BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 372|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 372
Author: Kehoe (D)
Amended: 5/28/09
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 7-4, 4/28/09
AYES: Pavley, Kehoe, Leno, Padilla, Simitian, Wiggins,
Wolk
NOES: Cogdill, Benoit, Hollingsworth, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : State parks system: unit modification,
adjustment,
or removal
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that modifications or
adjustments of boundaries, or uses or removals of state
park units that the director of the Department of Parks and
Recreation determines are incompatible with state park
purposes, and that will significantly reduce public use or
the material, cultural, or historic significance of the
state park unit, may proceed only after a recommendation
for that action is taken by the State Park and Recreation
Commission, and that the Legislature enacts legislation
approving the recommendation.
ANALYSIS : California's state park system is the largest
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
2
in the world, comprising 279 parks, including 1.5 million
acres, and attracting 76 million visitors annually.
Despite the recreational, cultural, and historic
significance of these parks, state law does not provide a
consistent process for protecting state parks from proposed
land uses that may be inconsistent with the purpose or
purposes for which the park was initially established.
State lands designated as wilderness lands may not occur
unless a recommendation to the Legislature is made by the
Secretary for Resources or the State Lands Commission.
State parks are divided into units categorized by their
focus on historic, recreational, marine, wilderness, or
other resources. Parks are classified into these units by
the California State Parks and Recreation Commission
(Commission).
This bill prohibits a modification or adjustment of
boundaries or uses of state park units that is incompatible
with state park purposes, and that will significantly
reduce public use or the material, cultural, or historic
significance of the state park unit, as determined by the
Director of Parks and Recreation or the removal of state
park units from within the state park system, without the
Commission making that recommendation to the Legislature,
and the Legislature enacting legislation approving the
recommendation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/09)
American Land Conservancy
Anza Borrego Foundation
Audubon California
Bay Area Open Space Council
Big Sur Land Trust
California Coastal Protection Network
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation Voters
California State Parks Foundation
Central Valley land Trust Council
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
SB 372
Page
3
Environment California
Lake County Land Trust
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Land Trust of Napa County
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Lassen Land & Trails Trust
Mattole Restoration Council
Mountain Meadows Conservancy
Muir Heritage Land Trust
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Land Trust
Planning and Conservation League
Redwood Coast Land Conservancy
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Sierra Club California
Sierra-Cascade Land Trust Council
Sonoma Land Trust
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/27/09)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
City of Lake Forest
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Transportation Agency
Resources Landowners Coalition
Southern California Edison
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
proposed inconsistent uses within state parks are on the
increase. The author's office cites research of the
sponsor, the California State Parks Foundation (CSPF),
pointing to more than 122 such proposals in 73 state parks.
Often, state parks are considered the "path of least
resistance" for infrastructure and other development
projects. Without an adequate system of considering and
reviewing these proposals, it is possible for projects to
have significant impacts to sensitive natural, cultural,
SB 372
Page
4
historic, and recreational resources in the state park
system.
The fact that the public has consistently supported public
bond investments in state parks underscores the need for a
more consistent process to consider proposed changes to
state parks, the author's office believes. Recent high
profile examples of proposed development or infrastructure
projects in state parks have demonstrated the lack of a
clear, unambiguous policy.
CSPF contends that this bill emulates the existing process
that pertains to proposed changes to lands in the
California wilderness system referenced earlier and builds
upon the current statutory requirements of the Commission.
The Commission has existing authority to name park units,
approve general plans and general plan amendments of parks,
and provides annual reports on the programs and activities
of the state parks system.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Orange County
Transportation Agency believes that this bill duplicates
provisions in the California Environmental Quality Act, and
that it limits local land use and transportation planning
authority. It mentions several highway projects that it
believes will be affected by this bill. The Orange County
Board of Supervisors made essentially the same point. A
coalition comprised of the California Chamber of Commerce
and three other entities suggests that the bill is a
response to proposed utility lines in Anza Barrego State
Park, and a highway in San Onofre State Beach. It says
that since neither project was approved, the bill is not
necessary. It suggests that the bill's use of the terms
"modifications and adjustments" is vague, and that the bill
could require approvals for any improvement within a park.
CTW:do 5/27/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****