BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 580|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 580
Author: Wolk (D) and Kehoe (D), et al
Amended: 3/29/11
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM : 6-3, 03/22/11
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Kehoe, Padilla, Simitian, Wolk
NOES: La Malfa, Cannella, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-3, 04/11/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Emmerson, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lieu
SUBJECT : State parks: acquired land: limits on
disposition or use
SOURCE : California State Parks Foundation
DIGEST : This bill prohibits state park lands from being
disposed of or used for other purposes incompatible with
park purposes unless suitable substitute land, as
determined by the State Park and Recreation Commission
(Commission), is received in exchange.
ANALYSIS : The Public Park Preservation Act, commencing
with Section 5400 of the Public Resources Code 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
CONTINUED
SB 580
Page
2
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, consisting of nine members appointed by the
Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. Under the Public
Resources Code §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.
This bill:
1.Requires the Commission to certify that the substitute
park land meets all of the following:
A. Has equal environmental, natural, cultural, or
historical value as the original park;
B. Has the same or greater fair market value, as
established by an appraisal conducted by a qualified
member of the Appraisal Institute;
C. Is located in an area that would allow for use by
generally the same persons as the original park; and
D. Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value.
1.Allows the Commission to approve a combination of
substitute park lands and monetary compensation if:
A. Appropriate substitute lands are provided to the
greatest extent possible; and
B. The monetary compensation is equal or greater to
the value of the land not otherwise substituted, as
established by a qualified member of the Appraisal
CONTINUED
SB 580
Page
3
Institute, and that compensation is sufficient to
allow DPR to acquire other park lands of equal acreage
to the original park.
1.Prohibits 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.
2.Applies 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.
3.Does not apply to any existing uses of state park lands
that have been authorized in writing on or before January
1, 2012.
Comments
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Administrative costs
CONTINUED
SB 580
Page
4
Absorbable within existing resources Special *
Revenues from the sale Unknown
potential revenue losses General
of state park lands
* State Park and Recreation Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/3/11)
California State Parks Foundation (source)
California League of Park Associations
Central Coast Natural History Association
Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association
Friends of Pio Pico, Inc.
Hills for Everyone
Mendocino Area Parks Association
Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
Mountain Parks Foundation
The Nature Conservancy
NRDC
Planning and Conservation League
Trust for Public Land
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club California
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/3/11)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated General Contractors
California Chamber of Commerce
California Business Properties Association
Sempra Energy
Transportation Corridor Agencies
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
CONTINUED
SB 580
Page
5
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 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.
CTW:nl 5/5/11 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 580
Page
6
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED