California Senate Bill SB767

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/19
• Refer: 3/14/19
• Report Pass: 4/9/19
• Refer: 4/9/19
• Report Pass: 4/23/19
• Refer: 4/23/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/22/19
• Refer: 6/6/19
• Report Pass: 6/18/19
• Refer: 6/18/19
• Refer: 6/27/19
• Report Pass: 7/3/19
• Refer: 7/3/19

Caption

Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area.

Impact

By establishing regulations around the disposition of state-owned land, SB 767 impacts how conservation areas can be managed and preserved. It seeks to protect approximately 3,100 acres of land from development by ensuring its sale is geared towards conservation and public recreational use, thereby fostering environmental stewardship in the state. Revenue generated from the land's sale will first go towards reimbursing any costs incurred by the Department of General Services and the remaining amount will support the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund.

Summary

Senate Bill 767 aims to amend the Public Resources Code by enabling the Department of Parks and Recreation to dispose of a portion of the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, specifically the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area, for conservation purposes. The bill permits the department to sell this land to local agencies or nonprofit organizations for uses consistent with park and open-space purposes. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources, while enabling nonmotorized public recreation.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 767 has generally been supportive, particularly among environmental advocates and local agencies who view the bill as a step towards preserving valuable natural spaces. However, there may be concerns regarding the implications of transferring land management to nonprofit organizations, with some critics questioning whether this approach might hinder direct state control over the land's preservation and usage.

Contention

While the legislation aims to ensure land is sold for conservation rather than commercial use, it also raises discussions about state versus local management of natural resources. Some stakeholders may argue that transferring land to local entities or nonprofits could dilute state oversight or accountability. The process outlined in the bill requires public hearings and stakeholder consultations, which indicates an effort to balance local interests with state-level conservation goals.