S.B. 767, Giving away Carnegie, (kinda) Again - THE BILL WILL RISE!!!!

CORVA Letter for all to use

https://corva.org/Corva-Alerts

March 15, 2019

The Honorable Steve Glazer
California State Senate​​​Position: Oppose
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 05829​​​Location: Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee

Re: SB 767 (Glazer) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area. (As Introduced February 22, 2019)

Dear Senator Glazer:

The Off Road Vehicle Legislative Coalition is comprised of several statewide or regional organizations of OHV enthusiasts.

Our coalition has reviewed SB 767 and strongly opposes this bill that would deny opportunities for local Bay Area residents including the elderly and disabled, and motorized recreation enthusiasts. The land in question was purchased using funds from the Off Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, with agreement as to the future purpose of the land signed by adjacent landowners. Additionally, no other serious bidders entered into negotiations to purchase the land referred to in SB 767 as the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area, at that time. Subsequent to the purchase of the land by the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of State Parks, extensive work was begun to correct 20 years of previous neglect, including disregard of cultural and natural resources, and to bring the property up to the high environmental standards mandated by State Parks.

California’s environmental justice statute promotes the fair treatment of all peoples, regardless of economic advantage. State Parks takes adherence to these principles outlined in Government Code Section 65040.12 very seriously and therefore has proposed a plan for the Alameda -Tesla Expansion Area that enhances opportunities for all California residents. SB 767 ignores the inclusiveness outlined in the general plan for the expansion property that illustrates a multiple use park including trails of varying difficulty, remote camping access, picnic areas, and also includes significant environmental buffer zone designations. The proposed layout for the park showcases family opportunities and allows access for individuals with physical limitations.

SB 767 proposes the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area should be under control of the privileged instead of the proven stewardship of State Parks. The transfer of the land from State Parks to some sort of public/private partnership would also serve to eliminate the security of state law insuring inclusiveness and access for all Californians.

State Parks is tasked with managing natural and cultural resources for all 280+ state parks in California. The Department has repeatedly demonstrated proficiency at this task. State Parks owns the parcel known as the Carnegie Expansion area. Logic and fiscal accountability point to State Parks being the appropriate and the best steward for this land

Two years ago, the legislature widely supported and passed SB 249, which created a series of environmental responsibilities including monitoring and review for all land overseen by State Parks and managed by the Off Highway Motorized Recreation Division. The environmental responsibilities in SB 249 go far beyond what any local county, city or non-profit is mandated or can afford to provide. For conservation reasons alone, the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area should be left in the control of State Parks and thereby benefit from the funding, manpower, knowledge and experience only the state can bring to this site.

SB 767 would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging local landowners who object to the location of any state park, preserve or beach to push legislation to privatize that specific location. As prices for real estate have increased in areas surrounding the Bay Area, adjacent landowners have realized they would profit more from the eventual sale of their holdings should they be successful in removing this existing state park. This action would support privatization of public land, and hurt many Californians looking forward to enjoying experiences the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area will have to offer upon completion.

State parks should remain for the benefit of all Californians, not just a select few.


"Protecting Public Land FOR the People
Not FROM the People"

This committee "bill analysis" is good too
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml

It is annoying that our government wastes so much time and money doing Garamendi's bidding.

Edit: linky no worky. budman posted it earlier https://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=519092&d=1554853685

Solid letter from CORVA. :applause

budman said:

Solid letter from CORVA. :applause

Click to expand...

That letter was presented by Diana Mead, a CORVA board member. She was one of two people that were allowed to give a speech in opposition to SB767. The other person was Terry McHale, an attorney representing several off-road organizations.

Ride on
Brewster
CORVA

More good stuff:
This is key, and not brought up enough:
"The Alameda/Tesla Expansion won’t just be a park solely designed for registered off-highway vehicles. There will be back country trails accessible by normal street registered SUVs. There will be places to park and view natural and cultural resources far from the hustle and bustle of civilization in an unspoiled environment. In other words, valuable resources will be protected and kept in pristine condition."

From the Tweety text.
https://carnegiejournal.com/2014/02/14/the-reality-bhind-the-tesalalameda-expansion/

Committee on Government Organizations Members:
Senator Bill Dodd (Chair)
Senator Scott Wilk (Vice Chair)
Senator Benjamin Allen
Senator Bob Archuleta
Senator Andreas Borgeas
Senator Steven Bradford
Senator Ling Ling Chang
Senator Cathleen Galgiani
Senator Steven M. Glazer
Senator Jerry Hill
Senator Ben Hueso
Senator Brian W. Jones
Senator Jim Nielsen
Senator Anthony J. Portantino
Senator Susan Rubio
Senator Scott D. Wiener

Dudes, any of these folks representing you?

Ben Allen and Steve Glazer seem to be heavily influenced by Garamendi money.

SB 767 is scheduled to be heard Apr. 23 in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. If you want to submit comments, they have to be received 5 working days before the hearing. Get busy.

If you want to Submit a position letter, go here, create an account and do your thing:
https://sgov.senate.ca.gov/committeehome

Please focus your comments on the bill, NOT the parties involved.
Jurisdiction of the Committee includes legislation permitting the use of state-controlled lands. Focus on this!

Ride on
Brewster
CORVA

Brewster said:

SB 767 is scheduled to be heard Apr. 23 in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. If you want to submit comments, they have to be received 5 working days before the hearing. Get busy.

If you want to Submit a position letter, go here, create an account and do your thing:
https://sgov.senate.ca.gov/committeehome

Please focus your comments on the bill, NOT the parties involved.
Jurisdiction of the Committee includes legislation permitting the use of state-controlled lands. Focus on this!

Ride on
Brewster
CORVA

Click to expand...

I am going to sent this:

Please consider these real facts and not just those presented by those promoting this bill.

As a preserve for nature, the Expansion Area will be developed carefully and responsibly with regard to environmental and cultural resources. The requirements the the State Parks must uphold are fare more stringent than if management of the area was handed over to any other organization.

The Expansion Area is planned as a multi use area, with half dedicated as a buffer zone, ie, preserve, for wildlife. The balance will be developed with habitat preservation in mind. There will be opportunities for stakeholder input as that development progresses.

Without visiting the subject property, and evaluating all the issues, it is irresponsible for our organization to endorse the agenda of the local wealth landowners.

The park is for the citizens and taxpayers of California to enjoy, not set aside to benefit some influential few.

The California State Parks Off Highway Motorized Vehicular Division is dedicated to providing a balance of access for the public and preservation. They are doing this well, and shutting down managed OHV parks as the population and demand increases will only put excess pressure on other existing areas. This does not even address the alternative to uses illegal areas as legal areas are no longer available.

You must visit the parks to intelligently support or oppose any legislation in regards to expansion or closure. The OHV parks are not areas decimated by dirtbike activity as presented by to proponents of this bill. They are managed quite differently that 20 years ago when there was less pressure on the environment.

or something. Feel free to use any of this text you guys want.

I actually submitted this: The State Parks can be entrusted to preserve this land. Let them do their job. It is public land and should not be entrusted to a private entity.

SB 767 is scheduled to be heard in the Committee for Appropriations on May 6.

Ride on
Brewster
CORVA

Time to call!!! / Email your reps and the committee members.!

VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION!!

SB 767 was passed out of the State Senate Appropriations Committee. Next stop should be the State Senate floor where it is most likely to pass. Then, it will be run through the State Assembly, where it was stopped last year.

Ride on
Brewster
CORVA

This state!!!

I just got an alert from the AMA that next step the the Senate floor. That means, if it passes there, it is halfway there.

That means we all need to contact our Senator today, or the next couple of days and register your opposition. All you have to do is tell them to record your opposition.

Celeste and the Tesla Trolls will certainly be doing this.

AMA says...

Senate Bill 767, which encourages the sale of the Carnegie expansion property, known as the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area, has passed out of the final Senate committee and is now eligible for a vote on the floor. The land in question was purchased using funds from the Off Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, with agreement as to the future purpose of the land signed by adjacent landowners.

Subsequent to the purchase of the land, extensive work was undertaken to correct previous neglect and to bring the property up to the high environmental standards mandated by state law. Instead of recognizing this fact, the bill instead seeks to deny the OHV community a long overdue opportunity for increased motorized recreational opportunities.

Two years ago, the legislature widely supported and passed S.B. 249 (Allen, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2017), which created a series of environmental responsibilities including monitoring and review for all land overseen by State Parks and managed by the Off Highway Motorized Recreation Division. The environmental responsibilities in S.B. 249 go far beyond what any local county, city or nonprofit is mandated to do or can afford to provide.

Furthermore, this legislation would set a dangerous precedent by emboldening local landowners who object to the location of any state park, preserve or beach to push legislation to privatize that specific location. Passage of this legislation would support privatization of public land and hurt many Californians looking forward to enjoying experiences the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area will have to offer upon completion.

State parks should remain for the benefit of all Californians, not just a select few.

AMA members, and indeed, all OHV recreationists must immediately contact their elected officials and remind them of the agreement that was made when the expansion properties were acquired. It is also important to remind them that the program uses no General Fund monies and is, in fact, based on a user-pay, user-benefit style model. Monies used to pay for the program include those taxes collected on fuel, SVRA entrance fees and vehicle registrations (green and red stickers).

The OHV community has long paid its own way and will continue to do so, as long as these monies are used for their intended purpose.

Take Action https://cqrcengage.com/amacycle/app...KdFW7WKugbbNYwEHJx6NFAAJboJQZKORPZlPvfyE&lp=0

status here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB767

Not sure what "ordered to third reading means"...

Yeah, looks like without intervention from Newsome we may loose the expansion....All the bill does is "allow" parks and rec to sell the property if they see fit. We get some public comment on it at that point but we all know how much that makes a difference...Then the money they get from selling it goes back to parks and rec not to OHV directly (department rather than division) so once again OHV gets the short end. Good thing we get to pay for the stickers and entrance fees to fund a land purchase that then gets sold with the monies then getting diverted to the general P+R fund not OHV.

Makes one want to disregard any fees to OHV as the State will just divert them for something else and give us less places to ride. Wonder if the Garamendiis will get to purchase the property at below market...how ironic and indicative of a stacked deck that would be...

And my Senator voted for it (skinner) even though I wrote a letter...the nerve!

The bill:

ENATE BILL No. 767
Introduced by Senator Glazer
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan)
(Coauthors: Senators Hill, Wieckowski, and Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Berman, Chu, Levine, and Quirk)
February 22, 2019
An act to add Section 5090.42 to the Public Resources Code, relating to parks and recreation.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 767, as introduced, Glazer. Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area.
The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 2003 creates the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation within the Department of Parks and Recreation. The act gives the division certain duties and responsibilities, including the planning, acquisition, development, conservation, and restoration of lands in state vehicular recreation areas. Existing law creates the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to be the repository of certain moneys, including certain fees received by the department for the use of state vehicular recreation areas. Existing law requires the revenues in the fund to be available, upon appropriation, for grants and cooperative agreements, as specified, the support of the division, and the planning, acquisition, development, mitigation, construction, maintenance, administration, operation, restoration, and conservation of lands in state vehicular recreation areas and certain other areas.
This bill would authorize the department to dispose of the portion of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area known as the “Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area” to permanently preserve that land
99
for conservation purposes, as specified, if the department determines that disposing of the land is in the public interest. The bill would require that the land only be sold to a local agency or nonprofit organization for use as a park or other open-space purpose, as specified. The bill would require any revenue from the disposition of the land to be deposited in the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 5090.42 is added to the Public Resources line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 5090.42. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 11011 and 11011.1 of line 4 the Government Code, the department may dispose of the portion line 5 of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area known as the line 6 “Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area,” which encompasses line 7 approximately 3,100 acres in the County of Alameda, to line 8 permanently preserve that land for conservation purposes by sale line 9 of a perpetual recorded conservation easement deed restriction or line 10 fee title if the department, after holding a public hearing on the line 11 matter and in consultation with stakeholders, determines that line 12 disposing of the land is in the public interest.
line 13 (b) (1) If the department determines that disposing of the land line 14 is in the public interest, the Department of General Services may line 15 sell the land or otherwise dispose of the land pursuant to this line 16 authorization upon any terms and conditions and subject to any line 17 reservations and exceptions that the Department of General line 18 Services deems to be in the best interests of the state.
line 19 (2) The Department of General Services shall sell the land only line 20 to a local agency or nonprofit organization for use as a park or line 21 other open-space purpose. The land shall be sold for no less than line 22 the original purchase price based on the actual parcels to be line 23 included in the sale.
line 24 (3) For purposes of this subdivision, “park or other open-space line 25 purpose” means a use of the land’s natural resources that is line 26 consistent with a conservation purpose, including preservation of line 27 native biological diversity, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources, line 28 the enjoyment of scenic beauty, and nonmotorized public line 29 recreation.
99
SB 767 — 2 —
line 1 (c) Any revenue from the disposition of the land shall be line 2 deposited in the fund.

If the land was sold, the money goes to OHV, NOT parks and rec.

"The bill would require any revenue from the disposition of the land to be deposited in the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund."

Ride on
Brewster
Your CORVA guy.

Thanks for the correction Brewster. The may still take it from the fund as they have countless times in the past but at least the proceeds from the sale won't go directly to P+R.

I understand this will be heard in committee this week
https://awpw.assembly.ca.gov/content/members-staff

Can you guys represented by Chu contact him?

Kansen Chu Dem - 25 Contact Assembly Member Kansen Chu
Capitol Office, Room 3126
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0025; (916) 319-2025