Existing law requires a local agency to declare land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written findings, before the local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures and defines terms for these purposes. Existing law generally requires a local agency, before disposing or negotiating to dispose of surplus land, to provide a written notice of the availability of the surplus land to specified entities and housing sponsors. Under existing law, land declared by an agency of the state or any local agency as “exempt surplus land” is not subject to these requirements.

This bill would exempt land that was or will be conveyed by the federal government to a local reuse authority in accordance with a military base closure and realignment, as specified, from these requirements. The bill would also limit the time to bring an action to challenge the application of this exemption to within 90 days after the local reuse authority’s approval of a disposition and development agreement, purchase and sale agreement, or similar agreement regarding the disposition of all or any portion of the land by the local reuse authority and not at the time of each subsequent conveyance or phased conveyance of the land.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

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