The California Coastal Commission is meeting on Thursday, July 9th to deliberate 3 items relating to Oceano Dunes SVRA. Because this is a virtual meeting via Zoom, it is easy for many to participate and have your voices heard.
Step #1: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2020/7
Oceano Dunes items are all on Thursday, items # TH9a, TH10a and TH11a. Make sure to click the Thursday tab and scroll down to link to the information about these items, including staff reports and recommendations.
Step #2: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/request-testimony/thursday/
Sign up to speak via remote testimony. There are a number of questions to answer, then the Coastal Commission staff will send you a personal link via email to enter the meeting next week. This can be done on your phone, tablet or computer.
Important points:
Coastal Commission staff are unlawfully targeting the park trying to change the nature and purpose of this SVRA enjoyed by off-roaders and paid for solely by off-roaders. They want to mandate unnecessary measures that would make use of the park by motorized vehicles impossible and unenjoyable.
Coastal Commission staff have ignored non-motorized areas like Guadalupe Dunes, where extensive conservation measures can easily be implemented, instead are engaging in discriminatory proposals against off-roaders by targeting Oceano Dunes SVRA.
Conservation measures undertaken by State Parks and paid for by off-roaders' money (literally from our pockets) have been very successful. Expansion or additional conservation measures must be undertaken in other areas, like Guadalupe Dunes and not target our pockets or our park!
Why does the Coastal Commission staff propose creating a virtual wildlife conservation area in the middle of an SVRA? So they can illegally steal money from the OHV Trust Fund, a fund paid solely by off-roaders.
This is taxation without representation! Off-roaders pay for everything at this park, but Coastal Commission staff are proposing stealing the money from our pockets to pay for their efforts to close the park for no better reason than dislike of off-road recreation.
Please, DO NOT waste this opportunity to voice your opinion
BY KAREN VELIE
For more than a decade, San Luis Obispo County’s Air Pollution Control District (APCD) warned about silica dust blowing inland from the Oceano Dunes.
It causes cancers, and lung and kidney disease.
It was the result of off-roading at the Dunes.
It was made up.
Studies of air quality samples taken by both the APCD and State Parks consistently failed to find detectable levels of the dust. There was, in the words of an expert on the risks of silica dust, “no evidence of a realistic pulmonary (inhalation) risk with respect to respirable crystalline silica.”
Even so, silica dust was an effective way to justify APCD regulation of the dunes. The APCD continued to warn mesa residents that off-highway vehicle recreation at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area was causing silica dust to blow on their properties. That, the APCD said, meant people were at risk of cancer and other diseases.
The reports alarmed state and local agencies. They repeated the APCD’s warnings. Local media and the public bought into the claim. The silica dust scare affected Nipomo Mesa real estate transactions and property values. Some real estate disclosure forms, required to warn buyers of risks associated with properties, were modified to note health hazards of crystalline silica in the air at the mesa.
The form quotes from both the APCD’s Phase 2 report the Phase 1 report’s silica statements. The forms also note that the World Health Organization’s classification of “inhaled crystalline silica from occupational sources as carcinogenic to humans.”
It was ultimately California State Parks, the managers of the Oceano Dunes, that refuted the silica fabrication. But that was more than 10 years after the APCD started pushing its silica dust argument.
In 2007, the APCD first initiated the belief that the mesa air was filled with silica dust in a Phase 1 report, which documented airborne dust levels on the Nipomo Mesa that exceeded air quality standards. Silica is mentioned only once in the lengthy report, and that is on the last page, in a vague reference to the upwind coastal dunes.
“Sand particles are high in crystalline silica, a known carcinogen with a high risk factor,” according to the report.
Relative to other minerals, silica — also known as crystalline silica and quartz — is quite hard. The energy necessary to break it into fine dust particles is typically found in industrial and mining settings. The particles are 100 times smaller than what is found on beaches and sand dunes. Because of the acute health risks, exposure to silica dust is specifically regulated by state and federal health and safety agencies. OSHA says silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more than 100,000 in high risk jobs, such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling.
In March 2010, the APCD held a public workshop to announce the results of its Phase 2 report, and to receive written questions about their findings. The APCD subsequently prepared a document of responses to submitted questions,
“While not specifically measured in the study, crystalline silica can be a significant portion of wind-blown sand and soil, and is a known lung cancer hazard,” according to the APCD’s written response.
In Nov. 2011, the APCD board voted to adopt “the dust rule” based on the Phase 2 report, which blamed recreation on the Oceano Dunes for high dust levels two to four miles away on the mesa, and a claim that the dust was mainly silica. The APCD proposed a $1,000 fine to State Parks for each day dust concentrations on the mesa reached a certain level.
During the 2011 meeting, APCD board members and the public voiced their concerns over silica dust.
Despite having previously admitted silica was “not specifically measured” in their Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies, then-APCD director Larry Allen invoked silica as he argued for the dust rule, and the ability for his agency to fine the state.
“We found that on days when we were exceeding the standards, it was predominately silica, which is sand essentially,” Allen said during the 2011 board meeting.
At that time, the APCD had not yet tested the dust blowing on the mesa for silica.
In 2011, unaware that silica had not been found in the two studies, the APCD Board voted to adopt the dust rule.
With the passage of the dust rule, Allen’s claim that silica dust was blowing from the Oceano Dunes to the mesa was repeated many times by many people.
Arlene Versaw, an organizer for the Mesa Community Alliance, is arguably the most vocal advocate of the APCD’s silica dust claims.
In Feb. 2016, Versaw created a GoFundMe page to raise money for the group’s primary cause of holding State Parks accountable for silica dust blowing on the mesa through a nuisance lawsuit.
“Why is your donation so critically necessary?” Versaw wrote on GoFundMe. “These ‘particulates’—fine silica particles—are dozens of times smaller than a human hair. They can cause respiratory problems, heart and lung problems, even premature death … with children and seniors most at risk.”
For years, Versaw repeated the APCD’s claim that the dust blowing on the mesa was primarily composed of silica in newspapers and in letters to the editor.
A few examples of Versaw’s assertions:
● “Mesa residents are subjected to hazardous silica dust that truly threatens human health,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, March 22, 2016.
● “The specific pollutant we face – silica dust – is cumulative and does not leave the body,” The Pulse, Nov./Dec. 2016.
● “For years, it has been known, well documented and reported that the Ocean Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Park is the source of particulate matter silica dust, which is a very serious health hazard.” San Luis Obispo Tribune, June 30, 2017.
● “Second, the problem is not SAND. It is silica dust,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, Jan. 15, 2018.
● “The funds are being spent unnecessarily all right—but the APCD is merely defending itself and defending its duty to do its job of protecting Nipomo Mesa residents from hazardous air pollution,” SLO New Times, July 20, 2016.
In her New Time’s commentary, Versaw chastised former APCD Board member Debbie Peterson, who was consistently critical of the dust rule and the nearly $400,000 cost to taxpayers for the legal challenge that invalidated the dust rule. In the same article, Versaw praised Supervisor Adam Hill, a public official known to loudly challenge those who questioned the validity of Allen’s silica dust assertions.
Versaw also claimed to know of information that “undermines any claim that the Oceano Dunes OHV is not the source of the hazardous silica dust.”
In reality, there was no information. The APCD had not yet conducted any testing for silica dust in the mesa air. Apparently, unbeknownst to Versaw, it would not be until April 2017 that the APCD finally began sampling and testing mesa air specifically for silica dust.
Versaw and other members of the mesa community would remain unaware of the testing for nearly another year because the APCD remained silent about the testing and the results.
California Coastal Commission puts weight behind APCD’s silica argument
Unaware that testing of silica in the air on the Nipomo Mesa had not yet occurred, in 2017, the deputy director of the California Coastal Commission’s north central coast district also began promoting the APCD’s silica claims.
The commission is tasked with protecting California’s coast and ocean for present and future generations. It does so through planning, regulating development, and utilizing the “rigorous use of science,” according to the commission.
In 2017, then-APCD Director Larry Allen spurred California Coastal Commission Deputy Director Dan Carl’s interest in the mesa in a letter in which Allen repeated his unsubstantiated claim that the dust in the mesa air is mostly silica.
“Public exposure to unacceptably high levels of particulate matter, much of which occurs in the form of highly toxic crystalline silica, have continued to impact downwind residents,” Allen wrote in a letter to Carl on March 27, 2017.
Two days later, in a letter to State Parks, Carl repeated the APCD’s false assertion that dust on the mesa was primarily comprised of silica, and as such, was a public nuisance.
“The dust emissions are largely comprised of crystalline silica, which is known to be highly toxic,” Carl wrote in the March 29, 2017 letter. “Furthermore, the dust emissions constitute a ‘public nuisance’ as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 3480 because the dust emissions affect County residents in residential areas downwind of the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area riding areas. The dust emissions are significant, considering that the Superior Court and the APCD have characterized them as ‘unacceptably high,’ ‘highly toxic,’ and ‘a significant public health threat.’”
After 10 years of warning Nipomo residents of the dangers of silica dust, the APCD decided to run tests for silica in the air.
From April through June 2017, the APCD collected and tested dust samples from the Nipomo Mesa “CDF” air monitoring station. However, the results of the testing, or even the fact that testing had been conducted, were not made public.
Months later, an APCD staffer admitted to State Parks that they had tested for silica, but gave no indication of the results. Eventually, the APCD provided State Parks the lab reports.
State Parks tasked John Kelse, an industrial hygienist with experience in assessing risks posed by silica dust, to analyze the APCD laboratory reports. Kelse found no risk to the residents on the mesa from silica.
“The analytical reports of the air filter samples collected at the CDF air monitoring station in April, May, and June 2017 offer no evidence of a realistic pulmonary inhalation risk with respect to crystalline silica,” according to Kelse.
State Parks then asked Kelse to oversee its own collecting of air filter samples and have the samples submitted to an accredited laboratory for silica analysis. Air filter samples were collected in March 2018 within the Oceano Dunes and at the CDF air monitoring station on the mesa.
“Results for all air filter samples collected on March 8, 2018 and analyzed for respirable crystalline silica (quartz) are below the detection limit of the analysis applied,” according to Kelse. “These results are consistent with those presented in my prior report dated Dec. 14, 2017. As such, the presented and reviewed data provide no evidence of a realistic pulmonary (inhalation) risk with respect to respirable crystalline silica.”
Kelse noted that silica that creates health risks in industrial settings is not typically found in beach and dune environments.
“As stated in my prior report, the respirable-size fraction of crystalline silica found in industrial environments is typically 100 times or more smaller (due to employed physical forces associated with processing) than that typically encountered in sand in beach and dune environments,” according to Kelse. “For this reason, it is unsurprising that crystalline silica was not detected in the air filter samples collected.”
For years, disagreements over the validity of the dust rule spurred discord between State Parks and the APCD. The dust rule contained a provision for imposing $1,000 a day fines against State Parks whenever dust concentrations on the Nipomo Mesa reached a certain level.
In July 2017, the APCD issued State Parks a notice of violation for failure to comply with the dust rule. Technical arbiter Dr. W. G. Nickling was enlisted as a special master in an attempt to resolve the ongoing discord that led to the notice of violation. Both State Parks and the APCD then provided Nickling documents in support of their respective positions.
“The submission report provided by Parks is highly focused, well documented, and attempts to address the issues related to the NOV straight on and without embellishment,” according to Nickling’s Oct. 11, 2017 mediation report. “It stands in strong contrast to the submission provided by APCD, which contains inflammatory language, demonstrates a notable lack of objectivity, and fails to provide direct reference to supporting documentation and data.”
Ultimately, Nickling recommended the withdrawal of the notice of violation because it was “unnecessarily punitive and unproductive.” Additionally, he encouraged cooperation between the parties to resolve concerns related to dust on the mesa.
Appearing to ignore Nickling’s advice, Allen asked the APCD Board to vote to convene the APCD’s Hearing Board in an attempt to assert more authority over State Parks. However, the APCD Board denied Allen’s request based on the mediation report. The five-member Hearing Board is a quasi-judicial body whose purpose is to decide on matters of conflict between the air district and industry, according to the APCD.
Undeterred, Allen filed a petition with the Hearing Board for an order of abatement against State Parks. The Hearing Board granted Allen’s request, which led to a series of public meetings that extended from Nov. 2017 through April 2018.
At a March 21, 2018 meeting, Hearing Board Member Robert Carr questioned Allen over the lack of transparency regarding the 2017 silica dust testing. In the exchange, both Allen and Carr initially conflated the mineral silica with the synthetic compound silicone. Eventually, Carr landed on the proper term, followed by Allen.
The exchange highlighted notable departures from previous declarations the APCD made, including that the dust in the mesa air was predominately composed of silica.
Carr: “I’d like to know Mr. Allen, why you didn’t release the silicone data when you first got it? And I wonder if you have a chance to complete your comments?
Allen: “Well, so, the silicone data that was originally, you know the rule is not based on silicone at all, we do understand that it’s a natural component of all beach sand…”
Carr, interrupting: “Why didn’t you release the data when you first got it?”
Allen: “Well, so, when we look at it there was a new OSHA standard that came up and the public was saying we think we’re seeing levels that might be exceeding that standard. We only took four samples, and we weren’t doing a study. We just wanted to get an idea to see if this was worth exploring. If we were going to release the data, we would have wanted to have done a much broader study that would give us a much better understanding of what those concentrations…”
Carr, interrupting again: “Where’d the idea come from in the first place to test for silica?”
Allen: “Because the public brought it up, ah, OSHA came up with a brand new standard of that 50 micrograms and members of the public were coming to our board saying, well, you know — the concentrations that we’re breathing down there, if there’s a majority of it is crystalline silica we’re probably exceeding even the OSHA standard. And so we agreed to take a few samples out there. We weren’t hiding any data.”
Carr: “So I hope this is the last we hear about silica.”
Allen: “Well, you know it’s a red herring and I’m kind of disappointed it’s even mentioned in the, ah, abatement order, in the proposed abatement order because it’s really, it has no bearing whatsoever.”
Allen’s red herring comment contrasts starkly with the many previous warnings given by the APCD regarding silica dust.
State Parks Director Lisa Mangat
In 2018, State Parks entered into a stipulated order of abatement with the APCD. The order mandates that the state reduce wind-blown dust, specifically dust particles that are 10 microns or less in diameter, on the Nipomo Mesa by 50 percent. Despite agreeing to the various terms in the order, State Parks still denied that off-roading causes the dust on the mesa.
Meanwhile, the APCD quietly continued its quest to find silica dust in the air on the mesa that could be tied to Oceano Dunes. In 2018 and 2019, APCD staffers collected multiple air filter samples at their CDF air monitoring station for silica analysis. However, they again came up empty-handed.
“None of the 26 samples exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 8-hour workplace health-based standard for respirable crystalline silica. An estimate of the 2018 annual average silica concentration does not exceed the California chronic Reference Exposure Level,” according to APCD’s 2019 report on the testing.
Over the past 10 years, the state has spent more than $15 million in taxpayer revenue to reduce dust concentrations on the mesa. State Parks covered approximately 200 acres of dune sand with hay, vegetation or orange plastic fencing.
Additional dune-covering projects are anticipated in the coming months and years, under the disputed theory that the obstructions will help reduce dust produced by the blowing sand.
State Parks has little to show for the money spent. In March, the state temporarily closed the Oceano Dunes to vehicle recreation because of the coronavirus.
During May, the windiest month of the year, excessive dust days more than doubled with no off-road vehicles on the Oceano Dunes, data from two Nipomo Mesa air quality monitoring sites show.
In January, State Parks Director Lisa Mangat shut down approximately half of the camping area, and about 5 percent of the riding area at the Oceano Dunes, or approximately 50 acres near the shoreline to reduce sand blowing on the mesa. The area was popular with campers, and provided 50 percent of the park’s camping availability.
A 2017 study showed visitors to Oceano Dunes Recreational Area spent more than $200 million a year in the county. It has not yet been determined what economic losses the county will incur because of the closures.
Even though the APCD’s silica fallacy has been refuted, the California Coastal Commission continues to find that off-road vehicle recreation is responsible for sand blowing two to four miles away on the Nipomo Mesa, based on APCD reports.
On July 9, the California Coastal Commission deputy director will report on restrictions to off-road vehicle use on the Oceano Dunes, which were allegedly implemented to protect the health of Nipomo Mesa residents.
---
View Original Article
Amy Granat, Managing Director
For a few years the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) has been investigating potential changes to the redsticker/greensticker program for motorcycle
registrations. Many off-road organizations were involved with staff from CARB during this time, alongside manufacturers and motorcycle dealers. Although some of the meetings became heated, for the most part staff listened attentively and made changes as deemed appropriate to the program/proposal that was submitted to CARB for review and a vote. On April 25th CARB passed new regulations for motorcycle registrations.
The number one stated purpose for change to the redsticker program, was that manufacturers have been slow to develop and offer cleaner technology on new model 2 and 4 stroke bikes. The redsticker program was instituted to allow manufacturers to slowly improve emissions for 2 stroke bikes, with the anticipation that fewer and fewer redsticker bikes would be sold to consumers. Much to the concern of CARB, for model year 2017/8 almost 50% of all non-street legal (OHV) bikes sold in California were redsticker models. Instead of decreasing, purchases of 2-stroke bikes were increasing, necessitating these new regulations.
These are the key components of the new rules:
1. New rules were developed to allow manufacturers time to improve technology
2. Redsticker sales (other than verified competition bikes) will cease in 2022
3. All redsticker bikes including model year 2021 will be grandfathered into the greensticker program. They will still receive redsticker registrations until the Department of Motor Vehicles runs through their stockpile of redstickers.
4. Although redsticker sales will end in 2022, redsticker riding restrictions will continue until 2025. After 2025, redsticker riding restrictions will cease.
5. Starting in 2027, more stringent emission standards will go into effect.
6. Cost of redsticker models are predicted to increase for consumers an average of $300 starting with the 2022 model year.
Manufacturers will be subject to fleet averaging to achieve CARB emission standards, encouraging the development of lower emission models. CARB is predicting that manufacturers will add more greensticker models to satisfy consumer preferences.
For enthusiasts, the most important components of the new regulations are the following:
AB 1086 (Bauer-Kahan) has passed the Legislature and is NOW on Governor Newsom’s Desk awaiting his action.
PLEASE ASK FOR HIS VETO ON THIS BILL!
The Governor can act on this bill any time between NOW and Friday, October 13 (the last day the governor can sign or veto bills), so please CONTACT the Governor IMMEDIATELY!
Disenfranchising stakeholders by taking away recreation areas in this end run and tying this matter up in the courts is not the way to go!
The Governor’s Department of Finance got this right. Their analysis of SB 767 (Glazer), the basis of this current bill, opposes the bill because:
Please contact Governor Newsom NOW and urge his VETO on AB 1086:
Mailing address: Governor Gavin Newsom 1303 10th Street, Ste. 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 FAX: 916-558-3160 E-Mail: https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/
September 11, 2019
AB 1086 (Bauer-Kahan) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area (As Amended September 6, 2019)
It’s time to ask the Governor Newsom to intervene in this gut-and-amend process and proceed to request his Department of Parks and Recreations to make recommendations toward a resolution of this issue. This is not a win or lose proposition, but rather it’s pursuing a resolution that would make ALL parties whole. Disenfranchising stakeholders by taking away recreation areas in this end run and tying this matter up in the courts is not the way to go!
Please contact Governor Newsom NOW and urge his intervention by requesting State Parks to develop a plan to resolve this issue:
September 10, 2019
AB 1086 (Bauer-Kahan) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area
(As Amended September 6, 2019)
AB 1086 is in the Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee – This is a gut-and-amend bill and is very similar to SB 767 (Glazer) which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 30 and became a 2-year bill.
In addition to the policy objections to the measure, we are distressed that such an underhanded process is being attempted with this bill with one week to go in the Legislature. It is disenfranchising to the many stakeholders that would be impacted by such actions and is not representative governance.
The Off Road Vehicle Legislative Coalition is comprised of several statewide or regional organizations of OHV enthusiasts. Our coalition has reviewed AB 1086 and strongly opposes this bill that would deny opportunities for local Bay Area residents, including the elderly and disabled and motorized recreation enthusiasts.
This is the last week of the legislative session, ending this Friday, September 13, and bills can move very quickly. It is important that you contact the following IMMEDIATELY and urge them to vote “NO” on AB 1086:
Assembly Speaker
District
Party
Phone
E-Mail Address
Rendon, Anthony
63
D
916 319 2063
assemblymember.rendon@assembly.ca.gov
Senate President Pro Tem
Atkins, Toni
39
916 651 4039
senator.atkins@senate.ca.gov
Don’t know who your state senator and assemblymember are?
2) Enter your address, city and zip code. Click on “Locate.” Your Senator and Assemblymember will appear to the right of the map along with his/her contact information.
Also, in addition to contacting your Senator and Assemblymember, please contact Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate Pro Tempore President Toni Atkins.
SB 767 (Glazer) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area (As Amended June 27, 2019)
SB 767 (Glazer) is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – It will have a final vote in this committee by August 30th
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.
Your action in opposing SB 767 is CRITICAL AND THE TIME IS NOW.
CORVA prepared the attached comments for the Red Rock Canyon State Park General Plan Revision analysis. Comments are due by August 1st, by 11:59pm to the following:
California Department of Parks and Recreation Attn: Katie Metraux, Planning Manager 1725 23rd Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816
Email: info@RedRockGP.com
State Parks hasn't heard from enough off-roaders to make a difference! Support the submitted CORVA comments, copy any part of the CORVA comments, or personalize your own comments. But send something in ASAP!
View Document
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[...]
SB 767 (Glazer) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area (As Introduced February 22, 2019)
SB 767 (Glazer) will be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on Tuesday, April 23, 9:30 a.m., at the Capitol, Room 4203.
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 people, 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 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 the 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 (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 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.
The hearing for the Carnegie SVRA expansion area is set for April 9th; attached is a letter, information on the committee members, and the text of the bill for people to read. If anyone has a representative in that committee, it is really important they contact their representative and voice their support for Carnegie. Anyone can use any part of our letter, or use it as inspiration for their own letter.
CORVA Sb767 | SB 767 Senate Bill | NR & W Senate List
March 15, 2019
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:
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.
Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
