Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
The bill has no opposition. And then here, in support of the bill, we have Reid Addis, who's the principal of environmental and energy consulting on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and Sempra Virens Fund. Yes, this is okay. The only working mic.
Speaker 3
Alright, thank you. Chair and members, Reid Addis, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, Save the Redwoods League and Sempra Virens Fund and strong support today. This issue has been a major challenge for us, not only for years, but in some cases, decades. Our community spends a lot of time raising money to work with landowners, acquire lands with the idea that they would go to state parks. Most of these properties are adjacent to state parks.
In some cases, they're in state parks. These are in holdings. And we haven't been able to move them. And there's a downward pressure then on our boards to say maybe we shouldn't be looking to do this work, maybe we shouldn't be looking to talk to landowners in acquiring these lands. This bill solves that problem.
It allows state parks to expedite its work and allows us not to have duplicative activities at DGS and the public works board. We're very excited for this. And also just want to say we really appreciate both this committee, the senate, the assembly, and the administration working on this. We're excited that the governor will sign this at the end of the day. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Seeing other witnesses in support here, are there any witnesses in the room who are in support that would like to add on? Please come to the microphone to state your name and
Speaker 4
your position. Jake Schultz on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District California Association of Local Conservation Corps, save Mount Diablo and save the Redwoods League in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?
Anyone in the room who would like to express opposition? Alright. Seeing none, we're going to bring it back to our dais, and we're gonna start with senator Laird.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, madam chair. Obviously, from the analysis, can see I've been working on this for twenty years, and I wanna apologize to the staff for pointing out that one bill was left out. And ironically, it was not. You need the governor? No.
No. The thing was is the last year I was resourced secretary. I was determined that this issue get addressed. Bless you. So Mark Berman did a bill that the governor signed that added the Natural Resources Agency to the Public Works Board during any consideration of acquisition for land conservation and and trying to address this.
That's not there. In the ideal world, we would have done what you are doing in this bill and the secretary of of government operations at the time made a run at exactly this. And I think I don't know about this administration, I'm going to ask about that. But the last two didn't they want to defend this. And the real issue is has gone through extensive process that just gives another bite at the apple and takes forever for apple to be bit.
And so, I mean, we lost infill projects when I was secretary because of this. And when they took Little Basin, which had been acquired by nonprofits and former Hewitt Packard employee camp next to Big Basin, it's only because everybody was asleep in the first ten days of the administration that we were able to get that through the public works board and get that done. I have two questions. The first one is, as you mentioned, the administration. Are they supportive of this?
Speaker 3
We have had a number of conversations with the administration, the resources agency. Know those are conversations, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say officially. Senator?
Speaker 4
I think we're we're we're getting good good feedback. We also worked with our, you know, folks at parks. We kept this very narrow. I mean, as you'll see, these are small it's not a it's for small acquisitions, and it's cases where there's duplicative review place. So, we're we're feeling
Speaker 5
Well, actually, you could make that argument about the entire board and all of them. I don't saying just where that's happening. Sure. I mean, that's not a dividing line between most most of the things.
Speaker 4
But, yeah. No. We we got the language from the agency. I I know it's been I think it was adapted from trailer bill language. So, I I We're
Speaker 5
feeling we're feeling Well, for my colleagues' understanding, the Public Works Board at its base is the Department of General Services, Caltrans and the Department of Finance. So if you have any land conservation projects, there's nobody with that expertise that is on the public works board. That is one problem. The other thing is, as Senator Assembly Member Pelerin had a bill that's been in front of us for two sessions to do this for the Santa Cruz Mountains. And the real issue was where would there be public process?
So in this, where is their public process if this bill passes?
Speaker 4
The bill is double it's actually double joined with the Pelrin bill. But, you know, there is a so it talks a little bit about there's certainly less well, there's public process associated with these other processes that were that that are in play that have to be in place for this bill to kick in. And, again, you know, there people can send letters. People can, you know, people can participate in the in the in the regular agency process that's happening that we're that we're but we're just we're saying we're we're saying that the DGS process doesn't happen to happen as well.
Speaker 5
So they're going through they can work You're saying that there will be public process?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I'm just gonna add, senator, that this issue about public process has has been a discussion for a number of months in in the past around the Pellerin bill as well. I think both the committee here committee staff here as well as the administration as well as assembly staff have worked through an elegant solution that does clearly allow public process but doesn't allow multiple duplicative public processes, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4
Well, yeah. I think but both bills are in a good place. I think, if anything, this bill was in a stronger place. So I
Speaker 1
Thank you. And I will to to that point, I I will say that the committee staff and the authors have been working on this piece in terms of alignment and consistency on public, process, with, again, both authors both committee staffs and also, the governor's office. Office. So I think that there's, a desire to see it move forward, but, I understand, the concern. And vice chair?
Speaker 6
So I also share some of the concerns, that my knowledgeable colleague over there has has kind of raised about some of the oversight parts of this. But I also have other concerns. And and I also find it really ironic because while you're explaining the rigors of trying to get through process to do something that makes sense in our state, I feel like saying welcome to the world that the rest of us get to live in. If you're a business owner or you're somebody who wants to come into California and and bring a corporation with you or even a homeowner trying to build a house. All of those things exist for all of us in California.
And so this is, you know, the problems that you're experiencing with process are very similar to what other people are doing too. One of my issues is we already have a huge backlog. Correct? Right. $1,200,000,000 of backlog of of things that need to be backlog maintenance issues.
I also have a state park in my district who has had a tremendous problem just trying to address the main maintenance issues with relation to where the park ends and and houses begin. And and those are fire those are extreme fire issues, and and nobody can touch it. And as we add more into the system, I I can see the Those type of maintenance issues getting pushed farther and farther off as everybody competes for dollars to do maintenance and and to maintain the lands that we are acquiring. I am generally very supportive of stream you know, streamlining where we should be streamlining and ensuring that that we don't get caught up in in process that makes no sense. And so my question is, how is this going to affect that backlog if we are able to onboard more and more land when we're already demonstrating that we can't keep up with what we have already?
Speaker 4
Senator, just remember, this bill only focuses on very small purchases. So we're talking about purchases that are no more than $1,000,000. In many respects, it's actually gonna help with maintenance because you have in holdings, you sections of land that parks don't have access to. It's gonna help with the parks being able to manage their land in a more coherent way. But this is not massive new purchases.
These very small efficiency purchases.
Speaker 6
Yeah. They're small. When you're talking about a million dollars of land purchase that is worth nothing but the land, that's not like commercial $300,000 an acre or more rates as they're more in the 20 to 40. Right. So Remember, these They can be larger they can be large enough parcels.
My concern, it remains. It's if if we're acquiring more lands, how are we going to catch up on our backlog if we can't even do it now?
Speaker 4
Parks are still gonna be doing a big review process associated with each of these processes. We're just saying that the DGS doesn't have to do it in addition to what Parks has already done. But sure, I absolutely agree with you. Mean, it's part of why we ran Prop four. One of the many things we're working on at Sub two is trying to get more money to the parks system, which is woefully underfunded with regards to operations and management and the maintenance and operation backlog.
It's enormous over there. But I guess I see these as I I don't see this as harming that effort, though though, you know, Reed
Speaker 3
Yeah. Exactly. Senator, I would say, yes, the issue you're raising is a serious issue and one the state needs to grapple with and organizations like us would like to grapple with. But this bill does not add to that. It very specifically talks about a narrow set of circumstances in which you can have these lands qualify.
In particular, there's provisions that say these lands do not need to require any new infrastructure. So I think it really does speak to the issue of
Speaker 6
But a lot of this, the existing lands, we don't have infrastructure requirements either, we can't get our maintenance done. And so that that concerns me when we're add to the burden, no matter how much that burden is, If we can't even do this, then any amount of addition is going to create You you competition for those dollars, and we need we need to get what we have fixed. So
Speaker 6
I can get promises that we will do a better job of of of trying to get dollars to where they they need to be so that we can get these issues addressed so we don't burn down houses next to state parks, that would be awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 4
Well, anyway. Yeah. Something we're working on. If it's sub two, we pushed out a lot of money to help parks and conservancies do a lot more with regards to fire and wildfire mitigation. But, love to work with you on that, Senator.
That's a broad broad and very real problem. Thank you. Yeah. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you, vice chair Ciardo. Alright. Seeing no other questions, I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward and in particular for the author, the advocates working for several months with, our counterparts in the assembly and also, in the GO with trying to sort, this piece out, provide consistency, for public process. I think that there is an eagerness and desire to try to move some aspects of this forward, and certainly, you know, that was a big piece of the debate, the public process, you know, in terms of the acquisition. So appreciate all the work that you have put in.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 4
Yeah. I wanna clarify one one thing. The the analysis does mention that the bill's double jointed, senator Laird, though I have been informed that the way we've done it, it doesn't actually require signatures. They're just This is a reference to them having no conflict in the chaptering. I've never seen it referred to this way.
I need to get some more information, but that's what I've been informed. Ultimately, this is about making sure that we have a That we're able to acquire these parks parks lands that are largely being deeded to the state parks in an efficient manner. But the broader challenges that Senator Sciarto raises with regards to really needing to invest in our park's ability to manage its lands are very real. And a different issue, but a very real one, and one that I hope to work with this committee and members But I think folks understand the need for this, and I respect for your estimate vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. With that, do we have a motion? I move. Thank you. Senator Laird has moved the bill, and this is SB six thirty.
The motion is, that the assembly amendments be concurred in. We will call the roll.
Speaker 2
Senator Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Ciardo? No.
Sierdo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Grove, Hurtado?
Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 1
That is three one. We do need one more vote for that to get out of committee, and so we will have we will hold the rule.
Speaker 1
Alright. We are going to leave that on call. Before we go to recess, since is this is the last, committee, for Senate Natural Resources and Water that will be meeting this year, I want to say thank you to the committee staff who have been incredible. They are surprising me with wonderful Limon shirts. Each of them is wearing oh, the has the Limon pins.
It's a bipartisan Limon support. So thank you all, each and every one of you. This past year has been great to be able to work with all of you from the first meeting and hearing we had here, which had a lot of people in attendance to this last one. I'm grateful to all of you for the effort and support, but really for supporting us as legislators to process, to deliberate, to think about every bill that comes forward, and to do it in in a way that really helps Californians. So each of you in every way has been just incredible, and it has been a very, you know, honor to work with you on huge issues that our legislature and California takes on.
So very grateful for all of your work. Thank you. Senator Laird.
Speaker 5
What she said. And then I wanna add that with regard to the chair, it has been an unbelievably eventful year. And I know firsthand there was this amazing work behind the scenes to work on a number of bills to try to address the issues. It might seem simple here because it is worked out or has a direction by the time it got here. It's because there was an amazing amount of work that made it look easier that led to that.
And this is while our chair was chairing the working group in the Senate on cap and trade, which required the heft of sort of somebody involved with these issues, and so I didn't wanna let it go. With just the staff being acknowledged, I wanted to make sure the chair was acknowledged. Because this is clearly your last meeting.
Speaker 1
It's my last. So thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you to the members, and our vice chair, for, working with each of you this year. Thank you so much.
We will recess.
Speaker 1
away. Okay. We will recess. Thank you. Alright.
We are reconvening and coming back from recess, we're gonna go ahead and open the the roll. And this is for s p six three zero by senator Allen. The motion is that the assembly amendments be concurred in.
Speaker 2
And the current vote is three one. With chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senator Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.
I also need to call senator Grove and Hurtado. Not here. That's 41 and Alright. That
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.