality that certain dispositions provide intrinsic value to residents, will provide one of the desired outcomes (provision of affordable housing, or preservation of parklands) envisioned in the SLA, or that the land that is being disposed of is incompatible with housing. For example, surplus land that will be developed with a large mixed-use development that dedicates at least 25% of the units to lower income households is considered "exempt surplus land," as the affordability levels provided are equivalent to the minimum requirements of the SLA. This exemption allows local agencies to more expeditiously dispose of land while achieving one of the desired outcomes of the SLA.

According to the City of Chula Vista's adopted University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan (UI-SPA), "For more than 20 years the City of Chula Vista has maintained a vision to locate university and innovation land uses in the Otay Ranch. On October 28, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) as a means of implementing the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The GDP/SRP resulted from the culmination of years of planning and provides clear direction and policies regarding the type and intensity of uses that will occur within the roughly 23,000‑acre Otay Ranch."

The UI-SPA guides the implementation of a portion of the GDP/SRP, planning for the Otay Ranch is a cooperative effort between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Chula Vista and San Diego County jointly adopt and amend the GDP/SRP, which functions as a general plan level document for both the county and the city. Land use planning within the area must be consistent with the GDP/SRP. Within both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is implemented through additional, more detailed planning processes prior to the subdivision of land. The City of Chula Vista requires the preparation and adoption of "Sectional Planning Area" plans. The County of San Diego requires "Specific Plans." The requirements of each process are substantially similar. Chula Vista’s UI-SPA functions as a discretionary land use plan and therefore must be consistent with the GDP/SRP as adopted by the two local agencies.

According to the Author

According to the author, "In 1993, the City of Chula Vista set out to bring a university to the underserved South Bay region of San Diego. Over 30 years, the city has taken various steps to make this a reality, including acquiring over 300 acres designated as a University and Innovation District. However, due to the Surplus Lands Act requirements, this land must be offered to "Housing Sponsors" for housing development before it be offered to developers who would build the university. I support prioritizing affordable housing, but Chula Vista has been a leader in Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) compliance, and the project includes significant affordable housing, while more needs to be done to address the region's lack of access to education. This project is key to addressing that need and would be severely jeopardized without this exemption."

Arguments in Support

The City of Chula Vista writes in support, "AB 837 would exempt 383 acres of City-owned and entitled land from the Surplus Lands Act and allow the City to continue its pursuit of building a binational, multi-institutional University-Innovation District which has been the vision for more than three decades."

Arguments in Opposition

The San Diego Housing Federation writes in opposition, "The duration required for this bill to be enacted and ratified during this legislative year could have been used by the City of Chula Vista to finalize the SLA process. The SLA mandates a 60-day notice period and, if a legitimate bid is submitted, a 90-day good-faith negotiation phase may follow. This 5-month timeframe could be fulfilled much sooner than any SLA exemption bill passing both chambers and receiving the Governor's signature. Considering the realistic timeline for adhering to current law, we assert that this and other SLA exemptions are unwarranted."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) in the low-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for trial courts to hear and adjudicate additional civil actions for alleged violations of the exemptions to the state SLA provided pursuant to this bill. This bill allows HCD, various local entities, housing organizations, as well as beneficially interested and potentially harmed individuals to sue local agencies for violations. If three cases are filed in civil court annually requiring seven to 10 days (56 to 80 hours) of court time, at an average cost per hour of $1,000 in workload costs, the cost to the trial courts would be between $168,000 and $240,000 annually. Actual costs would vary depending on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time required in each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the courts and staff may create a need for increased funding for courts to perform existing duties.
2. Minor and absorbable costs to HCD. However, HCD notes there are multiple bills moving through the legislature impacting the SLA. While many of these bills in isolation would have a minor and absorbable fiscal impact, were multiple of these bills to be chaptered, the Department anticipates an increased workload comprising additional monitoring and enforcement efforts, training for existing staff, updating guidelines and technical assistance materials, and providing technical assistance to local agencies directly impacted by these bills. Additional staffing would be required to absorb this cumulative workload.

VOTES

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-0

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Dixon, Boerner Horvath, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Waldron, Wilson

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-0-1

YES: Wicks, Joe Patterson, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Sanchez, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Quirk-Silva

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: May 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0000460

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 837

Author:(Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill excludes land disposed of by local agencies that is subject to an existing section planning area document (document) that meets specified conditions from the requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and creates a civil penalty for violations of these provisions by local agencies.

Specifically, this bill:

1. States the SLA does not apply to the disposition of land that meets all of the following conditions:
2. The land is subject to a document where the sectional planning area was adopted prior to January 1, 2019, the document is consistent with county and city general plans applicable to the land, and the land identified in the adopted document was acquired prior to January 1, 2019.
3. On January 1, 2019, the land met at least one of the following conditions:
4. The land was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose.
5. The land was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner consistent with the agreement.
6. The land was subject to a grant deed specifying the property must be used for educational uses and limiting other types of uses allowed on the property.
7. At least 25% of the units are dedicated to lower income households at an affordable rent or an affordable cost and subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units.
8. The land is developed at an average density of at least 10 units per acre, calculated with respect to the entire sectional planning area.
9. No more than 25%, 50%, and 75% of the nonresidential square footage identified in the document receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively, of the residential square footage identified in the document has received its first certificate of occupancy.
10. Requires a local agency that disposes of land pursuant to 1) to submit an annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that includes specified data. Authorizes HCD to request additional data, but does not authorize HCD to require the submission of data as a precondition of disposition.
11. Provides if a local agency disposes of land in violation of the bill’s provisions, the agency is liable for a civil penalty calculated, for the first violation, as 30% of the greater of the final sale price or the fair market value of the land at the time of disposition and, for the second and subsequent violations, as 50% of the greater of the final sale price or the fair market value of the land at the time of disposition.
12. Authorizes HCD, entities identified in the SLA, as well as any person who would have been eligible to apply for residency in affordable housing had the agency not violated the provisions of this bill to bring an action to enforce the penalty provisions of the bill.
13. Requires a penalty to be deposited into a local housing trust fund, the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, and requires a local agency to expend the penalty moneys deposited into the local housing trust fund within five years of deposit.
14. Repeals these provisions as of January 1, 2034.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) in the low-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for trial courts to hear and adjudicate additional civil actions for alleged violations of the exemptions to the state SLA provided pursuant to this bill. This bill allows HCD, various local entities, housing organizations, as well as beneficially interested and potentially harmed individuals to sue local agencies for violations. If three cases are filed in civil court annually requiring seven to 10 days (56 to 80 hours) of court time, at an average cost per hour of $1,000 in workload costs, the cost to the trial courts would be between $168,000 and $240,000 annually. Actual costs would vary depending on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time required in each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the courts and staff may create a need for increased funding for courts to perform existing duties.
2. Minor and absorbable costs to HCD. However, HCD notes there are multiple bills moving through the legislature impacting the SLA. While many of these bills in isolation would have a minor and absorbable fiscal impact, were multiple of these bills to be chaptered, the Department anticipates an increased workload comprising additional monitoring and enforcement efforts, training for existing staff, updating guidelines and technical assistance materials, and providing technical assistance to local agencies directly impacted by these bills. Additional staffing would be required to absorb this cumulative workload.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

In 1993, the City of Chula Vista set out to bring a university to the underserved South Bay region of San Diego. Over 30 years, the city has taken various steps to make this a reality, including acquiring over 300 acres designated as a University and Innovation District. However, due to the SLA requirements, this land must be offered to ‘Housing Sponsors’ for housing development before it be offered to developers who would build the university. I support prioritizing affordable housing, but Chula Vista has been a leader in RHNA compliance, and the project includes significant affordable housing, while more needs to be done to address the region's lack of access to education. This project is key to addressing that need and would be severely jeopardized without this exemption

1. Background. The SLA spells out the steps local agencies must follow when they dispose of land they no longer need. Before local officials can dispose of property, they must declare the land is no longer necessary for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” The SLA prioritizes the use of a local agency’s surplus land for the development of affordable housing, and gives first priority to housing projects that provide the greatest number of affordable units and the deepest levels of affordability.

The SLA exempts a series of potential land dispositions from its requirements, usually because certain dispositions provide intrinsic value to residents, provide one of the desired outcomes (provision of affordable housing, or preservation of parklands) envisioned in the SLA, or that the land being disposed of is incompatible with housing. These exemptions allow local agencies to more expeditiously dispose of land while achieving one of the desired outcomes of the SLA.

In 2018, the City of Chula Vista adopted the University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan (UI-SPA). The UI-SPA outlines the City’s plans for the 383-acre site, focused on creating a 4.5 million square foot university and a two million square foot business innovation district. The UI-SPA also calls for 3.6 million square feet of residential uses that will provide 2,000 new homes and 2,000 units of on-campus student housing.

The City sought an exemption from the SLA for these parcels for valid legal restrictions that prohibit housing on the site. However, in late 2022, HCD determined none of the parcels qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the SLA. HCD’s determination indicated while the legal restrictions may limit the amount of housing that can be built on these parcels, they do not preclude housing from being built.

This bill excludes the disposition of land meeting the unique circumstances provided for in the bill from the provisions of the SLA, and is intended to apply to the land within Chula Vista’s UI-SPA. It is unlikely there is other land in the state that meets the bill’s criteria.

1. Related Legislation. There are four additional Assembly bills introduced this session that create various exemptions under the SLA. These include AB 457 (Joe Patterson), pending in the Senate; AB 983 (Cervantes), pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee; and AB 1607 (Wendy Carrillo) and AB 1734 (Jones-Sawyer), pending in this committee.

AB 480 (Ting) changes the penalty provisions of the SLA, similar to the penalties in this bill, and makes procedural changes to noticing provisions that apply to surplus land and exempt surplus land disposed of by local agencies subject to the SLA. AB 480 is pending in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 837 (

Author:Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2023

SUBJECT: Surplus land: exempt surplus land: sectional planning area

SUMMARY: Specifies that the Surplus Land Act (SLA) does not apply to the disposition of land subject to an existing section planning area document that meets specified conditions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “sectional planning area” to mean an area composed of identifiable planning units, within which common services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated pattern of land use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable.
2. Defines “sectional planning area document” to mean a document or plan that sets forth, at minimum, a site utilization plan of the sectional planning area and development standards for each land use area and designation.
3. Exempts land subject to an existing section planning area document from the SLA if it meets the following conditions:
   1. The sectional planning area was adopted prior to January 1, 2019;
   2. The sectional planning area document is consistent with county and city general plans applicable to the land;
   3. The land identified in the adopted sectional planning area document was acquired prior to January 1, 2019; and
   4. On January 1, 2019, the land met at least one of the following conditions:
      1. The land was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose;
      2. The land was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner consistent with the agreement; or
      3. The land was subject to a grant deed specifying that the property must be used for educational uses and limiting other types of uses allowed on the property.
4. Specifies that the provision of this bill will remain in effect only until December 31, 2033, and as of that date is repealed.
5. Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made because of the unique circumstances surrounding the City of Chula Vista’s long-term plan for a regional university and innovation district and the privately imposed covenants requiring the land to be used for those purposes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and administer a general plan for their jurisdiction, which must include a housing element, to shape the future growth of its community. (Government Code (GC) Sections 65300 – 65404)
2. Establishes the SLA which, among other provisions, provides the following:
   1. Provides that the Legislature declares that a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and families of low- and moderate-income is a barrier to addressing urgent statewide housing needs and that surplus government land should be made available for that purpose;
   2. Defines “surplus land” as land owned by any local agency that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use;
   3. Defines certain types of surplus land as “exempt surplus land,” including:
      1. Land that is transferred for the construction of affordable housing, as specified;
      2. Land that is transferred to or exchanged with another government agency that will be utilized by that agency;
      3. Land that is difficult or impossible to build upon, as specified, such as small sites and sites subject to valid legal restrictions that prohibit housing; and
      4. Land whose future use meets specified criteria, such as land put to open bid for use as 100 percent affordable housing or larger mixed-use projects with at least 25 percent affordable housing.
   4. Requires each local agency, on or before December 31 of each year, to make an inventory of all of its surplus land;
   5. Requires a local agency to declare the surplus land to be either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures;
   6. Specifies that the SLA does not apply to the disposal of exempt surplus land;
   7. Requires a local government to declare land to be “exempt surplus land,” supported by written findings, before the local agency may take any action to dispose of it;
   8. Requires a local agency, prior to agreeing to the terms for the disposition of surplus land, to provide specified information about its disposition process to Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Requires HCD to submit to the local agency, within 30 days, written findings of any process violations that have occurred. The law provides a local agency at least 30 days to either correct the violations or adopt a resolution with findings explaining why the process is not in violation; and
   9. Provides that a local agency that disposes of land in violation of the SLA following a notification from HCD is liable for a penalty of 30 percent of the final sale price for a first violation and 50 percent for subsequent violations. (GC 54220-54234)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “In 1993, the City of Chula Vista set out to bring a university to the underserved South Bay region of San Diego. Over 30 years, the city has taken various steps to make this a reality, including acquiring over 300 acres designated as a University and Innovation District. However, due to the Surplus Lands Act requirements, this land must be offered to ‘Housing Sponsors’ for housing development before it be offered to developers who would build the university. I support prioritizing affordable housing, but Chula Vista has been a leader in RHNA compliance, and the project includes significant affordable housing, while more needs to be done to address the region's lack of access to education. This project is key to addressing that need and would be severely jeopardized without this exemption.”

Local Surplus Lands: The SLA requires local agencies to prioritize the development of affordable housing when disposing of their surplus land. Local agencies must annually create a list of all properties owned by the agency that are surplus and are not necessary for the agency’s use. Local agencies then have the opportunity to declare at a public meeting which of these lands are “exempt surplus land,” meaning they are exempt from the requirements of the SLA.

To be exempt from the SLA, surplus land must meet one of the 12 specified exemptions in the SLA, which include:

• Land that is transferred for the construction of affordable housing, as specified;
• Land that is transferred to or exchanged with another government agency that will be utilized by that agency;
• Land that is difficult or impossible to build upon, such as small sites and sites subject to valid legal restrictions that prohibit housing; and
• Land whose future use meets specified criteria, such as land put to open bid for use as 100 percent affordable housing or larger mixed-use projects with at least 25 percent affordable housing.

For surplus land that is not exempt, the SLA spells out the process the local agency must undertake when disposing of it. This includes notifying specified parties of the availability of the surplus land, who then have 60 days to convey their interest. Except where the surplus land is currently used for park or recreational purposes, the local agency must give priority to the entity that proposes to provide the greatest level of affordable housing on the land. If the surplus land is currently used for park or recreational purposes, the disposing agency must give first priority to an entity that agrees to continue to use the site for park or recreational purposes. If the local agency and any of the prioritized entities are not able to negotiate a mutually satisfactory price after 90 days of good faith negotiations, the local agency may proceed to sell the land on the open market. In that case, any project that includes residential uses must ensure that at least 15 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.

In March 2023, HCD provided data to the Committee on local surplus land dispositions that occurred since January of 2021. According to their data, surplus land transactions have resulted in 8,387 housing units, including over 5,800 units of housing affordable to lower-income households.

The City of Chula Vista’s University Development Plans: In 2018, the City of Chula Vista adopted the University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan (UI-SPA).^[1] The UI-SPA outlines the City’s plans for the 383-acre site, which are focused around the creation of a new 4.5 million square foot university and a new 2 million square foot business innovation district. The UI-SPA also calls for the provision of 3.6 million square feet of residential uses that will provide 2,000 new homes and 2,000 units of on-campus student housing.

The City’s vision for the UI-SPA extends back several decades. The City began acquiring land in 1990 and completed acquisitions in 2014. The parcels were acquired through a variety of agreements that placed various legal restrictions on the type of developments allowed on the land. Some of these restrictions limit the type of development that can be built on the land to university purposes.

The City of Chula Vista sought an exemption from the SLA for these parcels under Government Code Section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(G) which allows exemptions for surplus land that is subject to valid legal restrictions that prohibits housing on the site. In a series of letters issued to the city by HCD in November and December of 2022, HCD stated that none of the parcels qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the SLA. HCD’s determination is predicated on the premise that, while the legal restrictions may limit the amount of housing that can be built on these parcels, they do not preclude housing from being built.

This bill would remove the applicability of the SLA from land that meets specified criteria, including:

• It is subject to a section plan that was adopted before January 1, 2019;
• All the land was acquired by the local agency before January 1, 2019; and
• As of January 1, 2019, the land met the following legal criteria:
  • It was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose;
  • It was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner consistent with the agreement; and
  • It was subject to a grant deed specifying that the property must be used for educational uses and limiting other types of uses allowed on the property.

This language was written to be applicable to the land within Chula Vista’s UI-SPA. While it is theoretically possible that other land in the state meets the criteria of this bill, it is unlikely, given its specificity.

Arguments in Support: According to the City of Chula Vista, “AB 837 would exempt 383 acres of City-owned and entitled land from the Surplus Lands Act and allow the City to continue its pursuit of building a binational, multi-institutional University-Innovation District which has been the vision for more than three decades.”

Arguments in Opposition: Opponents of the bill are organizations that facilitate the development of affordable housing. According to the San Diego Housing Federation and other opponents, “As it stands, AB 837 would debilitate one of the strongest laws safeguarding our public resources without a transparent, essential, or pragmatic rationale. This bill would initiate a gradual erosion of the law's effectiveness in promoting affordable housing development. To preserve the integrity of the SLA and its mission to provide affordable housing, we must regretfully oppose AB 837.”

Committee Amendments: As stated above, the SLA requires local agencies to prioritize the development of affordable housing when disposing of their surplus land. However, in the case of Chula Vista, the land being disposed of is 383 acres – far greater than the typical affordable housing development, which is one to five acres. As such, it is unlikely that an affordable housing developer would bid on the site, which would leave it open for competitive bid, which could result in the production of no affordable housing.

In order to strike the right balance, the committee may wish to amend the bill to impose parameters that would ensure the development of a significant amount of affordable housing while continuing to let Chula Vista dispose of the land according to its UI-SPA. These parameters would include:

• Requiring at least 25 percent of the new housing be affordable to lower income households for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units;
• Requiring a development density of at least 10 units per acre;
• Requiring the development of the housing to keep pace with the development of the non-residential uses, such that each 25 percent of the residential uses would need to be completed prior to or at the same time as each 25 percent of the non-residential uses.

This bill would enable Chula Vista’s disposal of land in the UI-SPA, and any other applicable land, to avoid the oversight from HCD that is inherent to the SLA. This oversight is important for ensuring that local agencies uphold the letter and the spirit of the law to facilitate the production of affordable housing. To ensure that there is still proper oversight from HCD, the committee may wish to amend the bill to do the following for any applicable land:

• Require the local agency to submit an annual report to HCD that includes, for any land disposed of for the production of affordable housing, the location of the disposed land, the number of units approved, and the number of units produced;
• Enable HCD to seek additional information about these disposals, while clarifying that HCD may not require that information as a precondition of disposal;
• Enable HCD to enforce these provisions in a manner that is akin to their enforcement provisions in the SLA, except that the potential fines for non-compliance would be based on the greater of the final sales price or fair market value. This would serve as a greater deterrent than the current language in the SLA, which only factors in sales price, in instances where the local agency disposes of the property at below market value.

This bill is currently proposed to be located in a new Article of the Government Code placed right after the SLA entitled “Disposition of Other Land.” In a previous hearing of this legislative session, this Committee passed two bills (AB 1607 (Wendy Carrillo) and AB 1734 (Jones-Sawyer)) that were similar to this bill, in that they removed the applicability of the SLA from certain transactions. Those other bills are proposed to be placed within the SLA in new sections that specify that the SLA does not apply to those sections. For clarity, the committee may wish to move this bill into a new section immediately after the sections proposed to be created by AB 1607 and AB 1734.

Related Legislation:

AB 457 (Joe Patterson) of the current legislative session creates an SLA exemption for parcels that abut state highway right of way that a local agency identified in its circulation element or capital improvement plan for future roadway development. AB 457 passed out of this Committee on a vote of 8-0 and is pending referral in the Senate.

AB 480 (Ting) of the current legislative session amends the noticing provisions that apply to “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land” disposed of by local agencies subject to the SLA, among other provisions. AB 480 passed out of the Assembly Committee on Local Government by a vote of 6-2, and is pending in this Committee.

AB 1607 (Wendy Carrillo) of the current legislative session states that the SLA does not apply to the disposition of land by the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency for the purposes of developing affordable housing. AB 1607 passed out of this Committee on a vote of 8-0 and is pending in the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

AB 1734 (Jones-Sawyer) of the current legislative session states that the SLA does not apply to the disposition of land for emergency shelter and affordable housing in cities that meet specified criteria, including having a declared homelessness emergency and having HCD’s designation as a pro-housing jurisdiction. AB 1734 passed out of this Committee on a vote of 7-0 and is pending in the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

SB 747 (Caballero) of the current legislative session amends the SLA to increase the ability for local agencies to dispose of the land for with economic development opportunities. SB 747 is pending hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing.

AB 2319 (Bonta), Chapter 963, Statutes of 2022: Created an exemption from the SLA for the Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point).

SB 1373 (Kamlager), Chapter 724, Statutes of 2022: Extended the authority for the City of Los Angeles to complete disposition of certain surplus property in accordance with the SLA as it read on December 31, 2019.

AB 1486 (Ting), Chapter 664, Statutes of 2019: Expanded the scope of local agencies subject to the SLA, revised the definitions of “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land,” revised the noticing requirements relative to local agencies, housing sponsors and HCD, and added penalties for local agencies that sell land in violation of the SLA.

AB 2135 (Ting), Chapter 644, Statues of 2014: Amended the procedure for the disposal of surplus land by local agencies and expanded the provisions relating to the prioritization of affordable housing development if the surplus land will be used for residential development.

Double Referred: This bill is double referred. It was heard in the Assembly Committee on Local Government and passed on a vote of 8-0.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Chula Vista (Sponsor)

California Association for Local Economic Development

Opposition

California Housing Partnership

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

San Diego Housing Federation

The Public Interest Law Project

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Analysis Prepared by: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/25902/638156113559970000 ↑

Date of Hearing: March 29, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 837 (

Author:Alvarez) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

SUBJECT: Surplus land: exempt surplus land: SPA plans.

SUMMARY: Creates an exemption from the Surplus Land Act (SLA) for land acquired by a local agency for the development of a university and innovation district. Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds a new category of “exempt surplus land” to the SLA for land that satisfies the following conditions:
   1. The land was acquired by a local agency for the development of a university and innovation district in accordance with a sectional plan area adopted by the local agency.
   2. The sectional plan area was adopted prior to January 1, 2019.
   3. The land is developed in a manner substantially consistent with the sectional plan area.
2. Finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique challenges faced by the City of Chula Vista’s long-term plan for a regional university and innovation district and the privately imposed covenants requiring the land to be used for those purposes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and administer a general plan for their jurisdiction, which must include a housing element, to shape the future growth of its community (Government Code § 65300 – 65404).
2. Establishes the SLA which, among other provisions, provides the following:
   1. Requires each local agency, on or before December 31 of each year, to make an inventory of all lands held, owned or controlled by it or any of its departments, agencies, or authorities, to determine what land, if any, is in excess of its foreseeable needs. Requires a description of each parcel found to be in excess of needs to be made a matter of public record and requires the agency to report this information to HCD no later than April 1.
   2. Defines “surplus land” as land owned by any local agency that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use.
   3. Exempts certain types of surplus land owned by local agencies from the requirements of the SLA.
   4. Requires a local agency that is disposing of surplus land to notify certain public entities and housing sponsors that surplus land is available for one of the following purposes:
      1. Low- and moderate-income housing.
      2. Park and recreation, and open space.
      3. School facilities.
      4. Infill opportunity zones or transit village plans.
   5. Requires that if another agency or housing sponsor wants to buy or lease the surplus land for one of these purposes, it must inform the disposing agency of its interest within 60 days, and if multiple entities want to purchase the land, the housing sponsor that proposes to provide the greatest level of affordable housing gets priority. The disposing agency and the entity have an additional 90 days to negotiate a mutually satisfactory price and terms in good faith. If they can’t agree, the agency that owns the surplus land can dispose of the land on the private market.
   6. Requires a local agency, prior to agreeing to the terms for the disposition of surplus land, to provide specified information about its disposition process to HCD. Requires HCD to submit to the local agency, within 30 days, written findings of any process violations that have occurred. The law provides a local agency at least 30 days to either correct the violations or adopt a resolution with findings explaining why the process is not in violation.
   7. Provides that a local agency that disposes of land in violation of the SLA following a notification from HCD is liable for a penalty of 30 percent of the final sale price for a first violation and 50 percent for subsequent violations. Requires that penalty assessments shall be deposited into a local housing trust fund, the state Building Homes and Jobs Fund, or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, as specified. (Government Code § 54220-54234).

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary and Author’s Statement. This bill creates an SLA exemption for land acquired by a local agency for the development of a university and innovation district in accordance with a section planning area adopted prior to January 1, 2019.

According to the author, “In 1993, the City of Chula Vista set out to bring a university to the underserved South Bay region of San Diego. Over 30 years, the city has taken various steps to make this a reality, including acquiring over 300 acres designated as a University and Innovation District. However, due to the Surplus Lands Act requirements, this land must be offered to "Housing Sponsors" for housing development before it be offered to developers who would build the university. I support prioritizing affordable housing, but Chula Vista has been a leader in Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) compliance, and the project includes significant affordable housing, while more needs to be done to address the region's lack of access to education. This project is key to addressing that need and would be severely jeopardized without this exemption."

This bill is sponsored by the City of Chula Vista.

1. Local Surplus Lands. The SLA spells out the steps local agencies must follow when they dispose of land they no longer need. Before local officials can dispose of property, they must declare that the land is no longer necessary for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” The SLA designates certain types of land as “exempt surplus land,” which is not subject to the requirements of the SLA. All other surplus land must follow the procedures laid out in the SLA.

After a local agency declares that a piece of land is surplus to its needs (and is not exempt), the agency must send a written notice of availability to various public agencies and nonprofit groups, referred to as “housing sponsors,” notifying them that land is available for any of the following purposes:

• 1. Low- and moderate-income housing.
  2. Park and recreation, and open space.
  3. School facilities.
  4. Infill opportunity zones or transit village plans.

If another agency or housing sponsor wants to purchase or lease the surplus land for one of these purposes, it must tell the disposing agency within 60 days. Except where the surplus land is currently used for park or recreational purposes, the local agency must give priority to the housing sponsor that proposes to provide the greatest level of affordable housing on the land. If the surplus land is currently used for park or recreational purposes, the disposing agency must give first priority to an entity that agrees to continue to use the site for park or recreational purposes.

If the local agency and any of the prioritized entities are not able to negotiate a mutually satisfactory price after 90 days of good faith negotiations, the local agency may proceed to sell the land on the open market.

1. Exemptions from the SLA. The SLA exempts a series of potential land dispositions from its requirements. Exempt dispositions are not required to go through the solicitation and negotiation process outlined in the SLA. This reflects the reality that certain dispositions provide intrinsic value to residents, will provide one of the desired outcomes (provision of affordable housing, or preservation of parklands) envisioned in the SLA, or that the land that is being disposed of is incompatible with housing. For example, surplus land that will be developed with a large mixed-use development that dedicates at least 25 percent of the units to lower income households is considered “exempt surplus land,” as the affordability levels provided are equivalent to the minimum requirements of the SLA. This exemption allows local agencies to more expeditiously dispose of land while achieving one of the desired outcomes of the SLA.
2. The City of Chula Vista’s University Development Plans. According to the City of Chula Vista’s adopted University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan (UI-SPA), “For more than 20 years the City of Chula Vista has maintained a vision to locate university and innovation land uses in the Otay Ranch. On October 28, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) as a means of implementing the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The GDP/SRP resulted from the culmination of years of planning and provides clear direction and policies regarding the type and intensity of uses that will occur within the roughly 23,000‑acre Otay Ranch.”^[1]

The UI-SPA guides the implementation of a portion of the GDP/SRP, planning for the Otay Ranch is a cooperative effort between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Chula Vista and San Diego County jointly adopt and amend the GDP/SRP, which functions as a general plan level document for both the county and the city. Land use planning within the area must be consistent with the GDP/SRP. Within both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is implemented through additional, more detailed planning processes prior to the subdivision of land. The City of Chula Vista requires the preparation and adoption of “Sectional Planning Area” plans. The County of San Diego requires “Specific Plans.” The requirements of each process are substantially similar. Chula Vista’s UI-SPA functions as a discretionary land use plan and therefore must be consistent with the GDP/SRP as adopted by the two local agencies. ^[2]

1. Land Acquisitions and Restrictions. The City of Chula Vista acquired parcels over several decades in order to facilitate the development of a university campus. The history of the land acquisition dating back to 1990 and continuing through 2014 is detailed in the city’s UI-SPA.^[3] The parcels were acquired through a variety of agreements that placed various legal restrictions on the type of developments allowed on the land. City staff consulted with HCD and sought an SLA exemption from HCD for these parcels that are critical to the UI-SPA. Chula Vista staff prepared a memo for the Chula Vista City Council detailing the status of the parcels and the legal restrictions applicable to each parcel for. The parcels and the associated restrictions catalogued in the memo are noted here:
   1. APN 644-070-10: An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, recorded August 27, 2014 and accepted on May 12, 2022, made pursuant to Government Code Section 7050 that provides that the dedication is made for the following public purpose: FUTURE UNIVERSITY PURPOSES...
   2. APN 644-080-18: A Land Offer Agreement, recorded September 1, 2010, that provides, among other requirements, in Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 thereof that the “University Property” transferred to City shall be subject to a “Repurchase Right” by the private property “Owner” in the event that the City determines that the property, or any portion thereof, will be developed for any permitted “Non-university Development” including non-University related housing...
   3. APN 644-080-23: An acceptance of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication accepted June 23, 2015 for higher education uses and related compatible uses, active public recreation, quasi-public and all other uses including residential uses, industrial and commercial…
   4. APN 643-070-16, 644-080-15: A Grant Deed recorded December 31, 2001 that provides as follows: “Property shall be used for educational, active public recreation, commercial, industrial and all other uses except non-university related residential.’…
   5. APN 644-080-09: A Final Order of Condemnation from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego in a judgement of condemnation entered into pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 668.5 on January 29, 2004 (case number GIC 796139-1) having such ordered, adjudged and decreed that this real property is the property of the City of Chula Vista for specific use of “open space preservation for off-site environmental requirements of Otay Ranch final maps.’…”^[4]

The City of Chula Vista sought an exemption from the SLA for these parcels under Government Code Section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(G) which allows exemptions for surplus land that is subject to valid legal restrictions. In a series of letters issued to the city by HCD in November and December of 2022, HCD stated that none of the parcels qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the SLA.^[5]

1. The City of Chula Vista and HCD. Each parcel identified by the city is subject to some form of legal restriction that controls for the type of development allowed on the parcel. The SLA allows for exemptions for parcels owned by local agencies that are subject to legal restrictions that are not imposed by the local agency (e.g. not imposed by the local agency’s zoning code). Legal restrictions, such as deeds and covenants that are not imposed by the local agency that owns the land are not uncommon. However, the SLA only allows exemptions for legal restrictions that would make housing prohibited, unless there is a feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the prohibition on the site.

The City of Chula Vista maintains that the restrictions on the property prohibit housing on the parcels, other than such housing necessary to fulfill the public purpose for university or educational uses, and that the disposal of the parcels should not be subject to the SLA. In analyzing the restrictions, HCD generally found that while the restrictions may limit the type of development allowed on the property to specific purposes (e.g. university development) the restrictions either do not “make housing prohibited,” or they allow for some form of housing development (e.g. university housing). With the exception of the parcel subject to a superior court order, HCD further found that the city was a party to the original agreements and, therefore, could not claim that the restrictions were not imposed by the city. With respect to the parcel restricted by a court order, HCD found:

“After reviewing the Final Court Order and Judgment (collectively, the Documentation), HCD finds that the Court understood that the City acquired the Property from the Defendant for open space preservation for off-site environmental requirements of Otay Ranch final maps. However, HCD also finds that the Documentation does not state that the City must use the Property exclusively for open space preservation for off-site environmental requirements of Otay Ranch final maps. Therefore, HCD finds that the Documentation does not necessarily exclude housing on the Property.” ^[6]

HCD informed the City of Chula Vista that it must follow the standard SLA protocols when disposing of the property. Additionally, HCD noted for several of the properties that “the city may include a reasonable condition or restriction in the notice of availability (NOA) of the Property i.e., the City may include in the NOA that, because the Property was acquired for university purposes, the City envisions a development project on the Property that includes both housing and university uses.”

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Competing Measures. Several authors introduced measures that seek to amend the SLA this year. The author and sponsors of this bill may wish to coordinate their efforts with other measures amending the SLA to avoid conflict and duplication. Additionally, as noted below, in the years since AB 1486 [(Ting), Chapter, 664, Statutes of 2019], ushered in major changes to the scope of the SLA, a series of measures modifying the SLA or seeking exemptions from the rigid terms of the SLA have been introduced. The Committee may wish to consider whether revisions that recognize a broader range of legal restrictions and public purposes are preferable to a repetitive piecemeal approach.
   2. Valid Legal Restriction Exemptions. As written, the valid legal restriction exemption provision in the SLA appears limited to restrictions that explicitly prohibit the development of housing, rather than restrictions that merely restrict or condition the type of housing that may be developed. In practice, some restrictions that condition the development of housing, while they do not technically prohibit housing development, may render compliance with the SLA impossible for the local agency that owns property subject to legal restrictions.

The legal restrictions that govern the use of some of the parcels owned by Chula Vista were adopted before changes to the SLA codified by AB 1486 took effect. One parcel is subject to a land offer agreement that subjects the property to a repurchase right by the original owner if the original owner finds that the land is developed in a manner inconsistent with the land offer agreement. If the city issues a NOA for the development of affordable housing on the property per the SLA disposition requirements, the original owner could exercise their repurchase right and compel the city to sell the property back. Selling the property to the original owner without completing the full SLA disposition process would constitute a violation of the SLA, potentially subjecting the city to penalties levied by HCD equivalent to 30 percent of the parcel’s sales price.

Should the city comply with the SLA notice and disposition procedures and risk litigation from the original property owner if the city does not honor the repurchase right, or should the city comply with the original repurchase right and risk litigation and penalties from HCD? The Committee may wish to consider whether the scope of “valid legal restrictions” is too narrow.

• 1. Legal Restrictions Imposed by a Local Agency. The SLA exemption for valid legal restrictions excludes legal restrictions imposed by the local agency that owns the land. This is necessary to prevent local agencies from proactively exempting their properties from the SLA’s provisions by rezoning it to prohibit housing. This provision, however, does not recognize legal restrictions local agencies may have lawfully entered into prior to the enactment of the major SLA revisions ushered in by AB 1486. Several of the legal restrictions that apply to the parcels owned by the City of Chula Vista were recorded decades before the reforms to the SLA were adopted. Further, the City of Chula Vista contends that the restrictions recorded on the properties are not imposed by City, but were conditions imposed by the original grantors of the parcels. Whether these agreements constitute legal restrictions imposed by the city, or legal restrictions imposed on the city, the Committee may wish to consider if it is tenable to treat legal restrictions made prior to the major revisions to the SLA took effect in 2020 the same as legal restrictions agreed to afterward.
  2. Long Range Development Plans. In addition to recognizing legal restrictions imposed on local agencies as legitimate criteria for an SLA exemption, AB 1486 recognized that several major land developments that complied with the SLA as it was written at the time the bill was negotiated would violate the SLA after the bill’s provisions were codified. In order to prevent developments with long time horizons that were negotiated in good faith compliance with the law at the time, AB 1486 included several exemptions to allow for these development agreements to remain valid. As a result, the SLA allows a narrow window for local agencies to complete their pre-AB1486 development agreements. The disposition of these parcels was required to be complete by the end of 2022, although subsequent legislation extended the disposition period to the end of 2024 for some parcels. As noted above, the City of Chula Vista’s planned development of a university is a multi-decade process dating back to 1993.This development and disposition is likely to take several additional years. The Committee May wish to consider whether long range development plans adopted prior to January 1, 2019 that are consistent with a city and county general plan and contain parcels subject to legal conditions that may conflict with the SLA, as amended in 2020, should be exempt from the disposition requirements of the SLA.
  3. Can the City Comply? HCD’s guidance to Chula Vista noted that when, a local agency issues an NOA under the SLA, the agency can include reasonable conditions on the future use of the property. HCD noted that Chula Vista could state that it envisions the development of the property for both housing and university purposes in the NOA. It is unclear if such a notice would enable Chula Vista to comply with its existing legal restrictions. If this option allows Chula Vista to comply with its restrictions and dispose of the property as originally intended, the issues raised by the city may be moot. Arguably, this would render this bill unnecessary. However, if proceeding with an NOA, even a conditioned NOA, would still subject Chula Vista to legal risk (e.g. from the original grantor of the property) pursuing this option may prove infeasible. The Committee may wish to consider if there is value added in requiring the city to go through an exercise that could delay the project but lead to the same result, or potentially subject to the city to legal risk.
  4. Ambiguous Terms. Opponents to the bill note that the term “innovation” district is undefined and could be interpreted broadly. This could allow other local agencies to abuse the term in order to exempt parcels from the provisions of the SLA. The Committee may wish to consider narrowing the bill to apply to the unique circumstances that exist in Chula Vista.

1. Committee Amendments. In order to address some of the issues noted above, the Committee may wish to consider the following amendments:
   1. Delete the current language of the bill.
   2. Add new sections 54234.3 and 54234.4. to the Government Code that read as follows:

54234.3. (a) Land that meets all of the following conditions shall not be subject to Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220):

(1) The land is subject to a sectional planning area document that meets the following:

(A) The sectional planning area was adopted prior to January 1, 2019.

(B) The sectional planning area document is consistent with county and city general plans applicable to the land.

(2) The land identified in the adopted sectional planning area document was acquired prior to January 1, 2019.

(3) As of January 1, 2019, the parcels on the land met at least one of the following conditions:

(A) The land was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose.

(B) The land was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner consistent with the agreement.

(C) The land was subject to a grant deed specifying that the property shall be used for educational uses and limiting other types of uses allowed on the property.

(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Local agency” means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, district, including school, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts of any kind or class, joint powers authority, successor agency to a former redevelopment agency, housing authority, or other political subdivision of this state and any instrumentality thereof that is empowered to acquire and hold real property.

(2) “Sectional planning area” means an area composed of identifiable planning units, within which common services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated pattern of land use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable.

(3) “Sectional planning area document” means a document or plan that sets forth, at minimum, a site utilization plan of the sectional planning area and development standards for each land use area and designation.

54234.4. This article shall remain in effect only until December 31, 2033, and as of that date is repealed.

1. Related Legislation. AB 457 (Joe Patterson) creates an SLA exemption for parcels that abut state highway right of way that a local agency identified in its circulation element or capital improvement plan for future roadway development. AB 457 is pending in this Committee.

AB 480 (Ting) changes the penalty provisions of the SLA and makes procedural changes to noticing provisions that apply to “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land” disposed of by local agencies subject to the SLA. AB 480 is pending in this Committee.

AB 983 (Cervantes) categorizes as exempt surplus land, properties that are designated in an adopted downtown revitalization plan, as specified. AB 983 is pending in this Committee.

AB 1607 (Wendy Carrillo) exempts land transferred within Los Angeles County to the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency from the SLA. AB 1607 is pending in the Housing and Community Development Committee.

1. Previous Legislation. AB 1784 (Seyarto) of 2022 would have created an SLA exemption for low density parcels located in jurisdictions that meet or exceed their 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) production targets for Very Low Income (VLI) and Low Income (LI) housing on an annual basis. AB 1784 was held in the Housing and Community Development Committee.

AB 2319 (Bonta), Chapter 963, Statutes of 2022, created an exemption from the SLA for the Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point).

AB 2357 (Ting) of 2022 was substantially similar to this bill. AB 2357 was held in the Governance and Finance Committee.

SB 361 (Umberg) of 2022 would have required the City of Anaheim to comply with additional transparency requirements prior to disposing of surplus land. SB 361 was ordered to the inactive file on the Assembly Floor.

SB 1373 (Kamlager), Chapter 724, Statutes of 2022, extended the authority for the City of Los Angeles to complete disposition of certain surplus property in accordance with the SLA as it read on December 31, 2019.

AB 1271 (Ting) of 2021 would have expanded the types of land exempt from the SLA, imposed new procedural requirements on local agencies disposing of surplus land, and would make various technical changes to the SLA. AB 1271 was held the Housing and Community Development Committee.

SB 719 (Min) of 2021 would have provided that land comprising the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station is exempt surplus land for the purposes of the SLA if certain affordability standards for residential developments and other conditions are met. SB 719 was held in this Committee.

AB 1486 (Ting), Chapter 664, Statutes of 2019, expanded the scope of local agencies subject to the SLA, revised the definitions of “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land,” revised the noticing requirements relative to local agencies, housing sponsors and HCD, and added penalties for local agencies that sell land in violation of the SLA.

AB 2135 (Ting), Chapter 644, Statues of 2014, amended the procedure for the disposal of surplus land by local agencies and expanded the provisions relating to the prioritization of affordable housing development if the surplus land will be used for residential development.

1. Arguments in Support. The City of Chula Vista writes in support, “Since 1993, through the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the City of Chula Vista has maintained a vision of locating a university within eastern Chula Vista. The City has taken actionable steps to make this vision a reality and has codified the vision within its 2005 General Plan and 2018 Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) which approved the entitlements for a [University-Innovation District]. In addition, the City has consistently been a top producer of quality affordable housing and is proud to be a regional leader in compliance with Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers across all income categories.

“AB 837 would exempt 383 acres of City-owned and entitled land from the Surplus Lands Act and allow the City to continue its pursuit of building a binational, multi-institutional University-Innovation District which has been the vision for more than three decades.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The San Diego Housing Federation writes in opposition, “the absence of a clear definition for ‘innovation districts’ in the statute creates concerns about this legislation's potentially negative consequences. Lacking a clear definition, it is difficult to determine the types of businesses, institutions, or organizations [that] would be allowed within an innovation district and subsequently offers no rationale as to why they would need an exemption in the first place.

“The duration required for this bill to be enacted and ratified during this legislative year could have been used by the City of Chula Vista to finalize the SLA process. The SLA mandates a 60-day notice period and, if a legitimate bid is submitted, a 90-day good-faith negotiation phase may follow. This 5-month timeframe could be fulfilled much sooner than any SLA exemption bill passing both chambers and receiving the Governor's signature. Considering the realistic timeline for adhering to current law, we assert that this and other SLA exemptions are unwarranted.”

Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

The City of Chula Vista [SPONSOR]

Opposition

California Housing Partnership

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

San Diego Housing Federation

The Public Interest Law Project

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Analysis Prepared by: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

1. City of Chula Vista. University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan. Adopted 13 November 2018. See Pages 1-4: ↑

2. City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Otay Subregional Plan, Vol.2. Adopted 28 October 1993, last amended 13 December 2018. ↑

3. City of Chula Vista. University Innovation District: Sectional Planning Area Plan. Adopted 13 November 2018.

   pages 1-4 – 1-11: ↑

4. Crockett, Eric C. and Evans, Miranda: City of Chula Vista, Office of the City Manager. Surplus Land Act Update and Impact on University Innovation District. 3 March 2023. ↑

5. Letters from HCD to Chula Vista regarding the exemption status of each parcel may be found here:

   https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/Chula-Vista-APNs-64408015-and-634307016-Exempt-Review-110922.pdf

   https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/Chula-Vista-APN 644070010-Exempt-Review-111622.pdf

   https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/Chula-Vista-APN 64408017-Exempt-Review-111622.pdf

   https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/Chula-Vista-OtayRanchParcel-Exempt-Review-121622.pdf

   https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/Chula-Vista-Villages-3-8-9-10-Exempt-Review-111622.pdf

   ↑

6. Nunn, Laura, Senior Manager Housing Accountability Unit, Department of Housing and Community Development. Guidance letter to City of Chula Vista: HCD’s Review of the Documentation Regarding the City of Chula Vista’s Determination of APN 644-080-09 as “Exempt Surplus Land.” 16 December 2022. ↑