AB 385 authorizes the County of San Bernardino, through its Regional Parks Department, to dispose of up to 4.2 acres at Glen Helen Regional Park if it acquires replacement parkland that meets department standards. The bill sets a multi‑stage approval process requiring department‑approved appraisals, documented environmental and title due diligence, a feasibility study, and a final agreement transferring any state grant responsibilities to the replacement property.
The measure preserves state interests in grant‑funded parkland by conditioning any disposition on clear equivalence tests for value and recreational utility and on department approval; it also fixes hard deadlines for key deliverables, creates detailed title‑and‑environmental reporting requirements, and requires that replacement land be held for park uses in perpetuity under applicable state law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a conditional procedure for disposing up to 4.2 acres at Glen Helen Regional Park and for acquiring replacement park property, tying disposal to department‑approved appraisals, environmental and title disclosures, and a final written agreement transferring grant obligations.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the County of San Bernardino (Regional Parks Department), the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the department), owners of proposed replacement parcels, and parcels that were acquired or improved with state grant funds such as Roberti‑Z’Berg‑Harris grants.
Why It Matters
Creates a usable blueprint for converting small parcels of public parkland while preserving state grant protections; land‑use lawyers, county land managers, developers, and environmental compliance teams need to budget for appraisals, cleanup risk, and the department’s discretionary approvals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 385 sets a sequenced checklist the county must complete before it can part with a discrete portion of Glen Helen Regional Park. The law makes the county responsible for commissioning independent, department‑approved fair‑market appraisals of both the park parcel proposed for disposition and the replacement parcel; it also requires the county to submit a replacement‑property plan for department review.
Those valuation and planning steps are the gatekeepers: the replacement land must meet an equivalence test on value and a department judgment that recreational utility is preserved or improved.
Beyond valuation, the bill imposes concrete documentation demands. The county must supply preliminary and then final title reports that enumerate liens, encumbrances, easements, and a detailed list of “permitted exceptions” the parties accept.
For the replacement site the county must produce a written environmental site assessment, an attestation describing known hazards, and a feasibility study about suitability for public recreation. The statute fixes calendar deadlines for those deliverables and requires the county to show which environmental defects have been corrected before the transfer proceeds.The statute preserves contingent protections on grant‑funded lands: if the Glen Helen parcel was acquired or improved with state grants, the county must enter into a department‑approved written agreement that shifts all grant responsibilities and obligations to the replacement parcel in perpetuity.
Replacement land must be held and used for park purposes and remains subject to applicable state law, including any requirements tied to programs such as the Roberti‑Z’Berg‑Harris Act. Finally, the bill requires the replacement property to be acquired before or at the same time as the disposition, and it bars the state or county from bearing any cost for the replacement acquisition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute caps disposals at 4.2 acres of Glen Helen Regional Park land.
The county must submit an independent, department‑approved appraisal of the Glen Helen parcel by July 1, 2026, and an appraisal of the proposed replacement parcel by July 1, 2027.
A replacement‑property plan is due to the department by January 1, 2027; preliminary title, environmental, feasibility, and exception‑lists are due by January 1, 2028, and final title reports by July 1, 2028.
Replacement land must equal or exceed the fair market value of the Glen Helen parcel (or the parcel’s actual sales price, whichever is higher), and the department must determine the replacement’s recreational utility is equal or greater.
Before disposing of the Glen Helen parcel the county must execute a department‑approved agreement transferring all state grant responsibilities for the original parcel to the replacement parcel in perpetuity, and replacement land must be used for park purposes under applicable state law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Allows disposal only after strict preconditions
This opening paragraph authorizes the county to dispose up to 4.2 acres but only 'notwithstanding any other law' and only after meeting the statute’s requirements. Practically, the provision converts a policy question — can a county reconfigure park land? — into a compliance exercise driven by a list of documentary and approval steps the county must follow before title can change hands.
Department‑approved appraisals and a non‑ambiguous value floor
The county must obtain independent appraisals of the subject and replacement parcels, and the department must approve those appraisals. The bill sets an equivalence rule: replacement fair market value must be at least as high as the higher of the subject parcel’s appraisal or its actual sales price; for a straight exchange the test relies only on appraisal. This pairing of appraisal approvals and a highest‑of standard reduces some valuation ambiguity but invites scrutiny over appraisal methodology and which sale price qualifies as 'actual sales price.'
Proof of comparable public utility plus environmental due diligence
The department must sign off that the replacement parcel’s recreational utility is equal or better, a discretionary judgment that can hinge on access, amenities, or topography. The county must also deliver a written environmental site assessment, an attestation about known environmental problems, and a feasibility study evaluating the parcel’s suitability for public recreation. Those documents transfer the initial investigatory burden to the county and frame the scope of any further cleanup or capital work that replacement will require.
Layered title reports and negotiable 'permitted exceptions'
The statute requires preliminary and final title reports for both parcels that enumerate liens, easements, and other encumbrances, plus a full list of 'permitted exceptions' the county and the replacement‑parcel owner agree to accept. That mechanism forces the parties to surface long‑running title issues early and memorialize which encumbrances survive the transfer, but it also creates a negotiation point where public purpose can be constrained by private title bargains.
Remediation reporting and a perpetual transfer of grant obligations
Before acquisition the county must report which environmental defects have been corrected and which remain, and must secure a final written agreement, approved by the department, that moves all county responsibilities under any applicable grant contracts for the Glen Helen parcel to the replacement parcel in perpetuity. This clause preserves state grant protections but raises questions about long‑term liability allocation should latent contamination or grant compliance issues arise after transfer.
Replacement parcel must be held for parks and be acquired before or concurrent with disposition
Subsection (b) reaffirms that replacement property will be subject to park‑use restrictions and the same state law requirements that applied to the original parcel, including applicable Roberti‑Z'Berg‑Harris rules. Subsection (c) requires the replacement parcel to be acquired before or at the same time as the county disposes of Glen Helen land, which prevents the county from disposing first and hunting for a replacement later.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- County of San Bernardino — Gains a defined legal pathway to reconfigure a small segment of parkland while preserving eligibility and continuity under state grants, enabling local planning objectives that require that parcel.
- Owners or donors of replacement parcels — Can negotiate conveyances to the county that, if accepted, will be held in perpetuity for park use and may attract public or philanthropic support for park projects.
- Park planners and recreation users (potentially) — If replacement land offers greater or more accessible recreational features, the public can gain improved amenities or better‑configured park space.
- California Department of Parks and Recreation — Receives a statutory checklist and deadlines to protect state grant investments and to exercise oversight on equivalence and environmental conditions.
Who Bears the Cost
- County of San Bernardino — Must pay for multiple independent appraisals, environmental site assessments, feasibility and title reports, and manage remediation and negotiation costs; the county also bears project management and acquisition work under tight deadlines.
- Replacement parcel owners — May have to resolve title exceptions, fix environmental defects, or accept complex conveyance terms to meet the 'no cost to state or county' requirement for the replacement acquisition.
- Department staff and budget — Must review appraisals, environmental and title materials, and approve final transfer agreements; these administrative burdens may require staff time without a dedicated funding source.
- State taxpayers and park beneficiaries — Face the long‑term risk of diminished public control if permitted exceptions or poor equivalence reviews allow net loss in park quality; remediation of latent contamination could create future claims if not fully resolved.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing local flexibility to reconfigure a small parcel of parkland against preserving the public interest in permanent, high‑quality park acreage: the bill enables a swap only if replacement land matches value and utility and assumes upfront due diligence, but it relies on departmental discretion and negotiated title exceptions — creating a fine line between a legitimate, beneficial land exchange and an erosion of protected public park resources.
AB 385 is a tightly constrained statutory template, but it leaves important implementation questions open. The bill vests significant discretion in the department to approve appraisals and determine 'recreational utility' without specifying objective metrics; that invites dispute over what counts as 'equal or greater' recreation value and could lead to litigation or negotiated compromises that fall short of public expectations.
The equivalence test that references both appraisal and actual sales price reduces some valuation gaming, but it does not eliminate controversies over appraisal methodology, timing, or selection of comparables.
The statute shifts the initial risk of environmental contamination and title defects onto the county and the replacement parcel owner by requiring assessments, attestations, and lists of corrected versus uncorrected problems. But the perpetual transfer of state grant obligations creates a durable allocation of responsibilities that may be hard to unwind if latent environmental liabilities surface years later.
The bill also requires replacement acquisition 'at no cost to the state or county,' which effectively forces private funding or donation mechanisms; that raises questions about the public interest if replacements are supplied through development deals with private beneficiaries. Lastly, the statute prescribes calendar deadlines but does not address how CEQA, local land‑use approvals, or third‑party challenges might extend the schedule, complicating the county’s ability to meet the statutory timeline.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.