BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 580
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 580 (Wolk, Kehoe) - As Amended: June 14, 2012
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill restricts the ability of the state to allow state park
lands to be used for purposes not compatible with state park
purposes. Specifically, this bill, applicable only to uses of
state park land authorized on or after January 1, 2013:
1)Prohibits state park lands that were acquired with public
funds or through receipt of gift or bequests to expand or
maintain the state park system from being disposed of or used
for purposes incompatible with park purposes unless substitute
land is provided that is generally equivalent to the state
park land to be lost, including that the substitute land must
have the same or greater fair market value as the state park
land to be lost.
2)Provides that if substitute land generally equivalent to the
state park land to be lost cannot be acquired, that state may
accept a combination of land and money at least equal to the
fair market value of the state park land to be lost and
sufficient to allow the Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) to acquire and develop land for park usage or equal
acreage to the state park land to be lost, with preference
given to acquisition of land within the general geographic
region in which the state park land will be lost.
3)Requires the State Park and Recreation Commission to consider
requests to substitute state park lands with other lands only
if it determines all practical alternatives have been
considered and requires the commission to conduct a public
hearing prior to certifying that a request to dispose of or
use state park land for nonpark purposes meets all required
criteria.
SB 580
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor, absorbable cost to the commission to conduct public
hearings and review and certify requests to dispose of or
allow nonpark uses of state park lands.
2)Restricts the state's ability to use for nonpark purposes
General Fund revenues from the sale of state park lands.
The fiscal implications of this restriction are difficult to
quantify. First, many state park lands were provided to the
state with binding conditions that the lands must be used for
park purposes. Second, much of state park lands were acquired
with federal funds that the state may use only for the
acquisition of park lands. Nonetheless, this bill may have
the effect of forcing the state to forego millions of dollars
in General Funds revenue that the state might otherwise
receive, were it to decide to sell state park lands for
revenue generation purposes.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author concludes that existing law provides an
inconsistent process by which the state considers requests to
use state park lands for nonpark purposes. The author also
notes increasing pressure to allow development on state park
lands, such as roadways and electric power lines, and fears
the loss of state park lands in the future. The authors
intend this bill to provide a consistent process for the
consideration of such proposed uses that better ensures the
state maintain existing state park lands and the values they
provide.
2)Background. State law establishes the state park system,
which is managed by DPR. DPR administers, protects, develops
and interprets state park property for the use and enjoyment
of the public. The law prohibits a facility from being
developed in any unit of the state park system unless it is
compatible with the classification of the state park unit.
The law also establishes the State Park and Recreation
Commission, which is composed of nine gubernatorial
appointees. The commission approves general plans governing
state park units and classification of units of the state park
system and holds public hearings on those topics.
3)Existing Law Provides Some Protection to State Parks . The
Preservation of Public Parks Act prohibits a public entity
SB 580
Page 3
from acquiring any property in use as a public park for any
nonpark purpose unless the acquiring entity pays or transfers
to the entity operating the park sufficient compensation or
land to replace the park. The act further requires the
substitute park land, with some exceptions, be of comparable
characteristics and of substantially equal size and located in
an area that allows for use by the same persons who used the
park land being acquired.
Federal law also provides some protection to state parks.
Similar to this bill, the federal Land and Water Conservation
Act (LWCA) 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. These LWCA
restrictions apply to state park lands purchased with federal
LWCA funds.
4)Processes Vary for Considering Incompatible Uses of State Park
Lands . State law does not provide a consistent process for
protecting state parks from proposed land uses inconsistent
with the purposes for which the parks were established. For
example, a recent proposal to site a toll road within San
Onofre State Park needed the approval of the California
Coastal Commission, whereas authority to place proposed power
lines through Anza Borrego State Park rested with the
California Public Utilities Commission.
5)Support . This bill is supported by the California State Parks
Foundation (sponsor) and a long list of conservation,
recreation and environmental organizations.
6)Opposition. This bill is opposed by the California Building
and Construction Trades Council of California, the California
Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Gas and Electric and many other
industry organizations that may seek to undertake nonpark
projects on state park lands.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081