BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 580 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 26, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE Jared Huffman, Chair SB 580 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 14, 2012 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 unless substitute land is provided that meets specified criteria. 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 unless other land is substituted that meets specified criteria. 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, 2013 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, 2013, 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 Commission include approval of general plans governing state SB 580 Page 3 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. The language of this bill is similar to existing language in the SB 580 Page 4 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 to the state park system, entitle the state to compensation for SB 580 Page 5 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, 2013, 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. Note : This bill was previously heard in this committee in January 2012, was granted reconsideration, and is up for VOTE ONLY on June 26, 2012. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California State Park Foundation (sponsor) California League of Conservation Voters California League of Park Associations California Park & Recreation Society California Releaf Central Coast Natural History Association Central Coast State Parks Association Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association City and County of San Francisco Coastal Advocates Defenders of Wildlife Environment California Friends of Pio Pico, Inc. Hills for Everyone Mendocino Area Parks Association SB 580 Page 6 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 Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods Surfrider Foundation Opposition California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance American Council of Engineering Companies of California Associated General Contractors Association of California Cities - Orange County California Business Properties Association California Chamber of Commerce California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance 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