BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 372 HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
AUTHOR: Kehoe URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 20, 2009 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks system: unit modification, adjustment, or
removal.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
California's state park system is the largest in the world,
comprising 279 parks, including 1.5 million acres, and
attracting 76 million visitors annually. Despite the
recreational, cultural, and historic significance of these
parks, state law does not provide a consistent process for
protecting state parks from proposed land uses that may be
inconsistent with the purpose or purposes for which the park was
initially established.
State lands designated as wilderness lands may not occur unless
a recommendation to the Legislature is made by the Secretary for
Resources or the State Lands Commission.
State parks are divided into units categorized by their focus on
historic, recreational, marine, wilderness, or other resources.
Parks are classified into these units by the California State
Parks and Recreation Commission.
PROPOSED LAW
SB 372 contains one provision: It would provide that
modifications or adjustments or removals of state park units
that the director of the department determines are incompatible
with state park purposes may proceed only after a recommendation
for that action is taken by the State Park and Recreation
Commission and that the Legislature enacts legislation approving
the recommendation.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
1
According to the author, proposed inconsistent uses within state
parks are on the increase. She cites research of the sponsor,
the California State Parks Foundation (CSPF), pointing to more
than 122 such proposals in 73 state parks. Often, state parks
are considered the "path of least resistance" for infrastructure
and other development projects. Without an adequate system of
considering and reviewing these proposals, it is possible for
projects to have significant impacts to sensitive natural,
cultural, historic, and recreational resources in the state park
system.
The fact that the public has consistently supported public bond
investments in state parks underscores the need for a more
consistent process to consider proposed changes to state parks,
the author believes. Recent high profile examples of proposed
development or infrastructure projects in state parks have
demonstrated the lack of a clear, unambiguous policy.
CSPF contends that this bill emulates the existing process that
pertains to proposed changes to lands in the California
wilderness system referenced earlier and builds upon the current
statutory requirements of the State Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Commission has existing authority to name park
units, approves General Plans and general plan amendments of
parks, and provides annual reports on the programs and
activities of the state parks system.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Orange County Transportation Agency believes that this bill
duplicates provisions in CEQA, and that it would limit local
land use and transportation planning authority. It mentions
several highway projects that it believes would be affected by
this bill. The Orange County Board of Supervisors made
essentially the same point.
A coalition comprised of the California Chamber of Commerce and
three other entities suggests that the bill is a response to
proposed utility lines in Anza Barrego State Park, and a highway
in San Onofre State Beach. It says that since neither project
was approved, the bill is not necessary. It suggests that the
bill's use of the terms "modifications and adjustments" is
vague, and that the bill could require approvals for any
improvement within a park.
COMMENTS
Some of the opposition letters were written prior to the
amendment that limited the bill to modifications or adjustments
2
to state parks that are incompatible with state park purposes
thus eliminating the concern that all projects, even those that
are compatible with the park, would be included in this
provision.
It could be important, however, to clarify that the
modifications or adjustments that are covered by the bill are
those that affect a park's boundaries or uses that are
incompatible with the purposes of the state park. The first
amendment would make that clarification.
Related legislation : SB 679 (Wolk) prohibits the disposition of
state park lands unless approved by the Legislature and only if
appropriate substitute lands are provided.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 7, after "adjustment" add, "of boundaries or
uses"
3
SUPPORT
American Land Conservancy
Anza Borrego Foundation
Audubon California
Bay Area Open Space Council
Big Sur Land Trust
California Coastal Protection Network
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation Voters
California State Parks Foundation
Central Valley land Trust Council
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
Environment California
Lake County Land Trust
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Land Trust of Napa County
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Lassen Land & Trails Trust
Mattole Restoration Council
Mountain Meadows Conservancy
Muir Heritage Land Trust
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Land Trust
Planning and Conservation League
Redwood Coast Land Conservancy
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Sierra Club California
Sierra-Cascade Land Trust Council
Sonoma Land Trust
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
OPPOSITION
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Transportation Agency
Resources Landowners Coalition
Southern California Edison
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
4
5