SB 360 authorizes the County of San Bernardino to sell or exchange parcels it acquired in the Chino Agricultural Preserve with funds from the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act, but only if the county satisfies a set of statutory safeguards and procedural steps. The authorization is conditional: the county must preserve acquired lands or easements in perpetuity for park, recreational, agricultural preservation, or open‑space conservation uses and obtain Department of Parks and Recreation approval for the county’s detailed land plan and legal instruments.
The bill matters because it creates a narrow path for a local government to monetize or reconfigure grant‑funded conservation holdings while attempting to lock in conservation outcomes. It balances fiscal flexibility for the county (sale proceeds and income can fund replacement land or property upkeep) against state oversight mechanisms designed to prevent net loss of protected acreage or habitat and to keep proceeds from subsidizing private actors.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the County of San Bernardino to adopt a detailed, department‑approved land plan before selling, exchanging, or otherwise disposing of grant‑purchased parcels in the Chino Agricultural Preserve; the plan must include an environmental review, public hearing, parcel‑level disposition decisions, and measures to avoid net loss of protected land or habitat.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the County of San Bernardino, the Department of Parks and Recreation (which must review and approve plans and easements), buyers or exchange partners for preserved land, and organizations that hold or enforce conservation easements within the preserve; nearby residents and park operators will be affected by changes in parcel use and management.
Why It Matters
Sets a precedent for conditional disposal of state‑funded conservation lands with detailed procedural controls, creates explicit limits on how sale proceeds may be used, and places the state department in a gatekeeping role—shaping how local governments can reconfigure conservation portfolios to meet fiscal or management needs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 360 creates a controlled process that allows San Bernardino County to rearrange or sell parcels it originally bought with state conservation grants, but only after the county produces and follows a detailed land plan that the state department must approve. The plan must show every parcel acquired with grant funds and say whether each will be retained, sold, purchased, or exchanged, and whether retention will be in fee title or by conservation easement.
The statute requires an environmental review of that plan and a public hearing before the county board of supervisors.
Implementation steps are prescribed rather than discretionary. The county must place deed restrictions or record conservation easements on retained properties and is required to secure department approval before recording.
Prior to closing any transactions called for by the plan, the county must submit independent appraisals for department review and make those appraisals publicly available soon after disposition. If the plan results in any reduction in acreage or habitat value, the county must identify and acquire replacement land within the preserve to make up the shortfall.Financial controls accompany the procedural rules.
Revenues from authorized sales or exchanges and income from the affected properties may be used to buy replacement land within the preserve or for improvement, operation, and maintenance of public lands or facilities in the preserve; the statute bars granting those funds to private entities except where the funds are used to acquire replacement land or for necessary services. Finally, the bill requires a report to the department detailing expenditures, revenues, acreage sold/exchanged/held, and any unspent proceeds once the land plan is implemented.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The county must record deed restrictions on grant‑purchased properties by April 1, 2011, and record conservation easements for retained parcels by April 1, 2012 (with a fallback mandatory recording of easements by June 1, 2012 if certain plan deadlines are missed).
The Department of Parks and Recreation must approve the county’s land plan before the board can adopt it; if the department takes no action within 45 days of receipt it must still provide written comments explaining concerns or suggested modifications.
Each conservation easement or deed restriction must be reviewed and approved by the department within 60 days of submission; disapprovals must be accompanied by written reasons.
Prior to closing any transaction under the plan, the county must submit independent appraisals of the land to be sold or acquired for department concurrence with state appraisal standards and must make those appraisals available to the public within 60 days after the last sale or exchange.
Sale or exchange revenues and income from the affected properties can be used only to acquire replacement land within the preserve or to improve, operate, and maintain public lands and facilities in the preserve, and may not be granted to private entities (except for acquisition of replacement land or necessary services).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Narrow authorization plus perpetual‑use condition
This subsection is the statutory authorization that lets San Bernardino County dispose of certain grant‑funded parcels. Its practical effect is restrictive: any disposition must preserve the core conservation purposes in perpetuity and limit allowed public uses to park, recreational, agricultural preservation, open‑space conservation, and related public purposes. That perpetuality requirement raises long‑term enforceability issues and binds future owners or managers of the land.
Definitions that set legal boundaries
This part defines the operative terms—'County,' 'Board,' 'Department,' 'Plan,' 'Grant funds,' and 'Preserve'—and fixes the preserve boundary as the 14,000‑acre Chino Agricultural Preserve as it existed on June 8, 1988 (including parcels around Chino airport). Those definitions constrain where the plan can operate and could create boundary‑clarity disputes if historic maps or parcel lines conflict with current records.
Land plan content and approval prerequisites
Requires a parcel‑level plan that identifies which properties will be sold, exchanged, purchased, or retained and whether tenure will be fee title or conservation easement. The plan must maximize connectivity 'to the extent feasible,' include environmental review, demonstrate no net loss in acreage or habitat value (or identify replacement land if there is loss), and be provided to the department at least 90 days before county adoption. The department must approve the plan before the board may adopt it; this elevates the department to a substantive reviewer rather than a ministerial sign‑off.
Implementation mechanics: easements, appraisals, and timing
Lays out concrete actions and deadlines: record conservation easements on retained parcels, record easements or deed restrictions within 90 days of acquiring fee title, submit independent appraisals for department concurrence prior to closings, and obtain department approval of any easement or restriction before recordation. These mechanics create multiple review gates that will structure transaction timelines and public transparency (appraisals must be made public after disposition).
Accounting, permissible uses of proceeds, and failure remedies
Requires the county to report on revenues, expenditures, acreages, and unspent funds after plan implementation and tightly restricts how proceeds may be used—principally for replacement land or upkeep—while expressly prohibiting grants to private entities (with narrow exceptions). If the county misses plan deadlines it may seek a department extension, but elements of the plan cannot be substantively removed as part of an extension; failing extension approval triggers mandatory recording of conservation easements on all grant‑purchased lands by a specified fallback date.
CEQA compliance remains mandatory
Affirms that nothing in the bill exempts the county from California Environmental Quality Act review. Practically that means the land plan and individual transactions will be subject to CEQA analysis and potential mitigation or process delays independent of the department review process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Residents and park users near the Chino Agricultural Preserve — the bill locks in perpetual public uses for many parcels and requires environmental review and connectivity considerations that protect open‑space value for recreation and community use.
- Wildlife and habitat interests — the statute mandates no net loss of acreage or habitat value and requires replacement acquisition if the plan reduces protected acreage, providing a legal mechanism to preserve habitat function within the preserve boundaries.
- San Bernardino County — gains a statutorily authorized path to monetize or reconfigure grant‑purchased holdings to raise funds for replacement land, operations, or maintenance, giving the county financial flexibility to manage its portfolio.
- Department of Parks and Recreation — gains a formal oversight role and control points (plan approval, easement review, appraisal concurrence) that allow the department to enforce statewide conservation objectives within the preserve.
- Local public agencies and park operators — can receive revenue or income for allowable maintenance and improvement work within the preserve without risking diversion of funds to unrelated private projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- County of San Bernardino — the county must prepare a detailed, department‑approved land plan, conduct environmental review, finance conservation easement recordings, commission independent appraisals, and comply with reporting and monitoring obligations, creating administrative and transaction costs.
- Department of Parks and Recreation — must perform substantive plan, easement, and appraisal reviews within statutory windows, adding workload and potential resource needs for timely review and written reasoning on disapprovals.
- Potential buyers or exchange partners — face greater due diligence and appraisal scrutiny, shorter windows to close transactions aligned with departmental review, and public disclosure of appraisals that may affect negotiation leverage.
- Private entities and developers — largely excluded from benefiting directly from sale proceeds, reducing options for public‑private partnerships that rely on transfer of state grant‑funded assets or funding support.
- Land trusts or easement holders — may inherit perpetual easements requiring ongoing monitoring and enforcement, which carries stewardship costs that must be paid or otherwise supported.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enabling a county to convert or reconfigure state‑funded conservation holdings to raise funds and manage its lands, and the state’s need to prevent any substitution that weakens conservation outcomes; allowing more local flexibility reduces short‑term fiscal strain but increases the risk of permanent losses in habitat quality or public benefit unless the state imposes strict, administratively heavy safeguards.
The bill attempts to thread a narrow needle: it gives a local government flexibility to alter its conservation portfolio but conditions that flexibility on multiple pre‑transaction approvals and perpetuity requirements. That layering of departmental approvals, appraisals, CEQA review, and mandatory easements or deed restrictions reduces the risk that grant‑purchased lands will be converted to nonconservation uses, but it also creates several practical frictions.
Multiple statutory deadlines and review windows (some of which are absolute) can compress transaction timetables or produce bottlenecks if the department lacks capacity to respond in the specified windows. The statutory requirement to avoid 'net loss in acreage or habitat value' leaves open hard measurement questions: how will habitat value be quantified, who sets the metrics, and what mitigation quality counts as equivalent replacement?
Those ambiguities matter when the county proposes to swap smaller higher‑quality parcels for larger but degraded ones.
The bill's financial rules are blunt: proceeds are tightly circumscribed to replacement land or maintenance and are barred from being granted to private entities except narrowly for acquisition or 'necessary' services. That protects public purpose but limits creative financing or stewardship partnerships that could leverage private capital or nonprofit management.
Finally, the permanence of conservation easements and deed restrictions solves durability concerns but raises implementation questions about long‑term monitoring, enforcement funding, and resolving boundary or baseline disputes tied to historical preserve maps.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.