BILL ANALYSIS
SB 679
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 679 (Wolk)
As Amended August 31, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-15
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-3APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, |
| |Caballero, Krekorian, | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |John A. Perez, Salas, | |John A. Perez, |
| |Yamada | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Hill |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Berryhill | |Nielsen, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 (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 purposes incompatible with park purposes
without the substitution of other land that is certified by
the Commission to meet specified conditions.
2)Requires the Commission, following a duly noticed public
hearing, to certify that all requests to dispose of or use
state park land for other purposes incompatible with park
purposes provide for the substitution of other land that meets
all of the following criteria:
a) Has equal environmental value or other value for which
the park was established;
SB 679
Page 2
b) Has the same or greater fair market value, as
established by an approved appraisal;
c) Is located in an area that allows for use of the
substitute park land by generally the same persons who used
the acquired land; and,
d) Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value, or reasonably equivalent natural,
cultural or historic significance.
3)Authorizes the Commission to approve a combination of
substitute park lands and monetary compensation in exchange
for the park lands being disposed of or used for other
purposes if substitute lands cannot be acquired to fully meet
the requirements specified in paragraph 2) above, if all of
the following requirements are met:
a) To the greatest extent possible, all substitute lands
meet the requirements described in paragraph 2) above;
b) Any monetary compensation is equal to or greater than
the fair market value of the lands that are not otherwise
substituted for, as established by an approved appraisal;
and,
c) Any monetary compensation is sufficient to enable the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to acquire and
develop other park lands of equal acreage. Requires DPR to
give preference to acquisition of substitute park lands
that are located generally within the geographic region
affected by the loss of park lands.
1)Prohibits the Commission from considering a request to dispose
of or use state park land for other than park purposes unless
the Commission determines that all practical alternatives that
avoid the proposed disposal or use of the park lands for other
purposes incompatible with park purposes have been considered.
Requires the Commission in making this determination to
consider information provided by other governmental entities
with regulatory or permitting authority over the proposed
nonpark use and other interested parties.
SB 679
Page 3
2)Provides that this bill shall not apply to existing uses of
state park lands authorized on or before January 1, 2010, by
written agreement with DPR.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to 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. 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 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 Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible state costs. 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 : 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
purpose of this bill is to protect the significant public
investment in the state park system, and the economic value of
SB 679
Page 4
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
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. In cases where suitable substitute lands are not
available, this bill would allow for a combination of substitute
lands and monetary compensation, subject to specified
conditions. 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 a comparable 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, known as the Preservation of
Public Parks Act. That law prohibits a public entity from
acquiring public park properties for any non-park purpose unless
SB 679
Page 5
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.
Supporters note this bill protects California's investment in
our state park system by 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.
Opponents argue that the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) already provides adequate 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) of 2009 prohibits a
modification or adjustment in the boundaries or uses of a state
park that is incompatible with 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.
SB 679
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0002674