BILL ANALYSIS
SB 679
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 679 (Wolk) - As Amended: July 7, 2009
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits disposal or use of state park lands for
purposes incompatible with park purposes unless other comparable
land is substituted for the park land. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits land that has been acquired for the state park
system from being disposed of or used for purposes
incompatible with park purposes unless the State Parks and
Recreation Commission certifies that substitute land has been
provided that meets the following criteria:
a) Has equal environmental value or other value for which
the park was established.
b) Has the same or greater fair market value, as
established by an approved appraisal.
c) Is located in an area that would allow for use of the
substitute park land by generally the same persons who used
the acquired land.
d) Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value, or has reasonably equivalent natural,
cultural, or historic significance.
2)Directs the commission to consider requests for disposal or
use of state park lands only if the commission determines that
all practical alternatives have been considered.
3)Limits the bill to only state park lands authorized for use
after January 1, 2010.
SB 679
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible state costs.
2)Potential loss in state revenue, possibly in the millions of
dollars, resulting from state's inability to sell or dispose
of state park lands.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author claims that increased development has
led to pressure on the California's state parks, as evidenced
recently by efforts to build a toll road and power lines
through certain state parks. The author contends that,
despite this growing pressure on the state park system, the
state has no consistent method for considering proposed land
uses that may be incompatible with the purposes of parklands.
The author further contends that this bill provides such a
consistent method that will better protect the public's
investment in the state parks and the economic value of parks
to the state and local communities.
1)Background .
a) California's State Parks. 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.
b) Existing Law Provides Some Protection to State Parks .
The Preservation of Public Parks Act prohibits a public
entity from acquiring any property in use as a public 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. The act further
SB 679
Page 3
requires the substitute park land, with some exceptions, be
of comparable characteristics and of substantially equal
size and located in an area that allows for use by the same
persons who used the park land being acquired. (These
characteristics are less comprehensive than the
characteristics of eligible substitute parkland provided in
this bill.)
Federal law also provides some protection to state parks.
Similar to this bill, the federal Land and Water
Conservation Act (LWCA) 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.
These LWCA restrictions apply to state park lands
purchased with federal LWCA funds.
c) Processes Vary for Considering Incompatible Uses of
State Park Lands . State law does not provide a consistent
process for protecting state parks from proposed land uses
inconsistent with the purposes for which the parks were
established. For example, a recent proposal to site a toll
road within 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.
2)Related Legislation. SB 372 (Kehoe) prohibits modifications
or adjustments to boundaries or uses of a state park that are
incompatible with state park purposes and that 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. SB 372 provides for an exception
to this prohibition if the State Park and Recreation
Commission recommends the change and the change is approved by
an act of the Legislature. SB 372 passed this committee 10-5.
3)Supporters , including numerous conservation and park
organization, contend this bill furthers the state's
commitment to protect state parks in perpetuity and safeguards
investments in California's state park system.
4)Opponents , including certain business and local government
organizations, contend this bill duplicates state park safe
SB 679
Page 4
guards and hampers local infrastructure planning.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081