BILL ANALYSIS
SB 372
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 372 (Kehoe)
As Amended September 4, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-16
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-3APPROPRIATIONS 10-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Coto, |
| |Caballero, Krekorian, | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, | |John A. Perez, Skinner, |
| |John A. Perez, Salas, | |Solorio, Torlakson |
| |Yamada | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| |Berryhill | |Miller, Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a significant modification or adjustment in
the boundaries or uses of a state park unit that is incompatible
with state park purposes, or the removal of a state park unit
from the state park system, unless the State Park and Recreation
Commission (Commission) recommends the change and the change is
approved by the Legislature. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a modification or adjustment in the boundaries of or
uses within a state park unit that is incompatible with state
park purposes and would significantly reduce public use or the
material, cultural, or historic significance of the state park
unit, or the removal of a state park unit from the state park
system, unless both of the following occur:
a) The Commission recommends the modification, adjustment
or removal to the Legislature, and,
b) The Legislature enacts legislation or adopts a
resolution approving the recommendation.
2)Requires the Commission in making its recommendation to
identify in a report to the Legislature how the modification
or adjustment will change the mission, purposes and management
SB 372
Page 2
objectives for the state park unit, and to certify that no
feasible alternatives exist and the modification or adjustment
serves a public necessity.
3)Makes this bill inapplicable to existing uses of state park
lands authorized on or before January 1, 2010, by existing
permits, deeds, easements, a memorandum of understanding, or
other written agreement with the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) or by the general plan for a state park unit.
States that this exemption for existing uses does not expand
or facilitate the use of state park lands beyond the current
use allowed on or before January 1, 2010 by written agreement
with DPR.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.
2)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
park units and classification of units of the state park
system.
3)Requires the Commission to hold a public hearing to consider
approval of a state park general plan and to consider matters
of classification or reclassification of a state park unit.
4)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.
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 : The author has introduced this bill to give the
Legislature final authority over whether a proposed project that
SB 372
Page 3
would result in the removal of a state park, or a modification
to the boundaries or uses within a state park that is
incompatible with park purposes, is critical enough to override
existing preservation and conservation of the park. The author
notes that several agencies, departments and commissions are
involved with reviewing proposals for development within state
parks, as exhibited by recent proposed projects within San
Onofre and Anza Borrego state parks. In each of these instances
final authority rested with a different entity - the Coastal
Commission with regard to San Onofre and the Public Utility
Commission with regard to Anza Borrego. As future projects
affecting state parks are proposed the author asserts that the
public should be able to look to one process for public input
and accountability by elected officials for state park lands
under the state's jurisdiction.
The author notes that increasingly the public benefits of
proposed public infrastructure projects are competing with the
public benefits of state parks. In 2007, the California State
Parks Foundation conducted a survey of threats to state parks
and found 122 threats to 73 parks. This bill requires the
Commission to make a recommendation to the Legislature regarding
proposals that are incompatible with state park purposes, and
then rests final authority with the Legislature as to whether to
approve or deny the recommendation.
Supporters of this bill point to the many public benefits of
state parks, and note that existing law does not provide a
consistent process for protecting state parks. Supporters
assert this bill appropriately vests the Legislature with
authority to balance any competing state interests that threaten
state park uses, and builds on the existing authority of the
Commission. Other supporters note that many state parks have
been acquired by the state through the hard work and efforts of
land trusts who have conveyed properties to the state for state
parks purposes with the understanding that the parks will be
preserved in perpetuity. They assert this bill will ensure that
any modification to a state park that is incompatible with state
park purposes and which significantly reduces public uses, or
the material, cultural, or historic significance of the park,
will be subject to a transparent process and approval of the
Legislature.
Opponents such as the Orange County Business Council assert this
bill would prevent potential new job creation resulting from
SB 372
Page 4
infrastructure projects on existing parklands because it
requires more steps to obtain approval for such projects.
Opponents also believe this bill includes protections
duplicative of existing law, will create delays to already
extensive environmental and permitting review processes, and
limits local land use and transportation planning authority.
Opponents also assert this bill diminishes executive authority,
and is intended to stop utility, water or transportation
infrastructure projects from occurring within state park
boundaries. Other opponents point to terms in the bill they
believe are broad or undefined and may therefore lead to
litigation.
Related legislation, SB 679 (Wolk) is also being considered in
this legislative session and would prohibit land acquired for
the state park system from being disposed of or used for other
than park purposes without the substitution of other land that
the Commission has certified is of equal value and meets other
specified conditions.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0002957