|
Senate Bill 679
Why was SB 679 introduced?
Unfortunately, existing law does not provide a consistent process for protecting state parks. Recent high-profile examples of threats to state parks have demonstrated that there is not a clear, unambiguous policy in the state that prioritizes protection of these resources and ensures that an appropriate state-level body makes decisions about our parks' futures.
What is the current process to approve or deny a non-park use in a state park?
Right now, the State Park and Recreation Commission (a body of 9 volunteers, all appointed by the Governor) has authority to approve General Plans and General Plan amendments for state parks. Existing law, Public Resources Code 5002.3 already vests the Commission with that authority. Any time a project is proposed that is inconsistent with a park's uses, it will trigger a General Plan amendment, and therefore action by the Commission. However, there aren't criteria that the Commission is required to follow or consider in those decisions. That means the Commission could approve a non-park use without ensuring that the public's investment in our state parks remains whole.
What does SB 679 do?
SB 679 puts clear criteria in front of the State Park and Recreation when they make decisions allowing non-park uses of state park lands. SB 679 says that state park lands cannot be used for non-park purposes unless there is no practical alternative to using those lands and either:
1. Replacement lands are provided that are
- Of equivalent environmental & fair market value, and
- In the area where those impacted from the loss of park lands will benefit from the new lands, or
2. If there is no way to replace all of the park lands being used for non-park purposes, a combination of replacement lands and monetary compensation is provided to make the investment in state parks whole.
Doesn't SB 679 set a precedent by allowing land or a combination of land and financial compensation to allow non-park uses?
SB 679 does not set a precedent, it is actually modeled on existing law. Under Public Resources Code Section 5401, if another governmental agency acquires park land (or uses eminent domain to access the land) to use for a non-park purpose, the acquiring entity is required to provide "sufficient compensation, land, or both" to replace park lands and facilities used for a non-park purpose. SB 679 simply extends this principle to any entity seeking to use a park for a non-park purpose, not just a governmental entity.
What does "no net loss" mean?
The idea of "no net loss" of state park lands means that if there is a need to approve an incompatible use in state parks that has the effect of taking current park land out of public access or use, an equivalent amount of land, with the same general environmental characteristics, be made available.
It looks like SB 679 actually encourages non-park uses in state parks – why does CSPF support that?
SB 679 doesn't encourage non-park uses. First, the bill says the Park and Recreation Commission can only approve a non-park use of state park lands if they find that there are no practical alternatives to using the park land. Second, it extends a principle – no net loss of state parks – to our state park system that doesn't fully exist today.
CSPF shares the views of our members that our state parks are California treasures and should not be used as the path of least resistance for projects that are incompatible with state parks. What SB 679 does is set an appropriately-high bar for our state parks. If there is any entity that claims a competing state interest that requires the use of state park lands – whether that be for things like renewable energy, public transit, or other types of infrastructure or development – those uses cannot be allowed unless the net result is that Californians have access to equivalent or greater park resources.
Doesn't SB 679 set a high bar for our state parks, and try to "trump" decisions by other state agencies with infrastructure responsibility, like Caltrans or the PUC?
SB 679 does set a bar for protecting our state parks, but it is an appropriate one, and not unlike the bar that exists in law right now. (see #1, above) SB 679 actually attempts to get the state out of the "Sofie's Choice" situations that exist now – does the PUC always trump State Parks? Do Caltrans decisions always trump State Parks? Over the last 100 years, Californians have invested billions of public dollars in state parks, and have augmented that with millions more in private donations, gifts of land, and much more. It should not be automatic that another agency that does not have expertise in park management and stewardship should always "trump" decisions to protect the parks – and SB 679 sets the "rules of the game" so that any entity considering using a park for a non-park purpose know those rules ahead of time. This is commonsense.
top
Senate Bill 372
What does SB 372 do?
SB 372 requires that any alterations or modifications that are inconsistent with state parks be enacted only upon an act of the Legislature, preceded by a recommendation from the State Park and Recreation Commission.
Why should the Legislature make the final decisions about allow non-park uses in state parks?
The Legislature clearly has a role in the stewardship of California's state parks, through the approval of the Department of Parks and Recreation's annual budget, appropriations of bond funding for capital improvements, annual oversight through budget and policy committees, and more. Requiring an act of the Legislature when a state park would be disposed or used in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the park appropriately reflects the extension of that stewardship role.
Doesn't SB 372 elevate the authority of the State Park and Recreation Commission?
No, SB 372 does not change the Commission's current authority. The Commission currently has important responsibilities establishing and helping manage state park units. In providing oversight to the state park system, the Commission classifies and names park units, which officially brings a park into the state park system. After holding public hearings and considering public comment and concerns, it approves General Plans and General Plan amendments, a critical function that helps identify and manage the purpose of the park, its recreational attributes, and the public needs for the park. Approving and monitoring General Plans also takes into account the cultural, historical and natural resources that are contained and protected in the park. Additionally, per Public Resources Code Section 535, the Commission provides annual reports on the programs and activities of the state park system, recreational needs, and the recommendations on programs and activities to meet future needs of the state.
Why should the Commission make a recommendation to the Legislature?
Senate Bill 372 is modeled on existing state law that requires review and legislative action prior to alteration of other conservation lands. Under the California Wilderness Act, certain state wilderness lands cannot be altered unless the State Lands Commission affirmatively recommends a modification or alteration to those previously-designated wilderness lands.
Public Resources Code 5093.35(f) (Wilderness Act) A modification or adjustment of boundaries of a wilderness area designated by the Legislature shall be recommended to the Legislature by the secretary or the State Lands Commission after public notice of the proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided in subdivision (d).
SB 372 moves this principle into the law to protect our state park system.
top | 
