BILL ANALYSIS
SB 679
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 679 (Wolk) - As Amended: May 28, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 22-15
SUBJECT : State Parks: Limits on disposition or use
SUMMARY : Prohibits 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 State Park and
Recreation Commission has certified meets certain criteria.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits land acquired for the state park system with public
funds or gifts, with the express purpose of expanding or
maintaining the state park system, from being disposed of or
used for other than park purposes without the substitution of
other land that is certified by the State Park and Recreation
Commission (Commission) to meet specified conditions.
2)Requires the Commission to certify that all requests to
dispose of or use state park land for other than park purposes
provide for the substitution of other land that meets all of
the following criteria:
a) Provides equal environmental value or other value
for which the park was established,
b) Has the same or equal fair market value, as
established by an approved appraisal,
c) Is within the same geographical area, and
d) Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value, or reasonably equivalent natural,
cultural or historic significance.
3)Prohibits the Commission from considering a request to dispose
of or use state park land for other than park purposes unless
all practical alternatives that avoid the proposed disposal or
use of the park lands for other than park purposes have been
considered.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the Preservation of Public Parks Act, prohibits a
public entity from acquiring any property in use as a public
SB 679
Page 2
park for any nonpark purpose unless the acquiring entity pays
or transfers to the entity operating the park sufficient
compensation or land to replace the park. Requires that the
substitute park land, with some exceptions, be of comparable
characteristics and of substantially equal size, and located
in an area which would allow for use by the same persons who
used the park land being acquired.
2)Provides for the state park system which is managed by the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). DPR is responsible
for administering, protecting, developing and interpreting
state park property under its jurisdiction for the use and
enjoyment of the public.
3)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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The purpose of this bill is to establish a process
for evaluating proposals to convert state park lands to nonpark
purposes, and to ensure that parks converted to other purposes
are replaced with substitute park lands of equal environmental
and fair market value. The author indicates that state law does
not provide a consistent process for protecting state parks from
proposed land uses that may be incompatible with the purposes
for which the park was established. The sponsors note the
principle of this bill is to protect the significant public
investment in the state park system, and the economic value of
the parks to local communities and to all Californians.
The author further notes that increasing development throughout
the state has caused pressure on California's state park system.
In 2007, the California State Parks Foundation conducted a
survey of threats to state parks and found 122 threats to 73
parks. Recent high-profile examples include Colonel Allensworth
State Historic Park, San Onofre State Beach, Anza-Borrego Desert
State Park, and Humboldt Lagoons State Park. Increasingly,
state parks are looked at as the path of least resistance for
infrastructure and other development projects. The loss of
SB 679
Page 3
state park lands results in loss of recreation opportunities,
loss of wildlife habitat and corridors, degradation of
watersheds and water quality, and loss of historic and cultural
resources. This bill would not prohibit parks from being
converted to nonpark uses in all cases, but would require that
state parks not be used for nonpark purposes without Commission
review of alternatives and substitution of lands of equal park
value. The author further points to the fact that California
voters consistently support improvements to state parks through
their approval of bonds. The author notes that providing clear
statutory protection to safeguard state parks upholds the will
of the California public and ensures these resources, that have
received significant state investments, remain part of the
public trust.
The language of this bill is similar to existing language in the
federal Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA), which states
that no property acquired or developed with federal LWCA Funds
can be converted to uses other than outdoor recreation uses
without substitution of other recreation properties of at least
equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location. This federal requirement already applies to state
park lands purchased with federal LWCA dollars. This bill would
apply that same policy to all state parks whether acquired with
federal funds or not.
The concept in this bill is also similar to existing state law
in the Public Resources Code, titled the Preservation of Public
Parks Act. That law prohibits a public entity from acquiring
public park properties for any non-park purpose unless the
acquiring entity pays or transfers to the entity operating the
park sufficient compensation or land to replace the park, and
requires that the substitute land purchased to replace the park
be of comparable characteristics, size and location as the park
being acquired. However, there has been some question as to
whether this law applies to state parks or just to county and
city parks.
Suggested Amendments : This bill requires the Commission to
certify that the substitute land meets certain criteria,
including that the substitute land is within the same geographic
area. The term "same geographic area" is undefined, and may be
subject to differing interpretations due to vagueness. If the
purpose of this criteria is to ensure that persons currently
served by the existing park still have access to park lands of
comparable value, the committee may wish to consider an
SB 679
Page 4
amendment similar to the criteria in the Preservation of Public
Parks Act, which requires that the substitute land be " located
in an area which would allow for use of the substitute park land
and facilities by generally the same persons who used the
acquired park land and facilities ." This language would replace
subsection (C) on page 2.
To clarify the process that would be followed by the Commission
in making the certification, the committee may also wish to
consider an amendment, on page 2, line 22, requiring that the
Commission shall make the certification following a duly noticed
public hearing.
This bill also provides that the commission shall consider
requests for disposal of a state park or for use of a state park
for non-park uses only if all practical alternatives have been
considered. This language raises the question as to who is
responsible for determining that alternatives have been
considered, and how or on what basis that determination would be
made. The committee may wish to consider an amendment
clarifying this section as follows: "The commission shall
consider requests only if the commission determines all
practical alternatives that avoid the proposed disposal or use
of park lands for other than park purposes have been considered.
In making the determination, the commission shall consider
information provided by other governmental entities with
regulatory or permitting authority over the proposed non-park
use and other interested parties. "
Arguments in Support : Supporters note this bill protects
California's investment in our state park system by simply
requiring that state parks cannot be used for non-park purposes
unless substitute lands of equal environmental and fair market
value are provided, and other alternatives have first been
considered. They note that the state park system is a
multi-billion dollar public asset that has been created with
investments from the General Fund, public bond funds and private
donations, and that these public resources are specifically
dedicated for the education and enjoyment of the public, as well
as to ensure that unique parts of California are available to
all generations. This bill furthers the state's commitment to
protect state parks in perpetuity and safeguards investments in
California's state park system.
Arguments in Opposition : Opponents argue that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) already provides adequate
SB 679
Page 5
processes for making decisions regarding changes to the state
park system, and that this bill will add transactional and
opportunity costs to the permit process for infrastructure
projects. Opponents further assert this bill duplicates other
existing state and federal law, and could create a moratorium on
the building of projects through state parks where no substitute
land of equal value exists. Finally, opponents assert this bill
would limit local land use and transportation planning authority
and impact current and future transportation projects.
Related Legislation : SB 372 (Kehoe), also pending in this
committee, prohibits a modification or adjustment in the
boundaries or uses of a state park unit that is incompatible
with state park purposes and 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, unless the Commission recommends the change and the
change is approved by the Legislature through enactment of
legislation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SB 679
Page 6
California State Parks Foundation (sponsor)
American Land Conservancy
Amigos de los Rios
Anza-Borrego Foundation
Bay Area Open Space Council
Big Sur Land Trust
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation Voters
California League of Park Associations
California Park & Recreation Society
Catalina Island Conservancy
Central Valley Land Trust Council
Eastern Sierra Land Trust
Feather River Land Trust
Forests Forever
Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks
Hills for Everyone
Lake County Land Trust
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo Co.
Land Trust of Napa County
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Lassen Land and Trails Trust
Mendocino Land Trust
Mountain Meadows Conservancy
Muir Heritage Land Trust
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Land Trust
Planning and Conservation League
Preserve Calavera
San Diego River Park Foundation
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust
Sanctuary Forest, Inc.
Save Mt. Diablo
Sempervirens Fund
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Sierra Club California
Sierra Foothills Conservancy
Sierra-Cascade Land Trust Council
Solano Land Trust
Sonoma Land Trust
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Truckee Donner Land Trust
SB 679
Page 7
SB 679
Page 8
Opposition
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Transportation Authority
Sempra Energy (unless amended)
Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096