BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1457
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 1457 (Huffman) - As Introduced: February 23, 2007
SUBJECT : Parks and Recreation; State Parks; Roads
SUMMARY : Prohibits a state or local agency from funding or
authorizing construction of a road that will physically encroach
upon, traverse, bisect or impair a state park, unless the
director of the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) makes a
specific determination. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a state or local agency from funding or seeking
funding to construct, or authorizing construction of, a road
or extension of an existing road, that will physically
encroach upon, traverse, bisect or impair the recreational
value of a state park, unless the director of DPR determines
that all of the following conditions exist:
a) The project includes all feasible planning to
minimize harm to the park;
b) There are no feasible alternatives to the project
that would avoid harm to the park;
c) The road is necessary for use of the state park, for
fire prevention, or for utilities located on the state
park property.
2)Allows costs incurred by DPR to make the determinations above
to be recovered by imposing a fee on the proponent of the
project for the road.
3)Authorizes the filing of a civil action to enjoin a person or
entity, including a state or local agency, that is alleged to
be violating this section, and provides that the action may be
filed in superior court in the county where the violation is
alleged to have occurred. Further provides that injunctive
relief provided pursuant to this subdivision shall not
restrict any other right or legal remedies that a person or
class of persons may have against the state or local agency.
4)Defines the terms "state park property," "state agency,"
"local agency," and "road" for these purposes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the state park system which is managed by DPR.
DPR is responsible for administering, protecting, developing
AB 1457
Page 2
and interpreting state park property under its jurisdiction
for the use and enjoyment of the public.
2)Authorizes DPR to grant permits or easements to public
agencies for public roads or utility lines, and to provide
means of ingress to and egress from state parks.
3)Authorizes DPR to impose conditions and restrictions on
development of a roadway on Mullholland Scenic Corridor and
Topanga State Park if DPR finds that geologic or other
circumstances exist that may cause damage to state-owned park
resources.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. Authorizes recovery of DPR's costs
through fee assessment.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose : The author has introduced this bill to preserve the
integrity of California's state park system by creating a
consistent policy that protects state parks from damaging road
development projects. Existing law does not provide a
consistent process for considering, approving or denying road
projects through state parks. As a consequence, state and
local agencies propose new roads or widening of existing roads
through sensitive state park areas. Roads can disrupt habitat
and wildlife corridors, impact water quality, create noise
pollution, and otherwise negatively impact recreational
opportunities in state parks. According to the author, one of
the most egregious examples is a joint powers agency's
proposal for a toll road through San Onofre State Beach in San
Diego, home of the internationally recognized Trestles Surfing
Beach. However, this proposal is just one example, as parks
in the Inland Empire, North Coast, San Francisco Bay and
Sacramento area are also facing threats from road proposals.
This bill does not ban all road projects in state parks, but
allows roads to proceed if the Director of DPR finds that the
project plan minimizes harm, there are no feasible
alternatives, and the road is necessary for operation of the
park, for fire suppression, or for utilities in the park.
The author notes that state parks serve as much needed areas for
recreation and physical fitness activities, as highly-visited
outdoor classrooms and places of learning for students
throughout the state. As places of natural beauty they serve
as quiet places of refuge and rejuvenation for state park
AB 1457
Page 3
visitors. California's state parks are also low-cost, popular
vacation destinations for Californians of all economic means.
State park visitation also contributes significantly to the
state's tourist economy, and to the economies of local
communities near state parks that provide services to park
visitors. The state has invested significant financial
resources into preserving state park properties for current
and future generations, and thus has an interest in ensuring
that state park values are protected from encroachment and
impairment.
2)Support : Supporters of this bill emphasize that California's
state park system includes some of the most unique natural,
cultural and historical resources in the country, and that
these resources are put in jeopardy by proposals for roads
that impair these resources and other recreational uses of
state parks. The parks should be protected from roads that
are incompatible with the mission and purpose of state parks.
State parklands protect valuable assets for the state and
future generations and are intended to be protected in
perpetuity. Allowing transportation thoroughfares through
state parks undermines the commitment and investment the state
has made in creating and maintaining our state park system.
Supporters also note that at a time when the Legislature is
considering how to spend billions of recently-passed bond
funds for new transportation infrastructure, it is critical
that policies are enacted that safeguard the state's "natural
infrastructure." Supporters also note that there are
currently at least ten different road development proposals
that threaten state parks statewide.
3)Opposition : Opponents generally argue this bill seeks to
block completion of an important regional transportation
system in Orange and San Diego Counties, that the bill is
unnecessary because CEQA already protects parks and recreation
areas, and that this bill takes the transportation planning
process out of the hands of regional transportation agencies
and local government. The Orange County Taxpayers Association
opposes this bill because it targets the SR-241 Toll Road
which they assert will have little or no effect on Trestles
Beach. They also argue that toll roads are good for the
environment because they pollute less than stop-and-go
traffic, and help our economy generate wealth that enables
provision of parks and other services. They argue the toll
road will ease traffic congestion and thereby help the
AB 1457
Page 4
environment more than damage it. Others oppose this bill
because they believe it will block all road improvements near
any unit of the state park system, potentially impacting
dozens of transportation projects across the state. Some
opponents also assert that the toll road in Orange County is a
unique project because San Onofre State Park is on land leased
by the state from the federal government. (Note: The State
Park System includes 270 state park units, ten of which are on
lands not owned in fee title by DPR, but which are managed by
DPR as state parks under various types of long term
agreements, including leases and easements.)
RELATED LEGISLATION : SB 116 (Kuehl) of 2001, which was
substantially similar to this bill, passed the Senate but failed
passage in this committee by one vote. SB 1327 (Kuehl) of 2004
would have prohibited the State Parks Director form approving a
development or improvement in a state park inconsistent with the
purpose and use of the park unless the change would not
significantly impact the park's mission. This bill also passed
the Senate and failed passage in this committee by one vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Park Foundation (sponsor)
Animal Switchboard
Anza-Borrego Foundation
Audubon California
California Council of Land Trusts
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Native Plant Society, Orange County Chapter
California State Park Rangers Association
California Teachers Association
California Wilderness Coalition
City of Santa Monica
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Hills for Everyone
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.
Los Angeles Audubon
Mono Lake Committee
Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Associaiton
Natural Resources Defense Council
AB 1457
Page 5
Orange County Coastkeeper
Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society
Planning and Conservation League
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Sea & Sage Audubon
State Park Peace Officers Association of California
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The Bay Institute
The Nature Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
The Wildlands Conservancy
Numerous individuals
Opposition
Associated General Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors of San Diego
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Associatin
California Chamber of Commerce
California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers
California State Council of Laborers
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
CH2M Hill
City of Costa Mesa
City of Laguna Hills
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lake Forest
City of Mission Viejo
City of Placentia
City of San Juan Capistrano
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Orange County Transportation Authority
Resource Landowners Coalition
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency
Southern California Contractors Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
AB 1457
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096