BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 580
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 580 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 20, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 21-16
SUBJECT : State Parks
SUMMARY : Prohibits land acquired for the state park system
through public funds or gifts and bequests from being disposed of
or used for other purposes incompatible with park purposes
without the substitution of other land of equal value, as
specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits land acquired for the state park system with public
funds, gifts or bequests, with the express purpose of expanding
or maintaining the state park system, from being disposed of or
used for other purposes incompatible with park purposes without
the substitution of other land that meets specified
requirements.
2)Requires the State Park and Recreation Commission (Commission),
following a duly noticed public hearing, to certify that any
request to dispose of or use state park lands for purposes
incompatible with park purposes, provides for substitution of
other land that meets all of the following:
a) Has equal environmental, natural, cultural, or
historical value, or other value for which the park was
established;
b) Has the same or greater fair market value, as
established by an appraisal conducted by a qualified
appraiser.
c) Is located in an area that would allow for use of the
substitute park land by generally the same persons who
used the acquired land.
d) Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value.
3)Authorizes the Commission if substitute lands cannot be
acquired to fully meet the requirements described in 2) above,
to approve a combination of substitute park lands and monetary
compensation if specified conditions are met.
SB 580
Page 2
4)Permits the Commission to consider requests for disposal or
incompatible uses of state park lands only if the Commission
first determines that all practical alternatives that avoid
disposal or incompatible use have been considered. Requires
the Commission in making this determination to consider
information provided by other governmental entities with
regulatory or permitting authority over the proposed non-park
use and other interested parties.
5)Provides that this bill does not apply to existing uses of
state park lands that have been authorized on or before January
1, 2012 by written agreement with the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) pursuant to an existing permit, a legally
recorded deed, a memorandum of understanding, or other written
agreement with DPR. Provides that this provision does not
expand or facilitate the use of state park lands beyond the
current use allowed on or before January 1, 2012, by written
agreement with DPR.
6)Specifies that this bill does not amend, repeal, or limit the
effect of a provision in SB 792 (Leno), Chapter 203, Statutes
of 2009, relating to Hunter's Point State Park.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the Preservation of Public Parks Act, prohibits a
public entity from acquiring any property in use as a public
park for any non-park purpose unless the acquiring entity pays
or transfers to the entity operating the park sufficient
compensation or land to replace the park. Requires that the
substitute park land, with some exceptions, have comparable
characteristics and be of substantially equal size, and located
in an area which would allow for use by the same persons who
used the park land being acquired.
2)Provides for the state park system which is managed by DPR.
DPR is responsible for administering, protecting, developing
and interpreting state park property under its jurisdiction for
the use and enjoyment of the public.
3)Establishes the Commission which is composed of nine members
appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation.
Requires Commission members to be selected from areas
distributed throughout the state. Responsibilities of the
SB 580
Page 3
Commission include approval of general plans governing state
park units and classification of units of the state park
system.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee
analysis, administrative costs absorbable within existing
resources and unknown potential revenue loss to General Fund from
potential sale of state park lands.
COMMENTS : The purpose of this bill is to establish a process
for evaluating proposals to convert state park lands to non-park
purposes, and to ensure that parks converted to other purposes
are replaced with substitute park lands of equal environmental
and fair market value. The author indicates that state law does
not provide a consistent process for protecting state parks from
proposed land uses that may be incompatible with the purposes for
which the park was established. The sponsors note the purpose of
this bill is to protect the significant public investment in the
state park system, and the economic value of the parks to local
communities and to all Californians.
The author further notes that increasing development throughout
the state has caused pressure on California's state park system.
In 2007, the California State Parks Foundation conducted a survey
of threats to state parks and found 122 threats to 73 parks.
Recent high-profile examples include Colonel Allensworth State
Historic Park, San Onofre State Beach, Anza-Borrego Desert State
Park, and Humboldt Lagoons State Park. Increasingly, state parks
are looked at as the path of least resistance for infrastructure
and other development projects. The loss of state park lands
results in loss of recreation opportunities, loss of wildlife
habitat and wildlife corridors, degradation of watersheds and
water quality, and loss of historic and cultural resources. This
bill would not prohibit parks from being converted to non-park
uses in all cases, but would require that state parks not be used
for non-park purposes without Commission review of alternatives
and substitution of lands of equal park value. The author
further points to the fact that California voters consistently
support improvements to state parks through their approval of
bonds. The author notes that providing clear statutory
protection to safeguard state parks upholds the will of the
California public and ensures these resources, that have received
significant state investments, remain part of the public trust.
SB 580
Page 4
The language of this bill is similar to existing language in the
federal Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA), which states that
no property acquired or developed with federal LWCA Funds can be
converted to uses other than outdoor recreation uses without
substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal
fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and
location. This federal requirement already applies to state park
lands purchased with federal LWCA dollars. This bill would apply
that same policy to all state parks whether acquired with federal
funds or not.
The concept in this bill is also similar to existing state law in
the Public Resources Code, titled the Preservation of Public
Parks Act. That law prohibits a public entity from acquiring
public park properties for any non-park purpose unless the
acquiring entity pays or transfers to the entity operating the
park sufficient compensation or land to replace the park, and
requires that the substitute land purchased to replace the park
be of comparable characteristics, size and location as the park
being acquired. However, there has been some question as to
whether this law applies to state parks or just to county and
city parks.
Arguments in Support : Supporters assert this bill will protect
the investment Californians have made in the state park system.
California voters repeatedly support state parks through approval
of bonds and in some cases donations of land. Establishing clear
statutory protection to safeguard state parks upholds the will of
the public in ensuring these resources remain part of the public
trust. This bill does not prohibit essential infrastructure, but
ensures clear criteria for evaluating when park lands may be
disposed of or put to different purposes, and requires that if
they are disposed or used for other purposes that they are
replaced with park lands of equal value. Now more than ever,
with the announcement of pending park closures, state parks need
protection, and the public needs to know that temporary park
closures are not the Legislature's first step toward a
dismantling of the state park system.
Arguments in Opposition : Opponents assert this bill will have
the effect of severely limiting vital infrastructure projects in
California and impose significantly increased costs for
infrastructure projects. Opponents assert existing state and
federal law provide adequate protection for state parks.
Opponents also argue this bill could chill future land donations
SB 580
Page 5
to the state park system, entitle the state to compensation for
property it does not own, and result in litigation against the
state. Some opponents further assert this bill violates existing
contracts and would make existing roads, water lines, electric
and gas transmission lines that cross park lands illegal because
they would be serving more than the state park system.
With regard to the latter point, the committee may wish to note
that this bill expressly does not apply to existing uses of state
park lands that have been authorized on or before January 1,
2012, by written agreement with DPR pursuant to an existing
permit, a legally recorded deed, a Memorandum of Understanding,
or other written agreement with DPR, or by the general plan for a
state park unit. This bill also applies only to land acquired
for the state park system with public funds or through receipt of
gifts or bequests from individuals or private entities with the
express purpose of expanding or maintaining the state park
system.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Park Foundation (sponsor)
California League of Park Associations
California Park & Recreation Society
Central Coast Natural History Association
Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association
Defenders of Wildlife
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
Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association
Trust for Public Land
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club California
SB 580
Page 6
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
Opposition
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated General Contractors
California Building & Construction Trades Council of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
City of Lake Forest
Orange County Transportation Authority
Pacific Gas and Electric
Resource Landowners Coalition
Sempra Energy
Small Business Technology Council
Southern California Edison
Transportation Corridor Agencies
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096