BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 580 HEARING DATE: March 22, 2011
AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State Parks: acquired land: limits on disposition or
use.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Public Park Preservation Act, commencing with Section 5400
of the Public Resources Code (PRC) prohibits a public entity
from acquiring any park for non-park purposes unless there is
sufficient compensation or replacement parkland given in
exchange. Compensation must be based on the cost of acquiring
and developing substitute park land of comparable size and
characteristics. Replacement parkland must also be of comparable
characteristics and size and the location must also allow for
use by the same persons who frequented the original park.
Existing law also establishes the State Park and Recreation
Commission (Commission), consisting of nine members appointed by
the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. Under PRC §539,
the Commission is responsible for establishing general policies
to guide the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) in the
administration, protection, and development of the state park
system. More specifically, the Commission is responsible for
approving the classification of and general plans for individual
state park units.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would prohibit state park lands from being disposed of
or used for other purposes incompatible with park purposes
unless suitable substitute land, as determined by the
Commission, is received in exchange. Specifically, this bill
would:
Require the Commission to certify that the substitute park
land meets all of the following:
1
o Has equal values, including environmental as the
original park;
o Has the same or greater fair market value, as
established in an approved appraisal;
o Is located in an area that would allow for use by
generally the same persons as the original park; and
o Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational, natural, historic, and cultural value.
Allow the Commission to approve a combination of substitute
park lands and monetary compensation if:
o Appropriate substitute lands are provided to the
greatest extent possible; and
o The monetary compensation is equal or greater to the
value of the land not otherwise substituted and that
compensation is sufficient to allow DPR to acquire other
park lands of equal acreage to the original park.
Prohibit the Commission from considering substitute park
offers unless the Commission determines that there is no other
practical alternative to park land disposal or an incompatible
use of park land.
Apply to lands acquired for the state park system with public
funds or through receipt of gifts of bequests for the purpose
of expanding or maintaining the state park system.
Explicitly not apply to any existing uses of state park lands
that have been authorized in writing on or before January 1,
2012.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "Existing law does not provide a clear,
unambiguous policy for protecting state parks. Senate Bill 580
enacts commonsense protection for state parks that simply
indicates that land use as state parks cannot be used for
non-park purposes without Commission review of alternatives and
substitution of lands of equal value."
The State Parks Foundation, the sponsor of this bill, states in
support, "The goal of SB 580 is to protect the investment that
Californians have made in the state park system. Especially in
these times, when our state parks are being proposed for drastic
program cuts and massive closures, it is important to safeguard
this multi-million dollar public asset?Increasingly, state parks
are looked at as the path of least resistance for placing
infrastructure and other development projects. These proposals
have significant impacts to sensitive natural, cultural and
historic resources in the state park system. Adverse outcomes
that arise from improper use of our state's public lands include
loss of recreational opportunities, loss of wildlife habitat and
2
corridors, degradation of watersheds and diminished water
quality, loss of park acreage and more."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The American Council of Engineering Companies of California, the
California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Business
Properties Association, in a joint letter, state in opposition
to the bill, "This measure is intended to stop necessary
infrastructure projects, whether they be utility, water or
transportation improvements, from occurring within, or near,
state park boundaries." More specifically, the joint opposition
letter expresses concern that this bill:
Violates existing contracts by abrogating existing contracts
that the state has with property owners for concessions,
access road easements, utility easements, etc;
Discourages future expansions of the State Park system through
voluntary arrangements with property owners and other public
agencies who need to retain easements for non-park uses;
Applies to park lands that DPR does not necessarily own in fee
title;
Reduces the ability to site new infrastructure which may
especially affect AB 320 goals and "in-state" renewable
portfolio standards by creating a barrier to electrical
generation and transmission improvements;
Creates a barrier for State Parks to use park lands for
revenue generating purposes; and
Subjects the state to litigation over the Commission's
certification of substitute land.
COMMENTS
Many park units face potential conflicting uses of the park: On
August 5, 2008, this committee held a joint oversight hearing
with the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife on the
state of the park system, including an overview of conflicting
uses in and adjacent to state parks. The committee heard
testimony regarding a proposed toll road through San Onofre
State Beach, a proposed powerline through Anza-Borrego Desert
State Park, and a large dairy that was proposed near Allensworth
State Historic Park. In 2007, the State Parks Foundation
conducted a survey of threats to state parks and found 122
threats to 73 parks.
Under existing law, the Commission would probably have to
address the impact of such non-park uses in a formal manner
through a general plan amendment approval, presuming that the
non-park use would alter the park unit's general plan. However,
the Commission currently has no authority to require any park
3
mitigations, nor does the Commission have any statutory guidance
on mitigating non-park impacts with substitute park land or
monetary compensation. This bill would give the Commission that
authority and guidance.
Requirements are consistent with the Preservation of Public
Parks Act: This bill establishes requirements that are similar
to the Preservation of Public Parks Act, which also requires
substitute park land or sufficient monetary compensation when a
public entity is acquiring public park land for non-park
purposes. However, there has been some question as to whether
this law applies to state parks, or just to city and county
parks.
Similar replacement requirements exist for park lands acquired
or developed with bond dollars (including Proposition 84 of
2006, Proposition 12 of 2000, and Proposition 70 of 1988) and
federal Land and Water Conservation Act funds.
How should fair market value be determined? This bill requires
that fair market value of the park land be determined by an
"approved" appraisal. However, it is unclear who is responsible
for approving the appraisal. The author may wish to instead
require that the fair market value be based on an appraisal
conducted by a qualified appraiser. This requirement would be
consistent with the statutes governing the state acquisition of
conservation land in §5096.511 et seq. (See amendment 1)
Previous legislation : This bill is identical to the last version
of SB 679 (Wolk, 2009). SB 679 was passed by both houses of the
Legislature, but ultimately was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Clarification amendments : The author may wish to make several
clarification amendments to the criteria for substitute park
lands. (See amendments 2 and 3).
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 2, line 17, delete "an approved appraisal" and
insert "an appraisal conducted by a qualified member of the
Appraisal Institute who is licensed pursuant to Part 3
(commencing with Section 11300) of Division 4 of the Business
and Professions Code."
On page 3, line 6, delete "an approved appraisal" and
4
insert "an appraisal conducted by a qualified member of the
Appraisal Institute who is licensed pursuant to Part 3
(commencing with Section 11300) of Division 4 of the Business
and Professions Code."
AMENDMENT 2
On page 2, line 10, delete "all" and insert "any"
AMENDMENT 3
On page 2, on line 14, delete "environmental value" and
insert "environmental, natural, cultural, historic value"
On page 2, beginning on line 22, delete "or has reasonably
equivalent natural, cultural, or historical significance."
SUPPORT
California State Parks Foundation
Central Coast Natural History Association
Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association
Mendocino Area Parks Association
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
California League of Park Associations
Friends of Pio Pico, Inc.
Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
OPPOSITION
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Chamber of Commerce
California Business Properties Association
5