BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 372
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 15, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                     SB 372 (Kehoe) - As Amended:  July 14, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Water, Parks and  
          Wildlife     Vote:                            8-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill prohibits certain modifications or adjustments in the  
          boundaries or uses of a state park unit.  Specifically, this  
          bill:

          1)Prohibits modifications or adjustments to boundaries or uses  
            of a state park unit that are incompatible with state park  
            purposes and that would significantly reduce the public use,  
            or material, cultural, or historic significance of the park,  
            or the removal of a state park unit from the state park  
            system.

          2)Provides an exception to this prohibition if the State Park  
            and Recreation Commission  recommends the change and the  
            change is approved by the Legislature through legislation. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor costs of less than $50,000 (General Fund) to the  
          commission, per incident, to the extent the commission prepares  
          recommendations, resolutions and reports to the Legislature  
          regarding proposed adjustments to state park boundaries or uses.  


           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.   The author claims that there is an increase in the  
            proposed uses of state park lands  that are incompatible with  
            the functions of a state park. Currently, many different  
            public agencies, each with different charges, processes and  
            priorities, consider such proposals.  The author contends  








                                                                  SB 372
                                                                  Page  2

            there should be one, consistent process for public input  
            regarding these types of state park modifications and that the  
            Legislature is the appropriate body to balance competing  
            priorities for use of state resources.

           2)Background.   State law establishes the state park system,  
            which is managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation  
            (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.  

            State law does not provide a consistent process for protecting  
            a state park from proposed land uses that may be inconsistent  
            with the purpose or purposes for which the park was  
            established.  For example, a recent proposal to site a toll  
            road within the boundaries of 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.  

           3)Supporters  , including numerous environmental and conservation  
            groups, assert this bill appropriately gives the Legislature  
            authority to balance competing state interests that threaten  
            state park uses, builds on the existing authority of the  
            Commission, and provides a consistent and transparent  
            processes by which to do so.      

          4)Arguments in Opposition:   Opponents, such as the Orange County  
            Business Council and the Orange County Transportation  
            Authority, contend this bill, by adding to the process for  
            approval of infrastructure projects on state park lands, will  
            prevent job creation and unnecessarily duplicates existing  
            legal protections.  
           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081