BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 679|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 679
Author: Wolk (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: acquired land: limits on
disposition or use
SOURCE : California State Park Foundation
DIGEST : This bill requires the California State Parks
and Recreation Commission to certify disposal of parkland
for uses other than park uses as long as the parkland is
substituted with specified land.
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.
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
2
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.
This bill requires the California State Parks and
Recreation Commission to certify disposal of parkland for
uses other than park uses as long as the parkland is
substituted with land that:
1. Has equal environmental value or value for which the
park was established.
2. Has the same or greater market value.
3. Is within the same are.
4. Provides similar public access and has similar values.
The California State Parks and Recreation Commission will
only consider the disposal if all practical alternatives
have been considered.
The bill provides that lands obtained after 1/1/10 by the
department is subject to these provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/28/09)
American Land Conservancy
Amigos de los Rios
Anza Borrego Foundation and Institute
Audubon California
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Council of Land Trusts
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Parks Foundation
SB 679
Page
3
California Wilderness Coalition
Catalina Island Conservancy
Central Valley Land Trust Council
Chino Hills State Park Interpretative Association
Coastwalk
Eastern Sierra Land Trust
Feather River Land Trust
Forests Forever
Hills for Everyone
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
Mendocino Land Trust
Mountain Meadows Conservancy
Mountain Parks Foundation
Muir Heritage Land Trust
Natural Resources Defense Council
Open Space Council
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Land Trust
Planning and Conservation League
Plumas Eureka State Park Association
Preserve Calavera
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust
Sanctuary Forest, Inc.
Save Mt. Diablo
Sempervirens Fund
Sierra Club California
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
Sierra-Cascade Land Trust Council
Solano Land Trust
Sonoma Land Trust
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
Surfrider Foundation
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/28/09)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
SB 679
Page
4
California Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Transportation Authority
Resources Landowners Coalition
Southern California Edison
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
existing law does not provide clear, unambiguous policy for
protecting state parks. Recent examples of proposed
inconsistent uses with existing state parks include
proposals for mega-dairies, toll roads, power lines, and
casinos. These proposals, the author's office contends,
have significant impacts on a park's resources, including
losses of recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat and
corridors, park acreage, and other attributes.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Orange County
Transportation Agency believes that this bill duplicates
provisions in CEQA, 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.
CTW:do 5/29/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****