BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 679|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 679
Author: Wolk (D)
Amended: 8/31/09
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 : 22-15, 6/1/09
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg,
Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Correa, Cox,
Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Vacancy
SENATE FLOOR : 24-15, 9/10/09
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price,
Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Correa, Cox,
Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
2
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-32, 9/8/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State parks: acquired land: limits on
disposition or use
SOURCE : California State Park Foundation
DIGEST : This bill requires the 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.
Assembly Amendments (1) add clarifying language relative to
substitute parks; (2) expand facts that the commission must
consider; (3) add language specifying that the provisions
do not apply to existing uses of state parks land
authorized on or before 1/1/10; (4) allow commission to
approve a combination of substitute park lands.
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 California State Parks and Recreation Commission.
This bill:
1. 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
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
3
Park and Recreation Commission (Commission) has
certified meets certain criteria.
2. 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.
3. 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.
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.
D. Provides reasonably equivalent public access and
recreational value, or reasonably equivalent natural,
cultural or historic significance.
4. 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
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
4
than the fair market value of the lands that are not
otherwise substituted for, as established by an
approved appraisal.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/09)
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
California Wilderness Coalition
Catalina Island Conservancy
Central Valley Land Trust Council
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
5
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 9/9/09)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Transportation Authority
Resources Landowners Coalition
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
6
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.
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
further 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 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
limits local land use and transportation planning authority
and impact current and future transportation projects.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
7
"I am returning Senate Bill 679 without my signature.
This bill requires the State Park and Recreation
Commission (Commission) to certify that all requests
to dispose of, or change the use of, any land in the
State Park system for anything other than park
purposes, be accompanied by substitute property that
is subject to specific requirements.
This bill is duplicative of existing statute and
significantly reduces the state's ability to
effectively manage the State Park system.
Under existing law, the Director of Parks, through an
extensive process with the Department of General
Services and the State Public Works Board, may sell,
exchange, and acquire State Park property deemed
necessary for the extension, improvement, or
development of the State Park system. Whether it is
roads, water and energy infrastructure, or areas
necessary for the installation of renewable energy
facilities, maintaining the flexibility of the
current process is absolutely necessary as the state
continues to strive to meet its infrastructure needs
for a growing population.
Additionally, although we all shuttered with
displeasure at the potential impacts, the Legislature
passed and I signed a budget that has major impacts
on our state park system. While I was able to keep
all of our state parks open in the current fiscal
year, we cannot ignore the fact that there are
significant costs associated with running this system
for the benefit of the public. In times of fiscal
crisis, we must be able to balance the costs and
benefits of our park system with the costs and
benefits of other important government programs.
This proposal would limit our ability to do so.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
CONTINUED
SB 679
Page
8
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Monning, Nava, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Yamada,
Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Charles Calderon, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuentes, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Mendoza, Miller,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Huber, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Torrico, Vacancy
RJG:do 1/6/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED