BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 679 HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks: acquired land: limits on disposition or
use.
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
This bill would prohibit the disposition of lands acquired as a
state park or their use for other than as a state park without
the express approval of the Legislature. If such a request is
approved, the department must receive lands of equal
environmental value, fair market value, reasonably equivalent
usefulness and location to the lands that are disposed of or
used for other than park purposes.
The bill provides that lands obtained after 1/1/10 by the
1
department would be subject to these provisions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, existing law does not provide clear,
unambiguous policy for protecting state parks. Recent examples
of proposed inconsistent uses with existing state parks include
proposals for mega-dairies, toll roads, power lines, and
casinos. These proposals, the author contends, have significant
impacts on a park's resources, including losses of recreational
opportunities, wildlife habitat and corridors, park acreage, and
other attributes.
Modeled after a statute in New York State, the author believes
that state parks should remain intact as state parks unless the
Legislature determines otherwise and substitute lands are
obtained.
The California State Parks Foundation observes that the process
to establish a state park requires a multi-year process that
involves the community, the public, and significant state
financial resources.
The foundation considers it undesirable for state park lands to
be used for non-park purposes, but in circumstances in which
that is necessary, it believes that lands with comparable
environmental attributes and of comparable value should be
received by the state.
A coalition of nearly 3 dozen local, regional, and statewide
land trusts supports the bill because of their concern that
numerous proposals, if developed, would impair the natural
resources and recreational uses of state parks. This coalition
states that "state parklands are specifically designated because
they protect valuable assets for the state-whether habitat and
species protection, preservation of irreplaceable historic
resources, or protection of cultural resources."
Many other letters of support make these same points.
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.
2
COMMENTS
In addition to a technical amendment (Amendment 1), the bill
should be clear about who determines whether the requirements
for substitution of other lands of equivalent value, usefulness,
and location have been met. The suggestion in Amendment 2 is
that the State Parks and Recreation Commission should make those
decisions.
Not every park is established for environmental reasons, as
evidenced by the parks created for historic or cultural
purposes. Thus, the third amendment suggests that the land
substitution provision focus on the purpose for which the park
was established.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 3. Delete "growing" and replace with
"expanding"
AMENDMENT 2
Page 2, line 7, at beginning: The California Parks and
Recreation Commission shall certify that [all requests]?.
AMENDMENT 3
Page 2, line 8. Add, after "environmental" "or other value
for which the park was established"
3
SUPPORT
American Land Conservancy
Amigos de los Rios
Anza Borrego Foundation and Institute
Audubon California
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Council of Land Trusts
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Parks Foundation
California Wilderness Coalition
Catalina Island Conservancy
Central Valley Land Trust Council
Chino Hills State Park Interpretative Association
Coastwalk
Eastern Sierra Land Trust
Feather River Land Trust
Forests Forever
Hills for Everyone
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
Mendocino Land Trust
Mountain Meadows Conservancy
Mountain Parks Foundation
Muir Heritage Land Trust
Natural Resources Defense Council
Open Space Council
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Land Trust
Planning and Conservation League
Plumas Eureka State Park Association
Preserve Calavera
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust
Sanctuary Forest, Inc.
Save Mt. Diablo
Sempervirens Fund
Sierra Club California
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
Sierra-Cascade Land Trust Council
Solano Land Trust
Sonoma Land Trust
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
4
Surfrider Foundation
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
Two individuals
OPPOSITION
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Transportation Authority
Resources Landowners Coalition
Southern California Edison
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
5