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