BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 372|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 372
Author: Kehoe (D), et al
Amended: 9/4/09
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
SENATE FLOOR : 21-16, 6/2/09
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Simitian,
Steinberg, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Cox, Denham,
Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Maldonado, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wright, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Ducheny, Vacancy
SENATE FLOOR : 21-16, 9/11/09
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian,
Wiggins, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Correa, Cox, Denham,
Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Maldonado, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wright, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cogdill, Negrete McLeod, Steinberg
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
2
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-33, 9/11/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State parks system: unit modification,
adjustment, or
removal
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill 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.
Assembly Amendments (1) specify that provisions apply to
land that lie within a designated unit of a state park
system; (2) add guidelines the Commission must follow
including a report to the Legislature; (3) provide that
provisions do not apply to existing uses of state park
lands that have been authorized on or before January 1,
2010; and (4) add co-authors.
ANALYSIS : California's state park system is the largest
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 Commission.
This bill:
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
3
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 significantly reduces
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.
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 objectives for the state park
unit, and to certify that no feasible alternatives exist
and the modification or adjustment serves a public
necessity.
3. This bill provides that those provisions are
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/10/09)
American Land Conservancy
Anza Borrego Foundation
Audubon California
Bay Area Open Space Council
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
4
Big Sur Land Trust
California Coastal Protection Network
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation Voters
California Park and Recreation Society
California State Parks Foundation
Central Valley land Trust Council
East Bay Regional Park District
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
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
Sacramento Valley Conservancy
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
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 9/10/09)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Agency
Resources Landowners Coalition
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
5
SEMPRA (unless amended)
Southern California Edison (unless amended)
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office has introduced
this bill to give the Legislature final authority over
whether a proposed project that will 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's
office 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's office 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's office 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
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
6
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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents such as the Orange
County Business Council assert this bill prevents potential
new job creation resulting from 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"I am returning Senate Bill 372 without my signature.
This bill requires the State Park and Recreation
Commission (Commission) to make a recommendation to
the Legislature and the Legislature to enact
legislation, or adopt a resolution, approving any
proposal to modify or adjust the use of a state park
unit or to remove a unit from the state park system.
I support protecting our state parks and the need for
public processes regarding proposed projects on or
near state park property. But, this proposal is an
inappropriate delegation of Executive branch
authority over the state park system to the
Legislative branch and I cannot support it.
CONTINUED
SB 372
Page
7
For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fong, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hill,
Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Charles Calderon, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Hernandez, Huber, Jeffries, Knight,
Logue, Ma, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuentes, Mendoza, V. Manuel Perez,
Vacancy
RJG:do 1/7/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED