California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 D cosponsors

SB 974 — State parks: proposed closures.

Last action — Set, second hearing. Held in committee and under submission.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law vests with the Department of Parks and Recreation control of the state park system. Existing law requires the department to achieve any required budget reductions, as defined, by closing, partially closing, and reducing services at selected units of the state park system, based on specified factors. This bill would instead declare that it is the intent of the Legislature that the department should achieve any required budget reductions by implementing efficiencies and increasing revenue collection, or reducing services at selected units of the state park system, as prescribed. The bill would revise the factors the department is required to use as a basis for selecting which units of the state park system are to be closed, and would, for any parks proposed or designated for closure on or after January 1, 2013, require the department to document and publicly disclose the methodology, rationale, and scoring system used to evaluate and select parks designated for closure. Existing law authorizes the department to enter into agreements between the department and the federal and local governments and other public agencies for the care, maintenance, administration, and control of lands under the jurisdiction of any party to this agreement for the purpose of the state park system, as prescribed. This bill would require the department to conduct a review of the parks that are proposed, as of July 1, 2012, or thereafter, for future closure. The bill would require the review process required to be conducted pursuant to those provisions to include an examination of proposed park closures recommended by the department, based on specified criteria. The bill would require the department, no later than July 1, 2013, with respect to any park that is closed on or after July 1, 2012, to prepare a plan for the reopening of that unit of the state park system, within one year from the date of a unit being closed to public access or the ending of all department support, including specified information. The bill would require the department to annually update any plan prepared pursuant to those provisions, if needed, or if there are any additional park closures on or after July 1, 2013, and to post a copy of the plan on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the department, no later than January 1, 2014, and by January 1 of each year thereafter so long as any unit of the state park system remains closed or is designated for closure due to budgetary restrictions, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a master parks reopening plan, which shall be compiled from park reopening plans or updated park reopening plans required to be prepared pursuant to provisions of the bill, and that sets out priority actions and determines a process for reopening any park that has been temporarily closed, to the extent that circumstances permit, as prescribed.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Set, second hearing. Held in committee and under submission.

  2. Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 26).

  5. Referred to Com. on W., P. & W.

  6. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 3. Page 3741.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3589.) (May 24).

  10. Set for hearing May 24.

  11. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  12. Set for hearing May 14.

  13. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 3265.) (April 24).

  15. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.

  16. Set for hearing April 24.

  17. Referred to Com. on N.R. & W.

  18. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 19.

  19. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Achadjian · Cosponsor
  • Alejo · Cosponsor
  • Blumenfield · Cosponsor
  • Evans · Primary
  • Monning · Cosponsor
  • Yamada · Cosponsor
  • Sasha Renée Pérez · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 6 co-sponsors · 115 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Evans

Co-sponsors (6)

Not signed on (115)

115 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 115 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10002
Republican 0001
Total 10003
% of votes cast 77%0%0%23%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Campos — Yea
Fong — Yea
Halderman — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 30 Yea · 3 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29305
Republican 0001
Democratic 1001
Total 30307
% of votes cast 75%8%0%18%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Hancock — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Yee — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Evans — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Fuller — Nay
Huff — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Correa — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Harman — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
La Malfa — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Lieu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Nay
Dutton — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kehoe — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Lieu — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 974 do?
Existing law vests with the Department of Parks and Recreation control of the state park system. Existing law requires the department to achieve any required budget reductions, as defined, by closing, partially closing, and reducing services at selected units of the state park system, based on specified factors. This bill would instead declare that it is the intent of the Legislature that the department should achieve any required budget reductions by implementing efficiencies and increasing revenue collection, or reducing services at selected units of the state park system, as prescribed. The bill would revise the factors the department is required to use as a basis for selecting which units of the state park system are to be closed, and would, for any parks proposed or designated for closure on or after January 1, 2013, require the department to document and publicly disclose the methodology, rationale, and scoring system used to evaluate and select parks designated for closure. Existing law authorizes the department to enter into agreements between the department and the federal and local governments and other public agencies for the care, maintenance, administration, and control of lands under the jurisdiction of any party to this agreement for the purpose of the state park system, as prescribed. This bill would require the department to conduct a review of the parks that are proposed, as of July 1, 2012, or thereafter, for future closure. The bill would require the review process required to be conducted pursuant to those provisions to include an examination of proposed park closures recommended by the department, based on specified criteria. The bill would require the department, no later than July 1, 2013, with respect to any park that is closed on or after July 1, 2012, to prepare a plan for the reopening of that unit of the state park system, within one year from the date of a unit being closed to public access or the ending of all department support, including specified information. The bill would require the department to annually update any plan prepared pursuant to those provisions, if needed, or if there are any additional park closures on or after July 1, 2013, and to post a copy of the plan on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the department, no later than January 1, 2014, and by January 1 of each year thereafter so long as any unit of the state park system remains closed or is designated for closure due to budgetary restrictions, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a master parks reopening plan, which shall be compiled from park reopening plans or updated park reopening plans required to be prepared pursuant to provisions of the bill, and that sets out priority actions and determines a process for reopening any park that has been temporarily closed, to the extent that circumstances permit, as prescribed.
Who sponsors SB 974?
SB 974 is sponsored by Achadjian, Alejo, Blumenfield, Evans, Monning, Yamada, and Pérez, Sasha Renée (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 974?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 974?
Track SB 974 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 974

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 974

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →